Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register as vice-president of the Local Government Association. I very much look forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Silvertown, and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield, and welcome them to the House.

The Renters’ Rights Bill is counterproductive. While the Government may have good intentions, they will drive landlords from the market—reducing choice and putting up rent for the tenants they seek to protect. While we discuss this Bill, it is important to remind ourselves who landlords are: around 45% own one rental property, with another 40% owning two to four. In many, if not most, cases these are not professional landlords; they may have gained an extra property when a family member has died or through marriage later in life, or perhaps they invested in a property or two to use as a pension. To expect them to be able to cope with all the costs and burdens placed on them by this Bill is at best naive. Many decent landlords and safe, quality homes will leave the rental market as a result.

We must absolutely deal with bad landlords, but in most circumstances there is no reason a good landlord would want to lose a good tenant. It is in their interest to keep a steady income from a reliable tenant who respects their property. Having an empty property is expensive, and there are significant fees and paperwork involved with finding a new tenant. While trying to protect and improve living conditions for renters, the Government should be very careful not to do the opposite and make it worse for them.

The last Conservative Government introduced our own version of this Bill, the Renters (Reform) Bill. It was first introduced to the House of Commons in May 2023 and eventually had its Second Reading in your Lordships’ House in May 2024, but was not taken any further before the general election. The Bill did not make quick progress because we wanted to take our time to get this right. We listened to representations from the sector and carefully considered the impact of our policies. We made changes during the Bill’s passage through the House of Commons, most notably on the readiness of the courts, and further changes were planned for the House of Lords, most notably to carve out student lets.

We recognise that some reform to our rental market was necessary to protect tenants from the abuse at the hands of rogue landlords, but it was always important to us that we balance the rights of tenants to live safely and peacefully in the homes they were renting with the rights of landlords, particularly with respect to their property rights.

The Government were trying to balance the see-saw, and I know we did not get everything right. Many felt that the measures introduced by the Bill went too far in favour of tenants and too far against the landlords in a way that would work to the detriment of the rental market, and I have sympathy with that. However, we listened to the concerns that were raised and we were making changes to the Bill as it progressed.

If the Renters (Reform) Bill did not quite balance the see-saw, the Renters Rights’ Bill tips it over. This is not the same Bill that the last Conservative Government introduced, and the Government are rushing it through without any care for the repercussions that will reverberate throughout the sector. Labour has abandoned our commitment to improvements in His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service before abolishing Section 21 for existing tenancies, as well as our six-month implementation period before abolishing Section 21 for new tenancies. This means that our courts will not be resourced as they need to be. Labour has also abandoned our requirement for the Lord Chancellor to assess the courts’ possession processes before abolishing Section 21 for existing tenancies, which would have ensured that they were ready for the changes first.

Labour has abandoned our plans that would have stopped tenants being able to give notice during the first six months, to give landlords some predictability and protect them against tenants seeking to exploit these new arrangements for rolling tenancies such as holiday lets. Labour has abandoned our plans to make it easier to remove anti-social tenants, which we were changing from “likely” to cause a nuisance or annoyance to “capable” of doing so, making it much harder to evict those who deserve to be evicted. Labour has also abandoned our commitment to sufficiently carve out student accommodation, where it is essential that both landlords and tenants have the certainty of fixed-term contracts to plan for subsequent years.

Not only have the Government removed many of the safeguards and improvements for landlords that we put in the Bill but they have added many concerning measures of their own. They are increasing the mandatory eviction threshold for rent arrears from two months to three months, significantly increasing the loss incurred by landlords when a tenant is not paying for the property they are occupying. They are shortening the time limit for landlords to consider a pet, which we know to be a significant issue. They are rushing, in our opinion, the implementation for the private sector of Awaab’s law—a law that was designed for the social housing sector and that could have significant implications for smaller landlords if not implemented very carefully.

If that was not enough, Labour took the Bill even further, through the amendments it made in the House of Commons. It introduced amendments to include restricting the payment of rent in advance, which will hit most severely self-employed renters and those with bad credit ratings, where a landlord is now even less likely to want to take the risk on them. It introduced amendments requiring landlords to pay compensation to tenants when they possess their properties, burdening landlords with even more unfair costs, even if they have no choice but to take their property back and may have already spent a lot of money to do so.

Much has changed since the original Bill was introduced, and we must acknowledge the broader context that the Bill and the sector find themselves in. Landlords are leaving the rental sector at a higher rate than ever, with many citing rental reforms as their reason for leaving. Rightmove has estimated that 18% of homes up for sale were previously rented, compared with 8% in 2010. In London, where we know the problem in the rental market can be most acute, the situation is even worse: 29% of homes for sale in our capital city were previously rented out.

On top of this inflated package of rental reforms, landlords now have the minimum energy-efficiency standards to contend with. Ed Miliband, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, is requiring all private and social rented homes to meet EPC C by 2030. The industry estimates that this could cost the sector £25 billion—an average of £5,400 per home. This is a cost that many landlords, particularly those with only one or two properties, just cannot take.

Of course, this is set against a backdrop of ever-increasing taxation from a Government who do not understand how our economy works. All these issues compound to make our country an unattractive, burdensome and expensive place to be a landlord, however fair and decent one might be to their tenants.

There is always a balance to be found with legislation, and in this case respect for property rights is essential for investment and stability. I would expect the risk of legal challenge on this Bill to be very high. There will certainly be a few interested parties queuing up to challenge the Government over the rights to their own property. If the Government are not careful, and continue with such an aggressive pursuit of landlords, there is a good chance that their Bill will get stuck in the courts and not be able to benefit anyone.

In Scotland, similar legislation has resulted in the highest rent increases in the United Kingdom because of demand far outstripping supply. The Nationwide Foundation found that 70% of landlords and letting agents lack confidence in the future of the sector. This has led to a significant reduction in rental stock, which has made it much more difficult and expensive for tenants, especially those on low incomes, to find a home. We must learn from Scotland’s mistakes.

There will always be people who want, or need, to rent rather than buy their home. We must ensure that there is a stable rental market for them, and we will do all we can to convince the Government to think carefully about how they proceed. We intend to table amendments to address some of the most pressing concerns, including: the capacity and operation of the courts; student landlords, who need certainty of length of tenure and other mutually agreeable fixed-term contracts; some exemptions for smaller landlords, who are less able to weather these changes; the availability of insurance for damage caused by pets; consideration of the property rights of landlords; and the impact on the housing market. We will pursue these amendments for the benefit of landlords and tenants alike, because we know what will happen if we do not.

The Government’s own impact assessment acknowledges that tenants will see increased costs as a result of their policies, saying

“it is likely that landlords will pass through some costs of new policies to tenants in the form of higher rents—to offset those costs and maintain a degree of profit”.

Surely the Government cannot want this, and I hope that they will listen to the concerns being raised by the sector and by many noble Lords across this House before it is too late.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Purpose(1) The purpose of this Act is to improve the ability of renters in the rented sector to obtain secure, fairly priced and decent quality housing.(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Act, namely, improving the ability of renters to obtain secure, fairly priced and decent quality housing.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 1 and to speak to Amendment 261 in my name. I am delighted to be opening the first day of Committee on the Renters’ Rights Bill and declare my interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association.

The clause I am proposing would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Bill when exercising powers under this legislation. In debating this amendment, we seek to test and clarify what the Government are attempting to solve and to understand more fully whether the measures that will be implemented by this legislation will achieve the Government’s intended results.

The “purpose” clause narrows how the Minister can use the discretionary powers afforded by the Bill. The clear benchmark set out in this clause would ensure that the Government must have regard to improving the ability of renters to obtain secure, fairly priced and decent quality housing. We believe the Government must be clear on the Bill’s purpose, and this amendment gives Ministers the opportunity to provide that necessary clarity.

Renters and landlords alike are following the Government’s planned changes very carefully, so it is crucial that Ministers are clear from the beginning of Committee on what they intend to achieve with this Bill. Clarity from Ministers will enable us to scrutinise the Bill much more effectively as we test each part of it against the Government’s intentions as we progress with Committee stage.

This group of amendments also gives us an opportunity to debate the Bill’s impact on the rental sector. Noble Lords across the House agree that we must protect tenants and ensure that they enjoy security, stability and decent housing conditions at a fair price. In order to achieve this, we need a functional market with sufficient supply of good quality homes to meet the growing demand for secure housing.

Ensuring the availability of homes will underpin the obtainability of accommodation and ensure that rents are affordable. Any legislation in this area must tread a difficult but essential line between these interests. Only by striking the right balance with this legislation can we hope to achieve an efficient and effective rental market that delivers the safe, secure, decent and affordable homes renters need. From these Benches we regret to say that the Bill does not achieve that balance. It has become increasingly clear that it will not serve to enhance the availability of homes but risks the supply of rental properties in the market, driving up costs for renters at a time when we have already seen significant increases in the cost of renting.

The surge in rents beyond inflation has been driven by limited housing supply, and rising mortgage costs, maintenance expenses and property taxes. We on these Benches sincerely hope that the effects of this Bill do not add to that list, further exacerbating the challenges faced by renters. Rather than making houses more affordable, this legislation risks increasing burdens on landlords, discouraging them from remaining in the rental market and ultimately reducing supply at a time of rapidly growing demand. In economic terms, this can only mean one thing: higher housing costs for renters.

A survey by Paragon, based on responses from over 500 landlords it works with, paints a clear picture of the real-world consequences of this Bill. A striking 65% of landlords said that they were more likely to reduce the size of their portfolios. An overwhelming 79% said that they were likely to increase rents. Why? Not out of preference, but as a direct response to the pressures introduced by the Renters’ Rights Bill. This is not speculation; it is data-driven and must give us pause for thought.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for contributing to this group. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that we will debate my Amendment 8 later. I particularly thank the Minister for her reply. While the Government’s ambition to improve outcomes for renters is a worthy goal, and one that I was proud to champion during my time in government, we feel that this Bill fails to account for the serious consequences the measure will have on those who provide the much-needed homes. The fact is that renters need a market that encourages landlords to enter it, not leave it.

These concerns, as I have said before, are not mine alone; they have been echoed right across the industry. From Savills to Propertymark to UniHomes, all have highlighted significant issues. We on these Benches will emphasise in the days ahead the need for balance—one that ensures that tenants are properly protected, while keeping the sector attractive enough for landlords to continue providing homes to rent, as my noble friend Lady Eaton clearly communicated. The recent survey by Paragon highlights just how far this Bill falls short of that balance. It found that only 4% of landlords support the proposed changes. Perhaps more strikingly, 73% of landlords believe the legislation will do more harm to renters than good.

It has become increasingly clear that, in the Government’s ambition to strengthen tenant security, they have been blind to the implications for those who provide the rental homes this country so desperately needs. The Government should think hard about this balance and consider what these reforms will do to the market on which millions rely. This Bill piles unprecedented pressures on landlords, fuelling concern, uncertainty and a fear of financial burdens. Simultaneously, these changes are likely to make it even harder for tenants to find accommodation. The selection process will become more stringent, and the grounds for possession are weakened. The availability of homes will decrease and, in turn, rent will take a larger share of tenants’ income. The Government would do well to remember that the rental sector exists only because individuals are willing to invest in property and make those homes available to others. The strength of the rental market rests on keeping these people in the market.

Landlords are not just participants; they are the backbone of the rental market. Their voices must be heard as part of this conversation, as they will provide the homes our tenants need into the future. If this Bill is to protect tenants, we must ensure that we have the landlords to supply them. By piling on excessive regulation, we are in danger of pushing good landlords out and empowering rogue landlords who simply ignore all our rules. We recognise that reform of our rental market is necessary to protect tenants from abuse at the hands of these rogue landlords. This was made clear in the previous Renters (Reform) Bill, but it was always important to us that we balance the rights of tenants to live safely and peacefully in the homes they are renting with the rights of landlords, particularly their property rights. If that Bill did not quite balance the seesaw, this Bill tips it right over. This is not the same Bill that the last Conservative Government introduced, and the Government are rushing it through without any care for the repercussions that will reverberate throughout the sector.

I urge the Minister to listen carefully to the concerns raised throughout Committee to ensure that we can enhance the availability of homes, alleviate the burden of unaffordable rent and deliver security for our tenants. Members across the House agree that renters need a better deal, but we do not believe that the Bill is the answer to this. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Truscott. I must declare my interest: I am a Suffolk farmer and have been for 50 years and I have seen quite a lot of changes during that time. Historically, there have been ups and downs, so in recent years I have turned increasingly to the private rented sector as a means of diversifying from agriculture when agriculture has been in such difficulties.

I can remember the days when there were rent officers and the whole system was gummed up. Now, assured shorthold tenancies are—lamentably—being abandoned in the Bill. Under that system, there was a resurgence of interest. I, for example, have converted redundant farm buildings into houses. I have fitted houses into spaces where there were no houses, but they fitted well into the particularly attractive and beautiful village which I am fortunate and privileged to live in. All these things are a very important part of the overall scene.

I warn the Government that there is a danger of them proscribing or prescribing practices in the private rented sector that are the practices that make it work. It is a very flexible sector. It is a vulnerable and fragile sector and, when we debate these issues in Committee, we are going to find cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that provisions in the Bill should be modified to avoid the danger of reducing the supply of privately rented accommodation.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, for leading this group and all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. My amendment aims to probe the Government on the proposed abolition of all fixed-term tenancies and to strike a fair balance between the rights of tenants and the legitimate interests of landlords.

While the Government’s desire to strengthen tenants’ security is, of course, a commendable objective, we must take a moment to reflect on the variety of tenancy arrangements that currently support different groups within the sector. In light of that diversity, it is reasonable to ask why the Government has chosen to pursue a one-size-fits-all approach through the proposed abolition of all fixed-term tenancies.

I have listened to contributions from the Committee and there is obvious and widespread concern about this element of the Bill. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Truscott and Lord Shipley, for their thoughtful amendments. Taken together, they seek to challenge the blanket removal of fixed-term tenancies and reintroduce much-needed flexibility into the current very rigid clause. In our opinion, the proposal to allow fixed terms of up to 12 months presents a pragmatic middle ground, maintaining a degree of security for tenants while giving landlords the certainty needed to plan for their future use.

Amendment 6 focuses specifically on protecting very short-term lets of up to three months. These arrangements are critical to people on, for example, probationary employment contracts, to vulnerable individuals in temporary relocation and to professionals on short-term placements. We should not be undermining access to housing for those who rely on flexible short-term arrangements. In removing fixed terms entirely, we risk cutting off access to the rental market for these groups—precisely the kind of unintended consequences this House should seek to avoid. I have also tabled this amendment to give Ministers the opportunity to indicate whether they would be willing to take a more limited step of retaining the current arrangements for very short tenancies.

Industry stakeholders have all echoed these concerns. Propertymark has warned that the removal of fixed-term tenancies could have a destabilising effect on tenants with lower incomes or poor credit histories, many of whom rely on guarantors, who in turn require the certainty of a fixed term. Without that structure, such tenants might find themselves excluded from the market altogether.

What does the future look like for these tenants? These are students without parental support, young adults leaving care, or individuals with health conditions whose employment is irregular. These individuals rely on guarantors to secure housing, but those guarantors require a legal assurance of a fixed term. Without that, the door to a rental home quietly shuts behind them. Imagine a single mother working two part-time jobs, trying to secure a home close to her children’s school. With no guarantor willing to sign an open-ended agreement, she is told again and again, “Sorry—no fixed term, no tenancies”. These are not hypotheticals. These are people who will be locked out of the system, possibly entirely.

Propertymark notes that fixed terms provide security for tenants and a guaranteed rental income for landlords. These arrangements are often actively sought by tenants, including nurses on temporary hospital placements, families wishing to remain in a school catchment area, and individuals from overseas needing time-limited accommodation. The Government will argue that tenants will still have flexibility because they can terminate their rental agreements at will. However, this misses the point. Flexibility is not the same as stability. Tenants need the assurance that their home will not be taken away at short notice, especially when they are in transitional stages of their life.

For landlords, the certainty of a fixed term allows them to plan and manage their properties effectively. Without it, many will choose to exit the sector, once again reducing the overall availability of rental homes. The supposed flexibility of a non-fixed-term tenancy could ultimately leave both tenants and landlords with far less stability than they need.

The abolition of fixed-term tenancies could provoke many landlords to reconsider their position in the market altogether. For home owners who currently rent out their properties on a fixed-term basis, this change in policy, which removes the ability to offer a defined tenancy period, will reduce landlord confidence. As a result, some home owners may choose to leave their properties vacant rather than face the uncertainty of an open-ended arrangement.

Why are the Government not listening to landlords, the very individuals who are primary maintainers of the private rented sector? Landlords are not just participants; they are the backbone of the housing market. Their voices must be heard in this conversation. There is a growing sense that these concerns are being overlooked, and one must ask whether this stems from a principled policy position or from a deeper ideological reluctance to recognise the legitimate role that landlords play. Without the ability to plan for future use or to rely on a defined tenancy period, landlords may well choose to exit the market. If this happens, we risk not only reducing the supply of homes but destabilising the rental sector as a whole, undermining the very intention of the Bill.

Taken together, these warnings from industry stakeholders should give the Government pause for thought. They remind us that while reform is necessary, it must be proportionate and carefully balanced to deliver a market that ultimately benefits renters. The Bill gives us the opportunity to modernise our rental system but, in doing so, we must take care not to discard what works. In removing fixed terms altogether, the Bill risks sweeping away short-term lets that serve a very specific and vital purpose.

These are not theoretical cases; they are everyday realities for many people navigating work, family or education. If we are to build a fairer rental system, we must ensure that it remains flexible and accessible to all, including those whose housing needs are necessarily short-term. That is what Amendment 6 in my name seeks to protect. I hope the Minister listens to voices across the House and calls from industry experts to recognise the diversity of the rental market and to support my amendment, which offers the necessary flexibility and common sense.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

7: Clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert “unless the tenant meets the student test when the tenancy is entered into.
(1A) For the purposes of this section, a tenant who meets the student test when a tenancy is entered into has the same meaning as in Ground 4A.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow student tenancies to remain as fixed tenancies to provide the certainty that both student tenants and student landlords require.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 44, 45 and 46 in my name.

Although it may have been some years ago, and not all Members of your Lordships’ House chose to go to university, many noble Lords will no doubt recall their own experiences as university students. For those whose memories may have begun to fade, it is likely that a son, daughter or even grandchild is at university today or has recently been at university. I raise this point because those of us who fall into this group will recognise that students have distinct and unique housing needs that set them apart from all other groups. Most students rely on a combination of maintenance loans, part-time jobs and, increasingly, the support of the bank of mum and dad—or even granny—to meet their costs during their studies. Proximity to campus is essential both for academic engagement and to reduce the burden on transport costs. Students typically require leases of nine to 12 months, aligned to the academic calendar. I stress flexibility as an increasing number of tertiary education providers are now offering 18-month courses, moving away from the traditional three-year model. For many students, this marks their first experience of independent living. They are often unfamiliar with housing laws and lack the knowledge that only life experience can bring.

Although the exact legal framework for the exemption requires further clarification, the Government, by virtue of attempting to exclude purpose-built student accommodation from the ban on fixed-term tenancies, have accepted the unique position of students, and we welcome that. However, we feel there is more work to be done.

The Explanatory Notes assume that purpose-built accommodation tenancies are not assured. StudentRent puts this drafting down to a confusion with university halls, which use non-exclusive licences. In reality, most PBSA providers issue exclusive assured shorthold tenancies, meaning that, unless the Bill is amended or exemptions are extended, the agreements will become invalid once the new law takes effect. Could the Minister please use Committee to clarify this? If we cannot reach a reasonable position in Committee, we will have to return to the issue on Report.

In their drafting of the Bill, the Government have missed the opportunity to exempt all types of accommodation. As noble Lords will know, it is common that, after the first year, students often move out of purpose-built student accommodation and into HMOs or other types of property in the private rented sector. Amendment 7 in my name would ensure that student tenants could keep their desirable fixed-term tenancies, no matter what type of accommodation they find themselves in. We must not allow a two-tier system to emerge, where only those who can afford the most expensive purpose-built accommodation are granted the stability of fixed-term tenancies; that would be a perverse outcome from this legislation. It is vital that we resolve this as soon as possible.

Fixed-term contracts provide students with clear start and end dates that not only make financial planning more straightforward but ease the burden of day-to-day administration tasks that can be particularly challenging for those experiencing independent living for the first time, all while managing the demands of their academic studies. Perhaps most importantly, fixed-term agreements provide rent certainty for the entire duration of the contract. That certainty is not only reassuring for students but essential for their families, who rely on clear and predictable costs in order to budget effectively and support their children through higher education. Furthermore, knowing precisely when a tenancy will end helps students avoid disruptive mid-semester moves, which can have a detrimental impact on their studies and exam preparation.

While stability is vital, so too is flexibility. It is on this point that I wish to speak to Amendments 44 and 45. The current provisions acknowledge in part the need for student landlords to regain possession by the end of the academic year, under ground 4A. However, this fails to take into account those students whose studies do not follow a traditional academic calendar. It is important to stress that, under the current model, it is exceptionally rare for student landlords to need to resort to eviction proceedings. In practice, the challenge is far more likely to arise when students wish to leave their tenancies early. The proposals as they stand do not fully address the consequences of such scenarios.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lords, Lord Willetts, Lord Evans, Lord Young—albeit that his amendment was very ably proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts—and the noble Lord, Lord Best, for their amendments, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Wolf and Lady Warwick, and the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Fuller, for their comments during this debate. All these amendments seek to revise or introduce provisions in the Bill related to students, and I say well done to King’s College for having its team approach to this Bill in the Chamber today.

We do not expect that removing fixed terms will have a destabilising effect on the student rental market. New possession ground 4A will give landlords confidence that they will be able to regain their property to move in other students in line with the academic year. If tenants leave a tenancy early, the landlords will be able to find new tenants to take their place. The end of a fixed term does not automatically give the landlord possession. Landlords still have to follow the correct possession procedure. If fixed terms remained in the future, landlords would still need to follow the correct possession procedure.

Amendment 7 would allow fixed-term assured tenancies if the tenant was a student at the beginning of the tenancy. It would not be either right or fair for students to have less flexibility than other tenants just because of their educational status. Students who drop out of university could be required to pay rent for the rest of the fixed term, which could potentially reach thousands of pounds. All renters, including students, should have access to the benefits provided by the Bill.

The opportunity referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, is, as he rightly said, the meeting between housing and higher education. As someone who undertook a degree as a mature student with three children and a full-time job, I say that we simply must not assume that all students are the same. This is the opposite of elitism. It is ensuring that all student circumstances are taken into account and that those who need the greater stability that assured tenancies offer can have that option.

We have introduced a new possession ground to allow the cyclical nature of the student market to continue and provide landlords with confidence. This strikes the right balance and, in our opinion, is the much better approach. Referring to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about tenancies in halls, the Government intend that any new purpose-built student accommodation tenancies created after transition will be exempted from the assured tenancy system following transition, as long as the landlord is signed up to a government-approved code of conduct. I hope that answers her question. For these, reasons I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Amendment 40 seeks to expand ground 4A, which allows student tenants living in HMOs to be evicted in line with the academic year. It would allow students living in self-contained accommodation—one-bedroom and two-bedroom properties for example—to be evicted each year, and it seeks to address the concerns of some noble Lords that the existing scope of ground 4A does not cover all student properties. We have thought very carefully about the design of ground 4A. Limiting it to HMOs captures the bulk of typical students—that is, groups living in a house share. Meanwhile, students who need more security of tenure, such as single parents living with their children, postgraduate couples living together who have put down roots in an area, or families containing students, will be protected.

The core principle of the Bill is that tenants should have more security in their homes, and we think it is right that these groups should not be exposed to potential eviction using ground 4A. Self-contained one-bedroom and two-bedroom homes are also easier to let to non-students than student HMOs are, so, if a landlord cannot gain possession in line with the academic year and the tenants leave in the middle of the next one, the landlord is highly likely to be able to let the property out to non-student tenants. The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, referred to student accommodation in London, and I imagine that there are other places where costs are prohibitive, such as Cambridge and Oxford. However, the Government’s action to increase supply is critical here. It is only by increasing supply that we will be able to stabilise rents. I do not think that the action proposed in the amendment would have that effect.

Amendments 41 and 45, taken together, seek to remove the requirement for a landlord intending to rely on ground 4A to give prior written notice to the tenants. This would mean that landlords renting to students in HMOs who satisfy the student test would be able to rely on ground 4A without giving tenants written prior notice, before the tenancy was entered into, of their wish to be able to recover possession using ground 4A. We cannot accept these amendments. The core aim of the Bill is to enhance the security of tenants in the private rented sector, including students. The prior notice requirement in ground 4A is key to this. If tenants are liable to be evicted through no fault of their own simply because of their student status, they must be informed of this reduced security before entering into a tenancy. Amendment 45 is purely consequential on Amendment 41, removing a later reference to the paragraph that Amendment 41 removes, and I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, not to press these amendments.

Amendment 42 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, seeks to allow the use of ground 4A in student tenancies agreed up to nine months in advance, rather than the six months in advance limitation that is currently in the Bill. Noble Lords will be aware that we introduced this measure in response to engagement with stakeholders and Members in the other place—I hope that answers the noble Lord’s question about consultation. They were concerned that students are often rushed into important decisions around accommodation before they have formed friendships or had time to properly judge a property’s condition or location.

This measure was intended to act as a strong disincentive to landlords who seek to sign students up to contracts early in the academic year. Increasing the time limit to nine months will push early sign-ups to too early in the academic year—before Christmas for a tenancy beginning in July. This entirely undermines the point of the deterrent. Six months strikes the right balance, allowing those who want to to agree a tenancy well in advance before exam season, but not too early before students have formed firm friendship groups, for instance.

Amendment 43, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, goes even further and would extend the time limit to 12 months. For the reasons I have highlighted previously, we are of the view that six months is the right balance. Very few students sign contracts more than a year in advance, and this amendment would essentially destroy the entire premise of the provision, which is designed to prevent students being pressured into contracts too early in the academic year. For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to move these amendments.

Amendment 44 seeks to remove the restriction on the use of ground 4A to the summer of the traditional academic year. This would mean that students on a traditional term date, who are the majority, could be evicted in the middle of the academic year through no fault of their own. We recognise that the intent of the amendment is to ensure properties are available for students starting their courses on non-traditional dates, such as in January. However, we are content that supply will be available for these groups as previous groups on the same cycle would leave at the end of their courses, so there will be students leaving in January and students starting could take those properties. It would be wrong to expose all students to eviction in the middle of their academic year simply because, for example, a landlord found a group with different term dates who were willing to pay more. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness not to move this amendment.

Amendment 46 would allow landlords to evict approved English apprentices, as defined in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, using the student possession ground 4A, provided all conditions for relying on that ground were met. Ground 4A was designed to capture the most typical students, such as those living in groups and away from home, on an annual letting cycle. Apprentices tend not to live that way, as they earn an income and are much more likely to live in a home they expect to stay in. I am therefore of the view that apprentices should enjoy the same security of tenure as other tenants and not fall under the scope of possession ground 4A. For that reason, I ask that this amendment not be moved.

Amendment 189 seeks to remove the private rented student tenancies from the assured tenancy system. I know there has been a lot of concern and debate over this at Second Reading and today. It would achieve this by allowing the Secretary of State to create or approve a code of conduct for student landlords and then allow landlords signed up to the code to offer tenancies that are completely removed from the assured tenancy system. This is the wrong approach: it would be wrong for students renting off-street housing, often indistinguishable from the property next door, to have an entirely different set of rights from their neighbours.

I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Young, is seeking to create consistency between private student landlords and landlords of purpose-built student accommodation, which we will exempt from the assured system through regulations. However, these are very different types of accommodation. Purpose-built student accommodation can often be rented only to students due to the nature of the property, and to be exempted in the future a private PBSA landlord will need to be signed up to the government-approved code of management practice. This code is managed by Unipol, an established organisation.

Other private rented accommodation let to students is significantly more diverse and often indistinguishable from other houses in the area. It would be wrong to remove the protections of the assured system. Other students renting privately should not be locked into fixed-term contracts or open to eviction without good reason. In addition, there currently exists no government-approved code that is relevant to such accommodation. Developing this would take a great deal of time and is likely to delay implementation of the Bill. We recognise that the student market has a cyclical business model and have therefore introduced ground 4A, allowing landlords to evict full-time students from HMOs in order to house incoming groups in line with the academic year. Ground 4A addresses the issues that the various amendments tabled by the noble Lord are, in effect, seeking to address. As such, I ask him not to move this amendment.

Amendment 266 seeks to exempt private purpose-built student accommodation from discretionary licensing where the landlord has signed up to a code of practice for managing such accommodation. Although codes of practice offer students assurance that a good standard of management is being met by their landlords, they are not tailored to addressing local issues in the way that licence conditions under licensing schemes are. Membership of the codes is voluntary, and members have an incentive to comply to ensure they can continue to present an attractive offer to students. While a failure to adhere to code standards can result in a landlord being removed from a code, licensing allows for stronger action to be taken where necessary. For example, local authorities can issue a financial penalty where there has been a serious breach of licence conditions.

We recognise that licensing can place a greater burden on landlords with large portfolios, such as those operating private purpose-built student accommodation. That is why local authorities already have discretion to streamline licence application processes and fees for such landlords. We trust local authorities to take a proportionate approach and work together with code operators and providers of these types of accommodation to make sure that licensing schemes remain focused on tackling the issues they were designed to address. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Best, not to move his amendment.

I turn to government Amendments 47, 188 and 202. Currently, university-managed accommodation is exempt from the assured tenancy system, while private purpose-built student accommodation usually is not. Government Amendments 47, 188 and 202 would allow private PBSA to be subject to the same exemption, recognising that the two share many similarities. Students do not move into their accommodation expecting long-term residence, and it is right to ensure that this accommodation is available to new cohorts of students each year.

We intend that the exemption will apply only to private PBSA that is a member of the government-approved code of practice, which sets vigorous standards for the management of property and the relationship between managers and student tenants. If their membership of the code ends for any reason, so does their exemption. There will be no delay in requiring them to provide assured tenancies to new tenants. Although there is an existing power in the Housing Act 1988 to exempt PBSA landlords, it would have required government to frequently update secondary legislation with a list of landlords, causing a duplication of work between code administrators and officials and a lag in the link between code membership and exemption status.

We are also proposing an amendment to an existing power in the Housing Act 2004 that clarifies that educational establishments exempt from HMO licensing can be specified by reference to code membership and that the power can be exercised in the same way for private purpose-built student accommodation in future. The amendment also allows the scope of an exemption to be narrowed to certain groups of building, or building manager, within the membership if required.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in what I consider an extremely important debate and contributed thoughtfully and constructively with their insights.

First, I would like to recognise the contribution by my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow, who tabled Amendments 42 and 43. On these Benches, we believe the limitation may, as my noble friend said, inadvertently push the hunt for student accommodation into the January exam season and disrupt a vital time for many students up and down this country.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

8: Clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert “unless the landlord acts as a landlord for fewer than five properties.”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow small landlords, who are less likely to have capacity to fund legal proceedings, to continue to be able to issue Section 21 notices.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 8, standing in my name. At its core, the private rented sector exists only because individuals are willing to invest in property and rent it out to others. The rental market depends on landlords, many of them small-scale, independent operators who choose to let their homes to others. These are not large corporate entities with huge legal teams and financial buffers; they are ordinary people with one or two properties, often let out to supplement their pension or as a long-term investment for their families.

Let us be clear: the most recent English private landlord survey shows that 45% of landlords own a single rental property and a further 38% own between two and four. That means that over four-fifths of landlords operate on a very small scale, far from the image of large institutional landlords. These landlords form the backbone of the rental sector. Yet, under the proposals in the Bill, particularly the removal of Section 21 without sufficient alternative safeguards—this is to answer the question by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley—we risk driving them out of this market altogether.

That is why I rise to speak to Amendment 8, standing in my name. This amendment proposes a targeted and reasonable exception that landlords who let fewer than five properties—those very small-scale landlords we have spoken of—should retain the ability to use Section 21. This is not about denying renters their rights or undermining the central aims of the Bill; rather, it is about recognising the limitations that smaller landlords face. Unlike larger letting organisations, smaller landlords do not have the resources or the legal support to navigate complex procession proceedings. For them, the loss of Section 21 without workable and efficient alternatives could be and will be the final straw. These individuals are not villains of the piece; in many cases, if not most, they are providing much-needed homes in areas of acute shortage. They do not have the resources to engage in lengthy legal proceedings every time they need to regain possession of their property, whether due to personal financial need or a change in family circumstances or to exit the sector entirely. If the Bill removes Section 21 without offering small landlords a workable alternative, the risk is clear: many will simply choose to leave the market. They are already, altogether.

We know this is already happening: the National Residential Landlords Association found last year that one in four landlords were planning to sell at least one property, many citing rising regulation and uncertainty about future reforms. As these landlords exit, we are left with fewer homes to rent, and the tenants feel the consequences most sharply.

The experience in Scotland offers a sobering lesson. There similar reforms were introduced with the intention of improving tenant security. Yet, as we have seen, they had the opposite effect: a sharp increase in landlords exiting the market and the highest rent increases in the United Kingdom as demand rapidly outpaced supply. Research from the Nationwide Foundation has found that 70% of landlords and letting agents lack confidence in the future of the market. The evidence from Scotland demonstrates that the type of over-regulation proposed here will drive landlords out of the market, reducing housing supply and ultimately leaving renters worse off.

Amendment 8 offers a simple, balanced solution. It allows the Bill to move forward with its tenant protections intact, while acknowledging the distinct position of small landlords and giving them the breathing room that they need to continue letting their homes. If we are serious about building a rental system that is fair, functional and fit for the future, we must ensure that it works for tenants and landlords alike. Amendment 8 does not undermine the principles of the Bill; it strengthens it. It recognises the diversity within the landlord community and offers a sensible, proportionate safeguard for those who make up its majority by allowing small landlords to continue using Section 21 when and where no viable alternative yet exists. We protect not only their role in the market but the long-term interests of renters themselves. I urge the Government to take this amendment seriously and consider whether the future of the private rented sector truly lies in squeezing out the very people who keep it afloat.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this very important debate in Committee and to support my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook on this amendment. The amendment is about fairness between tenants and landlords, and practicality. It is about the alternative that the Government are offering smaller landlords who are in the situation where they feel it prudent to give notice and seek possession of their own property under Section 21 and Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988. In particular, it is about the bureaucratic and onerous burden and court costs that will fall upon smaller landlords.

Let us look at the figures. Almost half of landlords—45%—own only one property. For the avoidance of doubt and for full transparency, I declare myself to be a landlord; I own one property, which was my matrimonial home, as listed in the Register of Lords’ Interests. Some 83% of landlords are small landlords, and so would be covered by this amendment, in that they own fewer than five properties.

We understand the proper commitment by the Government, as outlined in the manifesto, to abolish Section 21 no-fault evictions, for laudable reasons. We are all committed to the same thing—that good-quality private sector housing should be available in a fair way, to as many people as possible— and we accept that the Government have a mandate to make tenancy reforms. Notwithstanding that, unfortunately, as the previous Administration found, much of the efficacy of that policy will fall upon the reliability or otherwise of the court system and its ability to expedite possession claims in a timely and efficient way.

His Majesty’s Government’s own figures, as at quarter 4 of 2024, show that seven months is the average time taken to process and enforce a Section 8 possession case—especially around the thorny issue of rent arrears and anti-social behaviour. The LGA and the Law Society have raised this issue. The Law Society in particular notes the potential

“increase in contested hearings in the short term, as landlords that would previously have used”

Section 21, because it was less costly and less onerous, will now

“have to show good reason for eviction”.

On page 65 of the impact assessment, the Government, rather elliptically, reference “non-legislative changes” to improve the court system, but they do not give any detail. That is an important issue, as we are being asked to support the Government’s proposals. How do the Government intend to manage the increased demand? The Housing Minister in the other place used the word “ready”, saying that the Government would not take any precipitous action until the court system was ready. What does “ready” mean? This is a problem the previous Government faced and, as the Minister knows, they resiled from going ahead too fast with this policy because the court system was not fit for purpose. What specific measures will be used to deal with the existing backlog in Section 8 claims arising from landlords seeking to take possession? Let us make no mistake, the failings of the court system have the potential to undermine what would be laudable reforms and could have the perverse effect of encouraging landlords, especially smaller landlords, to exit the private rented sector.

Tenants themselves do not have much faith in the court system. Figures provided in 2023 by Citizens Advice show that only

“23% of tenants feel confident applying to court. 99% of tenants whose landlord has taken an unreasonably long time to complete repairs did not bring a claim for disrepair to court … 54% … said they did not … because of the complexity of the process … 45% … said they were put off by the length of time involved”.

It is also the case that the abolition of Section 21, particularly in respect of smaller landlords, will have an impact on the hitherto good relationship between many tenants and landlords, turning it into a much more litigious and disputatious situation. Many of those landlords will not be prepared to give tenants the benefit of the doubt if they fall on difficult financial times or have less benign economic circumstances. Those are the real-world consequences of this policy and one of the issues that this amendment seeks to address and ameliorate.

--- Later in debate ---

My understanding is that, to use the Minister’s words, “lengthy legal procedures” will apply to quite a small percentage of the overall number of tenancies. We absolutely understand and accept that these procedures are challenging, painful and undoubtedly expensive. Does the Minister have any account of the number of tenancies that will go to court? What do the Government anticipate will be the uplift, given this procedure? It would be useful to know. Do the Government accept that there will be more cases until the legislation settles down? Also, I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, first, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that this is not a wrecking amendment. It is trying to find a solution which does not potentially destroy the private rental market. If it is destroyed in any way, only one group of people will be affected, and that is the tenants.

I am grateful to noble Lords who—

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My apologies, but does the noble Baroness not want to hear first from the Minister on the amendment?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Well, the noble Baroness knows what I am going to say, so that is that.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for moving Amendment 8, and the noble Lords, Lord Jackson, Lord Empey and Lord Murray, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their comments. This amendment would allow fixed-term initial tenancies where the landlord lets fewer than five properties. As I am sure the noble Baroness would expect, the Government cannot accept this amendment. It would be neither fair nor justified for some tenants to have fewer rights, simply because the landlord happens to have a smaller property portfolio at the point at which the tenancy is entered into. All tenants must enjoy the benefits of the new system and the flexibility that periodic tenancies provide.

I have already commented on the likely impact on the market under Amendment 1. As I mentioned earlier, the noble Baroness referred to changes to the law in Scotland, which was very different in the important matter of rent controls. I met with the Scottish Housing Minister during the recent British-Irish Council and discussed this with him in order to learn lessons from what happened in Scotland.

The English Private Landlord Survey shows that 83% of landlords have four properties or fewer. Accepting this amendment would mean fixed terms remaining available for half of all tenancies. This would clearly fly in the face of what this Bill is trying to achieve. It would definitely break the manifesto commitment that we have already clearly set out and which we stand by.

It is also important to clarify that retaining fixed terms would not preserve the Section 21 eviction process, although this is a common misconception. Nor would it automatically retain the accelerated court procedure used for Section 21 claims, which allows cases to proceed without a hearing. If this amendment were accepted, landlords would still be required to seek possession using one of the grounds in Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988, for which the accelerated court procedure is not available. The removal of Section 21 evictions is the cornerstone of this legislation, and the Government will not accept its reintroduction to reduce court costs or for any other purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, was a Minister in the last Government. I remind him that his Government also had the policy of removing Section 21 evictions. The noble Lord must have had a memory lapse in the Chamber this afternoon.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, referred to the cost of court possession hearings for smaller landlords. We are confident that the Bill does not levy unfair new costs on landlords. However, it is reasonable to expect landlords to ensure that their business model covers the possible cost of possession cases proceeding through court. The current accelerated court procedure is not a guarantee of avoiding court proceedings or the associated costs.

I will comment briefly on the points made by the noble Lord—

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Lord has a figure in mind. I will write to him; as he would expect, I do not have that figure at my fingertips.

The availability of court hearings is vital for tenants’ access to justice, especially in the new system whereby landlords must always evidence that grounds are met. We are working closely with our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts & Tribunals Service to make the possession process more efficient and easier to understand. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, made a very good point. It can be difficult for both landlord and tenant to understand the process. They may be deterred from accessing the legal redress to which they are entitled because of difficulties in understanding how it works.

We are also committed to digitising the process. I can reassure the noble Lord that we are working closely with the MoJ to make sure that the justice system is fully prepared to implement the Renters’ Rights Bill once enacted. I am not going to guarantee end-to-end digitisation of the whole court system—that is way beyond my remit in this Chamber—but we are working on it in relation to renters’ rights. This includes a commitment to digitising the county court possession process to create a modern, efficient service for court users. I was reassured to find that this is being built on to an existing system, rather than being created from scratch. Work is proceeding at pace on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Will all these changes to the court system, and digitisation, be totally in place before this part of the Bill is enacted?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I was just about to respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, which may answer that question. As usual, we are working with the Ministry of Justice to complete a justice impact test. This will identify the additional burdens on the justice system arising from new policies in the Renters’ Rights Bill, and it will ensure that the system is fully prepared for any increase in workload. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will respond to that in two ways. First, the work that has been done on the court system is both for landlords and tenants. We want it to work for both sides, so that when a landlord needs to seek possession they can do that quickly. I think any landlord’s business model should account for the possibility of a slight break in rental payment, but obviously we want to resolve these issues as quickly as possible, and to do the same for the tenants. There needs to be quick access to recourse if they need it, and we will do that.

Secondly, in respect to the point about local authorities, I have covered extensively the Government’s assessment of whether this will have an impact on supply issues. I reiterate that the Bill’s impact assessment has received a green rating from the Regulatory Policy Committee. We do not believe there will be a sustained or significant impact on supply, but we will monitor that very carefully once the Bill is passed.

I hope I have answered all noble Lords’ points on this but, for the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Again, I apologise to the Minister. First, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that it is not a wrecking amendment but one trying to find a workable solution that does not potentially destroy the private renters’ market as the only people who will suffer from that will be tenants in the future.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and to my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Murray of Blidworth for their thoughtful and constructive insights into how we deal with this issue. Across the Committee there is clearly a shared ambition to improve the private rented sector for tenants, and I believe today’s discussion has shown that doing so must include supporting the landlords who make the sector possible.

As I set out earlier, Amendment 8 is a carefully considered proposal aimed at safeguarding the position of small landlords—those who let fewer than five properties and who make up the overwhelming majority of the sector. These are not large-scale investors or corporations. They are individuals, often couples, pensioners or families, who rent out a single property or two as a way of securing long-term stability for themselves. This amendment is not about undermining tenant protections. It is about recognising that those protections will be meaningful only if the rental homes remain available in the first place.

