Renters’ Rights Bill Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Lord Jamieson
Main Page: Lord Jamieson (Conservative - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord Jamieson's debates with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and another to this Clause in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook, probes the Government’s reasons for increasing the notice period for rent increases from one month to two months.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, before I turn to the amendments, I will respond to the Minister’s comment. On this side of the House, we want to see a successful, thriving private rental market which gives everyone the opportunity to have a stable and secure home. However, as we have seen in Scotland, rental reform can have a deleterious impact on the availability of rental homes, and increase pricing. It is our concern that some of the reforms being proposed may harm tenants and the market. It is perfectly reasonable for us to have different views on what the potential reforms may or may not do, but let us be absolutely clear that, on this side of the House, we want successful tenanted private rentals. The Committee should have no doubt about that.
I turn to Amendments 72, 73, 74 and 81 in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. The group addresses the matter of notice periods. Amendments 72, 73 and 74 are all probing amendments and seek to question the purpose of increasing the notice periods for rent increases and why the retention of one month is not kept. The Government have failed to sufficiently explain why the Bill looks to change the minimum period for notice of a rent increase from one month for assured periodic tenancies, particularly as landlords will now be able to increase rent only once a year, which we support.
In that case, a rent increase could reasonably be anticipated by the tenant. It should also reflect the current market conditions and economic factors such as interest rates, particularly with the increased powers to challenge by the tribunal. Increasing the notice period means that those data points are more out of date. Surely the Government would wish for rent increases that reflect current market and economic conditions, and to reduce the likelihood of tribunals. This change will undoubtedly have significant implications for landlords and the rental market more broadly. On a personal level, many landlords rely on the funds they intend to retrieve from an increase in rent payments to meet loan repayments and other financial obligations.
It is important that all noble Lords consider this change in the wider context of this Bill and the other factors which landlords will have to tackle. Changing notice periods for rent increases is just one obstacle that landlords will have to address. Others include the annual rent increase, which tenants will be able to challenge through First-tier Tribunals, which will subject landlords to greater risk of court backlogs. These changes may result in increased administrative burdens for landlords, brought about by the use of Section 13 notices for rent increases and the two-month notice period.
The ultimate issue with the rental market is one of supply. There are simply not enough homes to meet the demand. We must look not only to incentivise landlords to stay in the market but to encourage new entrants. It is vital that the Government avoid introducing unnecessary measures that create a hostile market.
The proposed changes to the notice period will, with many other new measures, cumulatively create significant consequences for landlords across the country. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government have consulted with landlords on the impact of these measures, and will they publish the findings from this consultation? If not, do they intend to do so? Similarly, will the Minister confirm whether the Government have conducted, or intend to conduct, an impact assessment on the changes to the notice period for rent increases?
Amendment 81, also in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, seeks to question the Government’s reasons for having one-month notice periods for rent increases in the low-cost tenancy sector, despite the fact that those who are not in those tenancies are entitled to two. For clarity, we are not decreeing that it should not be one month; we are asking why there is the difference and seeking to understand the logic behind it. I look to the Minister to explain exactly why someone in a low-cost tenancy would get less notice of a rent increase compared with someone renting in the open market, such as those on assured periodic tenancies. Should not those who are the poorest in our society require greater notice, particularly given the importance of financial planning?
I look forward to the contributions of all noble Lords on this group of amendments and to the Minister providing clarification on the concerns I have raised. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I rise to conclude our discussion on this group of amendments, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their comments. The Bill is a complex and far-reaching piece of legislation, and this group has sought to address the issue of notice period for rent increases. I still question in my own mind why low-rent tenants should be treated differently from those in the private rented sector. I appreciate that the Minister has said she will write to us on the various consultations, which addresses some of the issues I have raised. In particular, the point for us is an understanding of the need to go to two months. I also raise the clear understanding of how the whole sector functions and the practical consequences of operating in it, which are some of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, raised.
