Renters’ Rights Bill

Committee (6th Day)

16:04:00

My Lords, it may not surprise your Lordships that before we start the debate on the first group, I remind the Committee again of the protocol around declaring interests. As I have mentioned, noble Lords should declare relevant interests at each stage of proceedings on a Bill. That means that in Committee, relevant interests should be declared during the first group on which a noble Lord speaks. If a noble Lord has already declared an interest in Committee, that is sufficient, but if this is their first contribution, any relevant interests should be declared. Amendment 206A

Moved by

206A: After Clause 63, insert the following new Clause— “Residential boat fees to be classified as rentThe rights set out in Part 1 of this Act extend to any individual—(a) for whom a boat is their only home, and(b) who is liable to pay a boat licence fee, boat registration fee, boat rental fee or mooring charges.”

My Lords, I apologise for racing here like a 15 year-old. I was under the impression that there was another Urgent Question, but there is no excuse. Your Lordships will be pleased to hear that this is my first contribution in Committee, although I raised this issue at Second Reading. In moving Amendment 206A, I shall also speak to Amendments 262 and 271. While this is my first intervention, I am all too aware of the complexity of the Bill, so it is right that I give my gratitude to the clerks of your Lordships’ House who have advised me on how to proceed from the very beginning. Initially, it was my intention to bring forward one amendment to address the absence of rights and protections for permanent houseboat residents, those people who live permanently on houseboats along the rivers and inland waterways of the United Kingdom. After further advice, we have three amendments. I am also grateful for the help I have received from Abbie North and Caroline Hunter from the University of York, Pamela Smith of the National Bargee Travellers Association and houseboat residents around the country. I am also particularly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for their support and for adding their names to my amendments. I believe that the amendments are straightforward in what they request, but I recognise that they could be complicated in their implementation. Amendment 262, calling for a review from the Secretary of State, I consider to be entirely reasonable, and I will consider returning to it at a later stage if there is no movement from the Government or commitment to it or its principles. I thank the Minister and her team and officials for requesting to meet me when I had, interestingly, just one amendment tabled. It was a frank, good-humoured discussion, and I am aware of the good faith concern that exists, but I was deeply disappointed to learn that such a reasonable amendment calling for a review could not be accepted and would, it was said, drain resources cross-departmentally. Amendment 262 is a perfectly reasonable ask, specifically since this issue has been shunted into the sidings by successive Governments since 2005, despite frequently being raised in another place and in your Lordships’ House. These amendments address a series of wrongs that need to be righted. Relying solely on the Financial Conduct Authority and the tenuous protections of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 is an insult to houseboat residents and just does not work. They need security of tenure and basic rights, hence the amendments. The need for legislative action is becoming urgent. The rights and protections afforded by this Bill and other Acts of Parliament should apply to residential houseboat residents because they have tenancies and agreements for their moorings, a mooring fixed to a pier or the riverbank. They have to abide by all the obligations of residents within their local environment; additionally, they pay council tax, energy bills, water bills and insurance, but they are missing statutory rights and protections. They have even fewer protections when the owners of moorings propose increases to mooring fees, develop the site or, in some cases, refuse to renew licences. The problem is growing. It is happening across the country, from Vauxhall to Chelsea to the Isle of Wight, in Manchester and Brentford and along the rivers and canals of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it is happening in Southwark. One solicitor specialising in this area said the calls are increasing monthly. We need these amendments. The calls are from people now facing not only eviction from their moorings but having to physically move their homes. They must take their homes with them or abandon them. She told me that these calls are often coming from vulnerable people, including disabled people who pay council tax and have leased residential moorings. I am grateful of the South Dock Marina Berth Holders’ Association in Southwark for bringing its plight to my attention. Currently, plans are before the council that could force out residents, businesses and community hubs and demolish the entire site, a site providing marine facilities to more than 200 boats and more than 300 marina residents, which is further proof of the need for government action. I quote SDMBHA: “Boaters have no legislative protection from exorbitant rises in mooring fees. Boaters have no security of tenure and are increasingly facing existential threats to their way of life which means that these communities and increasingly Boat communities across the entire country are experiencing huge existential threats”. Southwark Council, which owns the site, has decided to look again, but the development threat hangs over yet another community of boat dwellers. Time and again, I believe that Governments have dismissed these overlooked and often forgotten people. The excuse was that more evidence was needed. Well, it is there. I have outlined some of the evidence. The problem is growing and, as I said, will not be wished away. As homes become more difficult to rent and impossible to buy, people will turn to alternative sources, as we have seen with mobile homes and boats. People need places where they can live. The right to a home, a place in which to rest one’s head is a basic human right. Perhaps those who cannot afford to buy a place in London but may have some money will be tempted by one of the adverts at Limehouse Marina and elsewhere that encourage people to buy their floating home from £250,000 upwards, with flexible moorings, without security of tenure. I have gone on longer than I intended. I know that the Minister, is sympathetic, but now is the time for action. The time for commitment is now. Therefore, I say to the Minister, if not now, when? There must be no attempt to kick this into the long grass again. Let us not say that we cannot do it because a mixture of different departments needs to deal with it or there are not enough resources. If the resources are not there now, when will they be? Meanwhile, evictions and homelessness among these communities will continue to increase. This needs political will and intention. I urge the Government, at the very least, to commit, within the legislation, to bring forward the review that I request from the Secretary of State. We can compromise on the length of time, but let us have a commitment to get it done. Let us deal with and recognise the needs of these people before these shameful situations turn into a national scandal. I beg to move.

My Lords, I apologise for not being able to speak at Second Reading of this very welcome Bill, which will return that most valuable public good—security in one’s home—to so many people. I support all the amendments in this group and will speak to Amendments 206B and 275A, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, whom I thank for his support. I thank Friends Families & Travellers and Garden Court Chambers for their expect advice, and declare various positions in relevant organisations, as set out in the register. I am also most grateful to the Public Bill Office for sorting out some last-minute corrections so rapidly.

16:15:00

Amendment 206B would confer equality with other renters, under Part 1 of the Bill, to the residential renters of mobile homes. This is right because amendments to the Mobile Homes Act 1983, especially those to Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 1, confer on mobile pitch agreements the key characteristics of a tenancy, rather than merely a licence to occupy. As a result, the agreement mirrors the nature of secure and assured tenancies. Thus, it gives exclusive occupation and the right to quiet enjoyment for the payment of rent over a specified period or on a periodic basis. If the landlord decides to recover possession by terminating the agreement following a breach of it, he has to show that it is reasonable to terminate the agreement, and the court has a right to suspend that termination. Finally, the occupier pays council tax and bills and can get help with payment of the fee for occupation of the site and the caravan, through welfare benefits.

That, to all intents and purposes, is a tenancy. So there can be no justification in denying to people who occupy sites under those agreements equal rights with people who live in bricks and mortar. I am afraid it is another example of a lack of respect for people with a different culture—in the case of Gypsies and Travellers, one protected by law. I know my noble friend the Minister is fully aware of the problems and has in the past been active in remedying them, so I hope she will accept this amendment.

Amendment 275A has a broader remit. Part of the residence of a Gypsy or Traveller site home is the amenity block that houses the toilet and cooking facilities. It is a traditional part of nomadic culture to keep these functions hygienically separate from the place where you live and sleep. We tried very hard to get amenity blocks included within the legal concept of a dwelling. They are rented in the same way and, in cases where the caravan is owned by the family rather than rented, there is still a need to rent an amenity block on the site, so this falls within the contractual relationship.

I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister and her officials for discussing this issue with us and explaining the legal problems. But, of course, the explanation does not in itself remedy the injustice. The need for legal protection to deter unhealthy and substandard conditions and environments is at least as pressing in the case of amenity blocks as in rented caravan homes. Current provisions in mobile homes legislation do not allow for legal aid to bring a recalcitrant landlord to court; the only recourse is a First-tier Tribunal, which is not accessible to most residents of caravan sites. Nor is there an ombudsman scheme, as there is for other homes. The decent homes standard and the proposals for the application of Awaab’s Law are just as necessary and relevant, but the inhabitants of traditional Gypsy and Traveller sites are denied them in respect of an essential part of their home: the amenity block. This, too, is unequal treatment. That is why this amendment mandates a review of the real-life implications of the exclusion of Gypsies and Travellers living in mobile homes on a site from the protections available to other citizens. I hope my noble friend the Minister agrees.

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 262 and 271. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, for tabling them and for his excellent introduction, which explained the lamentable situation we have arrived at whereby people living on boats continually fall through the cracks between housing and what is now known as Defra. I will go a little bit into the history, so that the Minister will perhaps appreciate the need for action now. Those with permanent moorings have some protection, although the cost of mooring fees and licences is an issue. I am especially concerned with those who do not have a permanent mooring and are classified as continuous cruisers, which means they can stay for a maximum of only 14 days in one place. This situation dates from the British Waterways Act 1995, when Parliament removed the need for boat dwellers to have a home mooring. The Canal & River Trust, which is now responsible for our waterways, has embarked on a review by an independent commission. It says that the review will seek to implement any reforms, including any legislative changes, as soon as possible after its conclusion. Your Lordships may feel that that is a good way forward, but the problem is that housing is not reflected anywhere in the Canal & River Trust’s main purposes: waterways management, maintenance, environmental protection, and generating income to support its work, which might include development along the riverbanks. Your Lordships can see that nowhere is it tasked with looking after the rights of boat dwellers to a safe and secure home situation. All this amendment is asking the Minister to do is to ensure that this group of boat dwellers be considered within the scope and implications of the Bill. Defra formed a working group in 2017 to try to resolve some of these issues, but that was inconclusive. Amendment 271 concerns the definition of a dwelling house. In 2016, the Planning and Housing Act placed a duty on local authorities to assess the housing needs of boat dwellers and bargees. However, the Act did not read across to the duties of the Canal & River Trust, in whose gift lie mooring and mooring regulations. As the riverbanks are continually assessed for development or leisure potential, the supply of moorings is constantly under threat. The ability to moor somewhere is obviously essential if a boat is your home. Given the Canal & River Trust’s rule that continuous cruisers cannot stay on any one mooring for more than 14 days, for a boat to remain a home there must be a supply of available moorings. There is a lot of history to this, but I will not go into all of it because I do not want to detain the House. I simply mention that in 2004, I took part in a debate when the late Baroness Hanham was trying to pass an amendment to address this very issue. My noble friend Lady Hamwee made a very apposite point when she said that for “the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to refer the people involved to Defra and for Defra to tell them that it is a matter for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister leaves us wondering what we can do to get bits of government not just to talk to one another but to find a solution to a very real problem”.—[Official Report,16/9/2004; col.1422.] That was over 20 years ago. My right honourable friend Vince Cable raised the issue in 2006 when he was MP for Twickenham. He identified one reason why the navigation authorities and regulatory bodies are rather hostile to residential boat owners—the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, touched on this. He said that at best they tolerate them, but they do not see them as integral to canal conservation. So there was a certain amount of prejudice against boat dwellers and Travellers, and I do not believe that has changed. The Minister who replied to my right honourable friend Vince Cable is now the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, Leader of our House. She said that a working group had been formed and that action in this area had been sought for a number of years. Well, that was 19 years ago and the solution is no nearer, because the department responsible for waterways never considers housing matters for boat dwellers, and the housing department, which has been through many names in time, does not relate to waterways issues. This Bill must break the mould and address this matter now.

My Lords, I have an interest to declare, as my family owns land in Cookham with a quarter of a mile of river frontage along the Thames and one of its tributaries, but we have never accommodated houseboats. I have added my name to Amendment 262, so ably spoken to by Lord Cashman, and it is appropriate that houseboats are linked in this group of amendments with mobile homes, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, has just spoken. In both cases, the home is owned or rented by the owner, but the land or water on which it rests is owned by somebody else. This leads to issues of security mentioned by the three previous speakers, as the home—which, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, may cost a quarter of a million pounds—has really no value unless it is on land or secured to land. To that extent, there is some comparison with leaseholders, because the flat owner owns the flat, but he does not own the land on which it is based. That is the point that I want to make. All three tenures—leaseholders, mobile home owners and boat owners—have varying degrees of security. Right at the top of the scale are leaseholders, whose rights have been progressively improved over the last 50 years, and more rights are promised in forthcoming legislation. Lower down the scale are mobile home owners. They have rights; as a Minister, I put on the statute book the Mobile Homes Act 1983. That legislation was then succeeded by other legislation, further improving the rights of mobile home owners. By contrast, houseboat owners are right at the bottom of the list and have very little security. So far, all Governments have refused to make any progress. I will not repeat the problems facing boat owners that have been so ably mentioned, but I just make this point. In answer to a Question on 17 January, the Minister in the other place said: “The government recognises that while the occupants of residential boats have the benefit of protection under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and wider consumer … legislation, they do not enjoy the same level of … security as those in the private rented sector. We will consider what action might be necessary to provide houseboat residents … with greater security in their homes”. That is exactly what Amendment 262 does. It asks the Government to review the security of houseboat residents, which the Answer said they are going to do anyway. So, I honestly do not see why the Minister has any reason not to accept this amendment, as it simply is in line with an Answer given by her parliamentary colleague only three months ago.