The removal of Section 21 without adequate alternatives risks pushing small landlords out of the market. As we have heard, this is not hypothetical, it is already happening. Once again, I will talk about Scotland, because I do not believe—and nor do the people in the industry who I have spoken to—that this was just about rent control. In Scotland, it has been made clear what can happen when reforms are introduced without properly accounting for market balance. There has been a sharp reduction in landlord numbers, escalating rents and a shrinking supply of rental homes. This is not the future we want in England for our tenants and is exactly what this amendment seeks to prevent.

Recent findings from the Paragon Bank, based on a survey of over 500 landlords, reinforce this concern for us. An alarming 65% of respondents indicated that they are now more likely to scale back their property holdings as a direct result of current and proposed reforms. This is a clear indication of the potential real-world consequences of the Bill if the needs of small landlords are not adequately considered. Amendment 8 offers a modest but vital safeguard. It enables the Government’s reforms to proceed while providing breathing space for the small-scale landlords who play such a crucial role in meeting the housing needs of this country.

To conclude, I urge the Minister to listen carefully to the issues raised in this group and to give serious consideration to Amendment 8, not as a dilution of the Bill’s aims but as a necessary and constructive contribution to its long-term success. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly from these Benches, in part to spare my noble friend’s voice—I assure noble Lords that no wine has been taken this evening.

I will stress something that is beginning to cause confusion on these Benches: the suggestion that an assured shorthold tenancy is in some way secure. It has been well documented over many years that huge insecurity is attached to an assured shorthold tenancy. Everything that we have learned about the huge turnover has for so many tenants been attached to the fact that ASTs are sometimes down to six months. A periodic tenancy—which has no end—is surely more secure than these fragile assured shorthold tenancies, which are often for only six months and cause huge insecurity for so many tenants. For that reason, these Benches are extremely concerned about the current direction of travel.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. Indeed, it follows on very neatly from our earlier debate on fixed-term tenancies. My noble friends Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Moynihan made compelling arguments for why we should permit fixed-term tenancies for both professional athletes and police officers. The benefits were set out with conviction and clarity, and I hope the Government Benches have listened. Of course, I would prefer that fixed-term tenancies continued to be available for everyone.

I will not rehearse the arguments made earlier, but does not the growing list of amendments seeking exemptions highlight the real value that fixed-term tenancies offer, supporting people from all walks of life, from athletes to police officers and everyone in between? Nurses, doctors, students, military personnel and even performers can all benefit from a fixed-term tenancy. The Government should consider these benefits. In removing fixed terms altogether, the Bill risks taking away short-term lets that serve as a real benefit for many thousands of people.

I turn to the Minister’s Amendment 59, which expands ground 5C to account for police officers. These Benches understand the importance of an employer’s need to regain possession of rented property if the tenancy is linked to a tenant’s employment. I thank the Minister for setting out details of the amendment.

Finally, I wish to note Amendment 62, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I thank him for the chat we had about it, because I had no idea that this happened within the Church of England. Enabling a debate on possession for the purposes of housing a person leaving tied accommodation is most welcome. This is an important issue, as it ensures that a landlord, who is often also the employer, can regain possession of a property when it is needed to house a new employee, but also—as in the case of the Church of England—allows the Church to regain a property that is required for the retiring employee. We must recognise the value of maintaining the availability of essential employment-linked housing, and consider how best to safeguard it in practice. Additionally, we must not discourage landlords from helping tenants by giving them extra time to move out, providing references or offering alternative housing, especially in sectors such as education or farming—or, indeed, in the Church.

This debate has encapsulated the depth and breadth of the Bill, and the numerous areas that it covers. A modern, dynamic workforce needs the freedom to move, adapt and pursue opportunities wherever they arise. We must have a laser focus on occupational needs when considering any changes to the rental market.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, before I respond to these amendments, I congratulate Leeds United on their promotion to the Premier League. They are not my team, but what an achievement. We were all shouting when they got through the other day, so well done to Leeds. I have several close friends who are Leeds supporters, and they will be listening to that with interest.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Moynihan, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for their amendments, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Scott, for their comments. These amendments are on fixed terms and occupational possession grounds. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, is quite right to highlight the insecurity of assured shorthold tenancies. They are not secure tenancies, and I do not accept that it is better for tenants to have a fixed-term tenancy than a periodic tenancy, which is theirs until they decide to end it and give the necessary two months’ notice.

I will start with Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. These would retain fixed terms where the property is let to any ranking serving police officer and to professional athletes. As with Amendment 7, the Government believe tenants should not have reduced flexibility and greater financial obligation because of their personal circumstances. I am not convinced there is any case for police officers, who put themselves on the front line in the service of others, to benefit any less from the new tenancy regime. I do not think the case for that has been made.

We have heard concerns about ensuring provision of housing for the police, and that is why government Amendment 59 amends possession ground 5C to ensure it is available to police forces and others who provide accommodation for their officers. This will allow landlords to take possession where a tenancy was granted to an officer in relation to their service in the office of constable, and the tenancy is no longer required for the purpose for which it was granted. I do not consider it necessary to retain fixed terms in addition to this.

Needless to say, we all want to see the UK’s excellent professional athletes succeed in their endeavours. The whole Committee is aware of the sporting achievements of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and his advocacy and service on behalf of British sport. However, it would seem a shame to lock athletes into fixed terms, which might prevent them moving around the country in pursuit of sporting greatness. We would not want to do that. However, if an athlete is in accommodation provided by their employer, then ground 5C would apply and the tenancy could be ended, as necessary.

Amendment 62, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, seeks to create two new grounds for possession. The first, new ground 8A, would enable a landlord to seek possession from an existing tenant in order to re-let that dwelling to a former employee—of the landlord, we assume—who was housed in accommodation tied to their role. It would also apply to other types of workers, such as officeholders. I appreciate the aim of the right reverend Prelate’s amendment and, following engagement with bishops, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, we are sympathetic and understand that the Church wishes to house retired clergy. However, after very careful consideration, I genuinely believe this should not be at the expense of existing tenants. We have already created expanded or strengthened possession grounds to cover situations—such as housing employees or evicting tenants to use the dwelling as supported accommodation—where we believe that the needs of those involved can be deemed to overrule the general principle that renters deserve security of tenure and should be able to put down roots in their long-term homes.

We are not of the view that housing a former employee of the landlord meets the bar to overrule the general principle that private renters should have secure homes. In order to house the former employee, another tenant would need to be evicted, through no fault of their own, placing them in the position of needing to find a new home. This simply moves the problem around. As such, we are content that the current grounds strike the right balance.

The second proposed ground, 8B, seeks to enable possession of a tenanted property so it can be relet to a surviving spouse, civil partner or dependant of a person described in the previous proposed ground who died before being required to vacate the accommodation linked to their role. Although I appreciate the reasons behind wanting to help people in these circumstances, again, this proposed new ground would mean an existing tenant could be evicted through no fault of their own, simply moving the problem around and creating more insecurity for more tenants. For the reasons I have set out, I ask that noble Lords not press their amendments.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

14: Clause 2, page 2, line 30, leave out paragraph (a)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would retain social landlords’ ability to apply for a demotion order in response to the anti-social behaviour of a tenant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 14, 66 and 67 standing in my name.

Anti-social behaviour is a scourge on our communities but is particularly devastating from a housing perspective. Quite often, anti-social behaviour replaces productive community spirit with fear and tension, leading to residents feeling trapped and helpless. Anti-social behaviour strips away the very essence of what makes a house a home.

The consequences of anti-social behaviour are often forgotten. The costs of repairing damage, the need to enhance and increase security measures, and the day-to-day administration involved in responding to complaints from neighbours all place a significant and often unsustainable financial strain on housing associations, local authorities and landlords across the country.

As drafted, the Bill reduces the powers available to local authorities and social housing landlords in cases where tenants are responsible for anti-social behaviour. Amendment 14, tabled in my name, seeks to preserve the ability of landlords to demote tenancies in response to such behaviour. Loud noise, vandalism and intimidation leave residents helpless, and local authorities must have the power to uphold community stability without the detriment of demotion. How can the Government ensure that there are consequences for this ruinous behaviour?

Amendment 66, tabled in my name, probes the Government’s objectives in creating a duty on the court to consider any co-operation on the part of the tenant against whom an order is sought. On these Benches we wish to understand the real-world impact of this change. I ask the Minister: what constitutes co-operation? Is it replying to an email or answering a call, or does it require a tenant to display a serious and notable change in their behaviour? Is this simply a requirement for engagement or would there be a requirement to take practical steps to prevent anti-social behaviour in the future?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments relating to anti-social behaviour, and I agree with her powerful statement on ASB. As a councillor, I saw at first hand, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Eaton, did, the utter misery that is caused to individuals and communities through the irresponsible actions of others and I properly understand why it is important that we have provisions to tackle it.

Amendment 14 seeks to reintroduce social landlords’ ability to apply for a demotion order in response to the anti-social behaviour of a tenant. This amendment seeks to enable landlords to demote social tenants to a less secure form of tenancy because of anti-social behaviour. However, the amendment as drafted would not work; the Renters’ Rights Bill will move tenants to a simpler tenancy structure where assured shorthold tenancies and the ability to evict shorthold tenants via Section 21 are abolished. There will therefore no longer be a tenancy with lower security to demote tenants to. To work, it would require a reversal of measures in the Bill to remove demoted tenancies and assured shorthold tenancies; that is the issue with the amendment as drafted.

I reassure the noble Baroness that tackling anti-social behaviour is a top priority for our Government and a key part of our safer streets mission. 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. In addition, the Bill amends the matters that judges must consider when deciding whether to award possession under the 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.

As well as the positive changes that the Bill makes towards tackling anti-social behaviour within the rental sector, we will crack down on those making neighbourhoods feel unsafe and unwelcoming by introducing the new respect order, which local authorities will be able to apply for and which will carry tough sanctions and penalties for persistent adult offenders. Together, those changes will ensure that the needs of victims are at the heart of our response to anti-social behaviour—that is what is important. Too often victims have felt that the power is all on the side of those who are committing the anti-social behaviour and not on the side of victims—that cannot carry on.

In response to the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, about local authority housing tenants, the Bill introduces reforms to the assured tenancies framework, which applies to both the private rented sector and private registered providers of social housing. Local authority tenants are provided secure tenancies under a different tenancy regime. The vast majority of local authority tenants are secure lifetime tenants, and therefore they already enjoy a high security of tenure. Local authority landlords also have existing powers to tackle ASB, including eviction grounds similar to those in the Bill.

The point is taken from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, about the further information about evidence and where the bar is going to be set; I will take that back to the team and come back to her. For these reasons, we feel this amendment is not needed and kindly ask that the noble Baroness withdraws it.

I turn to Amendment 66, which seeks to remove the requirement imposed upon judges, which has been introduced by the Bill, to give a particular consideration to whether a tenant, against whom a possession order is sought under ground 14 for anti-social behaviour, has engaged with attempts by the landlord to resolve the behaviour. We believe this change represents the wrong approach, for two reasons.

First, the Government believe that landlords should attempt to resolve problematic behaviour issues with tenants before attempting to evict them. By directing courts to particularly consider whether a tenant is engaged with these efforts, landlords will be incentivised to make them. Secondly, it is right that the court should give particular consideration to whether a tenant has engaged with attempts to resolve the behaviour so that courts may be more likely to evict a tenant who has, for example, been obstructive throughout the process. Where a tenant has shown willingness to engage constructively with the landlord, it is right that the court considers this factor, and it is for those reasons that we introduced the requirement.

I turn to Amendment 67, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, which seeks to expand the factors that a court is specifically directed to consider when deciding whether to make an order for possession against a tenant in a house in multiple occupancy for anti-social behaviour under ground 14. Currently, courts will be directed to give particular consideration to the past impact of the tenant’s behaviour on their fellow HMO tenants. This is in recognition of the increased impact that anti-social behaviour can have when victims have to share facilities and live in close proximity with the perpetrator, as the noble Baroness mentioned. Judges will also consider all factors relevant to the case and will already be directed generally to have consideration of the future and ongoing impact of that behaviour. As such, we do not think this amendment is strictly necessary to achieve the intended effect, although we are very grateful to the noble Baroness for flagging up that point.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, first of all, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Eaton and Lady Thornhill, and the Minister. All are from local government and understand anti-social behaviour over many years and the effect it can have. We on these Benches recognise that what is often described as anti- social behaviour may indeed be a symptom of much deeper, complex personal struggles. Those underlying issues, of course, deserve serious compassionate attention. So it is important that the Government are looking at the issues surrounding anti-social behaviour. I am particularly interested—I do not need an answer tonight —in bolstering the capabilities of support services within local government, to ensure that intervention can give people a real chance to turn things around before they get to the stage of being evicted.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

Can I just add that I was disappointed that we did not have any phraseology in ancient Greek? We will have to put up with that for today, I suppose. I echo my noble friend Lord Carter’s point: I think it would be really helpful, whatever one thinks of the rights and wrongs of retrospective legislation, that a proper list is set out as to which rights are going to be affected. I think everybody outside this Chamber is going to need that, in practice, in the rental sector. It would be very helpful if something could be published that literally specifies which bits are going to be affected retrospectively and how.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough for bringing Amendments 16 to 18 to the Committee today. The question of the retroactivity of the Bill is not just a question of how it will be applied, it is a question as to whether it is fair at all. It is easy for Governments armed with executive powers to apply the law retrospectively, but it should be the duty of every Minister to ask: is this the right way? Is it the fair way?

I invite noble Lords to imagine that they signed a tenancy agreement under a clear set of rules in January 2025; they followed all the rules; then, in June 2025, Parliament passes a law saying that their tenancy is now invalid. Well, many will have to imagine no longer, because once the Bill gets Royal Assent, tenants and landlords may find that their agreements are no longer valid.

The predecessor of the Bill adopted a model of prospective lawmaking by setting out a two-pronged approach to implementation. It would have assured that substantial changes were introduced at a suitable pace, one that brought the sector along with it, giving it time to understand the new requirements and adapt accordingly. In their haste to publish the Bill, the Government appear willing to abandon the principle of prospective lawmaking, placing an immediate and heavy burden on landlords. The Committee will be well aware that 45% of landlords own just a single property. These are not professional landlords with teams behind them. They lack the infrastructure to absorb complex regulatory change. They are not poring over the details of legislation, nor do they have time to follow days of Committee proceedings. How do the Government expect these individuals to implement such sweeping reforms all at once and without a serious and structured implementation period?

At this Dispatch Box on Tuesday, I quoted some statistics from Paragon. In the same survey, it noted that 39% of landlords had not even heard of the Bill. Will the Minister please explain how the Government will communicate these changes? The department must begin explaining in clear and simple terms what is coming down the track. Landlords need to know that change is coming. Regardless of the Bill’s specific contents or intentions, its retroactive nature will pose challenges. It will not only bring an abrupt end to agreements freely entered into by two consenting adults, it will unleash a wave of challenges upon landlords through its immediate implementation.

I turn to the litany of amendments put down by the Government. We welcome the right to sublet and want to ensure people do not lose that right, but we want it to be implemented with clarity. On these Benches, we would prefer those specific tenancy types which underlie the right to sublet—such as fixed-term assured tenancies or assured shorthold tenancies—to remain. We set out our clear case yesterday and we will continue to stand up for a sector that delivers choice and variety and provides the homes we need. Will the Minister explain the Government’s adjustments to the context of Clause 3? It is clear that they intend to restructure the legislation, so on these Benches we wish to ensure that the effects of superior leases are appropriately addressed within the updated framework. Can the Minister set out how the Government will ensure that tenants in sublet arrangements are not left in legal limbo?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing these amendments before the House and for clearly setting out the minor and technical corrections to the legislation. Ensuring legal consistency is crucial, and aligning the wording with the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 will help maintain uniformity across legislation.

As we will discover in coming days, the agricultural aspects of the Bill are both detailed and complex, containing numerous references to specialised terminology. Any technical amendments that help harmonise such language are most welcome on these Benches.

I trust the Minister will continue to approach these proceedings with a collaborative and constructive mindset. These amendments demonstrate that the legislation, as drafted, is not beyond improvement, and we welcome the Government’s recognition of that fact. It is our hope that suggestions from your Lordships’ House are given due consideration and are not dismissed too readily from the Dispatch Box.

We trust that the Minister will also view forthcoming amendments in the spirit intended: to test and to probe the Government’s rationale in pursuing particular policy choices, particularly when it comes to the inclusion or the omission of specific clauses and definitions in the Bill. We are grateful for the opportunity to raise these important issues and we welcome continued constructive dialogue on how we can best improve the technical framework of the legislation.

On that note, I wish to ask further questions of the Government on government Amendment 183. From our understanding, this amends the Charities Act, as the Minister said, to ensure that the disposition of leases which are assured tenancies will be subject to that Act. However, as she said, the requirement to obtain a written report from an independent property adviser could be costly. The costs of these reports vary, and they can impose a significant burden on whoever is footing the bill for them. So I would be grateful if the Minister could just clarify in writing that no charities will be required to obtain this particular report and, if there are some that will continue to need it, can she set out the conditions on which those reports from an independent adviser will be required?

If trustees do not comply with the law, they may be personally liable if this report is required and they do not do it; therefore, it is really important that we get absolute clarity on who, if anybody, will be required to do that. I reiterate the importance of keeping the core text of the Bill simple and, where possible, as focused as we can.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Just to respond briefly to the noble Baroness, I understand that the change to the Charities Act 2011 means that charities would not be required to obtain the designated adviser report prior to granting. They would be required to obtain advice and consider whether the terms of the lease are the best that can be reasonably obtained by the charity; that would be the requirement for trustees. But I will respond in writing to the noble Baroness just to confirm that that is the case.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

The noble Lord is, as I said, very persuasive.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group represent yet another instance where the rights of renters intersect with those of landlords. This group of amendments is indicative of the broader Bill and, rather than increasing the availability of homes, we believe it risks reducing the supply of rental properties. This could drive up costs for renters at a time when the cost of renting has already risen significantly. It is, of course, important to make sure that the legal framework which governs this relationship protects those who are renting, but we cannot forget the landlords. They should also have their rights upheld. Landlords should have their rights over their properties respected and retain the ability to recover possession of their homes when they need to.

I start by speaking to Amendments 24 and 30, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe. They assume that the landlord is in some way liable to pay compensation for exercising rights, which surely are theirs by virtue of the fact that they actually own the property. Determining when in specific cases compensation is required is surely the responsibility of a court. To assume that compensation is always required tips the balance against the landlords and would likely discourage many responsible, principled landlords from entering the market and meeting the high demand for rented properties that we see across the country.

In the same vein, Amendments 26 and 27, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would place an administrative burden on landlords, which would have a dampening effect on the housing market. Houses are important personal assets. Piling on layers of regulation will further suffocate the market and limit the agency of landlords to use the assets that they own.

Conversely, we believe that Amendments 60 and 61, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, strike an appropriate balance, recognising that landlords need to be protected from bad actors, who could have a devastating financial effect on them. Landlords should not be punished for supplying rental properties to the market. Maintaining the existing possession grounds for rent arrears would mean that they can operate in the market with confidence that they will not be left out of pocket.

Amendments 63 and 64, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord de Clifford, further speak to the fact that landlords should retain the right to make use of their own property as they see fit. It is neither the role nor the place of government to dictate to home owners how their personal property should be used.

Amendment 71, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, seeks to conflate the rights of the landlords with their responsibilities. The landlord, by owning the property, has the right to make decisions about how that property is used. The tenant, in renting from that landlord, is expected to respect the rights of the landlord as the property owner. This relationship does not in any way suggest that the landlord should be liable to forgo income while still providing the service. This measure would clearly disadvantage landlords in their legal relationship with their tenant and would depress the market, which is already undersaturated.

Finally, I welcome that Amendments 142, 165 and 166, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Hacking, strike the appropriate balance between the rights of the renters and the rights of the landlord. We need to remember that we are talking about a market, which requires flexibility and adaptability so that it works for consumers and providers. Allowing landlords to make these decisions without being hamstrung by long-term obligations means that they can act in the mutual interest. A flourishing market benefits renters as much as landlords. This balance is imperative to achieve a flourishing market. I urge the Government further to consider, between now and Report, this crucial balance between landlords and tenants, most importantly to protect the tenants in this sector.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lady Warwick and Lord Hacking, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill, Lady Grender, Lady Jones, Lady Bowles, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Scott, the noble Lords, Lord Carter, Lord Carrington, Lord de Clifford, Lord Cromwell, Lord Northbrook and Lord Pannick, and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for their amendments and comments during this debate. It was great to hear from the noble Earl about the long-term tenancies that he has, of 21 to 45 years. I made the point at Second Reading and on Tuesday about the symbiotic relationship that can and should exist between landlords and tenants. Our aim is to foster that relationship and the balance that makes it work properly as we go through the process of this Bill.

Amendment 24 and Amendment 30 seek to make possession under ground 6B contingent on compensation being first paid by the landlord to the tenant. Amendment 24 specifically prevents a court making an order for possession unless compensation has been paid; Amendment 30 sets out that landlords must pay compensation at a level set by the Secretary of State in regulation before they can take possession. Ground 6B allows a landlord to evict tenants where they are subject to enforcement action and eviction is the only way that they can comply. It is intended to prevent landlords ending up in the legal limbo of having broken the law but having no route to comply with it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

32: Schedule 1, page 167, line 17, after “landlord’s” insert “or the landlord’s spouse’s, or civil partner’s, or co-habitee’s”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook, seeks to apply the same definition of family member which is used in Clause 21 of the Act in Schedule 1 to ensure the internal consistency of this Act.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will move my Amendment 32 and speak to Amendments 33 and 34 in this group. All three of these amendments are underpinned by the same principle, that of consistency. When anybody involved in a tenancy speaks about “family members”, there should be clarity on what that means, but the Bill is not consistent in its definition of a family. This inconsistency will make it much harder to achieve clarity for those who will have to work with this legislation in the real world. I will briefly outline the two definitions of the family that are currently in the text of the Bill.

In Clause 21, which relates to renter guarantors, the Government have defined family members in a broader way, including nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles, partners, children and cousins within the definition. In Schedule 1, which we are debating today, the definition is much narrower, limiting the definition of family members in that part of the Bill to parents, grandparents, siblings, children and grandchildren. We have tabled these amendments to highlight this inconsistency, which will create an imbalance between the definitions of the family of a tenant and that of a landlord. While inconsistency applies to nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles, partners, children and cousins, I will use the example of cousins to illustrate my point.

Surely whether a person is a landlord or a tenant, all families should be treated equally before the law. It cannot be right that a tenant’s cousin who is a rent guarantor is defined as a family member, but a landlord’s cousin is not defined as a family member for the purposes of ground 1. Can the Minister please explain why she believes it is acceptable for a cousin of a tenant who is their rent guarantor to be treated as a family member, but the cousin of a landlord is not treated as a family member for the purposes of ground 1, under this legislation? Does she agree that this is an inconsistent way of defining family members?

We are also interested in the perverse outcome that would result in a circumstance where a cousin of a person acts as a rent guarantor but also has another cousin who is a landlord. Under Clause 21, they would be the tenant’s family member; under Schedule 1, they would not be the landlord’s family member. In the real world, they are family members in both cases. It is unacceptable that an individual in this position would be treated in one way in respect of their relationship with their cousin who is a tenant and in a different way in respect of their relationship with their cousin who is a landlord.

Additionally, I am not certain whether cousins of tenants and cousins of landlords are different classes of people. If we are to treat cousins as a class of people for the purposes of the Bill, it seems that the Bill will affect private interests of cousins of landlords in a different way to the interests of cousins of tenants. We feel that this is unacceptable, and it should be resolved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments. Amendments 32, 33 and 34 seek to expand the definition of a family member for the purposes of possession ground 1. This mandatory possession ground is available if the landlord or their close family member wishes to move into the property. These amendments widen the ground to allow a landlord to claim possession from an existing tenant to move in relatives of their spouse, partner or co-habitee, along with nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles or cousins.

In choosing which of the landlord’s family members can move in under ground 1, we have reflected the diversity of modern families while drawing a line short of where some might wish. But we are of the view that to expand the ground any further would diminish tenant protections too far. It would open tenants up to evictions from a wide range of people—potentially very significant numbers indeed where families are large—while providing more opportunity for ill-intentioned landlords to abuse the system.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked why “family member” is used in Clause 21 while close family member is used in the moving-in ground. The moving-in ground is designed for very specific circumstances where a landlord’s family member is in need of accommodation, so it is right that this definition is narrower, as tenants risk losing their home. New Section 16N of the Housing Act 1988, “Guarantor not liable for rent payable after the tenant’s death”, as inserted by Clause 21, is specifically targeted to stop those grieving being held liable after a tenancy should have been ended, and it is right that this is a broader protection. The use of guarantors is wide ranging and, as such, a wider definition is needed to encompass all relevant persons. However, that is not the case when a tenant is facing eviction from a property.

For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister. These amendments may appear complicated in their drafting, but they have one simple objective which is to deliver a consistent definition of the family across the Bill. While I am very disappointed that the Government do not feel able to accept the amendment today, I hope that the Minister is willing to discuss a way to resolve this inconsistency in future meetings as we make progress on the Bill.

The law should be as simple as possible and, crucially, consistent, so that those who have to deal with the legislation in the real world can do so without unnecessary confusion. It is clear that two different definitions of the family will create confusion. A consistent definition would prevent that confusion. While I reserve the right to bring this back on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 32 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

But, as the noble Lord was not here from the start of the debate, I am afraid he cannot speak.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for bringing a debate on possession grounds. This is an important issue, as it ensures that a landlord—who is often also the employer—can regain possession of a property when it is needed to house a new employee.

I will address Amendments 48, 49, 51 and 52, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. These amendments raise an important and complex issue concerning agricultural tenancies, particularly in the light of the proposed reforms to tenancy law, including the abolition of fixed terms and the removal of Section 21 no-fault evictions.

At present, agricultural landlords can avoid creating an agricultural assured occupancy—an AAO—by serving notice before the tenancy begins, thereby establishing it as an assured shorthold tenancy, or AST. This provides access to Section 21, which allows landlords to regain possession without the need to demonstrate fault. It is a mechanism widely relied on in the agricultural sector, where housing is often tied to employment or operational needs. With the removal of Section 21, this option will no longer be available. As a result, there will be a significant shift in the way in which agricultural landlords recover their properties. We must ensure that alternative grounds for possession are workable and fair, and can lead to the recovery of a property.

I do not suggest that there are easy answers here. However, I believe that this area requires careful scrutiny and targeted solutions. I believe the noble Lord’s amendments offer a useful starting point for this discussion and he has rightly brought this to the attention of the House. I urge the Government to consider these issues closely and to engage further with agricultural landlords to ensure that they have the means to house new farmers under their employment.

Finally, I will talk to the remaining amendments in this group: Amendments 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 63. We must recognise the value of maintaining the availability of essential employment-linked housing and consider how best to safeguard it in practice. This of course must have thoughtful consideration, as the implications of any decision made affect not only the landlord and the employer but the broader rental market. I hope the Government will give serious consideration to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, as part of a broader and much-needed discussion on how landlords can fairly regain possession of a property when a tenancy is tied to employment that has come to an end. I have milked many cows in my life, and even at Easter I was lambing ewes, so I know a lot about this.

Many roles with occupational housing are time-sensitive and hands-on. A new employee may require immediate access to the same accommodation as the previous employee in order to perform their duties. Herdsmen and herdswomen are often up at 3.30 in the morning to begin milking and shepherds may be lambing right through the night into the dawn, and for their own welfare as a family they need to be on site to fulfil that role. Animal welfare on farms also requires staff to immediately be available at all times, whether it is for calving, lambing, farrowing or just for sick animals, so accommodation on site is absolutely critical. The same applies to those managing diversification of agricultural properties and businesses, managing holiday accommodation or providing security for storage facilities on the farm, for example.

Failure to ensure timely access to such housing can have significant operational impacts. It can delay essential work and place considerable strain on the profit-making enterprises already operating within tight margins. This debate is therefore not only about the protection of property rights; it is fundamental to supporting those agricultural businesses, the people employed in them and the welfare of the stock on those farms, which rely so heavily on occupational housing as a practical necessity.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for these amendments relating to agricultural tenancies, and thank him, the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their obvious farming expertise as they have taken us through the rationale for the amendments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for her comments about the long relationships that are often prevalent in rural tenancies. It is important to make the point that one of the aims of the Bill is to facilitate those longer tenancy relationships.

I will make a few general comments, particularly that we appreciate that the agricultural sector has distinct requirements, and it is often vital for workers to live on-site to carry out their duties, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, very ably described to us. That is why we have included ground 5A. However, this must be balanced with the needs of the wider rural community. This ground balances both. It allows agricultural workers to be housed while protecting other tenants who may work in critical local jobs.

Widening the ground—for example, to include contractors—could, we believe, open the ground to abuse and decrease rural security of tenure. For example, a landlord could contract someone to do a nominal amount of agricultural work for their business and, on that basis, use the expanded ground to evict a tenant in respect of whom no other grounds were available.

The noble Earl, Lord Leicester, talked about the self-employed and contractors. We recognise that it is sometimes necessary for landlords to move tenants on where accommodation is intended for a particular purpose, and understand that employee accommodation plays a critical role for many employers, so we are strengthening the possession ground by making it mandatory. It would not be right to broaden the ground too much, and thereby reduce the security of tenure for more tenancies, as this would be contradictory to the purpose of the Bill.

There are other arrangements that a landlord can use to help their contractors with accommodation when they are working away from their home, such as paying expenses for the contractor to make their own arrangements, using licences to occupy, or paying for them to be hosted in an Airbnb. As people working away from their home are often working on short-term projects—for example, in the construction industry—tenancy agreements are unlikely to be the right solution in these circumstances.

Taken together, Amendments 48 to 53 would expand the types of agricultural worker that other rural tenants can be evicted in order to house. Amendment 48 replaces the word “person” in the ground with the term “agricultural worker”. As I have discussed, we do not support the overall intent of these amendments, which would reduce security of tenure for all rural tenants with a landlord engaged in agriculture.

Amendment 49 removes the requirement for the incoming tenant to be employed by the landlord, replacing it with a broader definition of “working for a business operated” by the landlord. Amendment 50 specifically mentions service occupants, who are defined later. Amendment 51 changes the wording of the ground from “employee” to the broader “agricultural worker”. Amendment 52 adds a definition of “agricultural worker” for the purposes of the ground which is far broader than an employee. Amendment 53 defines “service occupier” for the purpose of the ground.

The current drafting of ground 5A allows for tenants to be evicted only in order to house employees. Together, these amendments expand this group to include service occupants, contractors and self-employed persons. This definition is far too broad and would endanger security of tenure for existing rural tenants. It would give a landlord running an agricultural business a much freer hand to evict anyone living in their property by, for example, creating a contract with another person to do a nominal amount of work for them. It is just not the right balance. Rural tenants do not deserve less security than others, and the amendments proposed would open up tenants renting from a landlord involved in agriculture to being evicted in a much wider range of circumstances. For this reason, I ask for Amendment 48 to be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 48 and not move his other amendments.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Can the Minister explain how this scenario will work? It happens quite a lot, particularly on dairy farms, in my experience. Let us say that an employee milking as a herdsman, living in the one herdsman’s property on the farm, leaves at quite short notice. The day after that employee goes, the cows still have to be milked. The only way to get somebody in quickly to milk them is on contract—that is an easy way of doing it. How will you get that person living close enough to be able to look after the welfare of that herd of cows and milk them twice or three times a day when you do not have any property because you cannot get rid of the employee who has left?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Presumably there would be a time lag anyway because of the notice period that is required. Whatever arrangements are made in those circumstances would need to be used in the circumstances that the noble Baroness describes.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

68: Clause 6, page 8, line 21, leave out “may” and insert “must”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to understand in what circumstances the Government feels it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State not to publish the form or ensure the form is the up-to-date version.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will be brief. Amendment 68 seeks to make a modest but sensible change to Clause 6 by replacing “may” with “must”. The intention here is clear: to ensure that the Secretary of State is under a duty—not merely a discretion—to publish the prescribed form for a notice of possession and to ensure that it is kept up to date. We simply do not understand why the Government believe that discretion is necessary in this case. If a form is to be relied on by landlords and tenants alike, and ultimately by the courts, it must be accessible and current. Anything less introduces the risk of confusion, inconsistency or even procedural unfairness.

Can the Government kindly explain the rationale behind retaining this discretion? In what circumstances does the Secretary of State envisage not publishing the form or not ensuring that the version in use is the most recent? This is a matter of basic clarity and procedural transparency, and I hope the Minister can provide some reassurance on this point.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I find myself in a strange position: having argued earlier on discretionary powers to change “must” to “may”, I now find myself in support of changing a “may” to a “must”. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that making this open, available and transparent would be a good thing. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope that I can explain this very quickly and simply. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendment regarding the form of notice for proceedings. Clause 6 allows the Secretary of State to publish the prescribed form to be used when landlords serve notice of intention to begin possession proceedings. The form will continue to be published on GOV.UK. Amendment 68 by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would not affect whether the Government are required to prescribe that form. This requirement is already laid out in Section 8(3) of the Housing Act 1988 and is not repealed by any measure in the Renters’ Rights Bill.

Clause 6 provides that regulations may allow the Secretary of State to publish and update the required form without the need for any updates to be made by way of statutory instrument, as is currently the case. It is crucial that the information that landlords are required to provide reflects current law. This clause will allow regulations to be made so that we can update the forms at speed and respond to changing circumstances. As the notice of possession proceedings remains a prescribed form under Section 8(3) of the Housing Act 1988, the requirement for the Government to prescribe the form persists; however, Clause 6 provides a simpler mechanism in which the form can be updated—it is the mechanism that changes.

I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. I am afraid that I am still confused, and what I would like to do is to read her explanation in Hansard and reserve the right to bring this back if we do not think that it is clear. It did not quite make sense to me, but I am sure that it might if I read it in the next couple of days. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 68 withdrawn.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 28th April 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

69: After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
“Assessment of operation of possession process(1) The Lord Chancellor must prepare an assessment of the operation of the process by which—(a) on applications made by landlords the county court is able to make orders for the possession of dwellings in England that are let under assured and regulated tenancies, and(b) such orders are enforced.(2) The Lord Chancellor must publish the assessment at such time, and in such manner, as the Lord Chancellor thinks appropriate.(3) In this section—“assured tenancy” means an assured tenancy within the meaning of the 1988 Act;“dwelling” means a building or part of a building which is occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling;“regulated tenancy” means a regulated tenancy within the meaning of the Rent Act 1977.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Lord Chancellor to assess the operation of the possession process to ensure that the courts service has the capacity to deal with the increased demand expected because of this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to this group of amendments and to thank my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their amendments.

Before I get into the substance of the debate, I would like to issue a plea. I hope the Minister knows that I have the utmost respect for her. However, so far in Committee, we have been disappointed with the responses we have received to our debates and amendments. I can say in good conscience that, when I sat in her seat on her side of the Chamber, I treated every amendment put before me with respect; I often took issues back to the department to consider and, where possible, made changes. That is because I understood that it was the role of the House of Lords to scrutinise, revise and improve legislation. Unfortunately, it does not feel like this is still happening. Questions go unanswered and suggestions are dismissed without sufficient consideration.

This House has always been more about reason and substance than blind political ideology. I hope that the Minister can approach our debates going forward in that vein. I know full well that Ministers cannot always have the answers at their fingertips, and I am very happy to have written answers on points of details. However, I do ask that the Minister treats our House and our suggestions seriously, in the nature that they are intended.

This group addresses a critical issue that will determine the success or failure of the Bill: the capacity of our courts to deliver it. Let me say from the outset that we fully support the ambition to strengthen security and fairness in the private rented sector. That commitment was made clear in the previous Renters (Reform) Bill. Within that, the previous Conservative Government set out that Section 21 would not be abolished until meaningful court reform had been undertaken and sufficient progress achieved. Such caution was not merely prudent but essential, considering the challenges facing our courts system.

This Bill abandons the careful sequencing we set out under the previous Renters (Reform) Bill. Under our approach, Section 21 would not have been abolished until meaningful improvements had been made to His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service. We also committed to a six-month implementation period for new tenancies to ensure that the system could cope. These safeguards were not incidental; they were essential.

However, in this Bill, those safeguards are gone. There is no clear commitment to upgrade court capacity before abolishing Section 21 and no phased rollout to protect the system from being overwhelmed. As a result, we face a real risk that our courts will be asked to carry out a far more demanding role without the necessary resources, reforms or readiness.

The ambition of the Renters’ Rights Bill is commendable, but ambition alone is not enough. We must also confront the operational realities. This legislation will place significant demands on our already stretched courts and tribunals system. If we press ahead without ensuring that the system is properly resourced, modernised and fully functional, we risk undermining the very objectives that the Bill sets out to achieve. Tenants and landlords alike need a process they can trust: one that is timely, fair and accessible. Without that, this reform will falter at the first hurdle.

Let us be clear about the scale of what we are asking the courts to do under this legislation. With the removal of Section 21, we are fundamentally reshaping the legal framework for possession. Possession cases that might previously have been resolved swiftly, albeit controversially, will now be channelled through more complex, contested grounds. This is a just and necessary step, but it is one that demands an equal and opposite increase in our ability to administer justice efficiently.

Yet the system is not ready. The Civil Justice Council, the Law Society and countless court users have been sounding the alarm for years. Backlogs are rising, court rooms lie unused for lack of staff and overburdened judges are stretched too thin. In some parts of the country, landlords wait months, not weeks, for a simple hearing. In turn, tenants are left in limbo and often under the threat of eviction without resolution or recourse.

We must remember that delay is not neutral. It is not a benign inconvenience. It is a deeply disruptive force in people’s lives. For a landlord, it might mean months without rental income, with mortgage arrears mounting. For a tenant, it means living in a state of uncertainty. That silence—those weeks and months of not knowing—is not just stressful but debilitating. It leaves tenants feeling powerless and unable to plan their future and move forward.

It is for that reason that I urge the Minister to consider carefully Amendment 69 in my name, which requires the Lord Chancellor to conduct an assessment of the possession process. This assessment would examine how county courts handle applications from landlords for possession of properties under both assured and regulated tenancies, and how those orders are subsequently enforced.

This is a foundational step. If we are to move away from Section 21, we must be absolutely confident that the remaining legal routes for possession are functioning effectively, fairly and in a timely manner. This is not just a tick-box exercise; it is about ensuring we have a legitimate understanding of where our courts stand, their capacity and whether they are in any fit state to take on the increased volume and complexity of cases that this Bill will inevitably bring.

The amendment ensures transparency, accountability and evidence-based implementation. Without such an assessment, we risk walking blindly into a situation where the courts become the bottleneck, where neither landlords nor tenants can get timely access to justice. Likewise, Amendment 283 provides an essential safeguard. It would ensure that Section 21 cannot be abolished until the assessment outlined in Amendment 69 has been published and, crucially, that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the courts have the capacity to manage the increased demand. This is not an attempt to delay reform indefinitely; it is a commonsense measure to ensure that reform is deliverable. It puts the infrastructure in place before the policy takes effect. Without this step, we risk setting both tenants and landlords adrift in a system that simply cannot cope.

I look forward to hearing from other noble Lords on this very significant group. The amendments from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, in particular, underscore the necessity of certifying that the court system has the capacity to manage the anticipated increase in possession cases. Amendment 279 in his name stipulates:

“None of the provisions of this Act, other than this subsection, come into force until the Secretary of State certifies that the average time for the court’s disposal of landlords possession actions in respect of residential property is as timely as in the year ending 23 March 2020”.


This benchmark is not arbitrary. It reflects a period when the system was functioning at a level that we can reasonably expect to return to. Furthermore, Amendment 280, also in his name, reinforces this by requiring the Secretary of State to certify that the courts are not only timely but efficient and adequately resourced to handle the increased caseload.

These amendments are not about delaying progress. They are about ensuring that progress is achievable and that the reforms we implement are not undermined by an overburdened and underresourced court system. As we have discussed, the abolition of Section 21 will undoubtedly lead to more contested possession proceedings. Without the necessary court capacity, we risk exacerbating the very issue that we seek to address: delays, uncertainty and a lack of access to justice for both tenants and landlords. The amendments before us today provide a prudent and responsible approach to ensuring that our court system is ready to meet these challenges.

In conclusion, I urge the Government to give serious consideration to these amendments. They represent a balanced approach that aligns the ambition of the Renters’ Rights Bill with the practical realities of our courts system. We have noble Lords present who are experts in that system and I look forward to listening to their contributions. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 205 in my name has much in common with the other amendments in this group, which are probing amendments to see whether the capacity of the courts is up to dealing with the cases that are likely to come before them—not least the likely increase in possession cases when the Act is implemented, and of course to deal with any backlog that has accrued between now and when it comes into effect.

Amendment 283, in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott, is the most demanding of the amendments. It basically defers the abolition of Section 21 until an assessment of court capacity has been completed and the Secretary of State is satisfied about capacity. Amendment 69 finds her in a more conciliatory mood. That amendment does not delay the abolition of Section 21 but requires the Lord Chancellor to monitor progress and ensure that the capacity is there, and it sets no time limit on that assessment. My Amendment 205 finds a middle way, requiring the assessment to be carried out within six months of the passage of the Bill, while Amendment 264, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, is more generous, allowing two years. Neither would hold up the abolition of Section 21.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

That is completely correct. We need to make sure we are taking account of the impact on the system from the start. We believe that over time it will reduce the volume of cases going to the court service. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, pointed out, not many cases end up in the courts system, but there are some that go down that route. We will be monitoring them from the outset.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

On that point, I have just gone online and it is still being quoted that there is a seven-month delay, as my noble friend Lord Northbrook said. If it becomes clear during the process leading to the implementation of the Bill that the courts cannot cope and it will have a severe impact on people’s lives—the lives of both landlords and tenants—will His Majesty’s Government be brave enough to slow down the implementation of this Bill?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As I hope I have already made clear, we do not want to slow down implementation. We think the reforms we are bringing forward are really important and very much overdue. We do not expect that it will have the impact the noble Baroness has just outlined, but we will continue to monitor it and we will support our friends in the courts service with whatever help they need to make sure the impact is mitigated.

I turn finally to Amendments 279 and 280, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I thank the noble Lord for his continued engagement on the Bill, particularly on the judicial impacts. It has been incredibly valuable to me to have that input. Amendment 280 would require the Secretary of State to certify that landlord possession actions in respect of residential property are processed by the courts in no greater time, on average, than they were in the year before the first Covid-19 lockdown. In addition, Amendment 279 would delay the commencement of important reforms until this proposed assessment had been carried out.

As I have previously outlined, I recognise that landlords need a smooth and efficient process in the county court for the minority of cases where court action for possession becomes necessary. But we will not tie the implementation of these urgent reforms to an arbitrary target of court timeliness. The sector has already waited too long.

As noted, the Ministry of Justice already publishes quarterly statistics on the operation of the county court possession process, and court rules specify that possession cases requiring a hearing should be listed between four and eight weeks from the issue of the claim. If the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, says that that figure is still disputed, I am happy to get back to her on that.

