Renters’ Rights Bill

Committee (7th Day)

15:44:00

My Lords, before we start the debate on the first group, it may not surprise noble Lords that, in place of my noble friend Lord Wilson of Sedgefield, today I remind noble Lords, for the final time in Committee, of the protocol around declaring interests. Noble Lords should declare relevant interests at each stage of proceedings on a Bill, which means that relevant interests should be declared during the first group in which a noble Lord speaks in Committee. If today is a noble Lord’s first contribution, any relevant interest should be declared when they first speak. Amendment 275B

Moved by

275B: After Clause 136, insert the following new Clause— “Designated rural areas: revocation(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must, by regulation, revoke the designation of parishes as rural areas for the purposes of Right to Buy if they meet the condition in subsection (1).(2) The condition is that the population of the parish exceeds 3,000 people, according the 2021 United Kingdom census.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State updates the designation of rural areas for the purposes of Right to Buy, so that parishes which now have a larger population (such as Colden Common or Rendlesham, in Suffolk) are no longer designated.

My Lords, I am continuing the discussion that I brought to the Committee with Amendment 182. At the time, I referred to the fact that there were other amendments that were relevant to that debate but, because they were not before your Lordships, I could not speak to them. That was because there was a bit of a dispute about whether this amendment was in scope. It comes back to the issue of people in social housing and whether they have the right to buy or to acquire, which we discussed at length on Monday. I recall that one of your Lordships expressed some damning doubt about all this, but the whole point of this amendment is to address the question: “what is rural?” One thing that noble Lords may not be aware of is that, when these powers were set up, what actually happened—particularly on right to acquire—was that in 1997 a whole bunch of statutory instruments were put into place naming individual parishes and parish areas. County by county, right across the country, whole lists were put in place. Curiously, some of the places not included were perfectly rural and below that so-called 3,000 threshold, used generally by government to consider the difference between somewhere considered rural and not. With reference to this amendment, what has happened over the years is that places have grown. Some of these villages have deliberately become areas of growth. I will mention a couple. I happen to know parts of Suffolk and Hampshire reasonably well, having lived there for many years. There are places such as Four Marks, near Alton, in Hampshire, or Colden Common near Winchester. I was particularly inspired by the story that I told the Committee about my discussions with residents of Rendlesham in Suffolk—but there are more and more. Instead of trying to get into some kind of hybrid situation, I thought that it would be worth while to not deprive people due to the fact that, if they lived in a different place where the population was over 3,000, they would not have that arbitrary rule—because then they would be able to have that, if we did it by the threshold of what is considered rural rather than what is named, or not. To that end, this was supposed to be a combined debate, as I still feel that it is somewhat unfair that many people cannot acquire their house from social housing, particularly in the countryside, and I still think that the issue needs redressing. This is a mechanistic way of making sure that the threshold applies for rural social housing—if it is still in a genuinely rural area—but if it is no longer realistically a rural area people should be able to acquire the right.

My Lords, the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey raises an important and timely issue: the need to revisit and update the designation of rural areas for the purposes of the right to buy. The proposal is clear. It would require the Secretary of State, within six months of the Act passing, to revoke rural area designations for parishes where the population now exceeds 3,000 people, based on the 2021 census. The rationale is that, as we have heard, some areas that were once small villages have grown significantly and may no longer meet the criteria originally used to justify rural protections under the scheme. We recognise the logic behind this approach. Designations made years ago may no longer reflect the current character of certain parishes, and it is only right that we review such classifications to ensure that they are based on accurate and up-to-date information. However, while we understand the intention behind the amendment, we believe that a more considered and locally informed approach is needed. First and foremost, this should be done in consultation with local authorities, which are best placed to assess not just the population figures but the broader housing context within their communities. A numerical threshold alone does not tell us whether a parish still functions as a rural settlement, nor whether it has the capacity to replace any lost social housing. Indeed, we would argue that the conversation should be based not solely on population size but also on the number of homes in the settlement, specifically the number of affordable or social homes available, and the prospects for building more. In many villages, even those with more than 3,000 residents, the opportunity to build new homes, let alone new affordable ones, is extremely limited. Planning constraints, infrastructure challenges and community sensitivity all contribute to a situation where, once a home is sold under right to buy, it is unlikely to be replaced. That is why the protection of the existing social housing stock is so vital in these areas. Without it, we risk hollowing out rural communities, pricing out local families, draining the workforce and diminishing village life. While we support the principle of ensuring that designations are kept up to date, we believe that any such change must be grounded in a wider understanding of rural housing dynamics. This means not just reviewing census data but supporting councils to update and verify housing data and allowing for flexibility where a parish may meet the population threshold but still faces acute rural housing pressures. This is not simply a technical matter of numbers; it goes to the heart of how we preserve the character and sustainability of rural communities. Let us ensure that any change to rural designation is made with care, with consultation and with full awareness of its consequences.

My Lords, before I make my comments on the noble Baroness’s amendment, I hope that the House will indulge me for a few brief moments as we start our final day in Committee on the Renters’ Rights Bill. First, let me say how noticeable it has been that, while we may have debated and occasionally had our differences on the detail of the Bill, there has been a great deal of consensus across the House on the need to improve the renting landscape for tenants and for the vast majority of good landlords. Those landlords who choose to exploit their tenants and game the system not only make their tenants’ life a misery but undercut and damage the reputation of others. It is time that we took the steps in this Bill to put that right. The Bill has shown the best of our House, with noble Lords providing their expertise, knowledge, wisdom and thoughtful reflection to improve the legislation before us. I am most grateful for the engagement before and during the passage of the Bill. We have had some unusual and difficult sitting hours on the Bill, largely because of other business of the House and in no way because of unnecessary or lengthy contributions to our deliberations. I therefore thank all noble Lords for their patience and good humour during late sittings. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, on the Opposition Front Bench, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Grender, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, not to mention noble friends on my own Benches for a deal of passion and enthusiasm. I thank the Bill team, my private office and the doorkeepers and staff of the House, including the clerks and catering staff, who have stayed, sometimes into the early hours, to make sure we are all safe and looked after, and the Hansard team, of course, doing their brilliant work. I thank the usual channels, which have been negotiating to make sure we complete Committee in good time. Last, and by no means least, I thank my Whip, my noble friend Lord Wilson, who is not in his place today but who has sat patiently beside me, sometimes carrying out extreme editing of my speeches. I forgive him for that—he did not get his hands on this one—and I am very grateful to him. There are millions of renters and landlords out there who are awaiting the passage of the Bill to ensure that the renting minefield is fairer, safer and more secure. As we move forward to Report in early June, I look forward to continuing to engage and work with your Lordships to make sure that this is the best Bill it can be. In the meantime, thank you for making my first time taking a Bill through the House such a collaborative and positive experience. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her Amendment 275B to revoke the designation of parishes as rural areas for the purposes of right to buy where the population exceeds 3,000 people. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to revoke the rural designation of any parish with over 3,000 inhabitants for the purposes of right to buy. It would not have any impact on the right to acquire housing association property in rural areas. I have to say that this amendment is a bit of a stretch for the scope of the Bill, but it is important that I should respond to the noble Baroness’s concerns. Under Section 157 of the Housing Act 1985, the Secretary of State has the power to designate by order certain areas as rural—typically, settlements with populations under 3,000. A landlord in a rural area may impose restrictions on the buyer of a right to buy property, to prevent the property being sold again, without the former landlord’s consent, other than to a local person or back to the landlord. The noble Baroness’s amendment would remove the ability of landlords to include resale restrictions on properties sold under right to buy in those designated rural areas where the population was above 3,000, which currently helps preserve homes for local people in perpetuity. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is quite right to say that, if we were going to make any changes to this, it would have to be done very carefully, and definitely in consultation with local people and local authorities. These exemptions are in place to help retain affordable housing in communities where replacement can be unfeasible due to high build costs, planning limitations and land availability. We have heard much about that in the discussion on this and other Bills and the Government do not intend to remove these protections. On this basis, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to withdraw her amendment.

