Renters’ Rights Bill

Gideon Amos Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I have congratulated the Secretary of State on her position, but I also congratulate her colleague, the Minister for Housing and Planning, on his. He follows a long line of Ministers—the first, arguably, being Christopher Addison, the great Liberal and Labour Minister, who delivered not only the great Housing and Town Planning Act 1919, but more than half a million council houses. I am sure that the Minister will be delivering just as many over the next two or three years.

As the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, the Minister also follows former Housing Minister Nick Raynsford, with whom I had the pleasure of working. I was going to say that something in the water of Greenwich and Woolwich produces great Housing Ministers, but unfortunately, following the legacy of the last Government, there is far too much in the water—and we really do not want to dwell on that. Seriously, the Minister is taking on an important portfolio, as is the Secretary of State, of course. Housing and planning have the power to touch every single person in the country and make up one of the most important roles in Government.

My own experience is limited to being a tenant and landlord—only ever a landlord of registered social housing; I am happy to declare that interest today. The Government face huge challenges, but we must not shrink from the overall objective of ending homelessness, which was enshrined in both the Liberal Democrat and Labour manifestos. The Government will have the full support of my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches of the measures that they bring forward to that end. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) has made clear and demonstrated, when opposition is needed it will be constructive and positive.

In that spirit, I am pleased to generally welcome the Bill, which will give tenants the security that all other residents already have and that tenants surely deserve, and put right the scandalous delay in bringing an end to no-fault evictions. We must encourage the majority of landlords out there, who are responsible, as are the majority of tenants. When those interests go together, we can deliver the thousands of private rented homes that we need in this country—we cannot do without them. It is right also to dwell on elements of the Bill that can support the supply of private rented housing.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

I refer colleagues to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome this Bill, and want to reflect on my constituency. The national average proportion of renters in the private sector is 19%; in Torbay, the figure is 26%. That is mostly driven by the fact that we are the 10th worst authority in the country when it comes to the amount of social housing, at 8%, compared with a national average of 17%. Once upon a time, 35% of people in our nation had social rented accommodation. Does my hon. Friend agree that more should be done about the significant issue of absentee landlords?

[Mr Amos]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. We need a lot more council and social rented homes. I will return to that issue.

In the spirit of ensuring that a plentiful supply of rented housing comes forward, we urge the Government to retain the option for landlords and renters to agree between them fixed-term tenancies of three years, rather than periodic tenancies being the only product on the shelf, so to speak. We are worried that investors will be unlikely to invest ahead if they cannot see security of tenure coming from their investments. There could just be an increase in short-term holiday lets as a result, because there would be no difference between tenures.

If both renters and landlords are to have any faith in the courts when it comes to resolving disputes over evictions, the courts must have the investment to do the job. Put simply, and as was said earlier, there are not enough judges or bailiffs and the system simply will not work until there are. In the same way, local authorities must be funded properly to take on the new responsibilities in the Bill. In Taunton and Wellington, the local Somerset council has more than 10,000 people on the council housing waiting list and was brought the brink of bankruptcy by the Conservative Government’s cuts to proposed funding for social care—a crisis across the country that the outgoing Conservative leader of Somerset called a “ticking timebomb”, which was handed to the new administration.

In those circumstances, it is not surprising that Somerset and local authorities across the country are unable to enforce the standards of housing that we would want. The House of Commons Library found

“evidence of low and inconsistent levels of enforcement”

when it comes to addressing poor property standards. No amount of words in the Bill will make up for the need for resources; I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State mention funding for local authorities to discharge those duties. That is vital. The Bill also rightly makes separate provision for student housing, but it does not extend to one or more student renters renting together. If that does not happen, there could be a significant withdrawal of student housing from the market. We would be concerned to see that.

I turn to other provisions in the Bill. We welcome the protections for renters on benefits, who of course should not be discriminated against. We will also be seeking an assurance that the 12-month prohibition on re-letting following an eviction will also apply to re-letting furnished holiday lets, such as on Airbnb. We are pleased to see that, following the work of my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) and of the Minister of Housing and Planning, who both worked on the Bill in the previous Session, no new, punitive definition of antisocial behaviour is being introduced. We thoroughly welcome that element of the Renters’ Rights Bill.

To support our serving military personnel and help address the recruitment challenge in these uncertain times, I also support the bid of my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire, also in the last Session, to ensure that MOD housing is also subject to the decent homes standard proposed in the Bill. It is curious that the Government often like to legislate for others; I want reassurance that they will legislate for their own MOD housing at the same time. Service personnel deserve decent homes just as much as anyone else. That decent homes standard surely must extend to better insulation and energy efficiency—to EPC level C, as was mentioned earlier.

I ask the Minister to meet the concerns of my constituents in Taunton and Wellington and across the country by agreeing guidance with landlords and the sector on what would constitute reasonable grounds for refusing permission to have a pet—a subject close to the heart of the Secretary of State, I know—and ensure that tenants are allowed to keep their pet once that has been agreed.

Above all, the Bill is about bringing an end to the shameful delays of successive Conservative Governments when it comes to protecting renters from unfair evictions. I heard the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) say that she wanted to help the Bill— but she has also tabled an amendment to kill it. If that is helping, I would hate to see her definition of attacking something.

The change really cannot come soon enough. One of my constituents, Mike Godleman, came to me some time ago. He had been served with a section 21 eviction notice while recovering from major surgery. He had loved his home of over nine years. A couple of months ago, his councillor and I visited him to try to help him. We met a kind, gentle and creative man who taught sign language, loved dance and was a talented teacher and photographer. His charming sons Perez and Zakkai meant the absolute world to him, and he had become more of a friend to us than a constituent. His sons were a complete credit to him when we met them. Sadly, some 10 days ago Mike was found in his flat. He had passed away as a result of a pulmonary embolism—clearly not caused by his eviction notice, but surely people in Mike’s position should not have to suffer being made homeless as a result of a notice that inherently, and on the face of it, shows that there was no fault on his part.

Conservative Administrations since 1988 have ushered in a system in which the tenure that has grown most is the one that gives the least assurance to tenants; assured shorthold tenancies are now the most common form of tenancy. Their approach seemed designed to maximise disadvantage to renters—40% of renters now say that, as a result, their last home move was forced on them, adding turmoil to insecurity of tenure. In fact by repeatedly announcing that they would legislate but then failing to deliver on that legislation, the last Government prompted a massive 30% growth in Airbnb short-term lets, taking away more security of tenure from other tenants.

It is hardly surprising that Ministry of Justice reports show that standard procedure claims for possession and eviction massively increased under the last Conservative Government, while accelerated procedure claims doubled from 4,000 to 8,000. The Conservatives’ inaction was a shocking abandonment of thousands of tenants to increasing eviction rates, as landlords sought to pre-empt the often promised, but never delivered, end to no-fault evictions.

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

Does the hon. Member agree that, as I think the shadow Minister alluded to in her speech, there have been attempts to use no-fault eviction as a way to deal with people who are at fault, and that the failure of that system has now become an excuse for not reforming this injustice?

[Mr Amos]

I agree with the hon. Member. We must make sure that the courts are properly resourced so that the grounds that are in the Bill to provide for eviction, where it is justified, can work effectively. That is surely the way forward, rather than some back-door approach in which no-fault evictions are used for a multitude of reasons, many of them not justified.

While it is right to legislate to end no-fault evictions—measures that Liberal MPs such as the former Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, Simon Hughes, vehemently opposed from these Benches back in 1988 —we surely cannot think that the private sector alone is the answer to solving our nation’s housing crisis. The Government must be more ambitious, immediately banning no-fault evictions, building 150,000 council and social rent homes per year, a comprehensive programme to insulate all housing, a planning use class to control second homes and allowing councils to halt the right to buy, so that when we build council houses we are not trying to fill the bath with the plug taken out.

Those are the priorities that the Liberal Democrats will be campaigning for and working to see on the face of this Bill. I urge the Minister and the Government to take on as many of our suggestions as they possibly can.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

No. The right hon. Member has had her time.

We strongly refute the central contention in the reasoned amendment that the Bill fails to provide security and affordability for private renters or to respect the property rights of landlords and that it

“will reduce the supply of housing in the private rented sector”.

The Bill strikes the right balance between the interests of landlords and tenants. While we acknowledge that it will take time for the sector, including build to rent providers, to adjust to a significant change in regulation, we do not believe that this legislation will have a harmful impact on future rental supply—which, by the way, we are taking steps to boost, not least by providing more opportunities for investment in a growing build to rent sector. The reasoned amendment is weak and disingenuous. I urge colleagues to vote it down when we arrive in the Lobby in a few minutes.

Let me turn to a set of specific issues referred to in the reasoned amendment and raised by a number of hon. Members in the debate: namely, tenancy reform, fixed-term tenancies and court improvements. The move to a new single system of periodic tenancies is at the heart of the Bill. The introduction of the new tenancy regime will see the end of fixed-term tenancies and the long-overdue abolition of section 21 no-fault evictions. As a result, tenants will enjoy greater stability and security, and landlords will benefit from clear and expanded possession grounds to evict tenants in circumstances where that is justified and reasonable.

To avoid confusion and to ensure that renters on existing tenancies do not have to wait even longer for the threat of arbitrary evictions to be lifted, we intend to apply the new system to all tenancies in a single stage. We will appoint the commencement date by regulations at an appropriate interval after Royal Assent. Our intention is to give the sector as much notice as possible.

A number of hon. Members mentioned fixed-term tenancies. I want to be clear that it is the Government’s firm view that there is no place for fixed terms in the future assured tenancy system. Fixed terms mean that renters are obliged to pay rent regardless of whether a property is up to standard, and they reduce renters’ flexibility to move when they need to. It is right that the Bill ensures that all tenancies will be periodic in future, ending the injustice of tenants being trapped paying rent for substandard properties.

Good landlords have nothing to fear from this change, either. Tenants simply do not move houses unless it is absolutely necessary. When they do leave, they will be required to provide two months’ notice, giving landlords sufficient time to find new tenants. Nor will the PRS become an Airbnb-lite, as some have suggested. Tenants will still have to pay up to five weeks’ deposit, complete referencing checks and commit for at least two months. Locking tenants in for longer with fixed-term tenancies would mean people being unable to leave dangerous situations and being trapped in situations, for example, of domestic abuse. We are not prepared to accept that.

Ensuring that the Courts and Tribunals Service is prepared for the implementation of the new system is essential. I take on board the challenge that many hon. Members, including Opposition Front Benchers, put to us in that regard. In considering the potential impact of the Bill on the county courts, it is however important to bear in mind that most tenancies end without court action being needed. It would also plainly be wrong to assume that all evictions that presently occur following a section 21 notice will in future require court proceedings under section 8 grounds.

One of the main effects of the Bill will be to reduce the number of arbitrary evictions that take place. That said, we recognise that landlords need a reliable and efficient county court system to ensure that they can quickly reclaim their properties when appropriate, and that we need a well-functioning tribunal process to resolve disputes in a timely manner. We agree that improvements to the courts and tribunals are needed to ensure that the new system functions effectively. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said at the outset of the debate, we are working closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to ensure that they are made, and exploring options for improved alternative dispute resolution so that only cases that need a judgment come to court.

[Mr Amos]

Does that mean there will be more funding for the courts?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will bring forward further detail as the Bill progresses, but those conversations with Ministry of Justice colleagues are ongoing, and they are constructive. We want to get to a place where the system is ready to take the new tenancy provisions forward. We will not act precipitously, and what we are not prepared to do—this is the most important point on courts—is make the necessary and long-overdue transformation of the private rented sector contingent on an unspecified degree of future court improvements subjectively determined by Ministers, as the last Government proposed in their Bill. We are determined to move quickly to give renters the long-term security, rights and protections they deserve.

A number of hon. Members raised the issue of standards, and many shared horrific stories of tenants trapped in substandard properties. It is essential, in the Government’s view, that we take decisive action to tackle the blight of poor-quality, privately rented housing and to ensure landlords are required to take swift action to respond to serious hazards.

Renters' Rights Bill (First sitting)

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I declare an interest as a private landlord.

[Mr Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I am a landlord but only of registered social housing.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

I am a member of the Acorn community union, which is giving evidence today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Blake]

Q Just so I understand, your argument is that there will be a reduction in supply, and that will cause more homelessness.

Theresa Wallace: I think there is that, and there is also the matter of introducing this Bill on one date. I think that will cause more homelessness because landlords are panicking, so they will serve their section 21s while they can, to get possession of their properties, and they will come out of the market.

If, rather like with the Tenant Fees Act 2019, all new tenancies had to comply and existing tenancies had 12 months to do so, or until the end of their fixed term—that might be sooner—when the Bill came in and landlords saw it working in practice, they might see that things were not as bad as they had feared. Although I understand the reasons behind not wanting two levels, I think that doing it all on one day will have a knock-on effect for tenants. There are tenants who have long-term rents for two or three years, but once this Bill comes in, if they have already had their 12 months, they could suddenly find they have four months’ notice coming their way because their landlord has decided they want to sell or move back in. I do not think we are giving tenants the protection that they thought they had when they secured their tenancy.

[Mr Amos]

Q You said the Bill will increase or reduce confidence, and you talked about the courts. You have not said much about the change to periodic tenancies. In your evidence, you talk about keeping fixed-term tenancies where tenant and landlord agree. What would stop landlords putting every tenancy on a fixed term, and what would be the practical difference of still being able to give two months’ notice yet being in a fixed-term tenancy? How would that be practically different?

Theresa Wallace: Often a tenant has put their children into school, and they do not want to have to move within two, three or four years. It might be a fixed-term job contract for two years, or it might be caring for elderly parents—whatever the reason, it is often the tenants that are asking us for fixed terms. It is not us saying, “You have got to take a fixed term.” If they want a fixed term, we understand the need for flexibility, because circumstances can change, so let them still have their two months’ notice. We would prefer to see minimum terms of four months, but that is not for landlords; that is to stop properties going over to the short-let sector.

I spoke to an agent last year who does short lets as part of their business model, and the average short let was 91 days. I can see we are going to lose properties to short lets; they are going to be paying for long-term rentals at short-let prices. I see that as being an issue.

If a landlord is happy to commit to two years and say, “Look, I don’t want to sell and I don’t want to move back in; I can guarantee you two years,” but the tenant still has their notice period for their flexibility, I do not understand why that is not allowed, because that is in the tenant’s best interest. Now, the landlord can say, “I am not going to sell my property. I don’t need to move back into it. You can have two years on a rolling contract,” and he then might change his mind nine months down the line, and there is nothing to stop that.

Ben Beadle: I wonder whether I can comment from a student perspective, which has not been picked up by the Committee yet. One of the areas that we are very worried about is the cyclical nature of the student housing market. I operate in Uxbridge near Brunel University. As Mr Simmonds well knows, tenants coming in want to have the security that the property is going to be available.

Where I do not think the Bill quite strikes the right balance is that I think it needs to maintain the moratorium period that was brought in under the previous Bill, because that did three things. First, it protected set-up costs for landlords. It costs a lot of money to set up a tenancy. I do not think we are going to see a huge change in behaviour in terms of churn, but I am sure we will see some behaviour change where tenants can give two months’ notice. Having a minimum six-month period—four months plus two—is sensible for that. Secondly, it is sensible from the point of view of not turning the private rented sector into Airbnb via the back door. Nobody wants that. Thirdly, it goes some way to protect the student cycle, which is in the interests of both landlords and tenants.

[The Chair]

For the very last question—a short question and short answer—I call David Simmonds.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Gideon Amos and then Jacob Collier—if you both ask quick questions, we can get you both in.

[Mr Amos]

Q I have two very brief questions. You will have heard the previous witnesses. Have you seen any evidence of an increase in section 21 evictions since the introduction of the Bill? You will have heard the discussion about fixed-term tenancies and whether they should still be available by agreement between landlord and tenant. Do you have concerns about that? What are your views?

Tarun Bhakta: First, the evidence is that section 21 evictions are increasing. We do not have evidence that that is because the Bill is coming. We heard in the evidence that many landlords will wait and see, and find that being a landlord in the new system is not so bad. That is what the evidence of tenancy reform in Scotland in 2017 showed. The evidence we have does not point to that.

Can you remind me what your second question was?

[Mr Amos]

It was about retaining the option of fixed-term tenancies to two or three years if it were agreed between landlord and tenant.

Tarun Bhakta: No, we would not support that at all. It is an illusion that a fixed-term tenancy is a mutual agreement between tenant and landlord. Tenants expect that that is what they have to do. Tenants most commonly sign—the majority sign—12-month contracts, yet we know that tenants want longer than that. It is just that tenants do not feel that they have the power in the sector to ask for a different length of fixed-term tenancy.

In our services, we see fixed-term tenancies locking tenants into unsuitable properties; maybe repairs were promised and not done, or the property has deteriorated, their circumstances have changed, or the rent has increased and tenants are locked in and liable for the rent during that period—

[Mr Amos]

rose—

[The Chair]

Jacob Collier is next.

Renters' Rights Bill (Second sitting)

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q Any more for any more? Liz Davies KC: I have two points. It is excellent that you have prevented bidding wars. Clause 4, I think, is about advance rent, and we were just discussing this outside. You cannot prevent bidding wars without also having a limit on advance rent of one month, because otherwise, you have outlawed bidding wars but the landlord will then be happily prepared to let to the tenant who is robust enough to be able to offer six months’ rent in advance, rather than one month’s rent. You get back to tenants’ financial circumstances in bidding—so that point is about advance rent.