Setting a target for the possession process as a gateway for the operation of other Bill provisions would not be meaningful. A key stage of the process is the application for a warrant of possession. This is dependent on the actions of the landlord and is therefore outside the control of the courts service. Where a tenant stays in a property beyond the date set out in the possession order, a landlord can choose whether to apply for a warrant immediately to enforce a possession order granted by the court, and whether to apply to transfer the case to the High Court. We will continue to work closely with the Ministry of Justice on implementing these reforms. This includes ensuring that the county court has the resources it needs to adjust to any changes in case loads, and that the relevant rules and procedures are updated. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, requested a meeting. I am very happy to continue meeting on the progress of digitisation and the other interim steps that we are likely to take.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl for clarifying that point. Indeed, I was talking about the claims to order median timeliness being eight weeks. It is difficult to take measures from different places—there are lies, damned lies and statistics, as we all know—but, as I mentioned, in the longer term we expect the reforms we are introducing to reduce the volume of possession claims. That is why the monitoring that I set out in response to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, is really important, so that we can see where this is taking us. We expect that only those cases where there is a clear, well-evidenced ground for possession will be able to proceed, and that should, over time, reduce the volumes overall.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the insightful contributions made during this debate and the amendments we have discussed, particularly those proposed by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I thank my noble friend Lord Wolfson for speaking to them with such in-depth knowledge, which was much appreciated. The whole debate underscores shared concerns across the Committee about the capacity of our courts to effectively implement the Bill.

As I made clear throughout the previous days in Committee, the ambition to reform the private rented sector is commendable, yet without a robust and adequately resourced court system, these reforms risk being totally undermined. Amendments 283 and 69 in my name would create a foundational aim to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is in place before significant changes are enacted, thereby safeguarding the interests of both tenants and landlords.

The Minister remarked on the first day of Committee and has continued to say that the Government are working with the Ministry of Justice to complete a justice impact test. This assessment is intended to identify the additional burdens on the system arising from the new policies in the Bill and to ensure that the system is fully prepared for any increases in workload. This commitment is welcomed, but we need to know how long this justice impact test will take to complete. Will it be ready before the Bill progresses through Parliament? Given the significant implications for the court system, it is imperative that this assessment is thorough and timely and that the Bill is impacted only once we know the court system is ready for these changes.

The capacity of our courts is not a peripheral concern; it is central to the success of this legislation. As we have discussed, delays in the court process are not merely procedural; they have a real-world consequence for tenants and landlords alike. I urge the Minister to expediate the impact test and to ensure its findings are fully considered before any further steps are taken. I reiterate the importance of aligning the ambition of the Bill with the practical realities of our court system. The amendments before us provide a prudent approach to achieving this balance. I look forward to the Minister’s response and to continuing our discussions on how best to deliver. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment at this point.

Amendment 69 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I do not doubt the genuine compassion and sincerity of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, but I feel there is a real incongruity about the current position of His Majesty’s Official Opposition to favour landlords and make evictions quicker and easier. The message to tenants via this amendment is, “Your unwanted evictions will take place only in the school holidays, so on 21 December rather than earlier in December”. I genuinely feel that it would be unworkable and that circumstances differ. I could actually argue the opposite: I would rather my children were safe in school while I negotiated trying to find where we were to live. I just do not think we can say that one size fits all on this.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for bringing Amendment 70 before the Committee today. It is a thoughtful and considered probing amendment that rightly recognises the significant impact that housing stability can have on a child’s education. During the pandemic, our children and grandchildren suffered greatly. Schools were closed, youth clubs shut down and extracurricular activities ground to a halt. The disruption left many young people adrift at a crucial stage of their development, and only now are we beginning to understand the effects. It is therefore incumbent on us all to support and uplift the next generation. However, the Government must ensure that the burden does not fall disproportionately on individual landlords. It is not, and should not be, their moral obligation to serve as the final safety net for vulnerable families. That responsibility lies with us—with the state, with local authorities and with society.

Owning a property does not automatically confer great wealth. It does not equip an individual to shoulder the complex needs of a struggling family. The Government must tread carefully to ensure that their actions do not drive up costs in this sector, which fall most heavily and disproportionately on low-income families and the most vulnerable members of our society. A sustainable housing market depends on both tenant security and landlords’ confidence. This is a very tough balance to strike, but I believe that the onus is on us all to strike it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her amendment, which would allow the court to grant an order for possession of a property that houses school-aged children only during school holidays, and I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott, for their comments. I understand the probing nature of the amendment and the compassion that sits behind it. However, I gently point out that at the latest count, we have 160,000 children in temporary and emergency accommodation, a situation driven by the lack of attention to the housing situation paid by her Government. Therefore, while we want to do as much as we can to support families and children, I think it takes quite a lot of front to come before this Committee with this kind of proposal when we have that terrible situation of 160,000 children in temporary and emergency accommodation. I heard this morning of a three year-old who has been homeless for his entire life—astonishing.

Anyway, I appreciate the sentiment; however, I am going to talk about the practicality of delivering it. It would likely mean that, where possession has been sought, the courts would need to check whether the property contains school-age children and whether it is the school holidays or not, before scheduling a hearing. Not only would this create additional work for the courts—we have just spent quite some time debating the pressure the courts are already under—it could cause delays for landlords in obtaining possession orders. That is an issue the Opposition have taken great interest in. For example, a landlord’s case could be next in line to be heard, but, because it is the beginning of the school summer holidays, the hearing would be delayed for six weeks.

Furthermore, although provision is made within the amendment for regulations to be made annually to define the school periods, it would be an onerous task. School holidays vary across local authority areas and sectors; they can even vary within an individual area. My grandchildren live at the same address but go to different schools and have different holidays. This would likely cause confusion and added complexity for landlords who wish to seek possession of their properties.

While it is absolutely right that tenants enjoy a greater level of security in their homes, we have said that landlords must enjoy robust grounds for possession where there is good reason for them to seek to take their property back. It would not be reasonable to add additional barriers, complexities or delays to the possession process.

Our reforms give renters much greater security and stability, so they can stay in their homes for longer, build lives and communities and avoid the risk of homelessness. That is why we are introducing the many protections for tenants, such as banning Section 21 evictions, increasing notice periods and introducing a 12-month protected period at the beginning of a tenancy during which landlords cannot evict them to move into or sell the property. However, that must be balanced with the needs of landlords, who must enjoy those robust grounds we have already spoken about. Judges already have some discretion when deciding the date on which a tenant should give up possession. Even if an outright possession order is made, pursuant to a Section 21 notice or on a mandatory ground, the date for possession can be postponed for up to six weeks if a tenant can show that this would cause exceptional hardship.

As well as it being impractical, there is also a principled argument against this amendment. Being evicted will almost always be a significant upheaval for tenants—I accept that—particularly for those with children, so I understand the intent behind it. However, it would not necessarily—as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, pointed out—always be easier for parents to deal with a possession order or eviction during the school holidays. During termtime, parents may have significantly fewer caring responsibilities, particularly if their children are younger. Therefore, many parents find the school holidays a time of increased responsibility and stress. Families being evicted during school holidays may also mean having to take up that school holiday with the necessities of moving, rather than doing activities with the children. So it may make it more difficult for families, not easier. It is for these reasons, both practical and principled, that I ask for this amendment to be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

75: Clause 7, page 9, line 23, leave out from “14” to end of line 25
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment questions the Government's reasons for preventing the tenant and landlord from agreeing a rent value that is higher than the rent set by the Tribunal under Section 14.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, in my response to all amendments in this group, I will be guided by a principle of stability and fairness—fairness for both tenants and landlords. This is not a debate about unchecked gain, and nor should it result in the erosion of property rights. It is about balance, responsibility and securing a system that works for everyone.

Amendment 75 in my name probes the Government’s reasons for preventing the tenant and landlord agreeing a rent value that is higher than the rent set by the tribunal. Just consider this scenario: the tribunal makes a determination, but then the landlord embarks on a renovation, which includes new appliances and upgrades throughout the property. Under this legislation, even if a tenant voluntarily wishes to pay a higher rent to reflect improvements made to the property, they would be prohibited from doing so. Two consenting adults, tenant and landlord, may well agree that the enhanced value of the home warrants a modest increase in rent. A mutual agreement will exist and yet the Bill would override that agreement. Why should the Government intervene to prevent it? That is one example, but it is, in truth, superfluous to the broader point I wish to make. If a mutual will exists—if two adults come to an agreement, regardless of whether we personally deem their reasons rational—why should any Government say no? Why should this Bill override that choice? We must be careful not to legislate away agency in the pursuit of protection, and I hope the Minister will reflect on that.

Amendment 78 in my name seeks to prevent the Secretary of State expanding the definition of low-cost tenancy by regulation. This definition is important: it is not a technicality but fundamental. It determines not only how a property is treated under the law but how the relationship between the tenant and the landlord is structured. I understand that this is a significant power. Does the Minister agree? Anyone familiar with detail in the implications of this Bill will surely recognise that the power of a Minister to alter the foundations of an existing contract is unacceptable. Therefore, can the Minister commit to removing this regulatory power ahead of Report? If not, can she please set out in writing why she believes the Government should be afforded this power?

Finally, Amendment 86, in my name, probes the Government’s reasons for allowing a six-month period in which an application may be made to the tribunal under the newly constructed Section 14(A1). Six months could lead to a significant increase in claims being directed towards an already overburdened tribunal service. Have the Government properly considered multiple timescales and modelled the impact each would have on the tribunal system? If this vital work has been overlooked, will the Minister commit to reviewing the impact of the chosen timescale on the total claims and return to the Dispatch Box with this at a later time? This is not an unreasonable request, and I hope the Minister agrees.

Many of the amendments in this group are intended to probe the Government’s thinking and understand how they have arrived at the current text of the Bill. Unsurprisingly, given the importance of these matters, this group contains numerous amendments; I hope the Minister listens carefully to the views expressed across the Committee and is not too ready to dismiss them all in her reply. I beg to move.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 80, 80A, 82 and 83 in my name. Each relates to the potential unintended consequences of Clause 7 for registered providers of social housing. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his support.

Before turning to my amendments, I express my strong support for the Government’s ambition to give greater rights and protections to people renting their home. Since the previous Conservative Government first promised to end no-fault evictions in 2019, almost a million renters have received a Section 21 eviction, which is a leading cause of homelessness. It is right that the Government have acted decisively to end this unacceptable situation for good.

While most of the Bill is focused on reforming the private rented sector, some reforms will affect housing associations because the majority of homes that they provide use assured tenancies. This includes housing for people on low incomes, people needing high levels of support, people in crisis and people in need of short-term and emergency accommodation.

I understand that significant progress has been made to amend the Bill to negate any unintended consequences for social landlords. This has been strongly welcomed by the National Housing Federation and others that support this legislation. There have been welcome changes to ground 1B and ground 6, as well as the introduction of ground 6ZA, which will allow social landlords to gain access to properties both to meet housing need and to deliver essential redevelopment and improvement works. However, housing associations would still very much like to see further clarity in the Bill on proposed changes to the process for rent increases.

Housing associations are not-for-profit social landlords: they invest any income back into the development and maintenance of the homes they provide and into supporting residents and communities. To maintain fairness for tenants, to ensure administrative efficiency and alignment with benefits and utility rates increases, and to provide business certainty for repairs, maintenance and services, housing associations increase all tenants’ rent on the same day, usually in April. The Bill helpfully acknowledges this and attempts to provide a mechanism by which social landlords can still administer annual rent increases in the form of contractual clauses instead of Section 13A notices.

Retaining registered providers’ ability to use clauses in tenancy agreements to increase rents is positive, as it provides them with a practical method for increasing rents on the same day for all tenants. The loss of this rent-harmonisation mechanism would have been a significant disruption—and, indeed, unnecessary, given how heavily regulated this sector is compared with the private rented sector.

However, the ability to use contractual clauses instead of Section 13A notices could be clearer than is stated in the Bill currently. The Explanatory Notes clarify that contractual clause increases can be used, but the Bill says:

“For the purpose of securing an increase in the rent under a tenancy … the landlord may serve on the tenant a notice”.


It goes on. This reflects the wording applying to PRS tenancies, where the word “may” is used in a mandatory sense, as the only way that the landlord can increase the rent is through the process in Section 13 of the 1988 Act. In contrast, where it applies to relevant registered provider tenancies, “may” is used in a permissive sense: the landlord can use a Section 13A notice, but they also have the option to increase by a clause in the tenancy agreement.

The Bill provides for this method of increase by agreement between the landlord and the tenant. However, it does not make it clear whether each increase must be agreed or whether a mechanism for increase in the tenancy agreement covers all increases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am not saying that; I am saying that the penalty for the person challenging their rent would be in the debt that accrued from the backdating. That is the point I was trying to make.

Amendment 97 is a consequential amendment linked to Amendment 94 which aims to ensure that, where a tenant challenges a rent increase notice at the tribunal, any rent increase determined by the tribunal would be backdated to the date on a Section 13 notice. I have already set out why the Government do not agree tenants should be forced to pay backdated rent.

Amendments 96 and 98, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, should be considered in the light of his Amendment 103. Amendment 96 would allow a rent increase to be backdated to the date of the notice. It would, however, limit this to cases where the tribunal has determined that the rent increase proposed by the landlord is the same as or lower than the market rate.

Amendment 98 would similarly change when the rent increases apply after the tribunal determines a rent. It would mean that, if the tribunal finds that a landlord’s proposed rent is lower than the market rate, the rent increase would take effect from the date the landlord originally intended. However, where a landlord has proposed a rent above the open market rate, it would apply from a date on or after the date of the tribunal hearing. I understand the noble Lord’s concerns about the potential for the courts to be overwhelmed. We have had extensive discussions on this capacity issue.

I believe I answered his points around the ECHR in response to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, last week, but I am happy to take that back to the department’s lawyers again. I have also responded previously to the noble Lord’s points about the impact on build-to-rent investment. The Government do not agree that tenants should be forced to pay backdated rent.

I have more amendments to get through, but I see that I am out of time. If noble Lords are happy for me to carry on, I will.

Amendment 99, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, seeks to backdate a rent increase to the date of the notice. It provides that tenants may either pay the backdated rent in one payment or in 12 equal instalments. Amendment 104 is consequential to Amendment 99 and seeks to define the terms “the uplifted rent” and “the rent difference”. Amendment 101, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking, similarly proposes that tenants pay a backdated rent increase in equal instalments for a period of up to six months after the date of the tribunal’s determination. I am sympathetic to the underlying premise of these amendments, which is that tenants might face financial problems in paying a rent increase approved by the tribunal. Although these amendments seek to smooth out the impact of an increase, it is much better to remove the cause of the problem, which our current policy achieves by ruling out backdating in the first place. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press these amendments.

Amendment 100, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking, seeks to remove the tribunal’s ability to delay a rent increase for up to two months after the date of determination in cases of undue hardship. The Government strongly believe that being able to defer rent increases for a short period is a necessary protection for renters. This will give them time to adjust and consider their options, while ensuring that the landlord can achieve market rent. I therefore ask my noble friend not to press his amendment.

Finally—noble Lords will be pleased to hear that—Amendment 106, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would require the Secretary of State to carry out a consultation on the resources available to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). My department has worked closely with His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service and the Ministry of Justice throughout the formulation of this Bill. This collaboration has carefully considered implementation and resourcing issues. Our shared aim is that the tribunals are well equipped to implement our reforms effectively, as I have repeated a number of times during our debates. Work is progressing in the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) to increase capacity, as well as to review resource and working practices. The noble Baroness’s amendment understandably reflects the need to ensure the tribunals are equipped to implement these reforms, but the proposed consultation would not provide any new information beyond the work that is already under way. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness not to press this amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, as expected, this has been a technical and densely packed group of amendments, with numerous contributions from noble Lords who clearly possess deep knowledge of this Bill. I have found their insights invaluable, and I trust the Government will reflect seriously on the points raised today.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, for rightly seeking clarification on the mechanism available to social housing providers to increase rents. Amendments 80, 80A, 82 and 83 are thoughtful probing amendments and we thank the noble Baroness for bringing these to the attention of everyone in the Committee today. This is an important issue for both social housing providers and for tenants living in social housing. Clear rules and understandable mechanisms build trust and transparency. Furthermore, a standardised approach, underpinned by clear and consistent rules, ensures confidence in the process that governs rent and tenancy management. The Government have a duty to communicate these mechanisms, not only to this House but to those forced to respond to this incoming legislation. In fact, I would argue that the latter is much more important. As we have repeatedly noted throughout Committee, this legislation is technical and detailed, and so the Minister has an obligation to clarify. I trust she will welcome any further amendments brought forward with the purpose of testing and probing the Government’s rationale and decision-making process.

I now turn to Amendment 87, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich. Any amendment brought to the attention of this Committee which seeks to alleviate the pressures on the tribunal process must be considered by the Government. This is an important area, and the noble Baroness should be commended for putting forward ideas to help filter out appeals which simply do not have any prospect of success. Prolonged uncertainty is not good for the landlord or the tenant. Delays in resolving disputes will keep both parties up at night and add to the pressures of everyday life. Additionally, backlogs will reduce confidence in the system and many will lose faith with that service as a legitimate protector of their interests. This is not an exhaustive description of all the issues arising from an overburdened system, but it highlights the serious risks we face if these concerns are not addressed.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, rightly highlighted the critical issue of resourcing within the tribunal system. This is a thoughtful amendment which clearly commands support. Ensuring that the tribunal system is adequately resourced is vital. The Secretary of State must take responsibility for ensuring that their own policies do not undermine or overwhelm the very system intended to deliver justice and security for tenants and landlords alike. My noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, among many others, spoke with his usual vigour and clarity on this issue. On many issues in Committee he has shown his understanding that it is only by striking the right balance in this legislation—I will say it again—that we can we hope to achieve an efficient and effective rental market for the future.

Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, seeks to reduce the backlog by adding a drawback or consequence of taking a case to tribunal if unsuccessful. I recognise the determination of the noble Lord to take the pressure off the tribunal system.

Amendment 90, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, raises an interesting probing issue in relation to government grants. I was interested to hear that the Minister is going to look into this further. I welcome that and will be interested in what she comes forward with.

I turn to Amendments 91, 94, 97 and 100, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. The Committee is right to consider amendments that tighten up and clarify the timing of when a rent increase or notice becomes effective. The Committee is also right to explore options that ensure a predictable timeline for this process, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for tabling these amendments.

Lastly, I briefly allude to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. Amendment 104 highlights the importance of clear, conscious definitions within law. Definitions provide certainty and consistency in application, and every Bill should have well-defined terms. Our courts rely on this, our public bodies rely on it and those who are expected to follow the law deserve it. I hope that the Minister agrees with this principle.

Next, Amendment 99, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is a useful probe into rent tribunals. To remind the Committee, this amendment would ensure that, if a rent challenge were unsuccessful, the reviewed rent would apply from the date that the increase was due to take effect, rather than the end of the legal process. We must consider the incentives and signals that the legislation sends to tenants, but additionally we must seek to protect landlords from financial losses caused by legal delays firmly out of their own control. I listened to what the Minister said on this, but we will be bringing this back for further discussion in the future. Across the Committee, we must consider proposals that ensure that tenants are not hit with sudden, unaffordable lump sums, but also ensure that landlords are properly compensated for a lawful rent increase. This amendment would bring this consideration front and centre, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for speaking to it today.

Briefly, Amendments 96, 98 and 103, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, are interesting and quite thoughtful proposals. Where it is possible to do so fairly, rent should indeed be determined at the open market rate. Ensuring that rents reflect genuine market conditions helps to maintain balance and fairness in the market, for both tenants and landlords.

This was a packed and detailed group, with numerous proposals from across the Committee. Not only did I find it a fascinating debate, but once again it highlighted noble Lords’ understanding of the key issues facing the sector. I hope the Minister is listening carefully to the knowledge and expertise across this Chamber and can therefore help the Government make this a successful Bill at the end of the process. We have to ensure that we can enhance the availability of houses, alleviate the burden of unaffordable rents and really deliver security for tenants. Right across the Committee, we agree that renters need a better deal, but I fear that this group is yet another part of the story and, as it stands, the Bill is not quite the answer. However, at this time, I wish to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 75 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

92: Clause 8, page 12, line 34, leave out “, if lower than the tenancy rent,”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the requirement that agreed tenancy rents can only be decreased by the Tribunal, therefore removing the potential incentive for tenants to appeal all rent increases when they would only go down or stay the same.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 92, 93, 95, 102 and 105 in my name, which relate to rent controls and caps. I apologise if I repeat quite a bit that other noble Lords have been debating, but I think this is an important issue and I would like to give my own explanation of my amendments in this group.

Amendment 92 in my name addresses an issue of critical concern both to landlords and to the overall functioning of the rental market. The current provision limits the ability of tribunals to increase rent, allowing only for reductions. Let us pause for a moment to consider what such a provision creates. In practice, what incentive does it give to tenants? In essence, this provision incentivises a clear motivation for tenants to appeal all rent increases, as we heard earlier, regardless of whether the increases are reasonable, aligned with market value or necessary. Why? Because they know that the worst outcome for them will be that their rent is either frozen or reduced.

I have tried over the course of our debates on this Bill to understand the Government’s position on many of its provisions. On this provision, I find myself asking who exactly came up with this. Who thought it was fair or reasonable to restrict the ability of tribunals to increase rents while leaving only the option for reductions?

Under this existing framework, tribunals can never increase rents, regardless of the circumstances. Not only does this create a totally imbalanced system within the rental market: more pressingly, how will the tribunals cope? How can we expect the tribunals to fairly adjudicate cases when the scope of their decision-making is so narrowly constrained?

On the issue of tribunal capacity, I once again ask the Minister to assure the House that tribunals will have the necessary resources and capacity to manage the inevitable increase in the number of cases under this new system. If the Minister does not have the figures on this available today, can she commit to writing to me with the details in full? It is essential that we understand how the Government intend to support the tribunals, given the increasing workload and the very real risk of backlogs that this Bill may introduce. I do not believe that it is sufficient simply to introduce this provision without a clear plan for ensuring that tribunals can operate efficiently and without significant delays.

I must ask: is this what we really want? Are we truly creating a fair system if landlords are unable to maintain rents that reflect the realities of the market? At what point do we risk undermining the rental market altogether? If landlords begin to feel that any rent increase, no matter how justified, will result in a tribunal-imposed reduction or freeze, will they not simply choose to exit the market—and what will this do to the rental supply?

To put it plainly, this provision will lead to fewer rental properties, fewer long-term stable tenancies and, ultimately, higher rents for tenants. We cannot ignore the wider consequences of this approach. Amendment 92 seeks to correct this imbalance by giving tribunals the discretion to make a neutral decision based on the facts before them. It would allow the tribunal to increase rents if justified, just as it could reduce rents when necessary. In doing this, we would be creating a balanced system that reflects the realities of the housing market and treats both landlords and tenants fairly.

Amendment 93 addresses another fundamental issue: the ability of tribunals to backdate rent reductions. How can it be fair to require landlords to repay rent that they agreed to in good faith at the start of the tenancy? If a rent increase has been agreed to, how can we justify forcing landlords to pay back significant sums retrospectively? The provision does not just destabilise the relationship between the landlord and the tenant; it undermines the entire principle of contractual fairness. If landlords face the risk of backdating payments, why would they agree to any rent increases at all? And what happens to trust between landlords and tenants when rents can be altered retrospectively? The solution is simple. Amendment 93 would ensure that rent reductions cannot be backdated, promoting stability and fairness.

Amendment 95 ties directly into this. It addresses the delay of rent increases by tribunals. How can we justify automatic delays to rent increases when those increases are fair, reasonable and in line with market conditions? This provision creates an incentive for tenants to appeal rent increases simply to delay them. Of course tenants would do this—if they know that they can delay rent increases for months or even longer, regardless of whether the increase is justified, why would they not do that?

The reality is that the current system encourages tenants to use the tribunal process as a delaying tactic, even when there is no real case against the rent increase. What does this do to landlords, who rely on these rent increases to cover rising costs, maintain their properties and meet their financial obligations? What happens to them when the tribunal can, at any time, delay a rent increase without a justifiable reason?

I therefore ask the Minister how the Government expect landlords to respond to this. Can she explain why we are encouraging tenants to delay rent increases when the increases are reasonable and necessary? Does she not see that this provision disincentivises landlords from entering or remaining in the rental market at all? If we allow this to continue, the only winners will be tenants who exploit the system. Landlords will be left with fewer options and fewer incentives to maintain or improve their properties. At what point do we risk irreparable damage to the rental market?

Amendment 95 seeks to correct this imbalance by ensuring that rent increases are delayed only where there is clear evidence of undue hardship for the tenant. This would prevent tenants delaying rent increases simply for convenience and would provide landlords with the certainty they need to operate within a fair system.

Why is the Renters’ Rights Bill so intent on restricting rent increases, when in many cases increases are entirely justified by market conditions? The provision that rents can only be decreased creates an artificial cap that disregards the economic reality of the rental market.

Moreover, by limiting rents to reductions, we are effectively disincentivising landlords from maintaining or improving their properties. Is the Minister aware of the potential long-term consequences of this? Amendment 102 seeks to address this by replacing the requirement for rents to be decreased with a possibility for rents to be adjusted according to the circumstances. This would create a more flexible and fair approach, one that allows the tribunal to consider the economic reality of the rental market without imposing artificial restrictions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Market rates are usually driven by demand, not by what happens in the courts, so I do not think that will be the case.

On Amendment 95, for too long tenants have been afraid to challenge an unreasonable rent increase for the fear that the rent can be raised beyond what the landlord has asked for. The Bill will reform how the tribunal works to ensure that tenants feel confident in challenging poor practice and can enforce their rights. The tribunal will not be able to increase rent beyond what the landlord initially proposed. That strikes the right balance between empowering tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases and ensuring that landlords can increase to the market rent.

Amendment 95 would require the tribunal to backdate a rent increase to the date of the rent increase notice, except where this is likely to cause undue hardship to the tenant. This amendment would punish the most vulnerable tenants who may already be struggling financially. Therefore, to ensure tenants are not unexpectedly thrust into debt, it is right that the new rent amount would take effect no earlier than the date of the tribunal determination. This will give tenants the time to prepare for any changes to their rent and seek independent advice on how best to manage their finances. For the sake of clarity, I repeat that the tenant will continue to pay the rent that they were paying before—it is the increase in the rent that is being challenged through this process.

Turning to Amendment 102, I reiterate that applying to the tribunal should be a last resort for a tenant. Good landlords and tenants will discuss what rent is sustainable for both parties but, if they cannot come to an agreement, a tenant has the right to challenge a rent increase at tribunal. As I have said, for too long tenants have been afraid to do that. I note, too, that the Opposition once supported our position on this matter. Their original White Paper said the tribunal will no longer have the power to increase the rent above the amount the landlord asked for. It is regrettable that they now disagree with themselves and want to make it easier for tenants to be evicted by the backdoor.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Can the Minister explain this? If a tribunal is taking quite a long time, then the decision is made and any increase happens from the date of that tribunal’s decision, and the landlord can go to a tribunal only every 12 months, does that 12 months start from the date of the tribunal’s decision, or can it go back six, seven or eight months prior, so that it could be nearly two years rather than one year?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I understand the noble Baroness’s question. My understanding is that the year starts from the date the tribunal decisions are made, but I will check that and write to her.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

So you could lose six or eight months—it could be nearly two years. If the Minister could confirm that, it would be useful.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will clarify that in the letter.

Amendment 105 would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the impact of Clause 8 on the First-tier Tribunal, and to consult the Competition and Markets Authority on whether further measures are needed to prevent distortion of the rental market by the tribunal’s determinations on rent. As I have made clear on similar amendments, the department is already collaborating extensively with His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service, as well as the Ministry of Justice, to ensure that the property chamber of the First-tier Tribunal is prepared for the implementation of the Bill, including any changes to its role in determining rent.

--- Later in debate ---

The Opposition claim they are concerned about the Bill causing landlords to leave the market. I urge them not to help those who are spreading misunderstandings about the Bill’s impact on the market. Good landlords will not benefit from scaremongering about sensible and balanced measures in the Bill. For the reasons I have outlined, both in this debate and earlier today, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, on the Minister’s last point on scaremongering, I do not think we are. I suggest that she might like to look at the latest weekend Bloomberg report on the rental sector in London. The number of landlords going out of the rental market is quite scary. It is said very clearly that they are going out because of further regulation of the sector. I will send the report to her if she would like; it is interesting.

I thank noble Lords who contributed on this group. In closing, I will return to our central concern, which runs through the whole group of amendments: the balance between landlord and tenant, between fairness and workability, and between principle and practical consequences. At the heart of this is the fundamental question about whether we believe in a truly impartial rent tribunal system. As the Bill stands, it allows only downward rent adjustments. Amendment 92 would correct that. It would give a tribunal the discretion to assess the facts and adjust rents up or down, depending on the evidence. That is the essence, we suggest, of a fair system that reflects market realities, not just one side of them. This imbalance is deepened further by the proposal to allow rent reductions to be backdated. Amendment 93 addresses this. Landlords who have acted in good faith, charging an agreed rent, should not be faced with demands to return funds months after the fact. That is not stability but uncertainty, and it undermines trust in the system.

That uncertainty only grows with the automatic delay of rent increases. Amendment 95 brings much-needed clarity to this. It ensures that rent increases are pushed back not simply as a matter of course but only when there is clear evidence of undue hardship. Without this, we risk creating a system where delay becomes the default tactic and landlords bear the cost. These problems are compounded by the Bill’s insistence that proposed rents can only be reduced. Amendment 102 introduces necessary flexibility. If we are asking tribunals to assess fairness, we must let them consider the full picture, not force them into decisions that ignore inflation, market trends or rising costs.

This brings us to the question of implementation. The tribunal system is already under enormous strain. Amendment 105 makes a straightforward, sensible request that the Secretary of State reviews the capacity of the system to manage what this Bill will ask of it. Without that, we are setting it up to fail. I urge the Government to consider the cumulative effect of these provisions. On paper, they may appear technical; in practice, they will drive landlords from the market, reduce housing supply and increase pressures on rents. This is not what this Bill should achieve, but at this stage tonight I wish to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 92 withdrawn.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I will very briefly intervene. I agree that people who like pets benefit from having them, and I guess that landlords who do not like pets are going to have to put up with it, which seems fair enough. But—no pun intended—what a legal can of worms we are opening here. What is a pet? I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hacking: snakes are animals, as are alligators, rats, goats, snakes, and even fleas, which some people keep as pets. That is going to cause a great deal of stress and redefinition at some point.

Listening to the very interesting speech by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, we heard that we are also going to introduce a category called an anti-social pet. That is going to be very hard to define and prosecute, and I suspect the unreasonable grounds for refusal will, again, cause interesting legal conundrums. So this amendment will go through, and I am happy to support it, but I wonder what legal can of worms we are opening for the future.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this section of the Bill is set to introduce some significant changes affecting the rights of renters, the rights of landlords and the nature of the relationship between those two parties, and we need to consider these provisions and the amendments to them with particular care.

Amendments 118 and 119, tabled by my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, seek to prevent consent from being withdrawn by a landlord once it has been granted. This proposal presents some challenges, as far as we can see, and may benefit from a more considered approach. It poses a risk to landlords when taking on a new tenant, because it raises the prospect that they could be tying themselves into a contract whereby they would have no right to remove, in future, a dangerous, aggressive or damaging animal from their own property.

In our opinion, these amendments also suffer from the way that they have been drafted. If a tenant acquired a new pet, would they be obliged to seek consent again from their landlord, or would the one issuing of consent cover all future acquisitions? If a tenant was granted consent for a goldfish, does this amendment really seek to assume that the consent is also automatically granted if the same tenant decides to buy an Irish wolfhound?

Amendment 120, tabled by my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, seeks to address that fundamental question of proportionality, which I have referred to several times throughout my remarks on the Bill. This amendment rightly seeks to protect the landlord beyond the immediate term and ensures that they will still be able to make full use of their property after a tenant has left. If a landlord reasonably believes that a pet could limit their use of their property into the future and thus reduce its utility and value, it is surely reasonable to allow the landlord the discretion to protect their asset and the health of their family and future tenants.

My noble friend Lord Howard of Rising takes this responsible approach further in Amendments 121, 122 and 123, which would provide the landlord with the capacity to refuse consent if a pet was a dangerous wild animal, if a pet risked causing damage or disruption, or if a tenant wished to keep an inappropriate number of animals or an inappropriately sized animal in their property. These amendments would not only preserve the balance of the renter-landlord relationship but help to ensure the safety, protection from damage and the well-being of the landlord and tenant alike. As it stands, the Bill creates a huge risk for landlords: they could enter a contract with a tenant who could bring an unsuitable, untamed or even dangerous animal into their property without the capacity to refuse. These amendments are a sensible opportunity to redress this risk.

Amendments 124, 125 and 126, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, seek to clarify unreasonable circumstances for pet refusal, including in social housing —Amendment 124 is an extremely interesting amendment from that point of view. In our opinion, outlining these conditions could make the law clearer in application, although it is right that this should not come at the expense of the right of the landlord to safeguard and utilise their property. For instance, these amendments attempt to prevent a landlord refusing to consent to a pet on grounds of pre-emptive concerns. For this demand to balance out with respect for the rights of the landlord, it is surely reasonable to support a further amendment that would allow a landlord to withdraw consent once provided if their pre-emptive concerns turn out to be valid.

We also have some concerns about the vagueness of the language used throughout these amendments, for instance the references to

“a generalised fear of damage to the property”

and to “generalised” animal welfare concerns. The Committee would benefit from further clarification about the specific steps a landlord would need to take to move from “generalised” to what would be considered a valid concern under the text of this amendment.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 126A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Leicester and introduced by my noble friend Lord Caithness. This is a very sensible proposal that is designed to build consensus and clarify points of concern over the scope and definition of the terms used by the Government in the Bill.

I think that Amendment 124A is for national, if not international, debate. Although I understand my noble friend’s concern, I think that debate probably goes wider than this Bill.

We must always remember that this Bill will be used to govern a series of relationships that involve possibly millions of people throughout the country. We have a duty in this place to make sure that the law is as clear as possible and that the relationship we create between a tenant and a landlord is fair and mutually beneficial. We need to make sure that we create market conditions in the rented sector that ensure a steady supply. If landlords start to pull out because of vague and overburdensome regulation, prices will go up and the choice for renters will go down. This is not an outcome that the Government want, nor one that will promote and protect renters’ rights.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I also thank all the animal charities and organisations that have helped us with this clause. I know that other noble Lords have really appreciated the briefings that those organisations have sent out. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Black of Brentwood and Lord Howard of Rising, the noble Earls, Lord Kinnoull and Lord Leicester —whose amendment was ably moved by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness—and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for their thoughtful amendments in relation to pets, and all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.

Before I go into the detail of the amendments, I reassure noble Lords how much I truly realise the incredible importance of pets to people’s lives, and I confirm that the Government have included provisions on pets in the Bill in recognition of that. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, just mentioned that balance: we have tried really hard to get the balance right between wanting tenants to have the right to have a pet and making sure that landlords can have their responsibilities and property recognised.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Black, the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and other noble Lords, for their recognition of the intent of pet provision in the Bill. No one wants people to have to give up precious pets just because of the tenure of their housing.

To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, I would not make it compulsory to keep pets, although I took on board the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Black, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, about the impact on people’s health. If you were allergic to pets, making them compulsory might be a different issue, but we have no intention of doing that.

Amendment 118, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, seeks to ensure that once a landlord has granted consent for a tenant to keep a pet, that consent cannot later be withdrawn. Noble Lords have mentioned my honourable friend Minister Pennycook’s advocacy of this issue. I reassure noble Lords that when a landlord gives permission for a tenant to have a pet, that consent is binding and cannot be revoked, with the exception of the very rare occasion when that becomes an anti-social behaviour issue, which it might. Apart from that, it cannot be revoked. That is because, once permission is given, it forms an implied term of the tenancy agreement. This is an unwritten contractual term that tenants can rely on, as it is legally binding. Any attempt by a landlord to withdraw consent once given would therefore be unenforceable. This principle will be clearly outlined in the accompanying guidance to ensure clarity for both landlords and tenants.

Given this, I do not believe it is necessary to add further provisions to the Bill, as doing so would introduce unnecessary complexity into legislation that is already clear on this point. The Bill is designed to create a fair and workable system for both landlords and tenants. Adding an explicit provision where the legal position is already established would have the potential to risk confusion and unintended consequences. In the light of that, I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for her Amendment 119, which seeks to ensure that a superior landlord “cannot unreasonably withhold” consent when a request is made to allow a tenant to keep a pet. Although I understand and sympathise with the intention behind this amendment, I have some concerns about it. If accepted, it could lead to significant legal uncertainty.

Many superior leases include absolute prohibitions on pets, and introducing a reasonableness test in those cases could create confusion and conflict with existing contractual terms, which are legally binding on both parties. I intend to look at any data that might be available on the extent to which this might have an impact, but it could place a considerable burden on immediate landlords who would be required to engage with those superior landlords—who are often based overseas or are difficult to contact—before responding to a tenant’s request. That could cause delays, additional legal costs and the kind of practical difficulties the noble Baroness outlined herself in her own case—I hope permission is forthcoming for her dog. For those reasons, the amendment is not proportionate or necessary, and I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Black, will not press this amendment.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, for Amendments 120, 122 and 123. Amendment 120 seeks to allow landlords to refuse a pet request where they reasonably believe that the pet may have a negative impact due to allergens on a range of individuals, including themselves, their employees, agents, neighbours and even future tenants. Although I understand the intention behind the amendment, I must express concern that it would significantly broaden the scope on which landlords could refuse consent.

The Bill already allows landlords to refuse permission where there is a legitimate concern, and guidance will make it clear that health-related issues, such as severe allergies, can be taken into account where medical evidence supports this and there is a genuine and ongoing concern to health. However, this amendment would go much further. In particular, the inclusion of future tenants introduces a highly speculative element, allowing landlords to refuse a request based on hypothetical scenarios that may never arise. That would give landlords an effective veto, entirely undermining the legislation, which aims to strike a balance between landlords and tenants. For these reasons, the amendment is not necessary or proportionate, and I hope the noble Lord will consider not pressing it.

Amendment 122 seeks to allow landlords to

“reasonably withhold or withdraw consent”

for a pet introduced mid-tenancy, where it is deemed

“unsuitable for the property, … may cause a nuisance”,

or may risk property damage or unreasonable upkeep. While I understand the noble Lord’s intention to provide clarity, I respectfully say that this amendment is not required. The Bill already permits landlords to refuse their consent on reasonable grounds, which are best judged on a case-by-case basis.

The noble Lord, Lord Black, recommended some guiding principles around this and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, called for a “highway code” of guidance. We will be providing guidance alongside the Bill to give examples of the types of situations in which it may be reasonable for a landlord to refuse or withdraw their consent to a tenant’s request to keep a pet. This will support both landlords and tenants without restricting flexibility in legislation. There is also a risk that listing specific reasons in the Bill may unintentionally narrow the interpretation of what counts as reasonable, excluding other valid concerns not explicitly named.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, was as entertaining as ever in speaking to his amendment. But none of us was here in 1990—here in your Lordships’ House, I mean; obviously, we were around. In 1990, this discussion took place on the definition of a pet under the Environmental Protection Act, which chose not to define a pet specifically. Instead, it focused on the nuisances and environmental harms, regardless of the type of animal. That approach was probably safer because, obviously, for some people a praying mantis could be a pet, and it is certainly a very ornamental creature when you look at it closely—as would be a butterfly.

I have a lot of sympathy with the Government, and I think that we should stick with the idea of companionship, which is in the Bill. But the Environmental Protection Act offers a lesson from that time, one concerned with the effects of an animal’s presence or behaviour and not with whether the animal is defined as a pet. I do not feel very strongly about this issue, but that lesson is there should the Government choose to take it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who took part in this engaging debate. I thank particularly my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising for moving Amendment 121, and my noble friend Lord Dobbs—as always, he has such a wonderful way of speaking in this Chamber. I cannot add much more to what he said. He is absolutely right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 128 and declare my interests as a landlord and a former PRS tenant. I support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on pet deposits. First, I want to state that I am a dog lover and had dogs as pets in my youth. I was, however, horrified by the description by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, at Second Reading of the potential cost and sustained effort required to deal with flea infestation, and there is other damage that cats and dogs in particular can cause. Carpets, for example, may need to be wholly replaced after some pet tenancies, as I have experienced at considerable additional cost, which was not met by the deposit. As your Lordships have heard, insurance products are currently non-existent or very unsatisfactory, so it makes sense, in my view, to introduce a pet deposit scheme which would make the whole process a lot simpler.

The main point I wish to make is that where a lease bans pets, particularly dogs, this should be respected. As we also heard earlier, not all properties are suitable for dogs, especially large dogs. There has been an exponential rise in dog attacks in the country, especially since the pandemic. In total, there were 31,920 dog attacks in England and Wales over the last year alone— 87 a day. Since 2022, 31 people have been killed by dogs, and there were almost 11,000 hospital admissions for dog bites in England between 2023 and 2024. These figures are truly horrific and are growing. I do not claim to be an expert on this rise, but many have put it down to the surge in dog ownership since the pandemic, poor dog training and an inability of inexperienced owners to control their powerful dogs.

If you had been the victim of a dog attack, you would understand why some seek protection in their home environment, especially blocks of flats. My wife was attacked by a dog in our open gardens. Although dogs are banned under the lease, we made an exception to allow a family with a dog. At the time, my wife was wearing a back brace, having recently fractured her spine. I placed myself between the dog and my wife, while the neighbour took five minutes to come outside and struggled to restrain the aggressive dog. Incidentally, it was not a banned breed.

Those five minutes felt like a long time. Although our neighbour was red-faced and apologetic, it was a serious and frightening incident. For months afterwards, my wife had flashbacks, as it could have been a life-altering experience, like the ones you read about in the newspaper or see on television. In conclusion, where dogs are banned under leases, those leases should be upheld, and where dogs are allowed with discretion, that should also be upheld.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the matter of pet damage insurance is an extremely important one, as it directly addresses the responsibility of the tenant in conjunction with the increased rights that they may be granted under the Bill.

In all our discussions on this question, we have acknowledged that allowing pets into rented properties brings with it a series of risks. There are risks to health in questions around allergies and dangerous animals, risks of damage to the property and risks to the well-being of neighbours and other tenants.

Given this, we believe it is reasonable to grant the landlord the capacity to require the tenant wishing to bring a pet into their property to have pet damage insurance. I have listened very carefully to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and I thank him for all the work he has done on this—which I think is really important work—but I am disappointed that there does not yet seem to be a product in the market for this.