My Lords, my name is down in support of Amendment 262 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, which, as he so eloquently explained, calls for a review of the position of river houseboat residents. I also support his Amendment 206A, which would give houseboat residents similar protections to those afforded to renters in the Bill before us. Protections are needed for those on houseboats against evictions and massive increases in mooring fees and licences, which are simply not affordable to many who have made their homes on our rivers and canals. I couple these houseboat amendments with Amendment 206B, so convincingly covered by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, which would enhance the rights of those living in so-called mobile homes, often known as “park homes”. There are obvious parallels between those living in mobile homes where the site is owned by someone else and those living in houseboats, where, again, the resident does not own the place where their home is situated, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, explained. In both cases, there is a need for protection just as much for the rights of those occupiers as for those living in permanent bricks and mortar homes that cannot be moved. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for her fearless campaigning for Gypsy and Traveller rights, and I will not attempt to speak on her expert amendments in respect of those communities. My interest in respect of mobile homes stems from the Mobile Homes Act, which the former MP, Peter Aldous, introduced as a Private Member’s Bill and I piloted through your Lordships’ House in 2013. Today, some 200,000 people—many of them elderly—occupy such mobile homes, on about 2,000 sites. Although some are living in happy communities, there have been too many cases of unfair practices by site owners taking advantage of those residents.

16:30:00

Some important protections for park home residents have been introduced by the earlier legislation, and those protections have parallels to the circumstances facing houseboat residents. Park home residents pay pitch fees, which are similar to mooring fees. There are legal protections from excessive increases in charges, which broadly keep rises in line with inflation, and there are controls on resales of electricity and water. The position facing mobile home owners is far from perfect—indeed, park home campaigners will tomorrow present a petition at 10 Downing Street calling for the abolition of the 10% commission that they must pay site owners when they sell their park homes—but there are lessons to be learned from the rights already afforded to park home residents. Those could be adopted to improve the position for houseboat residents.

Amendment 206B relates specifically to residents of park homes who are renting, not owning the property. Some site owners act as landlords to the minority of occupiers who are tenants. The amendment would ensure that they had the same rights as any other tenants. Since most are older people and there is a history of exploitation by some site owners, it is important that they have the key protections which this Bill confers.

The point of principle is that all residents in park homes and all those living in houseboats share a need for security and for constraints on increases to the charges they must pay, charges that are akin to rental payments. In other words, they should be treated, as nearly as possible, like all the other renters whose rights are enhanced by this Bill. These amendments take this forward, and I support them.

My Lords, I apologise for not being present during Second Reading or the preceding Committee sittings due to a health issue. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA. I fully support this group of amendments and wish to speak in particular to Amendment 275A, to which I would have added my name if I had been more alert to the changes at the time. I am delighted to see Amendments 206A, 262 and 271, which cover the conditions of those living in boats. The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, has laid out the arguments for these amendments extremely eloquently. Over the years, I have had several meetings with the National Bargee Travellers Association. These are a group of people within our community who have had a difficult time, as they have no permanent moorings. Some find they are constantly moving in order to comply with mooring conditions. This can be extremely disruptive, especially for those who have school-aged children or health appointments to keep. As my noble friend Lady Miller has said, this issue has been running for a very long time. It really is time that equality was brought to the issue for all those living on a boat as their home. There should be no difference between the way different houseboat dwellers are treated. Boat dwellers should have the same protection as those living on dry land: a safe and secure home. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, has set out the case for Amendments 206B and 275A extremely well. It is essential that all the facilities on site, including amenity blocks, are in a good state of repair and fit for use. Residents living on Gypsy and Traveller sites often experience poor living conditions, with inadequate mechanisms in place to hold landlords to account, especially on the maintenance of essential living facilities. The Renters’ Rights Bill presents a vital opportunity to address this, and we should grasp it. Most significantly, the RRB abolishes assured shorthold tenancies and fixed-term tenancies. It also introduces an extensive range of further measures designed to enhance the rights of tenants, including applying the decent homes standard to the private rented sector and extending Awaab’s law to private rented sector tenancies. The Office for National Statistics conducted research in 2022 with residents living on private and local authority sites, who reported issues such as fly-tipping, vermin infestation, proximity to environmental hazards, dampness and leaks, and the general need for repair. This could be the environment which some children would consider their playground. The current changes will not apply to buildings comprising essential living facilities, nor the caravans and mobile homes situated on a pitch on a Gypsy or Traveller caravan site. Together with the housing health and safety rating system contained in Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004, these measures are important means of policing housing standards. There is no justification for not applying these regimes to the buildings that Gypsy and Traveller households use as part of their home or mobile home when it is rented from a landlord. The previous speakers have supported this group of amendments and I agree wholeheartedly with their comments. The protections afforded to tenants in bricks- and-mortar buildings must be extended to those whose homes are in caravans and mobile homes, as well as to the amenity buildings on the sites of these homes. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

My Lords, I welcome this group of amendments as a point of discussion and commend the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, on his introduction of it. As somebody who has spent 50 years in the property business, I am absolutely unsurprised that the noble Lord may have received a less than enthusiastic welcome from members of the Bill team, because his amendment raises a fundamental principle around what we are actually looking at: that is, whether we are looking at the use of land or the use of a water body, which we used to refer to as “land covered by water”. It seems to me that the principles relating to those two are rather different. A fixed pitch for a caravan is fundamentally different in qualitative and quantitative terms from a mooring, which is, in essence, a connection to the shore but with the vessel fundamentally sitting over water. It is not just houseboats that are involved here. This is also about moorings in marinas, where the water body may be a tidal area, which one would assume might be in the possession of the Crown. A fundamental difference here is that, where you have a house as a piece of real estate—in other words, land with bricks and mortar—it is fundamentally fixed and has a degree of permanence in law, unlike something that can be sailed away. To take another analogy, if somebody wishes to have a motor home and park it permanently at one location, does the same apply? Because that could be driven away; it is not in the nature of a permanent feature. I do not have any particular problems with the provisions of this Bill applying more widely, if that policy decision is made here, but I do see a problem in terms of its application. This gets a little more complicated when you consider that the item occupied for this particular purpose may be something that somebody rents as an entirety—in other words, a boat and a piece of mooring and the water in which it floats—or may be something quite different, in terms of its nature, because the person who occupies the thing may actually own the boat and bring it there. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, Awaab’s law might apply to the former instance, where the boat and the pitch are a complete package, rented as one element. However, it would not apply to an occupier of their own houseboat. However leaky the bucket may be, it is their responsibility and not the responsibility of the person from whom they are renting the mooring. So I can see that there are a number of different ways in which this rather difficult cake gets cut, and I rise to clarify some of the points as a matter of land law rather than to pass judgment on whether, as a matter of policy, there should be the protections afforded under this Bill in whole or in part.

I have the greatest respect for the noble Earl’s expertise in this area. However, I suggest that the key aspect which the Renters’ Rights Bill deals with is not essentially the physical structure of the home but the fact that it is somebody’s permanent home and they are the residents and rent it. Even if it were a balloon in the sky, if it were a permanent rented home, that is the criterion that should apply equal rights to the residential person. I will probably defer to the noble Earl’s expertise, but it does seem to me that renting your home is what matters, not what the home consists of.

I am grateful to noble Baroness, who has great wisdom in this area. I am a humble technician on these matters. There is an issue of permanence: whether the item is in some way permanently fixed or adhering to the surface—or, if it was a house on stilts, glued to the bottom of whatever water body there is—or whether it is actually capable of being removed. Permanence is a bit of a problem, I agree. I dare say that the average static caravan might have a life expectancy of perhaps 20 years before it is effectively scrap. I do not know how long a houseboat lasts, because I have never asked anybody. I do know that, every now and again, they have to be hauled out of the water and taken away to some yard to have plates welded on the bottom, anti-fouling paint added and all sorts of other things done to make them fit for purpose. Therefore, they do not have that permanence of being permanently affixed to a site from which they cannot be removed without total demolition. I see that as rather different from something that can be sailed away, driven away or lifted out of the water. It is a different nature of animal from what we understand as real estate. The real estate here would be the land covered by water or, in the case of a mooring in a marina, that bit of tidal water. For something that might be on wheels, the permanent bit is the pitch and not the device or box in which the living takes place. That is the break point that we are dealing with here. As I say, I make no policy judgment on this. I just say that there is a technical difficulty in real estate terms in trying to pin it down, which is why the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, got the reception that he described earlier.

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Whitaker. I want to emphasise the shortage of appropriate accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers, particularly when the size of this community is growing. There are multiple disadvantages linked to insufficient quality accommodation on sites—not only poor education and physical and mental health outcomes but a sense of social exclusion from the wider community. The dearth of GRT sites and accommodation can cause conflict and tension. Local councillors are beset with complaints if an unauthorised encampment appears in their area. Unauthorised encampments often result from a lack of suitable authorised places. The Government already know these issues, but they need the partnership of the housing sector to drive change and speed up delivery of sites. I know that the social housing sector would like to help the Government in breaking this cycle by providing sufficient and appropriate sites and accommodation. There are a number of measures that can be taken in partnership to deliver more homes, and reduce conflict and costs to the taxpayer.

16:45:00

A key ingredient of delivering sites successfully is planning support for the delivery of Gypsy and Traveller sites, so I echo my noble friend’s emphasis on the importance of amenity blocks. As the recent chair of the Property Ombudsman, I hope that the Government will acknowledge the need to include amenity blocks for mobile homes in the remit of an ombudsman. Looking ahead, I also support Amendment 252, which would extend application of the decent homes standard to mobile homes rented for residential purposes.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed. This is what makes this House so good at these sorts of debates, because expertise from all parts of this debate has been shown today. These amendments draw attention to the housing circumstances of non-traditional tenures, in particular residential boat dwellers, mobile home residents and members of the Travelling communities. These are individuals and families whose housing arrangements, as we have heard, do not always align neatly with the frameworks established for the private rented sector. The amendments in this group, most notably those from the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, raise legitimate questions, from the proposal to classify mooring fees and site fees as rent, to calls for formal reviews on how this legislation impacts riverboat dwellers, mobile home residents, and Gypsy and Traveller communities. The amendments ask us to think carefully about the scope and reach of the Renters’ Rights Bill. We on these Benches recognise that individuals living in houseboats, in mobile homes and on Traveller sites often face unique vulnerabilities, and we must be cautious not to exclude them from appropriate protections. At the same time, it is essential that we examine whether the legislative instruments proposed in the Bill are the right fit for these circumstances, or whether we risk introducing unintended consequences for landlords, licensing authorities, the Canal & River Trust, which manages our waterways, or even the residents themselves. One of the questions here is whether the current legal definitions, such as “dwelling house” and “rent”, are suitable for application to mobile structures or moorings, as we have heard. However, we must also consider the interests and views of different Traveller communities. Have the Government undertaken proper consultation with these communities? Do they, in fact, want to be brought into the scope of this legislation, and on what terms? We must avoid legislating for communities without engaging with them first. As we have heard today, particularly from my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, these amendments do not seek sweeping or immediate change—rather, they propose reviews and clarifications—but even the suggestion of classifying moorings or site fees as rent could trigger significant changes to how the law treats these tenures. This could introduce unintended complexity for landlords, many of whom are small-scale, and lead to disputes where the legal framework is unclear or even inapplicable. More work needs to be done on this issue, in our opinion. As my noble friend said, that has already been promised by the Government. Finally, we must ask whether there is a clear and compelling case for bringing these non-traditional tenures within the scope of the legislation, or whether doing so risks creating unintended consequences for both the tenants and the landlords.