My Lords, I have heard from both Front Benches and there is clearly no appetite for this. I am just very conscious that there are some areas that have grown substantially over more than 25 years. There is a substantial amount of new housing going in, including new social housing, but, because of the designations set in stone in 1997, some people are being denied the opportunity they expected to participate in owning a home that they might not be able to afford initially but might in time. It is something I had hoped would be considered a little further, but I understand where both Front Benches are coming from and I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 275B withdrawn.

Amendment 275C

Moved by

275C: After Clause 136, insert the following new Clause— “Right to mobility aids(1) A relevant person must not, in relation to a dwelling that is to be let on an agreement which may give rise to a relevant tenancy, decline a reasonable request from a tenant to install mobility aids in the dwelling.(2) The provision in subsection (1) applies only where the tenant is able to arrange for the payment and installation of the aid themselves.(3) For the purpose of this section, a “mobility aid” is a device or piece of equipment installed in the property to assist in the occupier’s mobility around the property.”

My Lords, the reason for this amendment is that I looked carefully at some of the previous debates on the broader issue of trying to help people stay in their home, even though they might be in pretty long tenancies. I myself was a tenant of one landlord in this city for 11 years. I did actually suffer a Section 21 eviction—but there we go. Nevertheless, I think that there were some gaps in the suggestions put forward. In particular, I am thinking about amendments we debated that would have required a local authority assessment to have been undertaken in advance of any installation of equipment. Another amendment would have capped the cost allowed to an unknown figure. That also did not extend to social housing. I am very conscious that that is the case for a lot of legislation. One part of the Bill tries to bring standards from social housing into the private rented sector, but I am learning during this process quite how many things do not apply to social housing that we expect in the private rented sector. This is a good example. I am conscious that, for many people, it would be far easier to help them stay in their homes, which is one of the key elements of health and care strategies put out by a variety of Governments over many years. Instead of having to go through quite an awkward process, if a tenant wanted to make changes to their home—which they would pay for—in regard to what is a protected characteristic, they should be able to do so without having to go through all sorts of hoops. My intention is to make it a lot easier for people to continue to enjoy their lives in the place they call home. I beg to move.

16:00:00

My Lords, I support Amendment 275C in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. I apologise to noble Lords that this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill. I thank my noble friend for tabling this amendment, for a number of reasons: first, as someone who, as a result of injury, has had to be far more reliant on the mobility aid that is my wheelchair than is usual; secondly, because I recognise that one’s disability and resulting need to use a mobility aid, such as a wheelchair, does not change simply because one happens to be a tenant; thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, because it gives me the opportunity to bring to the House’s attention a real-life example which I hope will underline the amendment’s importance. I should declare an interest. The example I give concerns a person I know—an eminent solicitor with an international law firm who has become severely disabled in adulthood as a result of a condition called Stickler syndrome. For those noble Lords not familiar with this condition—I confess that I was not—common symptoms include vision problems such as near-sightedness and retinal detachment, hearing loss and joint problems such as hypermobility and arthritis. In this individual’s case, it is extremely painful and debilitating and has required extensive surgery, including within the last six months. Remarkably, she is still holding down a demanding job. However, her suffering is being unnecessarily and even gratuitously compounded by the concerted and blatant disability discrimination she is encountering from HAUS Block Management and the right-to-manage company covering the development in which she lives. This disability discrimination relates directly to her use, as a long-term tenant, of her mobility aids in her rented dwelling, which includes a courtyard garden that she shares with other residents. The amendment refers to a reasonable request from a tenant to install mobility aids in the dwelling. Her request is undoubtedly reasonable, but the irony is that she is not asking for an installation. All she is asking for is the right to use her mobility aids in a courtyard garden, which is part of the dwelling. There are two aids on which she depends for her mobility to live independently and get to work. Recent deterioration in her condition has necessitated the increased use of a wheelchair and increased visual impairment has required the use of an affectionate, intelligent and furry mobility aid. I refer of course to her adorable, but ageing, canine companion, without which she would immobile and could not function: her guide dog. The amendment is so important to this individual and other disabled people in her situation—perhaps to an even greater degree than my noble friend appreciated when she tabled it—because despite my friend being a lawyer and having engaged in writing with HAUS and the RTM to explain her legal rights in relation to step-free access to the garden for her guide dog and her wheelchair, all her appeals for kindness, help and basic human empathy have been met with disdain. I know this because I have here in the Chamber a copy of her email correspondence with HAUS and the directors of the RTM. It is a damning indictment of how the rights enshrined in disability discrimination and equality legislation—on which your Lordships’ House has done so much brilliant work over the years to pass—are being traduced by organisations such as HAUS and the RTM. What a sad reflection on society that this could happen in plain sight in 2025, the 30th anniversary of the Disability Discrimination Act. It is heartbreaking—quite literally, in the case of this individual. Her condition is by its very nature isolating. HAUS and her RTM directors, who are her neighbours, know that, and yet they give the impression that they are waiting for her to die, and their callous indifference adds to that sense of isolation. What is to be done? It would be so easy for the chief executive of HAUS, Gareth Martin, to facilitate the speedy resolution of this situation by ensuring that the RTM directors act in accordance with her rights and with compassion, and that a key was provided, on a permanent and unrestricted basis, to the courtyard garden—which happens to be next to my friend’s apartment—so that she could use her mobility aids in it. As Guide Dogs has explained to in an email to HAUS and the RTM directors, this is vital for the welfare of both her ageing service dog—her mobility aid—and the individual herself. She is being undeniably persecuted for having the temerity to assert her rights, in a way that would be totally unacceptable were it to be carried out on the grounds of race, for example. Incredibly, as if to add insult to injury, the individual has also been told that a few flowerpots, which contain plants for sensory stimulation and provide her with the very few flashes of colour she can still just about discern, must be removed. In conclusion, will the Minister meet me so that we can explore how we might persuade HAUS and the RTM to respect this individual’s rights with regard to her mobility aids, in line with the spirit of this amendment? Can directors of companies be struck off, for example, for engaging in what is obviously wilful disability discrimination? If not, how can we ensure that they are? Perhaps their appalling behaviour could be brought to the attention of the relevant regulators—I cannot imagine their clients would be impressed. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I reiterate my deep gratitude to my noble friend for tabling such an important amendment.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for tabling this amendment. I also pay my heartfelt thanks to my noble friend Lord Shinkwin; he always brings enormous knowledge and so much personal experience to any debate, as he has done today. We briefly discussed support for disabled tenants in an earlier group, and we on these Benches firmly support steps to help disabled tenants access the homes and services they need. With the appropriate support, disabled people can live more fulfilled lives and thrive. We have come so far in recent years on support for disabled people to live full and happy lives in their own homes, so I am grateful to my noble friend for moving this important amendment today. Amendment 275C seeks to prevent landlords and agents declining reasonable requests by tenants who need mobility aids to have them installed. It is a limited amendment that applies only where a tenant can arrange for the payment and installation of the aids themselves. This is an excellent challenge to the Government and we hope that the Minister will seriously consider this proposal and work with my noble friend to deliver the protections we need for disabled tenants. Perhaps this is something that we could revisit on Report. We also wish to work constructively with my noble friend on how we might consider broader plans to ensure that the removal of mobility adaptions is deliverable, affordable and—crucially—even possible in practice. This is a vital area that demands serious attention from the Government, and the onus is on everyone across the Committee to put forward practical and compassionate solutions that recognise the real-world challenges faced by landlords and tenants alike around adapted homes. We need to look further at who would be responsible for covering the costs of restoring the changes to the original condition of the property. There is some more work to do, but I am sure that we can all do it before Report, and I look forward to working with the other parties to see whether we can find a sensible solution to the issue. We must ensure that any policy in this area supports accessibility, while remaining realistic and fair to all parties concerned.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her Amendment 275C, which seeks to prevent landlords, or any other relevant person in relation to a tenancy, unreasonably refusing a tenant request to install a mobility aid in their home. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their contributions. We debated in detail similar amendments on home disability adaptations last week. As I stated then, I absolutely agree that we should take steps to remove barriers that unreasonably prevent disabled renters getting the home adaptations they need—a need so powerfully described by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin; I will write to him about the routes to redress in cases such as the one he raised. However, I do not believe that this amendment is the right way to do this. The Equality Act 2010 already provides protections for disabled tenants, and that applies whether they are in social rented or private rented housing. This includes providing a procedure under which they can request permission in writing from their landlord to make adaptations, including additions to or alterations in the fittings and fixtures of the home, such as mobility aids. Landlords cannot unreasonably refuse such requests. Creating a new specific obligation in relation to mobility aids in particular would increase the complexity of the system unnecessarily, making it more difficult for tenants to navigate. We also wish to avoid creating a two-tier system in which people with impaired mobility have different rights from people with other disabilities or impairments. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for introducing this amendment, because it gives me an opportunity to update noble Lords. There was a lot of discussion about this in the other place during the passage of the Bill. There have been some further commitments, and these were set out in a recent letter from the Minister of State for Housing and Planning to the MPs who tabled amendments in the other place. The letter stated that the Government would take the following actions to address known barriers to disabled tenants accessing the home adaptations they require. With the leave of the Committee, I will update Members on that now. As highlighted in research carried out by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the National Residential Landlords Association, a major challenge to the operation of the current system is the lack of knowledge among landlords, tenants and agents. The Renters’ Rights Bill includes the power to require landlords to provide a written statement of terms to new tenants. It is our intention, subject to drafting and scrutiny of the secondary legislation to mandate that this statement sets out the duty on landlords under the Equality Act 2010 to not unreasonably refuse disability adaptation requests from tenants. This will ensure that parties are aware of rights and obligations in relation to adaptations when they enter into a tenancy.