Savills, a leading authority in the sector, has warned that these reforms may deter investment in the private rented sector. It raises concerns about increased administrative overhead, reduced flexibility and potential delays to rent adjustments. Similarly, the National Residential Landlords Association has been vocal about the unintended consequences of these measures, warning that more regulation without proportional support risks undermining the viability of the sector. To address the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, raised, it is not an issue of whether a landlord may or may not be able to afford the impact of this. It may be that they decide their investment is better placed elsewhere and they sell the property or do something else with it, therefore making it no longer available to the private rental sector. The issue that we face is whether this will harm the private rental sector.
These are not fringe voices that talk about this. They represent the heart of the industry, the landlords who provide the homes that tenants live in, so I ask the Minister again: what consultation has been undertaken? I appreciate that she will come back to us on this, but will the Government publish those findings? If that consultation has not yet taken place, will the Minister confirm when it will happen and whether it will inform the final shape of the Bill? Furthermore, have the Government conducted a formal impact assessment on the changes to rent notice periods? If so, when will it be made available to the House? If not, how can we legislate in good conscience without seeing the projected outcomes of these?
I return to the broader context, which we must not lose sight of. The fundamental issue facing the rental housing market is one of supply. There are simply not enough homes to meet demand. If we make it more difficult for landlords, particularly smaller ones who make up a significant share of the sector, we risk worsening the very crisis we are trying to address—a situation we have already seen demonstrated in Scotland. We support measures that improve fairness and predictability for tenants. If the outcome of the Bill is a smaller, more risk-averse rental market with fewer homes available at higher rents, we will have failed in our aims.
In closing, I reiterate the importance of these probing amendments. They are not about resisting reform; they are about getting it right. We have asked responsible questions and the Committee deserves answers. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, not only to clarify the Government’s thinking but to offer assurance that these concerns are taken seriously, that evidence will guide policy and that fairness will be applied consistently across the sector. The success of the legislation depends not just on good intentions but on practical deliverability, balanced implementation and trust from those who must operate within it. With that, I withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, this has been a good debate. Rental costs are a serious problem, and we know that the high cost of housing, coupled with other pressures, poses real challenges for hard-working families across the UK. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s English Housing Survey 2022-23 found approximately 1.2 million private rented households reporting it difficult to pay their rent. That represented 29% of private rented households when the survey was conducted. When nearly a third of tenants find it difficult to pay their rent, there is clearly a problem. When we were in government, we took decisive action on the cost pressures faced by hard-working families across the country, and we zeroed in on the most important issue of all for households: inflation. By the time this Government took office, inflation was back below target. However, following the Chancellor’s Budget last year, inflation is, concerningly, now above target.
It is against that backdrop of cost pressures that these amendments have been tabled, and while we do not agree that rent controls are the solution to the problem, we do, however, share the concerns many noble Lords have raised about the cost of renting. As the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, raised in the debate, supply is a fundamental part of the issue. We believe an adequate supply of rented accommodation is the way to address the cost of renting but, as we have warned in previous debates, the Bill risks driving landlords out of the sector and not attracting some of those institutional investors that could make a real difference if the quanta were increased. Decreasing the supply of rented accommodation at a time when demand is already high and rising will lead only to higher rents.
We also know that where rent controls have been tried, they have failed; and even the Minister has previously raised in Committee the impact of rent controls in Scotland, although, to be clear, we believe that rent controls are just part of the problem in Scotland. The SNP’s failed experiment with unbalanced renters’ reforms and rent controls in Scotland is a case worth dwelling on; there we have seen stifled supply and higher rents. That said, the Government must address the serious concerns raised by noble Lords across the Committee and listen to those tenants who are struggling with the cost of renting.
Last month, the Lord Chancellor warned that despite further court sitting days being announced by the Ministry of Justice, the sad reality is that the backlog of cases will still go up. It is right that we ask questions about the additional burdens that Clause 8 will place on our already overloaded courts and tribunal system. Can the Minister confirm what additional resources will be provided to the appropriate tribunals, so they have the means to cope with the increased number of cases brought before them under Clause 8?