My Lords, I first express my appreciation for starting these debates at a reasonable time today. We have been getting later and later, so I am very pleased. I hope that we finish them at a reasonable time as well. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for their amendments relating to non-traditional tenures, and all who have contributed to this debate. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in saying that it shows the best of this House when you get expertise like that from across the Chamber, from the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller, Lady Bakewell and Lady Warwick, the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Best, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and, of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, herself. I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness who have amendments in this group for their very helpful engagement on the issues they raised. Before I give my responses to the amendments, I say that I truly understand the frustrations felt by both of them, and those on whose behalf they speak, that these issues have not been addressed by successive Governments. Although I do not believe the Bill is the vehicle to address those issues, as I expect they will have anticipated from our meetings, I will continue to work with them to seek appropriate solutions to the issues they have raised. I turn first to Amendments 206A, 262 and 271, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. I thank the noble Lord for raising concerns about difficulties faced by houseboat owners in general and the houseboat owners in Chelsea who he has talked to me about in the past. Amendment 206A would give those who own or rent a houseboat and use the boat as their main residence the same rights under Part 1 of the Bill as renters of residential buildings. Although occupants of residential boats may benefit from some protection under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and some wider consumer protection legislation, the Government recognise that they do not enjoy the same level of tenure security as those in the private rented sector. However, the Renters’ Rights Bill focuses on the law relating to rented homes, not owner-occupiers, and the tenancy reform measures in Part 1 focus on the assured tenancy regime, which applies to most private renters in England and relates to residential buildings. The assured tenancy regime does not apply to houseboats or other moveable property—an issue to which the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred in his intervention. Those in rented houseboats will have a licence to occupy the boat and will fall outside the assured tenancy regime that the Bill is concerned with. Specifically on Amendment 262, as houseboats are predominantly owner-occupied—I understand that some are rented but they are mostly owner-occupied—and do not fall within the assured tenancy regime, it is therefore unlikely that a review of the impact of the Bill’s provisions would provide significant new insights into the issues affecting houseboat owners. Additionally, bringing houseboats within the scope of the assured tenancy regime, as proposed by Amendment 271, would raise fundamental and complex issues, about which I will explain a bit more in a moment, including what security of tenure means in relation to a chattel as opposed to land, and what the potential implications for moorings owners and navigation authorities might be. The policy and legislative implications would be far-reaching and there would be a high chance of unintended consequences, as indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. The Government’s priority is to ensure the smooth and successful implementation of the measures in the Bill that are before the Committee today. On that basis, although I am very sympathetic to the noble Lord’s aims, I cannot support these amendments as they stand. The Government will, however, continue to engage with parliamentarians and stakeholders on the complex issues about houseboats that the noble Lord has rightly and powerfully helped to highlight. The issues and history raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, illustrated some of the complications in resolving these issues. I will add that providing additional security of tenure to houseboat owners would require engagement with a range of stakeholders, including more than 20 navigation authorities and the owners of land adjoining waterways, and that is just part of the complication here. I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said there was a working group 19 years ago in which my noble friend Lady Smith took part. I can say only that we have not been in government for the last 14 years so it has been difficult to move any of this forward. The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to security of tenure. As I said, providing additional security of tenure to houseboat owners would require the engagement of those navigation authorities and owners of land, and other users of waterways will have different needs and requirements that would also need to be taken into account. Security of tenure under the Housing Act 1988 applies to tenancies of buildings and land, so would not be suitable for licences to occupy boats without significant amendment. To bring rented houseboats within the scope of the legislation would require a detailed assessment of the implications for the assured tenancy regime and the changes being introduced through the Renters’ Rights Bill and other legislation that refers to it, and, as I said before, a high chance of unintended consequences. The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to unfair practice on mobile home sites. My email inbox indicates very much what some of those complications are, but I will talk about the mobile homes amendments now. I thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker for her work to ensure that the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community has a safe and secure place to live. I have had a number of conversations with my noble friend since I joined this House, and she knows that I share her concerns about some of the issues that she raises. She and I have had many discussions about this, particularly about the standards of communal facilities provided on sites occupied by the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. We understand the concerns and will continue to engage with parliamentarians and stakeholders on the complex issues about standards on those sites. For those sites owned and operated by local authorities, there is of course recourse both to the local authority’s complaints system and, if that is not successful, to the Local Government Ombudsman, although I appreciate that there are some unique difficulties for those communities in accessing those routes. Amendment 206B would give those who own a caravan and use it as their main residence the same rights under Part 1 of the Bill as renters of residential buildings. That would include those who already have protections under the Mobile Homes Act 1983. For similar reasons to those that I have already set out in my response to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, while I am sympathetic to the difficulties faced by mobile home owners, a different approach to addressing those difficulties is necessary from that proposed by this amendment. There would be a high risk of unintended consequences if an attempt were made to extend rights under Part 1 of the Bill, which is about rented homes, to mobile home owners. The noble Baroness mentioned that the Mobile Homes Act 1983 confers on mobile home pitch agreements the key characteristics of a tenancy, rather than merely a licence to occupy. While there may be some similarities between the terms implied by the 1983 Act and the terms of certain tenancy agreements, the fact remains that those occupying pitches on caravan sites only have a licence to occupy the pitch. They have no interest in the land, and there would still be no intention by the site owner to create a tenancy between the parties. Moreover, the pitch agreement does not relate to the occupation of the mobile home itself, just the pitch on which it stands. In that sense, a pitch agreement and a secure or assured tenancy are fundamentally different types of agreement. To bring those with Mobile Home Act 1983 agreements within the scope of the assured tenancy regime, as proposed by Amendment 206B, would raise fundamental and complex issues, including what “security of tenure” means in relation to a chattel as opposed to land, and what the potential implications for caravan site owners might be. Amendment 275A would commit the Government to carrying out a review of the implications of not extending the provisions of the Act to the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. Again, while I am most sympathetic to my noble friend’s aims, I cannot support the amendment as mobile homes are predominantly owner-occupied and do not fall within the assured tenancy regime, which the Renters’ Rights Bill is largely focused on. However, I understand and will further consider her points about the amenity blocks and how those issues may be addressed. In addition, as the Renters’ Rights Bill is focused on the law relating to rented homes, it is unlikely that a review of the impact of the provisions in the Bill will provide significant new insights into the issues affecting mobile home owners. The Government’s priority is to ensure the smooth and successful implementation of the measures that are before the Committee today.

17:00:00

I understand my noble friend Lady Warwick’s point about the delivery of sites, which was well made. However, the National Planning Policy Framework is very clear that local plans must contain both an assessment of the need for mobile home sites and a provision that allows them to be delivered.

Having said all that, I thank noble Lords for their amendments, and ask that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment on this occasion.

My Lords, this has been a very worthwhile and effective debate. Not for the first time in my short 30 years in politics, I think we have won the arguments but have lost the vote—should it ever be called. I thank all noble Lords for their interventions. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I pick out three of those who I call my friends—the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Best—for their very early guidance and support to me on this issue. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is right about the problems with what I am proposing. Indeed, the courts have exercised themselves greatly over the issue of land and chattels in relation to boats and fixings to piers. Arguably, that is why we need a clear definition and clear protections in law. I associate myself with the other amendments in this group because I want to see more protections afforded to people, not fewer. Of course, I am disappointed by the Minister’s response. I expected more; I always expect more. I come from a profession—I have almost forgotten as it was many, many years ago—in which, if there was a problem, we went into a room and used our imagination to solve that problem, or at least to come up with suggestions for how to solve it. If, as politicians, in government and in opposition, we adopted the same process, people might forgive us more when we fail because our intention is to succeed for all the best reasons. Of course, there are unintended consequences. I am told it fills lawyers’ pockets when such laws are passed and that happens. There are unintended consequences—the consequences of doing nothing. When I withdraw this amendment, those consequences will be the continuation of people being evicted from their homes, caravans and boats. The evictions and homelessness will be accompanied by families in despair. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 206A withdrawn.

Amendment 206B not moved.

Clause 64: Meaning of “residential landlord”

Amendment 206C

Moved by

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

My Lords, this group contains just one amendment, Amendment 206C, which stands in my name. This amendment probes why definitions that determine who is subject to housing laws, rights and responsibilities can be amended by regulation. This is yet another part of the Bill that is subject to change at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Definitions in law are important. In this instance, the ability to change the definition of “private landlord”, “relevant tenancy” and “dwelling” for the purposes of determining which tenancies fall within the scope of the landlord redress scheme and the PRS database is a significant and fundamental power. Will the Minister say why the Government have sought to grant themselves this power through the affirmative procedure rather than through primary legislation? If the intent of these regulations is merely to clarify the position of superior landlords in certain circumstances, surely such clarification is best achieved through a full parliamentary process, one in which your Lordships’ House and the other place can explore the specifics and nuances of niche tenures such as student accommodation or temporary lets. The Government have committed to lay these regulations as soon as possible following Royal Assent. We are aware that there are to be no transitional arrangements included in the Bill. In previous debates, we urged the Government to reconsider this approach and affirm their long-standing commitment to prospective lawmaking by providing clear commencement dates and reasonable transition periods for all new obligations. This would help protect both tenants and landlords from the risks associated with abrupt and unfair change. However, the Government were clear that they did not share this view. Despite that, can the Minister confirm when these regulations might come into force? Importantly, how are they going to be communicated to the affected parties given the absence of transitional arrangements? Like many aspects of this Bill, this provision is concerning, particularly given the lack of detail in the Bill. This is part of a growing trend from this Government, a pattern in not just this Bill but across others too. I hope we are not going into this, “We will commit now, but do later”. I beg to move.

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend very strongly. I declare my interest, as I have done before, as a Suffolk farmer who has converted redundant agricultural buildings into dwellings. It is all still part of the farming operation. I have already warned the Government that they are in danger of relying on statutory instruments, Henry VIII clauses and subsidiary legislation for what will be primary legislation. The purpose of the Parliament is to legislate, in the first instance, primary legislation. The House of Lords, with its careful scrutiny of statutory instruments, has a particular role and record in doing this. So, this particular Bill is going, in any case, to have a lot of unanswered questions. We are going to try to ask most of those questions and get the Government to face up and give us the answers because it is a very bad principle of legislation for a Government to say, “Oh, we’ll leave that to the courts”, or something like that. That is not what legislating is about. It is important that we do not unnecessarily add into potential secondary legislation what should be primary legislation. The Government have got to take this very seriously because this is a long and difficult Bill which has many dangers in it and ahead of it, not least—and I shall probably say this again—because the private rented sector plays an important part in the provision of housing. The provision of housing was one of the objectives of the previous Government and of this Government. It is also part of generating economic growth, which the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have repeatedly told us is their priority. I beg the Government to be more rigid and dissective in their thinking before rushing ahead with this legislation.

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Scott on the Front Bench and reiterate her very strong arguments and those from my noble friend Lord Marlesford just now. We have seen a quite significant trend since the general election of the Government seeking to award themselves very wide-ranging, permissive powers in primary legislation with very little detail. That is a significant concern. Certainly, if the boot was on the other foot and a Conservative Government had brought forward a clause such as Clause 64, where we are being invited to take on trust the expeditious post-dated production of a statutory instrument and regulations, the party now in government would, quite rightly, have complained about that. If we look at the detail, this is an extremely wide-ranging amendment. Clause 64(4)(b) talks about “relevant tenancy” and the adding or removal of any particular kind of relevant tenancy. On “dwelling”, paragraph (c) states, “in addition to a building or part of a building, it includes any other structure, vehicle or vessel”, and “includes a building or part of a building, and anything for the time being included in the meaning of ‘dwelling’”. That is a very wide definition to be in a Bill when we have an open-ended commitment to produce regulations without any date. I think, and have said before, that the idea of retrospective legislation is poor. In a different context at the beginning of Committee in your Lordships’ House I mentioned this issue. It is very worrying that there is no opportunity for a period of amelioration and getting used to the regulations. Finally, given all that, the chance of significant instances of litigation arising from this clause are pretty high, I would think. For those reasons, is the Minister able to write to noble Lords before Report at least to give an indication of when those regulations are likely to be published to reassure your Lordships’ House that this a one-off in terms of how wide and permissive these powers are? Frankly, it is not good enough. It does not allow us to analyse properly the efficacy of the policy and the likely impact it will have on any litigation for both landlords and tenants. I hope the Minister is able to take those issues on board.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendment regarding the definition of a landlord and thank the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford and Lord Jackson, for participating. Amendment 206C seeks to remove subsection (4) of Clause 64. This would mean that amendments to the definitions of “relevant tenancy”, “residential landlord” and “dwelling” set out in the Bill could not be made by regulations. This would affect Part 2, which includes the redress and database provisions. I fully agree that any changes to the definition of those who bear responsibilities and benefit from rights under this legislation should be made with proper consideration. The definition of “residential landlord” under Clause 64 of this Bill has been drafted with care to capture the majority of typical private tenancies in England. However, the private rented sector has proven itself to be dynamic. I am sorry to say that the unscrupulous use of complicated arrangements, such as certain types of rent-to-rent schemes, has demonstrated the need for flexibility in how we define who is, or is not, in scope of private landlord redress or the database. We are also aware that other forms of occupation, such as occupation under licence, may benefit from the Part 2 protections in the future. A strong case may be made for expanding who is protected if certain arrangements proliferate following the implementation of the Bill. Our focus at this time, however, must be on getting our reforms right for the millions living in typical private tenancies, rather than extending the redress and database provisions to other kinds of residential occupier whose needs and circumstances may be quite different from the majority. We have included a power to change the scope of Part 2 by regulations in the future if it is considered appropriate. The reason is that the introduction of mandatory landlord redress for the first time is a significant undertaking. The definition of “residential landlord” has been drafted, as I said, to capture the majority of tenancies. We have retained the flexibility to change the scope of rental agreements covered by the database and ombudsman in the future, should that be deemed necessary.

17:15:00

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

My Lords, I particularly thank my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Marlesford for their support on what we consider a very important amendment. I also thank the Minister, although I am surprised at her response on having a period of time to get communications in place. I will look back in Hansard but I think that, on a previous group, it was suggested that the implementation would come quite quickly after Royal Assent. If that is the case, I would quite like to know what the timings would be—whether it would be weeks or months—as and when those things are known. On these Benches, we of course recognise that the Secretary of State should be afforded certain powers to deliver the content of legislation. However, the Government possibly have not fully considered the scale and scope of these regulatory powers, nor the level of trust that landlords, tenants and legislators must place in the Secretary of State on this issue. This is not about questioning the intentions of the Minister or others; rather, it is to suggest that significant changes should be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny, and that both your Lordships’ House and the other place should be given the opportunity to fulfil their constitutional role—quite honestly, that is the reason we are here. I believe that what the Minister was saying is that these powers are necessary, but I did not hear compelling justification for why that is the case. Perhaps at a later stage we might, as I said, have more information on this and the Minister might be able to give a better explanation and I would be very happy to have that in writing. However, at this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 206C withdrawn.

Clause 64 agreed.

Clause 65: Landlord redress schemes

Amendment 207

Moved by

207: Clause 65, page 99, line 25, leave out “may” and insert “must” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment alters the Bill so that the Secretary of State must make regulations requiring a residential landlord to be a member of a landlord redress scheme, rather than leaving it to the Secretary of State’s discretion to make regulations.