16:15:00

In addition, my department will deliver a programme of communication and engagement to further raise awareness among landlords, tenants and agents about rights and obligations in respect of home disability adaptations under the Equality Act 2010. We will work closely with the sector, including organisations representing disabled people, to inform our approach to building greater awareness among these groups. We will explore enhancing guidance for tenants and landlords; for example, to help them understand what constitutes “reasonable” in relation to adaptation requests. My department will engage with key organisations in the sector, including those that already have a role in advising landlords and tenants on issues relating to home adaptations. We will seek to work with such organisations to produce and distribute clear guidance or, where required, to update and strengthen existing guidance. This will help all parties to effectively navigate the current system. We believe these steps will make a real difference to clarifying the rights of disabled tenants and ensuring that more requests are both made and agreed to.

I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about the removal of adaptations. We discussed this the other day, but that will be included in the guidance I have just mentioned.

Given the existing protections that apply to disabled renters and the further action we are already planning to take, I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

My Lords, one of the things I am learning about this place is that by tabling amendments to legislation you get to discuss aspects of policy. I was not here for the other debate, but I thought there were some deficiencies in what was being proposed. I am very pleased to hear about the actions taken by Matthew Pennycook, the Minister. That is welcome news, and I think that will be welcomed right across the country. I would be grateful if the Minister could put the letter in the Library so that everybody can see this. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 275C withdrawn.

Clauses 137 to 139 agreed.

Clause 140: Regulations

Amendments 276 and 277

Moved by

276: Clause 140, page 159, line 16, leave out “3(7),” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment is consequential on the omission of clause 3.

277: Clause 140, page 159, line 17, leave out “or 91(2)” and insert “, 91(2) or paragraph 30 of Schedule 6” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment is consequential on the new Part 2 that would be inserted into Schedule 6 by the amendment in my name

Amendments 276 and 277 agreed.

Clause 140, as amended, agreed.

Clauses 141 to 144 agreed.

Clause 145: Commencement

Amendment 278

Moved by

278: Clause 145, page 162, line 36, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert— “(1) Subject to the exceptions set out in this section, this Act comes into force on the day on which it is passed.(2) Parts 2 and 3 of this Act come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint.” Member's explanatory statement This amendment and others in the name of Lord Bird would bring the majority of the Act into force on the day that it passes, with the exception of some areas where regulations or consultation are needed.

I declare my interests in the register in and around housing and things in that area. I will speak to Amendment 278 and the other amendments in my name—Amendments 282, 286 and 291—as they all work together. My amendments would bring the majority of the Bill and the new tenancy regime into force on the day that it passes, with the exception of some areas where regulations or consultation are needed. The purpose of this is to end Section 21 evictions at the earliest possible moment. I have some interesting research, which I would like to give. No-fault evictions are currently at an eight-year high. Since the previous Government pledged to end no-fault evictions in 2019, 1 million renters have been served a Section 21 eviction notice. Over 100,000 households have been threatened with homelessness due to one of these evictions. Any delays in ending Section 21 will lead to more renters facing an unwanted move, potentially causing hardship and, in some cases, homelessness. Section 21 has meant that privately renting is considered to provide instability. A quarter of all renters have lived in three or more homes in the last five years. I could go on reading like this, but it is not my style, so I will end there. It was 2,222 days ago when then Prime Minister May said that we were going to get rid of Section 21. The reason that I have brought forward these amendments is that they would not allow ending Section 21 to be kicked into the long grass, as it has been over the last six years. Michael Gove and everybody in the last Government whom I spoke to said, “Yes, yes—we ought to do something about it”. I am very concerned that what will happen is that we will say that Section 21 needs to go through some more debates and that we need to wait for the legal process, but then even more people will end up being thrown out of their homes. I raise another question, which I find very frightening. I am the product of a slum house and slum landlords. I was born in 1946; when in 1951 we did not pay the rent, we were thrown out in the streets, and all our goods were put out there. This would really upset people in the Labour Government at the time, but they did not do an awful lot about it. The Conservatives came in, and they did not do an awful lot about it—the fact that a family could be laid out on the streets without the law becoming in any way involved. When the Conservatives came in, they passed a rent Act—I think it was in 1955—which changed things; when Labour came in, in 1965 it was changed again. You could look at it as the goodies and the baddies: for a Conservative Administration, the goodies are the landlords and the baddies are the tenants; for the Labour Party or a Labour Government, the landlords are the baddies and the tenants are the goodies. I have watched this and been involved in this process for decade after decade. From my experience, I feel that we need to arrive at a situation, but we are not going to unless we really rethink how we deal with tenancies, landlords and tenants. The important thing to me is that we stop this coming and going, this balancing—this seeking of who is in the wrong and who is in the right. Both sides of the argument must get together, and this is where I want the work to be done, where tenants and landlords are advantaged by the stability that comes, and it is not engined by the fact that it depends on which Government are in as to who are the goodies and who are the baddies. This has been a major problem for me over many years. In 1965, when the Labour Government under Harold Wilson brought in the Rent Act, it meant in fact that you had this peculiar situation where all the support went to the tenant, and for hundreds of thousands of people who were landlords and had property, it was removed, and enormous pressure was put on social housing. So for social housing, the local authorities—it was not housing associations—had to keep raising the bar. My brothers, who were on the council housing list in Hammersmith and Fulham in 1965 and were number 101 and I think 105, were scratched because the pressure on social housing was so enormous. Social housing ended up largely with people who were incredibly troubled, not ordinary working-class people, often single mothers with a number of children, and you had this development of the creation of almost ghettos of people who were living in social housing rather than the social mix of the social housing I moved into at the age of 10. I use this opportunity to say that I want to get rid of Section 21 because it legalises insecurity. But overall, I also want us to be looking carefully at how we can begin a process of balance and equilibrium between tenant and landlord, because they both need each other. How many tenants are paying for people to buy houses? How many tenants are helping landlords put money aside for their pension? How many tenants are putting the children through university, because it is one of the few places where you can get prosperity? Unless we get to a situation where we get the equilibrium, then over the next 10, 20 or 30 years, as politics change and as Governments change, we are going to be having this kind of arsy-versy sort of world of one being the bully and the other being the hero or victim. I beg to move.