The other point is smaller and more technical, and is on the subject of homelessness. Because you are taking out assured shorthold tenancies from the homelessness regime, which allows local authorities to find people private rented sector tenancies, and you have done a lot of drafting amendments to take out the words “assured shorthold”, you have also taken out a mechanism in the Housing Act 1996 that currently allows a homeless family—where they are given an assured shorthold tenancy and that ends within two years—to reapply as homeless and where they do not have to show a priority need. It helps to deal with the revolving door of homelessness, potentially in the private rented sector. You have abolished that—I imagine inadvertently, because you are taking out the words relating to assured shortholds. However, I would suggest that you try to get that back in, so that in the more unusual cases—once this Bill has gone through—if a homeless person is given an assured tenancy in the private rented sector and it comes to an end within two years, they will be able to come back to the homelessness authority. It is section 195A of the Housing Act 1996.

[Mr Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Q You said earlier that the first-tier tribunal is working better, but did you really answer the question of whether you feel the Bill will increase pressure on the tribunal and the courts, and whether they are ready for it? Have you seen any evidence of an increase in funding, given this impending legislation?

Justin Bates KC: I want to be careful not to speak for the first-tier tribunal judges. Parliament has provided additional funding for the FTT in anticipation, not of this Bill, but of other areas. Those of you who worked on the Building Safety Act 2022 will know that you gave new powers to the FTT over unsafe buildings. Funding came along with that, because new building safety judges have been appointed. For obvious reasons, I am not privy to all the spending decisions, but as a regular attendee of the tribunal, I can see that money must have been provided. Whether you provide more money for this Bill is, frankly, miles above my pay grade.

On the increased workload, it is very difficult to say. It is plausible that there may not be that much of an increase in workload, because people can still agree what the new rent will be. If they agree it, there is no need to go anywhere near the tribunal. If I were pushed, my informed guess would be that there will be an increase in the first few years, because there always is whenever the law changes, and that it will settle down after a while, but I cannot properly comment on the minutiae of how you fund the FTT.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

Q Just to follow up on that point, none of us knows what the increase in tribunal work will be, but there will be an active incentive not to agree a rent increase because you have your rent, it is going to go up, there is the delay of the process, and then at the end, the worst that can happen is that you get the rent increase that you were going to get anyway. Why would not tenants always, as a matter of course, put off the evil hour? They would get six, eight, 12 or 15 months free.

Justin Bates KC: But what I am saying is that I do not know whether it will be that long. There is an assumption in the questions, which may or may not be correct, that all these cases will need a hearing. Most of the section 13 cases that the tribunal already deals with are done on the papers. It rattles through 10 of them a day because, unless there is something specific about the property—unless you need to see it to understand the condition of disrepair, or whatever—there is no reason why you cannot do rent-based determinations on the basis of written materials: the Rightmove print-offs, the price and so on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Amos]

Q We have the decent homes standard for social housing, and the Bill would introduce it for private housing. That seems to me to leave Ministry of Defence housing in the middle. Can you think of any other categories of housing that would not be covered by the decent homes standard?

Liz Davies KC: Currently, Home Office accommodation for asylum seekers is not in the Bill. I am pretty sure, off the top of my head, that temporary accommodation under homelessness is, but if I am wrong about that—Justin and Giles are nodding, so it is. Temporary accommodation for asylum seekers should be there; we know that has problems with conditions.

I am sorry—I am embarrassed about this—but I should have said right at the beginning that I have acted as a consultant for the Renters’ Reform Coalition. I am not here today in that capacity, but I need to put that on the record.

Justin Bates KC: I would need to really check the detail, but housing provided by local social services authorities—Children Act 1989 accommodation rather than Housing Act accommodation—may not be covered. That might be another area of exemption. But the big one will be Crown properties: MOD, Home Office and so on. If you want to bring them in, you will need to expressly say so because, as I am sure you all know, the rule is that it does not bind the Crown unless you expressly say so.

[The Chair]

That brings to an end this evidence session. I thank the witnesses for their contributions.

Examination of Witness

Judicaelle Hammond gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Thank you.

[Mr Amos]

Q You mentioned the planning system earlier. Do you see any risk, because of the perceived unattractiveness of the new system, that there will be an increase in short-term holiday letting? The Liberal Democrats want to see the use class brought forward for holiday lets. Would you support that in terms of controlling it in rural areas, so that councils and communities can control the amount of Airbnb-type short-term holiday lets in their areas?

Judicaelle Hammond: We recognise that is an issue in some areas of the country that are honeypots. If the proposals that were consulted on are implemented effectively, we see a need for them.

On your question about whether some properties would become holiday lets, I think if you had asked me a year ago, I might have said yes. There are other pressures on the holiday let market that make this increasingly unlikely. We hear from members that they are planning on selling full stop, which would probably be selling to people who want to be on the housing ladder rather than to people who want to take over their business of being private rented sector housing providers. That is a real issue and concern for us.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q Building on that, we heard from a few of the witnesses this morning that one of the key concerns of the private rented sector is the delay associated with the recovery of property through the Courts and Tribunals Service. A moment ago, you said that some of your members are waiting 12 to 18 months, during which time they do not get any rent and it is an asset that is not working for them. I would like to drill into that a little further to understand fully why it is that landowners are already leaving the market and why that might happen in the future, and what impact you assess that will have on future rents.

On one side of the argument you could say, “Rents will go up as supply decreases.” Do you think that will be an unintended consequence of the proposed legislation? On the other side, which I invite you also to consider, is the question of whether, if you increase foregone earnings—that is, increase the losses associated with being a tenant—because the time required by court processes will be extended because of increased demand, that increased loss will filter into increased rents in the long run.

Judicaelle Hammond: I think the answer to both of your questions is that there is a risk. If demand and supply work in the way they are intended to, unless you increase the supply there is a risk that the rent would go up—to do exactly the two things you suggested.

What we see is broader than just renters’ rights reform, though: we are seeing, for example, the move towards minimum energy efficiency standards, and I totally understand why that is needed. At the same time, it is quite difficult for landlords to deal with some of the costs. Again, we are mostly talking about older properties in rural areas. The cost of maintenance and improvement, particularly since the Ukraine war and the surge in the cost of building materials, has not come down. It has stopped growing at the same rate, but the prices have not come down to where they were pre-pandemic, pre-Ukraine.

As a result of that, you will first have to wait for a void in your properties, in all likelihood, in order to do the kinds of work that will be needed. Those voids do not happen very often. Secondly, you need to get your hands on tradespeople, who might actually prefer to stick to their local areas, because they are within 30 minutes’ driving time and not an hour and a half’s driving time. That is something else that we hear quite a bit about. All that is bringing pressure on to the private tenanted sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q Their yields are quite generous as they are, compared with what is normal.

Victoria Tolmie-Loverseed: I do not have a tiny violin for landlords, but I am just saying what we think is likely to happen. It is a commercial operation and landlords need to cover their costs, and we think that if landlords perceive more risk they will seek to put up rents.

Your previous witness talked about the situation in Scotland. One of the things we would really like the Government to do before going much further is an impact assessment on the student market, particularly looking at Scotland, because the evidence there about student homelessness as a result of the tenure changes is compelling. The Government in Scotland have a committee looking at how they can tackle the issue of student homelessness, and I think that is a bit of a warning for us all that we could very well be in that place in a couple of years’ time if we do not think about the student market, its particular characteristics and what it needs.

[Mr Amos]

Q I have raised this already, but you seem to be suggesting that to extend the exemption you would have a special student tenancy. Is that right? Could you clarify if you would like to see that in the Bill? If not, if the Government were not willing to create a new tenancy, how would you draw the line in terms of bringing in all student accommodation?

Victoria Tolmie-Loverseed: I think there are alternative options. There was discussion on the previous Bill about creating an accreditation scheme or some sort of certification for landlords in the off-street sector. That is worth considering if a landlord is part of a quality mark and might be able to offer fixed-term tenancies similar to PBSA. There would certainly be some benefits to that, and you would offer students a quality product with landlords who are accountable to somebody but can have certainty in their business planning, which would be beneficial. I also think that ground 4A should be amended and extended to all student properties.

[Mr Amos]

Q On that point, how would you define “all student properties” in the Bill?

Victoria Tolmie-Loverseed: We think that the definition of a student property in the Bill is fine; it is just the restriction to HMOs, which are three-bedroom properties. We think the definition of the type of property, or the size of the property, should be changed.

[Mr Amos]

Q So would it be any property where one of the tenants was a full-time student? How would you define that?

Victoria Tolmie-Loverseed: The way the Bill is drafted at the moment, they all have to be students for that to apply.

[Mr Amos]

Q So that would be the control?

Victoria Tolmie-Loverseed: Yes.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

Q I wanted to pick up on a couple of points from your written evidence on joint tenancies. Under the new Bill, if one student leaves, you have the problem where the whole tenancy might end up collapsing. Do you have any thoughts about what the Bill could do to address those concerns, save the arguments that you have already made about having a specialist student tenancy? Also, on that point about the student tenancy, would you agree that there is a bit of an issue at the moment wherein quite a lot of students drop out of university, which is an issue in and of itself, but are locked into tenancies? Would this Bill address that situation?

Victoria Tolmie-Loverseed: The joint tenancy issue is problematic, and there is no way to get around it. If you are in a joint tenancy, all the tenants are essentially treated as one. If one tenant gives notice, all the other tenants, in theory, could be asked to leave at the same time. I think landlords will be pragmatic about it and seek to manage that process actively. Unless it is in their interests to regain possession of the whole property, I think most landlords will try to smooth things out and find a resolution.

Typically, the remaining tenants are liable for the rent on the room that has been vacated, and I think it would be very difficult for landlords to backfill, so the remaining tenants may find that the rent increases. That is going to cause quite a lot of rupture and disruption in the student market. We think about half of tenancies are on a joint basis at the moment, and that is going to be really disruptive. I cannot think of a way around it. Unless there was some sort of ability to have a fixed term, I think it is going to be really difficult. Sorry; I have forgotten the second bit of the question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

No, not investors. You made a point about tenants.

Timothy Douglas: Yes, but that is the crux of it. Unfortunately, if you push too far on the fixed-term tenancy option, the grounds are not robust enough for landlords. Unfortunately, they do not know how long the tenant is going to be in situ. They cannot plan their investment, and they do not know the return on their rent. It is a mutual agreement. We are not saying that it is one or the other. We are saying retain it as an option. Why are we legislating to reduce choice and flexibility?

Agents are telling me up and down the country that that is what tenants want. The leading letting agent in London, which manages 65,000 tenancies, says that fixed-term contracts are popular within the private-rented sector. Many tenants opted for tenancies between one and three years, with the average first term lasting 23 months. At the end of the initial term, 65% of tenants choose to renew. Only 1% of tenancies are ended early by landlords; 5% are ended by tenants. People know where they stand and where they are going to be. It is an option that should be included in the legislation. We have talked today about students as well. It would solve all the problems in the student market.

We are tinkering there with issues that just do not exist. Retain fixed-term tenancies for all, or at least within the student market, or extend ground 4A to one or more sharers. You are tying yourselves in knots in so many ways.

[Mr Amos]

Q We covered extending the grounds to more than three sharers in the previous evidence session, and I think everyone knows where I stand on that. If you are right that the biggest effect of the move away from fixed-term tenancies is on investment into the build-to-rent, or corporate, sector that you are talking about, and if the Bill were to allow fixed-term tenancies—perhaps the first tenancy of a build-to-rent new build—would that help the sector up from delivering 15,000 units to 30,000 more units?

Timothy Douglas: I was actually saying that fixed terms should be retained regardless of landlords.

[Mr Amos]

Q In response to the Minister, you did also mention the corporate sector—but it does not matter. My point is, can you comment on retaining that fixed-term option for the first tenancy in new build premises? Would that deliver some of the incentives that you want to see?

Melanie Leech: A minimum tenancy would certainly help with investor confidence.

[Mr Amos]

Q Of what length?

Melanie Leech: Ideally, we would want a year—perhaps six months.

On the impact, to answer the Minister’s point, it is not that families cannot stay for as long as they want to. This is a high-quality product—I am talking particularly about the build-to-rent sector. The risk for build-to-rent providers is that people will treat build to rent more like an Airbnb-type product. That could transform what should be rental products for families to move into for the long term. That is what we want—we want people to stay somewhere to make it their home. But this proposal will inhibit the supply of those products to long-term tenants, because we are vulnerable to short-term tenancies flipping all the time. That is the concern. It is not that people cannot stay for long if they want to; it is that those products will be easier for people to treat more like a short let—an Airbnb-style product.

Timothy Douglas: We need build to rent, but let us not forget that in build to rent, on average, the rents are a lot higher, because people are paying for a concierge and the other services, so it is not the ultimate answer for all parts of the sector. We are not going to support everyone. I do not think that there should be a timeframe on the fixed term, but we can make use of grounds that landlords cannot use as levers, and you could put break clauses in as well.

[Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

Q My question goes back to the decent homes standard, and the first part of the question is potentially more for Suzannah. What insights do you have into the impact of the application of the decent homes standard in the social rented sector and then, potentially, on everyone else? How do you see it translating across to the private sector, in terms of the impact on the standard of homes there?

Suzannah Young: We believe that everyone has the right to a warm, dry, safe, secure and affordable home, and social housing has a greater proportion of decent homes than housing of any other tenure. That could suggest that having a decent homes standard helps to bring up standards in housing. We also recognise that housing associations exist to fulfil a social purpose, and we are rightly held to a higher standard. We welcome the Government’s commitment to reviewing the decent homes standard. We are pleased to continue to work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as this develops.

In terms of some feedback for the private rented sector, we agree that it is important to have a clear, modern and meaningful standard that reflects what residents would expect a decent home to be. It is also important that all landlords should have a clear understanding of the condition of all their homes. In the social sector, we are doing work to develop a more consistent approach in that area, as part of our response to “The Better Social Housing Review”. It would need to be something that private landlords were able to do as well to bring up standards.

Specifically—this has been mentioned in terms of the private sector—it is important to recognise that the housing association sector faces multiple and competing pressures, with budgets that are already stretched. We would like to see investment in existing homes at the same time as development of the desperately needed new and affordable homes in the Government’s long-term housing strategy. I suggest that similar attention would be needed for the private sector.

Timothy Douglas: May I pick up on that point? That argument was used in Scotland on the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Act 2022. I gave evidence on that legislation two or three times to the Committee up there. In the end, the argument was that the cap was lifted for the social rented sector because it needs to plan for its investment. That is the crux, and it goes back to my previous points—there is no parity here with the incentives, the business planning and the costs that private landlords are facing. We have to have that parity. If the legislation is extending across, the funding needs to be the same. We have to have parity in the investment, the caps and everything else—that needs to be the same. We need that review into all the taxes and costs impacting private landlords, because, quite frankly, we are not getting legislation from either Government Department—the Treasury or MHCLG—that understands the investor appetite for the private rented sector. This legislation is not helping.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Let some other people ask questions and perhaps you will have the opportunity to include those points in your answers.

[Mr Amos]

Q I was interested to hear the rest of your points. One area that is not regulated in the Act is the regulation of letting agents. Is that something that Acorn would like to see happen? Feel free to expand on your points.

Anny Cullum: We would like to see letting agents regulated. Especially with the issues around bidding wars and discrimination when you enter a new home or the private sector for the first time, in the majority of cases that will be about your experience with your letting agency. We as Acorn suggest mystery shopping, like when Trading Standards sends kids into shops to mystery shop and sees whether they will sell them alcohol. Maybe we should be sending people into letting agencies and seeing whether they are being discriminated against on the basis of any protected characteristic, but particularly on the basis of being benefit claimants. That part could be strengthened in the Bill.

[Sam Carling]

Q Picking up on the point you made about illegal evictions, is there anything we can do with the landlord database to help with that and some of the other issues you raise?

Anny Cullum: I think the landlord database will be excellent. It is important from our point of view that the landlord database includes information for tenants on previous enforcement action that has been taken against landlords, because you can then make an informed choice as a tenant about where you would like to rent. That will be another way to deter landlords from behaving illegally because they know they will have a mark against their name on the register. We hope the register will mean that, rather than tenants trying to compete for homes at the moment, landlords are competing for tenants by behaving in a good way and providing a good service. Having that sort of information on the database would be incredibly helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Collier]

Q I am a younger Member of the House. My generation feel that we are locked into renting, with many people unable to save in order to get on the housing ladder. How do you see the Bill making renting more stable and affordable, so that young people can build up the savings we need?

Matthew Pennycook: That is a good question. Like a lot of the debates we have had today, it is slightly out of the scope of the Bill, but you are right to ask it in the sense that the Bill is one part of the Government’s agenda for changing the housing system. There are lots of things we have to do on the home ownership side. You will know from our manifesto that we are committed to a permanent and more comprehensive mortgage guarantee scheme and a first dibs for first-time buyers scheme. In general, the Bill will hopefully empower renters by giving them greater protections, rights and security so that they can stay in their homes longer, build lives in their communities, avoid the risk of homelessness and, in many cases, by bearing down on unreasonable within-tenancy rent hikes, have the opportunity to save, which many do not have at the moment.

In answer to your question very specifically, the Bill is part of a wider agenda and touches on the supply issues we have debated. The Bill is not our answer to affordability in the private rented sector, and it cannot be. There are things that go beyond the scope of the Bill. However, in terms of the security, stability and certainty it provides for private renters, who are mainly at the top end of the market but would have, under better circumstances, the chance to save and buy a first home, the Bill will help in a number of ways.

[Mr Amos]

Q I want to ask about service personnel housing, which I raised in the debate on Second Reading. I will go on to ask about the danger of more properties becoming short-term holiday lets—Airbnb-type things; I have a genuinely open mind on that, and I am interested in the Minister’s views on it.

On service personnel housing, I think the Minister’s position from the debate on Second Reading was that the Ministry of Defence is looking at it and different circumstances may apply, which would mean that a different form of decent homes standard would be needed. If the decent homes standard is yet to be published, and could potentially be less onerous than the one for the social housing sector, could it not also be applied to MOD housing so that our serving personnel get decent housing?