My Lords, we now move on to Clause 65. I have tabled a number of amendments in this group: Amendments 207, 210, 214, 215 and 216. All of them are directed at tidying up the terms of the Bill, but they are also rather complicated, so I must ask for the patience of the Committee as I go through them one by one, so that I get the argument right relating to each of them. Amendment 207 takes us straight to Chapter 2 on page 99 of the Bill and landlord redress schemes. Clause 65(1) says that the Secretary of State “may make regulations requiring a residential landlord to be a member of a landlord redress scheme”. The difference of opinion that I have in moving this amendment is that that should not be in terms of “may” but “must”, because it is an essential feature of landlord redress schemes that all residential landlords join in. Amendment 210 goes further into this section of the Bill. The requirement that I seek here is that there should be only one landlord redress scheme. I think that my noble friend the Minister is sympathetic to that. I would like it to be rather stronger and make it an obligation to have only one redress scheme. We then move to Amendments 214, 215 and 216. Amendment 214 gives sympathy to those who are digitally inept, which certainly includes me. In that amendment, I seek a requirement to enable those who are unfamiliar with computers and other electronic devices to be able to enter the redress scheme and not be digitally excluded. Amendment 215 is the most complicated of all my amendments. It would make it a condition of approval of a designated redress scheme that the Secretary of State should apply the test of what is considered appropriate and proportionate in support of tenants experiencing house-related problems. It is a matter of drafting, perhaps, but a matter of some importance. Amendment 216 is very sensible and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to help me here. I suggest that we should be quite sure that the duty of the Secretary of State is to designate one landlord redress scheme in the private sector, and no more than one. I hope that I have covered all the amendments sufficiently and accurately. I beg to move.

My Lords, I wrote in my notes that this was “hopefully” the last day in Committee on the Bill, but I have now inserted “possibly”. Regrettably, it is my last day, because of an important appointment tomorrow that I cannot cancel. It is appropriate for me to thank profusely all those who have helped me personally, and probably helped all of us, with their excellent briefings, as well as giving help with amendments—and, in my case, frantic email exchanges when I have not quite understood things. I refer to all those in the Renters’ Reform Coalition, the Local Government Association, the National Residential Landlords Association and Suzanne, the Independent Landlord, to name but a few. This is a very important part of the Bill, and we largely support the first two amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, regarding having just the one scheme and changing “may” to “must”. However, I will speak to my Amendment 218, which is a simple probing amendment for what is a very complex issue. The Bill makes continuing or repeat breaches of the landlord redress scheme an offence, but not joining the scheme in the first place is merely a breach. That means that landlords can still be fined by the local authority for not joining but tenants cannot claim a rent repayment order as it is not an offence. There is clearly an imbalance here; my amendment simply seeks to probe the Government’s reasoning for not making failure to join the scheme an offence in the first place, rather than waiting for landlords continually not to adhere to the new requirement. We want this failure to become an offence from the get-go because we believe that non-compliance with the redress scheme will have serious regulatory consequences, significantly impacting tenants’ ability to hold their landlord to account. That is the key matter on issues such as disrepair and the standard of the home. The rent repayment order gives tenants compensation for substandard accommodation and can incentivise them to report things in the first place. Interestingly, Generation Rent’s polling found that nearly one in three renters has had maintenance issues in their home, which they have reported, but their landlord has not dealt with—a simple but very telling snapshot. In the Republic of Ireland, failure of a landlord to register a tenancy with the Residential Tenancies Board—the Irish equivalent to what we are proposing—is a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment of up to six months and a fine of €40,000, with €250 payable each day of non-registration. Perhaps they take a rather different approach. We are concerned that, as councils are already overstretched and currently have very little resource for proactive enforcement, an undetermined number of landlords could avoid joining the redress scheme initially as they will think being discovered by the council is low risk. The risk of being reported by their tenants—who would not be eligible for a rent repayment order, so there is no incentive for them—is also very low. Both aspects are not what we want. Therefore, we feel that this imbalance does not treat seriously enough the impact that non-compliance in these matters will have in undermining and frustrating one of the fundamental tenets of the new regulatory regime. I hope that the noble Baroness will allay our concerns.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for introducing this group of amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. The landlord redress scheme is a vital function of the Bill, and the onus is on all of us to ensure that the legislation is as effective and robust as it needs to be. I hope that the Minister will take the time to reflect on the constructive suggestions made by noble Lords and take them back to the department for further consideration. The fact that the Minister has tabled amendments is, I suggest, a recognition that the Bill is not perfect, even in the eyes of those charged with defending it. Before I turn to the amendments tabled by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I shall speak to those amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. Amendment 208 would require a residential landlord to be a member of the landlord redress scheme only if their tenant does not already have access to redress via a letting agent who is a member of another approved independent scheme. This would avoid duplication, unnecessary regulatory burden and the potential confusion between effectively being a member of two different schemes. This is vital, because clarity and efficiency in regulation are essential for compliance and enforcement. Amendment 210A probes the Government’s proposed duration of the membership period for the redress scheme. This period is to be set by regulations, but as things stand there is no indication, or even a hint, of what that timeframe might be. Could the Minister provide some clarity on this point? Stakeholders need certainty to plan and prepare appropriately. Amendment 210B seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish draft regulations establishing the landlord redress scheme within six months of the passage of the Bill. A clear, time-bound commitment is essential if the Government are serious about delivering this long-promised reform. Without a defined timeline, there is a risk that implementation will drift or be indefinitely delayed, to the detriment of all stakeholders—especially tenants. Could the Minister say what, in her view, constitutes meaningful progress and what timescale the department is working to?

17:30:00

Amendment 212A probes the appointment process of an independent individual who will be responsible for investigating complaints under the redress scheme. Understanding this process is essential if this Committee is to scrutinise how and why an individual is selected. Transparency in this matter is not just desirable but fundamental; I hope the Minister agrees. Could she set out the proposed appointment process, if not today then at least before Report?

I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. Amendment 207 rightly draws attention to the importance of the redress scheme, which plays a crucial role in the private rented sector. Such a scheme provides a clear and accessible mechanism for resolving disputes between landlords and tenants, and is fundamental to promoting fairness, transparency and accountability across the sector. By ensuring that tenants and landlords have a reliable route to seek redress, we help raise standards and build trust in the system as a whole.

Amendments 210 and 216 quite rightly highlight the importance of simplicity and clarity in the operation of the redress scheme. These amendments propose that the Bill be amended so that the Secretary of State may approve or designate only one landlord redress scheme for the private rented sector. As I understand it, there are currently two government-approved redress schemes, with the onus being on the Government to ensure they work together to provide an effective and efficient redress system. Amendment 214 raises the important issue of digital exclusion. Not everyone has access to or is comfortable using digital platforms, and we must ensure the system remains accessible and inclusive.

I will briefly touch on the noble Lord’s final amendment in this group, Amendment 215. This amendment draws attention to the need to support tenants facing housing-related issues, such as debt, financial insecurity and welfare challenges. We know that many tenants in the private rented sector are struggling, and this will be exacerbated by a series of crude and piecemeal welfare changes introduced by this Government—often without the benefit of coherent reform or sufficient support structures.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her amendment, and for her stressing the importance of ensuring that everyone is a member of the redress scheme.

I turn to the Government’s amendments. I note that they are still tabling amendments to their own Bill at such a late stage. Amendments 211 and 212 seek to clarify that the Secretary of State has a free-standing duty to make regulations under Clauses 65 and 66. Although the intent may be clarification, in practice this grants yet more regulatory power to the Secretary of State. This continued layering of ministerial discretion without sufficient parliamentary oversight raises genuine concerns. It speaks to a broader problem with the Bill: the reliance on secondary legislation at the expense of clear and accountable primary law. If the Government are confident in the substance of these measures, they should be willing to put more detail in the Bill.

Finally, Amendment 213 provides that a person who has been expelled from a landlord redress scheme may, in appropriate circumstances, be permitted to join another scheme. I simply ask: what are those “appropriate circumstances”? The phrase is vague and, without further clarification, risks undermining the credibility and consistency of the redress framework.

This is an important debate that goes to the heart of the integrity and enforcement of the redress system. I hope the Government will provide detailed and reassuring answers to the questions raised in this group. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hacking and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Thornhill, for their amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for moving the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. Before I turn to the amendments, I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, advised of her opposition to having Clause 65 stand part of the Bill. Clause 65 gives the Secretary of State power by regulations to require residential landlords to be members of a private landlord redress scheme. I note her concern over placing a legal requirement on landlords to join a redress scheme. However, having no legal obligation on landlords to do so means retaining the status quo, in which a very small minority of private landlords choose voluntarily to sign up to a redress scheme. I believe only around 100 landlords out of the 2.3 million in the country joined a previous voluntary scheme. This lottery for private tenants is wholly unfair, particularly as those renting in the social sector have enjoyed universal access to landlord redress through the Housing Ombudsman service for decades. This Bill makes it clear that being a residential landlord is a serious commitment, which most landlords understand, and that it carries responsibilities and obligations towards a tenant. For those who do not understand this, we need to make it clear through the Bill. Placing a legal requirement on landlords to be part of a redress scheme is necessary and key to delivering a long-promised government commitment. Access to justice for tenants should be not at the discretion of landlords but built into the new tenancy system, promoting high-quality, safe and secure privately rented homes.

Hear, hear!

I start with the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking— I hope he is going to carry on saying “Hear, hear!” as I go through his amendments. Amendment 207 would place a duty on the Government to lay regulations requiring residential landlords to be members of a landlord redress scheme, rather than giving them discretion to do so. I understand why my noble friend has put in this amendment and I reassure him that the Government are committed to requiring private landlords to become members of an ombudsman as soon as it is practicable to do so. However, it would not be beneficial to the sector for the Secretary of State to be obliged to require landlords to join an ombudsman scheme before being assured that it is ready to join. We have taken powers in the Bill to allow the Government to make sure that the ombudsman is introduced in the most effective way, with the appropriate sequencing. This will make sure the ombudsman scheme is ready to deliver a high- quality service at the point that landlords are required to join it. Amendment 210 seeks to set out in legislation that only one redress scheme can operate in the private rented sector at any time. Amendment 216 similarly seeks to remove the ability to set out in regulations the number of redress schemes that can operate in the private rented sector at any one time. It is indeed our intention to approve a single redress scheme, as my noble friend outlined, which all private landlords will be required to join. However, as my noble friend has noted, the legislation allows at the moment for more than one scheme. There are an estimated 2.3 million landlords operating in England, letting their properties to 11 million tenants. Allowing for multiple schemes in legislation offers the Government the flexibility and assurance that, should demand for redress prove too much for a single provider to handle effectively, additional schemes could be brought into this space to take over some of the load. This approach to allowing for the possibility of multiple schemes has precedent: for instance, in the Housing Act 1996, which makes provision for social housing redress as delivered by the Housing Ombudsman. It is therefore vital that the Government can set out in regulations the number of redress schemes that they will approve or designate for the private rented sector. This will allow the Government to set a limit at first of one scheme, with the assurance that this is not set in stone, should demand for redress prove too much for a single provider to handle effectively. Amendment 214 would make it a statutory requirement for the private rented sector landlord ombudsman scheme to enable access to the service through offline routes. I fully agree with my noble friend on the importance of ensuring that those who cannot or do not wish to use a computer are still able to engage with the service and access redress. I am pleased to reassure the Committee that the Government intend to ensure that the scheme is accessible, including to those who require offline access. We will expect the new ombudsman service, regardless of whether administered by a public or private body, to meet the same set of high standards for accessibility as outlined in the government service standard and accessibility requirements for public sector bodies. There will be further opportunities for the Government to ensure that this is the case without amending the Bill. Amendment 215 would expand the role of the private rented sector landlord ombudsman to provide support for tenants with housing-related problems that are outside of their landlord’s control, such as issues with employment, welfare or debt; I found the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about piecemeal amendments to the welfare system, as I think he called them, a little ironic in view of where we find ourselves with the welfare system. This amendment would be an additional responsibility for the ombudsman not directly linked to resolving disputes. We think that it is important that we focus on the main function of the ombudsman, rather than considering other functions that may slow down implementation or direct resource away from delivering against the core purpose of the redress service. We recognise, of course, that tenants facing housing-related employment, welfare and debt problems should have access to support. It may be appropriate for the ombudsman to signpost tenants to, for instance, their local authority, Citizens Advice or tenant advocacy charities, but we do not think that any amendment is necessary for that to take place. For these reasons, I kindly ask my noble friend Lord Hacking to consider not moving his amendments. I turn now to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. Amendment 208 would exempt landlords from being required to join the private landlord ombudsman if they use a property agent who is a member of another approved independent redress scheme. We cannot have a situation where tenants have no route to redress for problems that are outside an agent’s control, such as where a landlord refuses to authorise large repair works or behaves badly toward the tenant. This is why we think that it is fair that landlords, including those who use a managing agent, can be held accountable if they have failed to resolve a tenant’s complaint satisfactorily. We take seriously the noble Baroness’s concerns about duplication. Careful consideration will be given, during the implementation process, as to how the PRS landlord ombudsman service will interact with the agent redress provision. Our primary concern is that the service works effectively for landlords and tenants so that tenants can access redress where needed and treated fairly by the system, regardless of whether their landlord uses an agent. Amendment 210A seeks to prevent regulations under Clause 65 requiring landlords to remain members of the redress scheme for a specified period after they cease to be residential landlords. Problems can occur for tenants at any point in the rental process, right up to the very end; in fact, the end of a tenancy can be an extremely stressful time for both landlord and tenant, with a lot of scope for things to go wrong as a landlord takes back possession of their property. Requiring landlords to remain members of the ombudsman for a reasonable amount of time once they have stopped being a landlord gives tenants the opportunity to seek redress for harm or inconvenience caused at the end of their tenancy. As part of the implementation process, we will work with stakeholders to ensure that the period of time for which former landlords are required to remain members of the scheme is appropriate and proportionate. I assure the House that we are committed to ensuring that landlords who choose to leave the sector can exit the ombudsman scheme as quickly as possible; this is not a “Hotel California” ombudsman where you can check out but never leave. However, this needs to be balanced with giving tenants sufficient time for issues to come to light and for them to escalate complaints after their tenancy has ended. Amendment 210B seeks to require a draft of the landlord redress regulations under Clause 65 to be published within six months of Royal Assent. We agree that transparency is important, and we are committed to giving the sector as much time as possible to prepare for the new redress requirements. However, it will be the published scheme, not the regulations—indeed, not regulations under Clause 65—that will set out how the private landlord redress scheme will operate. We are committed to working with the sector to implement the PRS landlord ombudsman service smoothly. We intend for the details of the scheme to be published with significant lead-in time and to be piloted before landlords are required to be members. We do not think it would be right to place a legal requirement on the Secretary of State to publish draft regulations within a set time from Royal Assent. This is already a complex landscape, and work on this needs to be carefully thought through. Delivering it in a rush could be counterproductive, creating more problems down the line. Amendment 212A seeks to remove the requirement for the redress scheme to provide for the appointment of a responsible individual to oversee the investigation and determination of complaints under the scheme. This individual will likely be known as the private landlord ombudsman. We believe that clear accountability is important to promote good performance. Responsibility and authority for oversight of the complaints handling process under a scheme must lie with a single accountable person. This is common practice across other redress schemes and we believe it is right that it should be the case for the private landlord ombudsman. We will set out in the regulations the process for appointing the responsible individual for the redress scheme.