There is a point here which I hope the Minister will listen to carefully: the speed with which legislation is put into operation. I make this point only because it has been true over a whole range of issues. It is true on new housebuilding: we change the building regulations, and it is five years before they actually come into operation, because of the way in which we deal with our legislation. Let us take the disgraceful situation of successive Governments, of both parties, on Dalits. We passed the change so that Dalits could claim compensation for the way they were treated because of their caste. We changed the law in this House. It still has not come into operation—it has been put off and put off because of the way the legislation works. I hope the Minister will recognise that what has been so ably introduced is two things. First, I entirely agree that we want a proper balance and a way forward. Tenants need landlords and landlords need tenants; that is obviously so. But I hope she will also take on board the fundamental issue of how quickly changes in legislation go through, and how often you are left with continuing delay. It is not just in this Bill—and she is not responsible for other Bills—but I hope she will take back the genuine concern of many of us about the length of time it takes for decisions that we make to affect ordinary people, which is, after all, why we make them.

16:30:00

My Lords, I shall contribute very briefly to the debate on this important amendment. I say at the beginning that I defer to no one in my admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and his heroic battle over many years to raise the issue of homelessness and those less fortunate people who do not have access to good housing. Sometimes, you come upon an amendment and you have to make a decision between your heart and your head. Your heart is very much taken with the sincerity of the noble Lord’s argument about the need to be fair—principally to tenants, but also to landlords—in the way you put legislation together. I absolutely and fully take that view, but the noble Lord will understand that one of the reasons I do not support his amendment is that the Government, rightly or wrongly, have brought the Bill to this stage. I believe that Section 21 will have unintended consequences. It will reduce the amount of rental stock, and mean that people who own capital will sell it to other people who own capital—landlords—and they will not put that property back on the market for those in the most desperate need, mainly young working families, but also others in the market. The noble Lord will know—it is a wider issue, I accept—that rent controls very rarely work, whether it is in Barcelona, New York, Scotland or other places in the world. So that is the head part. On the heart part, I absolutely agree with what he is saying. My point is that the Government have reached this juncture, and we are about to go into Report, the Bill is going to happen and there is a consensus, whether I like it or not. Given that we have some enduring concerns about court capacity and the ability of the court system to deal with any concomitant legislation which might arise from the Bill—which will become an Act in the not-too-distant future—I feel that his amendment, while extremely well-meaning and very sincere, will not help deliver what we want, which is fairness and equity for tenants and landlords. It is only on that basis that I respectfully say that I do not support the amendment, and I suspect that the Government will take a similar view. I applaud the noble Lord for everything that he has done in raising these very important issues over many years.

My Amendment 281 has not been formally called, but if it is the wish of the House, I will address it. The other amendments, Amendments 279 and 280, have already been debated. I was rather surprised to be asked again to declare my interests, because I have done so on several occasions already during the passage of the Bill. Oh, I am now being released. Anyway, my interests are disclosed in the register. I therefore move on to a very responsible role that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and I have, and that is of moving the last group of amendments in this Committee. It has been a long journey to get to this point, involving a lot of hard work by many Members of the House, but none more so than my noble friend the Minister, who has worked extremely hard throughout all the Committee sittings. As usual, the noble Lord, Lord Bird, gave a very spirited speech. He spoke with great passion. It is always delightful to hear him, and I welcome him back. He was not here last night but he has given the spirited speech today. I am afraid that I do not agree with his rather simplistic description of the Conservative Party as running their policies based on baddie tenants, or that my party is running policies on baddie landlords. I know from debates in the House and discussions with the Minister that there has been a great effort by my party to produce a Bill which is fair and balanced. I am looking at the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, but she is not quite coming with me on this proposition. However, I believe that my noble friend the Minister largely has achieved that. We have heard the noble Lord’s reasons for different commencement dates under the Bill. All my amendments go to Clause 145, on commencement. I have tabled Amendments 281, 287, 288 and 289. They all seek to give more time for the commencement of certain parts of the Bill. I draw attention to Amendment 288, which seeks to give more time, and different times for new tenancies, suggesting increasing the times to six months and, for existing tenancies, 12 months. This is a problem that has been presented to me by estate agents. We all should understand how impactful this Bill is. Clause 1 of the Bill states that it applies to all tenancies—existing tenancies and new tenancies. In so far as it applies to existing tenancies, it applies to a great number of tenancies that are fixed term, many of which are shorthold. My wife and I use a 12-month fixed-term tenancy. Estate agents have now got a very different role. Concerning new tenancies, that is okay. A new tenancy will be set up as a periodic tenancy with, ab initio, a new tenant. However, the existing tenancies produce different work for the estate agent. Under the present system of shorthold tenancies, the agent contacts the tenant and the landlord about three months before the expiration of the tenancy and checks whether the tenant wants to go for another period of tenancy and whether the landlord is agreeable to that. He also checks the position on the amount of rent. I do not know, and neither do many estate agents, what the new requirements will be. Is it proper for the estate agent to contact the tenant and ask, “How much longer do you want?” It is a periodic tenancy; there is no end date. Would it be proper for the estate agent to then engage the tenancy on the amount of rent? These are difficult decisions that have to be made. In this modern age, these things have to be set up with software and the like, which is why I am asking my noble friend the Minister to give more time. All that has been asked of me, which I am now asking of noble Lords and, more directly, the Minister, is this: can we have more time, so that all the right procedures are set up and it does not end up being a scrambled egg?

My Lords, I rise briefly on this group, which concerns commencement. I particularly thank the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Bird, for ensuring that this debate took place, and the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for his wisdom and experience in implementation. I know that my noble friend Lady Thornhill will regret not being here for day 7 of the Committee but, as she explained to the House last night, she had an appointment that she could not change, because this day was unexpected. I add my words of thanks to everyone who has been here all the way through these seven days of Committee. I feel that it has been a quality experience and debate. In particular, I thank the Minister. There is no doubt that the central aim of this Bill, the long-overdue abolition of Section 21, must be delivered swiftly. This abolition will ensure that renters no longer live under the threat of no-fault evictions. This was a promise that the last Government failed to deliver over a shocking six-year period. Indeed, we have already heard the devastating consequence of that broken promise, with over 120,000 households served with no-fault eviction notices since it was first made in 2019, when the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, was Prime Minister.

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. This should be directed also to the noble Lord, Lord Bird. As I read in Clause 1 of the Bill that all existing tenancies are made periodic tenancies, that must involve the ceasing of the use of Section 21.

That is what the noble Baroness is saying.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying: this will bring about the abolition of Section 21. That failure has rightly eroded trust. It now falls to this Government to deliver what was promised without further delay. Renters should not be asked to wait any longer for the basic security that this legislation is intended to provide. At the same time, we on these Benches recognise that proper implementation matters. Noble Lords would not find that surprising, given that every other member of this Bill team is a former or current councillor, with the exception of me. The changes this Bill brings are significant and must be supported by clear guidance, well-prepared systems and proper resourcing, not least for the courts and local authorities. Yes, we need preparation time, but that preparation must not become an excuse for indefinite delay. There is a question of balance. Where regulation or consultation is needed, that work must of course be done, but it should be carried out with urgency and to a clear and published timetable. Renters deserve certainty about when these protections will come into force, but so too do landlords. Those operating in good faith need to understand the new framework that they will be working within and to have time to prepare for it, but they should not be left in limbo. The entire sector needs clarity and consistency. Delays would only undermine confidence in this long-awaited reform. I have only one central question for the Minister. The Government publicly stated that Section 21 would be abolished “immediately” in their 2024 manifesto. However, Clause 145(5)(a) indicates that the abolition will take effect two months after the Bill is passed. The Bill also says that this is a decision for the Secretary of State. Can she please use this opportunity to clarify—my apologies if she has already explained this endlessly, but I am still slightly confused on this question—which timeframe is correct? It would be helpful, for instance, to understand the time lapse between the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and the commencement date of the abolition of Section 21. Finally, many of us were here until 1 am on Tuesday and until midnight last night, and this is now our seventh day. I am certain that there are many Peers who would do that again and again to get to the abolition of Section 21—to get to, at pace, that long-promised, much-needed change in the law. I look forward now to hearing when.

