Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for raising a critical issue that is at crisis point: namely, housing in rural communities. We on these Benches understand the need to support those in the agricultural community, who are on unique tenancy arrangements for a variety of historical reasons. These tenancies often involve longer durations, inter- generational involvement and a closer relationship between the land and the livelihood than is typical elsewhere in the rental sector, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, described. As such, it is vital that any legislative change reflects the particular realities of agricultural life and does not introduce any unintended uncertainty or disruption.

Crucially, it is important to ensure that there is greater clarity for both landlords and tenants operating under agricultural tenancies. In a sector where long-term planning and security of tenure are essential, both parties require clear and consistent rules to navigate their rights and responsibilities with confidence. That said, we on these Benches are somewhat hesitant about the proposed amendments in this group to introduce a new repossession ground for these tenancies. We believe it is possible that there may be more effective ways to provide reassurance to those living under such arrangements. On that basis, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, as someone who farms, albeit not on the same scale as the noble Lords who have spoken thus far, or indeed anywhere near it, I am very sensitive to the requirement for security of tenants. On the other hand, I know that—

[Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)]

Excuse me, can the noble Lord confirm that he was here at the start of the debate?

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

I was here earlier.

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Leicester (Con)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on Amendment 65. I take this opportunity to apologise that, sadly, I was not able to attend the first day of Committee on Tuesday, when, had I been able to, I would have supported the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester in his Amendment 62, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, noted, is reasonably similar to this.

I shall embellish what the noble Lord has said clearly with two examples. One example is a house that has been lived in by a protected tenant family but, 30 or 40 years on—that is the reality of protected tenancies—the house might need serious refurbishment, which after 35 years may cost north of £100,000 to comply with EPC or MEES, and will take nine or more months to complete; and the need to find a house to put said old and retired couple in more suitable accommodation while retaining their protected tenancy status. That accommodation might be an almshouse or a bungalow.

The second example is a protected tenant family that may have been a large family, with three or four children back in the day, occupying a four-bedroom house. The children have married or moved away. The father is deceased and the widow is knocking around in a large four-bedroom house that is expensive to heat and manage; perhaps it has a dangerous old staircase, with a bathroom downstairs and the bedrooms upstairs. One has to think about this, because that is denying a large house to a young, growing family who may themselves be in a two-bedroom flat or house. A simple solution—which, again, would come through negotiation, but I am sure would be welcomed by a widow—would be a house swap, with the widow retaining her protected tenancy. That would mean evicting the small, growing family, but offering them the opportunity to move into a larger house.

There are quite a few examples in the rural tenanted sector—and, I suspect, in the urban sector—where families have stayed in houses for many years, but then the family, having grown for 20-odd years, starts reducing in size but they remain in a big house. So it is important that protected tenants can be housed in smaller houses and that the tenants of those smaller houses are moved out, to allow the churn of housing as families grow and then reduce in size.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for speaking prematurely. I speak as someone—I should declare this interest—who has a small farm, as I said earlier, which is very small in comparison with those of some of the noble Lords who have spoken. However, I have seen at first hand some of the problems that have been described. In particular, I remember one old lady who carried on in a house where she simply was not able to manage the property and its upkeep. What I think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Lord opposite are suggesting would help to avoid very painful, costly legal cases where people have to try and get somebody out, which causes enormous bad feeling and cost.

I am in favour of this amendment and would have been in favour of previous ones because I think in farming at the moment the difficulties that landlords face are so immense—I will not go through them all now—that the ability to keep a farm going, which is the interests of tenants and future tenants, is prejudiced if they cannot get back suitable accommodation. I completely understand the desire, which I am sure the Government have, to offer security to tenants. In fact, that is an extremely important part of the fabric of our society, but we have moved on in some ways and what has happened in farming and what I have observed around me in mid-Wales is that there is a need to be able to get back certain properties to bring in younger people to farm.

I broadly support these amendments and suggest to the Government, with great respect, that if there is any way that they can move to accommodate them, I would very much support them.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for moving this amendment and again he has given an excellent technical explanation of the need for it. I shall not try and repeat it, in the certain knowledge that I would not give as good an explanation. It recognises the enduring statutory duties placed on certain landlords to house former employees. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, who have further explained and emphasised the issues and why this amendment is necessary.

Many of these tenants are retired agricultural workers who have given years, sometimes decades, of service and who now occupy homes with lifetime security of tenure. As such, landlords—often small family-run farming businesses—continue to shoulder a statutory duty to provide housing, even after the employment relationship has finished. This is not merely a moral obligation; it is a legal one that increasingly runs into practical difficulty.

The housing needs of retired employees can evolve over time. A once necessary dwelling may no longer be suitable, as has been mentioned, due to age, health, or changes in family circumstances and numbers. At the same time, that same property may now be needed to house a current employee whose work is essential to the functioning of the farm. Yet under the current drafting of the renters reform Bill, landlords cannot regain possession of that alternative accommodation in order to fulfil their continuing statutory duty. Amendment 65 corrects that oversight. It provides for a narrow, targeted new ground for possession applicable only when the landlord is required to rehouse a protected tenant or their successor, and only when suitable alternative accommodation is required for that purpose.

This is not about weakening tenant protections or finding a loophole—far from it. This is about balance, ensuring that landlords who remain bound by statutory obligations are able to meet them in practice. Without this amendment we risk trapping landlords in a legal Catch-22, where they are legally required to provide suitable housing but legally prevented from doing so. Importantly, they will be able to provide accommodation to retired employees who may have given many years of service and who deserve secure accommodation in their retirement, without the risk of breaking the law or leaving accommodation empty in expectation of its use later.

This amendment does not open a back door to wider evictions; it simply ensures the fair and functional operation of existing, long-established housing duties. It is balanced, proportionate and essential to upholding the very laws that protect these tenants.