17:45:00

As we have said before, the Government’s preference is for the Housing Ombudsman Service to deliver private landlord redress. While not a final decision, if this is the case, we anticipate that appointment of the responsible individual will mirror the public appointment process for the existing Housing Ombudsman in the social rented sector. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, not to press her amendments.

Amendment 218 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would make failure by a relevant private landlord to register with a redress scheme an immediate criminal offence rather than, as is currently the case, a civil breach in the first instance. Across the provisions in the Bill, we are taking a clear, proportionate and escalating approach to penalties against those who flout the rules. For initial or less serious non-compliance, local authorities can impose a civil penalty of up to £7,000. For serious or repeat non-compliance, local authorities can prosecute or alternatively issue a civil penalty of up to £40,000. I think it is right that a first failure by a landlord to register with a redress scheme, which may not be done with malicious intent, is dealt with proportionately and not as a criminal offence. If a landlord continues to fail to register 28 days after receiving a first penalty, it then becomes a criminal offence.

We recognise that effective enforcement against those who flout the rules is essential to the successful implementation of our reforms to the private rented sector. We are placing a statutory duty on local housing authorities to enforce the provisions of the Bill. We expect them to take a proactive approach to enforcement and to give this the priority it deserves. We are strengthening local authorities’ ability to enforce: for example, through the new investigatory powers we are providing through the Bill. We will fund the net additional costs that will fall on local authorities as a result of our reforms to help ensure that they have the resources they need to enforce. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, not to press her amendment.

I turn now to government Amendments 209, 211 and 212, which clarify the sequence of the statutory instruments necessary to implement the private rented sector landlord ombudsman. Our amendments make it clear that the regulations setting out the conditions for approving or designating the scheme can be made before the regulations which make it mandatory for landlords to join the redress scheme. This will make sure that landlords are required to sign up to the ombudsman scheme only once it is ready.

Turning finally to government Amendment 213, the ombudsman service will have powers to compel landlords to comply with the scheme and its decisions. This includes being able to expel those who fail to meet their redress obligations. We believe it is right that an expelled landlord can rejoin an approved or designated redress scheme if they take the necessary steps to correct their actions at any point. Amendment 213 ensures that this is the case, even under exceptional circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked for an example. One example might be where the scheme from which the landlord was expelled is no longer in operation. This amendment allows for the landlord to be admitted as a member of another approved or designated scheme instead. I beg to move the government amendments.

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her very constructive reply. It happens many times in this House that, when we seek to change “may” to “must”, requiring more pressure to be put on the Government to commit to a certain form of action, the Government’s traditional reply is, “Leave it as ‘may’: you have our promise that we will do our best to bring this measure in and actually apply the ‘must’ test rather than the ‘may’”—so I accept all that my noble friend has said. I was interested in her comments on the landlord redress scheme and the explanation that she gave for why it would be quite sensible as a starter to have more than one redress scheme in place, but the aim must be to have a uniform scheme in place as soon as that is possible. However, the most important thing is the obligation on every residential landlord to join the scheme. I hope the Government will concentrate on that and will not have the type of figures that my noble friend has given to the House about an earlier scheme with a tiny number of landlords joining it and with a great, great majority not. I think that is probably the most important thing. I am very happy, therefore, in these circumstances to withdraw my amendment, based on the very helpful response that the Minister has just given to us.

Amendment 207 withdrawn.

Amendment 208 not moved.

Amendment 209

Moved by

209: Clause 65, page 99, line 36, at end insert— “(2A) A scheme must not be approved or designated under subsection (2)(b) unless it satisfies the conditions set out in regulations made under section 66(2).”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment provides that a landlord redress scheme must not be approved or designated by the Secretary of State for that purpose unless the scheme meets the conditions set out in regulations made under clause 66(2).

Amendment 209 agreed.

Amendment 210 not moved.

Amendments 210A and 210B not moved.

Clause 65, as amended, agreed.

Clause 66: Approval and designation of landlord redress scheme

Amendments 211 and 212

Moved by

211: Clause 66, page 101, leave out lines 18 and 19 Member’s explanatory statement This amendment clarifies that the Secretary of State is not required to make regulations under clause 65 before making regulations under clause 66.

212: Clause 66, page 101, line 21, leave out “before a scheme is” and insert “for a scheme to be” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment clarifies that the Secretary of State has a freestanding duty to make regulations under clause 66 which set out the conditions that must be met by a landlord redress scheme for the scheme to be approved or designated under clause 65(2).

Amendments 211 and 212 agreed.

Amendment 212A not moved.

Amendment 213

Moved by

213: Clause 66, page 102, line 25, leave out “and the expulsion has not been revoked” and insert “, except in circumstances specified in the regulations” Member’s explanatory statement This ensures that a person who has been expelled from a scheme may join another scheme in appropriate circumstances.

Amendment 213 agreed.

Amendments 214 to 216 not moved.

Clause 66, as amended, agreed.

Clause 67: Financial Penalties

Amendment 217 not moved.

Clause 67 agreed.

Clause 68: Offences

Amendment 218 not moved.

Clause 68 agreed.

Clauses 69 to 74 agreed.

Schedule 3 agreed.

Clause 75 agreed.

Clause 76: The database

Amendment 219

Moved by

219: Clause 76, page 110, line 5, after “must” insert “, within one year of the day on which the Act is passed,” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment requires the database to be established within one year of the Renters’ Rights Act coming into force.

I congratulate our Chair on going through these complicated provisions. She is doing very well and should receive congratulations from all of us. We now move on to the chapter relating to the private rented sector database, which is an essential component in the efficient bringing in of the provisions of the Bill. The database should be set up even before the Act comes into force. Amendment 219 seeks an obligation that the database operator must establish and operate the database within one year of the Act being passed. It seeks to set down a timetable for the bringing in of the database. All these amendments, like my earlier amendments, are meant to be tidying-up amendments and helpful to all of us taking part in this debate. The other amendments in my name in this group are Amendments 231 and 232. In an earlier version of the grouping, Amendment 237 was in this group but somehow it has disappeared. Can it be brought back to this group so we can discuss it as well? Amendment 231 would require “the database operator to ensure that facilities are available for persons to report breaches of any requirement” by means other than a computer. I have already spoken to the problems of the computer inept, including myself, and my noble friend the Minister is sympathetic on that issue. Amendment 232 would require “the database operator to ensure that facilities are available for people to access information on the database, in situations where they do not have access to a computer or electronic device”. Again, it would help those such as me, who are digitally inept. Amendment 237 would remove “the exception for landlords to be registered on the private rented sector database before a court can grant possession in cases” under ground 7A of the Housing Act 1998, as amended; for example, proceedings brought by the landlord for possession for anti-social behaviour. That seems to be a sensible amendment. There should not be restraint on a landlord bringing such proceedings, which are socially vital for the community in which those tenants are playing a part. Those are all the amendments. I hope I have been able to describe them lucidly and correctly to your Lordships. I beg to move.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 220 and 225. Amendment 220, in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Kennedy of Cradley, is the first of several amendments to support and enhance the Bill’s proposals for a PRS database. I am grateful to my noble colleagues and also to the Lettings Industry Council, Generation Rent, and the Large Agents Representation Group for help in drafting these amendments. The database, as proposed by Clause 76, will contain some basic information about the landlord and the property. This will assist local authorities in the carrying out of their duties in the enforcement of required standards in the PRS—private rented sector. It will save councils time and money—chasing landlords for the information the council needs and locating properties failing to meet statutory requirements. However, the database can do much more than this, and Amendment 220 makes it clear that it can have a wider, more significant role. It would surely be a wasted opportunity if the property database was of use only to local authorities. The amendment makes it clear that information on the database should also be available for the benefit of tenants, landlords and their agents. Not least, this new resource should enable landlords and agents to identify any obligation for them to obtain a licence from the local authority where the property is subject to a licensing requirement and would assist them in making such an application. For tenants and prospective tenants, Amendment 220 makes explicit what is surely intended; namely, that the database is being created to provide important information for those seeking a property to rent who want essential details about their future home and its landlord. Amendment 225 seeks to assist the new database process by clarifying that its functionality should allow data to be uploaded by landlords’ agents as well as by the landlords themselves; otherwise, landlords will need to be contacted constantly by agents to obtain the information they need. With around half of rented property being supported by lettings agents, this tweak is another reason why the amendment is a necessary addition to the Bill. This property portal amendment is supported by those representing renters and those representing landlords and property agents. With the additional features that we will discuss in the next group, these amendments seek to ensure that the database has a transformative impact in raising standards, helping enforcement and widening knowledge of all the properties in the sector.

18:00:00

My Lords, I support Amendment 220, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, to which I have added my name. Amendment 220 neatly ensures that the Bill is clear about who the PRS database is for. I understand the Government’s need to consider privacy, but in doing so the Government need to remember why the PRS database is needed. It is about increased transparency, empowering renters so that they can make informed decisions about where they live and properly exercise their rights. Yes, support for landlords and, yes, a tool for local authorities to raise standards—these are the intentions of the database and always have been since we started to lobby for this Bill many years ago. Amendment 220 is a simple way for this to be made clear in the Bill. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will accept this amendment. I also ask her to confirm that the Government’s priorities for the private rented sector database remain renter empowerment, support for landlords so that they are aware of their obligations, and providing an effective toolkit for local authorities to drive up standards.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 220 and 225, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my Amendments 243 and 243A, all of which seek to strengthen and clarify the role of the new private rented sector database. I also support Amendment 219, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. In so much of this Bill we lack a timeframe. Between us, we have tabled several amendments asking for clarification on timeframes. It is not just us seeking these timings but everyone who is impacted by the Bill. This is an area of great potential. I confess to getting quite excited about it when I first realised that it was a real tool in the Bill. A well-designed database could be genuinely transformative, supporting better enforcement, empowering tenants and giving responsible landlords the tools that they need to navigate the system more effectively. The noble Lord and I have very similar thoughts on that. However, to achieve that, it must be more than just a repository of basic information, which is where I fear we are going. It must be useful, accessible and enforceable. Amendment 220 seeks to make it clear that the database is a tool not just for local authorities but for public good. It should serve the interests of tenants, responsible landlords and good letting agents alike. In its current form, the Bill seems to emphasise enforcement utility but underplays the wider potential of the database as a source of transparency and information for all parties in the rental market. If we want this database to help drive up standards and support informed decision-making, we must set out that intention clearly. Amendment 225 introduces two further practical improvements. First, it allows letting agents to upload information on behalf of landlords, a sensible provision given the role that many agents already play in managing compliance. Secondly, it proposes that the database should offer a portal to help landlords determine whether their properties require licensing under the local authority schemes and to apply for those licences where necessary. Too often, licensing rules can vary from one area to another and be hard to navigate, particularly for smaller landlords. A centralised, user-friendly tool would significantly improve compliance. My Amendment 243 probes a critical issue: enforcement. The Bill states that landlords must be registered on the database along with each of their dwellings, but it is currently unclear what consequences there are for non-compliance. This amendment proposes that failure to register should be an offence, and we seek clarity from the Government on how these provisions will be enforced in practice. Without credible enforcement mechanisms, even the best-designed database risks being ignored by the very landlords it is intended to regulate. Finally, Amendment 243A would give the Secretary of State the power to include links to useful resources on the database, such as the “My Housing Issue” gateway. Such signposts may seem minor, but they can make a real difference, especially for tenants who need guidance on their rights or for landlords seeking to meet their obligations. The database should not exist in a vacuum; it should connect users to help, advice and relevant legal frameworks. These amendments may differ in focus, but they are united by a common aim: to ensure that the private rented sector database lives up to its promise and potential. It must be more than a tick-box exercise; it must be practical, enforceable and truly useful to the people it is meant to serve. I hope the Minister will give these proposals careful consideration, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

I will make just a couple of comments on the two amendments tabled by my noble colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Best. I start with Amendment 220 and the point made in support of it by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, because what is proposed here is clearly, in effect, a public register. I was not absolutely sure that I understood whether that was delimited in certain ways by the reference to “other interested stakeholders”, whoever or whatever they might be in any given circumstance, but a public register is what we are dealing with. If I may, I link this across to the next group of amendments, because it is appropriate to mention here that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has Amendment 222, which has an extensive list of requirements. I simply say that some of what she sets out there might need a rethink as to whether it is appropriate for that degree of detailed information to be on a public register, bearing in mind who else may have access to it and for what purposes. I have a question on Amendment 225. I absolutely agree with the functionality point, and I add to that by saying that there must absolutely be an email communications option in any database of this sort. Given the state of the normal, regular postal service, having an email option and being able to flag up an alert system of some sort would be absolutely essential for any landlord, their agent or, for that matter, any renter using the database. My question is to do with the way the database is applicable to local authority schemes. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, confirmed what I believed to be the case: namely, that local authority schemes might vary considerably. If we have a national database, I simply ask how that deals with strictly local things on a per local authority basis. The rules of the game must obviously apply nationally, but the property concerned, the landlord and the renter in particular may be local. I simply flag up how that will function or whether there will be a subsidiary local authority subset on a per local authority basis. If we have approach, and given the amount of data that the noble Baroness’s later amendment suggests, then, in terms of the amendments previously spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I suggest that we are looking at quite a considerable lead-in period in practical terms to get this database in place. If it is to be of use, it needs to start off as some sort of cut-down version in order to enable the essential information to be there, even if it is then expanded. I therefore see this being achievable by some sort of rollout over time. Trying to put it in place from day one would be a recipe for something approaching chaos.