16:45:00

Perhaps I may offer the briefest of comments. At the risk of being struck by lightning: on the seventh day, the Lord rested. Let us hope we all get some rest soon. I mention two words: equilibrium and scramble. Equilibrium is what we all seek, but it is a fact of life that one woman’s equilibrium may be different to another woman’s equilibrium. The perpetual life of politics is trying to find an equilibrium between different viewpoints. Regarding scramble, there will be a scramble whenever this comes in, and that is not a reason to put it off. We touched on the database yesterday. There are bits of the Bill that will come in more slowly, but Section 21, to echo the point from the noble Lord, Lord Bird, will definitely go. If the Bill achieves nothing else, Section 21 will go.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, who, as always, so passionately opened this group. I thank him for all his knowledge and particularly the passion that he brings on anything to do with homes, homelessness and vulnerable people. The noble Lord’s Amendments 278, 286 and 291, along with others in his name, would bring the majority of the Act into force on the day it receives Royal Assent, save for a few areas requiring further regulation or consultation. We on these Benches have consistently urged the Government to not take this approach. We have called on them to reaffirm their long-standing commitment to prospective lawmaking by providing clear commencement dates and reasonable transition periods for all new obligations. This is essential to protect both tenants and landlords from abrupt and potentially unfair changes. A phased approach would allow landlords, tenants and letting agents time to understand and adapt to the new legal framework. Commencing the Act immediately upon passage does not provide sufficient time to do this. We simply cannot expect landlords to react and comply with significant new requirements on day 1. Indeed, the evidence bears this this out. In a recent survey conducted by Paragon, 57% of landlords said they had heard of the legislation but did not fully understand its implications, and a further 39% said they knew little about it. Those statistics point clearly to a knowledge gap in the market—one that we must not ignore. Therefore, we believe that a clear transition period is necessary. Amendments 281, 287, 288 and 289, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, present a credible and constructive challenge to the Government’s current position. They propose a model that echoes the approach taken by the predecessor to the Bill—an approach grounded in prospective lawmaking. Phase 1 in that Bill would have applied the new rules only to new tenancies with at least six months’ notice, and phase 2 would extend the rules to existing tenancies no less than 12 months later. This two-phase model provides a reasonable and practical path forward, allowing time for proper education, preparation and implementation. I urge the Government to reflect carefully on these proposals and to recognise the importance of a fair and orderly transition. We all agree that tenants deserve safe, secure and decent homes at a fair price, but to deliver that we need a functioning rental market with enough good-quality homes to meet growing demand. We need more homes in the right places. This Bill, regrettably, puts that in danger. Rather than boosting supply, it risks driving landlords out of the market, shrinking the number of available homes and pushing rents even higher. If we get this wrong, renters will pay the price. Balance is essential. At present, we believe this Bill does not strike that balance. Before I sit down, I thank and congratulate the noble Baroness on how she has conducted the first Bill that she is taken through Committee, and all noble Lords who have taken part in excellent, well-informed debates over the past seven days. I look forward to Report.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and my noble friend Lord Hacking for their amendments relating to the commencement of measures in the Bill. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Cromwell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Scott, for participating in this group. I turn to Amendments 278, 282, 286, and 291 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bird. I add my tribute for all the work he does to tackle homelessness. He is a great hero of mine, and it is a great privilege to work with him. The noble Lord rightly notes the importance of ending Section 21, which is a major contributor to homelessness levels in England and a major cost to councils, which now spend more than £2 billion a year on temporary accommodation. That was the last full year’s figure. I heard that £4 million a day is currently spent on homelessness in London. Much of that is driven by Section 21 evictions. As well as the misery created for individuals and families, these evictions put pressure on the public purse and costs that would be much better spent on other public services. These amendments seek to bring most of the measures in the Renters’ Rights Bill forward to Royal Assent. The Government agree with the noble Lord that the measures in this Bill are urgently needed, which is why we moved swiftly to introduce it early in our first legislative programme for government. To end the scourge of Section 21 evictions as quickly as possible, we will introduce the new tenancy for the private rented sector in one stage. On that date, the new tenancy system will apply to all private tenancies. Existing tenancies will convert to the new system, and any new tenancies signed on or after that date will be governed by the new rules. There will be no dither or delay, and the abolition of Section 21, fixed-term contracts, and other vital measures in the Bill will happen as quickly as possible. However, we must do this in a responsible manner, as noble Lords have mentioned. We are therefore also committed to making sure that implementation takes place smoothly. As such, it is essential that wider work around the Bill is allowed to conclude before implementation takes place. That includes the production of guidance, updating court forms and making secondary legislation. For example, the information that landlords are required to give tenants in the written statement of terms will be set out in secondary legislation. Work is already under way on these matters. We need to get it right. We will appoint the date of implementation via secondary legislation, which is typical when commencing complex primary legislation. This will allow us to give the sector certainty about when the system will come into force. Relying on Royal Assent would create significant uncertainty around the specific date, and it is important that we do not do that. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, that I was lucky enough to benefit from the post-war Labour Government’s drive to build social housing so, although I could have done, I did not grow up in the kind of housing that he described. Our social housing was built in new towns, and that was the last time that social housing was built at any scale in this country. We have promised that again, and have committed £2 billion to social and affordable housing. So the noble Lord has my personal commitment that we will move this forward as quickly as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, talked about the speed of legislation. I have been a Minister for only a few months but I am already learning the frustration of time lags. I thought that councils move a bit too slowly at times, but we certainly need to move things forward more quickly. Of course, this is not just about legislation; we are trying to move on housing at some speed. We have already provided funding to improve construction skills, funding for planning officers, a new National Planning Policy Framework, over £500 million for homelessness and the social housing funding that I have already mentioned. We understand that this needs to be moved forward quickly. We will work as quickly as we can on that. As such, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments.

I concur with the comments across the Chamber about what a professional job the Minister has done in piloting the Bill and engaging with Members. At Second Reading, she made specific reference to working closely with the Ministry of Justice on court digitalisation and extra funding for court costs. Is she in a position to update the Committee on what progress has been made on that? There are still people across the Committee who are concerned about the likely ramifications of the abolition of Section 21, whenever it happens.

I understand the noble Lord’s concern. There is ongoing dialogue with the Ministry of Justice, and I hope to be able to update Members before Report on where that has got to as soon as we are able to. I do not think it would be helpful to have a running commentary on it but my honourable friend the Minister for Housing is in dialogue at the moment with the MoJ. I will update noble Lords as soon as we get to the end of those discussions. I turn to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking. Amendment 281 seeks to delay a number of provisions coming into force. The Bill currently provides that these provisions commence two months after Royal Assent. Two months is a well-established precedent, and I see no reason why commencement of these provisions should be delayed. For example, the provisions include important protections for tenants and provide local authorities with better powers to enforce housing standards. Amendment 287 would set a time limit of 12 months between Royal Assent and the implementation of the Bill’s tenancy reforms in the private rented sector. Amendment 288 would change the approach to tenancy reform implementation in the Bill. It would require that the measures were applied to new tenancies no earlier than six months after Royal Assent and to existing tenancies no earlier than 12 months after Royal Assent. Amendment 289 would require that the conversion of existing tenancies to assured tenancies under the new tenancy reform system took place no earlier than 12 months after Royal Assent. As I have set out previously, we will end the scourge of Section 21 evictions as quickly as possible, and we will introduce the new tenancy for the private rented sector in one stage. I assure my noble friend that this Government will ensure that the sector has adequate notice of the system taking effect but, in order to support tenants, landlords and agents to adjust, we will allow time for a smooth transition to the new system while making sure that tenants can benefit from the new system that they have waited so long for as soon as is realistically possible. We are planning a wide-ranging campaign to raise awareness of our reforms, supported by clear, straightforward and easy-to-read guidance to help landlords to prepare for change and to help tenants to be ready for it. On that basis, I ask my noble friend not to press his amendments.