Matthew Pennycook: I do not think there is a huge amount I could add to what I said on Second Reading. We think there are particular characteristics of MOD accommodation that make it difficult to translate the approach we have in mind for driving up standards in the private rented sector and to align that with a wider push on the social housing sector. The MOD are taking forward that work. Yes, there are conversations between officials and Ministers about the crossover, how we might align standards and what the difference is, but I think it is for MOD to take that forward. We think there are good reasons to treat it slightly separately. I can address the short-term lets point, if you would like.

[Mr Amos]

With your permission, Sir Christopher, I want to come back on that point.

[The Chair]

Quickly.

[Mr Amos]

Q We seem to be talking about different decent homes standards. We have the social housing sector one, and we are talking about consulting on one for the private rented sector. Is it not the case that the MOD can have one suitable to its needs?

Matthew Pennycook: If I have understood you correctly, you are putting to me: why is MOD accommodation not coming within the consultation on a new decent homes standard for both sectors?

[Mr Amos]

I am putting to you that the MOD could have its own decent homes standards.

Matthew Pennycook: The MOD is taking forward standards for its accommodation, and it will do that as the Department responsible for that accommodation. It sits outside this legislation, and we had the same debate on the previous Bill. It is an important issue, but it sits outside the scope of this legislation.

[Claire Hazelgrove]

Q Is my hon. Friend certain that the Bill, as drafted, provides enough protections against huge advance rent requests?

Matthew Pennycook: It is a very good question, and we have touched on this issue, as well as guarantors. I am happy to give the Committee a sense of my thinking, because I have reflected further on the matter in the light of concerns that have been put to us by not only external stakeholders but several hon. Members in the Second Reading debate on 9 October.

As I made clear in that debate, the Government have long recognised that demands for extortionate rent in advance place a considerable financial strain on tenants and can exclude certain groups from renting altogether. We are very clear that the practice of landlords demanding large amounts of rent in advance must be prohibited. Although it might be argued that the interaction of the new rent periods in clause 1, which are a month or 28 days, and the existing provisions of the Tenant Fees Act 2019, relating to prohibited payments, provide a measure of protection against requests for large amounts of advance rent, I am increasingly of the view, speaking candidly, that there is a strong case for putting this matter beyond doubt. I am giving careful consideration as to how best that might be achieved in the course of the Bill’s passage.

Renters' Rights Bill (Third sitting)

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will be brief, as this clause is simple and straightforward. It ensures that leaseholders can continue to sub-let under the new regime where they currently have permission to do so.

Leaseholder arrangements may currently require any sub-let to be on an assured shorthold or an assured tenancy with a fixed or minimum term. The clause will enable existing sub-leases to continue under the new tenancy system once assured shorthold tenancies and fixed terms are abolished. This will ensure that leaseholders and their superior landlords are not unduly affected by the reforms and that previously agreed arrangements can continue. It will not grant rights to leaseholders to sub-let for holiday or rental accommodation unless they were able to do so before the Bill took effect. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Changes to grounds for possession

[Mr Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 77, in schedule 1, page 155, line 6, at end insert—

“(1A) In the heading of Part 1, omit ‘must’ and insert ‘may’.

(1B) Omit the heading of Part II.”

This amendment would make all grounds for repossession discretionary.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 73, in clause 4, page 4, leave out lines 35 to 37 and insert—

“(a) omit subsection (3);

(b) in subsection (4)—

(i) omit ‘Part II of’; and

(ii) omit ‘, subject to subsections (5A) and (6) below,’”.

This amendment would make all grounds for repossession discretionary.

Amendment 74, in schedule 2, page 175, line 40, leave out from “claims),” to the end of line 41 and insert “omit subsection (6)”.

This amendment would make all grounds for repossession discretionary.

[Mr Amos]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. The intention of this amendment is to make all grounds for eviction discretionary for the court. As the Committee heard from experts during oral evidence, many in the sector are concerned that none of the grounds will be discretionary.

There are a range of circumstances in which discretion would be advisable in deciding eviction cases. The tenant may be terminally ill—a cancer patient, for example—and I understand that that example was considered during the last Parliament in relation to the previous Bill. The court would have no discretion to enable a stay of eviction in that case. The tenant could have caring responsibilities, perhaps for a disabled person. Again, there would be no discretion to vary the terms of the eviction.

There could be undue hardship caused if the tenant was unable to stay for a given period. Perhaps the tenant had already arranged to move and arranged new accommodation, but that was not available on the timescale in the Bill; in that case, there would again be no discretion. The tenant might have an impending examination to sit or a work commitment that was vital to their career. Again, there would be no discretion for the courts. The tenant may be a disabled person and need extra time or support to arrange the physical burden of moving home.

In a previous discussion, the Minister talked about the importance of taking the personal circumstances of tenants into account, and that is the intent behind this amendment. The courts will not be able to take personal circumstances into account because there will be no discretion on the terms of eviction.

Parties are especially concerned about this issue in relation to grounds 1 and 1A, which concern eviction for repossession by the landlord or their family or for the sale of the property. We heard from Liz Davies KC during oral evidence that, in many cases, a tenant could have done nothing wrong but would still be subject to eviction without any discretion for the courts to vary the terms of that.

Even if the Government do not accept the amendment, I argue that there should be discretion for the courts, if not in every case of eviction, at least in exceptional circumstances. I urge the Government to take that on board in the spirit in which I have moved this amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling these amendments, which allow us to have this debate. In my view—I think this is shared across the House —landlords must have robust and clear grounds for possession where there is good reason for them to take their property back. I hope that he will appreciate the steps the Government have already taken to ensure that the grounds are fair to both parties. We have overhauled the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill to provide additional protections for tenants, including longer notice periods, a longer protected period and a higher rent arrears threshold. We have also scrapped the previous Government’s harmful proposals to introduce a new ground for repeat rent arrears, and we have reduced the discretionary antisocial behaviour threshold to behaviour “capable” of causing nuisance or annoyance.

However, amendments 73, 74 and 77, which would make all grounds discretionary, are a step too far. Indeed, I never argued for all grounds to be discretionary when we considered the previous Government’s Bill. Making all grounds discretionary would mean that landlords have no certainty that they would be awarded possession even if the grounds were otherwise met. That includes in situations of serious antisocial behaviour—where the tenant has been convinced of a serious criminal offence or has broken an injunction put in place to stop their behaviour. Landlords wanting to sell or move into their property could be prevented from doing so, and specialist sectors, such as temporary and supported accommodation, would not be able to guarantee regaining possession in order to house new individuals who require their support.

I assure the hon. Member that there are still many discretionary grounds in the Bill and that judges will have discretion in less clear cases or where possession may not always be reasonable, despite the ground having been met. It is absolutely right that judges have discretion where possession takes place in those circumstances, and that includes smaller breaches of a tenancy agreement or low levels of rent arrears. I believe the steps that we have taken to protect tenants provide sufficient protections against unfair evictions. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member not to press his amendments.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

I would like to speak in favour of the amendment and to bring the Minister’s attention to the evidence we received from experts, which highlighted the fact that discretionary grounds do not make it impossible for the court to award possession. In fact, in many cases, especially ones involving antisocial behaviour, it is reasonable to assume that the courts would apply a high threshold for where to exercise discretion. Nevertheless, that does not negate the principle that there may be extremely exceptional circumstances in which discretion is needed. The Government completely tying the hands of the courts so that they are unable to consider those extenuating circumstances is counterproductive.

[Mr Amos]

I accept what the Minister says about the Bill’s intent and that there are very limited circumstances in which discretion would be available. It is disappointing, though, that it is not recognised that courts require more discretion than is given. The Bill would provide discretion only in those very limited circumstances.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. The mandatory grounds for possession are very limited and specific—for example, grounds 1 and 1A, where the landlord has a clear intention to move back into the property or move a family member in or to sell the property, and they have to evidence that with the court. I ask hon. Members to consider—this was put to me many times in the evidence sessions—the challenges that our courts face and the burden that this legislation places on them. Making every ground discretionary, irrespective of how reasonable it is for a landlord in those grounds 1 and 1A circumstances, for example, to take back their property quickly, risks overburdening the courts. As I say, many of the grounds remain discretionary. However, we think that there is a good reason why a certain number of mandatory grounds are in a different bracket from the discretionary one.

[Mr Amos]

I hear what the Minister says. The case was made forcefully by witnesses in oral evidence that the discretionary grounds for eviction are far too limited and that we need to see further discretion given to the courts. This would not prevent evictions continuing or the courts from making the decisions in accordance with the Bill’s provisions, and it would provide discretion to the courts. I urge the Government to consider widening the categories of discretion for the courts in evictions. I hope that the Government will consider that issue during the passage of the Bill, and I am happy to withdraw the amendment on that basis.

[David Simmonds]

I certainly do not want to imply that there would be any degree of political love-in, but on this matter, I agree with the Minister. It is worth saying for the record that we in the Opposition understand that when the courts are considering this matter, the first issue will be an evidential test: has the necessary threshold for the mandatory ground to be triggered been met? If the court’s opinion is that there is some doubt about that, clearly it has the discretion to act differently because it considers through an evidential test that the threshold has not been met.

In practice, courts deal with this matter with a high degree of discretion, as they do with all other matters that are alike. As Members of Parliament, we will be aware of situations where constituents have been victims of serious, persistent, long-term antisocial behaviour. The grounds outlined are examples where evidence has been accumulated and a court can swiftly make a decision to grant possession in order for the situation to be resolved for the wider benefit of other people affected.

We therefore support the Government’s position that the mandatory grounds should be framed in this way and that moving to make all grounds discretionary would add an element of doubt over and above the evidential test. That would, in turn, enable those who wish to perpetrate long-term antisocial behaviour to get away with it for a longer period of time.

[Mr Amos]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Mr Amos]

I beg to move amendment 68, in clause 4, page 5, line 40, at end insert—

“(fa) after subsection (5A), insert—

‘(5B) Where the court makes an order for possession on grounds 1 or 1A in Schedule 2 to this Act (whether with or without other grounds), the order shall include a requirement on the landlord to file and serve evidence no later than sixteen weeks from the date of the order.

(5C) Evidence provided under subsection (5B) must—

(a) provide details of—

(i) the state of occupation of the dwelling-house since the date of the order, and

(ii) the progress of any sale of the dwelling-house, and

(b) be accompanied by a statement of truth signed by the landlord.’”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 69, in clause 4, page 5, line 41, at end insert—

“(2A) After section 7, insert—

‘7A Evidential requirements for Grounds 1 and 1A

(1) The court shall not make an order for possession on grounds 1 or 1A in Schedule 2 to this Act unless the landlord has complied with subsections (2) to (4) below.

(2) Where the landlord has served a notice for possession on grounds 1 or 1A, the court must be provided with evidence verified by a statement of truth signed by the landlord.

(3) Where the landlord has served a notice for possession on ground 1 and the dwelling house is required by a member of the landlord’s family as defined in paragraphs 2(b) to (d) of that ground, the court must be provided with evidence verified by a statement of truth signed by that family member.

(4) Where the landlord has served a notice for possession on ground 1A, the evidence referred to in sub-section (2) must include a letter of engagement from a solicitor or estate agent concerning the sale of the dwelling house.’”

[Mr Amos]

The amendment’s purpose is to require the evidence to be provided by landlords on grounds 1 and 1A, in the case of occupying the home or selling the property, to be clearly stated in the Bill, so that it is clear what evidence needs to be provided and the test is clearly stated. The Government have indicated that the evidence required will be contained in guidance, but it would significantly reassure Members in this House and in the other place if we could see the evidential test for landlords to gain possession. The amendment sets out the need for a statement of truth and suggests that a letter of engagement from a solicitor in the sale of a property is the kind of evidence that should be in the Bill. I believe the amendment is self-explanatory in that regard.

[Matthew Pennycook]

While I appreciate the sentiments behind the amendments—indeed, as a shadow Minister, I probed the previous Government on this point when discussing the previous Bill—on reflection, I do not think they are the right approach for the following reason, which relates to the previous debate. We have overhauled the Bill in a number of ways to strengthen protections for tenants, and we must be careful about tipping the balance too far the other way and penalising good landlords, who, in certain circumstances, have a right to certainty that they will get their property back and that this will move through the courts in an orderly fashion.

Amendment 68 is an attempt to deter abuse of grounds 1 and 1A, which is an honourable intention. It seeks to require landlords to present further evidence that they have fulfilled the grounds after the possession order has been granted. It does not detail what should happen if a landlord does not present the evidence. Furthermore, it will have no impact on cases that do not make it to court. Where a landlord has obtained a possession order through the courts, they will already have presented evidence to a court to satisfy a judge of their intent to meet the grounds. The amendment would also place an additional burden on courts, which would need to set up new processes to deal with the evidence, taking time away from progressing possession claims.

The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington asked me to consider whether grounds that are currently mandatory should be discretionary, and I thought very carefully about which grounds should be discretionary and which mandatory when developing and overhauling this piece of legislation over recent months. On the basis of that reflection, I have concluded that increasing the prohibition on remarketing and reletting a property after using these grounds, including in cases that do not reach court, is a better mechanism for preventing abuse than adding requirements for evidence. This will allow a tenant to take action if they see, for example, their property advertised online following eviction.

Amendment 69 seeks to put into legislation prescribed evidential requirements for grounds 1 and 1A. We just had a discussion about how we should trust judges and their judgment on these matters. I believe that judges are best placed to consider and determine the evidence before them on these mandatory grounds. Setting an enhanced evidence threshold may mean that judges are less likely to consider wider evidence, and it could inadvertently lower the threshold where an eviction is ordered. It is right that judges have the discretion to respond to the evidence provided on a case-by-case basis. That is what the Bill provides for, and I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.

[Mr Amos]

The Minister says that the amendment does not include what would happen if the evidence was not provided—clearly, the evidence would not be there and the case would be weakened on that basis. I contest the idea that this is an onerous or burdensome requirement. The statement of truth is an extremely simple document—many on the Committee will have seen them—that can be produced easily and at little expense. I also contest the idea that courts need separate processes to look at statements of truth. They look at statements of truth all day, every day; new processes are not required.

The engagement of a solicitor in the sale of a property is not a particularly onerous requirement on someone selling their property. I assume that the person selling the property would, in any event, have to engage a solicitor, and would therefore need a letter of engagement. It is not an onerous requirement in any shape or form. The Minister said that judges would have less discretion. Again, I contest that, because judges would simply have more evidence in front of them; it would not have any effect on the amount of discretion that judges have. I urge the Minister to continue considering the issue, but I can do the maths, so I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

[David Simmonds]

Again, I agree with the Government on this matter. A lot of residential property transactions are undertaken by licensed conveyancers rather than by solicitors. That is a much more affordable and efficient option, often done on a fixed-fee basis, and that is particularly relevant to smaller landlords. Introducing a requirement that a solicitor must be used would be unduly onerous and would inhibit the number of transactions in the market.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I wish to provide further reassurance to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, because I fear that we are dancing on the head of a pin here. Under the provisions in the Bill, judges will have to consider evidence to justify the use of mandatory grounds 1 and 1A. When I gave evidence to the Committee, I provided examples of the types of evidence that judges may require. It is up to individual judges to ask for that evidence and to make a decision on the basis of what is put in front of them. We trust judges to do that. With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, I do not accept the idea that judges are not looking at evidence and not ensuring that the use of these grounds is properly justified. That is misplaced, so I am glad he has indicated that he will withdraw the amendment.

[Mr Amos]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[David Simmonds]

I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 4, page 6, line 14, leave out “1A,”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the hon. Gentleman has just made clear, amendments 56 and 57 seek to reduce the notice period for the selling ground 1A from four months to two months. The Government believe that the notice period for tenants being evicted through no fault of their own should be four months, to give them adequate time to find new accommodation. An eviction notice can turn a family’s life upside down, and four months means they will not be forced to move during a school term. I draw the Committee’s attention to the remarks I made previously about the changing nature of the private rented system and the fact that more older people and families now live in it compared with the situation in the late ’80s, when the system was introduced.

Selling a property is often a long-term decision that involves significant planning on the part of landlords. We do not believe that landlords are likely to need to evict tenants with only two months’ notice, given the time it takes to secure a sale. They also have the option of selling with tenants in situ.

Amendments 70 and 71 were tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. They would make an extreme change that would reduce the notice period for the new student ground 4A to a mere two weeks from the current four months.

The Government believe that students are just as deserving of adequate notice as other tenants. The purpose of the student ground is to try to balance security of tenure with the need to preserve the annual cycle of typical student tenancies. These amendments do not assist the ground in that purpose at all. Student landlords plan their business models long term around the academic year, and after our reforms will factor the four-month notice into their planning.

There is no circumstance where a competent student landlord would suddenly need to evict tenants in line with the academic year with only two weeks’ notice. Indeed, currently they have to give two months’ notice under section 21. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment is a retrograde step vis-à-vis the current iniquitous arrangements that we are trying to undo.

Students often lack the capital to organise a move at short notice. A two-week notice period means it is likely they are given notice to leave during the summer break when they might be working, or even during their exams. We believe that it is right that they have four months’ notice to organise their move.

I therefore ask the hon. Members not to press their amendments.

[Mr Amos]

Amendments 70 and 71 would align the two weeks’ notice for students in HMOs with the two weeks’ notice that the Bill provides that students would have in purpose-built student accommodation. All the points that the Minister has made in relation to the short-term notice period apply to the Bill because that is the Government’s intent in relation to purpose-built student accommodation. The amendments would simply align those properties under HMO ownership with those that are university or purpose-built student accommodation.

Landlords of HMO accommodation are likely to be smaller businesses than universities. Under the provisions in the Bill, universities would enjoy much greater flexibility on eviction than much smaller landlords, who would suffer as a result.

My concern is that there would be a reduction in the amount of student accommodation because of those very different terms on which HMO landlords would be able to let their properties to students compared with other tenants. Any reduction in the availability of supply of student accommodation, particularly in university towns, would have a serious impact on family housing, which is of course often occupied by students, much to the chagrin of residents who are looking for family homes.

It is vitally important that an unintended consequence of the Bill is not the reduction in supply of student accommodation. That is why we seek alignment with what the Bill provides for purpose-built student accommodation.

I urge the Government to consider reducing, if not to two weeks, then to two months, the grounds for eviction in other student accommodation, so that it is more closely aligned with the provisions that the Bill makes for the majority of student accommodation. I urge the Government to consider that and I will not press the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Amendment 61 seeks to expand the discretionary antisocial behaviour ground to include behaviour “capable” of causing nuisance or annoyance. Members may recall that this was proposed in the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill. When in Opposition, we strongly opposed the change, because it had the potential to significantly reduce security of tenure and, most importantly, put vulnerable tenants at risk of eviction. I remain concerned that it would leave tenants open to eviction, even when their behaviour was not causing any problems.

A huge range of behaviours are “capable” of causing a nuisance or annoyance. I was tempted to say that some of the behaviour of my children, on occasion, is more than capable of causing nuisance or annoyance. We can all agree that such a subjective term potentially includes a huge range of behaviours, and it would not be fair for someone to lose their home on the basis of some of them. For example, a baby crying frequently is capable of causing another tenant annoyance. In those cases, and there are many others that I could cite, it would be fundamentally wrong to put a family at risk of eviction because of that. Worse still—this is a point I recall very clearly from the discussions I had with domestic violence charities at the time of the previous legislation—we heard from many organisations that represent victims of domestic abuse that sometimes such abuse can be mistaken for antisocial behaviour, because of loud noises, banging or disruption in the property next door. The amendment increases the risk that tenants in such a situation could be evicted.

I understand that the shadow Minister wants to ensure that landlords have confidence that they can evict tenants who engage in genuine antisocial behaviour. That is an honourable aim, but there are already measures in the Bill to address that, including reducing notice periods so that landlords can make a claim to the court immediately when using the antisocial behaviour grounds, as we have discussed. We have also made changes to section 9A of the Housing Act 1988 to include amendments to ensure that the court considers the particular impact of antisocial behaviour on victims living with perpetrators in HMOs, which was a specific concern raised by the sector. We will also encourage the use of mediation and other tools by ensuring that judges take into account whether a tenant has engaged with attempts to resolve their behaviour, making it easier to evict perpetrators who do not engage.

For the reasons that I have set out, we believe that lowering the threshold from “likely” to “capable of” causing nuisance or annoyance could have extremely damaging consequences, and I do not believe it is in the spirit of what the Bill is trying to achieve. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.

[Mr Amos]

I rise to support the Government on this issue, as Liberal Democrats did in the context of the Renters (Reform) Bill in the previous Parliament. To my mind, introducing a definition of antisocial behaviour that is simply about what is “capable” of causing annoyance and disturbance is tantamount to an authoritarian approach. When the Minister talks about crying babies, I cannot help being reminded that my own crying baby was complained about by the next-door neighbour when I was in rented accommodation. She does not cry so much now—she is 32. The very idea that anything capable of causing annoyance should be regarded as formally antisocial behaviour in law is an extreme concept, and it is an extremely good thing that this new Bill has left such thinking behind. This amendment should not be accepted.

[David Simmonds]

I will withdraw the amendment, because again the numbers are against me. It is important to recognise as we consider it, however, that there are examples—loud music is one—that might not within the definition of “likely” to cause nuisance or annoyance, but potentially would fall within our proposed definition.

I hope that the Minister and the Government will consider this issue. We know that a children’s party—I speak as a guilty individual in this regard—can be a very noisy occasion that generally takes place in the middle of the day for a brief period of time, whereas playing loud music for one’s own freedom of enjoyment all day and night may cause significant issues. Most of us, as Members of Parliament, have seen examples of behaviour that of itself and on an individual, case-by-case basis would not cause a nuisance, but that can cause significant upset to neighbours when repeated. That can range from the environmental impact of an activity such as servicing cars or maintaining vehicles to things such as loud music, and people can do those things at times of the day and night that are antisocial in the context in which the home is located. It is important that the Government give further consideration to the matter, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 9, in schedule 1, page 172, leave out lines 29 to 32.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This is in consequence of Amendment 5.

Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the First schedule to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

These measures will ensure that tenants are protected from arbitrary and unfair evictions. They will provide tenants with greater security and stability while supporting landlords’ rights to reclaim properties in circumstances where it is necessary and appropriate.

[Mr Amos]

I rise to ask the Minister to clarify something for my benefit, and possibly that of other people. The Liberal Democrats support the omission in paragraph 8 of the grounds for eviction for the purposes of creating holiday accommodation, but what will prevent a landlord from evicting to move in their own family, or purportedly for sale and then changing their mind and letting the property out as an Airbnb or holiday accommodation? There has been a massive rise in that type of accommodation; it is not scaremongering to suggest that there might be another increase. It is already a significant factor in the rental market, and it really hits some communities. I know we are debating this issue at a later stage, but I would be interested to hear what the Minister says about the schedule.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 6 provides for regulations that will allow the Secretary of State to publish the form to be used when landlords serve notice of intention to begin possession proceedings. It is crucial that the information landlords are required to provide reflects current law. This gives tenants the best opportunity to enforce their rights and seek appropriate support. The clause will allow regulations to be made so that we can update the forms at speed and respond to changing circumstances. It is a simple and straightforward clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Statutory procedure for increases of rent

[Mr Amos]

I beg to move amendment 76, in clause 7, page 8, line 31, leave out from “determination” to the end of line 36 and insert—

“(4AA) Where the rent for a particular period of the tenancy is to be greater than the rent for the previous period by virtue of a notice, determination or agreement mentioned in subsection (4A), the rent may not be greater than the rent for the previous period increased by the Bank of England Base Rate.

(4AB) Any provision relating to an assured tenancy to which this section applies is of no effect so far as it provides—

(a) that the rent for a particular period of the tenancy must or may be greater than the rent for the previous period otherwise than by virtue of a notice, determination or agreement mentioned in subsection (4A), or

(b) that the rent for a particular period of the tenancy, where greater than the rent for the previous period by virtue of a notice, determination or agreement mentioned in subsection (4A), must or may be greater than the rent for the previous period increased by the Bank of England Base Rate.”

This amendment would mean that the maximum rent increase can only be an increase in line with the Bank of England Base Rate.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Mr Amos]

At the beginning of today’s sitting, the Minister and the shadow Minister asked the Committee to bear with them, because it was their first time leading the Committee stage of a Bill in their respective positions. I ask the Committee to spare a thought for the hon. Member for Bristol Central and me, as it is our first time being elected an MP, our first time in a Committee and our first time dealing with this Bill. There are a number of amendments that we would introduced but which have not yet made it through to the amendment paper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Amos]

I thank the Minister for his response on those points. We would argue that the current metric for market rents is actually more closely linked to inflation, and more likely to be affected by inflation, than would be the Bank of England base rate, which is obviously a separate—

[The Chair]

Order.

Renters' Rights Bill (Fourth sitting)

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing clause stand part.

[Mr Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline—as it was to serve under Sir Christopher’s chairmanship until I was somewhat surprised to be interrupted by the clock. But it reminded me to get a very good lunch, including excellent apple crumble.

As I was saying, the logic of the amendment is to attach the maximum rent increase to the Bank of England base rate. We do not accept that that is capping in any other way than in the Bill, which would cap the rent increase at what is considered the market rent through recourse to the courts. In the same way, our application of the amendment would limit it to the Bank of England base rate, which is, as I said, a much better measure of the costs that landlords actually face than market rents, which are susceptible to the effects of price inflation.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Member agree that further work might come through on the way the tribunal operates and how it could operate in future under the Bill, and that the changes to how the tribunal functions might help to deal with the issues addressed by the amendment?

[Mr Amos]

I would be delighted if that were the case. We would welcome anything that reduced the risk of extremely steep rent increases for tenants—I think Members on both sides of the Committee would want to see that. This amendment would limit increases to the Bank of England base rate. I stress that this would apply to within-tenancy increases only. However, I accept the points that the Government have made and I am willing to withdraw the amendment.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Caroline. I just thought I would offer a few more thoughts to try to further reassure the hon. Gentleman. As I made clear, we absolutely share his objective of limiting unreasonable within-tenancy rent increases, not least given the potential for that type of rent hike to act as an effective section 21 by the back door. On his specific point, the Government’s view is that linking rents to the Bank of England’s base rate would constitute a form of rent control. We may have a principled disagreement about whether rent controls are appropriate, but we are not convinced that they should be introduced, given the risks that I have set out.

I thought it would be helpful to touch on how the tribunal determines market rents, because I got the sense from the hon. Gentleman previously that he expected the tribunal to look purely at advertised rents. The tribunal has a high degree of expertise. It is composed of judges and industry experts. To determine the market rate, the first-tier tribunal can consider a wide range of evidence, such as the price of similar properties being advertised online, as he said, and also evidence submitted from both parties justifying or arguing against the rent increase. This could include statistics on changes to local rents and examples of the rent achieved by other properties—for example, the rent that neighbours are paying. The tribunal will be able to use its local expertise, including visiting a property if necessary. We think that the tribunal has the necessary expertise and understanding to take into account different factors that are forming market rates and to determine whether the rent that is being proposed reflects that.

To touch on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, the Government are exploring whether the database could play a role in providing data on rents. That would be in addition to data about the ownership and standard of private rented sector properties. We are considering the feasibility of recording a wider range of data to support more informed rental experiences.

Our approach will take into account the balance of benefits and burdens for different users, and we will look at how data can best be collected to minimise requirements for private landlords to submit information. We will stipulate those requirements in the regulations, but I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman a bit more reassurance that the tribunal is not simply looking at advertised rents in making its determinations.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Dame Caroline. The Opposition agree with the Government’s position on amendment 76. It is clear that interest rates set by the Bank of England are not a suitable proxy or measure to be used when setting a reasonable level of rent. If we look at examples in recent history, we see that we have gone through a period of sustained very low interest rates, followed by a rise prompted by the decision of the United States Federal Reserve, which sets the baseline for the rest of the world, to raise interest rates, so they sit at today’s present rate. Of course, inflation throughout that period was very much determined by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the consequent increase in energy costs in particular, and also in basic foodstuffs. All those things do not amount to an effective basket of measures that can be used. What the Minister has said on that point is important.

[Mr Amos]

Would the hon. Gentleman accept that the main costs landlords face are not from the price of goods in the shops, but the price of borrowing—the price of the loans with which they have acquired their properties—and, therefore, it is about the logic of the increasing costs to landlords being passed on through a relationship to the base rate of interest?

[David Simmonds]

No, I do not entirely accept that. For a start, we need to recognise that the costs landlords face when looking at purchasing a property will be based on the commercial cost of borrowing, rather than the Bank of England base rate. A landlord who is considering, for example, refurbishment or investment in a property is considering the rising cost of maintenance and servicing the property to the appropriate standard. The costs driving that, and the inflation behind them, are related not to the Bank of England base rate, but to what is going on in the market for those particular goods and services. It is important that we recognise that.

I hope the Government will acknowledge that it is particularly important to recognise that bringing in investment to create more private rented homes depends on the build to rent sector and on investors, including investment funds, that may specifically choose to come to this market on the basis of a reasonable, if modest, rate of return. If the investors considering creating new homes are deterred because the Government are fixing the available return on rent at a low level compared with alternative investments, that will lead to an exodus of investment from the private rented sector, which will be deeply harmful to the needs of renters.

[Mr Amos]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Challenging amount or increase of rent

[David Simmonds]

I beg to move amendment 52, in clause 8, page 11, line 38, leave out from “date” to end of the line and insert—

“of the application under section 14(A1)”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Before I speak to clause 8 and respond to the amendments, it might be worth my making it clear to the shadow Minister that the Government submitted an impact assessment for the Bill to the Regulatory Policy Committee on 16 September 2024, and we will publish that in due course. In line with usual practice, the Government will always consider the impact of any policies when taking legislation through Parliament.

As I set out in the debate on the previous group of amendments, clause 8 amends section 14 of the Housing Act 1988. It stipulates when a tenant can submit an application to the first-tier tribunal. They may do so to challenge the rent amount in the first six months of a tenancy or following a section 13 rent increase. When a tenant brings an application to the tribunal, the tribunal will both assess what the landlord could expect to receive if the property was re-let on the open market and determine the rent. The tribunal has, as I have noted, experts who are experienced in understanding the different factors that influence the market rate, which include the rent for similar properties in the area, the quality of fixings or the proximity to amenities.

For too long tenants have feared challenging a rent increase at the first-tier tribunal. We will end that by ensuring that the tenant will not pay more than what the landlord asks for following a tribunal determination. We are going further: we will end the practice of backdating rent increases, to stop tenants being thrust into debt. To protect the most vulnerable tenants, in cases of undue hardship the tribunal will be able to delay the start of the rent increase for up to two months from the date of determination. That puts tenants in a stronger position to challenge rents through the first-tier tribunal.

It is important to note that tenants are often scared to engage with the judicial process, so we hope that the measures I have outlined will give them more confidence to do so. Although we anticipate that there will be an increase in cases, we do not accept the frankly scaremongering assertions we have heard about the tribunal being completely overwhelmed, or about tenants risking a deterioration in the critical relationship with their landlord by challenging every single rent increase that is given to them. Nor did we hear, when they gave evidence to the Committee last week, that the groups that support tenants would recommend such action. Engaging the tribunal requires effort and time, and we believe that tenants will do so only where they have legitimate concerns, such as when a within-tenancy rent increase is unreasonable. We will continue to work with the Ministry of Justice, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and the judiciary to ensure that the tribunal has the capacity to deal with any increase in cases.

Taken together with the measures in clause 7, the provisions in clause 8 will ensure that tenants always have a right of appeal and will prevent rent increases from being used to evict them. Rent increases outside the statutory process, such as in rent review clauses, will be outlawed. We believe the measures will ensure that all parties are clearer on their rights and responsibilities and will empower private rented sector tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases.

Amendment 46 is drafted to prevent the Bill from coming into force until a review is published on the impact of clause 8 on the tribunals responsible for the determination of rent. The review would be provided for by amendment 47. The Government are committed to ending the scourge of section 21 as quickly as possible and have also committed to empowering private rented sector tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases, thereby stopping unscrupulous landlords from using them as a back-door means of eviction. The sector has waited far too long for these changes, so we will not tie implementation to any arbitrary requirements, as the previous Government determined to do in the previous Parliament. As I said, we are working closely with the Ministry of Justice and HMTCS to make sure that the justice system is prepared for any changes to case load and the procedures that will be required for our reforms.

Amendment 47 would introduce a legal requirement for the Government to publish a review of the impact of the reforms to rents in clause 8 on tribunals and their ability to manage any increase in the volume of applications that challenge the amount of rent payable. As I have made clear—I will put it on the record again—we are working closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and HMTCS to make sure that the justice system is prepared for the Bill’s implementation, which will come at a single point at the point of commencement. In Committee last week, we heard of the growing role of the first-tier tribunals and we heard—it is important to note this—praise for their handling of cases. We seek to build on that good practice.

We currently have no plans to consult the Competition and Markets Authority on whether any action is necessary to ensure that our reforms in clause 8 do not have a distorting effect on the market. I say respectfully to the shadow Minister that I have seen no credible evidence of that and, to be candid, I think the CMA has far better things to do with its time. The tribunal’s decision reflects market conditions rather than distorting them, so we do not think it realistic that the tribunal could affect market prices. The tribunal is also likely to determine rents for an extremely small proportion of the total rental market. We will of course continue to monitor the impact of the reforms on the market in the normal way.

Finally, amendment 75 would require the Secretary of State to launch a consultation to seek views on whether tribunals that are responsible for the determination of rent currently have adequate resource, and whether they will require further resources due to the rent reforms in the Bill. Given the ongoing work I have outlined, we do not think that launching a consultation at this time is required, and making a commitment to do so on the face of the Bill would be wholly unnecessary. I therefore ask Members not to press their amendments to a vote.

[Mr Amos]

I rise to speak to amendment 75 which, as the Minister said, would require the Secretary of State to consult on the adequacy of the existing resources for the tribunal system and on any further need for resources to deal with rent reviews established in the Bill. It is the same for the courts: sufficient judges and resources to ensure that the justice system works and does not seize up are vital to the supply of landlords bringing properties on to the rental market.

The Liberal Democrats know that most landlords and tenants are not going to rush to the courts unreasonably, and we do not support the use of court funding as a reason to delay the ending of no-fault evictions and the introduction of the Bill, as happened in the previous Parliament. As I have made clear several times, it is urgent that no-fault evictions are brought to an end. However, that does not mean that the courts and tribunal system is not seriously underfunded; it clearly is. I know the Minister is concerned about this—he mentioned some ongoing review work, and also spoke about it on Second Reading in response to my intervention—but we really need to go further. We need to come up with something concrete that is clear that putting resources into the courts and tribunals system will be taken seriously and will happen.

The mutually-owned Nationwide building society, which funds much of the accommodation we are talking about, has made its support for the Bill conditional on increased funding for the courts and tribunals. It says:

“In these situations, good landlords need to be confident they are able to gain possession of the property”—

I appreciate this relates more to courts than tribunals—and that once

“the situation has reached a point where a court is involved it is reasonable to expect that this process should be as quick and efficient as possible. This is not the case with the current…system which needs additional funding and resources to operate effectively”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Briefly, on the capacity of the Courts and Tribunals Service to effectively implement the new system, at the risk of repeating my extensive comments on Second Reading, it is worth trying to provide Committee members with some reassurance. First, at the risk of injecting a somewhat partisan note into the Committee, I agree entirely that our courts are in a terrible state after 14 years—I say 14 years because I am afraid the coalition Government had a hand in it—and we absolutely believe that improvements to HMCTS are needed to ensure that the new systems function effectively.