My Lords, I will briefly comment on two amendments in this group: Amendment 233 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and Amendment 243 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, about databases. I feel that we are overlooking the need to ensure that the rogues in the system are identified and banned or punished for bad behaviour. They riddle the rented sector, I am afraid. The database is a great attempt to give transparency and clarity to mortgagees, as in one of these amendments, to tenants and to potential tenants to check on their potential landlords. It is not responsible landlords who are the problem; it is the rogues. Rogues like to be invisible. They do not want to be detectable. They certainly do not want enforcement proceedings served against them. Enforcement must have teeth. Without real teeth, there is little point in trying to catch the rogues. The database would go a long way towards achieving that, but I fear that there is not enough determination in the Government to really punish those who are determined to cheat. Rogues can hide their properties under the names of shelf companies. They can be registered abroad. They can have a tangled web of subsidiaries and further subsidiaries. They will make themselves as invisible and undetectable as possible. I close by simply saying that these are good amendments, but I would love to see sharper teeth in the enforceability.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for opening this group, as it marks the beginning of three vital debates on the database, which is an issue of great interest to stakeholders across the sector. There are 16 amendments in this group dealing with a range of quite complex issues relating to the database so, with the leave of the Committee, I will try to fully address the issues raised, but I might take a little extra time. Before turning to our specific amendments and those in the wider group, I start by saying that the creation of a private rented sector database is a major change for landlords and tenants in this country. It is an opportunity to seriously improve transparency and outcomes for renters. We have expressed concerns on previous Bills about the overuse of regulation-making powers to deliver the statutory powers that the Government seek. Ministers should, we believe, set out clearly their plans in this Bill as far as is practically possible. Given the lack of detail in the clauses relating to the establishment of the database, we take this opportunity to ask the Minister to clarify the Government’s plans. If she cannot answer today, we will be very happy to have it in writing after today’s debate. I start by addressing Amendment 228A, tabled in my name. This is a simple amendment that would ensure that the Secretary of State is required to make regulations to ensure that the database entries are regularly updated and maintained. It is essential that the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the data be maintained if it is to be a useful resource for both tenants and for landlords. This is common sense, and this should be a requirement. I hope the Minister will agree to that. If the Government cannot accept this amendment today, will she please take this opportunity to explain why the Government feel that the Secretary of State should have discretion in this area?

18:15:00

Next, I draw your Lordships’ attention to Amendment 228B, tabled in my name. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations about the circumstances in which an active landlord or dwelling entry in the database becomes an inactive entry. Similarly to Amendment 228A, this amendment is vital, because it provides a clear legal duty on the Secretary of State to establish a mechanism for maintaining the integrity of the database. Ensuring that entries are deactivated when appropriate is vital.

My Amendment 228H seeks to probe why the Secretary of State should not be compelled to specify cases under Clause 83(4). I ask the Minister simply: why? We would also like to understand more about the Government’s intentions with this regulatory power. What other classes of person do the Government intend to make subject to the duty imposed under Clause 83(3)? We would also like to understand the role of the letting agents in maintaining these records. We know that many landlords will employ a professional agent to maintain their database entries. Will the landlord always be responsible, or does the Government intend to allow for transfer of these duties from the landlords to their professional agent?

With Amendment 228D, also tabled in my name, we are seeking to establish a consultation on the efficacy and the adequacy of the first regulations made under Clause 81. The creation of the database is a major change in the way our private rented sector works, and any effective Government would want to engage with landlords, tenants and other parties before, during and after its establishment. If the Government resist this amendment today, I would be very grateful if Ministers could clearly set out their plans for post-implementation engagement with the sector. Letting agents in particular may also be interested in feeding into this process, which is why I have included leeway for the Secretary of State to consult other persons deemed appropriate.

Amendments 224A and 226A, tabled in my name, probe the Government’s willingness to allow parliamentary scrutiny of the appointment of the database operator. The database will be a critical resource for both tenants and landlords, underpinning enforcement and transparency in the private rented sector. Amendment 226A is important because it seeks to ensure that the appointment of the database operator—a role central to the system’s effectiveness—is subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny. There have been a number of recent concerns about appointments made by government in the last few months, such as for the football regulator. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, raised concerns about a deliberate policy of pausing the process for filling public appointments without particular reasons. Public appointments should be made with due process, which is why we are proposing parliamentary oversight of this appointment.

My Amendment 230A touches on access to the database for people with disabilities. This amendment would ensure that tenants with disabilities are provided with appropriate facilities by the database operator so they can access information relating to their tenancies. We should consider a range of options that ensure tenants with disabilities are not excluded from accessing critical information about their tenancies. Noble Lords will note that the Bill already includes a requirement to facilitate those who cannot or do not wish to use electronic devices when updating database entries, and we feel similar provision to facilitate access for disabled people would be an effective improvement to the Bill.

Finally on my amendments, I wish to discuss my Amendment 233. This is a probing amendment that would give mortgage lenders access to information on the database so that they could use it at buy-to-let mortgage application stage to deny finance to rogue or negligent landlords. By giving lenders access to the database at a buy-to-let mortgage application stage, this provision would ensure that those with a history of poor practice, non-compliance or unsafe housing could not continue to expand their property portfolios with impunity. It would align financial due diligence with regulatory standards, creating a powerful deterrent for bad actors in this sector.

Next, I will speak to Amendment 219 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. The proposed landlord registration scheme presents a significant opportunity to ensure that every property in the PRS meets minimum health and safety standards and is properly managed, whether by a landlord or by an appointed agent. I believe your Lordships’ Committee would agree that the PRS database should improve the current rental process and address many of the well-known pain points in the system. The Government should commit to getting on with it and delivering the system without delay. Can the Minister commit today to the delivery of the database? Can she set out a clear and realistic timescale for its implementation? Will she commit to enshrining a delivery date in law? If not, why not?

I would also like to discuss Amendment 230 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. This amendment would require the PRS database to make use of the unique property reference number. The database should use the official unique property reference number to address the end-to-end process, as well as the urgently required mandating of digital property safety certificates. The database operator should report metrics and communicate with the consumer agent landlord regularly to continually improve engagement across the sector. I urge the Government to make use of the unique property reference number.

I now turn to Amendment 220, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. This amendment would rightly clarify that the database should serve the interests of all parties. From these Benches, we strongly believe that the database must support tenants, landlords, agents and local authorities alike. It should be embedded as an integral part of the private rented sector, pulling together the legislation landlords must comply with, ensuring health and safety standards are met as a condition of letting, and recording accessibility to encourage and increase accessible PRS homes. Our concern is not with what the Bill does on the database but its clear failure to do enough. We must make it clear that, if implemented properly, this database can be a force for good across the entire sector.

Amendment 225, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, would introduce two important provisions. First, it would allow letting agents to upload data on behalf of landlords, recognising the practical reality that many landlords delegate day-to-day management to their agents. Secondly, it would require the database to include a portal for landlords to identify whether their properties fall under the local licensing scheme and, if so, to apply directly. This would move the database from being a passive record-keeping tool to an active driver of compliance.

Amendments 231 and 232, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, raise the important issues of digital exclusion. Not everyone has access to, or is comfortable using, digital platforms. We must ensure that the system remains accessible and inclusive. I hope the noble Baroness will take this point seriously.

Amendment 242, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull —I do not know whether anybody spoke to it on his behalf, but I will do so—rightly highlights the issue of false or misleading information. This area must be treated with care and seriousness, particularly where offences may be involved. I urge the Government to consider not just the accuracy of the information entered into the database but the broader implications of misinformation, especially when enforcement and tenant safety are at stake.

Finally, Amendment 243A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, looks to the future potential of the database. While the Government may choose to begin with basic landlord registration, the database could be developed as a vital communication and compliance tool by integrating unique property reference numbers with centralised, digital records, such as the Gas Safe Register and the EPC register, using a standardised template. It would be helpful to know the Government’s plans for the future of the database, not least because landlords and tenants deserve some certainty on where the database is going.

We on these Benches support the principle of greater transparency and accountability in the private rented sector and we welcome the Government’s stated commitment to that. That said, the Government must show great ambition and deliver on their commitments in a timely way. Our central concern is not with what the Bill includes but with what it omits—and the missed opportunity that those omissions represent.

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

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

When we get to this stage of a Bill, especially when we have three or four groups on the same subject, I am not surprised that people get them mixed up. I start by saying that I very much share the sentiments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott, about the potential of this database to support both landlords and tenants. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, clearly set out why this is important for responsible landlords as well as tenants. I am sure that landlords who do a very good job, which is the majority of them, get incredibly frustrated by the minority of rogue landlords who certainly do not and I hope that this will help them as well. Amendment 219 from my noble friend Lord Hacking proposes that a duty be placed on the database operator to ensure that the database be established and operational within a year of the Renters’ Rights Bill coming into force. I know the database will be a vital tool in raising standards in the private rented sector. I assure my noble friend and other noble Lords who raised the issue that we are aiming for the database to be active as soon as possible. The database is being designed as a bespoke product to ensure that it aligns with the operational and legal details set out in regulations. We are currently focusing on getting the basic functionality right, testing with the sector and local authorities and developing guidance for users. Setting a timeframe for a database in the Bill is unnecessary and could be counterproductive. We simply cannot risk it being brought in when the secondary legislation or technology is not ready. This would make life more difficult for tenants, landlords and local authorities. For this reason, I kindly ask that my noble friend considers withdrawing that amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for Amendment 220, which would require the legislation to state that the database will benefit landlords, tenants, local authorities and other interested stakeholders. I assure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, who spoke to this amendment, that the database is being designed for the benefit of all potential users, including tenants, landlords and local authorities. I recognise the positive intent behind the noble Lord’s amendment. However, the Government are already working towards that and we are continuing to focus on those user groups as the database is designed. I therefore do not believe it is necessary to accept the amendment and for that reason I ask the noble Lord not to press it.

18:30:00

I turn to Amendments 224A and 226A from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. I will set out more information regarding the data that might be included in the course of the next couple of groups. Amendment 224A seeks to remove the power for the Secretary of State to appoint a third party as the database operator, meaning that the operator must be the Secretary of State. Amendment 226A would prevent the Secretary of State from arranging for a person to become the database operator until they had attended a relevant committee hearing in the House of Commons whose remit includes PRS matters.

A public sector organisation will operate the database. That could be the department or a third party such as the lead local authority. Private bodies may be involved with the running of the database through entering into contracts with the database operator, but we do not intend to appoint a commercial entity as the database operator. We are developing the database with a view to initial departmental operation and are considering options for who is best placed to operate the database in the longer term—for example, whether the department or a lead local authority should operate the service. As we have not yet made a decision on who would be best placed to operate the database in the long term, we would like to maintain the flexibility for the Secretary of State to be able to arrange for a third party to be the database operator.

I point out to the noble Baroness that the Bill contains robust measures to ensure that the database provisions are subject to scrutiny from the Secretary of State. For example, Clause 86 requires the database operator to report to the Secretary of State on the performance of the database and allows the Secretary of State to specify the intervals of those reports if needed. The Bill already provides the Secretary of State with significant oversight, particularly regarding the appointment of the database operator, how that entity operates the database and how it reports on its performance. We therefore do not believe that Amendment 226A is required. For the reasons that I have outlined, I kindly ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments.

Amendment 225 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, would ensure that regulations could be made to enable the PRS database to have the functionality for nominated letting agents to upload data on behalf of landlords. Regulations could also be made to ensure that the database enabled landlords to identify the need to, and apply for, local licensing schemes via the database. For the many landlords who rely on letting agents to manage their properties, allowing agents to upload information on their behalf is a proportionate approach. The noble Lord also raises a sensible point about whether the database can flag if a property is subject to local authority licensing.

I reassure the noble Lord that we are aware of these considerations. We intend to allow agents to submit information to the database on behalf of landlords and will be exploring through secondary legislation what that might look like in practice and what capabilities we will need to build. We intend for the database to be a useful tool for landlords in understanding their obligations. We plan to explore the feasibility of such functionality as the noble Lord has described, which could notify landlords of whether they are subject to licensing. Licensing schemes will remain separate to the database and, as we develop and implement it, we will continue to review how the two operate together.

In response to the comments on these issues by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, the PRS database will provide a consistent national dataset. Such data is essential for local authorities to be able effectively to design their local strategies, to target their enforcement work and to track rogue landlords across different local authority areas. The database will complement other locally held data and will improve the overall picture that local authorities have about the private rented stock in their areas. For all the reasons that I have outlined, I respectfully ask that the noble Lord Best does not press his amendment.

I turn to Amendments 228A and 228B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. Amendment 228A would place a legal duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure that landlord and dwelling entries on the database were kept up to date. Amendment 228B would place a legal duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying the circumstances in which an active landlord or dwelling entry in the database would become an inactive entry, and vice versa.

The Government appreciate the importance of keeping the database up to date and the related importance of active landlord and dwelling entries being maintained. The Government already have regulation-making powers which, when utilised, will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations to require landlord and dwelling entries be kept up to date. We intend to make these regulations under Clause 79(1) in due course.

It is also important that we specify the process for making active entries inactive, and vice versa, through regulations to ensure that the database can be flexible to account for future circumstances. However, we anticipate that entries will become inactive if a landlord fails to re-register within the specified time or if the landlord informs the database operator that they no longer need an active entry. The provisions of Clause 80(1) as drafted are essential to the accurate and effective functioning of the database and are only duplicated by the noble Baroness’s amendment. In my view, these amendments are therefore unnecessary, and I kindly ask that the noble Baroness considers not pressing them.

Amendment 228D, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would ensure that a consultation with users of the database on its efficiency and adequacy is conducted within 18 months of the date regulations made under Clause 81 come into force. I reassure the noble Baroness that the needs of users are at the heart of the database and have been since its inception. The development of the database has followed the government service standard that makes user-centred design central to public digital services. This includes continuing to test the digital product during development with users and enhancing the service based on their feedback. This approach will continue even after the service becomes live, as we continue to make improvements to the database during its lifetime. I should add that this is why we think it is important that some of the detail of the database is left to secondary legislation as it will ensure we can adapt and upgrade the database to meet future needs and requirements. Therefore, I ask that this amendment is not pressed.

Amendment 288H, again in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would place a legal duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations that specify circumstances in which people other than residential landlords, such as property agents, are subject to the legal duties set out in Clause 83(3). These duties include ensuring that there is an active landlord and dwelling entry in the database and that any subsequent regulations made in relation to updating entries in the database are complied with.

It is important that user testing is undertaken with other persons, such as property agents, if they are to be subject to legal duties in relation to the database in place of the landlord to ensure such proposals would work in practice. The Government would like to consider the implications of allowing other parties to take on responsibility in the place of landlords and the legal consequences of this, and therefore it would be inappropriate to specify at this time that there will definitely be circumstances. If we determine that it is appropriate to enable others to complete duties on behalf of landlords, this will be outlined in regulations. The Bill already contains a power to pass regulations to this end. Therefore, I kindly ask that the noble Baroness considers not moving her amendment.

I now turn to Amendments 228I, 230A, 231 and 232 which relate to providing access to the database for those not accessing it online. Amendment 228I from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would require the database operator to allocate a unique identifier in writing to each person and dwelling in respect of which a database entry is made. Amendment 230A, also from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would require the database operator to provide appropriate facilities that support disabled individuals who are unable to use computers to access information which relates to their tenancy.

Amendments 231 and 232, both tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking, would require the database operator to ensure that offline facilities are available for tenants who do not or cannot access the database online, with Amendment 231 specifying that provision must be made available for tenants to report breaches of Clause 83. I assure the House that the Government intend the database operator to provide an end-to-end non-digital route for database users. Part of this will ensure that such users are made aware of unique identifiers during their off-line journey, for example, via a call centre or by post. We are designing the database in compliance with the government service standard. This standard requires that we develop an offline, non-digital route for database registration. Given that we already intend that there will be a non-digital route for database registration that will extend to confirmation of unique identifiers being provided offline, these amendments are not needed. I therefore kindly ask that the noble Baroness and my noble friend do not press their amendments.

Amendment 233 would add mortgage lenders to the list of bodies to whom the database operator must provide full data access. This information could be used by mortgage lenders to identify and deny finance to rogue and negligent landlords who are seeking a buy-to-let mortgage. Although it is right that mortgage lenders should play a role in driving up standards in the sector, any information made public must be necessary, proportionate and done in compliance with human rights and data-sharing legislation. This amendment would mean that mortgage lenders would be granted access to sensitive database information on a blanket basis, which would be unnecessary and disproportionate. The current list of bodies to which the database operator must give access is deliberately small. They are all public bodies that play a practical role in carrying out enforcement action against a variety of offences. We do not think that providing all information on the database to mortgage lenders is proportionate. I kindly ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, does not press her amendment.

My papers are out of order. I will not repeat what I said earlier. Amendment 243A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would add a new regulation-making power to the Bill to facilitate the database being used to signpost tenants to resources that would help them to understand their rights and how to access means of redress. The Government appreciate the need to provide tenants with clear guidance. We will publish a full suite of updated guidance on GOV.UK. This will allow tenants to understand their rights and responsibilities and help them to make informed decisions throughout their tenancy journey. We anticipate that the database may contain a user link to this guidance once it is published. Signposting tenants to resources does not, however, require a legislative footing. The Government would like to keep flexibility to create links with the database and other services in the way that best meets users’ needs. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to consider not pressing her amendment.

My Lords, I am very happy to withdraw Amendment 219. The Minister has done magnificently. May I just say on behalf of all of us that she is doing magnificently? She stumbled for a moment just now, but it is amazing that she has not stumbled before. She is covering her brief with extreme detail, and I thank her on behalf of everybody in the Committee. My noble friend replied to my amendment, which seeks a definite date for the establishment of the private rented sector database. In a sense, I think my amendment was unrealistic because the development of a database obviously takes time. The promise has already been made by my noble friend that they are working on that database and recognise its importance, and that fully satisfies me. Now I am going to place a burden on my noble friend because I had not seen that Amendment 237 had been regrouped and put into another group. The Whip has told me that I am not allowed to speak again on that amendment, but is there any chance of my noble friend replying to it now, immediately after I have made the case for it?

It is more appropriate for me to respond to that amendment in order because otherwise it would make it difficult for other members of the Committee to reply to it. I shall reply to it in the sixth group, and if my noble friend cannot be in the Chamber, I shall send him a response in writing.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 219 withdrawn.

Amendment 220 not moved.

18:45:00

Amendment 221

Moved by

221: Clause 76, page 110, line 18, at end insert— “(d) entries containing details of landlord gas safety records and landlord electrical installation condition reports for dwellings which are or intended to be let under residential tenancies.” Member’s explanatory statement This would include landlord records of gas and electrical safety checks in the PRS database. Permits the Secretary of State to make regulations to enable the PRS database to register landlord records of gas and electrical safety checks.

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 221, 224, 227, 229 and 230. These amendments are in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Kennedy of Cradley. The noble Lord, Lord Young, apologises for his unavoidable absence but underlines his support for the amendments. I thank all those noble colleagues for supporting these amendments. The amendments relate to the content of the new database, a property portal. They add key items to the information to be provided. Amendments 221, 224 and 227 would add landlord records of gas and electrical safety checks, with definitions of what these comprise. Currently, there is a national digital register of all energy performance certificates, and these EPCs will be brought together with details of the letting. However, there is no register for the critical landlord gas safety or electrical checks. These are frequently lost or neglected, and tenants may be unaware of them. The PRS database provides an opportunity to have these vital safety certifications brought into the digital age and made available widely, to ensure the safety of rented property. Building safety is now a national concern, and details of these checks represent important content for prospective tenants as well as for local authorities. Am I right in thinking that the Government intend to consult on further items to be covered by the database and that, as part of the consultation, there will be the opportunity to add items to go into this new portal? I would include many of the extra items listed in Amendments 222 and 228, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Grender. For example, listing rent levels would provide invaluable data for the First-tier Tribunals, which will be taking decisions on market rent levels. A further addition it would be good to see would be a categorisation of properties suitable for people using wheelchairs or with mobility problems. To have this information readily available via the database would be helpful not just to renters seeking accessible accommodation, but to the landlord with an adapted property who is looking for tenants who can make use of the adaptations. Finally, Amendments 229 and 230 would require the PRS database to make use of the unique property reference number, to which the Minister has already referred, as the identifier for every property on the database. This valuable and reliable tool already exists as a means of identifying any specific property. Noble Lords may not be aware that all their homes already have such a number—a UPRN, which can dramatically speed up the search for a particular house or flat. The Bill provides the perfect opportunity to put this excellent facility to good use. A pilot scheme utilising UPRNs in Nottingham has demonstrated that councils get a sixfold return from investing in this approach and streamlining the property data for collection for their area. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, jumped the gun in welcoming Amendment 230. I will save her having to do so again and thank her now. In conclusion, and in relation to all the amendments in my name and those of colleagues, to whom I offer my thanks, I believe them to be acceptable and agreeable to the organisations representing renters, landlords and property agents. I hope that the Minister can support them and I look forward to her response. I beg to move.

My Lords, my Amendment 228 seeks to enhance transparency and oversight in the private rented sector by requiring the database to include information on tenancy disputes. This would cover a range of issues, including disputes about rent levels. It would also record the outcome of each case and how long it took to reach a resolution. This is, at its heart, a proposal for greater clarity. It is not intended to be punitive, nor to cast all landlords in a negative light—quite the opposite. It is an opportunity to reward good landlords. Those who respond quickly to issues, resolve disputes fairly and demonstrate a commitment to their tenants should have that record reflected and recognised. Too often, the private sector operates in the shadows, with tenants unsure of their rights and little visibility of how disputes are handled behind closed doors. This amendment would bring to light that process by recording the nature of a dispute, the parties involved, the outcome and the time taken to resolve it. We would therefore create a more informed and accountable system. For tenants, this information is empowering. It helps them to make better decisions about where and with whom they rent. For landlords, it provides an incentive to act responsibly and promptly, knowing that their actions contribute to a public record. For policymakers and regulators, it offers a valuable source of data to identify patterns, spot areas of concern and improve enforcement. The inclusion of rent level disputes is especially important for improving transparency. At a time when affordability is a growing concern, making this information available would provide clear insight into how disagreements over rent are handled and resolved. It would help build a more accurate and evidence-based picture of where pressure points exist in the system. It would also help tenants and policymakers understand how rent issues are being addressed in practice. In short, this amendment would help foster a culture of fairness, responsiveness and trust. These qualities are essential if we are to improve standards across this sector, and I hope the Minister will look favourably on it.

My Lords, I support Amendment 222 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and all the amendments in this group, including Amendment 228 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, to which I have added my name. I declare my interest as a Nationwide Foundation trustee—I think I declared this last time I spoke, but I cannot remember, so better twice than never. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, will set out in great detail why the list of criteria is needed in the Bill. However, put simply, more detail on what the PRS database will contain needs to be in the Bill, which needs to set out core functions and minimum standards. Leaving the detail to be filled in later by regulation at the whim of a future Secretary of State is not acceptable. It will make the Bill less stable and requirements less easily understood. Landlords need clarity about what the law requires of them and tenants need clarity on what they can expect in terms of their rights. I hope my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage will bring back on Report an amendment that sets out minimum requirements for the PRS database that can sit in the Bill, to give clarity and direction akin to Amendment 222 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill.

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 222, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. This Bill is very big and has wide-ranging impacts. Some are certainly planned, and others are possibly unplanned. It is vital that those impacts are evaluated. It is unfortunate that, at this stage, the evaluation plan is slightly unformed, but the impact assessment makes it clear that it is going to rely on some of the data collected in this database. Given that it is going to rely on that data, I think it has to be specified in the Bill. For example, one of the prime aims of the Bill is to increase security of tenure, thereby reducing evictions and unplanned moves. The current source of that data is from the English Housing Survey, which suffers from the vagaries of any survey at the moment and questions about its validity. More importantly, it also does not have the necessary granularity, given that the local authority level is going to be the level at which this Bill is enforced. So we need the data that is going to be collected in this database in order to be able to tell whether the Bill is at all effective, and what other effects it might have. That is true also of things such as rental increases, which it is trying to keep a lid on. If we do not have a record of those rental increases, we will not know whether it is effective. So I am concerned to hear tonight that the database may not even be fully in action within the first year of the Act being passed. How will we know what the effects are if the Act has already been in place for over a year before we measure some of these impacts? I would love to hear more from the Minister about what is going to be in the database and when those different aspects of the database are going to be active.

My Lords, I have already mentioned Amendment 222 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, so I need say no more about it at this stage. I turn, then, to the one other amendment in this group that interests me: the one introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. The information that she proposes should be disclosed in the database is quite extensive. I have three points to make. First, is the noble Baroness satisfied—and would the Minister consider herself satisfied—that, if there were an ongoing dispute, putting that data raw, on an incomplete process, would be free from creating a prejudice around the outcome? That might be in either direction; I am thinking only that this might be a quasi- judicial process of one sort or another. I just wish to flag that up. Secondly, in any event, obviously, the database would identify both parties: the renter and the landlord. I assume that, when the noble Baroness says that her amendment would create a greater egalitarian thing, she is also happy with renters and landlords being mentioned, because the identity of the parties will be known. However, depending on the detail that goes in, there might be the disclosure of what might be described as more sensitive information related to the nature of the dispute; I wished to flag that up in case it had been overlooked. Bear in mind that, if we are talking about an open register, this goes to everybody, anywhere, who can tap into the information. Thirdly, there is a whole issue here around the performance characteristics that sit behind this group of amendments, in terms of what is going on around the efficiency of the process through which information might be derived from this database. There must be a difference, I think, between the metadata from the processing of things, such as the speed at which things are dealt with and so on, the data on the types of disputes that might typically arise, including their frequency and distribution, and the individual data on the register. There will certainly be derivative information that does not necessarily require the total disclosure of all sorts of intricate and possibly personal details. I would be very happy for the database to be used for the purpose of the further processing of non-personalised data of one sort or another for statistical and performance calculating processes. I am less clear, though, that that necessarily sits as a direct part of the database; that is, as a derivative of it. One must be careful about what one is expecting the raw data on a database to consist of; and about how it is going to be used as a derivative thereafter.