However, we have to continue down the insurance route as well as down the route of having deposits. It is important, as is in my amendments, that before this section of the Bill comes into effect, there is a final decision from the Secretary of State on an insurance product that is available. If that is not going to come forward, we will have to relook at the issues that have been brought up by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, in Amendments 127 and 128, which, as we have heard, provide an alternative avenue for redress should any damage be caused. This is a flexible addition to the Bill, and discretion is going to be important, but it is important to give people the option here, whether it be through a deposit or through an insurance product which is on the market in the future.

There is concern over the deposit, because it is there for very specific reasons, and when you add a further reason—damage by pets—the amount of deposit may have to be looked at again. The noble Lord opposite brings up the idea of a pet deposit along with the deposit. The principle behind this is that when you have a right to have a pet, you also have responsibilities for that pet. It is correct that landlords should be permitted the ability to claim redress when their properties are damaged, and tenants should be responsible when choosing to have pets.

It is important that we make sure that there is some form of redress for any damage caused, if the landlord wishes. Some landlords will welcome pets without any further insurance or deposit, but where the landlord wishes it, there must be some way for the tenant to have some form of redress at the beginning of the tenancy, in case there is any issue with their pet’s damage or anything else concerning that pet.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their amendments relating to pet insurance and deposits. The noble Lords, Lord Black, Lord Trees, Lord de Clifford and Lord Truscott, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, have all contributed to the debate.

Turning first to the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I thank the noble Earl very much for his constructive engagement with me and my officials in the department in recent months. The benefit of the noble Earl’s expertise in this area has been very valuable and very much appreciated, so I am grateful to him.

Amendment 127 seeks to remove the requirement for tenants to obtain pet damage insurance. While I completely understand the concerns behind the amendment, respectfully, I disagree with its approach. One of the key barriers to renting with pets is landlords’ concerns over potential property damage, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, outlined. Requiring tenants to have pet damage insurance provides landlords with the reassurance they need and helps foster a more positive attitude towards pet ownership in rental properties—that is the balance between rights and responsibilities that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned. Removing this requirement risks undermining the balance of ensuring that tenants have a fair opportunity to rent with pets, while also protecting landlords from unnecessary financial risk.

It is also important to note that we are seeing some signs that insurance products designed specifically for pet-related damage are emerging in response to the Bill—not just from Anguilla, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said. As the noble Lord, Lord Black, said, these products will develop, meaning that tenants should have viable options available. This requirement is therefore both reasonable and practical, ensuring responsible pet ownership without placing an undue burden on either tenants or landlords. I emphasise in response to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—

--- Later in debate ---

As I have already mentioned, my department is engaged in discussions with the insurance industry, and there are some signs that new products are in development in anticipation of the Bill’s passage. We remain open to further discussion with those who know these markets well. For these reasons, we do not support the amendment. I understand how well-intentioned it is, but it would create an unnecessary delay in enabling landlords to require tenants to obtain pet damage insurance, ultimately slowing one of the Bill’s key objectives, which is to ensure that pet ownership is no longer a barrier to renting.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am a little bit confused as to where we go on this. We are hearing that there is no product at the moment, and there are differing views as to whether there will be a product. The Government are not interested in looking at extra deposits, and I understand the reasoning for that. But if we do not have extra deposits and there is no product, where do we go with this? When does this come into effect if there is no protection for the landlord in the future? I am just confused about the timescale. How long are the Government going to wait for a product to be available?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I understand those concerns. As I have already mentioned, the department is talking to insurers all the time. We are looking at the messages from them that they are developing new products in anticipation of the Bill going through, and we will keep monitoring that during the passage of the Bill. We do not want to create a delay in one of the Bill’s key objectives, which is facilitating pet ownership. We do not want to put a block or barrier in the way of that, but we understand that we need to keep this dialogue going with the insurance industry to see where we are as the Bill progresses.

Amendment 285 seeks to ensure that tenants have access to specific insurance products to cover pet-related damage before landlords can require such coverage. This is a similar point: the amendment would similarly create an unnecessary delay in giving landlords the confidence to rent to tenants with pets. The insurance options tailored specifically for pet damage exist in limited numbers at the moment. That is because landlords have had the discretion to refuse pets, so they have used that as a way of getting around the insurance issue, and it has led to low demand for such products. We believe that the Bill will change that by providing tenants with a fairer opportunity to rent with pets and giving landlords the reassurance they need. We do not believe that a mandatory delay should be made law, as we hope those new products are coming forward with the Bill.

If Clause 13 is postponed, tenants’ struggle to secure homes just because they have a pet will continue. Once the law is in place and landlords begin accepting more tenants with pets, we think the insurance market will adapt to meet the demand, and delaying Clause 13 would only prolong the struggles of responsible pet owners. Given these reasons, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, will consider not pressing these amendments. We will continue to monitor this situation and carry on our dialogue with the insurance industry.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am sorry to ask the Minister further questions, but is the Minister saying that landlords will be required to take pets without insurance or any further deposits if there is no product available? If that is the case and a product comes in six months to a year later, will the Bill then allow landlords to ensure that tenants get that insurance product? I am not quite sure how that will work.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

We will be amending the Tenant Fees Act so that landlords will be able to require the tenant to obtain insurance to cover the risk of property damage caused by a pet. Landlords will be able to require tenants to have that insurance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I think the objective of the noble Baroness’s amendment is commendable. I worry, however, that if a property is altered, it will be limited by the assessment made by occupational health, within the limitations of local authority budgets and what the cost is estimated to be. In some properties, particularly older ones, these alterations can be very substantial.

The question arises: what happens if the tenant leaves the property and it has to be reinstated? That would be a relatively simple operation for a straight stairway, but not all properties are like that. Installing a lift would be a major structural operation. I wonder whether the noble Baroness could assess what the implications would be when someone left a property and how it would be reinstated. Reinstatement can often be more costly than the installation.

With regard to undertaking minor amendments, it depends on what we mean by minor. If building control consent is not required and people alter a property, they can undermine the structure very simply. It is not difficult—a lot of older properties may not have the same structural integrity as more modern ones. If people can say that a change is only minor, what is the boundary and what are the limitations if we have no definition of what a minor alteration is? If someone starts interfering with the structure of a property without the requirement of building control consent, there will be difficulties ahead, as there can be implications for the adjacent property. If various adaptations are needed in a terraced house, it can affect properties on either side.

Who would pay for the removal of the adaptations in the first place? Although the noble Baroness has tabled a very well-meaning amendment, I fear that, if given an inch, people would take a mile because they would not want to bother with getting the various consents. People could undertake quite substantial and perhaps even risky amendments to property without consent. Again, the question arises: how do we reinstate them afterwards?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for their important amendments on disability adaptations. This is a crucial issue, and the Government have a duty to find the correct balance again between ensuring that disability adaptations are available to tenants and considering the significant impact that some provisions could have on our landlords.

Amendment 133, which proposes an obligation for landlords to grant permission for home adaptations following a local authority assessment under the Equality Act 2010, rightly highlights the importance of accessibility. However, we must also consider the practical and financial implications. Landlords, particularly those with smaller portfolios or those who operate on very tight margins, are already contending with a range of rising costs and regulatory pressures. Although the amendment’s intention is clear and commendable, the Government, we believe, must ensure that any new duty is accompanied by adequate support mechanisms so that landlords are not forced to absorb potentially substantial costs that could threaten the viability of their business or the quality of their housing stock.

Amendment 178 would allow tenants to undertake minor adaptations without seeking landlords’ consent. This is not merely a modest proposal—it raises some serious questions. Although “minor adaptation” may sound innocuous, this interpretation is highly subjective. One tenant’s minor change may in reality be a significant alteration that affects a property’s structure, aesthetics or marketability.

We must be clear that even small, cumulative changes can lead to a loss of value, future repair costs or regulatory complications for the landlord. Properties not designed or built to accommodate such modification may be especially vulnerable. This amendment risks creating confusion, undermining landlord confidence and ultimately reducing the availability of homes to rent, particularly in lower-cost segments of the market. Landlords must have clarity, and they must be protected from unintended consequences. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, what happens when the tenant leaves, and who pays for reinstating the property?

Amendment 191, which seeks to prohibit discrimination against prospective tenants requiring adaptations, addresses an issue of genuine concern. We support the principle of tackling discrimination wherever it occurs; however, we must also recognise that landlords will reasonably assess the suitability of their properties and the cost implications of meeting specific needs. To avoid placing landlords in an impossible position, any new obligations must be underpinned by clear guidance and, where necessary, financial support.

I urge the Minister to bring forward some proposals before Report that genuinely balance the rights of disabled tenants with the realities that landlords face. If we are to ensure that homes are both accessible and available for disabled people, we must avoid shifting the full cost burden on to landlords, particularly without due process, oversight or compensation. The aim should be a system that is fair, proportionate and sustainable for all the parties involved.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for their amendments relating to home disability adaptations. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their comments.

Amendment 133 seeks to require landlords to permit home disability adaptations when these have been recommended in a local authority home assessment. The Equality Act 2010 already provides protections for disabled tenants, but I recognise that such rights are not always easy to enforce in practice. I therefore agree with the noble Baroness that we should take steps to remove barriers that unreasonably prevent disabled renters getting the home adaptations they need.

However, I do not consider this amendment to be the right way to achieve that. In particular, there are significant risks to introducing a new requirement linked to home assessments. These assessments are carried out by local authorities as part of the means-tested disabled facilities grant process. The amendment would therefore create a two-tier system and could make it harder for people who are not eligible for the disabled facilities grant to access adaptations.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that we recognise how important those home adaptations are to make sure that older and disabled people live as independently as possible in a safe and suitable environment. I have seen at first hand, as I know she has, the real difference that these adaptations can make. That is why the Government have awarded an £86 million in-year uplift to the disabled facilities grant for 2024-25, bringing the total funding to £711 million.

That increased funding will allow more eligible people to make vital improvements to their home, allowing them to live more independent lives and reducing hospitalisations. The Government have also confirmed that amount for 2025-26. To ensure that the disabled facilities grant is as effective as possible, we also continue to keep different aspects of the grant under review. For example, we are currently reviewing the suitability of the £30,000 upper limit. I have known cases where, because of the scale of the adaptations that are necessary and the impact of inflation on construction work, that needs to be reviewed. The Government are also reviewing the allocations formula for DFG to ensure that funding is aligned with local needs. We will consult during 2025 on a new approach, with a view to implementation as soon as possible after the consultation.

--- Later in debate ---

We also believe that there is a value in developing enhanced guidance. The Government will therefore engage with key organisations in the sector to update and strengthen guidance to help all parties navigate the current system effectively; for example, helping landlords and tenants to understand what constitutes “reasonable” for adaptation requests. Existing measures in the Bill, and these further commitments, will be a more appropriate and effective way of supporting disabled tenants. These avoid the significant risk of negative unintended consequences presented by this amendment. As a result, I ask that the noble Baroness withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

That is a very positive response. Can we have that in writing, please, to save us from going through Hansard, as to those further measures that the Government intend to take? Will they be in the Bill or in guidance?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will provide in writing all that I have just outlined.

Amendment 178 seeks to allow private rented sector tenants to carry out disability adaptations to their homes without first obtaining consent from their landlord if the cost of these adaptations is below a threshold set in regulation. I agree that the Government should seek to address barriers preventing disabled tenants getting the home adaptations that they require. However, this amendment is not the right way to achieve it. The amendment defines which disability adaptations are classed as minor solely by reference to cost. This would not capture a range of other factors—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott—that a responsible landlord would need to consider when deciding whether to permit alterations.

These factors could include interactions with building regulation requirements—a very important set of requirements on landlords—the need for consent from third parties and how easy it will be to return the property to its original condition. As many of these factors will be dependent on the features of each individual property, it would not be possible to define “minor adaptations” in a way that works effectively for all housing in a private rented sector as diverse as ours. Given the challenge in defining which adaptations are minor, it is likely that some disabled tenants would make genuine mistakes, for the best reasons, and carry out adaptations that were not in scope of the legislation. If successfully challenged by landlords in the courts, this could result in negative consequences, such as being ordered to pay damages to remove the adaptation. The risk of this happening could deter tenants from exercising such a right.

This amendment would also create a new right for tenants alongside the existing obligation on landlords under the Equality Act 2010 not to refuse consent for disability-related improvement. That could make the system more confusing and more difficult for tenants to navigate. Therefore, the amendment would not be an effective way of supporting disabled tenants and could even make things worse. The Government are already taking strong action on this through the existing measures in the Bill and the further commitments that I have set out.

Amendment 191 seeks to extend the rental discrimination measures in the Bill to persons requiring home adaptations. We recognise very much the important issue that this amendment raises and agree strongly that people with disabilities should not face discrimination when accessing the private rented sector; nor should they be unreasonably refused the adaptations that they require. We hope that the transformative reforms to the private rented sector delivered through the Bill will make a substantial difference to support disabled tenants. The abolition of Section 21 and the new PRS ombudsman address the two key barriers identified by the 2024 report of the former Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee: retaliatory eviction and access to redress.

Disabled people are, however, already afforded the full protection from discrimination by the Equality Act 2010. As part of this, landlords and agents are forbidden from victimising or discriminating against a person based on a disability in relation to the offer of a tenancy, the terms on which a tenancy is offered or their general treatment of that person. Expanding the Bill’s rental discrimination provisions in this manner would create an unnecessary dual system, increasing complexity and causing confusion, leading to an overlap of responsibilities between local authorities and the courts.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

In view of the time that we have lost—and I must say publicly that I regret the pressure that we are putting ourselves under—I will just say that it is essential that written statements are mandated to help people resolve conflicts and provide evidence if disputes go to court. What these must contain, which is the essence of Amendment 140 from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is clearly important and needs to be widely known.

There is quite a lot in the Bill that we feel needs to be widely known, and we have all had concerns about the level of knowledge. All I will say, with my tongue in my cheek for things down the road, is that that is all the more reason to regulate those who act for landlords—such as letting agents—to make sure that they act professionally and inform their tenants correctly.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Clause 14 aims to strengthen the transparency of rental agreements by requiring landlords to provide written terms at the outset of a tenancy. This is a welcome step towards ensuring that tenants are fully informed about their rights and obligations, and that landlords are held to account for the terms they offer.

Amendment 140, in my name, recognises that legislation alone is not enough. We must ensure that tenants, landlords and, indeed, any third-party contractors involved are informed and empowered. By requiring the Secretary of State to issue clear, accessible guidance, we help to make these rights and duties real and usable in practice. Without such guidance, even the most well-intentioned legislation risks becoming an abstract concept rather than a meaningful tool for change. This is why it is crucial that the Government take proactive steps to ensure that everyone involved in the rental process understands their roles and their responsibilities.

Amendments 136, 138 and 139, tabled by the Minister, seek to refine the process through which written statements of terms are provided. The intention, as I understand it, is to ensure that landlords are held to account for providing these terms in a timely manner, which is certainly a step in the right direction. However, we must be careful to consider whether the amendments fully take into account the diverse needs and circumstances of both tenants and landlords.

The Government have a clear opportunity here to provide a system that is not only fair and transparent but also practical and achievable for all those involved. We must ensure that these provisions do not overburden landlords with an administration task but, at the same time, protect the rights of tenants by providing them with the necessary information to make informed decisions about their tenancies. While the intention is to create more transparency, it is equally important, we feel, that we do not add unnecessary complexity or red tape that could inadvertently discourage smaller landlords or make the rental process more cumbersome.

In light of these considerations, I would like to ask the Minister one or two questions. First, is the Minister confident that the 28-day requirement for landlords to provide written statements will not lead to confusion or delays? This timeline, while designed to allow time for landlords to issue the statements, may in practice create gaps in communication, potentially leaving tenants in a state of uncertainty about their rights and obligations. How do the Government intend to mitigate these potential delays?

Furthermore, how do the Government plan to ensure that smaller landlords, who may not have the dedicated administration teams, will be able to comply with these provisions without facing excessive burdens? Small landlords, who often play a crucial role in our rental market, could face challenges in keeping up with increased administration requirements without support or resources. We must be mindful not inadvertently to create barriers that make it harder for these landlords to continue offering tenancies.

In conclusion, while we acknowledge the Government’s intention to improve transparency in tenancy agreements and better protect tenants, we must consider the real-world impact of these changes. We must ensure that reforms are workable for both tenants and landlords, without increasing the complexities of the rental process or creating unnecessary barriers to housing. The amendments, while positive in some respects, do not fully address the practical challenges landlords and tenants face. Is the Minister confident that these provisions will not place undue burdens on landlords, especially those at the smaller end of the market, and that they will effectively protect tenants’ rights without creating new avenues for confusion and non-compliance? The legislation must strike a balance that promotes fairness and transparency while also being workable for all parties involved.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I have just a brief response to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott; I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her comments.

Amendment 140 would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the new duty to provide tenants with a written statement of terms before a tenancy is entered into. We are already committed to supporting tenants, landlords and agents to understand and adjust to the new rules. I accept the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, made about agents; I think we will come to that later.

We are engaging with stakeholders in developing the requirements for the written statement of term and are aware of how important it is for the sector to understand the duty. In response to the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about small landlords and whether the 28-day period is reasonable, I am sure that will come out during our discussions with the sector. Because we are working that way, I am confident that we will be able to work through any pressures it may be concerned about. To help landlords and tenants, we will be providing a full suite of guidance, so these groups know exactly what the changes mean for them. For those reasons, I ask that Amendment 140 not be pressed.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

145: Clause 17, page 26, line 24, leave out “beyond reasonable doubt” and insert “on the balance of probabilities”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and another in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook, seeks to apply the normal standard of proof for civil cases for these fines and probes the Government’s reasons for applying the criminal standard of proof.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I want to make it very clear that we will not have had six days in Committee. I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley.

I do not feel that I can open this group without paying tribute to the late noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. His amendments are why we are debating this important issue tonight. We will miss his insightful contribution to this Bill and to the House more broadly. We are a poorer place without him, and I send my heartfelt sympathies to his partner, his friends and his family for their loss. May his memory be a blessing.

This group follows on from a group on the previous day in Committee, but it focuses more specifically on the burden of proof applied in the determination of penalties. I will be brief, as on these Benches we simply have two questions for the Minister. I draw your Lordships’ attention to probing Amendments 145 and 152. We are concerned about the Government’s proposal to grant local housing authorities the power to determine whether a person is guilty of an offence under Section 16 without proper due process. Can the Minister kindly set out for the Committee how this provision is intended to operate in practice, and whether it will be subject to any appeal or review process?

I wish to draw attention to the principal reason for these probing amendments—the selected standard of proof. We are seeking to understand why there appears to be a lack of consistency in the standard of proof applied across different parts of the Bill. I have no doubt that many distinguished lawyers in your Lordships’ Committee will address this matter with far greater clarity and precision than I can. However, the question remains: why should different standards of proof apply within the same piece of legislation?

I appreciate that the Minister is herself not a lawyer and may wish to take some time to reflect and return to the Committee with a considered response, but can she kindly set out, either today or at a later stage, the rationale behind this apparent inconsistency? I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 148, 197, 200 and 242 on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.

First, I join my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook by expressing my sincere condolences to the family and friends of the late noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. His reputation as an exceptional legal mind represents the very best that this House has to offer.

Secondly, I remind noble Lords of my own interest as a practicing solicitor.

These four amendments seek to make two substantive changes to the Bill. First, the removal of “reckless” would ensure that a landlord is guilty of an offence only if it can be proven that they wrongly relied on a ground for possession with actual knowledge of the offence. Secondly, the replacement of

“on the balance of probabilities”

with “beyond reasonable doubt” raises the standard of proof for these offences when the local authority is determining a case.

I expect that the Minister will oppose these amendments on the grounds that they will make it less easy for a local authority to find a landlord guilty of an offence. But surely the crucial point is that they would put a proper check on the incorrect prosecution of landlords that may arise from the new system of penalties that will be imposed by local authorities.

There is also a legitimate question about how we can be certain that local authorities will have the resources they need fairly to assess cases in which landlords are accused of an offence. We need a system that ensures that landlords are held to high standards, but surely that system has to be seen to be fair. Any system that makes landlords feel that they are perennially at risk of being found guilty of an offence, even without their knowledge, will only add to the chilling effect of the Bill on our rental market.

I also agree that the standard of proof where a local authority is making a decision on a case without recourse to the courts should be high. Local authority officers should be absolutely sure when making these decisions.

I have two questions for the Minister. First, will she take this opportunity to explain how a landlord who has been found guilty of an offence by a local authority will be able to appeal that decision? Secondly, will she please answer the question about appropriate local authority resources to enable them to administer these offences?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, may I say how sorry I am to have to deal with Lord Etherton’s amendments after his sad passing? I did not have a long time to get to know him, but during my time in this House, I truly appreciated both his engagement and his wisdom on this Bill and his courtesy and kindness. I know that he will be greatly missed by the House and I add to what other noble Lords have said in sending my condolences to his husband and his close friends and family. I understand that his wonderful legal brain will be a sad loss to this House, and we will all miss him. I am very sorry that he is not here today to complete the work that he started on the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, may his memory be a blessing to all those who knew him.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for speaking on behalf of Lord Etherton in this debate on the amendments on financial penalties, and also the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her comments on these. I will make the declaration up front that I am not a lawyer either, so I rely on others for legal advice on this part of the Bill.

Starting with the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, Amendment 145 would replace the criminal standard of proof with the civil standard of proof for breaches of the tenancy requirements which are not criminal offences. These breaches can, by virtue of continuing or being repeated, form part of a criminal offence. We consider that it is necessary, therefore, for the criminal standard of proof to apply.

Amendment 152 would reduce the standard of proof from “beyond reasonable doubt” to “on the balance of probabilities”, where local authorities are imposing civil penalties as an alternative to prosecution for tenancy offences. Where civil penalties are imposed as an alternative to criminal prosecution, it is necessary for the same criminal standard, “beyond reasonable doubt”, to apply. That is already the case, for example, for civil penalties imposed as an alternative to prosecution for offences under the Housing Act 2004, such as failure to comply with an improvement notice. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments.

I now turn to the amendments tabled by Lord Etherton, and spoken to on his behalf today by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Amendments 197 and 200 would, conversely, require local authorities to meet the criminal, rather than civil, standard of proof when imposing civil penalties for rental discrimination and rental bidding breaches.

The standard of proof is lower than that which applies to the imposition of financial penalties for breaches of other requirements introduced by the Bill. This is because, unlike those other breaches, rental discrimination and rental bidding breaches cannot lead to a criminal offence if the conduct is repeated or continued. As such, rental discrimination and rental bidding cannot result in the landlord being prosecuted or given a £40,000 civil penalty, and are subject only to the lower £7,000 penalty. We therefore think it appropriate that local authorities need to prove these breaches to the civil standard, “on the balance of probabilities”, rather than the criminal standard, “beyond reasonable doubt”.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised the issue of resources, and I will answer that with two points. One is that the Government have committed to assess the financial impact of this on local authorities, and have committed to new burdens funding. Secondly, those fines will be available for local authority use for this purpose, or other purposes, if they wish to use them in that way.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about appeals. Local authorities can consider evidence and decide whether, for example, the individual concerned was aware that the information they provided might be false or misleading, and if so, whether it was reasonable for them to submit it, or if they took an unjustified risk in doing so; that is the point about recklessness.

The legislation also provides safeguards. In the case of prosecution it would be for the court, not the local authority, to decide whether the accused had been reckless. In the case of a financial penalty, the landlord has the right to make representations before a penalty is imposed, and a right of appeal against the imposition or the amount of the penalty.

Amendment 148 would narrow the offence of misusing a ground for possession to evict a tenant when possession would not be obtained on that ground. It would do so by removing the element of recklessness from the offence. Amendment 242 would narrow the offence of providing information to the database operator that is false or misleading in a material respect in the same way.

To commit the first of these offences, a landlord, or person acting or purporting to act on their behalf, would need to know that the landlord would not be able to obtain possession on that ground. If a landlord, or person acting or purporting to act on their behalf, was simply being reckless as to whether the landlord would be able to do so, it would not amount to an offence.

I do not think that limiting the offence in this way is necessary or helpful. Clearly, landlords should not be penalised for minor mistakes, but recklessness goes beyond making a mistake. It entails taking an unjustified risk, and landlords should not take an unjustified risk when their action may result in someone losing their home. It is, of course, the case that the offence is committed only if the tenant actually surrenders possession. Making enforcement in every case dependent on being satisfied to the criminal standard that the landlord, or those acting or purporting to act on their behalf, knew that the landlord would not be able to obtain possession using a ground for possession, would make it too easy for unscrupulous landlords and agents to escape enforcement.

Similar arguments apply in relation to the database offence. To require knowledge to be proved in every case would make it too easy for unscrupulous landlords to submit false or misleading information in purported compliance with database requirements.

It is well-established in legislation for offences relating to the provision of false or misleading information to include the mental element of recklessness, including in housing legislation. It is used, for example, in relation to the provision of false and misleading information to local authorities in connection with their functions under the Housing Act 2004—an offence that is prosecuted by local authorities.

In short, we consider that the mental state of recklessness is appropriate to apply to these serious offences, so I kindly ask that the noble Baroness considers withdrawing her amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, first, I am really disappointed because a number of noble Lords who have been involved in all these debates over the past four days in Committee are unable to be in their seats because of the later time of day. That will not help us scrutinise this Bill as we should.

I thank all those who have contributed on Amendments 148, 197, 200 and 242, which are now in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. Noble Lords are absolutely right to highlight the issue of consistency —an issue we on these Benches intended to raise today —but my noble friend Lord Hunt also introduced an important new concern: the threshold of proof required by local authorities before a financial penalty can be imposed. On matters such as these, it is vital that we draw on the expertise of the legal profession to improve the Bill’s drafting, and I hope the Minister will seek the wise counsel of noble Lords such as my noble friend as these matters are taken back to the department.

As noble Lords have rightly pointed out, the financial penalties under consideration are significant. Many landlords are small-scale or so-called accidental landlords, who may not be in a position to absorb such fines. It is therefore entirely appropriate that the Committee seeks clarity on the methodology, consultation process and factors, such as the ability to pay, used in determining these thresholds.

Given the scale of these penalties, the standard of evidence and the threshold for their imposition must be carefully examined, and my noble friend set out with clarity the issues that may arise without a sufficient burden of proof, and the legal argument underpinning these amendments. There is legitimate concern about penalties being applied without adequate legal scrutiny, potentially undermining due process. We therefore welcome these amendments and believe my noble friend Lord Hunt has made a compelling case. When large fines are at stake, a high level of rigour and certainty must be reflected in the legal standard applied. What is more, any concerns expressed on these matters should not be dismissed too readily and should be carefully considered, but at this point I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 145 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

167: Clause 21, page 39, line 33, after “child” insert “or grandchild”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the Government’s willingness to recognise in law the close family ties many people have with their first cousins once removed and other removed cousins.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments I have tabled in this group are to probe the Government’s decision to define a family in the way they have in Clause 21. The Explanatory Notes to this part of the Bill state:

“Subsection (4) provides that where there are two or more tenants and one of the tenants is a family member of the guarantor, if the family member dies then the guarantor will not be liable for rent on or after the date of their death”.


The Bill defines a family member in such a way that excludes anyone more distant than a first cousin. It is essential that the definition of a family in law reflects the family units we see in our day-to-day life. In many tightly knit communities across this country, families still live close together, with many cousins, both near and distant, having strong family ties to each other. In these communities, it seems very likely that a second cousin might step in to help as a rent guarantor, and surely that person falls within the intention of this part of the Bill.

It seems strange that the Government would seek to recognise the relationship between two first cousins but ignore the relationship between second cousins. The example I gave shows how a second cousin might, because of their close family ties, help a family member out as their guarantor, but the Bill would not include that person within the tightly defined family under the Bill. Will the Minister explain why the Government have defined the family in this way? Will she also explain why a second cousin who acts as a guarantor for their family member is treated as a second-class citizen compared with their other closer cousins? We are also interested in the case of smaller families, where perhaps an only child chooses to help a family member who is more distant on paper but who in reality is their nearest kin. There will have to be a definition of “family” in the Bill. We understand that, but we need an explanation about why this definition of the family is being proposed. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, while it is understandable that some individuals have close bonds with more distant relatives, extending the definition of “family member” to include removed or second cousins could complicate the interpretation and enforcement of these provisions, which currently offer a clear and practical framework. Broadening the definition further could introduce uncertainty for landlords and tenants alike, potentially leading to disputes over familial links and undermining the protective aims of the clause.

For those reasons, we do not support these amendments but look forward to getting on to the next group of amendments, where we believe that the issue of guarantors will become less important if a certain amendment is accepted, therefore diminishing the need for this debate.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments relating to guarantors and family members, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, for contributing to the debate.

Amendments 167, 168 and 169 would expand the definition of “family member” used in Clause 21 to include the grandchildren of aunts and uncles as well as siblings of grandparents. This would absolve these individuals from liability for rent owed after a tenant had died when they acted as guarantor.

I understand the noble Baroness’s motivation in probing this definition of family. She sometimes accuses me of not listening, or of not thinking these things through, but I have carefully considered the balance of these provisions. They protect bereaved guarantors from financial hardship while allowing landlords to keep guarantors in place where it is reasonable to do so.

The definition of “family member” reflects the need to encompass more distant family members who might commonly be used as tenancy guarantors. While we understand that more distant relatives than those covered in the definition may rarely be used as guarantors, defining family members for the purposes of this legislation means that a line needs to be drawn somewhere. This definition does not seek to disregard or downplay any family links between relatives who are not included within that definition—some of my second cousins might have something to say if I tried to do that.

It is worth noting that landlords holding guarantors liable in these scenarios is already uncommon, and most landlords would already act compassionately towards a deceased tenant’s family. Furthermore, by removing fixed terms, a personal representative of the deceased tenant can end the tenancy by giving a landlord two months’ notice. We believe that this strikes a balance that is fair to tenants, guarantors and landlords alike. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, not to press her amendments.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for her response, but I do not think that we have quite got to a better understanding of the Government’s reasons for defining a family in this way; it is just that they are going to define a family in this way.

I point out once again that many families are of different shapes to the one described in the Bill. We feel strongly that it would be a strange outcome if slightly more distant cousins were not protected by the legislation, but close cousins were. We have set out clearly that many people have very close family ties with their slightly more distant cousins. We feel that the Government have failed to adequately explain why those individuals should not have the same rights based on their family ties as other members of the family.

We reserve the right to come back to this on Report, but we hope that Ministers will listen to the argument that we have made today and consider improving this part of the Bill to properly reflect the family relationships that many people have in in this country. At this point, I beg to leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 167 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I was intrigued by the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, today and it is interesting to hear that they have come from Citizens Advice. I am conscious that things have evolved over time, and he mentioned relationship breakdown. As somebody who used to rent with other people, I know there was always a certain risk when you took on a tenancy that somebody could walk out and you would be left liable.

I guess I am trying to understand—perhaps I was not listening quite closely enough—whether we will get to a point where, instead of people coming together, this will drive more accommodation into houses of multiple occupation.

I will give your Lordships my personal experience. I was working for a very large company when I moved to another city, which reflected the job situation that I needed. There is no doubt that I deliberately sought out situations that were not exactly HMOs but where individual contracts and tenancies were allowed with the landlord, so that it would not fall on my shoulders to think about these issues.

I suppose I am trying to understand how this amendment would address the situation of making sure that there are enough tenancies and enough accommodation available, without putting more risk on to the landlord. We are already seeing quite a substantial change. I understand why the Government set this out in their manifesto and similar. I appreciate that there may be some differences on some of the impact but, perhaps when the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, follows up—I am happy to discuss this outside—it would be useful to discuss how much of a genuine, as opposed to theoretical, problem this really is.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for bringing these amendments to the Committee. As we on this side have consistently said throughout, we support the Bill’s overarching aim to create a fairer and more secure private rental sector. However, if it is to deliver on that promise, it must engage with the way that people rent in reality, not in theory. Joint tenancies are a common and practical arrangement, as we have heard, whether between couples, friends or flatmates. However, as currently drafted, the Bill leaves considerable uncertainty as to how these tenancies will be treated, particularly when one party wishes to leave.

Amendments 171 and 175 rightly seek to bring joint tenancies fully and clearly within the scope of the Bill. Without this clarity, both tenants and landlords could be left navigating ambiguity, with little guidance in law and potentially significant consequences in practice.

Similarly, Amendments 172 and 174 focus on the mechanisms for ending a joint tenancy. This is a matter not just of legal process but of fairness and practicality. Tenants must be afforded flexibility, particularly in cases of relationship breakdown or changes in household arrangements, while landlords should not be left in legal or financial limbo.

In that context, it is right to raise the issue of subletting, which is closely tied to how joint tenancies evolve and adapt over time. When a tenant is not using all or even part of their space, subletting enables the more efficient use of underoccupied homes. This is particularly important in areas facing acute housing shortages, where every single room matters. Subletting arrangements can offer a pragmatic solution for tenants trying to manage their finances, respond to personal changes or simply avoid exiting a tenancy altogether. It can help maintain housing stability where one joint tenant moves out, by allowing a new occupier to contribute to rent without formalising a new tenancy agreement from scratch. Moreover, subletting can play a role in addressing the chronic supply issues affecting the rental sector. It offers access to more affordable rents, supports tenants’ incomes and introduces much-needed flexibility into an often rigid system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I do hope that the Minister will not agree to this. I have a flat that I live in part-time but sometimes rent, and I am allergic to animals. The idea that I would have to consider and take an application from someone with a pet, when I could not possibly have them living there because of my allergy, seems to me quite unfair. They would come to see the flat and waste their time when there is no chance in the world that I could let it to someone with a pet. I do hope that we will not go the way of forcing somebody like me to waste someone’s time in going to see a property. There is no way that I would be able to have an animal in the flat that I live in at other times.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood for his amendments. I also thank my noble friends Lord Lexden and Lady Coffey for their contributions, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who makes it very clear that we need to have a balance.

This group seeks to address the growing concern among renters, but we must also consider the valid and practical concerns of landlords. Although these proposals aim to prevent blanket bans on pets in rental properties, it is essential to recognise that there must be legitimate reasons for any restrictions. Many tenants may view their pets as family members, as we have heard, but we must also acknowledge the potential challenges and consequences of allowing pets in rental properties. These are challenges that can affect property maintenance, insurance costs and, as we have heard, the well-being of other tenants. A balanced approach is needed, one that considers the rights of tenants and the legitimate concerns of landlords and property owners.

Landlords are often responsible for the upkeep of the property and ensuring the safety and comfort of all tenants. Allowing pets may also complicate insurance policies, leading to higher premiums or even exclusions in certain cases. These concerns are not trivial and must not be dismissed lightly, but rather addressed in a way that is both fair and proportionate. The amendment in this group recognises the need for a balanced approach that takes into account the rights of those tenants and the legitimate interests of landlords.

We on these Benches have made our position clear on previous days in Committee. We continue to advocate for a balanced solution that respects the needs of both tenants and property owners. Ultimately, these amendments contribute to a more equitable housing market, where tenants with pets are not excluded from their right to live in a home that suits their needs. They also ensure that the landlord can continue to manage their properties responsibly with the appropriate protections in place.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, for his amendments relating to pets and rental discrimination, and the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Scott, and my noble friend Lady Hayter for their comments on these amendments.

Amendments 190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 and 198 would extend the core rental discrimination provisions of Chapter 3 to prospective renters with pets, protecting them from any unfavourable treatment in the letting process. We know that pets bring a huge amount of joy to their owners—even Wilberforce, the snake we heard about the other day—and we are committed to supporting responsible pet ownership in the private rented sector.

However, it is our view that extending our rental discrimination provisions in this manner would not be proportionate, nor is it necessary. The Bill already contains measures to ensure that landlords cannot unreasonably withhold consent when a tenant requests to have a pet in their home. Landlords must consider all requests and provide valid justification if consent is refused. This ensures that tenants are not unfairly prevented from keeping pets while still allowing landlords to consider legitimate concerns such as property suitability lease restrictions—the other day we discussed superior leases, which may have clauses about pets—or potential issues with other residents, as my noble friend Lady Hayter mentioned.

Tenants will be able to escalate unfair decisions to the PRS ombudsman, who will have strong powers to put things right, such as compelling a landlord to take a specific action, issue an apology and award financial compensation. Given that, I kindly ask that the noble Lord consider not pressing his amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

199A: Clause 58, page 88, line 5, leave out paragraph (a)
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment that would allow the landlord to invite any person to offer an amount of rent under the proposed letting value.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, my amendments in this group are intended to probe the Government’s decisions on rental bidding and to better understand the rationale behind this section of the Bill. I begin by drawing your Lordships’ attention to Amendment 199A tabled in my name. I wish to understand why, if a tenant or prospective tenant offers a lower rent than the proposed letting value, the landlord is prevented from accepting it. If a tenant is able to secure the property at a more affordable rate, this seems a fair and beneficial outcome. If the proposed letting value is set unrealistically high, allowing offers below that figure provides an important market correction, one which benefits tenants. This is particularly relevant in weaker rental markets where negotiating powers often lie disproportionately with the landlords. I simply ask the Minister: did she consider this before putting it forward?

On these Benches, we recognise the difficult balance the Government are attempting to strike between preventing unfair and unaffordable rent increases and ensuring that the proposed letting value reflects proposed market conditions. Market conditions are, of course, determined by the supply of homes and the market rent must still incentivise landlords to remain in the sector to provide the housing capacity that we urgently need. This brings me to our intention to oppose the question that Clause 58 stand part of the Bill. The rent-setting process must be transparent, and must be free to function. We should not pretend that we can fix prices without distorting the market signals that allow for an efficient and well-resourced housing market. We must be careful not to introduce policies that mask the simple fact that we need more homes of all types. We on these Benches are committed to working with the Minister to that end, but I first ask her: has she considered whether these measures may in fact obscure the true demand within the rental sector? Understanding that demand is key to delivering the right supply and the right homes built in the right places.

Further, has the Minister considered the impact on labour mobility? Tenants in rent control units may be discouraged from relocating for jobs or education, thus reducing workforce mobility. With over 800,000 vacancies, we should not be inadvertently curtailing the movement of our workers. Finally, I wish to probe whether the Government have fully considered the potential impact on new renters compared with existing tenants. No one on these Benches doubts the Minister’s intentions; we simply fear that the department has not paused to fully reflect on these key issues.

I turn to Amendment 199B, also in my name. I will cheekily anticipate that the Minister may say, in response to this probing question: “Yes”. The Bill attempts to define the term “relevant person” in Clause 58(6) but, before the Minister reaches that definition, I wish to question its adequacy and its clarity. Is there any formal process to designate someone as a relevant person or is this determined on a case-by-case basis? Further, how is the term “acting indirectly” to be interpreted? Does this include property agents or other advisory parties? Crucially, what is meant by “purporting to act”? I am sure that those with legal expertise in this House will argue that this is a loaded term that depends heavily on interpretation. I would be grateful if the Minister could offer her understanding of it and, importantly, explain how consistency in interpretation will be ensured.

Clause 58 represents a significant shift. With that must come clear answers. I hope the Minister will help your Lordships’ House to understand the Government’s thinking more fully. I beg to move.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend in these amendments. Two different things are going on here, one of which is not allowing the market to work. I am trying to understand what evidence there is to suggest that this is a real issue.

I will give a personal story. When at university, a group of us wanted to rent a house. Under the rules of the university, you could live only at a certain distance, and so on. Not wanting to take a 12-month tenancy, we were particularly attracted by and sought out houses that would require only a nine-month tenancy. The landlady we were involved with used to make considerably more rent in the summer through tourists and short-term lets, but also gave students the opportunity not to take on the liability of the year. That helped keep rents relatively low. I am sure that your Lordships can imagine that such a scenario, while it may seem niche, was still very important to students at that time, and so was the availability of houses reflecting that opportunity. In effect—this is nothing to be embarrassed about—we gazumped by being prepared to sacrifice a living room and turn it into an extra bedroom. It also gave a little more rent to the landlady, which was a factor when, I was led to believe, 46 groups went to see that house wanting to secure the tenancy.

While I completely understand some of the intentions of this clause about not getting into ridiculous bidding wars, I am surprised, given the real scarcity in certain parts of the country of private sector rentals, as to why we would want to unnecessarily put such handcuffs on the landlord to accept only the rent they advertise and not be creative about the situation in which prospective tenants may find themselves.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for tabling her amendments relating to rental bidding. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for contributing. I will respond to the two probing amendments in a moment. First, however, I will set out to the Committee why I consider her fundamental objection to Clause 58 —which will end the unfair practice of renters being pitted against each other in bidding wars—to be misplaced.

The measures in Clause 58 will require landlords and persons acting for them, for example letting agents, to state a proposed rent in any written advertisement for the property. Landlords and those acting for them will then be prohibited from asking for, encouraging or accepting bids above this price. To respond to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, these are not rent controls—the landlord may advertise the property at the rent they wish to achieve, but they cannot then increase that rent as other bidders come along. Currently, too many tenants suffer from a lack of transparency in the lettings process. I cannot imagine the heartbreak of thinking that you have found a property at a rent that you can afford only to discover that the landlord or letting agent has pushed other tenants to offer more. Their experience is not that of a viewing but of a kerbside auction. The impact on renters of the practice is clear and our measures will end it for good.

This is a specific problem that we are trying to target, and the majority of landlords do not engage in rental bidding. However, we are trying to stamp out the egregious practice of a minority of landlords who exploit the fact that, particularly in hot rental markets, there is a lack of supply relative to demand. Tenants can be pitted against each other in ways that ensure the rent of a tenancy escalates to a point beyond what many of them can afford, or which, if they can afford it, puts an incredible financial strain on them.

I visited a housing site in Greenwich this week and I heard that, in some parts of London, a house in the private rented sector will cost a public sector worker 94% of their salary just to pay the rent. These measures will improve the experiences of prospective tenants across England and provide clarity to all those involved in the lettings process.

Amendment 199A would remove the prohibition on landlords inviting or encouraging a tenant to offer to pay an amount of rent that exceeds the stated rent. If this amendment were taken forward, landlords would fall foul of the rental bidding provisions only if they accepted rent at a level above the stated rent, not if they invited or encouraged its payment. While I welcome the scrutiny—and I genuinely do—of our rental bidding measures, I am concerned that this amendment would risk allowing a form of rental bidding to continue to be practised. Under this—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Sorry. While we are talking about this, does the Minister not think that what could happen—and what may happen—is that the level of rents will be above what they would normally be, because the landlord is going to go for the absolute maximum they can? Is that not a danger?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think I answered this question under a previous group on a previous day. This is not intended to be rent cap; it is intended to stop the practice of changing the rent once the rent for that property is published. It will be up to landlords to advertise the property at a rent they think they can achieve for that property and, once they have advertised it at that price, they will not be able to increase that rent when things subsequently come along.