As I said, we are working closely with colleagues in government to ensure that improvements are made, as well as the exploring options for, for example, improved alternative dispute resolution so that only those cases that need a judgment come to court. There are a number of improvements we might make to take some strain off the courts, and those are the ones we are exploring.

[Mr Amos]

Will the Minister let me put on the record the fact that during the coalition Government from 2010 to 2015, whole Government Departments, including the Education and Health Departments, were protected and ringfenced against cuts? That bears absolutely no relation to what happened after the cuts were let loose in 2015.

[Matthew Pennycook]

But not the Ministry of Justice, I say gently to the hon. Gentleman.

Nevertheless, I want to reassure colleagues on the substantive point. We have chosen to implement the new tenancy system in a single stage. The commencement date will be made clear in due course, but we will ensure that the Courts and Tribunals Service is prepared for the implementation of the new system. That is essential, and a huge amount of work is going on to ensure that that will be the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Does the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington wish to comment on new clause 6?

[Mr Amos]

Briefly, Dame Caroline. I am still getting used to the intricacies of the order of the agenda.

The new clause would limit rent in advance to sums of one month’s rent. The argument was well made in the oral evidence session, when we heard about the importance of rent-in-advance bidding and the need to reduce the risk of bidding up the amount that needs to be deposited in advance. One month’s rent is quite often the norm as a reasonable amount of rent to be provided in advance. Many years ago, when I was a student and renting, one month in advance was a reasonable amount. Bidding up that amount has a detrimental effect on tenants; hence the rationale for new clause 6.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Amos]

On a point of order, Dame Caroline. I thought we were going to vote on new clause 6.

[The Chair]

That will come later, when we reach that point.

Clause 10

Right to request permission to keep a pet

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

One issue that we have debated—I think, once again, it falls to a small p political and philosophical difference—is ensuring the availability of appropriate options for levels of term, in pursuit of our aim of freedom of contract for those to whom these terms would most lawfully and best apply. The purpose of this amendment is to move us on towards achieving that, and I believe that it would.

[Mr Amos]

The intention behind amendment 66, which stands in my name, is to take landlords at their word that they value hugely the opportunity for fixed-term tenancies, which of course are being removed by this Bill. We support the move to longer tenancies—periodic tenancies—in the Bill. Our policy was to extend them to at least three years, and in effect this Bill extends periodic tenancies almost indefinitely. But for the student population, it is a big disadvantage that students can no longer really rent premises or rent accommodation for the 10 months for which they need it. They nearly always face being forced to rent for 12 months, and paying rent over the summer period when they do not want to do so.

We are taking landlords at their word that they really value fixed-term tenancies, and that fixed-term tenancies would unlock investment and support from the landlord sector. The amendment would offer landlords and student tenants the option to enter into a 10-month fixed-term tenancy, which would benefit students in not having to rent for 12 months. MoneySuperMarket.com—other websites are available—has said that according to a survey in 2023, average student rents are £535 a month. Saving each student two months’ rent would save them £1,000, which is well worth it from their point of view. From the landlord’s point of view, if, as we heard in oral evidence, landlords value fixed-term tenancies, the option to have such certainty would be of value to them.

Having looked at the amendment again in the cold light of day, I will be withdrawing it, because I am not sure that the wording—for which I take full and complete responsibility—delivers my proposal as an option; it seems to indicate a requirement for a rolling 10-month notice period. However, I encourage the Committee to consider the benefits to students of reducing their tenancies from 12 to 10 months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for his points. If I have understood him correctly, I fear that those matters are slightly outside the scope of these clauses. I reiterate that we understand that many agricultural landlords use the opt-out to provide ASTs to their tenants instead, and that opt-out is retained by clause 23. We do, however, think that AAOs are a crucial part of the tenancy system, and we do not want to reduce their security by abolishing them outright and bringing these tenants into the wider assured tenancy system. I will take on board the points the shadow Minister made and come back to him in writing, if he will allow me; they raise a number of matters pertaining to housing that may or may not be in the scope of the Bill and these clauses. I think it is probably better if I come back to him in writing, given how specific and somewhat technical they are.

[Mr Amos]

I wonder whether the Minister would help me with an issue that is somewhat related to agricultural tenancies. In fact, it is a different kind of tied tenancy that has been raised with me by constituents, where the notice period required to be given for Church of England ministers—

[The Chair]

I am afraid that is out of scope of the clause we are discussing.

Renters' Rights Bill (Sixth sitting)

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 31st October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am more than happy to write to the shadow Minister to clarify that. If I have understood him properly, there are certain issues that we think are the landlord’s responsibility, and that is why our approach is the right one. To address his point directly, I will happily set out in some detail in written correspondence how that will operate when landlords are completely absent for the process, and the managing agent’s role in that situation vis-à-vis the new redress scheme.

[Mr Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. The shadow Minister’s amendment refers to agents, such as managing agents, and their redress schemes. Managing agents are often also letting agents—they are the same kinds of companies. Can the Minister comment on the case for regulating those agents, for which this Bill provides an excellent opportunity? Members of the other place who are experts in housing have spoken to me about the need to do that. The Liberal Democrats would certainly support such a move, and I would be grateful if the Minister commented on it.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I suspect I know the noble Lord that the hon. Gentleman refers to. I have had many extensive conversations with the noble Lord about the matter, and I will continue to engage with him. We supported the implementation of the Lord Best review in opposition. We took the view that the Bill was not the appropriate place to consider those measures, but we intend to set out our approach to the regulation of managing agents, letting agents and estate agents in due course. If the hon. Gentleman wants a specific comment from me, I refer him to the answer I gave in oral questions a few a days ago on this point in response to one of his colleagues. We understand the necessity for regulation in this area, and I hope to have further discussions with him and others in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am grateful for the opportunity to provide some clarification, particularly on selective licensing, because I know that is a source of interest to many Members.

The Government are clear that selective licensing and the private rented sector database have different purposes. The database is not designed to replace selective licensing. Unlike the database, selective licensing schemes aim to target specific local issues in specific local geographies by enabling more intensive practical enforcement strategies. We believe that selective licensing is a valuable tool when used appropriately and combined with other measures. It enables local authorities to drive better outcomes for local residents, tenants and responsible landlords.

What is important, and what we are committed to doing, is ensuring that the use of selective licensing complements and is aligned with the new private rented sector database. There is some important work to do, which we are already engaged in, to refine the way the two systems will work together once they are both in force.

The shadow Minister asked me a reasonable question about the geographical extent of the database. I will come back to him on that specific point, particularly in respect of how it interacts with the rental discrimination provisions in the Bill, given our previous discussions on their application in Wales and Scotland.

[Mr Amos]

Clause 75 deals with the making of the database, and I want to raise the importance of its content. Had I been quicker off the mark and more used to the procedures, there would be an amendment before the Committee that I would speak in favour of, but it is absent—time ran away.

Will the Minister comment on the importance and potential real value of the database, depending on the information that it carries? The Liberal Democrats want to see the Bill include: the accessibility of the property for disabled people; whether enforcement action has been taken against the landlord; the energy performance certificate rating of the property, so that people have some idea of how expensive it will be to heat and live in; and, crucially, the rent that was paid in the first tenancy.

As I said the other day, we firmly believe that market rents are often inaccurately described and arrived at, by virtue of looking at advertisements. I appreciated the points the Minister made the other day in response, but none the less it remains the case. As I also said the other day, we believe that the cost of interest is the bigger driver of landlords’ costs, rather than inflation, and it should be a better proxy for limiting rent increases. Even without that, a database with the actual rents paid could be an enormously powerful tool for both renters and landlords, as well as the market generally. More information makes for a better marketplace and will hopefully improve the lot of landlords and tenants. We particularly wish to see all those features in the register and believe that would enhance the market.

The other day, in relation to whether the Bank of England rate was a relevant proxy for landlords’ costs, the shadow Minister said that the commercial interest paid by landlords was more important, but there is a relationship between the Bank of England base rate and the commercial rates of interest paid. It is the key driver of commercial rates of interest.

My main point is that having on the register the rent, including the level of the last increase in rent, would be a really important and powerful indicator. We wish to press for the details I have outlined to be on the register. If I had been quicker off the mark, there would be an amendment before the Committee.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will say two quick things. I remember probing the previous Minister about this issue during the debate on the previous Government’s Bill, because I thought it was worth teasing out. In general, we did not want to be too prescriptive with what is on the face on the Bill in terms of the frameworks, because we need to strike a balance between the primary legislation and the flexibility for the details of the database to be developed in secondary legislation, so that we can respond to any evolutions in the sector and technology. We do not want to be too prescriptive on the face of the Bill.

In response to the call from the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for particular data to be included on the database, I draw his attention to my previous comments, which I think I made in the third or fourth sitting, about the potential for rents to be included. I am extremely sympathetic to that. Other information could potentially go on the database that might show patterns of behaviour on the part of landlords that would inform tenants’ choices. At a minimum, we want the database to include information about private landlords, the homes they rent out and how those homes are managed. I want debate with hon. Members about what goes on the database, but all the detail, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, will come forward in secondary legislation. At that point, the hon. Gentleman or his colleagues will be able to have a further debate and discussion on those matters.

[Mr Amos]

I am new to the procedures of Parliament, but I understand that some regulations are more easy to debate than others. Is the Minister saying that it will be possible for Liberal Democrat Members to debate the regulations when they come forward?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am making no specific commitment, but such is the significance of the regulations—they will provide all the detail for how the service will work in future—it would not be a cursory debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 73 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 74 to 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)

Renters' Rights Bill (Seventh sitting)

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 5th November 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

The clauses cover financial assistance provided by the Secretary of State to the PRS ombudsman and database, rent repayment orders and the interpretation of part 2.

On clause 95, we intend the private rented sector database and ombudsman to be self-funded through landlords’ registration or membership fees. However, clause 95 gives the Secretary of State the ability to give financial assistance to a person carrying out functions related to the PRS ombudsman or database provisions. Assistance will be granted in the event of an emergency, unforeseen circumstances or to cover enforcement shortfalls in particular circumstances.

Clause 96 concerns rent repayment orders. As members of the Committee will know, an RRO is an order made in the first-tier tribunal requiring a landlord to repay a specified amount of rent, either to the tenant or to the local housing authority, for a range of specified offences. The amount owed under an RRO is enforceable as if it were a debt in the county court. To grant an RRO, it is not necessary for the landlord or agent to have been convicted, but a tribunal must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that one of the offences has been committed. Presently, an RRO can require the repayment of a maximum sum of 12 months’ rent.

Rent repayment orders were introduced by the Housing Act 2004 and extended through section 40 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 to cover a wider range of offences. RROs are an accessible, informal and relatively straightforward means by which tenants can obtain redress in the form of financial compensation, without having to rely on another body in instances where a landlord or his or her agent has committed an offence. For that reason—as you know better than anyone, Mr Betts—they have proved an extremely effective means for tenants and local authorities to hold to account landlords who fail to meet their obligations. RROs empower tenants to take effective action against unscrupulous landlords, but they also act as a powerful deterrent to errant landlords.

The previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill brought a number of continuing or repeat breaches or offences within the purview of rent repayment orders. In our view, it did not go far enough. We made the case at the time—ultimately without success, it must be said —that RROs should be a more significant feature of the Bill. I am therefore pleased that our Renters’ Rights Bill significantly expands rent repayment orders.

At this point, it would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the late Simon Mullings, who unexpectedly died recently while on holiday in Scotland. Spike, as he was known by many, was a real enlarger of life and a real force for good in the sector, helping a great many families in need. His work on RROs, not least in the Rakusen v. Jepsen case, which went to the UK Supreme Court, and the exchanges we had in relation to the Renters (Reform) Bill in the last Parliament heavily influenced our approach to the legislation before us. He is sorely missed, and I thought it was right for me to make special mention of him, given how he has influenced the clauses we are discussing.

Clause 96 makes a series of important measures that strengthen rent repayment orders. First, it expands rent repayment orders to new offences across the Bill, including those in relation to tenancy reform, the ombudsman and the database. That ensures robust tenant-led enforcement of the new measures and supports better compliance with the new system. Secondly, the clause ensures that for all the listed offences, the tribunal must issue the maximum rent repayment order amount where the landlord has been convicted of, or received a financial penalty for, that offence or has committed the same offence previously. The intention is that rent repayment orders will provide an even stronger deterrent against offending and reoffending. Finally, clause 96 makes it easier for tenants and local authorities to apply for rent repayment orders, by doubling the maximum period in which an application can be made from the current 12 months to two years.

Clause 97 explains what activities constitute marketing a property to let and what comprises letting agency work. Landlords, letting agents and other persons will be prohibited from marketing residential properties to let, unless the landlord has registered with the private rented sector database and ombudsman scheme. Renters will benefit from knowing that a landlord has registered with the database, and tenants should be able to seek redress for issues that occur during the pre-letting period. We will retain the flexibility to narrow the definition of letting agency work by regulations in the future, if that is needed.

I commend the clauses to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 95 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 96 and 97 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 98

Decent homes standard

[Mr Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 72, in clause 98, page 117, line 20, at end insert—

“(ia) the availability of which is secured by the Secretary of State under paragraph 9 of Schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016, or sections 4 or 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999;

(ib) that is provided by the Ministry of Defence for use by service personnel; or”.

This amendment would extend the Decent Homes Standard to accommodation provided to people on immigration bail and to that provided by the Ministry of Defence to service personnel.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 24 and 25.

Clause stand part.

Government amendments 26 to 40.

Schedule 4.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Amos]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, particularly as I know your expertise in this policy area. Amendment 72 would apply the proposed decent homes standard both to accommodation for refugees and people seeking asylum, and to accommodation provided by the Ministry of Defence for serving personnel. As I stated on Second Reading, it would be perverse, now that we have a decent homes standard for social housing and this Bill proposes a decent homes standard for the private rented sector, to leave our serving military personnel as one of the only groups not benefiting from decent living accommodation.

In debate on the Renters (Reform) Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), speaking on behalf of our hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), spoke about RAF Shawbury and Tern Hill barracks in north Shropshire, where the service accommodation was plagued by black mould, rat infestations and chronic overcrowding, meaning that individuals who have put their lives on the line for our country are not necessarily guaranteed a warm and safe place to live in return. I agree with the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham:

“That is no way to treat people who have put their lives on the line to serve this country…they deserve better.”—[Official Report, 24 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 1004.]

I am grateful to the Minister for advising the House on Second Reading of this Bill that

“the MOD is reviewing its target standards so that we can drive up the quality of that accommodation separately from the Bill.”—[Official Report, 9 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 412.],

but this is a long-running issue, and no doubt any Government at any time on any day in any month would say that they were “reviewing” the situation. Frankly, that is not going far enough.

Next week, of course, we will be commemorating those who sacrificed everything for our country. It would be appropriate, would it not, for the Government to take the opportunity under this Bill to commit to giving service personnel a decent homes standard for the public buildings in which they live? I have to say that the Government’s current position is a bit disappointing. I hope that the Minister will update that position, the more so because it falls short of the position taken by the previous Conservative Government, which is something of a surprise from where I am on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I hope very much that the Minister will update the position.

As the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner will no doubt remember, the former Minister and then Member for Redcar, Jacob Young, in response to the equivalent amendment proposed to the Renters (Reform) Bill by my hon. Friends, made the commitment on Report that the Conservative Government would

“ensure that service accommodation meets the decent homes standard”.

However, he also said:

“Service…accommodation has unique features…including a significant portion being located on secure military sites where there will be issues around security and access for inspections.”

Therefore, like the Minister today, he recognised the unique challenges. However, he said that with

“the appropriate monitoring and reporting arrangements”,

the Government

“intend to ensure that service accommodation meets the decent homes standard”.—[Official Report, 24 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 1029.]

Can it really be the case that the new Government are backtracking on the commitment of the last Government when it comes to decent homes for our serving military personnel? I certainly hope not.

In earlier sittings, this Minister emphasised that the exact nature of the standard would be subject to consultation, and clause 98(4) makes provision for exactly that consultation. I do not suggest that private rented housing would necessarily have poorer standards than the decent homes standard that applies to social housing. However, it is clear in clause 98 that the Government intend to develop a distinct standard appropriate to the private rented sector. What greater opportunity is there for the clause to ensure that the Government also develop a distinct decent homes standard that would be appropriate for the MOD conditions described earlier?

Finally, there is no doubt that tenants taking refuge here from war or other disasters in their own countries, who are awaiting determination of their asylum applications and many of whom have served our military and British forces in theatres of war such as Afghanistan, should also be in decent homes. Incidentally, the Liberal Democrats believe that asylum seekers should be working for that accommodation, so that they can earn for themselves and pay for it, but that does not take away from the fact that those families should not be in poor accommodation and should have decent homes.

I strongly urge the Minister, and the Committee as a whole, to recognise that the Bill provides a legislative opportunity, one that may not come again in this Parliament, to do right by those who should have decent homes. I urge the Committee to support the amendment and finally bring a long-running campaign to a successful conclusion, such that military accommodation will meet the decent homes standard.

[Matthew Pennycook]

We now move to part 3 of the Bill, concerning the decent homes standard. As members of the Committee will be aware, the private rented sector has the worst conditions of any housing tenure. More than one in five privately rented homes fail to meet the current decent homes standard, which sets a minimum standard for social housing. That equates to around a million homes. We are determined to tackle the blight of poor-quality homes and to ensure that tenants have the safe and decent homes they deserve. To do that, we will apply a decent homes standard to privately rented homes for the first time.

Clause 98 allows regulations to be made setting out the decent homes standard requirements that private rented homes must meet. As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington just mentioned, the Government will be consulting on the content of that standard, and we will set out the details of our proposals in due course. We want as many private rented sector tenants as possible to benefit from the decent homes standard. It will therefore apply to the vast majority of privately rented dwellings and houses in multiple occupation that are let under tenancies, as well as privately rented supported housing occupied both under tenancies and licences.

It is our intention that as much privately rented temporary homelessness accommodation as possible is covered by the decent homes standard too, but we need to avoid reducing the supply of such housing. Clause 98 therefore allows, following a consultation, temporary accommodation to be brought within scope of the standard through regulations. We are committed to engaging with the sector to assess the potential impacts and to ensure that our approach strikes the right balance.

Schedule 4 establishes a robust but proportionate enforcement framework for the decent homes standard. Local councils already have a wide range of powers to take action when properties contain hazards. Schedule 4 will allow those enforcement powers also to be used where private rented homes fail to meet decent homes standard requirements. It also gives councils a new power to issue financial penalties of up to £7,000 where the most dangerous hazards are found, as well as taking other enforcement action. That will provide a strong incentive for landlords to ensure that their properties are safe.

In most instances, the landlord who lets out the property to the tenants will be responsible for ensuring that it meets the decent homes standard. To reflect that, the schedule provides that the landlord will be subject to enforcement by default. However, some circumstances are more complex, such as leasehold properties and where rent-to-rent arrangements are being used. The schedule gives councils the flexibility in such situations to take enforcement action against the appropriate person. The schedule also allows for the fact that there will be legitimate reasons why some properties will not be able to meet all elements of the standard—for example, if a property is a listed building and consent to make alterations has been refused. Local councils will be able to take a pragmatic approach to enforcement in such cases. We will publish statutory guidance to support them in dealing with such issues in a way that is fair for both tenants and landlords.

We have tabled a number of minor Government amendments to ensure that clause 98 and schedule 4 work as intended. It is important that local authorities can take enforcement action against the person responsible for failures to meet quality standards. The amendments will ensure that the appropriate person can always be subject to enforcement action in respect of health and safety hazards in temporary homelessness accommodation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will respond briefly, partly because a number of the issues raised are outside my ministerial responsibility. I commit to replying in writing to the points raised in relation to the responsibilities of the Home Office and the Department for Education, to give the Committee more clarity. Some of those details will come out when we consult. Everyone is assuming that we are talking about the decent homes standard as if it exists—it does not exist. We need to consult on what those specific standards will be and introduce the regulations.

The powers we have given ourselves in the measures will ensure that the standard can be extended to temporary accommodation, and to other types of housing provision where needed. I will happily come back on the point that the hon. Member for Bristol Central raised about the provision of asylum accommodation.

[Mr Amos]

The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner believes that the commitment from the last Government that the decent homes standard will be applied to Ministry of Defence housing still stands, but the Minister says that the decent homes standard will not apply to MOD homes and instead that the MOD has it under review.

[David Simmonds]

The Minister and the previous Government were clear that the decent homes standard has applied to MOD accommodation since 2016, so it is in effect already. That is the evidence the Committee has heard. This debate is therefore not about whether to apply it; it already applies, and has done for some time.

[Mr Amos]

That is not consistent with what Jacob Young said in 2023, as recorded in Hansard, namely that the intention was to extend the decent homes standard to cover Ministry of Defence accommodation. That is the intention of the amendment. That is why I tabled it and why my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire tabled it in the last parliamentary Session. We are hearing that someone in the MOD has it under review. At the moment, that is not a huge reassurance. The whole subject of MOD housing and the need for serving personnel to benefit from it has been omitted.

The Minister mentioned the difficulty of enforcing the decent homes standard because MOD accommodation is behind the wire, but according to him we know that 96% of MOD accommodation would meet the standard. That work has been done, surveys have been carried out and the information is being freely exchanged, so clearly it is not that difficult to inspect the accommodation and understand what standard it meets. All accommodation on MOD bases can be easily accessed with the permission of the officer commanding the base. All sorts of inspections are carried out on MOD bases.

I accept that the Government are supportive of the principle of improving the standard of asylum seeker accommodation, but as with MOD housing, the fact that it is under review is not much of an assurance. I therefore will not withdraw the amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Unless the hon. Gentleman is pressing his amendment simply to make a political point, I ask him gently: what outcomes are we seeking? He wants to bring MOD accommodation up to the decent homes standard. I have made it very clear to him that the MOD has been benchmarking minimum housing standards to the decent homes standard since 2016, and the shadow Minister has made the same point. The MOD inspects its properties. It knows what that standard is. It reports that 96% of its accommodation meets that standard.

The MOD also has a higher standard, the MOD-developed decent homes-plus standard, to which it benchmarks its accommodation. It found that 84.4% of its accommodation meets that standard. So we know that the MOD is already inspecting and monitoring its standards. The MOD has made it very clear under the present Government that it is reviewing how it takes forward those standards and—this is important to the point about outcomes—that in driving up standards in its accommodation, it is seeking an equivalent standard that we will introduce for the private sector through the Bill.

I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that we share the same objective; it is about how that is achieved. I have tried to give him the reassurance that the MOD is not just brushing off the review; it is absolutely committed to driving up standards through its particular route, given some of the challenges it faces. I have a barracks in my constituency, and it is not that easy for local authority enforcement officers to just make an appointment to visit it and inspect. It is for the MOD to take this forward, and it is absolutely committed to doing so. If the hon. Gentleman’s point is simply about how we achieve the same objective, I am very confident that the MOD should be the one to do it through the specific route it has outlined, rather than by bringing military accommodation into the Bill, which could have all manner of unintended consequences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Amos]

Is there a timescale within which the MOD plans to report back on its review of the decent homes standard? Does it apply to certain accommodation or is it an open-ended review?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We have been in office for a little over 120 days, so the hon. Gentleman will forgive us for not publishing information about every action that we are taking. I will make him this offer: I will take his point away to MOD Ministers who we are in conversation with, and if I cannot give him further assurances through written correspondence about the process that the MOD intends to take forward, including in response to his specific point about timelines, he is more than welcome to push the amendment at a later stage. However, at this stage I urge him to accept that we think there are good reasons why this is not the legislative vehicle to take the amendment forward. The objective is shared; from our point of view, this is about the means by which it is most appropriately achieved.

[Mr Amos]

Given the assurance that the Minister has generously given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 24, in clause 98, page 118, line 27, at end insert—

“(ba) a building or part of a building constructed or adapted for use as a house in multiple occupation if—

(i) it is for the time being only occupied by persons who form a single household, and

(ii) the accommodation which those persons occupy is let under a relevant tenancy or is supported exempt accommodation,

except where the accommodation which those persons occupy is social housing and the landlord under the tenancy, or the provider of the supported exempt accommodation, is a registered provider of social housing,”.

This expands the definition of “qualifying residential premises”—and therefore expands the scope of the power in new section 2A inserted by this clause—so as to catch HMO accommodation which is occupied by only one household (and therefore does not count as an HMO because it is not actually in multiple occupation).

Amendment 25, in clause 98, page 118, line 34, after “(b)” insert “, (ba)”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This is consequential on Amendment 24.

Clause 98, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4

Decent homes standard

Amendments made: 26, in schedule 4, page 186, line 4, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—

“(3) After subsection (8) insert—

‘9) But unoccupied HMO accommodation is “qualifying residential premises” for the purposes of this Part only to the extent provided for by section 2B(1)(ba).’”

This is consequential on Amendment 24.

Amendment 27, in schedule 4, page 202, line 5, leave out from second “premises” to “, and” in line 6 and insert “other than—

(i) homelessness accommodation (see paragraph B1), or

(ii) common parts (see paragraph 4)”.

This excludes homelessness accommodation from the scope of the new paragraph A1. Instead it is dealt with by the new paragraph B1 inserted by Amendment 29. (Common parts are already excluded from new paragraph A1.)

Amendment 28, in schedule 4, page 202, line 11, leave out from beginning to second “the” in line 13 and insert—

“(1A) Sub-paragraph (2) applies in relation to the premises if they are—

(a) a dwelling or HMO let under a relevant tenancy,

(b) an HMO where at least one unit of accommodation which forms part of the HMO is let under a relevant tenancy, or

(c) a building or a part of a building constructed or adapted for use as a house in multiple occupation if—

(i) it is for the time being only occupied by persons who form a single household, and

(ii) the accommodation which those persons occupy is let under a relevant tenancy.”

This is consequential on Amendment 24.

Amendment 29, in schedule 4, page 202, line 31, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(4) In this paragraph—

“common parts” means common parts that are qualifying residential premises by virtue of section 2B(1)(d);

“homelessness accommodation” means accommodation in England—

(a) the availability of which is secured under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (homelessness), and

(b) which is residential premises, whether by virtue of paragraph (e) or another paragraph of section 1(4).

Service of improvement notices: homelessness accommodation (whether or not it is qualifying residential premises)

(1) This paragraph applies where the specified premises in the case of an improvement notice are homelessness accommodation (which has the same meaning here as in paragraph A1).

(2) The notice must be served on any person—

(a) who has an estate or interest in the premises, and

(b) who, in the opinion of the local housing authority, ought to take the action specified in the notice.

(3) This paragraph applies instead of paragraph 1, 2 or 3 (in a case where that paragraph would otherwise apply to the improvement notice).”

The definitions are consequential on Amendment 27. The new paragraph B1 provides for the service of all improvement notices relating to homelessness accommodation (and replaces the current provision which only catches notices about requirements under regulations under section 2A).

Amendment 30, in schedule 4, page 203, line 5, leave out “let under a relevant tenancy, or” and insert “a dwelling or HMO let under a relevant tenancy,”.

This is consequential on Amendment 24.

Amendment 31, in schedule 4, page 203, line 8, at end insert “or

(c) are a building or a part of a building constructed or adapted for use as a house in multiple occupation—

(i) that is for the time being only occupied by persons who form a single household, and

(ii) where the accommodation which those persons occupy is let under a relevant tenancy,”.

This is consequential on Amendment 24.

Amendment 32, in schedule 4, page 203, line 12, after “tenancy.” insert—

“(2B) Where—

(a) sub-paragraph (2A) does not apply in relation to the specified premises,

(b) the specified premises consist of or include the whole or any part of a building containing homelessness accommodation, and

(c) the person providing the homelessness accommodation—

(i) is a tenant of that accommodation under a tenancy which has an unexpired term of 3 years or less (the “short tenancy”), and

(ii) accordingly is not an owner in relation to the homelessness accommodation (see section 262(7)(b)),

the authority must also serve copies of the order on any person who, to their knowledge, is a tenant under the short tenancy, a landlord under the short tenancy, or a superior landlord in relation to the short tenancy, and who is not otherwise required to be served with a copy of the notice under this paragraph.

(2C) In sub-paragraph (2B) “homelessness accommodation” means accommodation in England—

(a) the availability of which is secured under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (homelessness), and

(b) which is residential premises, whether by virtue of paragraph (e) or another paragraph of section 1(4).”

This requires copies of a prohibition notice to be given where homelessness accommodation is provided by a person who is a tenant of the accommodation under a lease with an unexpired term of 3 years or less.

Amendment 33, in schedule 4, page 203, line 13, leave out “after “(2)” insert “or (2A)”” and insert “for “sub-paragraph (2)” substitute “this paragraph””.

This is consequential on Amendment 32.

Amendment 34, in schedule 4, page 203, line 28, leave out “let under a relevant tenancy, or” and insert “a dwelling or HMO let under a relevant tenancy,”.

This is consequential on Amendment 24.

Amendment 35, in schedule 4, page 203, line 31, at end insert “or

(c) are a building or a part of a building constructed or adapted for use as a house in multiple occupation—

(i) that is for the time being only occupied by persons who form a single household, and

(ii) where the accommodation which those persons occupy is let under a relevant tenancy,”.

This is consequential on Amendment 24.

Amendment 36, in schedule 4, page 203, line 35, after “tenancy.” insert—

“(2B) Where—

(a) sub-paragraph (2A) does not apply in relation to the specified premises,

(b) the specified premises consist of or include the whole or any part of a building containing homelessness accommodation, and

(c) the person providing the homelessness accommodation—

(i) is a tenant of that accommodation under a tenancy which has an unexpired term of 3 years or less (the “short tenancy”), and

(ii) accordingly is not an owner in relation to the homelessness accommodation (see section 262(7)(b)),

the authority must also serve copies of the order on any person who, to their knowledge, is a tenant under the short tenancy, a landlord under the short tenancy, or a superior landlord in relation to the short tenancy, and who is not otherwise required to be served with a copy of the notice under this paragraph.

(2C) In sub-paragraph (2B) “homelessness accommodation” means accommodation in England—

(a) the availability of which is secured under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (homelessness), and

(b) which is residential premises, whether by virtue of paragraph (e) or another paragraph of section 1(4).”

This requires copies of a prohibition notice to be given where homelessness accommodation is provided by a person who is a tenant of the accommodation under a lease with an unexpired term of 3 years or less.

Amendment 37, in schedule 4, page 203, line 36, leave out “or (2A)” and insert “, (2A) or (2B)”.

This is consequential on Amendment 36.

Amendment 38, in schedule 4, page 203, line 37, leave out “after “(2)” insert “, (2A)”” and insert “for “sub-paragraph (2) or (3)” substitute “this paragraph””.

This is consequential on Amendment 36.

Amendment 39, in schedule 4, page 204, line 4, leave out “let under a relevant tenancy, or” and insert “a dwelling or HMO let under a relevant tenancy,”.

This is consequential on Amendment 24.

Amendment 40, in schedule 4, page 204, line 7, at end insert “or

(iii) are a building or a part of a building constructed or adapted for use as a house in multiple occupation that is for the time being only occupied by persons who form a single household and where the accommodation which those persons occupy is let under a relevant tenancy,”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This is consequential on Amendment 24.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 99

Financial penalties

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider schedule 5.

Renters' Rights Bill (Eighth sitting)

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 5th November 2024 Public Bill Committees

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. We aired the issue of credit worthiness and its impact on prospective tenants’ ability to secure a property during earlier deliberations on the Bill, and the Minister has given detailed responses about how the Government are treating this issue. I welcome the fact that the new clause is a probing one. In my view, it is a sensible question to pose, as is the question about the availability of rental insurance to those who may have a poor credit history when they seek to secure a property and undergo checks as part of the affordability process. I hope the Minister will give us an indication of how the issue will be dealt with, but I am confident that the Government have it in their sights and an appropriate solution is in the offing.

[Mr Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I add the support of the Liberal Democrats for the intent of the new clause. Clearly, tenants should not be penalised for having to move frequently, and we are interested in the Minister’s response on the subject.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central for moving the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), and I thank the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for their contributions.

The Government absolutely agree that unwanted private rental moves are not only stressful but extremely expensive in terms of both the unrecoverable costs associated with moving home and the significant up-front costs of moving into a new property, including tenancy deposits. That is why one of the Bill’s main objectives is to remove the threat of arbitrary evictions and increase tenant security.

Under the new tenancy system a small proportion of tenants will still find themselves evicted through no fault of their own in circumstances where the landlord has good reason to regain possession of the property—for example, if the landlord or a close family member wishes to live in it as their only or principal home. I therefore recognise the worthy intentions behind the new clause—namely, to ensure that tenants’ credit scores are not adversely affected by unwanted moves resulting from the use of such possession grounds.

However, I am not convinced that the new clause, which would require the FCA to issue guidance on how possession orders specifically should be reflected in an individual’s credit score, is necessary, because tenants’ credit scores are not adversely affected by evictions under ground 8 possessions. Credit reference agencies do not receive information about possession orders from the courts, and as a result possession orders are not recorded on people’s credit reports and do not negatively affect their credit scores.

I acknowledge that there is a distinct, but related, issue in respect of the impact on credit scores of changes of address in general, on which it is worth noting two things. First, the methodology that underpins credit scores is not uniform across different credit reference agencies. Experian, TransUnion and Equifax, for example, each have their own distinctive approaches to credit scores, including in how they reflect changes of address. Secondly, almost all lenders review a person’s credit report when assessing an application for credit, and a change of address would still be recorded on those reports.

Whether it is feasible and sensible to seek to have the FCA attempt to ensure that credit reference agencies treat moves resulting from the use of certain possession grounds set out in schedule 1 differently from changes of address more generally is an entirely valid question, albeit one somewhat distinct from that posed by the specific wording of the new clause. As things stand, I am not entirely convinced that it would be, but I will happily seek to ensure that Treasury Ministers engage directly with the FCA on this matter, including on the review cited by the hon. Member for Bristol Central. However, for the reasons I have stated, I will not be able to accept the new clause and ask the hon. Lady to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

I suspect that we rehearsed this debate earlier, when the Minister gently rebuffed the point and commended me for trying to secure a degree of impact assessment in advance of the implementation of the measures in the Bill. These new clauses are designed to increase the degree of scrutiny on the Government, in respect of both the Bill’s potential impact in advance, where we are able to consult on that, and its impact on the housing market, on which new clause 2 would require an annual report. A lot of the debates in the Committee’s evidence sessions revolved around the impact on supply of various of the Bill’s measures. We know that those are valid and legitimate concerns, and I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response to the new clauses.

[Mr Amos]

rose—

[The Chair]

I call the Minister.

[Mr Amos]

I would like to speak.

[The Chair]

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, and he is quite entitled to, he must get to his feet before I call the Minister. The procedure is that the Minister is called last after he has heard what everybody else has to say.

[Mr Amos]

I did bob, Sir Roger.

[The Chair]

No problem—it is all right; we are all getting used to it.

[Mr Amos]

I will bob more enthusiastically in future, Sir Roger.

I rise to speak to new clause 7, which is in my name and concerns the proliferation of short-term lets, holiday lets, Airbnbs and the like. In June 2023 there were 432,000 short-term rental properties in the UK, a steady increase from the pre-pandemic levels. Growth is particularly significant in regions such as mine. The south-west has the highest volume of listings, with 81,000 properties, while the east midlands saw a 49% rise. The increase is concentrated in holiday locations—the south-west, Cornwall and the Lake district. In Cornwall, more than one in 10 addresses are used as holiday homes, according to the Office for National Statistics.