19:00:00

My Lords, first, I apologise to the Minister. I was remiss not to thank her before the previous group for the time she gave up to meet my noble friend Lady Grender and me to discuss the database. I know that she is always very willing to meet noble Lords and that she gives up a lot of her time. I hope she will accept my thanks now. The amendments in this group continue to relate to strengthening the content, utility and functionality of the new private rented sector database. As has already been highlighted, the database could be a powerful driver of higher standards, tenant protection and, importantly, support for responsible landlords. But to fulfil that role, it must be built on comprehensive, reliable and adaptable foundations—something these amendments aim to deliver. Amendment 222 is in my name, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, whom I thank. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his positive comments. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord both made some pertinent comments that I hope will add to the debate. Yes, the amendment sets out a broader and more ambitious vision for what information could be captured in the database from the onset. If this system is to be genuinely useful, it needs to go beyond the basics and include key documentation that reflects the safety, security and condition of the property. Renters deserve to know that the home they are moving into is safe, compliant and fairly let. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, that I do not intend to go into great detail on this today, because time is of the essence. To sum it up, the point is to expose infringing, dodgy landlords. A good landlord has nothing to fear, but if things such as banning orders are on the site, this might incentivise landlords to not get themselves into that position in the first place. In Watford we have had issues with a landlord who is a prolific property owner. It would be very useful, and quite powerful, if people could see the number of offences under the name of a landlord. I accept the concerns expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. If there was any hope of any elements of my catch-all list being taken up, I would happily argue each one with him on a case-by-case basis. Amendments 221 and 227, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, would ensure that the database includes records of gas and electrical safety checks, and that, crucially, it can become a digital home for all these certificates. We already require these documents to be produced, so incorporating them into the national system should be a logical next step. Amendment 227 would even allow accredited safety certificate providers to upload directly, removing administrative burdens from landlords and improving data accuracy. This would modernise and streamline an essential part of the compliance process. Amendment 228 in the name of my noble friend Lady Grender focuses on tenancy disputes—specifically rent levels and resolution outcomes. In the absence of reliable rent data, we lack the evidence base needed to track affordability—something that has come up before in the Bill—or understand the impact of policy changes. Including dispute outcomes would help tenants navigate the system more confidently and enable more informed decision-making by both renters and landlords. It also provides an accountability mechanism to ensure that the system is working as it should. Amendment 224, also from the noble Lord, Lord Best, and which I support, is linked to these proposals and would reinforce the requirement for the database to include the right types of detail to make it genuinely functional for enforcement and policy use. I am sure we would all be willing to contribute to a general discussion on what that might be. Amendment 229 introduces a small but important clarification to ensure that the database links records not only to landlords but to specific dwellings. This might seem technical, but it speaks to a broader point. The system must allow us to track the full history of a property and not just its owner, although the owner is clearly vital, especially the owner we have mentioned many times: the invisible, absent, non-contactable landlord. This is vital in cases where properties change hands but the issues persist. With reference to the local case that I referred to earlier, often it was just a family member’s name that had changed, so I think the more we can track down these infringing and rogue landlords, the better. This brings me to Amendment 230, which would require the use of the UPRNs: unique property reference numbers. That is a new acronym for me. These identifiers already exist and are widely used in local government and in the property sector. Using them in the database would help standardise records, reduce duplication and enable effective data sharing across agencies—something that they, and all of us, think needs to be improved. It is a ready-made tool that would help knit together fragmented information across the sector and, as we have heard, it has proved effective. These amendments work together to build a more useful, transparent and future-proof database that supports not only enforcement but renter safety, data integrity and informed policy-making for the future. Each of these proposals is practical, proportionate and grounded in existing obligations. What they offer is not duplication but integration. I hope the Government will recognise the value of taking a more ambitious approach to what the database can deliver and I am heartened by the comments that the noble Baroness has already made today.

My Lords, I am entirely supportive of pretty well every amendment that has been put down on this—this blizzard of amendments about a database across four groups. I agree that there should be penalties for not participating in it. It has to be something that is not a nice-to-have add-on: it has to be core to everything. However, I will just give two notes of caution, the first of which goes back to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. If you are going to start recording disputes on the system, there could be many, many reasons why a dispute runs for a long time. It would not necessarily be the fault of evil landlords. It could be illness on the part of the tenant; it could be a multitude of things. You have to be very careful there. The second point is to be careful what you wish for. No one has suggested this so far, but is this database going to be searchable by tenant? Because a landlord looking at a tenant might search the database and find that every previous tenancy has ended in a dispute. Is that going to be a fair use of this database? Because it is a logical suggestion, looking at this from a landlord’s point of view, to look out for rogue tenants as well as rogue landlords.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for opening this group. The question of what data is recorded on the database is an important one and the Government need to give the sector greater clarity on their plans. Noble Lords need only look at some of the briefings provided by lettings agencies to landlords over the past few months to grasp the level of uncertainty around this Bill. For the benefit of both renters and landlords, we need greater clarity as soon as possible. As my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook said earlier from these Benches, we believe the Government should be more ambitious. We are broadly content with the direction of travel on greater transparency, but taking this forward through regulations is leaving landlords and tenants in the dark. We support the challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Best, to the Government on the inclusion of gas and electrical safety checks within the PRS database. Amendments 221, 224 and 227, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, all touch on this issue. The database makes use of official UPRNs and covers the full end-to-end process of property compliance, including the urgent need to mandate digital property safety certificates. This will certainly increase transparency for landlords and tenants. Including gas safety certificates and electrical installation reports would assist tenants who wish to confirm that their property is safe. That said, we have some concerns about Amendment 227, which appears to place the burden of registering digital gas and electricity certificates on the certificate provider rather than the landlord. We do not think that responsibility should be placed on the providers without a proper impact assessment and a fuller understanding of how this would work in practical terms. Perhaps the Minister can commit to considering this proposal from the noble Lord between now and Report. Amendment 222, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, proposes expanding the types of information or documents that are required for registration on the PRS database. I commend the noble Baroness on her thoughtful drafting. This amendment highlights further the uncertainty and lack of clarity that have arisen from the Government’s decision to place broadly drafted regulation-making powers rather than detailed provisions in the Bill to enable their plans. Finally, on Amendments 229 and 230, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, it has already been noted that UPRNs are a universal means of identifying properties. They will be central to this system. The database should be as easy as possible to use for both renters and landlords. We accept that the noble Lord’s amendments are well intentioned and we will listen very carefully to the Minister’s response to them. We have a separate concern. The Government do not have a strong track record on delivering large-scale IT projects. I make no political comment here. We share the concerns that have been raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, earlier, on the time that it will take to roll out this database. Can the Minister assure us that this project will be delivered—and delivered on time? I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to these well-intentioned and constructive amendments.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Grender, for their amendments regarding which data should be recorded on the database. I also thank my noble friend Lady Kennedy, the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for their comments. Amendment 222, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, seeks to expand Clause 76 and mandate the information that landlord and dwelling entries on the database must contain. I thank the noble Baroness for her very thoughtful amendment and for meeting with me to discuss the database in greater detail before Committee. We certainly both appreciate the potential of the database. I reassure her that we expect to collect much of the information that is set out in Amendment 222 on the database. Detailed regulations about the making of landlord and dwelling entries in the database will be made under Clause 78(1) in due course. Our approach to data collection takes account of the balance of benefits and burdens for different users, to ensure that it remains proportionate. However, I stress that it is vital that the database is designed in such a way that it can evolve to incorporate technological innovation and changes in the sector. Although I very much understand the points made by my noble friend Lady Kennedy and the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, we do not think that, to accomplish this aim, the content of landlord and dwelling database entries should be mandated in the Bill. Rather, this detail should be set out in secondary legislation to ensure that the database can be more easily adapted to meet future circumstances. Regarding points about when the database will be ready, we aim for the service to be operational as soon as possible following the passage of primary and secondary legislation. We are taking forward the digital development of the private rented sector database in line with the government service standard. We will conduct extensive testing of the new service ahead of implementation and continue to engage the sector on our proposals. We very much welcome the ongoing involvement of all those who have been helping us. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, highlighted the importance of why we must take our time on development, design and testing. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to the difficulty of IT systems. I have had them in past lives, so I know that this can be a tricky issue. However, we have been in government for only nine months, yet the noble Lord accused us of having a track record—or did he mean all Governments? I hope that he did.

All Governments.

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

19:15:00

I turn now to Amendments 221 and 224, both tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. Amendment 221 would require the database operator, as part of establishing and operating the database, to mandate entries that record on the database the details of property gas safety records and electrical installation condition reports. Amendment 224 defines the terms “landlord gas safety records” and “landlord electrical installation condition reports” in relation to Amendment 221. This would require the database operator to mandate entries in respect of property gas safety records and electrical installation condition reports.

I am sure it will not surprise noble Lords to know that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Best, on the importance of collecting gas and electrical safety information alongside other key health and safety data about private rental properties on the database. However, the database will need to be able to evolve the information it collects, based on the current circumstances and needs of the sector and changes in regulations. For this reason, we intend to define the information the database must collect via secondary rather than primary legislation. A good example is that we are currently working, as noble Lords will know, on a future homes standard that may contain different elements that might need inclusion in the database. Given the benefits to the service from outlining the prescribed information through secondary legislation, and that we anticipate recording this information on the database, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Amendment 227, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, would enable regulations to be made to require authorised providers of gas safety records and electrical installation condition reports to upload them on to the database. We appreciate the importance of the role of the database as a source of compliance information. We intend that landlords should upload gas and electrical safety records to demonstrate compliance with these important safety regulations. However, the amendment relies on the digitisation of gas and electricity regulations, which is beyond the scope of this legislation. Gas and electrical safety records currently exist across tenure and beyond England. Any consideration of digitising these records would require careful consideration of the needs and capacity of a wide range of user groups. While there are no immediate plans to digitise gas and electrical safety certificates, the database will be built in such a way that it has the capability to draw upon datasets if they become digitised in the future. Including this amendment would risk delays to the implementation of the database, and I therefore respectfully ask the noble Lord not to press it.

Amendment 228, tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Grender, would clarify that the regulation-making powers in Clause 78 are sufficient to enable regulations requiring details of tenancy disputes, including rent disputes, to be recorded on the private rented sector database. This amendment is not needed as the existing regulation-making power under Clause 78 is sufficiently wide and already allows for regulations to mandate the recording of such issues. As I have said, it is important that the database is designed in such a way that it can evolve to incorporate technological innovation and changes in the sector. That is why the detail of database entries should be set out in regulations rather than on the face of the Bill—to ensure the database can be more easily adapted to meet future circumstances.

We will also conduct user research with tenants to understand what information on the database would support them to make informed decisions. Decisions about public information will then be taken in accordance with data protection and human rights legislation. We will continue to work with stakeholders to get their input as we design and implement the database, and I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

I turn finally to Amendments 229 and 230, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. Amendment 229 would remove the requirement for the database operator to allocate a unique identifier to each dwelling registered on the database. This would then enable the database to use unique property reference numbers as a method for identifying property. Amendment 230 would require the database operator to allocate a unique identifier for each property, which would then become the unique property reference number, or UPRN—an acronym that I must admit is new to me as well. I want to assure noble Lords that we really do recognise the value of UPRNs and intend to use them. We are investigating how they can best be integrated within the operation of the database.

However, we know that there may be gaps in coverage, so we are undertaking technical exploration with relevant partners to understand how we might address this. We need to complete this research to ensure that UPRNs can be used effectively within the database. We also do not think it would be right to put this requirement in the Bill until we are certain of the efficacy of UPRNs within the database. Given that we need to test the suitability of using UPRNs within the database, I ask that the noble Lord does not press these amendments.

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate— mostly agreeing with the amendments, sometimes quite enthusiastically. One thing we have perhaps not covered before is the providers of gas and safety certificates and electrical safety checks being the people who upload that information on to the database, rather than putting the onus entirely on the landlords. This sounds rather radical, but it is in fact quite an important piece of the jigsaw. We do this with our MOTs: it is the MOT provider who has looked after the car who sends the information to the DVLA; you can record this pretty much instantly, without a lot of hassle. This also already happens with energy performance certificates: it is the provider of the certificate who uploads it on to the database. So this is not a huge jump. I was encouraged by the Minister’s comments, for which I express appreciation. Basically, we are all on side, and things will be added to the list of contents that are included in this, but I get the unfortunate feeling that we are going to take this at a rather gentle pace. We have to wait for the secondary legislation, extensive testing and trials, bringing forward each piece one step at a time. This may be sensible, but it will be quite frustrating, given that there is such potential. There is an opportunity here for the database to make a real difference. I thank all participants, and the Minister in particular, but I urge that we press on with this as soon as possible, because it is a really valuable tool and will make a big difference. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 221 withdrawn.

Amendment 222 not moved.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.02 pm.