Under this amendment, a landlord could lawfully encourage bids above the advertised price, take the property off the market and then use any bids received to establish a higher price at which to relist it. I think that would start to have an inflationary effect on rents. I am not suggesting that this scenario would be commonplace, but it would be lawful and, if it were to occur, it would clearly be to the detriment of prospective tenants. I therefore consider that our belt-and-braces approach of prohibiting both the accepting and encouraging of bids to be the right one and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Finally, Amendment 199B seeks to remove

“by any other relevant person”

from the definition of “stated rent” in Clause 58(4)(b). As I have explained, the rental bidding clauses prevent a landlord, or person acting for them, inviting, encouraging or accepting an offer of rent higher than the “stated rent”. The term “stated rent” is defined as the rent originally proposed in the written advertisement, either by the person who is now doing the inviting, encouraging or accepting of higher offers or, as the case may be, any other relevant person.

A “relevant person” could be either

“the prospective landlord, or a person acting or purporting to act directly or indirectly on behalf of the prospective landlord”.

The latter would usually be a lettings agent, but it could also be a more informal relationship such as a friend of the landlord. It is necessary for us to avoid a loophole whereby, say, the landlord publishes the advertisement containing the stated rent and then asks his friend or letting agent to carry out the rental auction.

As such, the Bill is drafted deliberately to ensure that the prohibition applies in those circumstances, as well as the more straightforward scenario in which it is the landlord who publishes the advert and then proceeds to carry out the rental auction. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to not press this amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her reply, and for the insight into this issue from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. On these Benches, we recognise the challenging balance the Government are seeking to achieve: protecting tenants from unfair and unaffordable rent increases, while also ensuring that the proposed letting value remains aligned with the functioning market.

These market conditions are of course shaped by the availability of housing, and any rent-setting approach must still offer sufficient incentives for landlords to stay in the market and to continue providing the homes that our communities so urgently require. I thank the Minister for her answers, but I urge her to truly reflect on the points that we have raised, to carry them back to her department and, if necessary, to come back with her continued engagement with the House.

This group of amendments, like many others, is not overtly political; it consists of serious and practical probes into serious and practical issues. In our pursuit of stronger protections for tenants, we must be careful not to deter landlords or make it unfeasible for them to continue to provide the homes our communities so badly need. These are concerns that many landlords share, and we believe that they must be at the forefront of the Government’s thinking. We ask them to go back to reflect on what we have brought forward. I ask the Minister to step back and consider any unintended consequences of this part of the legislation—or, at the very least, to acknowledge the genuine concerns of those who oppose this part of the Bill. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 199A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, this in effect creates a formal escrow process. One of my proudest achievements was to organise a student rent strike, admittedly some time ago, as noble Lords may recognise. At the time, the university accommodation was due to be dismantled at the end of the year and as a consequence it felt like the university was not taking various matters very seriously.

I happened not to be a paying student at the time; I was a vice-warden in a hall of residence. So I did help them, but I insisted that, if I was to help them, they would have to pay over their rent to avoid being evicted. We did that by handing the money to the student union, to effectively act in escrow. As a consequence, repairs were made and everyone ended up happy—apart from the university, which did not like my role in that at all.

The reason I tell that story is that it matters that tenants should be able to withhold cash going directly to a landlord when the landlord is, frankly, taking the mickey. Awaab’s law has already been mentioned and Clause 63, which we did not specifically address, is already extending that to the private sector, and I welcome that. We need to work out a much easier way for people to effectively deploy this escrow approach. That is why I am supporting the amendment.

It is fair to say that we need to make sure that any such processes are easy to administer. Going a little bit further, there is a regularly read out statistic that something like 15% to 20% of housing benefit—or housing support, whether as direct housing benefit or through universal credit—is thought to go to properties not deemed fit for rent. I went into a reasonable amount of detail on this with officials.

The philosophy explained to me by the Permanent Secretary and other officials was that the state thus far should not determine on behalf of the renter where they are going to live; it is an important right for the renter to make that choice—even though it felt repulsive to me that taxpayers’ money was being spent in, frankly, some pretty ropey places. From my visits to some different housing, I have to say it was quite extraordinary what was going on. Sometimes, I am afraid, the dilapidation was the consequence of the tenant not allowing repairs to be undertaken—but that is a minor aside. The point is that—whether it is private money, your own money or the state’s money going to a private landlord—it matters that we have habitable accommodation. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment from the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments have raised the serious and emotive issue of the reality of tenants living in poor housing conditions and the remedies that are available when landlords fail to act. It is an area where frustration and vulnerability can understandably run high.

Amendment 206, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, proposes a system of mediated rent pauses. Under that model, tenants would be entitled to pay rent to an independent individual rather than their landlord when repairs are not carried out within the expected framework. However, we must be clear-eyed about this. How would it operate in practice? Who would this independent individual be in real terms? Would it be the redress scheme ombudsman? If so, is it appropriate or even realistic for them to be holding and distributing rent payments? Would they have the resources, legal authority or financial infrastructure to do so? It is overcomplicated.

There is also the question of safeguards. What mechanisms would ensure that the process was fair to both parties? What happens if a tenant withholds rent on the basis of a dispute that turns out to be unfounded? How long might rent be withheld, and what impact would that have on smaller landlords with limited financial resilience? It is entirely right that landlords should meet their obligations to maintain safe and decent homes, but we should be cautious about creating a system that effectively withholds rent before any formal adjudication. That could introduce significant uncertainty into the private rented sector. Would this approach encourage resolution or would it risk entrenching disputes? Might it push responsible landlords out of the market while rogue landlords simply continue to ignore the rules?

In short, while the amendment is well intentioned, and of course we sympathise with all individuals living in poor conditions and battling with irresponsible and careless landlords, it raises complex questions about implementation and unintended consequences. On balance, we are not persuaded that the provision as drafted would be workable in practice. However, there must be a better, more practical way to ensure that tenants are protected without creating further layers of bureaucracy and pushing good landlords out of the market.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for tabling Amendment 206, ably supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who moved it, and I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Scott, for taking part in the debate.

Amendment 206 would allow a tenant to pay rent to the ombudsman rather than their landlord if the landlord had failed to meet legal requirements on housing quality. I strongly agree with the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to ensure that landlords remedy hazards in good time—we all know the outcome when that does not happen—but I feel that the Bill’s existing provisions are the best way to achieve that. The Bill will allow private rented sector tenants to challenge their landlord through the courts if they fail to comply with the Awaab’s law requirements, such as timescales for remedying hazards. Alongside that, it will allow us to apply the decent homes standard to the private rented sector, which is an important move.

The PRS landlord ombudsman will provide a new route of redress for tenants and will be able to investigate complaints about standards and repairs. The Bill will also strengthen rent repayment orders, including by increasing from 12 months to two years the amount of rent that a tribunal will be able to award a tenant. Tenants can seek rent to be repaid where a relevant offence has been committed, including offences related to housing standards, such as failing to comply with an improvement notice.

The amendment has the potential to be administratively complex and risks unintended consequences that might lead inadvertently to worse outcomes for tenants. For example, rent being held by the ombudsman could delay repairs in some cases if it made it more difficult for landlords to fund the required works, a point that I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, referred to. Existing measures in the Bill place legal expectations on landlords about the quality of their properties and give tenants access to compensation if their landlords have not met obligations in relation to standards, as well as providing mechanisms through which landlords can be required to carry out repairs. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Gypsies and Travellers are an important part of Britain’s population, heritage and social fabric. Providing well-designed, good-quality, managed sites for these groups supports healthy and happy communities, and addresses wider determinants of health, education and employment. This is not solely the realm of housing. Other public services should care about this issue too, including public health, children’s services and others, because the symptoms flowing from a lack of quality accommodation end up presenting in schools, hospitals, welfare services and prisons. As a business case, the delivery of appropriate sites has been shown to save public money from being spent on endless evictions from unauthorised encampments.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed. This is what makes this House so good at these sorts of debates, because expertise from all parts of this debate has been shown today.

These amendments draw attention to the housing circumstances of non-traditional tenures, in particular residential boat dwellers, mobile home residents and members of the Travelling communities. These are individuals and families whose housing arrangements, as we have heard, do not always align neatly with the frameworks established for the private rented sector.

The amendments in this group, most notably those from the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, raise legitimate questions, from the proposal to classify mooring fees and site fees as rent, to calls for formal reviews on how this legislation impacts riverboat dwellers, mobile home residents, and Gypsy and Traveller communities. The amendments ask us to think carefully about the scope and reach of the Renters’ Rights Bill. We on these Benches recognise that individuals living in houseboats, in mobile homes and on Traveller sites often face unique vulnerabilities, and we must be cautious not to exclude them from appropriate protections.

At the same time, it is essential that we examine whether the legislative instruments proposed in the Bill are the right fit for these circumstances, or whether we risk introducing unintended consequences for landlords, licensing authorities, the Canal & River Trust, which manages our waterways, or even the residents themselves. One of the questions here is whether the current legal definitions, such as “dwelling house” and “rent”, are suitable for application to mobile structures or moorings, as we have heard. However, we must also consider the interests and views of different Traveller communities. Have the Government undertaken proper consultation with these communities? Do they, in fact, want to be brought into the scope of this legislation, and on what terms? We must avoid legislating for communities without engaging with them first.

As we have heard today, particularly from my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, these amendments do not seek sweeping or immediate change—rather, they propose reviews and clarifications—but even the suggestion of classifying moorings or site fees as rent could trigger significant changes to how the law treats these tenures. This could introduce unintended complexity for landlords, many of whom are small-scale, and lead to disputes where the legal framework is unclear or even inapplicable. More work needs to be done on this issue, in our opinion. As my noble friend said, that has already been promised by the Government. Finally, we must ask whether there is a clear and compelling case for bringing these non-traditional tenures within the scope of the legislation, or whether doing so risks creating unintended consequences for both the tenants and the landlords.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I first express my appreciation for starting these debates at a reasonable time today. We have been getting later and later, so I am very pleased. I hope that we finish them at a reasonable time as well.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for their amendments relating to non-traditional tenures, and all who have contributed to this debate. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in saying that it shows the best of this House when you get expertise like that from across the Chamber, from the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller, Lady Bakewell and Lady Warwick, the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Best, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and, of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, herself.

I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness who have amendments in this group for their very helpful engagement on the issues they raised. Before I give my responses to the amendments, I say that I truly understand the frustrations felt by both of them, and those on whose behalf they speak, that these issues have not been addressed by successive Governments. Although I do not believe the Bill is the vehicle to address those issues, as I expect they will have anticipated from our meetings, I will continue to work with them to seek appropriate solutions to the issues they have raised.

I turn first to Amendments 206A, 262 and 271, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. I thank the noble Lord for raising concerns about difficulties faced by houseboat owners in general and the houseboat owners in Chelsea who he has talked to me about in the past. Amendment 206A would give those who own or rent a houseboat and use the boat as their main residence the same rights under Part 1 of the Bill as renters of residential buildings. Although occupants of residential boats may benefit from some protection under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and some wider consumer protection legislation, the Government recognise that they do not enjoy the same level of tenure security as those in the private rented sector.

However, the Renters’ Rights Bill focuses on the law relating to rented homes, not owner-occupiers, and the tenancy reform measures in Part 1 focus on the assured tenancy regime, which applies to most private renters in England and relates to residential buildings. The assured tenancy regime does not apply to houseboats or other moveable property—an issue to which the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred in his intervention. Those in rented houseboats will have a licence to occupy the boat and will fall outside the assured tenancy regime that the Bill is concerned with.

Specifically on Amendment 262, as houseboats are predominantly owner-occupied—I understand that some are rented but they are mostly owner-occupied—and do not fall within the assured tenancy regime, it is therefore unlikely that a review of the impact of the Bill’s provisions would provide significant new insights into the issues affecting houseboat owners. Additionally, bringing houseboats within the scope of the assured tenancy regime, as proposed by Amendment 271, would raise fundamental and complex issues, about which I will explain a bit more in a moment, including what security of tenure means in relation to a chattel as opposed to land, and what the potential implications for moorings owners and navigation authorities might be.

The policy and legislative implications would be far-reaching and there would be a high chance of unintended consequences, as indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. The Government’s priority is to ensure the smooth and successful implementation of the measures in the Bill that are before the Committee today. On that basis, although I am very sympathetic to the noble Lord’s aims, I cannot support these amendments as they stand.

The Government will, however, continue to engage with parliamentarians and stakeholders on the complex issues about houseboats that the noble Lord has rightly and powerfully helped to highlight. The issues and history raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, illustrated some of the complications in resolving these issues. I will add that providing additional security of tenure to houseboat owners would require engagement with a range of stakeholders, including more than 20 navigation authorities and the owners of land adjoining waterways, and that is just part of the complication here.

I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said there was a working group 19 years ago in which my noble friend Lady Smith took part. I can say only that we have not been in government for the last 14 years so it has been difficult to move any of this forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to security of tenure. As I said, providing additional security of tenure to houseboat owners would require the engagement of those navigation authorities and owners of land, and other users of waterways will have different needs and requirements that would also need to be taken into account. Security of tenure under the Housing Act 1988 applies to tenancies of buildings and land, so would not be suitable for licences to occupy boats without significant amendment. To bring rented houseboats within the scope of the legislation would require a detailed assessment of the implications for the assured tenancy regime and the changes being introduced through the Renters’ Rights Bill and other legislation that refers to it, and, as I said before, a high chance of unintended consequences.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to unfair practice on mobile home sites. My email inbox indicates very much what some of those complications are, but I will talk about the mobile homes amendments now.

I thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker for her work to ensure that the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community has a safe and secure place to live. I have had a number of conversations with my noble friend since I joined this House, and she knows that I share her concerns about some of the issues that she raises. She and I have had many discussions about this, particularly about the standards of communal facilities provided on sites occupied by the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. We understand the concerns and will continue to engage with parliamentarians and stakeholders on the complex issues about standards on those sites. For those sites owned and operated by local authorities, there is of course recourse both to the local authority’s complaints system and, if that is not successful, to the Local Government Ombudsman, although I appreciate that there are some unique difficulties for those communities in accessing those routes.

Amendment 206B would give those who own a caravan and use it as their main residence the same rights under Part 1 of the Bill as renters of residential buildings. That would include those who already have protections under the Mobile Homes Act 1983. For similar reasons to those that I have already set out in my response to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, while I am sympathetic to the difficulties faced by mobile home owners, a different approach to addressing those difficulties is necessary from that proposed by this amendment. There would be a high risk of unintended consequences if an attempt were made to extend rights under Part 1 of the Bill, which is about rented homes, to mobile home owners.

The noble Baroness mentioned that the Mobile Homes Act 1983 confers on mobile home pitch agreements the key characteristics of a tenancy, rather than merely a licence to occupy. While there may be some similarities between the terms implied by the 1983 Act and the terms of certain tenancy agreements, the fact remains that those occupying pitches on caravan sites only have a licence to occupy the pitch. They have no interest in the land, and there would still be no intention by the site owner to create a tenancy between the parties. Moreover, the pitch agreement does not relate to the occupation of the mobile home itself, just the pitch on which it stands. In that sense, a pitch agreement and a secure or assured tenancy are fundamentally different types of agreement. To bring those with Mobile Home Act 1983 agreements within the scope of the assured tenancy regime, as proposed by Amendment 206B, would raise fundamental and complex issues, including what “security of tenure” means in relation to a chattel as opposed to land, and what the potential implications for caravan site owners might be.

Amendment 275A would commit the Government to carrying out a review of the implications of not extending the provisions of the Act to the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. Again, while I am most sympathetic to my noble friend’s aims, I cannot support the amendment as mobile homes are predominantly owner-occupied and do not fall within the assured tenancy regime, which the Renters’ Rights Bill is largely focused on. However, I understand and will further consider her points about the amenity blocks and how those issues may be addressed.

In addition, as the Renters’ Rights Bill is focused on the law relating to rented homes, it is unlikely that a review of the impact of the provisions in the Bill will provide significant new insights into the issues affecting mobile home owners. The Government’s priority is to ensure the smooth and successful implementation of the measures that are before the Committee today.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

206C: Clause 64, page 98, line 22, leave out subsection (4)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes why definitions which determine who is subject to housing laws, rights, and responsibilities can be amended by regulations.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this group contains just one amendment, Amendment 206C, which stands in my name. This amendment probes why definitions that determine who is subject to housing laws, rights and responsibilities can be amended by regulation. This is yet another part of the Bill that is subject to change at the discretion of the Secretary of State.

Definitions in law are important. In this instance, the ability to change the definition of “private landlord”, “relevant tenancy” and “dwelling” for the purposes of determining which tenancies fall within the scope of the landlord redress scheme and the PRS database is a significant and fundamental power. Will the Minister say why the Government have sought to grant themselves this power through the affirmative procedure rather than through primary legislation? If the intent of these regulations is merely to clarify the position of superior landlords in certain circumstances, surely such clarification is best achieved through a full parliamentary process, one in which your Lordships’ House and the other place can explore the specifics and nuances of niche tenures such as student accommodation or temporary lets.

The Government have committed to lay these regulations as soon as possible following Royal Assent. We are aware that there are to be no transitional arrangements included in the Bill. In previous debates, we urged the Government to reconsider this approach and affirm their long-standing commitment to prospective lawmaking by providing clear commencement dates and reasonable transition periods for all new obligations. This would help protect both tenants and landlords from the risks associated with abrupt and unfair change. However, the Government were clear that they did not share this view. Despite that, can the Minister confirm when these regulations might come into force? Importantly, how are they going to be communicated to the affected parties given the absence of transitional arrangements? Like many aspects of this Bill, this provision is concerning, particularly given the lack of detail in the Bill. This is part of a growing trend from this Government, a pattern in not just this Bill but across others too. I hope we are not going into this, “We will commit now, but do later”. I beg to move.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend very strongly. I declare my interest, as I have done before, as a Suffolk farmer who has converted redundant agricultural buildings into dwellings. It is all still part of the farming operation.

I have already warned the Government that they are in danger of relying on statutory instruments, Henry VIII clauses and subsidiary legislation for what will be primary legislation. The purpose of the Parliament is to legislate, in the first instance, primary legislation. The House of Lords, with its careful scrutiny of statutory instruments, has a particular role and record in doing this. So, this particular Bill is going, in any case, to have a lot of unanswered questions. We are going to try to ask most of those questions and get the Government to face up and give us the answers because it is a very bad principle of legislation for a Government to say, “Oh, we’ll leave that to the courts”, or something like that. That is not what legislating is about. It is important that we do not unnecessarily add into potential secondary legislation what should be primary legislation.

The Government have got to take this very seriously because this is a long and difficult Bill which has many dangers in it and ahead of it, not least—and I shall probably say this again—because the private rented sector plays an important part in the provision of housing. The provision of housing was one of the objectives of the previous Government and of this Government. It is also part of generating economic growth, which the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have repeatedly told us is their priority. I beg the Government to be more rigid and dissective in their thinking before rushing ahead with this legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

In response to the questions about timing from both the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, I can say that, following Royal Assent, we will allow time for a smooth transition to the new system. We will support tenants, landlords and agents to understand and adjust to the new rules. In line with this commitment, we will provide the sector with enough time to prepare for the introduction of the new PRS landlord ombudsman. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, to withdraw the amendment at this stage.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I particularly thank my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Marlesford for their support on what we consider a very important amendment. I also thank the Minister, although I am surprised at her response on having a period of time to get communications in place. I will look back in Hansard but I think that, on a previous group, it was suggested that the implementation would come quite quickly after Royal Assent. If that is the case, I would quite like to know what the timings would be—whether it would be weeks or months—as and when those things are known.

On these Benches, we of course recognise that the Secretary of State should be afforded certain powers to deliver the content of legislation. However, the Government possibly have not fully considered the scale and scope of these regulatory powers, nor the level of trust that landlords, tenants and legislators must place in the Secretary of State on this issue. This is not about questioning the intentions of the Minister or others; rather, it is to suggest that significant changes should be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny, and that both your Lordships’ House and the other place should be given the opportunity to fulfil their constitutional role—quite honestly, that is the reason we are here.

I believe that what the Minister was saying is that these powers are necessary, but I did not hear compelling justification for why that is the case. Perhaps at a later stage we might, as I said, have more information on this and the Minister might be able to give a better explanation and I would be very happy to have that in writing. However, at this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 206C withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I will briefly comment on two amendments in this group: Amendment 233 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and Amendment 243 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, about databases. I feel that we are overlooking the need to ensure that the rogues in the system are identified and banned or punished for bad behaviour. They riddle the rented sector, I am afraid.

The database is a great attempt to give transparency and clarity to mortgagees, as in one of these amendments, to tenants and to potential tenants to check on their potential landlords. It is not responsible landlords who are the problem; it is the rogues. Rogues like to be invisible. They do not want to be detectable. They certainly do not want enforcement proceedings served against them. Enforcement must have teeth. Without real teeth, there is little point in trying to catch the rogues. The database would go a long way towards achieving that, but I fear that there is not enough determination in the Government to really punish those who are determined to cheat.

Rogues can hide their properties under the names of shelf companies. They can be registered abroad. They can have a tangled web of subsidiaries and further subsidiaries. They will make themselves as invisible and undetectable as possible. I close by simply saying that these are good amendments, but I would love to see sharper teeth in the enforceability.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for opening this group, as it marks the beginning of three vital debates on the database, which is an issue of great interest to stakeholders across the sector. There are 16 amendments in this group dealing with a range of quite complex issues relating to the database so, with the leave of the Committee, I will try to fully address the issues raised, but I might take a little extra time.

Before turning to our specific amendments and those in the wider group, I start by saying that the creation of a private rented sector database is a major change for landlords and tenants in this country. It is an opportunity to seriously improve transparency and outcomes for renters. We have expressed concerns on previous Bills about the overuse of regulation-making powers to deliver the statutory powers that the Government seek. Ministers should, we believe, set out clearly their plans in this Bill as far as is practically possible. Given the lack of detail in the clauses relating to the establishment of the database, we take this opportunity to ask the Minister to clarify the Government’s plans. If she cannot answer today, we will be very happy to have it in writing after today’s debate.

I start by addressing Amendment 228A, tabled in my name. This is a simple amendment that would ensure that the Secretary of State is required to make regulations to ensure that the database entries are regularly updated and maintained. It is essential that the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the data be maintained if it is to be a useful resource for both tenants and for landlords. This is common sense, and this should be a requirement. I hope the Minister will agree to that. If the Government cannot accept this amendment today, will she please take this opportunity to explain why the Government feel that the Secretary of State should have discretion in this area?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Best, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Thornhill, for their amendments on database operation and accessing the database, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for their contributions. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, spoke to Amendment 230, which is in the next group, and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, spoke to Amendment 237, which is in group 6. I will respond to them when we get to those groups, if that is okay.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I apologise. I have two lists that have different numbers in them; I think they are one before the other.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

When we get to this stage of a Bill, especially when we have three or four groups on the same subject, I am not surprised that people get them mixed up.

I start by saying that I very much share the sentiments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott, about the potential of this database to support both landlords and tenants. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, clearly set out why this is important for responsible landlords as well as tenants. I am sure that landlords who do a very good job, which is the majority of them, get incredibly frustrated by the minority of rogue landlords who certainly do not and I hope that this will help them as well.

Amendment 219 from my noble friend Lord Hacking proposes that a duty be placed on the database operator to ensure that the database be established and operational within a year of the Renters’ Rights Bill coming into force. I know the database will be a vital tool in raising standards in the private rented sector. I assure my noble friend and other noble Lords who raised the issue that we are aiming for the database to be active as soon as possible.

The database is being designed as a bespoke product to ensure that it aligns with the operational and legal details set out in regulations. We are currently focusing on getting the basic functionality right, testing with the sector and local authorities and developing guidance for users. Setting a timeframe for a database in the Bill is unnecessary and could be counterproductive. We simply cannot risk it being brought in when the secondary legislation or technology is not ready. This would make life more difficult for tenants, landlords and local authorities. For this reason, I kindly ask that my noble friend considers withdrawing that amendment.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for Amendment 220, which would require the legislation to state that the database will benefit landlords, tenants, local authorities and other interested stakeholders. I assure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, who spoke to this amendment, that the database is being designed for the benefit of all potential users, including tenants, landlords and local authorities. I recognise the positive intent behind the noble Lord’s amendment. However, the Government are already working towards that and we are continuing to focus on those user groups as the database is designed. I therefore do not believe it is necessary to accept the amendment and for that reason I ask the noble Lord not to press it.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I reassure noble Lords, with regard to time, that the amendments in this group, in my name and those of other noble Lords —and there are a quite a lot of them—all work together and function as a pack. Therefore, my description of these amendments working together will actually be quite brief. The amendments look to strengthen the link between compliance with the private rented sector database and the lawful use of eviction powers. I appreciate that I am pushing the envelope a little bit and I will be genuinely interested in the Minister’s response.

These amendments are rooted in a very simple principle. If we expect landlords to meet minimum legal obligations—and we do, and we hope for more compliance: that is what the whole Bill is about—such as registering on the new database, which, following our previous discussions, is going to be the whizziest, wonderful game-changer, there really must be meaningful consequences when they do not. Currently, the Bill does not explicitly tie database compliance to a landlord’s ability to issue a Section 8 notice. These amendments aim to correct that, or at least to open up a discussion about it.

Amendment 223 would require landlords to register any Section 8 eviction notice on the database within seven days of issuing it. This would support greater transparency, help local landlords and tenants track patterns of use and ensure that there is a reliable record of how and when eviction powers are being exercised. Can the Minister say how we gather that data accurately, if not through this? It is important data and without it we lose very valuable oversight.

Amendments 235, 238, 239 and 240 would prevent a Section 8 eviction notice being considered valid if the landlord has failed to comply with Clause 83(3) of the Bill—namely, the obligation to register themselves and their dwelling on the database. These are not minor or excessive requirements; they are fundamental baseline requirements for responsible landlords. It is entirely reasonable to say that, if these duties are not met, a landlord should not be able to proceed with eviction.

Amendment 236 provides necessary clarification, ensuring that this requirement applies to the entirety of subsection (3) and not just selected parts. Taken together, this group helps to make the database a functioning gatekeeper for landlord compliance. It reinforces the idea that legal powers, especially those as significant as eviction, should be available only to those who follow the rules. That in turn builds confidence in the system and protects tenants from being displaced by landlords who are themselves acting unlawfully. I hope the Minister will look carefully at these proposals. They are proportionate and targeted and go to the heart of what this reform is meant to achieve: a fairer and more accountable rental sector. I beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for opening this group. The issues of database fees and possession restrictions are of real significance, and this group is therefore of considerable importance. Before turning to the wider contributions made today, I will speak to the amendments in this group that I have tabled. Amendment 228C seeks to probe the circumstances under which a landlord may be charged a fee under the regulations made under Clause 80. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some clarity on this point. Under what conditions do the Government foresee such charges being applied?

Amendment 228E, also in my name, would prevent the costs of enforcement action against non-compliant landlords being charged to those who have complied with the requirements of this chapter. This part of the Bill seems entirely unfair on law-abiding landlords. We want to understand why landlords who are compliant must bear the costs of enforcement taken against those landlords who fail to comply with the law. Could the Minister explain why compliant landlords must bear the costs of enforcement targeted at those who fail to meet their legal obligations?

Amendment 228F seeks to remove subsection (4)(d), which includes the costs of enforcement action imposed by the Bill in relation to the private rented sector. Our original understanding was that these fees were intended to relate to the database, but this paragraph seems to be a classic case of Ministers seeking additional and wider-ranging powers as a belt-and-braces approach. This is not an acceptable way forward. We understand completely that the database must be funded and we accept that a fee is reasonable, but we need to make sure that the fees charged under this clause remain reasonable. We know that this will increase the costs of business for landlords, so we need to ensure that the costs are both reasonable and proportionate. We are concerned that this wide definition of “relevant costs” may result in unreasonably high costs.

Perhaps I can press the Minister to give the Committee some sense of what the fees will be like, and how increases will be managed. Ultimately, we must bear in mind that it is usually the tenants who bear these costs through their rents in the future. Overall, what are the predicted costs of setting up and running the database, and what are the costs likely to be to the landlord?

Many landlords are small-scale and independent; they are not corporate landlords, with legal teams and financial reserves. They are ordinary individuals, often renting out one or two properties as a way to supplement their pension or to provide long-term family support. For the database to function as intended, it must be financially accessible.

On Amendment 228G, clear communication of the changes of fees is essential. It builds trust and helps people plan their finances, but it also avoids any confusion or frustration.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott, and my noble friend Lord Hacking, who I do not think is in his place anymore, for their amendments regarding database fees and possession restrictions.

I will start with the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Amendment 223 would mandate that the database operator establishes and operates the database so that it contains entries in respect of Section 8 possession notices, with such entries to be recorded on the database within seven days of the landlord serving them. I appreciate the intent behind this amendment. We are actively exploring collecting possession information on the database. We have identified various potential benefits to collecting this data—for example, it may support local authorities in identifying where possession grounds have been misused or where tenants are at risk of homelessness. It could also be useful to prospective tenants in making choices about where to rent, so I agree with her on that.

However, our research has also highlighted some challenges, particularly around accuracy and reliance on landlords self-reporting. We will need to consider carefully how these issues could be managed. I am also keen to impress upon the noble Baroness and the Committee that we do not think the information the database collects should be on in the Bill; we discussed that on the previous group. Our research has consistently demonstrated that it is imperative that the database can be adapted to meet future needs. Therefore, the data it collects should be set out in regulations. This is already possible through the regulation-making power in Clause 78, which the Government will use to outline registration requirements. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.

Amendments 235, 236 and 238 to 240, taken together, propose changing the Bill’s provisions so that landlords cannot serve notice for possession under Section 8 nor be granted repossession by the courts if they are not compliant with database registration requirements. In addition, the amendments would mean not only that landlords would need to be registered but that their entries would need to be up to date in order for notices served to be valid. The amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would do this by adding a provision in the Bill for updating Section 7 of the Housing Act 1988, which refers to courts’ powers to order possession to be updated to effect compliance relating to the database.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, also proposes amendments to the wording of Clause 91 so that it refers to Section 83(3) as a whole. I understand that the noble Baroness is concerned with incentivising landlords to comply with regulation and therefore sees the value in replicating some of the safeguards that have been in place for serving Section 21 notices. I agree that landlords who have not met the basic obligation of registering on the database should not be able to gain possession of a property. This is an important incentive for landlords to register and supports the role of the database in driving up standards in the sector. However, the Bill will already update the Housing Act 1988 to prevent landlords being granted possession by the courts if they do not have an active database entry for themselves and the property. This is a proportionate approach to stop landlords being granted possession where they have failed to meet their obligations.

The Bill also clearly sets out our expectation for landlords to maintain active database entries and to ensure that these are up to date. I reassure noble Lords that landlords who do not have an up-to-date entry in the database will be subject to enforcement action by local authorities. Regulations will stipulate the requirements for active and up-to-date entries, and in the meantime the criteria for gaining possession as outlined in the Bill provides an appropriate level of protection for tenants against landlords who fail to register with the database without sanctioning landlords disproportionately. We do not want to risk creating a situation where landlords cannot use Section 8 grounds but have no alternative means of seeking possession. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, to consider not pressing these amendments.

Amendments 228C, 228E, 228F, 228G and 237A were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. Amendment 228C would remove the ability to make regulations requiring the payment of a fee as part of renewals when database entries become inactive. I understand that the noble Baroness is seeking further information on the circumstances in which a landlord could be charged a fee under the regulations made under Clause 80. It is the intention that, in addition to an initial registration fee, there will be a fee at the point of renewal. An entry will become inactive if it expires at the end of a registration period and will become active again upon renewal. Landlords will not be charged for updates between renewal points. In cases where a landlord elects to make an entry inactive because they are no longer letting the property, they will not be charged. We will set out in detail when active entries become inactive, and vice versa, in secondary legislation. Timelines for registration and renewal will similarly be set out in secondary legislation.

Amendment 228E would place a requirement on Ministers to give two months’ notice of any fee changes to landlords with an active database entry. It raises a useful point to consider as we develop the database. We agree on the need for landlords to receive clear and timely communication about any changes in fees and to understand when a fee is required. As we develop the database, we are considering the required communications to landlords to help them understand their obligations, including payment of fees. We are also considering how we can design the database to facilitate this in a timely way. As we are already considering these points as we develop our proposals for implementation, we do not consider this amendment necessary.

Amendments 228F and 228G would remove the ability to set database fees with reference to costs of enforcing database requirements and to wider PRS enforcement costs respectively. This would mean that any fees could be calculated only by reference to operational costs and functions of the database. Effective enforcement is essential for the successful operation of the database. Without it, there will be no means to take action if landlords fail to sign up or provide the correct information. We have heard throughout the passage of this Bill the challenges with local housing authority resourcing and capacity for enforcement. Removing the option to factor in the costs of checking and taking action against any non-compliance would, in the long term, leave local housing authorities out of pocket and limit the database’s effectiveness.

As for wider enforcement costs, we believe that it is right that, as far as possible, the costs of enforcement should be met by those flouting the rules. Ultimately, all landlords, as well as the public and, most importantly, tenants, benefit from a well-regulated and enforced PRS. Clause 82 provides Ministers with the option of using a proportion of fee income to provide much-needed revenue to support enforcement activity. In answer to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about fees, the fee level will not be set arbitrarily. The Bill provides that the relevant costs that can be recovered via the fee can be based on the cost of establishing and operating the database and the cost of performing the functions required under the database legislation and of enforcing the database and wider PRS legislation. We will ensure that decisions about fees take into account a range of factors, including of course the burden on landlords. Fees will be set out in secondary legislation. We are in the process of developing a calculation and structure for fees. The fee level will need to reflect the operating costs of the digital tool, which is currently in development, and may also be used to fund local authority enforcement. We are in the process of designing the database as a bespoke tool, so we are developing our understanding of what our expected costs will be. This has been set out in the impact assessment. The costs may be subject to change as our plans for delivery and implementation develop, so I am not able to give the noble Baroness an exact answer at the moment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Surely there is a budget, or even a proposed budget, that will go to the Treasury to deliver this scheme.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As with all future funding for our department and every other department, spending review bids have gone in. I will take her request back to the department to see whether we are able to be any clearer on that, but my understanding is that at the moment that we are not able to give an exact figure.

Noble Lords will be aware that these database fees will be set at a later point in regulations. I stress that in setting fees, we will ensure, and we have always been clear, that the fees will be fair and take into account the cost to landlords. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, also asked me about the accountability of the database operator. I will write to her on that point, if that is okay. For the reasons I have set out I do not think that it would be beneficial to the private rented sector database, or the reforms more widely, to place these additional limits on what relevant costs may be recoverable via the database fees.

The Bill will make it a legal requirement for residential landlords to ensure that they and their rental properties are registered on the database before a court can grant a possession order and they can gain possession of their property. Clause 91(1) amends Section 7 of the Housing Act 1988 so that a court can order possession only where there is an active entry in the database for both the landlord and the dwelling. Clause 91(1) also stipulates that possession orders made on grounds relating to anti-social behaviour are exempted from this requirement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Tope’s Amendment 251, which I have also signed. We have all spoken of the support we give this Bill because it offers the opportunity to address the problems and injustices suffered by renters in the PRS, which is the most insecure, most expensive and lowest quality of any tenure. However, the Bill fails to recognise that certain vulnerable groups of tenants suffer disproportionately, as we have heard, and need special measures to give them the level playing field they need to be able to live in suitable accommodation that is fair, reasonable and secure in the private rented sector.

Refugees and asylum seekers are just one such group, and their housing experience is in need of radical reform. My noble friend’s amendment, suggesting that the decent homes standard should apply to housing for refugees and asylum seekers, offers an opportunity to move forward.

However, the asylum housing system in the United Kingdom leaves tens of thousands of people in inadequate accommodation, where they often live for years in conditions that significantly undermine their physical and mental well-being. The current outsourcing of asylum housing to private companies has created a system that is marked by significant issues, including exorbitant costs, excessive profit making, substandard housing, and inadequate safeguarding and oversight. I read in the Sunday Times this week that the owner of one such company, Clearsprings Ready Homes, is now a member of the Sunday Times rich list as a result of rapidly expanding contracts from the Government at the taxpayer’s expense.

These providers need to be properly accountable. Refugee organisations report appalling conditions and many incidents of poor, unsafe and cold properties with infestations and mould. It should therefore form part of contracts with providers that the decent homes standard should apply to properties that are paid for by government. Taxpayers’ money is being used to fund substandard accommodation and providers are not being sanctioned. Many of those who are obliged to live in such misery are children, forced to live in virtual isolation and incarceration with housing conditions that are woefully inadequate for their needs. I therefore support my noble friend’s amendment and call on the Minister to reflect on this situation. If she is unwilling to amend the Bill, can she say what the Government are proposing to do to resolve the desperately pressing circumstances of refugees and asylum seekers and the housing crisis that they face?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate on the decent homes standard and its potential application across a broader range of accommodation types. As we have heard, the Bill introduces new powers for the Secretary of State to specify additional standards for qualifying residential premises, which offers the potential to raise housing quality and improve conditions for tenants across England. This is, in principle, a welcome ambition, particularly if it helps to extend protections to the most vulnerable in our housing system.

We must recognise the dignity of all residents, regardless of tenure. However, while the intention behind these amendments is laudable, it is vital to interrogate the practicalities and the legal impact of such proposals. For instance, how would the Government define “qualifying residential premises” in the context of asylum accommodation, where providers may be delivering services under a Home Office contract rather than under tenancy agreements? What enforcement mechanisms are appropriate in temporary or institutionally managed housing? Where would the burden of compliance ultimately fall?

We must also examine the legislative implications for landlords and housing providers, particularly those operating on constrained margins. Applying a uniform standard across such a diverse landscape of housing may sound straightforward in principle but in practice it could impose significant compliance costs, particularly in sectors such as mobile home parks or supported houses, where the business model and the regulatory framework already differ markedly from the private rented sector.

Stakeholders such as G15, representing London’s largest housing associations, have raised these very points, urging caution in implying one-size-fits-all approaches and stressing the importance of clarity, resourcing and consultation. Similarly, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has warned of the unintended market disruption that could follow from ambiguous or overly broad standards, particularly if applied unevenly or without sufficient support for implementation.

Amendment 252A, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, seeks to exempt certain buildings from the requirements to maintain specified energy efficiency criteria, specifically those in rural areas, those that are listed buildings or those that were constructed prior to 1900. This raises an equally critical set of questions. As we have heard, many older and listed buildings simply cannot meet modern EPC targets, such as EPC C, without intrusive and costly works that may fundamentally alter their structures or even their appearance. The amendment, therefore, is a measured and proportionate intervention designed not to weaken the decent homes standard but to ensure that it is applied with practicality and flexibility where needed.

Finally, we must ask whether there is a clear and coherent framework in place for assessing which tenures and building types should fall under the decent homes umbrella and whether, without such a framework, we risk creating legal uncertainty or burdens that will ultimately be passed on to tenants themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I want to scratch lots of bits out, since the noble Lord, Lord Best, was so succinct.

Amendment 258 is in the name of Lord Cromwell and has notable signatories, and the noble Lord sold this amendment well. In short, this is an amendment that should not be needed, if the police and local authorities did their jobs correctly, as per the law, as outlined in the Protection from Eviction Act. This amendment is rightly seeking to reinforce what should be happening but we know is not. The already mentioned organisation, Safer Renting, monitored data from its clients over a given period, which revealed that, when the clients were going through an illegal eviction, and while it was in progress they called the police for assistance, worryingly in only 9% of cases did the police actually go to the property and assist the tenants. Therefore, as the noble Lord said, in 91% of cases they either failed to turn up, or turned up and sided with the landlord.

Interestingly, so concerned was Safer Renting about these statistics that it decided to do something about it. To its credit, in partnership with the Metropolitan Police and the GLA, it developed a training course for officers. Approximately 8,000 officers took the training but, sadly, this did not mean it recorded any significant improvement when talking to its clients, which begs a lot more questions that are probably not answerable here.

As has already been said by several noble Lords, it is imperative that the police understand the harassment before and during an illegal eviction—or, indeed, what constitutes criminal offences—and, most importantly, that they co-operate with the local authorities charged with the role of prosecuting these rogues and criminal landlords. Shockingly, that is not always happening. Safer Rentings’ illegal eviction count for England and Wales in 2022-23 showed 8,748 illegal evictions—that is one every 67 minutes.

It is not necessary for the police to prosecute these offences unless they witness criminal actions taking place alongside the eviction, but it is crucial for them to understand the law both to refer them to the local authority and to co-operate with the authority’s investigations. We support this amendment, but we hope the Minister will reassure us that it is not needed.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 258, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, aims to provide greater clarity for local housing authorities and police forces in responding to cases of illegal eviction. Illegal eviction is a serious offence; it is not simply a housing matter but often a brazen abuse of power that leaves some of our most vulnerable renters without recourse. That said, we have reservations about the practicalities of this proposal, but I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, having asked the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, his views on it.

In essence, the amendment would place a statutory duty on police and councils to notify each other when a complaint of illegal eviction is received, to co-operate in investigating the offence and to take reasonable steps to assist the tenant. The intent here is understandable —tenants report illegal evictions and are, as we know, bounced between bodies, with the police saying it is a civil matter and councils struggling with limited capacity. Although the intent behind the amendment is undeniably well-meaning, we just have to pause and ask whether it might inadvertently entrench confusion within the statutory framework rather than resolving it.

Without clear definitions, the proposal to impose duties on local housing authorities and police forces to co-operate and assist opens the door to operational ambiguity. What exactly constitutes “reasonable steps to assist”, and what measurable outcomes are expected from this co-operation? Without these clarifications, there is a real risk of creating more confusion for the very tenants we want to protect.

We also want to be very careful about the practical burdens. As the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said, both councils and police forces are grappling the whole time with existing resource shortages. This amendment adds new responsibilities without addressing the underlying issue of capacity. Should we not first evaluate whether these agencies are equipped to handle their current workload before we impose further duties? What assessments have been made of the additional resource implications of this?

There is great merit in the principle behind the amendment—namely, the need for clearer co-operation and more decisive enforcement—but there are significant questions about whether, as drafted, it achieves that aim in a proportional, workable manner.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and I ask the Minister: is the guidance clear enough, particularly to police forces, that it is an illegal act and it is against the law? Is there enough guidance? Are they being told exactly what they have to do? Do local authorities have clear guidance about looking after the tenant, which is their responsibility if they have been evicted and they are homeless at the time? Can this not be done in a different way by insisting that the Home Office work with MHCLG to try to embed the guidance that is already there and insist that both organisations deliver what they should be delivering at the moment?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for his amendment and for meeting me to discuss it. The amendment would place a duty on local authorities and police forces to share information regarding alleged offences contrary to Section 1 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott. Local authorities and police forces would also have a duty to co-operate in the investigation of these offences and take steps to prevent offences from occurring or continuing, as well as assisting tenants to gain access to properties from which they have been illegally evicted. The Secretary of State would be required to produce statutory guidance outlining how these duties would be discharged.

The Government are clear that illegal eviction is unacceptable. Changes introduced in the Bill will further empower local authorities to penalise those who illegally evict, giving them the option to issue a financial penalty of up to £40,000 as an alternative to prosecution. Illegally evicted tenants are also entitled to receive a rent repayment order. Local authorities will be provided with new investigatory powers alongside the powers that police forces have to investigate and prosecute breaches of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

However, I am concerned about the administrative burden that a reporting duty might place on police forces. The department is trialling approaches to improving multi-agency targeting and the disruption of rogue and criminal actors operating throughout the private rented sector. For example, Liverpool City Council’s private sector housing intelligence and enforcement taskforce—a snappy title, I know, but it does what it says on the tin—has successfully carried out joint operations with Merseyside Police and the Home Office. The Government will continue to explore how we can encourage more effective collaboration between the police and local authorities.

I am happy to add this topic to the agenda for the meeting that I have already agreed to with my noble friend Lady Kennedy and Safer Renting, and to take another look at the existing guidance to make sure that it does what it needs to do. With that said, I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, in moving this amendment, I am grateful for the help of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, which has worked with local enforcement teams in my diocese to help us get to this amendment.

Local enforcement will be vital to making the intention of the Renters’ Rights Bill a reality, including the extension of the decent homes standard. However, an amendment to the power of entry that councils are going to use to enforce that standard is needed so that negligent or criminal landlords do not get a tip-off of inspections in advance, which would allow them to frustrate that process or to put pressure on the tenant. Enforcement officers would never tip off the proprietor of an off-licence in advance of an under-age mystery shopper trying to buy alcohol or cigarettes but, as currently drafted, this Bill will require enforcement officers to give landlords a 24-hour tip-off for any formal inspection of compliance with the decent homes standard.

The power of entry under the Bill comes from Section 239 of the Housing Act 2004. It is completely appropriate to give notice to the occupier—I mean, it is their home; they are probably the one who made the complaint that led to environmental health officers or enforcement officers wanting to come round to have a look at it—but why on earth do we give the landlord that 24 hours’ notice? Indeed, we know already from what enforcement officers tell us that, where there is a requirement to tip off landlords, it allows criminal landlords to take lawful countermeasures. These include things such as forcibly removing tenants from an overcrowded property, pressuring tenants not to let enforcement officers into their home or taking retaliatory action, which can dissuade tenants from pursuing complaints. They can also prompt them to withdraw complaints; indeed, there is every reason why a tenant may not want the landlord to know that they have made a complaint at this early stage of the process.

Finally, I would urge that focusing the notice requirement on the occupier is consistent with equivalent enforcement legislation. For example, council enforcement officers’ powers of entry under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 include no requirement to give notice to a property’s owner.

Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle—I see that she has just left us—I am not a night owl: should it get to midnight and I am still here, these fine ecclesiastical robes will, like Cinderella’s dress, turn to rags. I trust that we can have an effective but brief debate on what is, I think, a simple and clear proposal. I hope that the Minister will agree that this is a timely and sensible amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for this amendment on powers of entry into properties. Of course, there is a fine line here: we are trying to balance landlords’ rights to know what is going on in their properties, especially regarding enforcement, with the rights of the occupiers of the property to be informed when powers of entry are being exercised by enforcement authorities.

The amendment would remove the current requirement for a notice to be provided to both the owner and the occupier of the property before the authority can exercise any power of entry under Section 239 of the Housing Act 2004. This would mean landlords not having to be told that their property is going to be entered for survey or examination. I would argue that the owner of the property should have the right to be informed both that their property will be investigated by enforcement authorities and that the authority will exercise its power of entry into the property. This is the case as things stand now, and I believe that that is how it should remain.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for his Amendment 260 and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her comments. This amendment to Section 239 of the Housing Act 2004 seeks to enable local authorities to inspect PRS properties without the need to give 24 hours’ notice to property owners where the property is unoccupied, while retaining the notice requirement for tenants.

Section 239 currently requires local authorities to provide 24 hours’ notice to owners—if known—and occupiers before an inspection can take place. We are aware that the current requirement to provide property owners with 24 hours’ notice enables some unscrupulous landlords to hide evidence of breaches of PRS legislation, intimidate tenants and obstruct inspections. We recognise that the current notice requirement may, in some circumstances, hinder local authorities’ ability to address tenants’ unsafe or hazardous living conditions effectively.

While we are supportive of any efforts to improve local authorities’ ability to enforce against rogue landlords and appreciate that this amendment is in support of that objective, we must carefully consider its implications. We will continue to have conversations with the right reverend Prelate and with stakeholders, and we welcome noble Lords sharing their views on this matter so that the Government can take them into consideration. For these reasons, I ask the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester to consider withdrawing his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for opening this group and introducing her Amendment 263. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review and report on the impact of the Act on the private rented sector, including housing supply, rent levels, tenant security and regulatory burdens, within two years of its enactment.

We on these Benches do not support reviews for the sake of reviewing. They often consume time and public funds, and require precise delivery in order to answer the questions they set out to answer. However, this legislation poses a significant risk to the market. Noble Lords from across the Committee agree that we must protect tenants and ensure they have access to secure, stable and decent housing at a fair price. We have been clear this Bill does not deliver that.

The Government must review the efficacy of the Bill and be held accountable for the decisions they have taken and insisted on. To achieve this, we need a functioning market with an adequate supply of good-quality homes to meet a growing demand. Ensuring the availability of homes is key to making accommodation attainable and keeping rents affordable. Any legislation in this area must strike a difficult but essential balance between these competing interests. Only by getting that balance right can we hope to achieve an efficient and effective rental market. We, along with the many stakeholders we have consulted, believe that a review is necessary and that it should be brought before Parliament.

I am keen to know whether the Government are giving the amendments in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Janke, serious consideration. Can the Minister say how the success of this Bill will be judged? What does success look like in the eyes of the Government?

In our view, the fear and uncertainty surrounding this Bill is already having a negative impact. On the first day in Committee, I quoted figures from Savills and I will underline them once more. According to Savills, the number of rental properties available on their books in quarter 1 of 2025 is down 42% compared with the same period in 2024. That is 42% fewer homes for families, and 42% less choice for people searching for somewhere to live. If the Government are confident in the positive impact of this Bill, what reason does the Minister have for not reviewing its effects on the housing market, specifically its impact on the availability of rental homes, rent levels, house prices and the demand for social housing? If the Bill were to have a damaging effect on the rental market, surely Ministers would want to know.

Getting this balance right is paramount. It is the difference between a functioning, accessible rental market and one that is suffocated. It is the difference between tenants being able to find a secure and affordable home, and landlords leaving the sector altogether. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill, Lady Grender and Lady Janke, for their amendments, which propose several different types of reviews to the future Act, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her comments. I have to ask why we do not have a functioning effective rental market—we were not in government over the past 14 years.

Amendment 263, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would introduce a legal requirement for the Government to carry out a review of the Bill’s impact on the private rented sector. This review would be conducted, and subsequently reported to Parliament, within two years following the Bill’s receipt of Royal Assent. In particular, it would require the review to consider the Bill’s impact on supply, rent levels, security of tenure and the burdens on landlords. It also prescribes that the Government must consult with representatives of landlords, tenants and local authorities during the preparation of such a review.

I know the Committee shares my interest in the practical impact that this legislation will have on the private rented sector. I reassure the Committee that this interest is at the heart of the Government’s commitment to monitor and evaluate robustly the impact of our reforms. Our approach will build on the department’s existing monitoring of the housing sector. Our process, impact and value for money evaluation will be conducted in line with the department’s published evaluation strategy. Our monitoring work will make use of a range of data, including the results of the English Housing Survey, data from relevant stakeholders, including local authorities, and data generated from the reforms themselves. We will also deliver an evaluation involving extensive data collection through interviews, surveys and focus groups. These will be conducted with a range of stakeholders, such as tenants, landlords, letting agents, third sector organisations, delivery partners, the courts service and government officials. Monitoring data from existing surveys and new data produced by the reforms will supplement these findings.

I can also reassure the Committee that the conclusions of our evaluation will be published in a timely manner, in line with our broader policy on the publication of research. This includes an interim evaluation report on the processes, early impacts and intermediate outcomes, which we will produce in the early years after implementation. I hope this gives the Committee confidence that the Government’s proposed approach to monitoring and evaluation is the right one. Setting an arbitrary deadline for this process, as the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would do, we believe represents an unnecessary step. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Amendment 270, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, would mandate that the Secretary of State carry out a review of rent affordability in England, with a report to be laid before Parliament within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. This amendment would require this review to be wide-ranging, encompassing the affordability of rents across both the private and social sectors, the impact on tenants, and regional differences. It would also require specific assessment of the effectiveness of measures to control excessive rent increases and the uptake and outcome of the tribunal.

As I already noted, the Government are committed to very robust monitoring and evaluation of the private rented sector reform programme. We will also continue to monitor trends across the industry as a whole, using a range of data sources, which include the Valuation Office Agency rental prices data, the Office for National Statistics rental price index, and data from the English Housing Survey and the English Private Landlord Survey. This will enable us to respond to unexpected impacts or unwelcome outcomes and initiate appropriate changes where these are needed.

Finally, Amendment 273, from the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, would introduce a legal requirement for the Government to produce a report on the impact of the Bill once it is an Act on different racial and ethnic groups in the private rented sector. I have already outlined at length our broader plans for assessing the impacts of the Bill. Regarding specific impacts on racial and ethnic groups in the sector, the department follows the Ethnic Group, National Identity and Religion guidance published by the Office for National Statistics. Ethnicity statistics are regularly collected and published by the department about tenants and landlords to understand the demography of the private rented sector through the English Housing Survey and the English Private Landlord Survey. This data supports our continued compliance with the requirements of the public sector equality duty and wider government responsibility by contributing to the race disparity audit.

It is also worth stressing that, in keeping with the public sector equality duty, once the Bill is an Act, Ministers will continue to have due regard to the equality impact of decisions on groups by reference to relevant protected characteristics. This includes the protected characteristic of race.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I understand the collection of the data, which I think is excellent so that we know what is going on, but how is that going to be scrutinised by Parliament? Will that come in a report? If it is, when will that first report come to Parliament for scrutiny?

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey raises an important and timely issue: the need to revisit and update the designation of rural areas for the purposes of the right to buy. The proposal is clear. It would require the Secretary of State, within six months of the Act passing, to revoke rural area designations for parishes where the population now exceeds 3,000 people, based on the 2021 census. The rationale is that, as we have heard, some areas that were once small villages have grown significantly and may no longer meet the criteria originally used to justify rural protections under the scheme.

We recognise the logic behind this approach. Designations made years ago may no longer reflect the current character of certain parishes, and it is only right that we review such classifications to ensure that they are based on accurate and up-to-date information. However, while we understand the intention behind the amendment, we believe that a more considered and locally informed approach is needed. First and foremost, this should be done in consultation with local authorities, which are best placed to assess not just the population figures but the broader housing context within their communities. A numerical threshold alone does not tell us whether a parish still functions as a rural settlement, nor whether it has the capacity to replace any lost social housing.

Indeed, we would argue that the conversation should be based not solely on population size but also on the number of homes in the settlement, specifically the number of affordable or social homes available, and the prospects for building more. In many villages, even those with more than 3,000 residents, the opportunity to build new homes, let alone new affordable ones, is extremely limited. Planning constraints, infrastructure challenges and community sensitivity all contribute to a situation where, once a home is sold under right to buy, it is unlikely to be replaced. That is why the protection of the existing social housing stock is so vital in these areas. Without it, we risk hollowing out rural communities, pricing out local families, draining the workforce and diminishing village life.

While we support the principle of ensuring that designations are kept up to date, we believe that any such change must be grounded in a wider understanding of rural housing dynamics. This means not just reviewing census data but supporting councils to update and verify housing data and allowing for flexibility where a parish may meet the population threshold but still faces acute rural housing pressures. This is not simply a technical matter of numbers; it goes to the heart of how we preserve the character and sustainability of rural communities. Let us ensure that any change to rural designation is made with care, with consultation and with full awareness of its consequences.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, before I make my comments on the noble Baroness’s amendment, I hope that the House will indulge me for a few brief moments as we start our final day in Committee on the Renters’ Rights Bill. First, let me say how noticeable it has been that, while we may have debated and occasionally had our differences on the detail of the Bill, there has been a great deal of consensus across the House on the need to improve the renting landscape for tenants and for the vast majority of good landlords. Those landlords who choose to exploit their tenants and game the system not only make their tenants’ life a misery but undercut and damage the reputation of others. It is time that we took the steps in this Bill to put that right.

The Bill has shown the best of our House, with noble Lords providing their expertise, knowledge, wisdom and thoughtful reflection to improve the legislation before us. I am most grateful for the engagement before and during the passage of the Bill. We have had some unusual and difficult sitting hours on the Bill, largely because of other business of the House and in no way because of unnecessary or lengthy contributions to our deliberations. I therefore thank all noble Lords for their patience and good humour during late sittings. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, on the Opposition Front Bench, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Grender, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, not to mention noble friends on my own Benches for a deal of passion and enthusiasm.

I thank the Bill team, my private office and the doorkeepers and staff of the House, including the clerks and catering staff, who have stayed, sometimes into the early hours, to make sure we are all safe and looked after, and the Hansard team, of course, doing their brilliant work. I thank the usual channels, which have been negotiating to make sure we complete Committee in good time. Last, and by no means least, I thank my Whip, my noble friend Lord Wilson, who is not in his place today but who has sat patiently beside me, sometimes carrying out extreme editing of my speeches. I forgive him for that—he did not get his hands on this one—and I am very grateful to him.

There are millions of renters and landlords out there who are awaiting the passage of the Bill to ensure that the renting minefield is fairer, safer and more secure. As we move forward to Report in early June, I look forward to continuing to engage and work with your Lordships to make sure that this is the best Bill it can be. In the meantime, thank you for making my first time taking a Bill through the House such a collaborative and positive experience.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her Amendment 275B to revoke the designation of parishes as rural areas for the purposes of right to buy where the population exceeds 3,000 people. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to revoke the rural designation of any parish with over 3,000 inhabitants for the purposes of right to buy. It would not have any impact on the right to acquire housing association property in rural areas. I have to say that this amendment is a bit of a stretch for the scope of the Bill, but it is important that I should respond to the noble Baroness’s concerns.

Under Section 157 of the Housing Act 1985, the Secretary of State has the power to designate by order certain areas as rural—typically, settlements with populations under 3,000. A landlord in a rural area may impose restrictions on the buyer of a right to buy property, to prevent the property being sold again, without the former landlord’s consent, other than to a local person or back to the landlord. The noble Baroness’s amendment would remove the ability of landlords to include resale restrictions on properties sold under right to buy in those designated rural areas where the population was above 3,000, which currently helps preserve homes for local people in perpetuity. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is quite right to say that, if we were going to make any changes to this, it would have to be done very carefully, and definitely in consultation with local people and local authorities.

These exemptions are in place to help retain affordable housing in communities where replacement can be unfeasible due to high build costs, planning limitations and land availability. We have heard much about that in the discussion on this and other Bills and the Government do not intend to remove these protections. On this basis, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 275C in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. I apologise to noble Lords that this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill. I thank my noble friend for tabling this amendment, for a number of reasons: first, as someone who, as a result of injury, has had to be far more reliant on the mobility aid that is my wheelchair than is usual; secondly, because I recognise that one’s disability and resulting need to use a mobility aid, such as a wheelchair, does not change simply because one happens to be a tenant; thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, because it gives me the opportunity to bring to the House’s attention a real-life example which I hope will underline the amendment’s importance.

I should declare an interest. The example I give concerns a person I know—an eminent solicitor with an international law firm who has become severely disabled in adulthood as a result of a condition called Stickler syndrome. For those noble Lords not familiar with this condition—I confess that I was not—common symptoms include vision problems such as near-sightedness and retinal detachment, hearing loss and joint problems such as hypermobility and arthritis. In this individual’s case, it is extremely painful and debilitating and has required extensive surgery, including within the last six months. Remarkably, she is still holding down a demanding job.

However, her suffering is being unnecessarily and even gratuitously compounded by the concerted and blatant disability discrimination she is encountering from HAUS Block Management and the right-to-manage company covering the development in which she lives. This disability discrimination relates directly to her use, as a long-term tenant, of her mobility aids in her rented dwelling, which includes a courtyard garden that she shares with other residents. The amendment refers to a reasonable request from a tenant to install mobility aids in the dwelling. Her request is undoubtedly reasonable, but the irony is that she is not asking for an installation. All she is asking for is the right to use her mobility aids in a courtyard garden, which is part of the dwelling.

There are two aids on which she depends for her mobility to live independently and get to work. Recent deterioration in her condition has necessitated the increased use of a wheelchair and increased visual impairment has required the use of an affectionate, intelligent and furry mobility aid. I refer of course to her adorable, but ageing, canine companion, without which she would immobile and could not function: her guide dog.

The amendment is so important to this individual and other disabled people in her situation—perhaps to an even greater degree than my noble friend appreciated when she tabled it—because despite my friend being a lawyer and having engaged in writing with HAUS and the RTM to explain her legal rights in relation to step-free access to the garden for her guide dog and her wheelchair, all her appeals for kindness, help and basic human empathy have been met with disdain. I know this because I have here in the Chamber a copy of her email correspondence with HAUS and the directors of the RTM. It is a damning indictment of how the rights enshrined in disability discrimination and equality legislation—on which your Lordships’ House has done so much brilliant work over the years to pass—are being traduced by organisations such as HAUS and the RTM. What a sad reflection on society that this could happen in plain sight in 2025, the 30th anniversary of the Disability Discrimination Act. It is heartbreaking—quite literally, in the case of this individual. Her condition is by its very nature isolating. HAUS, her RTM directors and her neighbours know that, and yet they give the impression that they are waiting for her to die, and their callous indifference adds to that sense of isolation.

What is to be done? It would be so easy for the chief executive of HAUS, Gareth Martin, to facilitate the speedy resolution of this situation by ensuring that the RTM directors act in accordance with her rights and with compassion, and that a key was provided, on a permanent and unrestricted basis, to the courtyard garden—which happens to be next to my friend’s apartment—so that she could use her mobility aids in it. As Guide Dogs has explained to in an email to HAUS and the RTM directors, this is vital for the welfare of both her ageing service dog—her mobility aid—and the individual herself.

She is being undeniably persecuted for having the temerity to assert her rights, in a way that would be totally unacceptable were it to be carried out on the grounds of race, for example. Incredibly, as if to add insult to injury, the individual has also been told that a few flowerpots, which contain plants for sensory stimulation and provide her with the very few flashes of colour she can still just about discern, must be removed.

In conclusion, will the Minister meet me so that we can explore how we might persuade HAUS and the RTM to respect this individual’s rights with regard to her mobility aids, in line with the spirit of this amendment? Can directors of companies be struck off, for example, for engaging in what is obviously wilful disability discrimination? If not, how can we ensure that they are? Perhaps their appalling behaviour could be brought to the attention of the relevant regulators—I cannot imagine their clients would be impressed. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I reiterate my deep gratitude to my noble friend for tabling such an important amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for tabling this amendment. I also pay my heartfelt thanks to my noble friend Lord Shinkwin; he always brings enormous knowledge and so much personal experience to any debate, as he has done today.

We briefly discussed support for disabled tenants in an earlier group, and we on these Benches firmly support steps to help disabled tenants access the homes and services they need. With the appropriate support, disabled people can live more fulfilled lives and thrive. We have come so far in recent years on support for disabled people to live full and happy lives in their own homes, so I am grateful to my noble friend for moving this important amendment today.

Amendment 275C seeks to prevent landlords and agents declining reasonable requests by tenants who need mobility aids to have them installed. It is a limited amendment that applies only where a tenant can arrange for the payment and installation of the aids themselves. This is an excellent challenge to the Government and we hope that the Minister will seriously consider this proposal and work with my noble friend to deliver the protections we need for disabled tenants. Perhaps this is something that we could revisit on Report.

We also wish to work constructively with my noble friend on how we might consider broader plans to ensure that the removal of mobility adaptions is deliverable, affordable and—crucially—even possible in practice. This is a vital area that demands serious attention from the Government, and the onus is on everyone across the Committee to put forward practical and compassionate solutions that recognise the real-world challenges faced by landlords and tenants alike around adapted homes. We need to look further at who would be responsible for covering the costs of restoring the changes to the original condition of the property. There is some more work to do, but I am sure that we can all do it before Report, and I look forward to working with the other parties to see whether we can find a sensible solution to the issue. We must ensure that any policy in this area supports accessibility, while remaining realistic and fair to all parties concerned.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her Amendment 275C, which seeks to prevent landlords, or any other relevant person in relation to a tenancy, unreasonably refusing a tenant request to install a mobility aid in their home. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their contributions.

We debated in detail similar amendments on home disability adaptations last week. As I stated then, I absolutely agree that we should take steps to remove barriers that unreasonably prevent disabled renters getting the home adaptations they need—a need so powerfully described by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin; I will write to him about the routes to redress in cases such as the one he raised.

However, I do not believe that this amendment is the right way to do this. The Equality Act 2010 already provides protections for disabled tenants, and that applies whether they are in social rented or private rented housing. This includes providing a procedure under which they can request permission in writing from their landlord to make adaptations, including additions to or alterations in the fittings and fixtures of the home, such as mobility aids.

Landlords cannot unreasonably refuse such requests. Creating a new specific obligation in relation to mobility aids in particular would increase the complexity of the system unnecessarily, making it more difficult for tenants to navigate. We also wish to avoid creating a two-tier system in which people with impaired mobility have different rights from people with other disabilities or impairments.

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for introducing this amendment, because it gives me an opportunity to update noble Lords. There was a lot of discussion about this in the other place during the passage of the Bill. There have been some further commitments, and these were set out in a recent letter from the Minister of State for Housing and Planning to the MPs who tabled amendments in the other place. The letter stated that the Government would take the following actions to address known barriers to disabled tenants accessing the home adaptations they require.

With the leave of the Committee, I will update Members on that now. As highlighted in research carried out by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the National Residential Landlords Association, a major challenge to the operation of the current system is the lack of knowledge among landlords, tenants and agents. The Renters’ Rights Bill includes the power to require landlords to provide a written statement of terms to new tenants. It is our intention, subject to drafting and scrutiny of the secondary legislation to mandate that this statement sets out the duty on landlords under the Equality Act 2010 to not unreasonably refuse disability adaptation requests from tenants. This will ensure that parties are aware of rights and obligations in relation to adaptations when they enter into a tenancy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

Perhaps I may offer the briefest of comments. At the risk of being struck by lightning: on the seventh day, the Lord rested. Let us hope we all get some rest soon.

I mention two words: equilibrium and scramble. Equilibrium is what we all seek, but it is a fact of life that one woman’s equilibrium may be different to another woman’s equilibrium. The perpetual life of politics is trying to find an equilibrium between different viewpoints. Regarding scramble, there will be a scramble whenever this comes in, and that is not a reason to put it off.

We touched on the database yesterday. There are bits of the Bill that will come in more slowly, but Section 21, to echo the point from the noble Lord, Lord Bird, will definitely go. If the Bill achieves nothing else, Section 21 will go.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, who, as always, so passionately opened this group. I thank him for all his knowledge and particularly the passion that he brings on anything to do with homes, homelessness and vulnerable people.

The noble Lord’s Amendments 278, 286 and 291, along with others in his name, would bring the majority of the Act into force on the day it receives Royal Assent, save for a few areas requiring further regulation or consultation. We on these Benches have consistently urged the Government to not take this approach. We have called on them to reaffirm their long-standing commitment to prospective lawmaking by providing clear commencement dates and reasonable transition periods for all new obligations. This is essential to protect both tenants and landlords from abrupt and potentially unfair changes.

A phased approach would allow landlords, tenants and letting agents time to understand and adapt to the new legal framework. Commencing the Act immediately upon passage does not provide sufficient time to do this. We simply cannot expect landlords to react and comply with significant new requirements on day 1. Indeed, the evidence bears this this out. In a recent survey conducted by Paragon, 57% of landlords said they had heard of the legislation but did not fully understand its implications, and a further 39% said they knew little about it. Those statistics point clearly to a knowledge gap in the market—one that we must not ignore. Therefore, we believe that a clear transition period is necessary.

Amendments 281, 287, 288 and 289, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, present a credible and constructive challenge to the Government’s current position. They propose a model that echoes the approach taken by the predecessor to the Bill—an approach grounded in prospective lawmaking. Phase 1 in that Bill would have applied the new rules only to new tenancies with at least six months’ notice, and phase 2 would extend the rules to existing tenancies no less than 12 months later. This two-phase model provides a reasonable and practical path forward, allowing time for proper education, preparation and implementation. I urge the Government to reflect carefully on these proposals and to recognise the importance of a fair and orderly transition.

We all agree that tenants deserve safe, secure and decent homes at a fair price, but to deliver that we need a functioning rental market with enough good-quality homes to meet growing demand. We need more homes in the right places. This Bill, regrettably, puts that in danger. Rather than boosting supply, it risks driving landlords out of the market, shrinking the number of available homes and pushing rents even higher. If we get this wrong, renters will pay the price. Balance is essential. At present, we believe this Bill does not strike that balance.

Before I sit down, I thank and congratulate the noble Baroness on how she has conducted the first Bill that she is taken through Committee, and all noble Lords who have taken part in excellent, well-informed debates over the past seven days. I look forward to Report.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and my noble friend Lord Hacking for their amendments relating to the commencement of measures in the Bill. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Cromwell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Scott, for participating in this group.

I turn to Amendments 278, 282, 286, and 291 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bird. I add my tribute for all the work he does to tackle homelessness. He is a great hero of mine, and it is a great privilege to work with him. The noble Lord rightly notes the importance of ending Section 21, which is a major contributor to homelessness levels in England and a major cost to councils, which now spend more than £2 billion a year on temporary accommodation. That was the last full year’s figure. I heard that £4 million a day is currently spent on homelessness in London. Much of that is driven by Section 21 evictions. As well as the misery created for individuals and families, these evictions put pressure on the public purse and costs that would be much better spent on other public services.

These amendments seek to bring most of the measures in the Renters’ Rights Bill forward to Royal Assent. The Government agree with the noble Lord that the measures in this Bill are urgently needed, which is why we moved swiftly to introduce it early in our first legislative programme for government. To end the scourge of Section 21 evictions as quickly as possible, we will introduce the new tenancy for the private rented sector in one stage. On that date, the new tenancy system will apply to all private tenancies. Existing tenancies will convert to the new system, and any new tenancies signed on or after that date will be governed by the new rules. There will be no dither or delay, and the abolition of Section 21, fixed-term contracts, and other vital measures in the Bill will happen as quickly as possible.

However, we must do this in a responsible manner, as noble Lords have mentioned. We are therefore also committed to making sure that implementation takes place smoothly. As such, it is essential that wider work around the Bill is allowed to conclude before implementation takes place. That includes the production of guidance, updating court forms and making secondary legislation. For example, the information that landlords are required to give tenants in the written statement of terms will be set out in secondary legislation. Work is already under way on these matters. We need to get it right. We will appoint the date of implementation via secondary legislation, which is typical when commencing complex primary legislation. This will allow us to give the sector certainty about when the system will come into force. Relying on Royal Assent would create significant uncertainty around the specific date, and it is important that we do not do that.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, that I was lucky enough to benefit from the post-war Labour Government’s drive to build social housing so, although I could have done, I did not grow up in the kind of housing that he described. Our social housing was built in new towns, and that was the last time that social housing was built at any scale in this country. We have promised that again, and have committed £2 billion to social and affordable housing. So the noble Lord has my personal commitment that we will move this forward as quickly as possible.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, talked about the speed of legislation. I have been a Minister for only a few months but I am already learning the frustration of time lags. I thought that councils move a bit too slowly at times, but we certainly need to move things forward more quickly. Of course, this is not just about legislation; we are trying to move on housing at some speed. We have already provided funding to improve construction skills, funding for planning officers, a new National Planning Policy Framework, over £500 million for homelessness and the social housing funding that I have already mentioned. We understand that this needs to be moved forward quickly. We will work as quickly as we can on that. As such, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

I will end where I started. It is bold, it is brave and it may or may not work. We on these Benches hope that it does. We will not support any amendments—there are several—that are tinkering at the edges, wanting to broaden the grounds for possession a little bit or to widen this a little bit. For the Bill to work, it has to stand firm and stick to those things. Let us then monitor, review, scrutinise and make any changes if necessary because, I regret to say, in this instance, with this Bill, only time will tell.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association. As we begin the first day on Report, I would like to start by thanking the Minister for the meetings she has held with me and my noble friend Lord Jamieson on the Bill—we really appreciate those meetings.

I suspect that, since Committee concluded, few days have passed without Members of your Lordships’ House receiving a steady stream of questions, concerns and comments about the Bill, because despite the Government’s amendments, it remains, in our view, a flawed Bill. It is a Bill that uses the powers of government to tell two consenting adults that it knows best; a Bill that fails to acknowledge the realities of the rental market and the consequences it may bring. We are united in the belief that tenants deserve safe, secure and decent homes at a fair price, but to deliver that, we must ensure a functioning rental market with enough good quality homes to meet growing demand. That means building more homes in the right places and encouraging investment in this sector.

Regrettably, this Bill puts that at risk. Rather than increasing supply, it threatens to drive landlords out of the market, reducing the number of available homes and pushing up rents even higher. If we get this wrong, it will be the renters who pay the price. Balance is essential, and we on these Benches do not believe the Bill strikes the right balance. The Government should have brought forward a Bill that targets rogue landlords—those who break the law, put tenants at risk and undermine the proper functioning of the rental market. Instead, we have this Bill, which risks driving out good landlords while allowing the rogue ones to continue operating completely unchecked.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for leading on this group, and all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. Diversity, choice and a range of tenancy contracts all contribute to a housing sector capable of meeting a wide variety of needs, as we have heard. In that context, it is reasonable to ask the Government why they are pursuing a one-size-fits-all approach through the proposed abolition of all fixed-term tenancies. Having listened to the contributions in Committee, it is clear that there is widespread concern about this element of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is right to challenge the blanket removal of fixed-term tenancies and to reintroduce much-needed flexibility into what is currently a very rigid clause.

Industry stakeholders share these concerns. Propertymark has warned that abolishing fixed terms could destabilise the position of tenants with lower incomes or poor credit histories. Many of these individuals rely on guarantors, who, in turn, require the legal certainty of a fixed term. Without that structure, these tenants may find themselves excluded from the market entirely, excluded from finding a home, and excluded from getting on with their lives. These tenants include students without parental support, young adults leaving care, and individuals with health conditions or irregular employment. They often rely on guarantors to access housing, but those guarantors understandably require the legal certainty of a fixed-term contract. Without that assurance, the door to the rental home quietly but firmly closes.

The Government’s rebuttal is by now well-rehearsed. They claim there is no cause for concern because tenants will have the ability to give two months’ notice, thereby shaping the tenancy to their preferred timeframe. But this argument is weak and raises serious questions. How can it be right to require landlords to fundamentally alter the contracts they offer? How is it reasonable to expect a landlord to accept a tenant who cannot demonstrate their ability to pay, particularly in the absence of the legal structure and certainty that fixed-term agreements provide. Equally, why should tenants be denied the option of a fixed-term tenancy if they believe it best serves their interests? Removing that choice is not empowering, it is restricting. Tenants, like landlords, have diverse needs and circumstances. Many actively seek fixed-term arrangements because they offer clarity, stability and peace of mind. For tenants in transitional phases of life, that assurance is vital. A fixed-term tenancy can provide security that their home cannot be taken away, even within the grounds of possession remaining. This is particularly important for those on temporary contracts, such as nurses relocating to hospital placements, families seeking to remain within a particular school catchment area or individuals from overseas who require time-limited accommodation.

To remove fixed-term tenancies is to ignore the lived realities of both tenants and landlords and to strip the sector of the very flexibility it needs to function effectively. For landlords, fixed terms provide the certainty required to plan and manage their properties effectively. Removing that certainty could prompt many to exit the sector, and already is, further reducing the already strained supply of rental housing. Ironically, this supposed flexibility could leave both tenants and landlords facing greater instability.

The proposed abolition of fixed-term tenancies may lead some homeowners who currently let their properties on a fixed-term basis to withdraw from the market altogether. Faced with the uncertainty of an open-ended tenancy, some may even choose to leave their properties empty rather than risk loss of control over future use. Why are the Government not listening to landlords, the very people who maintain the foundations of the private rented sector? They are not just participants in the market; they are the backbone of the market. We on these Benches support choice and the freedom to decide a contract that works for both the tenant and the landlord, and I hope the rest of the House agrees. We will support the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, if he tests the opinion of the House.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hacking for his very kind comments and—with slightly less enthusiasm—for this amendment, which would retain a form of fixed term, during which the landlord could not use a number of “landlord circumstance” grounds, including selling. My noble friend referred to his role as a landlord, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill: I am sure he is a very good landlord. Good and honest landlords have nothing to fear from the Bill; it is not them we are dealing with here

The issue of fixed terms is one we have debated at some length and on which I know there is great strength of feeling on both sides of the House. For many noble Lords, this is an issue of free will. They believe that the Government should not interfere in a tenant and landlord’s ability to agree terms between them, and that both parties should have the choice between a periodic or fixed-term tenancy. In my view, however, that argument mischaracterises the balance of power between tenant and landlord in any negotiation. Here, I agree very strongly here with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Landlords have the choice of many tenants, all competing to offer the most favourable terms, while tenants have far less opportunity to choose between properties. Tenants cannot simply walk away if they do not like a landlord’s terms—a choice between homelessness and a fixed term is no choice at all.

To speak to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, it has been symbolic of that imbalance that, until this Bill, landlords have been able to issue a Section 21 eviction notice and remove tenants through no fault of their own. Not only does that cause distress to families; it also places a huge burden on the state as our beleaguered local authorities pick up the cost of over 100,000 families in emergency and temporary accommodation. It is therefore incumbent on the Government to ensure that tenants do not lose out. We must step in to ensure that tenants are not forced into agreeing unfavourable terms that act against their interests and remove fundamental rights to move when needed.

I accept that fixed terms have some benefit for tenants under the current system because they offer some respite from the awful threat of Section 21, which hangs like the sword of Damocles over tenants’ heads. With Section 21 gone, that advantage will be extinguished, so there is even less reason why a tenant would agree voluntarily to a fixed term. Even if freely agreed, there is nothing equal about a fixed term. Under the current system, landlords can rightly seek possession during a fixed term if a tenant breaches the terms of their rental. Possession grounds are available if a tenant misses rent payments, damages the property, commits anti-social behaviour or indeed breaches any term of their tenancy.

Noble Lords would then imagine that, in a fair contract, a tenant could also terminate the tenancy if the landlord failed to fulfil their responsibilities during the term, but in almost all cases tenants do not have this choice. Landlords can allow properties to fall into disrepair, leave properties unsafe to live in, and still tenants must pay rent month after month. This is fundamentally unbalanced. It is critical that we act to reset the scales.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert—
“unless the tenant meets the student test when the tenancy is entered into.(1A) For the purposes of this section, a tenant who meets the student test when a tenancy is entered into has the same meaning as in Ground 4A in Schedule 1.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow student tenancies to remain as fixed tenancies to provide the certainty that both student tenants and student landlords require.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, at the heart of the Bill is a duty to protect young people, because it is primarily young people who rely on the private rented sector. Students are no exception: many are leaving home for the first time, stepping into higher education with courage and ambition. For them, the need for clarity, stability and fairness in housing is especially pressing.

Fixed-term tenancies for students, as proposed in Amendment 2, are not a loophole; they are a solution that works. They have brought order and predictability to a cyclical market. The Government recognise this, having already made concessions for purpose-built student accommodation, but that exemption applies only to the most expensive end of the market. What if the student cannot afford a glossy new block with a gym and a neat working space, and instead shares a modest flat in a converted home? We urge the Government to take a consistent approach and extend this provision across the board, because there is a great student migration and a releasing and re-letting of homes at the end of each academic year. It is a finely balanced cycle, and if we tamper with it blindly, we risk breaking it altogether.

That cycle is already under pressure. Student towns and cities are seeing a decline in student-appropriate housing. If we continue down this road, we will put higher education out of reach for many, in particular those from disadvantaged backgrounds who rely on affordable shared housing.

That is why my Amendment 5 is so vital. The current restriction on ground 4A, which limited it to properties with three or more bedrooms, is both arbitrary and unfair. Many students, in particular postgraduates, international students and mature students, live in one-bedroom or two-bedroom properties. In Committee, the Minister said:

“Limiting it to HMOs captures the bulk of typical students”.—[Official Report, 22/4/25; col. 589.]


The Minister is right: it captures the bulk, but not all of them. When housing is scarce, we need all available options. When choices are limited, we must protect every viable home. Let us be clear: ground 4A is not about throwing students out of their homes, it is about ensuring that landlords can confidently re-let for the next academic year and that students can confidently plan their lives.

Amendment 6 rightly asks why six months has been chosen as a cut-off point for ground 4A. This blanket time limit could disrupt rental cycles, discourage landlords from letting to students and ultimately shrink the student housing supply even further.

The Government worry that students may rush into housing decisions too early. That may be true for some, but many students want to secure accommodation early to avoid the stress during exams. Many student tenancies begin in late summer, and students typically start looking well in advance. Limiting searches to up to six months before an August move-in means starting in February. Under the current proposals, properties may not be listed until much later in the year, forcing students to house-hunt during their final exams. That is not necessary, fair or workable. The Government should let students decide when they wish to sign the contract.

Without fixed terms and a workable ground 4A, students will face prolonged uncertainty, and it will be harder for them to plan, budget and study. We must also remember that eviction proceedings are exceptionally rare in this market. The problem is not landlords turfing students out but students facing unnecessary delays and stress when trying to secure accommodation. The current proposals simply do not address this reality.

Finally, Amendment 7 seeks to include apprentices in the definition of students. Like university students, they would benefit from a fixed-term tenancy aligned with their training periods, offering much-needed stability. I hope, having listened to the Government’s arguments in Committee, that they have reflected and that we can agree that it is only fair that apprentices and their landlords have access to the same arrangements as university students.

The Government have already made partial concessions, but now we need a principled and wholehearted attempt to preserve a functioning, fair and inclusive student rental market. Amendments 2, 5, 6 and 7 are constructive and proportionate. They reflect what is already working, they address what is currently broken, and they would help ensure that going to university remains a viable choice for young people across the country. I urge the Minister and the House to support these amendments. We would be minded to test the opinion of the House, for the reasons that I have underlined. I beg to move Amendment 2 in my name.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I declare once more my interest as a landlord who rents properties, often to students. Your Lordships will be delighted to know that I will not be jumping up and down on every group today, but I do want to challenge the quite obstinate prevention of fixed tenancies for students—and, importantly, groups of students—many of whom will be moving into their first home outside hall.

I want to outline some of the adverse consequences of this Bill if enacted unamended. It will reduce the supply of rental properties by discriminating against private landlords. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, speaking in the earlier group, seemed to fail to understand the dynamic effect: if landlords leave the market and there is lower supply, costs will rise and students will pay more.

It will reduce the choices of property available to students, because this Bill allows student tenancies only in halls of residence. This will not suit everybody. It reduces the choice of landlord. It favours the monopoly supplier—the institutional provider of halls of residence —rather than the private landlord. In my personal experience, my wife has become “mother”, so to speak, in particular to foreign students who have rented with us on their first time overseas. All that will be swept away, because institutional providers of student accommodation do not have that in their ambit.

It will create an overheated market in September, that is for sure, and—guess what?—that will cost more for students. It will also cause massive inconvenience for second-year and third-year students at university. I agree with my noble friend that this should not be just about universities; those with apprenticeships should also benefit from these amendments. But it means that second-year and third-year students will have to fly back. They may have got a work placement overseas. They will have to fly back early to try to secure a home when they could have sorted it out well before, in February or March.

The consequences of this Bill mean that it will be harder for friendship groups to get the certainty of a house with their friends. I have mentioned issues around clearing. The Bill will prefer established students from good backgrounds, with parents with sharp elbows, who understand and are able to transact draft contracts more quickly. It will aggravate the difficulty of getting guarantors lined up at pace.

It introduces protections for the current students— I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said in the previous group—but we need to balance that against the disadvantage to students one year behind, who also have rights and who also want to secure a place in their following year.

Students will be forced into these new student blocks. Some of them are really luxurious. There are cinema rooms and pizza places—the whole thing—but it is costing a fortune, and not everybody wants to go to that expense when they can make savings in the private market.

I spoke earlier about the importance of the fixed tenancy, which is a discipline that keeps everybody together and protects everybody’s interests. It is important that we dwell on this, particularly for students. Unlike in the wider private rented sector, where family relationships or other stronger forms of relationship exist, friendship groups at university can be more transient. We have spoken a lot already about the balance of power between tenant and landlord, but we should also consider the balance of power when someone in a friendship group in a house wants to cut and run, leaving his former friends high and dry. That is a real perverse situation that runs against natural justice and good order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments on students, and all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. As noble Lords will be aware, the proposals on student accommodation have been subject to great consideration and debate both inside and outside this Chamber and in the other place. I thank all those who have written to me, and I am sure to other noble Lords, on this subject.

Amendment 2 seeks to retain fixed-term tenancies for students living in private rented accommodation. I can only repeat that fixed terms serve only to lock tenants in. They oblige them to pay rent even if the condition of the property is poor, or if their circumstances change and they need to move out as a result. In the current system of fixed-term tenancies, we often hear of students who have dropped out of university but are still obliged to pay rent for their accommodation— I could mention some examples, but it is probably not appropriate to do so. This is not the right approach. We want all tenants, including students, from whichever demographic group they come from, to benefit from the increased security and flexibility that the Renters’ Rights Bill provides.

Students pay the same rent—often higher rents—as other tenants and so should have the same rights as everyone else. We have introduced a new possession ground to allow the cyclical nature of the student market to continue and to provide landlords with confidence. I recognise that the noble Baroness is trying to create parity between students in the private rented sector and those in purpose-built student accommodation, as their tenancies will be exempted from the assured system and landlords will be able to offer fixed-term tenancies. However, we have exempted purpose-built student accommodation from the assured tenancy system due to its unique business model. Often, PBSA cannot be let to non-students due to its location or the services it provides alongside accommodation.

We have also exempted this sector from the protections of the assured tenancy system because we are satisfied that the Unipol codes of management practice provide an alternative route to ensuring that tenancies are at a high standard. There is no such code for private student landlords, and it would be wrong to mirror the exemption.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, who asked about monitoring—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but does the Minister accept that purpose-built student accommodation is for the more wealthy? Young people who are struggling to go to university will go with the private rented sector and not the expensive specific accommodation. Has she done any work on that, and does she realise that that is what is happening out there?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Students who take up accommodation should have the same rights as anybody else who is taking up accommodation. That is why we do not want to exempt from the benefits of the Renters’ Rights Bill students who want to rent in the private rented sector.

To come on to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, about monitoring, we will monitor this element of the Bill, along with all aspects of it, and I will give noble Lords more detail about that—it comes up under a future set of amendments, but as he has asked the question, it is important to respond to it. We will evaluate the process, impact and value for money of the reforms in line with the department’s published Housing Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy. The evaluation will involve extensive data collection through interviews, surveys and focus groups with a range of stakeholders, as well as trusted data sources. We will talk to tenants, landlords, letting agents, third sector organisations, delivery partners, the court service and government officials. I will say more about the court service later on, because, to some extent, that needs a much more immediate and dynamic monitoring process.

The primary data will be supplemented by monitoring data from existing surveys and new data produced by the reforms. Reports will be produced for publication approximately two and five years after implementation, in line with commitments made in the Bill’s impact assessment to publish findings. Therefore, they will be available for parliamentary scrutiny. It is important to say at this point that we want to make sure there is a process by which we can review the provisions in the Bill.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My apologies to the noble Lord; that was probably my speedy reading rather than an omission on the part of the information I have—so, yes, I agree with him that this is part of the monitoring process.

Amendment 5 seeks to expand ground 4A, which allows students living in HMOs to be evicted in line with the academic year. It seeks to address the concerns of some noble Lords that the scope of the ground needs to be expanded to all student properties. It would remove the HMO restriction and allow students living in self-contained accommodation—one and two-bedroom properties for example—to be evicted each year. We have thought carefully about the design of ground 4A, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for also giving it great thought. We want to ensure the cyclical nature of the typical student market is maintained. We therefore believe limiting it to HMOs achieves this by capturing the bulk of typical students—that is, groups living in a house share. Meanwhile, students who need more security of tenure, such as single parents living with their children, or post-graduate couples living together who have put down roots in the area, will be protected.

The core principle of the Bill is that tenants should have more security in their homes, and it is right that these groups should not be exposed to potential eviction using ground 4A. Self-contained one-bedroom and two-bedroom homes are also easier to let to non-students than student HMOs. I do not agree with the conspiracy theory that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, spoke about, but if a landlord cannot gain possession in line with the academic year, they are more likely to be able to let the property out to non-student tenants. That gives another way through for landlords.

On Amendment 6, noble Lords may remember that, in the Committee evidence session in the other place, it was highlighted that students are often pressured into signing contracts for the next academic year very early in the term, before they have had a chance to form stable friendships or assess a property’s proper condition and location. To discourage this practice, we amended the Bill to prevent landlords using ground 4A if they had agreed a tenancy more than six months in advance of tenants gaining the right to possession. This amendment seeks to extend this six-month limitation to allow landlords to sign tenancies up to nine months in advance. I am not convinced that this would be the right approach.

As I have highlighted, in many cases students are expected to commit to properties within just months of arriving at university, before having the opportunity to form lasting friendship groups or evaluate whether a property meets their needs in terms of condition or location. The purpose of this measure is to act as a strong disincentive to this practice, while striking the right balance. It avoids pushing students into signing tenancies before Christmas—when students are still settling in—but continues to allow flexibility for students who prefer to secure accommodation in advance of the summer period and does not interfere with typical exam periods. Extending this limit to nine months would undermine that balance and risk reinforcing the practice that this measure is intended to discourage; for example, tenants in a competitive market may be forced to search for tenancies starting in September during their January exam period.

Amendment 7 seeks to expand the student ground for possession, so that it can be used to evict a tenant undertaking an apprenticeship. While I understand the support for apprenticeships and share the noble Baroness’s wish to support people undertaking them, I do not believe that this would be the right approach. Ground 4A was created in recognition of the unique, cyclical nature of accommodation for those in traditional higher education. Those in other types of education, such as apprenticeships, are less likely to live in cyclical accommodation and need the security of tenure that the Bill gives tenants. Those on apprenticeship schemes, for example, earn a wage and tend to hope to stay at their company once the apprenticeship is completed; they live lifestyles much more akin to the working population than to university students. They will therefore benefit from all the increased security of tenure that the Bill will give them. For the reasons I have set out, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and all noble Lords who have spoken; they have considerable interest in and knowledge of the sector. Having listened carefully to the debate, and given that the House has rejected the principle of fixed-term tenancies for all, I intend to withdraw Amendment 2.

On Amendment 6, concerning the timing of student tenancies, and Amendment 7, on expanding the definition of students, I recognise that there is sympathy for the concerns I have raised. However, I do not believe that there is enough support in the House to carry them; I will therefore not move those amendments.

Over the past number of months, we have listened to student organisations and universities across this country about the supply of student housing and the types of housing that students—of many different types—want to be made available in the sector. I have listened on the issue of monitoring, but I am worried that, when we eventually find out that it will have a detrimental effect on the sector, a cohort of young people will have suffered during that period of time. We do not think that is correct.

The other issue is around taking out certain types of accommodation from the sector. What will happen then? The rest of the accommodation will become more expensive for the students who need it. That concerns us as well.

There is an issue of capacity and supply in the market, and that remains very pressing. We believe that the Government’s response could have been better; it is pretty unconvincing. Therefore, we will test the opinion of the House on Amendment 5.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

5: Schedule 1, page 178, leave out line 13
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the restriction of Ground 4A to accommodation of three or more bedrooms only.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of the young people looking for student accommodation in the future at a reasonable rent, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the agricultural sector of this country and its workers are without doubt the lifeline of the nation. I therefore thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his proposed amendments that make provision for agricultural landlords and workers, bringing the welfare of the agricultural sector into overdue consideration.

Today, the British agricultural industry contributes £14 billion to our economy and puts food on our plates three times a day. Agricultural landlords lie at the heart of this. They provide the means for this essential lifeline by providing on-site housing for workers who are required to be at hand to fulfil their duties 24 hours a day. From milking cows daily at three o’clock in the morning to delivering lambs throughout the night in the spring, on-site and proximity housing ultimately facilitates workers’ ability to produce the food on which we all depend. It is therefore crucial that we consider the effects of the Renters’ Rights Bill on these agricultural workers and, in the case of the Bill’s failure to protect their livelihoods, consider proposed amendments so that the Bill does not obstruct one of Britain’s lifelines.

As drafted, the Bill clumsily allows for occupants to remain in a dwelling house even if they no longer work for the landlord, which is usually the requirement for the occupancy of such housing. Similarly, as my noble friend Lord Roborough stated on 12 May, the wording of this Bill also does not allow for the possession of a house dwelling as long as the occupant remains in agricultural employment, with no indication as to the specific type of agricultural work that the occupant carries out, or whether proximity to certain facilities or animals is necessary.

This ultimately risks the deprivation of housing for current full-time workers, who may depend on the occupied dwelling house to be able to fulfil their duties, not to mention simultaneously risking the inability of the agricultural sector to function effectively, due to an inefficient proximity to work that this lack of provision may cause.

Amendments 8, 9 and 11 to 16 therefore ensure that such damage may be averted by allowing an agricultural landlord to possess their property for the use of their own full-time agricultural workers, and thus retain the efficacy that fuels this industry. Amendment 11 is particularly important, because our country’s modern agricultural industry is changing. One of those changes is that many of the employees are self-employed, particularly in jobs in the dairy industry and the sheep industry, where milkers and shepherds are often self-employed. So we will support the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, if he moves his Amendment 11.

As previously emphasised, it goes without saying that the agricultural sector serves to provide for every one of us, and it is in the same vein that proposed Amendments 10 and 12 also serve. In the Bill’s current form, the absence of provision for service occupants overlooks the reality that many agricultural workers’ contracts express: the worker must live in a particular residence where they can better perform their duties. This is of particular relevance to the contracts of agricultural workers who, out of both duty and British custom, are often housed by their employer, who is also the landlord.

By allowing possession to be made for service occupants and key workers, in Amendments 10 and 12 the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, rightly seeks to uphold the implements and customs that facilitate effective and key agricultural operations, and the welfare of agricultural employees. However, with the more comprehensive inclusivity entailed by service occupants and key workers, the amendments also make provision for workers in other vital sectors where similar contracts exist. These include, but are not limited to, the NHS, healthcare, education professionals and emergency service workers. With Amendments 10 and 12 in place, whether one of those key workers needs to rise in the early hours in the lambing season to check the ewes, or provide immediate care for an elderly person, or is putting out a fire, their crucial duties can be carried out only with the due expediency granted by their proximity and not if they are hindered by the limitations put in place by the Bill.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 8 and 9, et cetera, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about treating self-employed agricultural staff as full-time staff members on a farm for the purposes of the Bill. As this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill—probably the only time I am going to speak on the Bill—I declare my interest as a farmer and someone who has a dairy, because it is about dairies that I want to speak.

Cows have to be milked twice a day. It is not only from the point of view of the welfare of the farmer, and perhaps his or her bottom line, but from the point of view of the welfare of the cows. The cows have to be milked twice a day or they really suffer. Cows can actually die from not being milked, so it is really important that they are milked twice a day. Most dairy farmers now employ their dairymen or dairywomen— I am pleased to say there is a considerably greater number of women who are dairy farmers these days than in the past—through an agency, because it is the duty of the agency, if the dairyman suffers a heart attack or gets run over, or something terrible happens, to produce a dairyman literally the next day so the cows can continue to be milked. It really is very important for the welfare of the cows and the farm.

These staff, who are self-employed through an agency, are treated on the farm as part of the farm team. Although technically they are self-employed, they must be treated as being employed members of the farm for the purposes of the Bill. They usually occupy a vital house, probably close to the dairy. There is not only milking twice a day; a good dairy person has to spend two or three hours a day, in addition to the milking, watching their cows, seeing that their welfare is okay and they are in full health, and that their feet do not need treatment, and whether they are on heat. It is a really important role.

Although I am only speaking about dairy people, I am sure the same applies to herdsmen in a beef herd, or shepherds looking after a flock. The point is that these people are employed through an agency, therefore they are self-employed. It would really not be at all right—and I am talking about the welfare of the cows, apart from anything else—if these people were excluded from being treated as ordinary members of staff for the purposes of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

I am always happy to discuss these important issues further with noble Lords, but for the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, on self-employed workers in the agricultural industry, has MHCLG discussed this issue with Defra? Defra would know how the industry has changed over the past years and how critical it is to have self-employed workers on specific jobs in agriculture. It is going to be very difficult for farmers, particularly livestock farmers, to manage in certain circumstances on the farm, as we have heard from the noble Lord opposite.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have not personally discussed the issue with Defra, but I am sure that officials in MHCLG will have done so, and—

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

18: Schedule 1, page 193, line 40, leave out sub-paragraph (a)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment retains the status quo, allowing landlords to begin recovering rent arrears after eight weeks—rather than thirteen—where rent is payable weekly or fortnightly, helping to reduce the build-up of rental and mortgage arrears.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to group 6 and to Amendments 18 and 19 standing in my name. These amendments concern the point at which rent arrears become a valid ground for possession, an issue of considerable importance to landlords and tenants alike. The most recent English Private Landlord Survey shows that 45% of landlords own a single rental property and a further 38% own between two and four. That means over four-fifths of landlords operate on a very small scale, far from the image of institutional landlords with deep financial reserves. These are individuals and couples, often retirees, who rely on rental income for their own stability. They form the backbone of our rental sector.

With that image in mind, I turn to the amendments in this group. Under the proposals in the Bill, landlords will be prevented from initiating possession proceedings for 13 weeks of arrears in the case of weekly or fortnightly rent, or three months where the rent is paid monthly. That is a significant extension from the current thresholds of eight weeks and two months, respectively. Amendments 18 and 19 in my name are not about undermining tenant protections—far from it; they are about retaining the status quo, which has for many years struck a workable balance between supporting tenants through temporary difficulty and allowing landlords to respond promptly when rent is not being paid. When landlords are prevented from acting until arrears have been built up to such a degree, the financial consequences can be severe, not only for landlords themselves but for tenants too, who may find the ultimate possession proceedings more inevitable and more traumatic as a result. Early intervention can help avoid escalation.

Amendment 20 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is fundamentally right in principle. Landlords who provide a private service in an open market in exchange for a fee should not be penalised for government failure. If the Government fail to make payments, that is not the fault of the landlord, and they should not be made to suffer as a result. Therefore, if the noble Lord was to test the opinion of the House on this issue, we would support it.

These amendments speak to a broader principle that must underpin this Bill—balance. Yes, we must protect renters from unjust eviction, but we must also enable landlords to operate viably, to maintain confidence in the sector and to continue providing the homes that so many people depend on.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 20 in this group and declare an interest as a former landlord. Amendment 20 was tabled in Committee, but I have retabled it because I do not feel I have had an adequate answer from the Government. The amendment would continue to permit rent arrears which arise from non-payment of universal credit to be taken into account as a ground for possession. Not to do so is unworkable and unfair.

Taking unworkable first, since this is the point which must surely concern the Minister, I suggest that it is unworkable because, unlike in the social sector, private landlords are not allowed to know, under data protection rules, whether a tenant is in receipt of universal credit. The Department for Work and Pensions is not allowed to tell them. As such, the landlord will have no idea whether rent arrears are due to a non-payment of universal credit and, unbeknownst to them, will be legally prevented from taking enforcement action. A landlord might discover that rent arrears were due to a delayed universal credit payment and therefore unenforceable only once the case reaches court, thereby piling yet further quite unnecessary pressure on the justice system. This creates significant uncertainty and risk for responsible landlords, particularly smaller landlords. Disregarding non-payment of universal credit is therefore completely unworkable. It will lead to unnecessary enforcement action, which is surely the last thing this new system needs.

Turning to why it is unfair, I ask why the landlord should be penalised if the non-payment of universal credit is the fault of the universal credit system breaking down in some way. This is especially problematic for landlords renting out just one or two properties who rely on timely payments to meet their own financial obligations. If the Government are serious about sustaining tenancies, then addressing the root causes of delayed benefit payments would be more effective. In other words, protecting tenants from administrative delays should be the job of the welfare system, not landlords. Otherwise, the upshot could well be that landlords will be much more cautious about taking on tenants on universal credit. Is that what Ministers really want?

In response to this amendment in Committee, the Minister told your Lordships on 24 April:

“It is important that tenancies that are otherwise financially sustainable should continue, with tenants protected from one-off financial shocks. For example, it is feasible that a tenant who lost their job and had to apply for universal credit could breach the arrears threshold while waiting for their first payment. Evicting that tenant and potentially making them homeless would not help the situation, whereas giving them chances to resolve the arrears would ensure that the tenancy could continue, benefiting both them and the landlord and ensuring that the landlord was able to claim the arrears once the payments were made”.—[Official Report, 24/4/25; col. 842.]


With great respect to the Minister, I cannot help feeling that this is slightly naive. Is it really of benefit to a landlord to ensure that the tenancy continues when a tenant has accrued three months’ worth of arrears and, in the process, may have seriously damaged the landlord’s financial position—for example, in being unable to support their family or unable to pay the mortgage and forced to take enforcement action? Why should landlords be penalised for the state’s failure to pay universal credit promptly?

Paragraph 24(d) of Schedule 1 should therefore be omitted. It is unworkable and unfair. If, however, the Minister continues to think that paragraph 24(d) is fair on landlords, can she at least give some assurance that they will have a way—notwithstanding the data protection rules—of finding out whether rent arrears are due to delays in payment of universal credit, so as to avoid clogging up the tribunal system with unenforceable claims?

I can help the noble Baroness here, because Section 16 of the Data Protection Act—a Henry VIII power, in fact—enables the Act to be amended so that the list of exemptions in Schedule 2 to that Act is expanded. It could be amended in that way by regulations to enable the landlord to know whether rent arrears are due to delays in universal credit. This would not deal with the fairness points I have made but would deal with the unworkability points. If the Minister were able to give the assurance that the tribunal system will not be clogged up with unenforceable claims, I would not press my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for their amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her comments.

Amendments 18 and 19 seek to decrease the threshold for mandatory eviction under rent arrears, ground 8, from three months to two, or 13 weeks to eight where rent is paid weekly. I do not believe that this is the right approach. We have taken the decision to restore the threshold for mandatory evictions to the levels originally set by the party opposite in the Housing Act 1988 before they were reduced in the 1990s.

Three months, we believe, is the right balance. It gives landlords facing significant arrears certainty of possession, but allows tenants facing one-off financial shocks enough time to get their financial affairs in order and not lose their home if their tenancy is otherwise sustainable. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that ground 8 is a mandatory ground, but it is worth noting that mandatory eviction is not the landlord’s only route to possession. Landlords facing frequent arrears and late payment of rent that indicate an unsustainable tenancy can also pursue eviction via the discretionary grounds 10 and 11. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 20 seeks to remove a key protection for vulnerable tenants from the Bill. It would allow tenants to face mandatory eviction when they have breached the three-month rent arrears threshold due to not receiving a universal credit payment to which they are entitled. This would not be right. We want to protect those vulnerable tenants who have suffered a change of circumstances, such as redundancy or an accident, by helping them remain in their home. It would not be right for them to face another destabilising event by allowing landlords to evict them, potentially making them homeless because they are waiting to receive universal credit that is due to them. Not being able to pay their rent on time because they have not received universal credit they are entitled to does not mean that they are a bad tenant. It is right that these tenants are given time to resolve their arrears; it is also important that tenancies that are otherwise financially sustainable should continue. That will benefit both the tenant and the landlord.

We have heard concerns that landlords might face uncertainty in pursuing possession claims if they do not realise that arrears are caused by an outstanding benefit payment. That is subsequently used as a defence in possession proceedings. Of course, we would strongly encourage tenants and landlords to communicate; it is clearly in the tenants’ interest to explain their situation before the case reaches court. I note too that there is an element of uncertainty in any possession case, and this requirement is not unusual in that regard.

I have heard the point that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, made about data access and I will take that back to the department. I hope he agrees that we are justified in our approach and that he will not move his amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments before us, in particular Amendments 18 and 19, seek to preserve a workable and fair framework that supports both tenants and landlords. The current thresholds, allowing landlords to begin recovery proceedings after eight weeks or two months of arrears, have stood the test of time because they offer a sensible compromise.

Moreover, early intervention is often in the best interests of tenants themselves. Addressing arrears sooner rather than later can prevent problems escalating to the point where eviction becomes unavoidable—a consequence that benefits no one. Our goal must be to craft legislation that is fair and balanced, which ultimately safeguards the rights of renters while ensuring stability for landlords.

Although it is imperative to safeguard tenants from unfair evictions, we must ensure that the protections do not inadvertently place landlords in an untenable position, thereby threatening the very housing supply we all seek. We will not put these amendments to a vote, but we think that Amendment 20, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, represents a very sensible improvement to this part of the Bill, and we will support him if he chooses to divide the House.

Amendment 18 withdrawn.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

43: Clause 8, page 12, line 23, after “for” insert “more than six months”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow a person to mutually agree a tenancy with a landlord which requires them to pay up to six months of rent in advance.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the payment of rent in advance can provide significant benefits to tenants that go beyond simply avoiding late fees or demonstrating financial security. Many tenants choose to pay rent in advance for financial planning, to ease the stress of monthly payments or to manage upcoming financial burdens. Amendment 43 in this group recognises and affirms this choice, firmly rooted in mutual agreement between tenant and landlord.

We did consider introducing a 12-month period proposal at Committee stage. However, in a spirit of compromise, and having listened carefully to the views expressed in Committee, we have instead brought forward a six-month proposal. We hope that the Government will recognise this as a reasonable and constructive step, and we hope that noble Lords can support this.

If a tenant does not wish to pay rent in advance, they would be under no obligation to do so. However, there are particular groups who would benefit from this flexibility, including overseas students and those with poor or limited credit histories. Many tenants with lower credit ratings face barriers to securing housing that are often no fault of their own. By paying rent in advance, these individuals could demonstrate responsibility and financial reliability, improving their chances of obtaining a tenancy.

Similarly, overseas students often lack a UK credit history and therefore require UK-based guarantors, which is not always possible. For those students, paying rent up front for a term or even an entire academic year is a practicality and a common solution. I ask the Minister to clarify what impact these amendments might have on overseas students’ ability to secure accommodation and whether the landlord will maintain incentives to rent to those tenants despite their limited credit history.

--- Later in debate ---

I turn to government Amendment 44, which introduces a small technical clarification to the drafting of Clause 8. As such, I do not need to take up too much of the House’s time. It provides that any terms in a tenancy agreement that require a payment of rent before it is due are of no effect. This amendment clarifies that this provision applies only to assured tenancies entered into after commencement. I commend Amendment 44 to the House.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, allowing tenants, where mutually agreed, to pay rent in advance of up to six months provides an important option for many, particularly those who may face barriers such as a poor credit history, overseas students without a UK credit record or those who simply wish to manage their finances proactively. This choice should be respected and preserved, not restricted by over-prescriptive regulations.

Housing is a personal and often complex matter, and we acknowledge the complexity of balancing landlord protections with tenants’ rights, particularly regarding initial payments such as deposits and the first month’s rent. However, it demands legislation that is flexible enough to accommodate different circumstances without sacrificing fairness and stability.

I know the hour is late but we believe that this is an important amendment for the freedom and flexibilities that tenants require in this sector. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House on my Amendment 43.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 7th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 48 from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, not because he is the Convenor of the Cross Benches, although that could be a bonus point, but for three reasons. First, my family have never kept a pet, but why should I be part of a legislature that would deny somebody seeking consent to keep a pet simply because they live in social housing? To me, that is clear discrimination. It cannot be right that you would say, “Because you’re in social housing, you cannot request the consent of the landlord”. It is their right to ask for consent. That is not to say that it would give an automatic right to the social housing person to keep a pet.

Secondly, we are constantly told that this wonderful nation and the other three are nations of pet lovers. Do we want to say that somebody in social housing cannot be a pet lover? Who would want to say that?

The third reason is our beloved Majesty, the late Queen Elizabeth II. Do your Lordships remember when there was somebody who was going through a lot of trauma and she invited that gentleman to come and spend time with one of her corgis? Noble Lords will remember that the person said, “This has put my trauma in perspective”.

Those who want to keep pets because they live in social housing, and because they are animal lovers, should be given the same right as others to request consent.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, in particular the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for his thoughtful and balanced Amendment 48. This Bill must work for renters, but it must also work for landlords. We have discussed pets at length throughout the stages of the Bill and there is no denying that pets provide vital companionship, comfort and emotional support for many. It is therefore no surprise that this issue has attracted considerable interest across the House.

However, we recognise that this is not a Bill about social housing; it is focused rightly on the private rented sector. The frameworks, obligations and operational realities governing social housing are distinct, and we believe they are better addressed through the appropriate legislative and regulatory channels. That said, we fully support the principle behind the noble Earl’s amendment and hope the Minister will take this issue forward. There is a clear opportunity to work with housing associations and local authorities to ensure that fair, proportionate and compassionate policies can be delivered in this space.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, once again I declare my interest, in that I am a landlord.

I support Amendment 53A most strongly, but I wonder if I might dwell on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Looking around this Chamber, I see that most of us travel a lot as part of our duties in this House if we live outside of London. I am sure my wife would be the first to complain if I brought bedbugs back to our family home.

Drawing on my experience as both a landlord and a managing agent, I know the cost of the Bill will be that the additional costs of damage, wear and tear, fluff, cleanliness, pest control and all those other little things—as enumerated most ably by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford—will, particularly in blocks of flats, be borne by those tenants who do not keep pets. I do not think that is right. Quite simply, keeping a pet is an add-on to a tenancy and the additional cost should be borne by those who bring the pets with them.

There are lots of examples of where things can go wrong and I will give an example, from my own lived experience, of a tenant who declared that he did not own any pets at all. In due course, he brought his two large dogs to the property, where he left them while he went to work. By and by, it became clear that my house was being used as a kennel. Not only were the neighbours disturbed by the barking all day and all night but, by the time the tenant had stopped paying rent and I had taken proceedings, £15,000-worth of damage had been caused. When he finally left, I discovered the most foul-smelling and revolting scene: one bedroom had been used as a doggy lavatory for weeks. It would have been even worse had the proposals to stop repossession action been extended from eight to 13 weeks.

This was a gross case, in every respect, although I was lucky to get an insurance claim because the sum of money was so large. But that is not what we are talking about generally in this Bill. We are not concerned about granny who may be infirm, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, implied, chewing the table leg or eating the carpet. We are thinking of the middling bit, where it is above and beyond the three weeks. I agree with my noble friend Lord Howard that the additional three weeks is not enough, but I accept that we have to fight the battles we can win. If that is as good as we can get, it is a proportionate compromise that I am prepared to accept.

Several noble Lords mentioned—and I agree—that if the pet does not cause any damage, the tenant gets the deposit back in full, with interest. I place on the record that in the statutory deposit protection schemes, interest is not normally paid. The deposit goes in and the costs of interest are retained by the deposit scheme, presumably to defray their costs of operating the system and its administration. I would not want those watching this outside the Chamber to think that we are now going to introduce the requirement to pay interest if the landlord does not accept that.

I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the Government’s ability to increase the deposit through the Tenant Fees Act 2019, but I think we should accept here and now—and Amendment 53 implies this—that there are additional costs and risks to keeping pets, and it is obvious that we should not necessarily wait. Let us have those provisions within the Tenant Fees Act 2019 introduced immediately, but proportionately, so the goldfish is not charged at the same rate as the Newfie—that would not be sensible—particularly in cases where there is furnished accommodation. Then we can have a good compromise that everybody can live with.

Finally, I do not want to repeat this at length, but I believe that if we can come to that arrangement, having that deposit benefits the tenant because at least they get it back, whereas in the case of buying an insurance policy—not that these policies exist, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said—that would be an absolute cost because they would pay whether there was damage or not. I strongly support Amendment 53 and if the noble Earl is minded to test the opinion of the House, I will follow him through the Lobby.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the issue of pet-related damage is understandably a source of concern for landlords. This group of amendments raises important questions about how we balance—that word balance again—the increased rights granted to tenants to keep pets with the responsibilities and protections that landlords need.

It is simply not reasonable to argue that the existing tenancy deposit, which is designed to cover damage under current arrangements, is also sufficient to cover the additional risks introduced by granting tenants a new right to keep pets.

The Government have already accepted that pets pose a greater risk by including pet insurance measures in the Bill. That was a clear recognition that pets are likely to cause additional damage. However, as we consider these provisions, it is crucial to reflect on the experience already gained in Scotland, where tenants’ rights legislation has evolved to allow pets in rented properties, while seeking to balance landlord protections. In Scotland, the introduction of pet-friendly tenancy provisions and related insurance requirements has offered valuable lessons. While these measures have expanded tenant freedoms and encouraged pet ownership, they have also revealed challenges, particularly in ensuring that landlords are adequately protected against damage and in making sure that any additional costs or deposits are fair and transparent.

Either pets cause additional damage or they do not. If the Government now claim that they do not, they must provide clear and compelling evidence to justify overturning their original assessment. Without such evidence, it logically and fairly follows that the landlord should be permitted to take a separate pet damage deposit.

We believe it is inevitable that some damage will result from pets. That is why we support Amendment 53A, which would introduce the option of a dedicated pet damage deposit. This would provide landlords with an essential route to recoup costs, while also protecting tenants from unfair charges by clearly defining that this is a separate and transparent element of a tenancy agreement and that, as we have already heard, if no damage is done, they get this charge back.

We recognise that some landlords may choose to welcome pets without requiring additional deposits—or, in the future, insurance—and they should be free to do so. But where landlords require further protections, there must be a fair and transparent mechanism for tenants to provide it at the outset of the tenancy.

Finally, the experience in Scotland reminds us that implementing pet-friendly rental policies is a delicate balance that must be tailored to the practical realities that landlords and tenants face. As the Bill moves forward, it is essential that it draws on such lessons to achieve frameworks that work fairly across the whole United Kingdom.

If the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, is minded to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 53A, we will support him.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I know it is a hugely emotive and important issue for so many people, and we have had a good debate on it today. I thank the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for introducing his amendment, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the noble Lords, Lord Trees, Lord Howard, Lord Pannick and Lord Fuller, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Scott.

I turn now to the amendments in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. As we have discussed, Amendment 50 is not required as our government amendments remove the insurance requirements altogether. I understand fully the intention of Amendments 51 and 53A, with the aim to ensure that landlords are protected from potential damages caused by pets. However, we are content that existing deposits, which are capped at five weeks’ rent for typical tenancies where the annual rent is less than £50,000, or six weeks’ rent for tenancies over £50,000 per annum, are enough to cover typical pet damages.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, illustrated very clearly some of the complexities of this issue. Allowing a further three weeks’ deposit would cost the average tenant in England over £900. This is unaffordable for many tenants, who will have worked very hard to save for their deposit for their property, and greatly exceeds the average deposit deduction for pet damage of £300 reported in the study we have already spoken about. That study found that 76% of landlords reported that they did not encounter any damage caused by dogs or cats in their rental properties. Where there was damage, it was an average of £300 per property, compared with £775 for non-pet-related damage.

The report also shows that renters with pets tend to stay longer in their properties than those without pets, indicating financial and social advantages for landlords in fostering those longer and more stable tenancies. In the very rare cases where the insurance and deposit do not cover the cost of damage caused by a pet, a landlord can of course take the tenant to the small claims court by bringing a money claim to recoup any outstanding funds.

In relation to the issues mentioned about Scotland, housing is of course a devolved matter in Scotland, and it is for the Scottish Government to set deposit limits for private rented properties. I note that the right to request a pet does not yet exist in Scotland. In England, we believe that the five weeks’ deposit will be sufficient to cover damages. We also have concerns that in some cases it will be impossible to distinguish between damage caused by pets and that caused by tenants themselves. This could leave pet owners with more exposure to large, unreasonable deposit deductions compared with other renters. As I said, we have an existing power under the Tenant Fees Act, which we could use to allow landlords to require a larger deposit where they have consented to the tenant having a pet. We want to closely monitor how the pet provisions work in practice following implementation, and will consider using the power in the Tenant Fees Act if we see that the cost of pet damage is frequently exceeding the value of deposits.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

60: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause—
“Report on financial assistance to local housing authorities(1) Within 12 months of the day on which section 16 (landlords etc: financial penalties and offences) comes into force, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must make a statement of all financial assistance provided to local housing authorities under section 16L of the Housing Act 1988 (financial penalties: supplementary and interpretation).(2) The statement made under subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This would require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on financial assistance provided to local housing authorities.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Bill brings forward significant changes to the way our housing market functions and to the Government’s role within the private rented sector. It introduces new controls, grants new powers to the Secretary of State, imposes new fines and restricts what landlords and tenants can do. These are not minor or technical adjustments; they are fundamental shifts in how the private rented sector will operate.

A Bill of this scale and consequence will require a clear, well-planned implementation strategy. It cannot promise change at some undefined point in the future, with no clear road map for how landlords and tenants will be taken along that journey. Effective communication and timely guidance will be essential to ensure that the sector is not left in a state of uncertainty.

Beyond implementation, the Bill will alter the underlying dynamics of the market. The Government’s active involvement will inevitably shift the balance of supply and demand, change price signals, affect future capacity, influence rational expectations and alter incentives for both landlords and tenants. These are not unintended side-effects; they are the direct consequences of the choices made in this legislation. That is why we have to be so passionate about the need for proper accountability and monitoring. It is why we tabled Amendment 118, which would require an impact report on the effects of this Bill as a whole, covering the housing market, rent levels, house prices and availability.

It is clear to us that the Bill will not enhance the availability of homes; indeed, it risks diminishing it. It will not ease the pressure of unaffordable rents, but may exacerbate it. Nor will it drive improvements in the quality of rented accommodation; quite the reverse, it threatens to hasten its deterioration. The Government should therefore be required to return to both Houses with a report on the impact of this legislation, not merely a review. A review can be vague, take time and be inconclusive, lacking in accountability and expensive. A report, by contrast, must provide evidence, analysis and a clear assessment of outcomes against the stated aims of the Bill. If we are to legislate with such ambition, we must also commit to transparency about the consequences of this Government’s Bills.

Finally, I wish to draw the House’s attention to Amendment 60, which would require the Secretary of State to provide an annual report on financial assistance to local housing authorities. This is about transparency and accountability. When public finances are under strain and the fiscal outlook is bleak, taxpayers deserve to know where their hard-earned money is going. I hope the Minister will consider how we can strengthen oversight when significant sums of financial assistance are involved.

On the broader principle of scrutinising the Bill’s intentions and implications, I am pleased that we have found common ground with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. The Minister and the Government may find this group frustrating, but the onus is on us to ensure that predictions are tested and instincts are aligned with reality. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 90 and 93 in the name of my noble friend Lady Thornhill, who, unfortunately, cannot be here. These are thoughtful and constructive proposals that seek to strengthen the effectiveness and accountability of the Bill.

Amendment 90 would require a review of the impact of Part 1 within three years, specifically addressing its effect on renter security and stability. Given the significance of the reforms introduced by the Bill, it is entirely reasonable to build in a mechanism to evaluate whether these changes are achieving their intended outcomes and put it before Parliament. I am aware that the department conducts its own review processes for legislation of this kind, but I would welcome assurances from the Minister that these reviews will be thorough and fully account for the various impacts of the Act across the private rented sector.

Amendment 93, also tabled by my noble friend Lady Thornhill, proposes a review of how well tenants understand their rights and obligations under the Bill and where they are most likely to seek that information. This speaks to a critical issue. The Bill makes a number of positive reforms, particularly in strengthening the rights of renters to challenge unfair practices such as unlawful rent increases, poor property standards or breaches of their tenancy agreements through accessible routes such as the First-tier Tribunal. However, as we have discussed again and again in Committee and at Second Reading, far too many tenants either are unaware of these rights or lack the practical information and support needed to exercise them. Without clear and accessible communication, even the most well-intentioned reforms risk falling short. This amendment would ensure that the Government are proactive in identifying how renters seek advice and whether current methods of communication are effective at reaching them. It is only through this kind of follow-up that the Bill’s protections can be meaningfully realised in practice.

Amendment 60, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on financial assistance provided to local housing authorities. As drafted, in our view, the amendment does not clarify the contents of the review and the information it suggests is already available. We are much more supportive of Amendment 118, which would require a broader review of the impact of the Bill on the housing market. We attempted to introduce this on day 1 of Report; we argued then that, given the scale of the reforms to the private rented sector, a review of this kind would provide a useful opportunity to assess the Bill’s wider consequences.

We hope the Minister will take these considerations into account. These amendments do not seek to undermine the Bill but rather to ensure that its implementation is informed, effective and fair. A commitment to review the impact on renters’ stability and to assess how well tenants understand and can access their rights would demonstrate that the Government are serious about delivering lasting change in the private rented sector. It would also offer a valuable opportunity to identify where further support or clarification may be needed, helping ensure that the reforms achieve, as we all hope, their full potential.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this group, which have allowed us further to explore the real impacts of the Bill and what it entails. It is clear from today’s discussions in the lead up to the report that there is probably not sufficient support in the House for Amendment 60, so I will not be pressing it today.

However, it has been clear from the outset that this, to us, is a poor Bill. We believe it will have serious consequences for both landlords and tenants. A reduction in rental supply is not good for tenants; it pushes up costs for those already just about managing and, in many cases, removes the entirely reasonable option of renting a home altogether. We therefore wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 118 when the opportunity to do so arises, on the next day of Report.

If the Government are confident in this Bill, we believe they should have nothing to hide. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 60 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 68 I will speak to Amendments 69 to 71. This issue was not raised in Committee but it is sufficiently important—again I thank Citizens Advice for raising it—to be discussed on Report. I assure the Minister that I do not wish to press these amendments to a vote, but I hope the Minister might be willing to take away the questions raised in this group to assess whether further amendments are needed at Third Reading.

The amendments in this group

“seek to prevent a landlord from serving a notice (under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988) to seek possession of a property where a tenancy deposit has not been properly protected or the relevant statutory requirements in relation to the deposit have not been complied with”.

Citizens Advice has advised me that the tenancy deposit protection scheme will be significantly weakened if it remains the case in the Bill that landlords will not need to protect tenants’ deposits prior to serving notice, and that this would be a departure from the current position. Reverting to the requirement that a landlord must be compliant at the point that notice is served would give far greater certainty and avoid wasted court time in cases where a tenant may not have known up until the last minute whether a valid defence existed. The tenant may believe that they have a defence, because the deposit has been taken and not protected, but then find that the landlord protects or returns the deposit to them at the very last minute, potentially on the morning of the court hearing. That makes it very difficult for tenants to make informed decisions about defending a claim.

The Bill says:

“Where a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with an assured tenancy, the court may make an order for possession of the dwelling-house let on the assured tenancy only if the tenancy deposit is being held in accordance with an authorised scheme”.


My Amendment 68 would amend this to say that where a deposit has been paid in connection with an assured tenancy,

“no notice of proceedings for possession under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 (notice of proceedings for possession) may be given at a time when the deposit is not”

being held.

Over 600 clients every month ask Citizens Advice for help with tenancy deposit return issues of various kinds, and things will only worsen if the protections are weakened. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure the House that deposit protection will be strengthened during the passage of the Bill and that no notice of proceedings for possession may be given at a time when the deposit is not being held in accordance with an authorised scheme.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for bringing this group of amendments to the attention of the House. However, we do not believe that these amendments are necessary. Tenants already have clear rights and remedies when it comes to deposit protection. A tenant can easily check online whether their deposit has been lodged in a government-approved protection scheme. If it has not been properly protected and the issue remains unresolved, the tenant has the right to take the landlord to court.

In such cases, the court may order the landlord to return or protect the deposit, and may even award the tenant three times the value of that deposit as compensation. These are significant penalties and they serve as a strong incentive for landlords to comply with the law. Given that eviction proceedings are already subject to considerable safeguards and restrictions, we are not convinced that removing Section 8 grounds in these circumstances is either proportionate or necessary.

In particular, we must ensure that where a genuine error has been made and later rectified, especially where there is no actual harm or financial loss to the tenant, landlords are not barred from recovering possession of their property. To do so would seem unjust. A more flexible and proportionate approach would promote better compliance while avoiding unnecessary hardship or deterrence to good-faith landlords.

Although we fully understand the intentions behind these amendments, having heard the reasoning of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, we believe that existing protections for tenants are robust and that further restrictions of this kind risk being disproportionate.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am once again grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for raising these points, as well as to Citizens Advice for discussing them directly with our department, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her comments. Although I have great sympathy with the intention of Amendments 68 to 71, Clause 27 already ensures that deposits will be protected at the time of the possession hearing, which we think is a more proportionate approach.

Landlords have until the court hearing to comply with deposit protection rules. This ensures that landlords can still gain possession when it is reasonable, while ensuring that the tenant’s deposit is protected before the tenancy ends. I also note that this approach is far stronger than current restrictions, which prevent only the use of Section 21, and not Section 8, if the deposit is not protected.

However, I believe the noble Lord’s approach goes too far. Most notably, if a landlord had failed to protect a deposit within 30 days of receiving it, they would be permanently prevented from serving notice for possession on any ground except anti-social behaviour. Let me be clear: such a landlord should have complied with the law—of course they should—but there are other, more proportionate, mechanisms available to enforce that compliance, including an ability for a court to award tenants up to three times the amount of the deposit if it was not protected properly.

In conclusion, the Bill balances tenant protection with the need for legitimate possession cases to proceed. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 76 to 85 and Amendments 123 to 125, to Clause 33 and Schedule 6 respectively. These relate to the mechanism by which private purpose-built student accommodation, or PBSA, will be exempted from the assured tenancy system. They are highly technical in nature and can be broadly divided into two main groups. First, there are technical amendments to the power in the Housing Act 1988. We will use this power to make secondary legislation exempting providers from the assured tenancy framework by reference to their membership of the Unipol code of management practice. This amendment to the power will allow building managers, not just traditional landlords who own the building, to be exempted in the event those managers are members of the housing management code. The amendments are designed to reflect the diversity of commercial arrangements in the PBSA sector.

Secondly, there are amendments that aim to smooth over the transition for the sector by providing access to a modified ground 4A for landlords of existing PBSA tenancies after the transition date. I am grateful to stakeholders from the sector for working with the Government to ensure that these clauses work in the way intended.

I will now go briefly through the amendments one by one. Amendment 123 is a consequential amendment that updates the numbering in paragraph 13 of Schedule 6. Amendment 124 is not related to PBSA but rather corrects a pre-existing cross-reference error contained in paragraph 13 of Schedule 6.

Turning to the first of the substantive amendments, the Government’s intention is to exempt private PBSA from the new assured tenancy system, in recognition of its unique operating model and the need for alignment with the academic calendar. We will do this using a delegated power in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1988, which we are also amending. However, the power in the Housing Act will allow for new tenancies to be exempt only if they fall within scope. As a result, tenancies entered into prior to the commencement of the Bill will fall outside the scope of the exemption and, therefore, will be subject to the full provisions of the new assured tenancy system.

To apply the exemption retrospectively would carry significant risk, as it would turn one of these existing PBSA tenancies into what is known as a “common law” tenancy: that is, a tenancy almost entirely regulated by what is in the tenancy agreement. This could cause unintended consequences, such as those PBSA tenancies containing significantly fewer rights for tenants than the assured shorthold tenancies they will have signed. It could also cause problems for the landlords of those tenancies in the event that the tenancy agreement does not give them adequate forfeiture rights. We do not consider it to be the right approach, therefore, to simply exempt pre-existing PBSA tenancies from assured tenancy status.

That said, it is important that PBSA landlords under these existing PBSA tenancies can still access the possession grounds, in particular ground 4A. To ensure that the exemption operates as intended, Amendment 125 modifies ground 4A when applied to pre-existing “qualifying student tenancies”. These are PBSA tenancies, in other words.

The amendment ensures that the ground can be used despite those tenancies not usually being HMOs, nor does it require the landlord to serve the Section 8 notice between 1 June and 30 September, reflecting the fact that this restriction does not apply to PBSA tenancies in the old system; nor will it apply to fully exempted tenancies. This will ensure that existing PBSA landlords retain the ability to regain possession at the end of the academic year and therefore end the tenancy. This is consistent with the treatment of new PBSA tenancies established after commencement, where they will not be subject to the assured tenancy framework.

I turn now to Amendments 75, 76, 77 and 78. We are seeking to make the existing exemption from assured tenancy status for student tenancies more comprehensive. This exemption is currently set out in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1988. Amendment 75 therefore amends the exemption to ensure that it applies where a landlord has appointed a person to manage the tenancy on their behalf or to manage the building, and that person is a member of a recognised student housing management code of practice.

Amendment 77 therefore inserts a new sub-paragraph, (2CA), into paragraph 8. This will allow for regulations to make more tailored provision for particular circumstances by reference to a specified building when combined with the specified person acting on behalf of the landlord. Amendments 76 and 78 are consequential on Amendment 77. They ensure that new sub-paragraph (2CA) is cross-referred to where appropriate in the rest of paragraph 8.

I turn to Amendments 80, 81, 82, 83 and 85. There is often a delay between a student tenancy being entered into and the student tenant actually taking possession. In light of this, the exemption in paragraph 8 contains provision to say that a tenancy that meets the exemption at the point at which the tenancy is granted will be exempted permanently, save for particular situations.

These situations will include where at the time of grant the tenancy was exempt because the landlord or person acting on their behalf was a member of a housing management code of practice but at the point where the tenant takes possession neither the landlord nor the person managing is a member of a code. It will also include where at the time of grant there were regulations in place under paragraph 8 that did not prevent the tenancy from falling within the exemption, but at the point at which the tenant is entitled to possession, these regulations do prevent the tenancy from being caught by the exemption. This is achieved by Amendments 80, 81, 82, 83 and 85. These amendments are designed not only to ensure that the exemption is granted solely to those PBSA providers who adhere to robust standards but also to guard against any potential for the exemption to be misapplied or exploited.

Amendment 79 is consequential on Amendment 75. It ensures that regulations made elsewhere in paragraph 8 can specify classes of buildings that are subject to a housing management code of practice specified for this purpose under new paragraph 8(1)(b).

Amendment 84 is consequential on Amendment 125, which provides that a tenancy will be exempt if the person discharging “management functions” in relation to the building is a member of a specified housing management code. Amendment 84 defines “management functions”. It defines these functions to include services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, and insurance of the building. I beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister for so clearly setting out the Government’s amendments relating to purpose-built student accommodation—PBSAs. I am also grateful to her for taking the time to meet with me and my noble friend Lord Jamieson ahead of Report to discuss this matter in detail.

As the Minister is aware, student accommodation is a matter of considerable importance to many of us; indeed, it is an area of particular concern in this Bill. Ensuring that we have sufficient student accommodation, of the right type, available in the right places, and operating in line with the academic calendar, is vital. This is a matter not simply of logistics but of availability and affordability. An adequate supply of accommodation helps to keep rents manageable, which is especially important for students from less advantaged backgrounds.

This is why we raised concerns around ground 4A, particularly with regard to the importance of preserving the cyclical nature of student tenancies. The cyclical model is central to the viability of purpose-built student accommodation and, indeed, to maintaining affordability for students. We therefore welcome the Government’s amendments in this area, which rightly acknowledge the unique nature and operation of the PBSAs. In particular, I am very grateful for the clarification offered in sub-paragraph (2C), which states that the tenancy of student accommodation will not be considered an assured tenancy if the person acting on behalf of the landlord is a member of a housing management code of practice.

However, I would be grateful for further clarification. Can the Minister confirm whether this provision refers specifically to recognised codes such as the ANUK or the Unipol code, or whether it includes other housing management codes of practice as well? It would be helpful if the Government could set out explicitly which codes are deemed applicable under this provision. Furthermore, in the case of newly established accommodation, how will providers be expected to demonstrate adherence to an accepted code specifically for the purpose of continuing to provide fixed-term tenancies?

I am sure the Minister agrees that providers must have, and maintain, an up-to-date understanding of their obligations. With that in mind, when does the Minister intend to update the relevant guidance, particularly regarding the practical steps that PBSAs will need to take to ensure they can continue offering fixed-term tenancies?

The relevant codes of practice are, of course, designed around the specific characteristics of student accommodation, covering matters such as health and safety, maintenance and the management of relationships between providers and their tenants. In light of the changes introduced by the Bill, does the Minister have any plans to review or amend the codes? If so, how will such changes be communicated to those operating in the sector?

Finally, does the Minister agree that one of the key benefits of code membership is the ability to provide student accommodation outside the assured tenancy framework—a flexibility that underpins the viability of the sector?

I hope the Minister will continue to keep under review the impact of this Bill on students and to consider carefully any future changes that could make it harder for students to secure suitable accommodation. Students must be at the forefront of our considerations, not only in policies but also in practice.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 15th July 2025 Lords Chamber

There is not much time, but it is still possible to take a realistic view throughout the Bill to ensure, first, that the proposed measures against rogue landlords are in place and, secondly, that the honest and good landlord is not treated unfairly. I implore my noble friend the Minister to review this, because, as I argue, the focus of the Bill should be on realistic legislation and not unrealistic legislation.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, fines must be proportionate, yet, as the Bill stands, the threshold for imposing fines on landlords is worryingly low, and the scale of those fines is notably high. This combination is troubling. Setting fines at such significant levels, in some cases representing a substantial portion of a landlord’s rental income, or even exceeding it, risks driving honest, well-meaning landlords out of the market, not because of any wilful negligence but out of fear.

I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie for leading this group from the Back Benches today and bringing two considered amendments to the attention of the House. The group continues the discussions we had in Committee, as we remain unclear on how the scale of the fines has been determined. Frankly, they appear to be arbitrary, with no transparent methodology or rationale behind them, and we would welcome clarification from the Minister on how these amounts were determined and why those particular values were chosen. Without a clear explanation, it is difficult to support their inclusion in the Bill.

Amendments 98 and 99 seek to clarify that fines should be issued only for persistent breaches. Including this in the Bill would provide much-needed reassurance. It would make it clear that significant penalties will not be levied for the first offence. That is especially important when many landlords may not be immediately aware of their new obligations, either those set out in the legislation or those introduced later through regulations. Imagine a landlord renting out a cottage for many years in their village in rural Wales. They are entirely unaware of this Bill and the proceedings of this House. They do not register on any new database, not out of malice but because they simply do not know what is required. Is it right that they should face a steep fine for this? Surely not. That is why “persistently” must be in the Bill—to protect landlords like them and ensure that the legislation is proportionate, fair and enforceable.

Ministers may say that, in practice, individuals such as in the example I have given will not be fined, and that discretion will be used and enforcement will be reasonable, but warm assurances are not enough. We need to ensure that this protection is guaranteed in law, not simply assumed in guidance or left to future interpretation. We need this clarity in the Bill, and without it, the risk remains that well-intentioned landlords—those who may simply be unaware of new requirements—could still find themselves facing disproportionate penalties.

If the Minister cannot accept the premise that we must embed this protection clearly within the legislation, I regret to say that we will be minded to test the opinion of the House.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness was so quick to leap up—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am sorry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

Noble Lords will realise by now that I am a bit messianic about the database. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said at the end of Committee about the database, which is that much of it will be given to us in guidance and by statutory instrument. I look forward to the opportunity to contribute to that, but the reason for continuing to press this case is to put on the record just how important this is as a plank of this Bill—and how transformative it could be. So I will speak to my Amendments 94, 95 and 96 and speak against Amendment 97.

The private rented sector database presents a major opportunity to drive up standards through empowering tenants to make informed decisions before entering into a new tenancy, while giving local authorities the information they need to proactively enforce the new regulations. Those are two really important prongs.

The database will only be as useful as the information it stores. My amendments seek to ensure that it is as useful as possible. It is probably my shopping list of things that I would like to see, but I am sure that interested bodies and people other than myself will be putting into that further guidance and further information.

Renters will not be reading it in bed at night, or on holiday; they will look for it when searching for a new home. If it has useful information that helps them make informed choices—such as, past enforcement actions taken against the landlord in question, accessibility features of the home or rent levels for similar properties in the area—they will be able to choose a home that is right for them. For example, a recent Generation Rent survey found that more than three-quarters of renters would support including any prior prosecutions of a landlord on the database, as per my Amendment 94. Having this information will help foster more of the long, stable tenancies that both renters and landlords alike want, while discouraging landlords from attempting to sidestep the Bill or exploit tenants. Furthermore, renters who have used the database will tell their family and friends about it. In my experience, this kind of word-of-mouth marketing is the most effective.

My Amendment 96 would ensure that actual rents are recorded on the database. The Government have put much trust in the First-tier Tribunal, protecting renters from unaffordable rent hikes. At the moment, however, the tribunal uses advertised rents to see whether a rent increase is fair. Often, these are inflated and could become even more so with the end of bidding wars. So, recording actual rents will allow the tribunal and tenants to have a better understanding of the local market.

The issue of local authority finances has been debated many times as the Bill has progressed. We are right to be concerned about their capacity to proactively enforce the Bill. Having key information in one place, such as Section 8 eviction notices, as per my Amendment 95, would be a massive help to enforcement when the Bill comes into action—cutting out much of the proactive fact-finding work that local authorities often lack the capacity to do.

Outside the renting process, the database could also be of use to both national and local policy-making. Recording rents, for example, would help inform national decisions on housebuilding and crack down on landlords’ tax avoidance, which the think tank TaxWatch estimates to be as high as £1.7 billion a year.

We oppose Amendment 97, to limit costs related to the database, given that some areas of the Act inevitably may turn out to need more enforcement than others. It makes sense for the Government to have some wriggle room to set some costs at a later date. The legislation’s success relies heavily on enforcement, and therefore having the ability to raise funds through the database feed written into primary legislation is an important mechanism in case it is needed in future to cover costs, such as an awareness campaign or guidance and training to tenants and landlords.

Finally, I will end on a positive note. Much of this debate often pits landlords against renters, seeing the issue like a see-saw. But findings from Generation Rent’s survey of its supporters in April this year found that the more information about a landlord that renters have, the better their relationship with them. Nearly a quarter of renters who had a direct contact line to their landlord rated them five out of five, compared with fewer than one in 10 of those who did not. With the right information, the database will help foster more of these relationships. I beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her expansive and constructive thinking on what more the database could do to support a rental market that works fairly and effectively for both landlords and tenants alike. During Committee, we had a thoughtful and wide-ranging discussion about the purpose, function and future potential of this database, and many noble Lords suggested that it could, and perhaps should, do more. I agree: in time, that may well be prudent. But, from my experience as a Minister, I have learned the value of taking one step at a time. Let us focus first on getting this system up and running and getting it right.

I am very much reminded of the Second Reading of the pensions Bill in the other place. When the Minister, Torsten Bell, began to explain its provisions, he was met with laughter from both sides of the House. The joke was all in very good faith and the Minister joined in at the moment, but it speaks to a deeper truth. We cannot allow this database to become the next pensions dashboard—a project weighed down by scope creep and plagued by delay. So, although I welcome the noble Baroness’s ambitious vision and her efforts to think beyond the immediate text of the Bill, we must begin with the basics, especially if additional functionality comes at the cost of higher system complexity and, crucially, higher financial burdens on those who provide rental homes to millions across this country.

That brings me to Amendment 97, which concerns limited relevant costs. This cannot become a system that imposes unlimited and never-ending costs on landlords. They need certainty—clear and reliable reassurance from the Government—that relevant costs will not spiral every time a new Minister has a bright idea.

It is that word again—balance—and I know that noble Lords are probably sick of hearing it by now, but it remains the guiding principle. We must strike the right balance between the cost of this system and the functions that it is expected to perform. Only then can we ensure that the database succeeds, not just in theory but in practice, for those who depend on it. Despite this, I will not seek to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 97.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott, for their amendments concerning the database. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for all the thought and work she has put in and the assistance she has given us to aid our thinking around what may or may not be in the database. I appreciate that the intention behind Amendment 94 is to empower tenants with more information and to support their decision-making before they decide to rent a property. As the noble Baroness helpfully outlined in Committee, that forms part of a broader and more ambitious vision for the database. We need to ensure that the database is helpful to both landlords and tenants.

I hope that the noble Baroness is pleased that Clause 84 mandates that we will indeed record banning orders on the database. This clause specifies that we will record relevant banning order offences and related financial penalties on the database. We intend to make this offence information available to the public, using the regulations set out in Clause 87. Furthermore, the Bill includes the regulation-making power at Clause 84(6) for the database to record other housing-related offences committed by landlords. We will specify which offences will be recorded through secondary legislation, but I hope the noble Baroness is encouraged to hear that rent repayment orders are among those we are actively considering for inclusion.

Our approach to recording offences will consider the necessity and proportionality of recording this information, alongside making sure, of course, that it complies with data protection and human rights legislation. We need to give that careful consideration as well. As we discussed in Committee, we intend to retain flexibility regarding the information the database records and makes public, so that it can evolve in response to the changing needs of the sector, including those of tenants and landlords—enough information to be helpful but not so much that only Torsten Bell can understand what is on it.

Amendment 95 seeks to record historical Section 8 notices on the database to enhance tenant awareness and promote responsible landlord practices. I recognise that this would be a positive addition to improve the database and help it be a driver of higher standards and tenant protection, built on comprehensive and reliable foundations, so I thank the noble Baroness for the thoughtful amendment. The Government are currently considering recording possession information on the database and whether that information should be made available to the public. Any decision on what information will be recorded on the database has to take into account both the benefits and the burdens for different users, and we will ensure that the information collected remains necessary and proportionate.

As the noble Baroness will be aware from our previous conversations about what information the database will record, we place significant importance on the flexibility of the database for future circumstances. We therefore believe that the information collected on the database should be set out in secondary legislation, as stated in Clause 78.

Amendment 96 aims to make the commencement of rent and historical rent increase information visible on the database, to improve transparency for prospective tenants and support informed decisions in the private rented market. The Government are still considering whether to collect rent data on the database. However, we recognise the potential value the information could provide to tenants, by allowing a more informed rental experience. We are also aware that other government departments and bodies, such as HMRC and the NAO, may find this data useful. We believe, however, that for the database to remain flexible, the information it collects should be specified through regulations.

Amendment 97 would restrict the calculation of PRS database fees to be set with reference to costs associated with the operation and enforcement of the database only, not by reference to the costs of wider PRS enforcement activity. I appreciate the need to keep the fee at a manageable level and to justify any new costs to landlords. However, I draw the noble Baroness’s attention to what we have heard in previous debates regarding the challenges that local authorities face in resourcing their enforcement actions.

We believe it is appropriate that, as far as possible, costs of enforcement should be met by those individuals who break the rules. However, a well-regulated and well-enforced PRS benefits all good landlords, as well as tenants, and clearly local authorities must be properly resourced to achieve this. This clause provides Ministers with the option of using a proportion of fee income to provide revenue to fund private rented sector enforcement activities beyond those relating to the database.

As I have set out previously, database fees will be determined and fixed at a later point, via secondary legislation. I assure noble Lords that fee calculations will be reasonable and will bear in mind the cost to landlords, among other factors. Given what we have heard about the importance of local authority resourcing, I do not think it would be prudent to limit the calculation and use of database fees in this way.

I thank the noble Baroness for saying that she will not press her amendment, and ask the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

98: Clause 92, page 126, line 13, at beginning insert “persistently”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow a financial penalty to be imposed only for persistent breaches.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I have no confidence in the response I had from the Minister on my Amendment 98 that landlords would be protected in law against unfair fines. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 107, I will also speak to Amendment 108. These amendments would remove unnecessary barriers to the use of licensing schemes to improve housing standards. Licensing raises housing standards: it can help to regenerate areas that are blighted by poor housing and other social problems. Licensing provides a means for local authorities to inspect privately rented housing using enforceable conditions, and to identify and resolve problems without the need for tenants to have complained.

Licensing schemes pay for themselves through the fees that are charged and enable local authorities to target regulation where it is most needed: in other words, at tackling the worst landlords and supporting the most vulnerable tenants. My amendments would remove unnecessary barriers to the effectiveness of licensing schemes and increase the maximum duration of schemes from five years to 10 years.

Amendment 107 would permit local authorities operating selective licensing schemes to use licence conditions to improve the physical state of the licensed properties. It would remove a peculiar disconnect in current legislation, highlighted by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, whereby local authorities are permitted to introduce selective licensing schemes to address poor housing but are not permitted to include in the licences themselves conditions requiring the physical state of the licensed properties to be improved. The amendment would give local authorities the same discretion in relation to the licence conditions used in selective licensing schemes as they already have in relation to licence conditions used in additional HMO licensing schemes.

In Committee, the Government implied that the introduction of a decent homes standard and Awaab’s law to the private rented sector will make this amendment unnecessary. However, I do not accept that view. Neither the decent homes standard nor Awaab’s law will remove the need for local authorities to be able to use licence conditions to deal proactively with general disrepair in areas with poor housing conditions.

There are four reasons why the decent homes standard will not remove the need for local authorities to be able to use licence conditions in this way. First, when licence conditions are in place, if a breach of these conditions is proved, local authorities can serve a civil penalty notice on the landlord without first having to issue an improvement notice and/or take other action that involves unnecessary delay. However, they will be able to do this for breaches of the proposed decent homes standard only in more serious cases—possibly only where there is a serious and immediate risk to a person’s health and safety—and only where they can prove that the landlord has failed to take reasonably practicable steps to address the issue. Licence conditions would therefore give landlords a much stronger incentive than the decent homes standard to address general disrepair.

Secondly, the enforcement of licence conditions can be funded by licence fees. The cost of enforcing the decent homes standard will fall on council tax payers. In practice, therefore, the use of licence conditions would lead to local authorities undertaking a much higher level of enforcement.

Thirdly, licence conditions give local authorities a clear justification as well as sufficient funding for entering properties to carry out inspections without the tenant having complained. It seems likely that, outside of licensing schemes, the vast majority of inspections under the decent homes standard will be in response to complaints. Fourthly, licence conditions could deal with items of disrepair that would be difficult to address using the decent homes standard.

With regard to Awaab’s law, it will not remove the need for local authorities to be able to use licence conditions to deal proactively with general disrepair in areas with poor housing conditions. The enforcement of Awaab’s law will depend on the ability and willingness of tenants themselves to seek redress and ultimately to take legal action through the courts. It is often difficult for tenants to use legal remedies themselves; areas with poor housing conditions contain many poor and vulnerable tenants, who are particularly badly placed to do so. Licensing would clearly be a much better way of targeting support at them.

Amendment 108 would permit local authorities to implement longer additional HMO licensing schemes and selective licensing schemes without repeating the time-consuming and expensive designation process. Local authorities introduced these schemes to bring about large-scale improvements, but those are unlikely to be fully achieved within five years. This amendment would allow them to advertise longer-term posts for staff and to include training of new staff in these schemes. It would also provide more time for local partnerships formed through such schemes—for example, to resolve anti-social behaviour—to become embedded and effective.

The Government suggested in Committee that a maximum duration for licensing schemes of five years strikes the right balance between the needs of local authorities and the needs of landlords. But that does not take proper account of the time and money wasted through councils being unnecessarily required to repeat the designation process.

In conclusion, the removal of these unnecessary barriers to the effectiveness of licensing schemes would make a major contribution to the regeneration of some of the most deprived areas of the country. A new general approval to establish selective licensing areas came into effect last December, and local authorities are no longer required to obtain confirmation from the Secretary of State before implementing a selective licensing scheme of any size. That is most welcome, but it needs to be accompanied with the powers identified in my amendments, and I hope the Government will now understand the importance of them. I beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for bringing these two amendments once again to the attention of the House. However, we on these Benches do not consider them to be necessary. We recognise and wholeheartedly share the noble Lord’s ambition to see housing conditions improved. When I was in government, I was proud to support the decent homes standard and helped to lay the groundwork for what has now become Awaab’s law. The Government’s approach should be focused on delivering tangible improvements to living conditions. This includes tackling poor-quality housing wherever it exists, not slowly within selective licensing areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I hesitate to follow when Sodom and Gomorrah have both been mentioned. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has made a powerful case for her amendment, and I associate myself with everything she has said and with the passionate defence of this amendment by my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett.

As has been said, the amendment seeks to repeal the right-to-rent provisions introduced by the Immigration Act 2014. I remember being a newbie here in 2014 and sitting on the Benches opposite, hearing those speeches against the clauses and provisions in the Immigration Act that we now seek to repeal. At its core, as we know, this scheme turns landlords and letting agents into immigration officers. It was part of the hostile environment created at that time, and I am sad to say to the Minister on the Front Bench that this is a continuation of that hostile environment. There is no excuse for this provision. It is a policy that has enabled and indeed legitimised discrimination, and I believe that it has no place in a housing system that should be fair and should treat everyone equally and with dignity.

Landlords and letting agents are making judgments based on what they think will fall within protecting themselves. They are immigration officers. It has been shown—I thank Shelter for its briefing—that a prospective white tenant is 36% more likely to get a positive response than a black tenant. Renters with south Asian names get 25% fewer replies than those with white-sounding names—evidence of the consequences of this pernicious piece of legislation.

The courts recognised this reality. In 2019, the High Court found that the policy causes discrimination. That ruling was later overturned on appeal, not because the discrimination was not happening but because it was deemed justifiable. That, I believe, is not acceptable. I could go on, but the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has pointed out that the Home Office has never produced evidence on which we should legislate that the scheme reduces irregular immigration or improves enforcement.

Discrimination, particularly when sanctioned by the state, is never justifiable. There are many reasons to accept this amendment, but I urge the Front Bench to accept the decent, just and fair case. I see the realities of the discrimination in the housing sector in my own borough, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. Now is the time to do the decent thing. I urge the Government to listen, reply and do the decent thing and repeal the right-to-rent provisions introduced by the Immigration Act 2014.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will be brief. On these Benches, we find the argument for full repeal unconvincing. The right-to-rent scheme was designed to serve a clear and important public interest, ensuring that access to the private rented sector is not used as a back door to unlawful residence in the United Kingdom. That principle remains relevant. The Bill is not the right vehicle to reopen immigration law. Any reform of the right-to-rent scheme must be considered in the round and as part of a wider conversation about enforcement, fairness and social cohesion in our immigration system. For those reasons, we cannot, and I will not, support this amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for Amendment 115, which would abolish the right-to-rent scheme that applies in England. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Scott, the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for their contributions.

The scheme was introduced to ensure that only those lawfully in the United Kingdom can access the private rented sector and, importantly, to tackle unscrupulous landlords who exploit vulnerable migrants, sometimes in very poor living conditions. Some landlords who rent to those who are here illegally are criminal operators. We all have a shared objective to drive them from the rental market and to deter unscrupulous landlords from entering into exploitative practices.

We have always been absolutely clear that discriminatory treatment on the part of anyone carrying out right-to-rent checks is unlawful. The checks apply equally to everyone seeking private rental accommodation, including British citizens. The scheme has been independently evaluated twice. Although some examples of discriminatory attitudes were found, there was insufficient evidence to claim that there was any systematic, unlawful discrimination as a result of the right-to-rent scheme. There are therefore no current plans to end the scheme.

It is our view that it is wrong to seek to abolish right-to-rent legislation in its entirety by simple notice of amendment. This immigration legislation was designed to address those who are disqualified from living in the UK by virtue of their immigration status, and that remains an important priority for this Government. The Government will continue to support legitimate landlords and letting agents who continue to act properly by carrying out the prescribed checks in legislation and published guidance. We have made big strides to improve the digital capability of the systems involved.

I emphasise that the Home Office has listened to and taken on board concerns expressed about right to rent during the progress of the Renters’ Rights Bill and from wider stakeholder engagement. As a result, officials will actively engage further with tenants and their representative groups to ensure that the right-to-rent scheme works fairly and inclusively for all. Early engagement has helped the Home Office identify individuals who may struggle to prove their identity and, in consequence, face barriers to accessing housing and other services. The Home Office has begun to work with local authorities to understand how individuals can overcome these barriers, with the aim of extending successful approaches across the UK.

As we move forward, we remain committed to working with stakeholders, including community-based initiatives and the third sector, to strengthen the inclusivity and accessibility of the right-to-rent scheme. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her interest in the scheme and would be happy to facilitate a meeting with the appropriate Home Office officials to discuss how to ensure that the scheme can operate inclusively and fairly for all tenants, landlords and letting agents. In the light of these reassurances, I ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, withdraws the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

118: After Clause 136, insert the following new Clause—
“Report of the impact of this Act on the housing market(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report outlining the impact of the provisions of this Act on the housing market in England, Wales and Scotland.(2) A report made under this section must include the impact of this Act on—(a) the availability of homes in the private rental sector,(b) rents charged under tenancies,(c) house prices, and(d) requests for social housing.(3) A report made under this section must be laid before Parliament.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a report of the impact of the Act on the housing market, particularly in relation to availability of rented homes, rents charged, house prices and requests for social housing.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment was spoken to earlier on Report. In our view, it is a very important amendment because it asks that there be an annual report on the Bill laid before Parliament. The reason for this is that we are beginning to see problems within this sector; we would want to see published the availability of homes, the rents charged as a result of a lack of available homes, house prices in and around the same sector, and, very importantly, requests for social housing, because as the rented sector starts to cool down, the social housing sector hots up.

We think that the Government should accept this type of annual report so that if anything goes badly wrong in this sector, something can be done about it very quickly. The Government are offering some sort of review with figures that will come out, but that is not what is wanted by this side of the House. We want an annual report—not a review—to be laid before Parliament so that it can be debated properly and, if needed, amendments can be proposed to change things and bring the sector back up to what it is at the moment. I know it is late, but I intend to test the opinion of the House on what we consider a very important amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I am hoping that some of the larger players will have ones that are off the shelf for the noble Lord to use. I am sure the Minister will be able to help out with that. Basically, we do not want to delay things any more. We genuinely believe that the trailing of the key planks of the Bill has been so public and so out there. But I say to the Minister that some definite timescales would be helpful.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we think that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is sensible and measured. The amendment provides for a minimum of three months’ notice before new tenancies are treated as Section 4A assured tenancies and a further three months before existing tenancies are reclassified in the same way. This introduces a clear and reasonable transitional period, giving landlords and tenants time to prepare for the significant legal and practical implications of these changes.

Crucially, it gives banks time too. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, noted, Amendment 122 is supported by UK Finance, including lenders such as Nationwide and Paragon. Banks need time to adjust. Any change to how a landlord can evict a tenant makes lenders more cautious about the security of their investments. These lenders will want to have seen it in writing before they start to make too many changes.

Additionally, lenders will need to reassess their understanding of rental income flows. Lenders will have to adjust their risk models, and potentially their loan terms, to accommodate the risks under the new regime, not only in relation to individual properties but with regard to the broader market stability. It is vital to understand how the regime affects overall demand in the rental market.

I take this opportunity to raise the specifics of buy-to-let mortgages. Flexibility in increasing rents in these cases is especially important and an area where sufficient time for adjustment will be needed. Lenders must evaluate the continued attractiveness of buy-to-let properties as collateral for loans.

Operational readiness matters too. Quite simply, new systems and processes will need to be adapted to the framework. Earlier today, we discussed systems such as the database and the pensions dashboard. Of course, many private companies are often more agile when responding to challenge and change, but even they need time.

This is a complex Bill, and I have said several times that its implementation will require careful communication and a phased approach. I see this amendment as a practical way of helping the Government ensure that no stakeholder is caught off guard by the shift to the assured tenancy regime.

I would welcome clarity from the Minister on the Government’s plans for commencement—so, I am sure, would landlords and tenants—and all stakeholders will need time.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his amendment and for his engagement generally on the Bill. Subsequent to our meeting earlier this week, I had a detailed response prepared for the noble Lord on Clause 145. Unfortunately, it arrived in my inbox just as I was coming into the Chamber this afternoon. It probably has not reached him yet, but that is on its way to him.

On Amendment 122, the Government are committed to introducing the new tenancy system for the private rented sector in one stage to bring to an end Section 21 no-fault evictions as soon as possible. These evictions cause utter misery for the tenants on the other end of them and a huge amount of cost to local government in picking up the pieces when people get evicted at very short notice. A single implementation date for both new and existing tenancies will enable all tenants to benefit from the reforms as soon as possible and prevent a confusing two-tier system during transition.

We are continuing to work very closely with stakeholders. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred to meetings between my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and financial institutions. He has also met with many landlords’ associations and other stakeholders to ensure that the sector is prepared for the reforms in the Bill. I want to be very clear that we are committed to providing sufficient notice to ensure that all parts of the private rented sector have time to prepare. Implementation will not be immediate, as we have secondary legislation to pass. We are making good progress on drafting that and the necessary guidance that goes alongside it. All this will help us to implement in a timely manner.

In addition, the Bill makes specific provision to ensure a smooth transition to the new system and avoid unnecessary cliff edges. For example, the Bill will ensure that notices served by landlords before the commencement date remain valid after that date. Based on our ongoing work to ensure a smooth transition to the new system, we consider that there will be no benefit to requiring arbitrary minimum time periods after Royal Assent before the tenancy reform measures in the Bill can come into force.

With these reassurances that we are committed to a smooth and responsible approach to implementing the Bill, I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to withdraw his amendment.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and engagement during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Bill. We have debated this Bill at length—passing the midnight hour on one occasion—over the past six months, with many thoughtful and considered contributions from across the House. I am grateful, in particular, to the Opposition Front Bench, namely the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their robust and constructive challenge throughout the passage of the Bill. I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Grender, for their continued engagement and support. I believe we are in broad agreement that this Bill is long overdue and are looking forward to seeing it make a real difference to people who rely on the sector to live and work.

Many noble Lords generously lent their extensive expertise to this debate, including the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Cromwell, Lord Best, Lord Carrington, Lord de Clifford and Lord Pannick, the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich, and many more. While there may be disagreement on some of the issues we have debated, I know we all share the same aim of ensuring that the private rented sector continues to work for all.

Finally, I thank my Whip who sat with me throughout the Bill, my noble friend Lord Wilson of Sedgefield. I am grateful to all the officials who have worked on this Bill, including the Bill team, particularly Aidan Hilton, the Bill manager, but also Hermione, James, Caragh, Tom, Ross, Anna, Camilla, Guy and Stephanie, and my private office. I also pay tribute to all the parliamentary staff, including the clerks, doorkeepers, security and the Public Bill Office, many of whom have had to stay late as we debated this Bill into the early hours. I beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords across the House for their contributions to the scrutiny of the Bill. While we may differ in our views, the commitment shown by Members to improving the private rented sector is evident and deeply valued.

I also extend my sincere thanks to the Minister. She has shown courtesy, patience and great resilience throughout this process, defending what we would consider a difficult Bill and, often, an indefensible one. She has defended a policy that we think reflects more political positioning than practical policy-making.

Despite the Minister’s efforts, we are left with a piece of legislation that risks doing more harm than good. The facts are stark. According to Savills, the number of rental properties on its books dropped by 42% in quarter 1 this year, compared with the same period in 2024. That means 42% fewer homes available: fewer homes for families, less mobility for renters, less choice, and more pressure on rents.

This is not theoretical; it is happening now, and the Bill is accelerating that trend. Its uncertainty around fixed-term tenancies, poorly defined possession grounds, and reliance on stretched tribunals are driving responsible landlords away from the sector. When providers exit, supply shrinks—and when supply shrinks, rents rise.

We understand why tenants seek greater security but let us be honest: much of what the Bill tries to fix are symptoms of a very deep problem. There are simply not enough rented properties in this country, and there will be fewer. Instead of addressing that shortage, this legislation papers over the cracks, with layers of regulation that risk doing more harm than good. It treats the pressures of scarcity—rising rents, insecurity and limited choice—as issues that can be regulated away. Regulation without supply is a dead end.

What we need is a balanced approach. Yes, let us protect tenants, but let us also create the conditions for responsible landlords to stay in the market, invest and offer decent homes. Without that balance, the consequences are predictable, and they are already playing out.

The real target should be the rogue landlords: those who exploit vulnerable tenants and undermine confidence in the sector. The Bill misses that mark. Instead of cracking down on the worst offenders, it heaps new burdens on the majority who act responsibly. What the sector truly needs is a rogue landlord Bill that is targeted, proportionate and enforceable, one that protects tenants without pushing decent landlords out of the market.

Instead, we have a Bill that gets the balance wrong. It risks shrinking supply, increasing costs and adding complexity just when we most need clarity and confidence. The Bill does not strike the right balance between protection and provision. It fails tenants, landlords and the very market that it claims to reform. On this side of the House we will continue to monitor the market and challenge the Government to act on any negative outcomes.

Before I sit down, I congratulate Sam and Molly in my office—it is her first Bill in this House. I thank them sincerely for the fantastic support they have given me and my noble friend Lord Jamieson throughout the passage of the Bill.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches have been clear throughout the Bill that we support it very much: its main provisions, including the abolition of no-fault evictions and fixed-term tenancies, and its clear emphasis on tenants’ rights and much more transparency. There is no doubt that it is a radical Bill that will make significant changes to the private rented sector. It has also been said, and I wish to repeat it, that good landlords have nothing to fear from these reforms, and we on these Benches sincerely hope that that will be proved to be the case.

It is usual to say that this process is about improving the Bill through reasoned debate and using the expertise of the House. In truth, to me it felt more like a conflict—a battle of tenants versus landlords—with the bold reforms of the Government pitted against the fears and genuine concerns of the landlords, articulated sincerely and robustly by the Opposition Front Bench and others around the House.

There were also cross-House issues where only time will tell, such as the capacity of the courts. Another is the impact on all aspects of the housing market, including student landlords and the supply of homes to rent, about which let us say there were polarised views. We share the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, but we also hope that the recent figures will steady and that, after inevitable initial upheaval, the market will settle down. We look forward to more build-to-rent and more social housing, because both are needed.

We hope that the Minister’s assurances on the military homes standard will also come to pass, as our amendment on that issue was won convincingly.

Lastly, I have some very genuine thanks. I thank everyone who took part in the many debates on amendments, which were based on honest beliefs and genuine experience, but particularly the Minister for her time, which was generously given, and for her patience—tested perhaps just a little by the determined double act of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. I admired their persistence, but the Minister showed that she was not willing to be moved on the Government’s core planks of the Bill, and her steeliness in the onslaught, however politely delivered, was commendable.

We cannot forget the valuable contributions of several noble Cross-Benchers. The noble Lords, Lord Cromwell, Lord Best and Lord Carrington, formed a new trio. There was also much legal wrangling. My learning curve was greatly assisted by several noble Lords who are lawyers, especially the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, even if I did not always agree with them.

For its advocacy on behalf of tenants and for shining a light on the reality of many renters, the Renters’ Reform Coalition deserves a big thank you. Generation Rent deserves a special mention—as does the National Residential Landlords Association. For me, it was challenging to read its excellent briefings and pit its persuasive arguments against my own.

It is also appropriate to thank all the officers of the House, who have no doubt worked tirelessly to get everything done on time and correctly delivered. This was my first Bill lead, and I am grateful to have had a small but dedicated team behind me, especially my noble friends Lady Grender and Lord Shipley. Where would any of us be without our able and professional staff—in this case, Adam Bull from our Whips’ Office? It has been a worthy task to contribute to the much-needed reform of the private rented sector.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard, Amendment 11B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, seeks to allow landlords to request a pet deposit equivalent to up to three weeks of rent. Like many of the charities involved in the animal welfare sector that have campaigned tirelessly on this issue, I am disappointed that we are having to return to this subject after it was clearly rejected in the other place, having been the subject of intense discussion. Charities including Battersea, Cats Protection and the Dogs Trust strongly support the Government’s position, and so do I. The reason for that is clear. Such an obligation would defeat the very purpose of the pet provisions in this carefully balanced Bill, which are designed to make pet ownership easier for tenants and remove the iniquity that owning a pet is the preserve of the increasingly small number of people who can afford to own their own home. I declare my own interests as the owner of a cat.

Let us be clear: as I said in Committee, for tenants seeking to have a single pet in rented accommodation, there is likely to be only very minimal, if any, damage. The standard security deposit is more than sufficient to cover any damage beyond standard wear and tear, as a survey conducted in 2021 by YouGov on behalf of the Dogs Trust and Cats Protection concluded. In rare circumstances, where damage caused by a pet may exceed the value of the existing security deposit, measures already exist for landlords to seek additional compensation from the tenant. As such, charging an additional pet deposit is unnecessarily and wholly disproportionate.

This costly proposal would put the wonderful aspiration of pet ownership beyond the reach of many. Allowing landlords to require a pet deposit equivalent of up to three weeks’ rent could see tenants forced to find up to an additional £1,500 for a one-bedroom flat in high-rent areas such as London—a figure which is unaffordable for many. It would also introduce an unfair geographical disparity, with those living in cities, where rents are higher, being far worse off compared with those living in rural areas.

Another problem with the addition of a pet deposit is the potential lack of transparency regarding what a landlord decides should constitute pet damage and what constitutes the type of damage that would otherwise be funded by the standard security deposit. Many landlords, I fear, would see this as an extra fund to provide an option to withhold more money simply for standard wear and tear.

The pet provisions in the Bill have been thoroughly and energetically debated, both inside and outside this House. It is clear from all those discussions that the standard security deposit is more than adequate to cover any damage caused by a pet and that this amendment is completely unnecessary. Its only result would be to neuter one of the key planks of this vital legislation, destroying the hopes of so many tenants who dream of having a pet in their home. Today, we should make that dream a reality, so I am afraid that, if the noble Lord presses his Motion, I shall be voting against it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on two matters: first, the Ministry of Defence accommodation, and then the pet deposit. On the Ministry of Defence housing, we thank the Government for listening and engaging so constructively on this issue. The concerns raised have been recognised, and the Government’s response has been both proportionate and pragmatic. On these Benches, as ever, we strongly support our service personnel and the vital contribution they make to us and our country, and we are happy to support the Government’s Motion.

Turning to pets, I support the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, on an issue that has filled my inbox and, I know, that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson as well. When the Bill was first introduced, the Government rightly sought to balance the cost of pet-related damage through the requirement of pet insurance. However, as we pointed out repeatedly, and as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, emphasised, no such insurance product actually existed. Once the Government accepted that fact, the requirement was removed, but nothing was put in its place.

The noble Lord’s amendment would restore that missing balance. It offers a fair and proportionate settlement, ensuring that renters can keep pets in their homes while landlords have reassurance that any pet-related damage can be covered. If there is no damage, the deposit will be returned. Recent research by Propertymark shows that 85.3% of landlords and agents have incurred damage to their properties by pets. Yet more staggeringly, 57% of landlords and agents report being unable to recoup pet-related damage costs.

Allowing an additional deposit of one to three weeks’ rent is therefore a reasonable and balanced step that protects tenants’ rights while recognising the realities faced by landlords, particularly small landlords. Landlords are not always wealthy investors. Many, as we have said many times on this Bill, are ordinary people for whom a second property represents their pension or their life savings. If a property requires major cleaning or repair, those costs can be prohibitive, and in some cases could drive properties out of the rental market altogether. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, chooses to test the opinion of the House once again, we on these Benches will support him.

Finally, I thank the Government for their constructive engagement and the assurances given in writing and from the Dispatch Box on the standard of proof. Those commitments provide much-needed clarity and reassurance on how this will be applied in practice, and we are grateful for the Minister’s response.

Taken together, we believe that these measures improve the Bill, and make it fairer, more workable and more balanced for tenants and landlords alike.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I thank again the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for their positive approaches throughout the course of the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Black, for his support—I will come on to some of the points that he raised in a moment—and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.

I think the responses to this part of the debate are pragmatic. I am afraid that we cannot accept the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. He mentioned the Government’s change in position on pet insurance. We had an extensive debate, in both your Lordships’ House and the other place. We drew on the expertise of Peers such as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Trees. The Government consulted further with the Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers’ Association. Following that engagement, we concluded that we were no longer confident that the insurance and underwriting sector would have sufficient or suitable products available for landlords or tenants to purchase.

In view of that, we did not want to leave tenants in a position where they could not comply with conditions set as part of the pet consent granted by their landlord, as that would mean they would not be able to have a pet, which would defeat the object of having pet provisions in the Bill. I am pleased to say that, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, mentioned, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home has indicated its support for the Government’s approach, including the approach of not accepting this amendment. I received just today a letter of very strong support from Dogs Trust and Cats Protection, and another email from Shelter expressing its support and hope that this amendment would not be accepted, because it did not feel that it was in the interest of tenants or their pets. We used the information from the University of Huddersfield as part of our consideration.

It is important to say that, as I noted in my opening speech, we will continue to keep this under review. We have powers to allow for higher deposits for pets, if needed. We are satisfied at the moment that the existing requirement of five weeks’ deposit for typical tenancies is sufficient to cover the risk of any increased damage by pet ownership. I know some landlords are concerned about potential damage that may be caused by pets. Landlords can deduct damage costs from the normal tenancy deposit, as they do now. In rare cases, where the deposit did not cover the cost of the damage, the landlord could take the tenant to the small claims court and bring a money claim to recoup any outstanding amounts, in line with the wider rules in the sector.

We do not want to put tenants in a position where they cannot have a pet because there are no suitable insurance products available or they cannot afford the additional cost of a deposit. We will keep this matter under review, and I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his Motion.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 53”.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move motion H1 as an amendment to motion H. I speak briefly to two important possession grounds, those concerning students and carers, and I also thank the Minister for her support on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, which this side of the House supported strongly.

First, on students, as your Lordships know, Amendment 53A sought to expand Ground 4A so that it also applied to one and two-bedroom properties let to students. Extending this ground would maintain essential stability in the market, ensuring that students arriving each autumn are not left without somewhere to live. Without it, landlords may be unable to gain possession in time for the new academic year, reducing availability, pushing up rents and increasing uncertainty. This is not simply about convenience—it is about fairness and inclusion. Many of these smaller homes are occupied by students who need quieter or self-contained accommodation. Often these include those who are neurodiverse and find shared living environments particularly challenging. For them, access to such housing is not a preference, it is a necessity. To exclude these properties from Ground 4A risks creating a two-tier system that leaves the most vulnerable in our society behind. I hope the Minister, and indeed our Liberal Democrat colleagues who once spoke so passionately in defence of students, will reflect very carefully on the points I bring forward.

We have a number of case studies that illustrate the implications of this ill-conceived plan, from Cornwall and Portsmouth to Loughborough. In Portsmouth, a letting agent and Propertymark member reported very high numbers of students renting one and two-bedroom flats, accounting for 20% or 30% of their portfolio—not a small number—and those included many international students. In Loughborough, feedback from another Propertymark agent on student tenancies showed a lower number of HMO lets compared with houses and flats. The evidence flatly contradicts the Government’s claims that one and two-bedroom student properties account for only a small fraction of the market. Regional variations exist, but the pattern is clear. These homes are a substantial and vital component of the student housing sector, and by excluding them from Ground 4A, the Government risk creating a two-tier system both geographically and between students themselves, particularly those with specific or additional needs.

I turn to carers and express my strong support for the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. As I said on Report, this amendment is tightly drawn and provides flexibility in exceptional circumstances, where a property close to home could be used to care for a loved one, enabling people to live independently and with dignity, rather than entering into the institutional care system. Propertymark has also highlighted a helpful precedent from Wales where, under the Renting Homes (Wales) Act, carers can have succession rights if the tenant they care for dies. While I understand that provision does not apply to landlords’ carers, it does demonstrate that such flexibility is possible in law and can be delivered responsibly.

If the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, chooses to test the opinion of the House, we on these Benches will support him. I also beg to move Motion H1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I still do not understand why a group of students is not being looked after quite the same as other students. Therefore, I urge the House to support my Motion H1 to send the Bill back to the other place with our concerns for equality in the student housing sector, with housing for students who want, indeed need, small homes. Not every student can either work or live comfortably in an HMO, and not every student can afford specific student accommodation. Therefore, I beg to test the opinion of the House.