Amendments 76 and 77 seek to introduce a cap on the increases in rent that can be brought forward by landlords, and we will listen carefully to the Minister’s response to those proposals. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, has put her opposition to rent controls on the record, saying that they
“restrict housing supply, which does not help anyone”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/10/24; col. 335.]
We agree with the Government that restricting housing supply does not help anyone. Ministers should listen carefully to the concerns we have raised throughout the debates on the Bill.
Amendment 275, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would deliver an entirely separate body to set rules for rent increases. Leaving aside the fact that the noble Baroness’s amendment fails to provide parliamentary oversight, or that there are no clear objectives for the set of rules set by the independent living rent body which she is seeking to establish, and the lack of clarity on the governance of the proposed body, we do not feel that establishing what is, in effect, an additional regulator is the right approach. Our rental sector is already subject to heavy regulation and the Bill places additional burdens on the sector. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, we do not wish to strangle the market. For that reason, I am afraid we cannot support this even more onerous measure which the noble Baroness is proposing.
Amendments 79, 84 and 85, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, are perhaps the most pragmatic of the amendments in this group, and I understand why he has tabled them. We will listen carefully to the Government’s response to his amendments and continue to work on this part of the Bill before we proceed to Report. It seems clear to us that now is not the time to impose additional burdens on our tribunals—when, by the Government’s own admission, backlogs are already rising. Ministers need to take a long, hard look at this part of the Bill, if we are to deliver a Bill that strikes the right balance on the rights of tenants and landlords without adding to the growing backlog and without discouraging investment in the sector. There are serious questions for Ministers to answer in all these areas, and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply to this group.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am very grateful to all noble Lords. I agree that this is a very important group, and I was sorry to see other noble Lords leaving the Chamber, because this was a very important discussion.
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Jones, and the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Best, for their amendments, and thank all noble Lords who have spoken: the noble Lords, Lord Thurlow, Lord Marlesford, Lord Jamieson and Lord Young, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, to whose letter I have replied. It is in the post, so I have signed it off, and the noble Earl should receive it shortly.
As I have stated previously, and I am going to restate it, and the Deputy Prime Minister, as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, has been very clear about this, our Government do not support rent controls. We have considered rent regulation within the broader context of the private rented sector, and we do not believe that limiting rents in this way leads to positive outcomes. Evidence suggests that so-called first- and second-generation rent controls may disadvantage tenants as well as landlords. They can have a long-term negative impact on housing supply and discourage investment in the sector, leading to declining property standards. Subtler forms of rent control—second- or third-generation rent controls—have differential impacts on different groups, typically benefiting settled and better-off tenants more than those looking for a home or needing to move.
Academic studies from countries such as Sweden and Germany, and from places such as San Francisco and Ontario, show that rent controls can limit supply, discourage investment and lead to declining property standards. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to early attempts at rent controls and their impact on supply. We simply think that the answer to this is supply generally, and supply of social and affordable housing in particular, rather than putting controls on rents.
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, was right to say that my interactions with the financial sector indicate that institutional finance is available for rental property. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has spoken about build to rent very powerfully; the finance is there for that. That has the potential to drive the supply that will stabilise rents over time. That is why we do not want to introduce rent controls.
I will start with my noble friend Lord Hacking’s amendments—perhaps he could ask the two tenants to whom he referred to come up with a solution to the Arctic temperature in your Lordships’ Chamber this afternoon. The weather forecasts of a heatwave have been grossly exaggerated in this part of London. On Amendment 76, the Bill as presented to the Committee today seeks to remove the ability of landlords to place rent review clauses in tenancy agreements. The effect of the amendment tabled by my noble friend would be to reintroduce into the Bill a measure allowing landlords to make use of such a clause. To be specific, Amendment 76 would amend Clause 7 to allow for rent review clauses linking rent increases to inflation to be included in tenancy agreements so long as such an increase fell between 3% and 8%. Rent increases made under a rent review clause cannot be challenged at the tribunal. As such, the approach put forward by my noble friend Lord Hacking risks a significant reduction in the protection for tenants, who may not understand the effects of the rent review clause and could have limited power to negotiate these even if clearly articulated. It is likely that the use of such clauses would become standard, in effect taking us back to the status quo, where the protection the tribunal offers is available only to a small number of tenancies.
Furthermore, if the use of standardised rent review clauses became commonplace, there is a risk that this would, in effect, result in a system of de facto rent control. I will not repeat again our position on rent control, but it is worth while, if the Committee will allow me, to elaborate further on why any attempt to use a single metric for calculating rent increases risks unintended consequences. The danger of such an approach is that arbitrary increases prescribed in tenancy agreements could artificially inflate the rent for some locations. For example, in Leeds, rents increased by 2% between January 2024 and January 2025, whereas in Oxford, rents increased by 12% in the same period. CPI for this 12-month period was 3%. The measures contained within the amendment would therefore likely have led to rent increases in Leeds above the market rate, to the detriment of tenants there, and the controlling of rents in Oxford, with all the associated wider issues which we have already discussed. Therefore, I am sure my noble friend can understand why the Government cannot accept an amendment which would remove the right of tenants to appeal rent increases above market rate, risk some tenants being trapped in above-market-rate rent rises, and risk the implementation of de facto rent controls.
Turning to Amendments 79, 84 and 85, I join others in commending the noble Lord, Lord Best, for the clarity of his explanation and for all the work he has done as chair of the Affordable Housing Commission. This is vital work, and I sincerely understand the motivation behind his amendments: that these would limit annual rent increases during the first four years of a tenancy to a percentage calculated by reference to CPI or median national earnings over a three-year period—the noble Lord articulated his amendments much clearly than I could. If either of those things happened, a challenge to the tribunal by the tenant would not be possible.
The first of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Best, Amendment 79, would introduce measures into Clause 7 of the Bill which, as I have just set out, would separate the setting of rents from the market rate. As such, the amendment would introduce a form of rent control, and I have already explained our position in the Government towards rent control. The regulation of rents in the form proposed by the noble Lord could have a long-term negative impact on housing supply, discourage investment and lead to declining property standards.
In fact, the introduction of an in-tenancy rent control would create the risk of tenants in this country experiencing what has been seen in Ontario in Canada, where a similar form of regulation has limited the amount by which rents could increase each year for existing tenancies. For example, rental price growth in 2023 was capped at 2.5%, based on the Ontario consumer price index. Analysis suggests that the result of this measure has been higher rents for new tenants, with the impact felt by more mobile groups such as younger people, who are often new arrivals to the rental market. There is also evidence from Ontario that landlords have sought to evict tenants so that controlled rents can be reset at the market level. The risk, therefore, of causing unintended harm to tenants as well as landlords is too large for our Government to accept, even in an amendment as well-intentioned, as I know it is, as that put forward today by the noble Lord, Lord Best. Instead, as the Committee is already aware, our approach is to allow landlords to increase rents annually to the market rate, which represents a strengthening of rent regulation in the broader context of the entire system, including security of tenure, better enforcement and quality standards.
Lord Jamieson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow a person to mutually agree a tenancy with a landlord which requires them to pay up to six months of rent in advance.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the group of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott, relating to payments of rent in advance. The payment of rent in advance can provide a number of significant benefits to tenants. These go beyond avoiding late fees and the demonstration of financial security. Tenants may wish to pay rent in advance for financial planning or even to avoid the worry of monthly payments. Amendments 108, 109, 110, 112, 113 and 114 recognise and affirm the legitimate choice of a tenant to pay rent in advance. I emphasise that this is rooted firmly in mutual agreement. If a tenant does not wish to pay in advance, they are under no obligation to do so, but if a tenant chooses to take this step, if they believe it is in their personal best interest, why should we stand in their way? If a tenant makes a judgment on the basis of their financial circumstances that this is in their best interest, why should it be for the Minister to say, “No, the Government know best”? If a tenant believes their ability to pay may be inhibited by a financial burden coming down the track, they could legitimately plan for the payment now. But, regardless of the reason or even the need, if there is mutual agreement, what is the problem?
I turn to the impact of this on two groups who will be particularly impacted by this change: overseas students and those with poor credit ratings. Tenants with a poor credit rating history will inevitably appear risky—this may be through no fault of their own; they may just not have a rating history—and often this risk is too insurmountable to ignore. By paying up front, tenants can demonstrate responsibility and ultimately improve their chances of securing a rental agreement and the security of a home. In many cases, this proactive step, choosing to pay in advance, is the only practical means by which tenants can build trust, enhance their credibility and demonstrate financial reliability. Will the Minister please set out the impact of this change on those with a less than optimal credit history?
Next, I wish to address the issue of overseas students with no local credit history. The Committee will know that the UK credit rating agencies do not hold information about a person’s financial affairs outside the country, or any foreign credit reports. Therefore, overseas students often require a UK-based guarantor to cover potential property damage or unpaid bills. Where this is not possible, payment in advance can be a solution, and payments are often made for the entire term, or even the entire academic year. Will the Minister set out the expected impact of this change on overseas students, and the number we anticipate losing due to difficulties in securing student accommodation? Alternatively, does she believe that landlords will still have a sufficient incentive to house overseas students, despite their limited credit history? Will she outline what steps the Government are taking to strengthen the enforcement around credit arrears where overseas students are unable to pay? Current mechanisms are often weak, but it is an issue that is far less prevalent when payment is made up front.
I also want to highlight the plight of some of the most vulnerable, where councils have a duty of homelessness prevention. Councils often work with landlords and tenants, offering advanced rental payments, larger deposits and guarantees, which would be hampered by these proposals. Are councils to be banned from paying rent in advance to support some of the most vulnerable in our society? As has been raised earlier, the Home Office plans to offer landlords five-year tenancies to house asylum seekers. Will this involve rent being paid more than one month in advance? I invite the Minister to explain and I appreciate that she has offered to write to noble Lords regarding this. I look forward to that, and to any additional information that she is able to provide.
Finally, I draw the Committee’s attention to Amendment 117 in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott. This amendment requires Ministers to ensure that changes being made to the Tenant Fees Act 2019 are clearly communicated to tenants, letting agents and landlords. These changes involve fines of up to £5,000 for new offences and it is essential that landlords and letting agencies are aware of their new responsibilities. We regard this as a technical but important amendment and I hope that the Minister will see it as a practical and necessary change that can be accepted. This group will consider whether mutually agreed or tenant-requested payment of rent in advance should be permitted to continue. On these Benches, we are clear that it should. Mutual agreement can foster a more stable housing situation, one that recognises the unique benefits that rent in advance may offer certain groups of tenants in securing a home. I hope that the Minister will take note.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I entirely support the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, in his submissions just now. My Amendments 115 and 116 deal with the same problem but from a different perspective.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson, Lord Truscott and Lord Hacking, for their amendments in relation to rent in advance, and the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for commenting on these amendments.
Taken together, Amendments 108 to 110 and 112 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would allow landlords or agents to charge rent in advance when this has been mutually agreed with the tenants in a tenancy agreement. This Government are clear that the practice of landlords or agents charging rent in advance is unfair. Many of us will have heard the stories, many of them of requests for large amounts of rent in advance that have pushed families into financial hardship or locked some out of the sector completely. In other cases, unscrupulous landlords use rent in advance to pit prospective tenants against each other and create these dreadful bidding wars to help people secure a property. That is why the Bill will prohibit a landlord or letting agent requiring or accepting any payment of rent before a tenancy has been entered into. In addition, a landlord will be able to require only up to one month’s rent in advance in the window between a tenancy being entered into and that tenancy beginning.
I want to be crystal clear on this point: once a tenancy has begun, tenants will remain free to pay their rent prior to the agreed due date should they wish to do so, although landlords will not be able to require this and any attempt to require it will be challengeable by the tenant.
Amendment 108 would allow landlords to include terms in a tenancy agreement that require rent in advance to be paid up to six months before it is due. It is the view of the Government that this amendment would fail to protect tenants from exploitative rent in advance practices. Landlords, being able to require up to six months’ rent in advance when this is agreed in a tenancy agreement, could, in a market where properties are hotly contested, push tenants into agreements that stretch their finances to breaking point to secure a tenancy.
Amendment 109 would limit rent in advance to four months when agreed in a tenancy agreement. This has the same effect, with the potential for tenants in hotly contested markets to feel compelled to agree to terms that require significant financial outlay. Even the limit of two months, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, proposes in Amendment 110, in our view does not go far enough to protect tenants. In a scenario where a landlord can request two months’ rent in advance, this is still a significant financial expectation of a tenant. Given that the tenant will also likely be required to pay a five-week tenancy deposit, they could face being asked to stump up more than three months’ rent to access a property.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I would just like clarification for my understanding. It has been made clear by a number of noble Lords that our concern is that some of the most vulnerable would be able to even up the playing field by providing rent in advance. I understand what the Minister is saying, but that competition, in a competitive market where there is a shortage of supply, risks excluding some of the most vulnerable. I am keen to hear how the Minister will address that.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am coming on to the impact on vulnerable tenants, but it makes tenants far more vulnerable where they are being pushed to take on financial commitments well beyond their means just to get access to a tenancy in the first place.
In effect, Amendment 112 would enable some unscrupulous landlords to continue to pit tenants against each other in de facto bidding wars. In this circumstance, tenants under pressure to secure a property could face being required to offer in writing even greater sums of rent in advance.
Any one of these amendments could allow landlords at the pre-letting stage to insist upon a term in the tenancy agreement which permits rent in advance. This would leave tenants with a potentially impossible choice of stretching their finances to the limit or facing homelessness.
I would like to address the concerns of some in the Committee that those landlords who rely on rent in advance could find themselves left out of the market. We are clear that landlords are free to undertake the referencing and affordability checks necessary to give both the landlord and the tenant the confidence that a tenancy is sustainable.
The noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, mentioned foreign students. If landlords are not satisfied with the outcome of pre-tenancy checks, there remain a number of options available, including requiring a tenant to provide a guarantor or the use of professional guarantor products. If the tenant is unable to provide a UK-basedguarantor—I accept that that may be the case for international students—alternative options could be available, such as professional guarantor services.
We are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the impact of our reforms. We retain powers to amend these measures should the evidence arise that they are having a significant impact on a particular group. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, mentioned self-employed people and those on limited-income pensions. We maintain the powers to amend, should we need to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, raised a point about local authorities. Some local authorities are very proactive. The reason they take on this role is to prevent homelessness, and they recognise the benefit to families and individuals of not having to go into temporary and emergency accommodation. In addition, it can reduce the cost to the local authority if it does not have to find that family temporary and emergency accommodation, so it will take on that role.
The power gives the Secretary of State the flexibility to adapt the constraints on rent in advance to respond to a changing private rented sector. Changes in the balance of supply and demand within the private rented sector—driven, for example, by our commitment to building 1.5 million homes over this Parliament—may change the extent to which affordability is a barrier for prospective tenants entering the sector. In this scenario, the Government may consider it appropriate to make changes to the constraints on rent in advance. Equally, changes in the market could be driven by currently unanticipated future legislative changes, such as the introduction of new types of tenancies. In this scenario, the power would allow the Secretary of State to maintain the application of these measures to the intended cohorts of landlords and tenants.
The introduction of the power therefore provides the Government, or any future Government, with the ability to make sure rent in advance measures continue to apply as intended in the face of any changes within the private rented sector. However, I reassure the Committee that regulations made under the power will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which will ensure that there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of any changes.
Amendment 117, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would introduce the legal requirement for the Secretary of State to communicate to tenants, letting agents and landlords the changes made by the Renters’ Rights Bill to the Tenant Fees Act 2019, which prohibits certain payments of rent in advance. I know the Committee will share my view that the successful implementation of the Renter’ Rights Bill is firmly rooted in how widely its provisions are known and understood. I reassure the Committee that the Government are committed to raising awareness of the full range of Renters’ Rights Bill reforms across the private rented sector.
This amendment would require the Government to make stakeholders aware of one aspect of our rent in advance policy, which is given effect by amendments to the Tenant Fees Act—namely, the prohibition on landlords inviting, encouraging or accepting a payment of rent in advance before the tenancy agreement is signed by both the landlord and the tenant. However, it would not oblige the Government to communicate the details of the rest of the rent in advance policy.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I would just reiterate the comments I made to my noble friend that, having undertaken a tenancy, gone through the process of vetting and paid the deposit and the holding deposit, it will be a very rare case where the tenant proceeds not to pay their first month’s rent.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, I just want to follow up on the question I raised regarding the Home Office’s plans to offer landlords five-year tenancies and ask whether the Minister can confirm whether there will or will not be more than one month’s rent in advance?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I did respond earlier to the points in relation to the Home Office position. Because it is the work of another department, it would be best, as I said earlier, if I clarify the situation in relation to the Home Office’s proposals and come back to noble Lords on that. It involves the contract between the Home Office and Serco and I do not want to comment on it without knowing the facts from the Home Office. So, I will come back to the noble Lord on that point.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I rise to close this group of amendments. It has been an excellent debate and I thank all noble Lords who have provided contributions to this debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has demonstrated the case for his amendments. I thank him for the support he has given to our amendments, and I certainly support the intention of his amendments. We also share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, that the Bill will potentially exclude thousands of tenants from the rental market. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, raised the issue of the difficulties of getting guarantors, particularly if you are an overseas student.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and others who raised the issue that there are 20 people seeking every tenancy and you cannot blame the landlord for seeking the most stable and secure tenant for their property, with the risk, as I said earlier, that the most vulnerable will lose out. We believe that this will have a negative impact on tenants who might otherwise struggle to find a tenancy. Amendments 108, 109 and 110 provide three options for how much rent could be paid in advance with the mutual agreement of the renter and the landlord. Amendment 114 would allow rent in advance at the discretion of the tenant.
The Minister has raised the prospect of guarantors and, for those people who are not able to provide a personal guarantor, using guarantor services. Many people who have used these services will well know that these can be substantially expensive, and frequently far more expensive and onerous than paying rent in advance. Therefore, it seems only logical that one should offer that option.
The Minister has rejected all three options and has not proposed an alternative. It is disappointing to see such a lack of engagement with these amendments when they are likely to have a negative impact on both international students and those with poor credit scores. This clause reduces their ability to prove their financial responsibility and, as such, reduces their likelihood of finding suitable rental property—and, as I highlighted earlier, reduces the ability of councils to secure accommodation for some of the most vulnerable in their communities.
We raised the issue of the five-year tenancies that the Home Office is using, and I am glad the Minister will come back to us. I look forward to being assured that there is no differential treatment of landlords and tenants depending on which part of government is dealing with them.
This clause removes a tenant’s ability to prove their financial responsibility. If a tenant and landlord agree to pay rent in advance, why are the Government standing in the way? I urge the Minister to consider these amendments. Noble Lords across the House have raised genuine and real concerns with this clause. Although we all want to see a better deal for tenants, removing their autonomy to pay in advance is not the best way to go about this. I hope that the Minister will consider this before the next stages of the Bill.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I do not want to delay proceedings, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, might not agree with me, but I did fully answer the question of why we consider that payment of rent in advance, even when agreed between two parties, can have a serious effect on other tenants in the rental market who are not able to make those very large payments in advance. He may not agree with me on that, but I did respond to the point.