Unfortunately, I was not in a position to sit up last night or the night before because I have a full-time job. Yesterday, I was in Cardiff working with people in the Government there. We had a big event around the Big Issue. It was wonderful to be there and to be given the opportunity, I hope, to work with the Welsh Parliament on the idea of social housing, social justice and all that. So I hope noble Lords will forgive me for not being here last night to see all their noble work. I want to say a few things. I think one of the real problems is that people do not understand the role of a tenant. They know the role of a landlord: the landlord owns a piece of property, and they rent it out to somebody. But the role of the tenant over the last 50 years has been to enrich the landlord. If you look at what has happened to the property market over the last 40 or 50 years, the role of the tenant has been to make sure that the landlord gets richer and richer, because we know the way the property market has been going. It has been going in a direction where people can buy a house in one decade—my ex-wife did so—and sell it later in the decade for maybe two or three times as much. The landlord would often have done not much more than rent the property out and keep it going.

That is not true.

I am telling the noble Lord that, from my experience, it is. From my experience, what has happened is that tenants have made a very large section of the population who are small landlords much wealthier.

17:00:00

The reason I am going on about Section 21 is that I think it is a rebalancing. It is terrible that, if the property you are living in is third-rate or needs some repair, you will not go to the landlord because they will often—it has happened, and I know many people it has happened to—put you down as a troublesome tenant. The landlord will just move you out and move somebody else in. There are all sorts of reasons why it is perilous being a tenant.

I am a tenant at the moment. I am living in Norwich because my daughter is at school there. I do not know the landlord; I do not know what is going to happen. He might afterwards send me a letter saying, “Lord Bird, I am sorry, but I want you to move on”, and I would not be able to do anything about it. I have invested an enormous amount of time and effort in being in Norwich, but the thing is that renting is so perilous. I want to get rid of that perilousness. I do not want that process to be slowed down, interrupted or kicked into the long grass simply because we do not want to address an incredibly serious misnomer that exists in the life of many, many people who cannot afford to buy property. They cannot afford to get on the property ladder and become landlords themselves.

I would love it if the Minister did her best to kick it into play, rather than kick it into the long grass. God bless you all. I am appreciative of all the hard work the Government and the whole Committee have done on this. I therefore withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 278 withdrawn.

Amendments 279 to 288 not moved.

Clause 145 agreed.

Clause 146: Existing assured tenancies to continue as Section 4A assured tenancies

Amendment 289 not moved.

Amendment 290

Moved by

290: Clause 146, page 163, line 34, leave out from “provision” to end of line 35 Member's explanatory statement This amendment is consequential on the new Part 2 that would be inserted into Schedule 6 by the amendment in my name

Amendment 290 agreed.

Amendment 291 not moved.

Clause 146, as amended, agreed.

Schedule 6: Application of Chapter 1 of Part 1 to Existing Tenancies: Transitional Provision

Amendment 292

Moved by

292: Schedule 6, page 233, line 14, leave out paragraph 3 and insert— 3 “(1) This paragraph applies where—(a) before the commencement date—(i) a valid notice under section 21 of the 1988 Act has been given, and(ii) the claimant in possession proceedings has requested the court to issue the claim form for those proceedings, and(b) immediately before the commencement date, possession proceedings have not begun or have not been concluded.(2) The notice under section 21 remains valid until possession proceedings are concluded.(3) The amendments made by Chapter 1 of Part 1 do not apply in relation to the tenancy until the notice under section 21 ceases to be valid by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) (and accordingly the tenancy remains an assured shorthold tenancy until then).(4) In relation to a tenancy to which sub-paragraph (3) applies, section 146(3) (except in its application to this paragraph) has effect as if the following were substituted for the definition of “commencement date”—““commencement date” means the date on which, by virtue of paragraph 3 of Schedule 6, the amendments made by Chapter 1 of Part 1 apply in relation to a tenancy;”.(5) In this paragraph “possession proceedings” means proceedings for an order for possession under section 21 of the 1988 Act in reliance on a valid notice given under that section.Section 2: claim form for section 21 possession proceedings not already requested 3A (1) This paragraph applies where, before the commencement date—(a) a valid notice under section 21 of the 1988 Act has been given, and(b) the claimant in possession proceedings has not requested the court to issue the claim form for those proceedings.(2) Section 21 of the 1988 Act has effect as if the following were substituted for subsections (4D) and (4E)— “(4D) Subject to subsection (4E), proceedings for an order for possession under this section in relation to a dwelling-house in England may not be begun if the claimant in the proceedings requests the court to issue the claim for the proceedings after the end of the applicable period.(4DA) For that purpose the “applicable period” is—(a) the period of six months beginning with the date on which the notice was given under subsection (1) or (4), or(b) the period of three months beginning with the commencement date, if this three month period ends before the six month period mentioned in paragraph (a).(4E) Where—(a) a notice under subsection (4) has been given in relation to a dwelling-house in England, and(b) paragraph (b) of that subsection requires the date specified in the notice to be more than two months after the date the notice was given,proceedings for an order for possession under this section may not be begun if the claimant in the proceedings requests the court to issue the claim for the proceedings after the end of the applicable period.(4EA) For that purpose the “applicable period” is—(a) the period of four months beginning with the date specified in the notice, or(b) the period of three months beginning with the commencement date, if this three month period ends before the four month period mentioned in paragraph (a).(4EB) In subsections (4DA) and (4EA) “commencement date” has the meaning given by section 146 of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025.”(3) The notice under section 21 remains valid—(a) until the end of the applicable period, except where the claimant has requested the court to issue the claim form for possession proceedings before the end of that period;(b) until possession proceedings are concluded, if the claimant has requested the court to issue the claim form for those proceedings before the end of the applicable period.(4) The amendments made by Chapter 1 of Part 1 do not apply in relation to the tenancy until the notice under section 21 ceases to be valid by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) (and accordingly the tenancy remains an assured shorthold tenancy until then).(5) In relation to a tenancy to which sub-paragraph (4) applies, section 146(3) (except in its application to this paragraph) has effect as if the following were substituted for the definition of “commencement date”—““commencement date” means the date on which, by virtue of paragraph 3A of Schedule 6, the amendments made by Chapter 1 of Part 1 apply in relation to a tenancy;”.(6) In this paragraph—“applicable period” , in relation to possession proceedings, has the same meaning that it has in relation to those proceedings in section 21 of the 1988 Act as modified by sub-paragraph (2);“possession proceedings” means proceedings for an order for possession under section 21 of the 1988 Act in reliance on a valid notice given under that section.” Member's explanatory statement This restructures the provision in paragraph 3 and clarifies that the application of that provision depends on whether the landlord has requested the court to issue the claim form in possession proceedings (instead of depending on whether the court has actually issued the claim form).

Amendment 292 agreed.

Amendments 293 and 294 not moved.