The Liberal Democrat policy would be to license the system. We would like to see holiday lets controlled in a similar way to other rental properties. A licensing system that aligns short-term lets with the requirements of longer-term properties would address disparities in regulation. The danger that we face today is in regulating the private rented sector but not moving forward on the regulation of short-term lets. That would create disparity and could lead to the leeching of more homes into the Airbnb, short-term let sector.

We also want to see the creation of a new planning use class for short-term and holiday lets. I am aware that most recently, in February, although it has repeatedly come up, the then Government stated that planning permission would be required for short-term lets—that is lets of more than 90 nights per year—and that a mandatory national register would be created. We are waiting for that, and we are interested to know what the new Government will do in that policy area.

Landlord groups such as the National Residential Landlords Association and Dexters letting agency have argued that the Bill risks pushing landlords out of the sector and into short-term holiday lets. The NRLA estimates a 1% to 2% drop in rental stock. There is agreement on the topic across the sector, and there is a plausible worry that without any additional controls there will be a leeching of stock into more short-term holiday lets. For locations that particularly suffer from that phenomenon, the consequences could be the closure of businesses and services locally. New clause 7 would put into the Bill a requirement for a review of the legislation’s impact on the provision of short-term lets, so that the issue can be controlled.

[The Chair]

Just so that the Committee understands the procedure, because the new clauses are grouped, new clause 7 will not be moved now, but if the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington wishes to move it when we come to it, then he may do so without further debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Amos]

Will the Minister comment on whether, and how soon, the Government are likely to introduce a use class, which the previous Government committed to?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will come to the specific proposals under consideration for short-term lets and holiday lets. The use class was consulted on as one of a number of measures that the previous Government introduced. I will touch on that specific point shortly.

I will preface this with a point that I think all Committee members appreciate. The Government are very alive to the fact that there are many parts of the country—coastal, rural and some urban constituencies—where excessive concentrations of short-term lets and holiday homes are having detrimental impacts, not least on the ability of local people to buy their own homes or, in many cases now, rent their own homes. I have stated this on many occasions in the House since being appointed, but I will say it again: that is the reason why we will progress with abolishing the furnished holiday lets tax regime, and with the introduction of a registration scheme for short-term lets. That will give local authorities access to valuable data on them.

Those measures were committed to by the previous Government, and we will take them forward. However, as I said a number of times in the previous Parliament, we do not think they go far enough and we are considering what additional powers we might give to local authorities to enable them to better respond to the pressures they face as a result of the excessive concentrations of short-term lets and holiday homes. I hope to say more on that in due course.

In respect of this Bill, we are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the impact of our reform programme in line with the Government’s evaluation strategy. However, setting an arbitrary deadline in law for this work is unnecessary and may detract from our efforts in that regard. On that basis, I encourage Members not to press their new clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

New clause 6 has been debated and there is no requirement to call it for a decision, unless a Committee member wishes to move it—Mr Amos?

[Mr Amos]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. In view of the Minister saying that the matter is beyond doubt, I am happy to withdraw the clause.

[The Chair]

Technically, the hon. Gentleman cannot withdraw the clause because it has not been moved, but his words are a matter of record.

New Clause 8

Guarantor to have no further liability following death of tenant

“(1) Subject to subsection (3), a guarantee agreement relating to a relevant tenancy ceases to have effect upon the death of a relevant tenant.

(2) Upon the death of a relevant tenant the guarantor in respect of a relevant tenancy shall incur no further liability in relation to matters arising under the tenancy.

(3) Nothing in this section shall affect the liability of a guarantor in relation to matters which arose before the date of the death of the relevant tenant.

(4) In assessing any liability under subsection (3), account shall be taken of any tenancy deposit paid in respect of the tenancy.

(5) Where there is more than one relevant tenant, this section shall apply only upon the death of both or all of the tenants.

(6) In this section—

a ‘guarantor’ is a person who enters into a guarantee agreement in relation to a relevant tenancy;

a ‘guarantee agreement’ is a contractual promise (whether incorporated in or separate from the tenancy agreement) to indemnify or compensate a relevant person in respect of an obligation under the tenancy if the tenant fails to perform or comply with the obligation;

a ‘relevant tenancy’ has the same meaning as in section 36, and ‘relevant tenant’ is to be interpreted accordingly; and

‘tenancy deposit’ has the same meaning as in section 212(8) of the Housing Act 2004.”—(Claire Hazelgrove.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his constructive work with the Liberal Democrats and other parties in Committee.

For a generation cut off from the dream of home ownership who find that, after half a century of flogging off social houses and council houses—over 1.5 million have been lost since 1980—there are now basically none left, it is vital that we restore hope to millions who aspire to a decent home. As such, the Liberal Democrats support the key principle of this Bill, which is to bring an end to no-fault evictions. After the continual stop-start of the previous Government, giving tenants the security they deserve is long overdue. It is time to end once and for all the fear that any complaint from any tenant could be met with an instant eviction notice at any moment.

Of course, landlords do not generally act in such a cavalier fashion; most are good landlords, and we value them and what they bring to the market. As such, to sustain a healthy private rented sector, we have tabled amendment 10, which would extend to off-street student rental landlords the same possession laws that apply to purpose-built student accommodation. Given that fully 31% of properties on the Accommodation for Students website are one or two-bedroom properties rather than houses in multiple occupancy, as Unipol and the Higher Education Policy Institute have pointed out, that is a big chunk of the market, and one that needs to be addressed.

The need for more homes is why we have tabled amendment 2, which would particularly incentivise more build-to-rent accommodation. In Taunton and Wellington, our Lib Dem council has supported the delivery of tens of thousands of new homes; our population increased by 10% up to 2021. Our manifesto called for 150,000 social homes per year—I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding my experience as a social landlord. We clearly set out the borrowing of £6 billion per year that would make that happen, unlike the Labour and Conservative manifestos, which included no numbers whatsoever for social housing.

We need a lot of that build-to-rent accommodation also to be rent to own, so renters can accrue ownership of their own home. It is time to give a whole generation of young people who have been excluded that elusive first step on the housing ladder. Amendment 2 would therefore give a developer of build-to-rent housing the security of a fixed term of 24 months for the first tenancy. Since that was tabled, I have heard from the British Property Federation and others, and they have suggested that an initial fixed term of six months would enable them to secure the investment they need to build more and to get building. That would not undermine the general principle of moving to periodic tenancies, as build to rent is only 0.1% of the housing stock. We will not press amendment 2, but I genuinely urge the Government to take up the idea, run with it and generate more investment in new homes.

Let me turn to the interests of tenants, which have been so overlooked for so long. My constituent and friend Mike Godleman, who was disabled, died while recovering from major surgery and under the threat of a no-fault eviction notice, for no reason he could possibly work out. In part in his memory, our new clause 23 would ensure that landlords of both private and social tenancies must give permission for home adaptations when a home assessment has been carried out. If rental bidding is to be outlawed, as the Minister said, it must not be replaced by bidding up rent in advance, so our new clause 1 would limit rent in advance to two months’ rent. In that respect, I welcome Government new clause 13.

In-tenancy rent increases also need to be limited to protect tenants from exorbitant increases. The most sensible way to do this is set out in our amendment 1, which would peg increases to the Bank of England base rate. Property is a financial and investment asset, and landlords’ costs are more directly influenced by mortgage rates rather than by the general inflation and the cost of living. New clause 22, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), would require landlords to pay for alternative accommodation when dwellings are unfit for human habitation.

Turning to the amendments proposed by other hon. Members, we support the proposed new clause 10 in the name of the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), which will prevent the guarantor from being liable on the death of a tenant, and we recognise that the Government have tabled new clause 15 to limit that liability, rather than end it altogether. We also support amendment 7 on the content that must be submitted for inclusion in the database. The database could be a very powerful instrument for tenants if it provides information, as I spoke about at some length in Committee. We also support new clause 6, which would give care leavers support through funding for a deposit when they move out of care. Both those amendments are in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker).

One of the biggest concerns to landlords, tenants and local communities in Taunton and Wellington, as it is in Cornwall, the lakes and other places, is that there is no control over the number of homes being turned into holiday lets and Airbnbs. This has prompted a significant increase to about 3,000 holiday homes in Somerset—a 33% increase in short-term rentals in the south-west since 2019. Visitors of course bring welcome investment, but in some areas second homes are pricing locals out of local markets.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is talking about second homes, which can particularly affect rural communities. Schedule 1 provides mandatory grounds to recover possession in order to house an agricultural worker, but does he agree that the definition of “agricultural worker” is limited and does not reflect rural workers—for example, those who work in the horse training industry in the village of Lambourn in my constituency, where local housing is key to that industry given the nature and the hours of the work of stable staff?

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That definition needs to cover the breadth of agricultural workers, and I am sure the Minister has heard his point.

Liberal Democrats have long argued for a licensing system and tougher planning controls for second homes, with a new use class to cover second homes and short-term lets. Both this and previous Governments have said that they would create a new use class, so I urge the Minister to say in today’s debate whether that will really happen. Without controls, there is a serious risk of second homes proliferating if landlords do not wish to be part of a more regulated private rented sector following the enactment of this Bill. Our new clause 2 would therefore require the Government to assess properly the growth in short-term lets, and I urge the Minister to do so. In fact, I am not sure why anyone would oppose that amendment.

Finally, our amendment 3 would apply the Bill’s proposed decent homes standard to military service family accommodation. I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time to write to me on this, but the argument that a standard would not be suitable for service family accommodation does not stand up, because clause 98 allows the Secretary of State to establish whatever version of the decent homes standard they feel is appropriate. I do not think anyone across the House would understand why that should be different for service families. We will no doubt hear the Ministry of Defence say that 90% or more of service family accommodation already meets the decent homes standard so it is all okay, but in that case, why not make that claim evident by subjecting that accommodation to the decent homes standard in the Bill?

To say that the recently published “Service Accommodation” report from the Defence Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), says something different from the official reports would be a massive understatement. The Select Committee reported evidence from one service family, who said:

“It is impossible to challenge the ‘Decent Homes Standard’ without paying for a survey yourself. It is widely accepted that each house has not been checked but either guessed or it is assumed that the standard of one house is the same as all in one area.”

I therefore ask how sure we can be of the self-declared statistics from the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, or were they from Annington homes? As another witness before the Select Committee said:

“It is disingenuous for DIO to present glossy brochures about being ‘decent homes plus’ when they are anything but”

and

“it is clear that the DIO’s property frequently does not meet the standards.”

Crucially, the witness added:

“Moreover, there is no local authority”—

or anyone else—

“to hold them to account as would be the case for private and other local landlords.”

That is exactly what amendment 3 would provide.

In the Kerslake report, commissioned before the election by the now Secretary of State for Defence—a former Housing Minister—reports of damp, mould and, in other service accommodation, rat infestations abound. If all the witnesses and all these reports are wrong and the official figures are right, showing that over 90% of properties meet the decent homes standard, there is nothing for the MOD to fear in subjecting service accommodation to that assessment, just as social and private landlords will have to do under the Bill. The hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) got even the previous Government to come round to the idea, and the then Minister, the former Member for Redcar, said in this Chamber on 24 April last year that the Government:

“intend to ensure that service accommodation meets the decent homes standard”.—[Official Report, 24 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 1029.]

Service families such as those of 40 Commando Royal Marines, part of our Taunton and Wellington family community, make massive sacrifices for our country, and sometimes make the ultimate sacrifice. They deserve decent homes, and the MOD should be required to meet the standard, just as the Government are requiring that of other landlords. I am grateful to see support for amendment 3 from across the House. We will be voting for it this evening to support our service families, and I urge Members across the House to vote for it, too.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me begin by thanking all hon. Members for their contributions. It has been a thoughtful and good-natured debate, and while there are many genuine points of difference and emphasis, there is a consensus across the House that reform of the private rented sector is long overdue and must be taken forward.

In the time I have available to me, I will respond to a number of the amendments and key arguments. In his contribution, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), suggested that Government new clauses 13 and 14 risk locking out of the rental market those renters who are on the financial margins and fettering landlords and tenants coming to fair agreements on tenancies in the assured regime that we are introducing. I gently say to him that he seriously downplays the imbalance between landlords and tenants, and the fact that requiring multiple months of rent from a tenant in advance when agreeing a tenancy is unfair, places considerable strain on tenants and can exclude some people and families from renting altogether.

Landlords will continue to be able to take a holding deposit of up to one week, a tenancy deposit of five or six weeks’ rent and up to one month’s rent in advance before a tenancy has begun. They will also be free to undertake the necessary referencing and affordability checks to give them confidence that a tenancy is sustainable for all parties. If and when they are not satisfied by the outcomes of pre-tenancy checks, options are available to tenants and landlords to ensure that rent in advance need not be used—requesting a guarantor or engaging in landlord insurance, for example. I hope that provides the shadow Minister with a degree of reassurance on that point.

The shadow Minister tabled a number of amendments—several of which we debated in detail in Committee. With regard to amendments 57, 58 and 60, I restate the argument that I made in Committee: fixed terms mean that tenants are locked into tenancy agreements without the freedom to move should their personal circumstances change, and compel tenants to pay rent regardless of whether a property is fit to live in, reducing the incentive for unscrupulous landlords to complete repairs. For that reason, the Government remain firmly of the view that there is no place whatsoever for fixed terms of any kind in the new tenancy regime that the Bill introduces.

A number of hon. Members referred to problems with short-term lets. The Government are cognisant of the impact that excessive concentrations of short-term lets can have on the affordability and availability of local housing and the sustainability of local communities. We are committed to monitoring that issue and, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), knows, we are exploring what further powers local authorities need to bear down on it. However, putting an arbitrary deadline in law, as new clause 2 would do, is not the way to proceed.

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful to the Minister for his response on that issue. Will he comment on the question of a use class order for second homes?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to engage in an entirely different debate. I am more than happy to update him, at the appropriate time, with all the measures that the Government will take forward in response to that issue. He can be assured, however, that we are giving it serious attention, and this will not be a case of the Government kicking something into the long grass.

The Government are clear that we will not delay on giving renters the long-term security, rights and protections that they deserve by making the necessary and long-overdue transformation of the sector, contingent on a broad and undefined assessment of the possession process, as new clause 19 and amendment 56 propose. The shadow Minister knows that I fully agree with him that court readiness is essential to the successful operation of the new system. That is why my officials and I are working closely with the Minister for Courts and Legal Services and her team to ensure that the Courts and Tribunals Service is ready when the new tenancy system is brought into force.

The shadow Minister also pressed the Government to place in the Bill a legal requirement to publish an annual review of its impact on the availability of homes. He will know that the Government have published a green-rated impact assessment. We will, of course, closely monitor the impact of the Bill on the housing market, but setting an arbitrary deadline in law for doing so would, we believe, detract from that work. Although I do not begrudge him for tabling new clause 20 to make that point, he will know that no Government could accept such an amendment.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, and several Members of his party raised the issue of military accommodation and tabled amendment 3. There is no dispute about that amendment’s objective—namely to ensure that all service accommodation equals or exceeds the decent homes standard. The Government have made that commitment. Where we do disagree is on whether the approach that we are taking in the Bill is appropriate for the unique circumstances surrounding Ministry of Defence accommodation. We do not believe that it is, for various reasons that we discussed at length in Committee, including the problems that local authorities have in inspecting accommodation that is behind the wire on sensitive MOD bases.

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Ministry of Defence is committed to reviewing its decent homes-plus standard for accommodation, with the aim of improving the standard of SFA across the estate, where it needs improvement, as part of its long-term strategy for service accommodation. That review will be informed by my Department’s work on housing standards, including our review of the content of the DHS, which Ministers in the Ministry of Defence are committed to aligning with. The Ministry of Defence will provide further information on the review of its target early in 2025.

[Gideon Amos]

The Minister is generous in giving way. On the question of accommodation behind the wire, to clarify, amendment 3 deals with service family accommodation. Service family accommodation is generally not behind the wire; it is on the street, where councils can access it.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for presenting the Government’s position on the Lords amendments, as indeed he presented their position on the 92 amendments we tabled in Committee. I only regret that, in doing so, he rejected all 92 of them. I was going to congratulate the Secretary of State on his new position, but he has escaped just in time. I will come to our amendments—the other place took a different view on some of them—but I will first declare my interest in a registered provider of social housing.

A generation have been cut off from the dream of home ownership. After half a century of flogging off council houses—over 4.5 million have been sold off since 1980 by successive Conservative Governments—there are now, in effect, none left for the thousands of families who now need them. That is why the Liberal Democrats have a vision to restore hope to millions who aspire to a decent home by building our target of 150,000 social and council rent homes per year, backed up with a commitment of an extra £6 billion on top of the affordable housing programme budget, funded by fairly reforming capital gains tax so that more people benefit from relief but those who make bigger gains pay more. Alongside that, the Liberal Democrats want a new generation of rent-to-own homes so that people can get on to the ownership ladder. It is the biggest and most ambitious programme since council housing was invented by Lloyd George and Addison back at the beginning of the 20th century.

We have also long campaigned for an end to no-fault evictions and for longer and more stable tenancies for tenants. The Government have put both those key measures in the Bill, and that is why we support it and want to see it enacted. Tenants have lived for far too long with insecurity and the fear that, if they speak up, they might lose their home.

Some of the Lords amendments before us would improve the Bill, while others would weaken it. Lords amendment 11 would require tenants to pay pet deposits, which would pile on new financial burdens, putting the right to own pets out of reach for those already struggling. It is not in the spirit of the Bill, so we cannot support it.

Similarly, Lords amendment 18 would cut the prohibition on re-letting unsold properties from 12 months to six. That might sound like a neat compromise, but in practice it would give cover to any rogue landlord looking for an excuse to evict. A six-month ban would be far too short to give tenants the protection from abuse that they deserve. Lords amendment 26 seeks to raise the bar for enforcement by moving the burden of proof from civil to criminal.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

In Torbay, we have almost 50% more people who rent in the private sector than the national average. While the vast majority of landlords are good landlords, sadly there are some rotten apples out there. Pushing against Lords amendment 26 is essential, because we need to ensure that local authorities have the powers to hold these landlords to account. I hope my hon. Friend agrees.

[Gideon Amos]

I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to the sterling work he does in Torbay, and has done in the past as leader of the council, on these issues.

That change in the burden of proof may sound technical, but in fact it would gut the powers of local authorities to hold bad landlords to account, as my hon. Friend has just said. At a stroke, it would make justice for tenants far harder to achieve.

Lords amendment 53 points in the same wrong direction. It seeks to introduce fixed-term tenancies, but the whole point of the Bill is to shift to periodic tenancies—arrangements that give renters both flexibility and more security. Dragging us back to fixed terms, which would become standard across that particular element of student housing, would undermine those core principles.

On the other hand, there are amendments that make the Bill fairer and more workable, which we support. Lords amendment 19 recognises the reality faced by shared ownership leaseholders, who can be can be, and are, hit disproportionately hard when sales fall through, through no fault of their own. Without that exemption, they could face financial ruin. This is a simple matter of justice and we support it.

Lords amendment 64, which would create a new possession ground where a landlord needs to house a carer, is in keeping with the Liberal Democrats’ belief in the importance of supporting the millions of carers out there who are so often overlooked. It is right that the law should recognise the vital role they play, and if there are risks of abuse, it is open to the Government to table their own amendments to set out how they would make the same provision for accommodation needed by carers.

Lords amendment 39, which would legislate for a decent home standard for our military, goes to the heart of who we are as a society and our obligations to those who serve. I pushed for this amendment at earlier stages in the Commons, and indeed this has long been the Liberal Democrats’ position, having been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) in the previous Parliament. It is therefore disappointing that, while the Government have come forward with their own amendments on other matters, they have not come up with any such amendments on decent homes for our military, although that has been agreed across the parties in the other place.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Ministry of Defence itself says that the MOD housing standard is already higher than the decent homes standard, the Government should do the decent thing and accept Lords amendment 39 and put it on the face of the Bill?

[Gideon Amos]

Indeed, our military deserve no less than this being on the face of the Bill, in whichever way the Government wish to do it. If it is so easy and, as my hon. Friend points out, it is the Government’s position, surely it can hold no fear for them.

It would be disappointing not to have those amendments. We are told that 90% of service accommodation meets the decent homes standard—my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) had clearly already read this part of my speech—but those figures come from contractors who are responsible for managing those properties and have an interest in saying that they already meet the standards. There is no independent assessment.

The Defence Committee painted a very different picture, when families reported to it. The Committee stated:

“It is disingenuous for DIO to present glossy brochures about being ‘decent homes plus’ when they are anything but. It is clear that the DIO’s property frequently does not meet the standards.”

Crucially, it added:

“Moreover, there is no local authority”—

or anyone else—

“to hold them to account as would be the case for private and other local landlords.”

We are also told that it would be impractical to extend the decent homes standard to military housing because of access “behind the wire”, yet former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Stirrup, reminded colleagues in the other place that civilian officials already go into far more sensitive areas of military bases, so that is not a serious objection.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Do those on the Lib Dem Benches have any concerns about one of the issues that I raised: applying the decent homes standard to the defence estate in England when a different standard will apply to Scotland and Wales—to other parts of the United Kingdom? Fracturing the defence estate in that way is problematic.

[Gideon Amos]

Any opportunity to give our service people decent homes, beginning with England, should be taken. I am surprised that the Minister has not grasped it with both hands. The Minister and the Government are in the position, with a large majority, to legislate for this in whichever way they choose, but it needs to be on the face of the legislation. That is what our military deserve. Warm words about things improving are not enough; we have heard them before. My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire gained a categoric assurance from the last Government’s Housing Minister at the Dispatch Box that that Government would legislate. They did not.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman says nothing has changed, yet again, but does he not welcome—as I do, as a constituency MP with a significant amount of military housing around RAF Northolt—the significant £1 billion-plus investment into military housing and the insourcing back into public ownership of thousands of MOD homes, after the previous Government’s botched privatisation deal, which cost taxpayers huge amounts of public money?

[Gideon Amos]

I welcome the moves to which the hon. Gentleman refers, including the insourcing, but the responsibility for determining whether the homes meet the “decent homes plus” standard is down to contractors, who have a commercial interest in reporting that. The difference with the decent homes standard generally is that it is subject to independent inspection. That is a crucial difference. Surely there should be a robust and accountable regime set out in primary legislation to ensure that that investment continues and those standards are reached. That is the least that our service people should be able to expect.

As I was saying, my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire was given categoric assurances that the Government would legislate in this regard, but they did not and neither have this Government. Lord Stirrup, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, reminded the Lords, speaking from experience, that this is not a new problem but one that Governments had failed to tackle for decades. He said:

“For decades now, I have seen at close hand the deficiencies in service families’ accommodation…For years, I have listened to successive Governments undertake to get to grips with the issue. For decades, I have seen them fail to do so…So why should I, or anybody who comes after me, put any faith in any Government’s promises that are not backed up by enforceable measures?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 2025; Vol. 847, c. 1759.]

That is the nub of the issue. Service families have heard promises for decades. Now, surely, is the time for action. Our military deserve the gold standard, and that means they deserve legislative provision for decent homes, however the Government wish to do it.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I urge the hon. Gentleman to engage with the clear concession I made from the Dispatch Box: the confirmation that the Ministry of Defence will lay before Parliament—and publish on gov.uk—an annual report on the standard of service family accommodation in the UK, giving transparency, accountability, and reassurance that the standards we all want to see improve and be met will be.

[Gideon Amos]

I welcome any report that will deal with this issue, but the fact is that unless the Government accept an amendment or table their own amendment to provide this protection for service families in primary legislation, our service people will be the only category of renters who are not guaranteed the decent homes standard in primary legislation. Private renters will be, social renters will be, but our military service families will not be. That cannot be right. The balance is wrong and the Government need to do more; they need to legislate.

The Government’s final objection is that they want to do it differently. So be it. I will wait with bated breath, as I am sure the whole House will, for the Government’s amendment giving servicemen and servicewomen the gold standard they deserve. Since the Government have tabled no amendment of their own, however, we shall continue to press ours, both here and in the other place. Our armed forces should not be the only group in Britain excluded from the right to a decent home in legislative terms. That is what Lords amendment 39 delivers, and it must stand part of the Bill.

This Bill is about a vision for better homes and for dignity, security and fairness for renters. That must include the families of our armed forces, such as those of the 40 Commando Royal Marines in Norton Fitzwarren and elsewhere in Taunton. I was proud to start a petition to save Norton Manor camp following its proposed closure by the previous Conservative Government. That commitment must sit alongside our national mission to build more social and council homes—150,000 per year—to restore hope for a whole generation. That is what Liberal Democrats are fighting for, and that is the change the country desperately needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

With the leave of the House, I will close what has been a brief but good-natured and considered debate. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. In opening the debate, I set out in some detail the reasons the Government are resisting the bulk of the amendments made in the other place, but in the time remaining, I will further substantiate some of the Government’s arguments and respond to a number of the issues that have been raised in the debate.

Several hon. Members questioned the Government’s logic in resisting Lords amendment 75 related to ground 4A. They argued that it is too narrow. As I made clear, ground 4A exists precisely because we recognise the unique nature of the rental market. We think that the ground as it exists covers the majority of the market, but the truth is that no one-size-fits-all solution covers all circumstances. We have been clear: we do not want to deny to non-typical students the benefits of the new tenancy system under the Bill. Removing the restriction could lead to students who need more security of tenure, such as single parents living with children or postgraduate couples living together who have put down roots in an area being evicted more regularly. The possession ground as originally drafted strikes the right balance and we will resist the amendment on that basis.

Several hon. Members raised the issue of pet insurance and questioned why the Government have changed their position. Debate in the other place was extensive. Furthermore, alongside that, drawing on the expertise of peers such as the Earl of Kinnoull, Lord de Clifford and Lord Trees, the Government consulted the Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers’ Association. Following such engagement, we concluded that we are no longer confident—as we once were, and as the previous Government were—that the insurance and underwriting sector will have sufficient or suitable products available at the scale and speed required for either landlords or tenants to purchase.

We do not want to leave tenants in a position where they cannot comply with conditions set out as part of the pet consent granted by their landlord, as that would mean—as several hon. Members have made clear—that they simply would not be able to have a pet, which would defeat the object of having the pet provisions in the Bill. The Government’s position, I am pleased to say, is supported by Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and other organisations. I hope that hon. Members note that.

A report produced by the University of Huddersfield, which was commissioned by Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, found that 76% of landlords reported that they did not encounter any damage caused by dogs or cats in their rental properties. When damage was caused by pets, that was an average additional cost 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 longer and more stable tenancies.

In the rare cases where the insurance and deposit do not cover the cost of the damage caused by a pet, a landlord could take the tenant to a small claims court by bringing a money claim to recoup any outstanding funds. On that basis, and having reflected, we are satisfied that the existing requirement for five weeks’ deposit for typical tenancies is sufficient to cover the risk of increased damage by pet ownership. As I noted in my opening speech, however, the Government will continue to keep that under review. We already have powers available to allow for higher deposits for pets if needed.

The very topical and pertinent issue of shared owners affected by the building safety crisis was raised by a number of Members. The Government are absolutely clear: we recognise their plight. As I made clear, we have already taken a number of measures to better support shared owners in that position. We recognise more can be done outside this Bill. We are more than happy to continue conversations with peers, hon. Members and organisations such as the Shared Owners’ Network about what more we can do in this space on issues such as valuations, sub-letting requests and repurchases.

We remain of the view, however, that the amendment in question could undermine protections for that cohort of tenants who happen to rent a sub-let home from a shared owner. Carefully considering arguments made by the peers and their validity, we will have further conversations. I will carry on those conversations to ensure that we are satisfied whether a solution that does not undermine the core principles of the Bill would allow us to provide that greater support to shared owners.

Carers and the carers ground were raised by a number of hon. Members. We have all recognised the contribution that carers make, but we believe that not only is there not sufficient evidence that the scenario in question is extensive—that it is common—but that there are real risks of the ground being abused. The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), mentioned the example of families across the country who own properties and who may wish to move a family member back in as a carer. I gently point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, if the carer is a family member as set out in ground 1, a landlord can already use that ground to gain possession, enabling them to accommodate a carer. We think that Lords amendment 64 is drawn too widely and is open to abuse. We will resist it on that basis.

Finally, I come to the last couple of issues that were raised. Several hon. Members made a powerful case for not accepting Lords amendments 26 and 27, related to the criminal standard of proof. We are absolutely clear that the civil—not criminal—standard of proof is the appropriate one. The standard of proof is lower for the breaches in question—breaches of the rental discrimination and rental bidding clauses in the Bill—precisely because they are purely civil, rather than criminal matters. Raising that standard of proof to align with other criminal offences would logically result in repeated instances of those breaches on rental discrimination and rental bidding, attracting the higher fine of £40,000, rather than £7,000. I do not understand the logic of the Opposition’s position, but we very much think that those breaches should remain subject to the civil standard of proof, with the penalty of £7,000 and without the impact on local authorities across the country.

I will briefly address the arguments made by Liberal Democrat Members about service family accommodation. We have had extensive debates about the subject and I know that they are coming from an honourable place when they make those arguments, but I gently point out that the Ministry of Defence has made it clear that in its view, subjecting secure defence sites to local authority inspections, as proposed in the amendment tabled by Baroness Grender, is unworkable because of access and security arrangements. As several hon. Members have said, let us find a solution to that. The MOD does not think there is a workable solution and is worried about fracturing how standards are applied across the defence estate, as this legislation applies only to England. As I have said, in the coming months, the Government will bring forward a defence housing strategy, setting out clear renewal standards and further steps to improve accommodation. I have offered a very clear concession from the Dispatch Box that we will provide for annual reporting to give the transparency and accountability that those standards will be met.

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his engagement in the issue of service family accommodation. Will he consider bringing forward primary legislation, on the face of this Bill or another Bill, so that service families are given the same legislative protection that private and social tenants are given?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am more than happy to continue the conversation with the hon. Gentleman and with Liberal Democrat peers in the other place, but our argument today is that we cannot accept the amendment tabled by Baroness Grender. We think that the concessions that I have offered today from the Dispatch Box should be sufficient to satisfy the concerns that have been raised.

I will briefly address the incredibly important issue of implementation, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance). This Bill must receive Royal Assent as soon as possible. The time that it has taken for the legislation to make its progress through the House is not cost-free. Families across the country have been subject to no-fault section 21 evictions, which we know are a leading cause of homelessness, and renters across the country need the Bill on the statute book.

Following Royal Assent, we will allow for a smooth transition to the new system, and we will support tenants, landlords and agents to understand and adjust to the new rules. We want to make that change as smoothly and efficiently as possible, and to introduce the new tenancies 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 the date will be governed by the new rules. We will work closely with all parts of the sector to ensure a smooth transition and we will provide sufficient notice ahead of implementation.

To conclude, this Labour Government are going to succeed where their Conservative predecessor failed. We will level decisively the playing field between landlord and tenant, and transform the experience of private renting in England. While we have shown ourselves more than willing to make sensible changes to the Bill in response to concerns raised, we are not prepared to accept amendments that undermine its core principles. I look forward to continuing the constructive conversations that I have had with peers over recent weeks, with a view to securing agreements across both Houses in the near future, and I commend the Government’s position to the House.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 11.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I look forward to Parliament finally passing legislation that will bring long-overdue protections to tenants. We do not believe, like the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), that tenants’ rights are “all well and good”. They are not all well and good. No-fault evictions are not all well and good, and the previous Government’s failure to outlaw them is unacceptable. It is a good thing that this legislation will finally change that.

The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for—and stood on a manifesto that included—ending no-fault evictions of tenants, longer and more stable tenancies, a register of landlords, and decent homes for our forces families. Thanks to the Government agreeing to our proposals, all those things are to become law through the Bill and in MOD service accommodation. For too long, renters across the board have had a bad deal. It is time to redress the balance after years of Conservative government failing to deliver both on no fault evictions and on decent homes for our military families.

I warmly welcome Government amendment 39, which will make service family accommodation subject to the decent homes standard. I am glad that Ministers have listened to the calls from the Liberal Democrats and service families. I thank the Minister for doing the hard yards pragmatically in his negotiations on the Bill, and I pay tribute to my noble Friends Baroness Grender and Baroness Thornhill for their work to secure those important changes. The state of housing that service families have had to endure is a disgrace. The Defence Committee heard of dire conditions, with pest infestations, black mould, damp, flooding and unreliable heating and hot water in winter. I have heard similar stories and seen the photographs from constituent service families who were forced to live in damp and mouldy accommodation declared unfit for human habitation. Our soldiers, sailors, air force personnel and Royal Marines—such as those who serve in 40 Commando at Norton Manor Camp in my constituency, the Conservative closure of which I began campaigning against in 2017—sacrifice so much for our country. The very least that they deserve is a decent home for them and their family.

This is not an isolated issue. Research we obtained earlier this year found that, on Victory in Europe Day alone, more than 400 service families were forced to apply for emergency repairs. While the country celebrated our veterans, too many forces families were struggling with housing that falls far short of the standards that we rightly expect elsewhere. Their new decent home standard—which comes a year after my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) tried and failed to get the Conservative Government to deliver it, and 18 years after Sir Menzies Campbell began the Liberal Democrat campaign for decent homes for our military—is a matter of fairness, as I hope the House will agree. This is a great first step, and I am proud that the Liberal Democrats have had a hand in securing it.

Decent homes for service families should be not just reported on but acted on. Defence Ministers have assured the House that housing standards are on an upward trajectory. We will hold the Government to account on that commitment. Can the Minister give any assurances that resources will be put in place to ensure that that happens? Nobody wants to see an annual report that leads to no progress. I also ask him to ensure that service family accommodation meets the commitments made in the Defence Infrastructure Organisation’s consumer charter—most notably the requirement to complete urgent repairs within a timeline consistent with Awaab’s law. That would ensure that Lords amendment 39 strengthens a Bill that already delivers vital reforms for renters and rightly includes protections for service families. It delivers broader transformation in renters’ rights by ending no-fault evictions, creating more secure tenancies and raising standards across the private rented sector. Amendment 19 would also allow shared owners to re-let if a sale falls through. As such, we support it.

Of course, we must not lose sight of the bigger picture: the need to build a new generation of council and social rent homes—150,000 per year. This week shows that determination, persistence and principle can deliver real change. Our forces families will now have statutory protections for their homes, tenants across the country will gain greater rights, and every step like this brings us closer to the fairer housing system that we all want. I congratulate all those who have campaigned for this change, particularly the forces families who have contacted me. More secure homes are what private renters need, and decent homes are the least our military deserve.

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

Let us be clear: the Bill is the biggest uplift to renters’ rights in a generation. It will make a huge difference for so many people in my constituency. Before I come to the amendments, I place on the record my thanks to the Minister stewarding the Bill through Parliament, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for her remarks as a champion of renters and social housing in this country.

I also place on the record my anger that the Bill has taken so long to pass through Parliament. It is an absolute disgrace that it has been slowed down—bogged down in amendments—by the other place, which has delayed these vital rights reaching my constituents. Opposition parties tabled 450 amendments, so our colleagues in the other place had to sit for a very long time to get the Bill through. In that time, my constituents have been stuck in damp and mouldy housing and subject to section 21 evictions, and many children have been growing up in temporary accommodation, because of the delays to the legislation in the other place. Opposition parties whose Lords placed so many amendments should be ashamed for slowing down the legislation.