Amendments 295 and 296

Moved by

295: Schedule 6, page 237, line 21, leave out paragraph 15 and insert— 15 “(1) This paragraph applies where—(a) before the commencement date—(i) a valid notice under section 8 of the 1988 Act has been given, and(ii) the claimant in possession proceedings has requested the court to issue the claim form for those proceedings, and(b) immediately before the commencement date, possession proceedings have not begun or have not been concluded.(2) The notice under section 8 remains valid until possession proceedings are concluded.(3) The amendments made by Chapter 1 of Part 1 do not apply in relation to the tenancy until the notice under section 8 ceases to be valid by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) (and accordingly the tenancy remains an assured shorthold tenancy until then).(4) In relation to a tenancy to which sub-paragraph (3) applies, section 146(3) (except in its application to this paragraph) has effect as if the following were substituted for the definition of “commencement date”—““commencement date” means the date on which, by virtue of paragraph 15 of Schedule 6, the amendments made by Chapter 1 of Part 1 apply in relation to a tenancy;”.(5) In this paragraph “possession proceedings” means proceedings for an order for possession under section 8 of the 1988 Act in reliance on a valid notice given under that section.Claim form for section 8 possession proceedings not already requested 15A (1) This paragraph applies where, before the commencement date—(a) a valid notice under section 8 of the 1988 Act has been given, and(b) the claimant in possession proceedings has not requested the court to issue the claim form for those proceedings.(2) The notice under section 8 remains valid—(a) until the end of the applicable period, except where the claimant has requested the court to issue the claim form for possession proceedings before the end of that period;(b) until possession proceedings are concluded, if the claimant has requested the court to issue the claim form for those proceedings before the end of the applicable period.(3) The amendments made by Chapter 1 of Part 1 do not apply in relation to the tenancy until the notice under section 8 ceases to be valid by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) (and accordingly the tenancy remains an assured shorthold tenancy until then). (4) In relation to a tenancy to which sub-paragraph (3) applies, section 146(3) (except in its application to this paragraph) has effect as if the following were substituted for the definition of “commencement date”—““commencement date” means the date on which, by virtue of paragraph 15A of Schedule 6, the amendments made by Chapter 1 of Part 1 apply in relation to a tenancy;”.(5) In this paragraph—“applicable period” , in relation to possession proceedings—(a) the period of twelve months included in the notice under section 8 of the 1988 Act in accordance with subsection (3)(c) of that section, or(b) the period of three months beginning with the commencement date, if this three month period ends before the twelve month period mentioned in paragraph (a);“possession proceedings” means proceedings for an order for possession under section 8 of the 1988 Act in reliance on a valid notice given under that section.”Member's explanatory statement This restructures the provision in paragraph 15 and clarifies that the application of that provision depends on whether the landlord has requested the court to issue the claim form in possession proceedings (instead of depending on whether the court has actually issued the claim form).

296: Schedule 6, page 238, line 9, at end insert— “Part 2Existing instruments which permit or require letting etcKey definitions 17 (1) “Residential premises” are premises that consist of or include one or more dwelling-houses in England.(2) A lease of residential premises (whether or not in writing) is a “relevant pre-application instrument” if it was entered into—(a) before the commencement date, or(b) on or after that date under a contract entered into before that date.(3) A mortgage arrangement which relates to residential premises is a “relevant pre-application instrument” if it was entered into—(a) before the commencement date, or(b) on or after that date by the acceptance of an offer made before that date.(4) A contract of insurance which relates to residential premises is a “relevant pre-application instrument” if it was entered into—(a) before the commencement date, or(b) on or after that date by the acceptance of an offer made before that date.(5) A section 106 obligation is a “relevant pre-application instrument” if it was entered into before the commencement date.(6) In relation to a relevant pre-application instrument, “affected dwelling-house” means—(a) if the relevant pre-application instrument is a lease, the dwelling-house, or each dwelling-house, let by the lease;(b) if the relevant pre-application instrument is a mortgage arrangement, the dwelling-house, or each dwelling-house, to which the mortgage arrangement relates; (c) if the relevant pre-application instrument is a contract of insurance, the dwelling-house, or each dwelling-house, to which the contract of insurance relates;(d) if the relevant pre-application instrument is a section 106 obligation, the dwelling-house, or each dwelling-house, to which the section 106 obligation relates.(7) In relation to times before the commencement date, an assured tenancy is a “relevant” assured tenancy if—(a) it is not an assured shorthold tenancy,(b) it is a periodic tenancy, and(c) each period of the tenancy is—(i) a period of 28 days or shorter, or(ii) a monthly period,including where there are different periods at different times, each of which falls within sub-paragraph (i) or (ii).(8) In relation to times on or after the commencement date, an assured tenancy is a “relevant” assured tenancy if—(a) it is a periodic tenancy, and(b) each period of the tenancy is—(i) a period of 28 days or shorter, or(ii) a monthly period,including where there are different periods at different times, each of which falls within sub-paragraph (i) or (ii).Saving for existing powers to vary 18 Nothing in this Part of this Schedule prevents a relevant pre-application instrument from being varied or modified by the parties to it (and accordingly paragraphs 19 to 24 and paragraph 26 are subject to any such variation or modification).Relevant pre-application instruments that permit letting on tenancies that are no longer possible 19 (1) This paragraph applies to a relevant pre-application instrument if either or both of conditions A and B are met in relation to the affected dwelling-house.(2) Condition A: immediately before the commencement date, the relevant pre-application instrument—(a) permitted the affected dwelling-house to be let under an assured shorthold tenancy, but(b) did not permit the affected dwelling-house to be let under a relevant assured tenancy.(3) Condition B: immediately before the commencement date, the relevant pre-application instrument—(a) permitted the affected dwelling-house to be let under an assured tenancy (other than an assured shorthold tenancy), but(b) did not permit the affected dwelling-house to be let under a relevant assured tenancy.(4) The relevant pre-application instrument has effect on and after the commencement date as if it permits the affected dwelling-house to be let under a relevant assured tenancy.(5) That power to let under a relevant assured tenancy is exercisable in the same circumstances, and on the same terms, as the pre-commencement power to let was exercisable immediately before the commencement date, except so far as that would be inconsistent with any provision made by or under this Act.(6) In this paragraph “pre-commencement power to let” means—(a) if only condition A is met, the power to let mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(a); (b) if only condition B is met, the power to let mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(a);(c) if conditions A and B are both met, the power to let mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(a).Relevant pre-application instruments that permit letting on tenancies that continue to be possible 20 (1) This paragraph applies to a relevant pre-application instrument if, immediately before the commencement date, the relevant pre-application instrument permitted the affected dwelling-house to be let under a relevant assured tenancy.(2) That power to let under a relevant assured tenancy continues to be exercisable in the same circumstances, and on the same terms, as it was exercisable immediately before the commencement date, except so far as that would be inconsistent with any provision made by or under this Act.Relevant pre-application instruments that require letting on tenancies that are no longer possible 21 (1) This paragraph applies to a relevant pre-application instrument if either or both of conditions A and B are met.(2) Condition A: immediately before the commencement date—(a) the relevant pre-application instrument required the affected dwelling-house to be let, and(b) that requirement—(i) would have been complied with by letting the affected dwelling-house under an assured shorthold tenancy, but(ii) would not have been complied with by letting the affected dwelling-house under a relevant assured tenancy.(3) Condition B: immediately before the commencement date—(a) the relevant pre-application instrument required the affected dwelling-house to be let, and(b) that requirement—(i) would have been complied with by letting the affected dwelling-house under an assured tenancy (other than an assured shorthold tenancy), but(ii) would not have been complied with by letting the affected dwelling-house under a relevant assured tenancy.(4) The relevant pre-application instrument has effect on and after the commencement date as if it requires the affected dwelling-house to be let under a relevant assured tenancy.(5) That requirement to let under a relevant assured tenancy must be complied with in the same circumstances, and on the same terms, as the pre-commencement requirement had to be complied with immediately before the commencement date, except so far as that would be inconsistent with any provision made by or under this Act.(6) In this paragraph “pre-commencement requirement” means—(a) if only condition A is met, the requirement to let mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(b)(i);(b) if only condition B is met, the requirement to let mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(b)(i);(c) if conditions A and B are both met, the requirement to let mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(b)(i).Relevant pre-application instruments that require letting on tenancies that continue to be possible 22 (1) This paragraph applies to a relevant pre-application instrument if, immediately before the commencement date— (a) the relevant pre-application instrument required the affected dwelling-house to be let, and(b) that requirement would have been complied with by letting the affected dwelling-house under a relevant assured tenancy.(2) That requirement to let under a relevant assured tenancy must still be complied with in the same circumstances, and on the same terms, as it had to be complied with immediately before the commencement date, except so far as that would be inconsistent with any provision made by or under this Act.Pre-commencement s.106 obligations with provision relating to letting on terms that are no longer possible 23 (1) This paragraph applies to a pre-application section 106 obligation if, immediately before the commencement date, it prevented or restricted the taking of particular action unless or until the affected dwelling-house was let under a superseded tenancy.(2) On and after the commencement date, the pre-application section 106 obligation has effect as if it prevents or restricts the taking of the particular action unless or until the affected dwelling-house is let under a relevant assured tenancy.(3) Any such letting under a relevant assured tenancy is to be made in the same circumstances, and on the same terms, as a letting under a superseded tenancy immediately before the commencement date, except so far as that would be inconsistent with any provision made by or under this Act.Pre-commencement s.106 obligations with provision relating to letting on terms that continue to be possible 24 (1) This paragraph applies to a pre-application section 106 obligation if, immediately before the commencement date—(a) provision of the pre-application section 106 obligation prevented or restricted the taking of particular action unless or until the affected dwelling-house was let, and(b) that provision would have ceased to prevent or restrict that action if the affected dwelling-house was let under a relevant assured tenancy.(2) Such a letting under a relevant assured tenancy must still be made in the same circumstances, and on the same terms, as a letting under a relevant assured tenancy immediately before the commencement date, except so far as that would be inconsistent with any provision made by or under this Act.Requirements under the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 25 (1) This paragraph applies where—(a) a planning permission is granted before the commencement date on a relevant determination,(b) the planning permission was granted on the basis of a pre-application section 106 obligation, and(c) at the time the planning permission was granted, the pre-application section 106 obligation met the requirements under regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010.(2) On and after the commencement date any effect of this Part is to be disregarded when considering whether the pre-application section 106 obligation continues to meet those requirements.(3) In this paragraph “relevant determination” has the meaning given by regulation 122(3) of the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010.Leases which cannot be returned at end of term free of sub-lease 26 (1) This paragraph applies to a lease if— (a) the lease was entered into before the commencement date or under a contract entered into before that date,(b) the lease is—(i) periodic, or(ii) a fixed term lease of a term certain not exceeding 21 years,(c) the lease is modified by paragraph 19 or 21,(d) a dwelling-house is sub-let under the lease on a tenancy (entered into before or after the commencement date) which is (or becomes on or after that date, by virtue of this Act or otherwise) a relevant assured tenancy, and(e) the tenancy was entered into in accordance with the terms of the lease as they stood when the tenancy was entered into (or, if it was not, the breach has been waived by the landlord).(2) The lease has effect as if it provided that a failure by the lessee at the end of the lease to return the premises to the landlord free from the relevant assured tenancy does not constitute a breach of the lease.Application to agreements etc relating to leases, mortgage arrangements or contracts of insurance 27 In this Part of this Schedule references to a lease, mortgage arrangement or contract of insurance, and references to the terms of a lease, mortgage arrangement or contract of insurance, include references to—(a) the terms of any agreement relating to the lease, mortgage arrangement, or contract of insurance, and(b) any document or communication from a party to the lease, mortgage arrangement, or contract of insurance, which gives or refuses consent for letting in relation to a category or description of tenancy.Application to sub-letting 28 (1) In a case where the relevant pre-application instrument is a lease, a reference in this Part of this Schedule to a letting of the affected dwelling-house is a reference to a sub-letting of those premises under that lease or any inferior lease.(2) In the case of any other relevant pre-application instrument, a reference in this Part of this Schedule to a letting of the affected dwelling-house includes a reference to a sub-letting of those premises under any lease or inferior lease of those premises.Application in certain circumstances 29 (1) In a case where a relevant pre-application instrument—(a) gave, or gives, a discretion whether to let an affected dwelling-house, but(b) required, or requires, the affected dwelling-house to be let under a tenancy of a particular description if it is let,the instrument is to be regarded as permitting (and not as requiring) the dwelling-house to be let under that description of tenancy (and this Part of this Schedule applies accordingly).(2) The following provisions of this paragraph apply if there are two or more affected dwelling-houses in relation to the relevant pre-application instrument.(3) This Part of this Schedule applies separately in relation to each of those dwelling-houses.(4) But, if any term of the instrument is such that it gave, or gives, a discretion as to which particular dwelling-house or dwelling-houses the term applies to, this Schedule does not affect that discretion (but the term otherwise has effect subject to this Part of this Schedule).Power to disapply or modify this Part 30 (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations disapply or modify the effect of this Part of this Schedule in relation to relevant pre-application instruments of a specified description.(2) Where the Secretary of State makes regulations under this paragraph disapplying the effect of this Part, the fact that this Schedule has previously applied in relation to a relevant pre-application instrument does not prevent the exercise of the powers in section 148(6)(b) in relation to the relevant pre-application instrument.Meaning of “permitting” letting 31 A relevant pre-application instrument permitted, or permits, the affected dwelling-house to be let under a tenancy of a particular description if letting the affected dwelling-house under a tenancy of that description would not have breached the terms of the relevant pre-application instrument.Interpretation 32 In this Part of this Schedule—“affected dwelling-house” has the meaning given in paragraph 17(6);“assured shorthold tenancy” is to be read in accordance with Part 1 of the 1988 Act as it had effect immediately before the commencement date;“assured tenancy” , in relation to a time before the commencement date, is to be read in accordance with Part 1 of the 1988 Act as it had effect at that time;“the commencement date” has the meaning given by section 146(3);“contract of insurance” has the meaning given by article 3(1) of the Financial Services (Regulated Activities) Order 2001;“dwelling-house” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the 1988 Act — see section 45 of that Act);“mortgage arrangement which relates to residential premises” or “mortgage arrangement” means an arrangement under which—(a) credit is or continues to be provided to a person, and(b) the obligation of the person to repay is secured by a legal or equitable mortgage or other charge on the residential premises;“pre-application section 106 obligation” means a section 106 obligation that was entered into before the commencement date;“relevant assured tenancy” has the meaning given in paragraph 17(7) and (8);“relevant pre-application instrument” has the meaning given in paragraph 17(2) to (5);“residential premises” has the meaning given in paragraph 17(1);“section 106 obligation” means a planning obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;“superseded tenancy” means—(a) an assured shorthold tenancy, and(b) an assured tenancy (other than an assured shorthold tenancy) that is not a relevant assured tenancy.” Member's explanatory statement This makes transitional provision about existing “relevant pre-application instruments” whose terms permit letting or sub-letting under leases of kinds which are abolished by the Bill. It replaces clause 3 (about leases) and then also deals with mortgages, insurance contracts and obligations under section 106 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Amendments 295 and 296 agreed.

Schedule 6, as amended, agreed.

Clause 147 agreed.

Clause 148: Transitional provision

Amendments 297 to 301

Moved by

297: Clause 148, page 165, line 2, leave out from “provision” to “in” in line 3 Member's explanatory statement This ensures that regulations making transitional and saving provision can make provision in substitution for as well as in addition to provision made by the Act.

298: Clause 148, page 165, line 12, at end insert— “(5A) The power to make regulations under subsection (3) includes power to amend or repeal any provision made by Part 2 of Schedule 6 to this Act.”Member's explanatory statement This enables regulations making transitional or saving provision to make such provision by amending or repealing any provision in Part 2 of Schedule 6 to the Act.

299: Clause 148, page 165, line 25, leave out “made before the commencement date” and insert “entered into— (i) before the commencement date, or(ii) on or after that date either under a contract entered into before that date or by the acceptance of an offer made before that date;”Member's explanatory statement This brings the wording in clause 148(7)(a) into line with the wording used in the new Part 2 that would be inserted into Schedule 6 by the amendment in my name.

300: Clause 148, page 166, line 3, leave out “section 3” and insert “Part 2 of Schedule 6” Member's explanatory statement This amendment is consequential on the new Part 2 that would be inserted into Schedule 6 by the amendment in my name.

301: Clause 148, page 166, line 17, leave out from “containing” to “may” on line 18 and insert “(whether alone or with other provision) regulations under subsection (3) that— (a) fall within subsection (6)(b), or(b) amend or repeal provision made by Part 2 of Schedule 6 to this Act,”Member's explanatory statement This provides that regulations made under section 148(3) which make transitional or saving provision by amending or repealing provision in Part 2 of Schedule 6 to the Act are subject to the affirmative procedure.

Amendments 297 to 301 agreed.

Clause 148, as amended, agreed.

Clause 149 agreed.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendments.