Renters’ Rights Bill

Committee (6th Day) (Continued)

20:06:00

Amendment 223

Moved by

223: Clause 76, page 110, line 18, at end insert— “(d) entries in respect of all landlord notices served under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988, to be registered within 7 days of service.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment seeks to require entries to the database to include notices served under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 within 7 days of registration.

My Lords, I reassure noble Lords, with regard to time, that the amendments in this group, in my name and those of other noble Lords —and there are a quite a lot of them—all work together and function as a pack. Therefore, my description of these amendments working together will actually be quite brief. The amendments look to strengthen the link between compliance with the private rented sector database and the lawful use of eviction powers. I appreciate that I am pushing the envelope a little bit and I will be genuinely interested in the Minister’s response. These amendments are rooted in a very simple principle. If we expect landlords to meet minimum legal obligations—and we do, and we hope for more compliance: that is what the whole Bill is about—such as registering on the new database, which, following our previous discussions, is going to be the whizziest, wonderful game-changer, there really must be meaningful consequences when they do not. Currently, the Bill does not explicitly tie database compliance to a landlord’s ability to issue a Section 8 notice. These amendments aim to correct that, or at least to open up a discussion about it. Amendment 223 would require landlords to register any Section 8 eviction notice on the database within seven days of issuing it. This would support greater transparency, help local landlords and tenants track patterns of use and ensure that there is a reliable record of how and when eviction powers are being exercised. Can the Minister say how we gather that data accurately, if not through this? It is important data and without it we lose very valuable oversight. Amendments 235, 238, 239 and 240 would prevent a Section 8 eviction notice being considered valid if the landlord has failed to comply with Clause 83(3) of the Bill—namely, the obligation to register themselves and their dwelling on the database. These are not minor or excessive requirements; they are fundamental baseline requirements for responsible landlords. It is entirely reasonable to say that, if these duties are not met, a landlord should not be able to proceed with eviction. Amendment 236 provides necessary clarification, ensuring that this requirement applies to the entirety of subsection (3) and not just selected parts. Taken together, this group helps to make the database a functioning gatekeeper for landlord compliance. It reinforces the idea that legal powers, especially those as significant as eviction, should be available only to those who follow the rules. That in turn builds confidence in the system and protects tenants from being displaced by landlords who are themselves acting unlawfully. I hope the Minister will look carefully at these proposals. They are proportionate and targeted and go to the heart of what this reform is meant to achieve: a fairer and more accountable rental sector. I beg to move.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for opening this group. The issues of database fees and possession restrictions are of real significance, and this group is therefore of considerable importance. Before turning to the wider contributions made today, I will speak to the amendments in this group that I have tabled. Amendment 228C seeks to probe the circumstances under which a landlord may be charged a fee under the regulations made under Clause 80. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some clarity on this point. Under what conditions do the Government foresee such charges being applied? Amendment 228E, also in my name, would prevent the costs of enforcement action against non-compliant landlords being charged to those who have complied with the requirements of this chapter. This part of the Bill seems entirely unfair on law-abiding landlords. We want to understand why landlords who are compliant must bear the costs of enforcement taken against those landlords who fail to comply with the law. Could the Minister explain why compliant landlords must bear the costs of enforcement targeted at those who fail to meet their legal obligations? Amendment 228F seeks to remove subsection (4)(d), which includes the costs of enforcement action imposed by the Bill in relation to the private rented sector. Our original understanding was that these fees were intended to relate to the database, but this paragraph seems to be a classic case of Ministers seeking additional and wider-ranging powers as a belt-and-braces approach. This is not an acceptable way forward. We understand completely that the database must be funded and we accept that a fee is reasonable, but we need to make sure that the fees charged under this clause remain reasonable. We know that this will increase the costs of business for landlords, so we need to ensure that the costs are both reasonable and proportionate. We are concerned that this wide definition of “relevant costs” may result in unreasonably high costs. Perhaps I can press the Minister to give the Committee some sense of what the fees will be like, and how increases will be managed. Ultimately, we must bear in mind that it is usually the tenants who bear these costs through their rents in the future. Overall, what are the predicted costs of setting up and running the database, and what are the costs likely to be to the landlord? Many landlords are small-scale and independent; they are not corporate landlords, with legal teams and financial reserves. They are ordinary individuals, often renting out one or two properties as a way to supplement their pension or to provide long-term family support. For the database to function as intended, it must be financially accessible. On Amendment 228G, clear communication of the changes of fees is essential. It builds trust and helps people plan their finances, but it also avoids any confusion or frustration.

20:15:00

As I have said in earlier debates, we accept that the database could be more ambitious. Amendment 223, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, is an interesting and constructive proposal. I would be keen to hear whether the Government support the inclusion of served notices in the database or whether they believe that this would go beyond the intended remit of the system.

It may also be worth asking whether the Government have considered developing the PRS database in defined phases to ensure its long-term success and usability. For instance, an initial phase could focus on landlord registration and a communication tool, laying the foundation for engagement and data collection. A second phase might introduce mandatory health and safety checks to be completed prior to letting, strengthening tenant protection. A future phase could integrate the information on served notices, supporting better transparency and enforcement.

Amendment 234, tabled by the Minister, seems broadly sensible. The Government are right to amend their own Bill when weaknesses are identified, and we accept this as a minor change that carries through on the principle already established in Clause 87.

Amendments 235 and 236, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, raise serious and timely concerns. I hope that the Government will set out their position clearly, particularly on the increased regulatory powers in Clause 83.

We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, on Amendment 237, which also warrants attention. Anti-social behaviour is a scourge in many communities, and the impact on housing is particularly damaging. It can replace community spirit with fear and tension, leaving residents feeling trapped and helpless. Anti-social behaviour strips away the very essence of what makes a house a home. To assess amendments such as those in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, we need to understand how the Government intend to use the database. As the Bill stands, that remains unclear. It is difficult to assess these proposals without a clear picture of the database’s purpose and future functionality. As I have said previously, the Government’s plans for the database should, we believe, be clearer. It should not be introduced quietly at a later date, through regulations.

Finally, I wish to touch on Amendments 238 to 240, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. They raise important points about the role of the database in strengthening accountability and compliance and in protecting tenants from unscrupulous landlords. We support the principle that the database should serve as a tool to drive up standards and increase transparency in the PRS, but this must be achieved in a proportionate and balanced way. We look forward to working with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, between Committee and Report on how we might take this forward.

Before concluding this final group on the private rented sector database, I put two questions to the Minister for her consideration. Landlords are required to comply with database requirements under the Bill, but it is not clear how the database operator will be held to account for their performance. Can the Minister confirm whether landlords who are failed by the database operator will be able effectively to raise that failure? Where database failure has resulted in costs to the landlord, for example through a loss of income because they cannot let without proof of a live and up-to-date entry, would they be entitled to compensation?

A well-balanced and properly implemented private rented sector database may be successful in transforming the rental landscape by improving transparency, accountability and enforcement, if delivered properly. We believe this is the opportunity for the Government to deliver better outcomes for landlords and tenants, and we are very happy to work constructively across the House to ensure the Bill’s provisions in respect of the PRS database are appropriate. This is a really important issue to get right, and I urge the Government not to squander that opportunity.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott, and my noble friend Lord Hacking, who I do not think is in his place anymore, for their amendments regarding database fees and possession restrictions. I will start with the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Amendment 223 would mandate that the database operator establishes and operates the database so that it contains entries in respect of Section 8 possession notices, with such entries to be recorded on the database within seven days of the landlord serving them. I appreciate the intent behind this amendment. We are actively exploring collecting possession information on the database. We have identified various potential benefits to collecting this data—for example, it may support local authorities in identifying where possession grounds have been misused or where tenants are at risk of homelessness. It could also be useful to prospective tenants in making choices about where to rent, so I agree with her on that. However, our research has also highlighted some challenges, particularly around accuracy and reliance on landlords self-reporting. We will need to consider carefully how these issues could be managed. I am also keen to impress upon the noble Baroness and the Committee that we do not think the information the database collects should be on in the Bill; we discussed that on the previous group. Our research has consistently demonstrated that it is imperative that the database can be adapted to meet future needs. Therefore, the data it collects should be set out in regulations. This is already possible through the regulation-making power in Clause 78, which the Government will use to outline registration requirements. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary. Amendments 235, 236 and 238 to 240, taken together, propose changing the Bill’s provisions so that landlords cannot serve notice for possession under Section 8 nor be granted repossession by the courts if they are not compliant with database registration requirements. In addition, the amendments would mean not only that landlords would need to be registered but that their entries would need to be up to date in order for notices served to be valid. The amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would do this by adding a provision in the Bill for updating Section 7 of the Housing Act 1988, which refers to courts’ powers to order possession to be updated to effect compliance relating to the database. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, also proposes amendments to the wording of Clause 91 so that it refers to Section 83(3) as a whole. I understand that the noble Baroness is concerned with incentivising landlords to comply with regulation and therefore sees the value in replicating some of the safeguards that have been in place for serving Section 21 notices. I agree that landlords who have not met the basic obligation of registering on the database should not be able to gain possession of a property. This is an important incentive for landlords to register and supports the role of the database in driving up standards in the sector. However, the Bill will already update the Housing Act 1988 to prevent landlords being granted possession by the courts if they do not have an active database entry for themselves and the property. This is a proportionate approach to stop landlords being granted possession where they have failed to meet their obligations. The Bill also clearly sets out our expectation for landlords to maintain active database entries and to ensure that these are up to date. I reassure noble Lords that landlords who do not have an up-to-date entry in the database will be subject to enforcement action by local authorities. Regulations will stipulate the requirements for active and up-to-date entries, and in the meantime the criteria for gaining possession as outlined in the Bill provides an appropriate level of protection for tenants against landlords who fail to register with the database without sanctioning landlords disproportionately. We do not want to risk creating a situation where landlords cannot use Section 8 grounds but have no alternative means of seeking possession. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, to consider not pressing these amendments. Amendments 228C, 228E, 228F, 228G and 237A were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. Amendment 228C would remove the ability to make regulations requiring the payment of a fee as part of renewals when database entries become inactive. I understand that the noble Baroness is seeking further information on the circumstances in which a landlord could be charged a fee under the regulations made under Clause 80. It is the intention that, in addition to an initial registration fee, there will be a fee at the point of renewal. An entry will become inactive if it expires at the end of a registration period and will become active again upon renewal. Landlords will not be charged for updates between renewal points. In cases where a landlord elects to make an entry inactive because they are no longer letting the property, they will not be charged. We will set out in detail when active entries become inactive, and vice versa, in secondary legislation. Timelines for registration and renewal will similarly be set out in secondary legislation. Amendment 228E would place a requirement on Ministers to give two months’ notice of any fee changes to landlords with an active database entry. It raises a useful point to consider as we develop the database. We agree on the need for landlords to receive clear and timely communication about any changes in fees and to understand when a fee is required. As we develop the database, we are considering the required communications to landlords to help them understand their obligations, including payment of fees. We are also considering how we can design the database to facilitate this in a timely way. As we are already considering these points as we develop our proposals for implementation, we do not consider this amendment necessary. Amendments 228F and 228G would remove the ability to set database fees with reference to costs of enforcing database requirements and to wider PRS enforcement costs respectively. This would mean that any fees could be calculated only by reference to operational costs and functions of the database. Effective enforcement is essential for the successful operation of the database. Without it, there will be no means to take action if landlords fail to sign up or provide the correct information. We have heard throughout the passage of this Bill the challenges with local housing authority resourcing and capacity for enforcement. Removing the option to factor in the costs of checking and taking action against any non-compliance would, in the long term, leave local housing authorities out of pocket and limit the database’s effectiveness. As for wider enforcement costs, we believe that it is right that, as far as possible, the costs of enforcement should be met by those flouting the rules. Ultimately, all landlords, as well as the public and, most importantly, tenants, benefit from a well-regulated and enforced PRS. Clause 82 provides Ministers with the option of using a proportion of fee income to provide much-needed revenue to support enforcement activity. In answer to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about fees, the fee level will not be set arbitrarily. The Bill provides that the relevant costs that can be recovered via the fee can be based on the cost of establishing and operating the database and the cost of performing the functions required under the database legislation and of enforcing the database and wider PRS legislation. We will ensure that decisions about fees take into account a range of factors, including of course the burden on landlords. Fees will be set out in secondary legislation. We are in the process of developing a calculation and structure for fees. The fee level will need to reflect the operating costs of the digital tool, which is currently in development, and may also be used to fund local authority enforcement. We are in the process of designing the database as a bespoke tool, so we are developing our understanding of what our expected costs will be. This has been set out in the impact assessment. The costs may be subject to change as our plans for delivery and implementation develop, so I am not able to give the noble Baroness an exact answer at the moment.

Surely there is a budget, or even a proposed budget, that will go to the Treasury to deliver this scheme.

As with all future funding for our department and every other department, spending review bids have gone in. I will take her request back to the department to see whether we are able to be any clearer on that, but my understanding is that at the moment that we are not able to give an exact figure. Noble Lords will be aware that these database fees will be set at a later point in regulations. I stress that in setting fees, we will ensure, and we have always been clear, that the fees will be fair and take into account the cost to landlords. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, also asked me about the accountability of the database operator. I will write to her on that point, if that is okay. For the reasons I have set out I do not think that it would be beneficial to the private rented sector database, or the reforms more widely, to place these additional limits on what relevant costs may be recoverable via the database fees. The Bill will make it a legal requirement for residential landlords to ensure that they and their rental properties are registered on the database before a court can grant a possession order and they can gain possession of their property. Clause 91(1) amends Section 7 of the Housing Act 1988 so that a court can order possession only where there is an active entry in the database for both the landlord and the dwelling. Clause 91(1) also stipulates that possession orders made on grounds relating to anti-social behaviour are exempted from this requirement.

20:30:00

Amendment 237A proposes removing Clause 91(2) from the Bill and, by doing so, removing the ability of the Secretary of State to amend Section 7 of the Housing Act 1988. This would prevent the Government changing how this restriction on possession will operate in the future in terms of the type of landlord that it applies to and under which circumstances, such as which grounds. We do not think that this amendment is a reasonable approach for tenants or landlords. Removing the regulation-making power in Clause 91(2) and the ability of the Government to consider who this restriction applies to and to take action to ensure that it is operating in the right way in the future risks undermining the spirit of the Bill.

It is right that landlords should not be granted possession where they have failed to meet the basic legal obligation of registering on the database. The database will be essential in helping to confirm that properties meet standards, and tenants deserve protection where landlords have failed to ensure that they and their rental properties are registered on the database. It must be clear to landlords that they have a legal obligation to ensure that they are registered on the database. Retaining the ability to amend this restriction means that we can ensure that this works for both parties when the Bill is implemented. Let me reassure the noble Baroness that we are designing the database so that it is as user-friendly as possible for landlords to register, and we are engaging with landlords accordingly to test this. For all the reasons that I have set out, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, not to press these amendments.

I turn now to Amendment 237 tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking. As I have already set out, the Bill will make it a legal requirement for landlords to register on the database to gain possession of their property. However, possession grounds must be fair in supporting local communities too. Communities must be protected from the severe impact of anti-social behaviour, and I agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said on this matter. For this reason, we have decided to exempt cases of anti-social behaviour from the requirement for landlords to have registered on the database before taking possession of a property. Amendment 237 would risk punishing innocent neighbours who have to deal with the reality of anti-social behaviour on their doorstep for a landlord’s poor practice. It is therefore appropriate to retain these grounds for possession even where a landlord has not registered on the database.

I agree with noble Lords that landlords must be clear on their legal obligation to register for the database. That is precisely why we have introduced restrictions for other possession grounds that do not impact third parties. We will consider how to ensure effective enforcement in cases of anti-social behaviour, for example, through guidance targeted at landlords dealing with anti-social behaviour cases. I therefore kindly ask my noble friend not to press this amendment.

Government Amendment 234 to Clause 88(1)(a) expands the clause to allow the information contained in the database to be shared with the Secretary of State where they are not the operator of the database. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, indicated, this is a technical and minor amendment to ensure that the Secretary of State has access to the information on the database if they are not the database operator in accordance with Clause 87(3). I will that amendment when we reach it.

Before the Minister sits down— I am probably breaking the rules, but I do so for very good reason—I want to state to the Committee that that she was quite right on Amendment 237, and I was quite wrong.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I absolutely accept that my amendments were pushing at the boundaries. However, at their heart is protecting tenants from being evicted by a landlord who is acting unlawfully, almost as a matter of principle. However, I accept that the Minister is confident that the Bill as it stands should drive compliance and that, therefore, my amendments will be unnecessary. My answer to that is that only time will tell. That leads us to group 13, where we will talk about reviews and why we need them. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who articulated some concerns and felt that maybe we could open a dialogue on this issue. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 223 withdrawn.

Amendment 224 not moved.

Clause 76 agreed.

Clause 77: The database operator

Amendments 224A and 225 not moved.

Amendment 226

Moved by

226: Clause 77, page 111, line 9, at end insert— “(e) create provisions for financial penalties for non-compliance with the requirements for a database entry, including, but not limited to, provision for a rent repayment order where a person has failed to ensure that a required entry is up-to-date and active.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment would include rent repayments orders for non-registration of the database created under this Act.

My Lords, I am working overtime tonight. In moving my Amendment 226 I will speak to my Amendment 257 and support a number of important amendments in this group, including those from the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, whose contributions I look forward to. As colleagues will know, rent repayment orders remain one of the few enforcement mechanisms that are available directly to tenants. That is the key. They are not just about recompense; they are about ensuring that landlords meet their legal obligations and that tenants are protected when they do not, and recompense is made. Amendment 226 seeks to ensure that rent repayment orders can be applied where a landlord has failed to register on the private sector database established by the Bill. If we are serious about transparency and raising standards, non-compliance with the system we are creating must carry real consequences. I am starting to feel like a broken record, but noble Lords will get the message. Otherwise, the credibility of the database and the wider enforcement regime is seriously undermined. Amendment 257 seeks to extend rent repayment orders further to cover cases where landlords have failed to join a redress scheme or maintain active entries on the new database. This amendment relates strongly to amendments in the previous group and on the enforceability of the database. If we want a rental system that is responsive, accountable and fair, we must ensure that tenants have clear recourse when landlords do not engage with these fundamental duties. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for Amendment 244A, which adjusts the standard proof in some cases to the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. This change is both proportionate and pragmatic. We know that gathering evidence can be an enormous burden for tenants. This amendment helps to address that imbalance while preserving important legal safeguards in more serious cases. I also welcome the suite of government amendments in this group, which bring clarity to how rent repayment amounts are calculated and to which offences fall within scope. These amendments, particularly those aligning the repayment period with a two-year window, provide much-needed consistency and support effective enforcement. The inclusion of new categories of offence and consequential changes to the Housing and Planning Act 2016 are helpful and align with the overall intent of the Bill. However, I gently emphasise that, while the government amendments are welcome, they will be significantly strengthened by the additions proposed in my amendments. There is little point in creating systems to register landlords and offer redress if we do not give tribunals the power to act when landlords ignore them. Rent repayment orders are not a silver bullet, but they are an important tool to renters. We should not pass up the opportunity to make them more robust, more comprehensive and more effective in practice. I beg to move.

My Lords, it is a privilege to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, because I agreed with every word she said in her excellent opening speech. I will speak to Amendment 244A in my name. This amendment would apply the civil standard of proof for rent repayment orders pursued only on the basis of a Protection from Eviction Act offence. By changing the evidential standard for these rent repayment orders from “beyond reasonable doubt” to “balance of probabilities”, Amendment 244A will provide parity with the normal work of the tribunal and provide encouragement to tenants and those who assist them to claim redress, which was Parliament’s intention by including Protection from Eviction Act offences among the things that rent repayment orders could be claimed for. In short, the current requirement of a criminal standard of proof thwarts that intention. Rent repayment orders are brought in the first-tier property tribunal, and the first-tier property tribunal is not a criminal court. A rent repayment order is not a criminal prosecution. The first-tier property tribunal does not follow criminal procedural rules or result in a criminal sentence or criminal record if a defendant is convicted. However, the tribunals require a criminal standard of proof. In addition, rent repayment orders are often brought by self-represented applicants seeking to reclaim rent they have paid to their landlord as compensation, and legal aid is not available for rent repayment order claims. For these reasons alone, it is therefore inappropriate that rent repayment orders for Protection from Eviction Act offences should apply the criminal standard of proof. Moreover, a civil claim in a civil court for a legal eviction or harassment applies the civil standard. This is despite the fact that civil claims typically attract much higher penalties in the form of civil damages, rather than just the chance to apply for repayment of rent paid. It is therefore logical and consistent to apply the civil standard of proof to Protection from Eviction Act rent repayment orders in line with the rest of the civil law, and this is what Amendment 244A does. Why does getting rid of this illogical anomaly matter? First, the nature of Protection from Eviction Act offences means they are often impossible to prove to the criminal standard. Often, landlords change the locks on tenants and dispose of their possessions when renters are not at home. Illegal evictions and harassment occur in the privacy of a renter’s home, often without witnesses. The criminal burden places an extra, often insurmountable, burden on lay applicants to prove their case at tribunal. It also has a chilling effect of preventing claims being brought in the first place, as the evidence available for these offences is unlikely to meet the standard. Under the standard, therefore, renters cannot apply for rent repayment orders as they cannot prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, even where it is clear that an offence has occurred that only the landlord would be motivated to commit. This weakens enforcement and access to justice, and undermines the whole purpose of the rent repayment order legislation. Secondly, the incredibly low number of rent repayment orders for Protection from Eviction Act offences demonstrates that the system is not working. Safer Renting and the University of York have done research which estimates that over the two-year period from 2021 to 2022, there were at least 16,000 illegal evictions—a figure which is almost certainly an undercount. Meanwhile, data gathered by the organisation Marks Out Of Tenancy shows that, over the same time period, there were just 31 rent repayment orders on the Protection from Eviction Act ground that were successful. Despite the large number of illegal evictions recorded by individuals and organisations assisting them, people are not applying for rent repayment orders as a source of redress. The higher criminal standard results in tenants and those assisting them considering an application not worth pursuing. Thirdly and finally, with the forthcoming abolition of Section 21, criminal and unscrupulous landlords, who are the minority of landlords, might take a calculated risk that they can save money by unlawfully evicting or harassing their tenants, as they know how hard it is for tenants to enforce against them in the First-tier Tribunal. Rent repayment orders are realistically the only option for renters to enforce their rights without legal representation. It therefore has never been more important to strengthen the rent repayment order regime for Protection from Eviction Act offences so that renters can enforce their rights and gain access to justice for these life-changing offences. These offences are some of the most egregious a landlord can commit—illegal eviction, attempted illegal eviction and harassment. The physical, mental and financial impact of these offences on renters and their families cannot be overstated. I look forward to my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage’s reply. I am sure she will want to reflect on the wider debate today. I hope she will agree to meet with me and Safer Renting—experts in this field—to discuss the aim of Amendment 244 before Report to see what can be done.

20:45:00

My Lords, it is a great pleasure and privilege to follow the noble Baronesses. They are clearly very powerful advocates for private rental tenants, who very much need them. I will speak specifically to Amendment 257, to which my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb attached her name; it having passed the lark hour, we are now into the Green owl hour of the evening. Before I do that, I want to mention that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, made a hugely powerful argument on the inequality of arms in the rental tribunal. The judgment level the noble Baroness suggested is clearly the right one. I will mostly speak to Amendment 257 which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, clearly outlined, would enable the tribunal to make a rental repayment order where a landlord has failed to join a landlord redress scheme or have active entries in the private rented sector database. This is a simple and clear process in which the tenant can get what they are owed when the landlord has failed. In preparing for this, I had a look at the Citizens Advice website and the advice it provides for tenants. It is telling that there has been real progress on some issues—for example, recovering rental deposits—in the past decade or so, but there are still far too many cases where renters are left stranded. People are in situations where they are left homeless or desperately trying to find a new rental property. Do they have the time, energy or resources to chase, go through the courts and take all of the procedures that they need to? This approach has worked well for tenancy deposit schemes. Renters get their money back from the landlord and all landlords know they need to register deposits or else pay the price. This is a proven system; it is a case of extending a proven system to deliver justice. Both the non-government amendments in this group are terribly important.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the discussion on the seventh group of amendments, which addresses important changes to the rent repayment orders. These amendments seek to strengthen the mechanism by which tenants and local authorities can hold landlords accountable when they breach laws and ensure that rent repayment orders are both fair and effective. The proposals tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill, Lady Taylor of Stevenage and Lady Kennedy of Cradley, raise significant points that warrant our attention. Among them, we see the suggestion to register RROs on a public database, which would make the existence of these orders transparent, allowing tenants and others to be aware of landlords with a history of non-compliance. This could serve as a powerful deterrent against landlords who might otherwise continue to disregard their responsibilities. In addition, we see proposals to change the amount to be repaid in an RRO, as well as to extend the ability of tribunals to issue RROs in the case of non-registration on the public database. We need to ensure that the consequences for landlords are proportionate to the harm caused and that tenants receive a fair outcome. Although it is appropriate to have rent repayment orders where a tenant has been impacted or suffered a loss, as outlined so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, where a landlord has inadvertently breached a regulation and received a fine, but no harm has been done to a tenant, should they also receive a rent repayment order? These Benches accept that rent repayment orders are an important tool for holding landlords to account and we welcome the intention to make these processes more accessible and transparent for tenants. However, we note that there are complex issues surrounding the practicalities of RROs, as I mentioned earlier, particularly in relation to the standard of proof and their scope. Therefore, I ask the Government to respond to the following points. How do they propose to ensure that these amendments, particularly those relating to the registration of RROs, do not place unnecessary burdens on tribunals or create unintended consequences for landlords, who may not be aware of the rules? How do the Government intend to address the issue of non-registration on the database and the potential impact on landlords who fail to comply? I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Kennedy of Cradley. These are important questions and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley for their amendments relating to rent repayment orders. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his contribution. I will begin by responding to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Amendment 226 seeks to extend penalties for non-compliance with private rented sector database requirements. The Bill already includes 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— I think the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said she was beginning to sound like a stuck record; now I feel like that as well. In the case of the database, that applies, for example, to a first failure by a landlord to register. For serious or repeat non-compliance, local authorities can prosecute or, alternatively, issue a civil penalty of up to £40,000. In the case of the database, that applies, for example, where a landlord knowingly or recklessly provides information to the database operator that is false or misleading in a material respect. We will, through the Bill, significantly strengthen rent repayment orders because we believe they are a powerful mechanism for tenant-led enforcement. In relation to the database, rent repayment orders are available where a landlord knowingly or recklessly provides false or misleading information to the database operator. They are also available where a landlord continues to fail to register or provide the required information to the database following a first penalty. These, though, are criminal offences, and it would not be appropriate to extend rent repayment orders to non-criminal breaches of the database requirements. Rent repayment orders are intended to act as a punitive sanction against landlords who commit criminal offences. Extending them to conduct that does not amount to an offence would undermine this. Similarly, Amendment 257 would make rent repayment orders available for initial failure to be a member of the PRS landlord ombudsman and initial failure to be registered with the PRS database. My view is, as before, that it may be inappropriate to extend rent repayment orders to these non-criminal breaches. The new ombudsman and database are fundamental parts of our reforms, and of a better private rented sector with greater accountability. It is vital that they are robustly enforced. We think the routes of enforcement currently in the Bill represent an effective and proportionate approach. We will monitor the use and effectiveness of rent repayment orders under the new, strengthened regime and consider whether further changes are necessary. Therefore I ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, withdraws her amendment. Amendment 244A, tabled by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley, seeks to lower the standard of proof to which the First-tier Tribunal must be satisfied before making a rent repayment order against a landlord for an offence of illegal eviction or harassment under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. She set out very clearly and concisely why she was putting that forward with a very convincing argument. I am clear that illegal eviction and harassment are serious criminal offences and that offenders need to be robustly punished. I accept that this happens too rarely at the moment. We are seeking to address this through the Bill by extending civil penalties, as an alternative to prosecution, to illegal eviction and harassment offences under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. My noble friend pointed out that the First-tier Tribunal is not a criminal court and asked why the criminal standard of proof should apply. The rent repayment order regime is predicated on an offence having been committed, and it is an established principle in law that offences are taken to have been committed when proved beyond reasonable doubt. Creating a lower standard of proof for the same offences for a finding of guilt in the tribunal compared with the criminal courts would be confusing, inconsistent and could be subject to a successful challenge. We are also placing a duty on local housing authorities to enforce against specified landlord legislation, which includes illegal eviction and harassment under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, and we are looking hard at how best we can support them do so effectively. This Government are determined to bear down harder on illegal eviction and harassment. We are concerned, though, about what impact this amendment could have on the integrity of the rent repayment order regime as a whole. Rent repayment orders are predicated on an offence being committed. As I said, they apply exclusively to criminal offences, and the penalty can be a very significant one. The changes that we are making through the Bill both double the maximum penalty to two years’ rent and extend the circumstances in which the tribunal must award that amount. I recognise that illegal eviction may be hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt, but that is not a principled reason for a civil standard of proof to apply to obtaining a rent repayment order in respect of a serious criminal offence. The severity of the penalties that, quite properly, apply in the rent repayment order regime mean that there would be serious questions about procedural fairness should the criminal standard of proof not be required. The criminal standard of proof will of course be required when a local authority issues a civil penalty for illegal eviction or harassment under new Section 1A of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. All the other rent repayment offences would remain to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Making rent repayment orders for illegal eviction and harassment subject to the civil standard of proof would create an anomaly and be a departure from a well-established position, which we consider would be hard to justify. Of course, I would be very happy to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and Safer Renting but, for now, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, to withdraw her amendment. I will end with a brief—I promise—explanation of the Government’s amendments in this area. This Government view rent repayment orders as a critical part of ensuring higher standards and better compliance in the private rented sector; that is why we have significantly expanded them through the Bill. Government Amendments 244 to 248 aim to ensure that they work as intended in their application to the offence of breaching the restricted period after relying on the moving and selling grounds of possession, and the amended licensing offences are described correctly.

First, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their excellent, thoughtful and thought-provoking contributions. We all agree, I think, that it is really disappointing that rent repayment orders—such a valuable tool—are so rarely used. Let us hope that the changes outlined by the Minister work and that the whole renting culture changes, with tenants’ empowerment. As we have gone through this process, we are beginning to see all the impacts of the Bill and how they should all work together to produce that change; perhaps an increase in the number of RROs will be an indication that things are improving. I follow the logic of the Minister’s arguments, as on my previous amendments, but I hope that we have given her food for thought. I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 226 withdrawn.

I am going to have to beg your Lordships’ patience; I have quite a lot of pages to read through now.

Amendment 226A not moved.

Clause 77 agreed.

Clause 78: Making entries in the database

Amendments 227 and 228 not moved.

Clause 78 agreed.

Clause 79: Requirement to keep active entries up-to-date

Amendment 228A not moved.

Clause 79 agreed.

Clause 80: Circumstances in which active entries become inactive and vice versa

Amendments 228B and 228C not moved.

Clause 80 agreed.

21:00:00

Clause 81: Verification, correction and removal of entries

Amendment 228D not moved.

Clause 81 agreed.

Clause 82: Fees for landlord and dwelling entries

Amendments 228E to 228G not moved.

Clause 82 agreed.

Clause 83: Restrictions on marketing, advertising and letting dwellings

Amendment 228H not moved.

Clause 83 agreed.

Clause 84 agreed.

Clause 85: Allocation of unique identifiers

Amendments 228I to 230 not moved.

Clause 85 agreed.

Clause 86: Other duties

Amendments 230A to 232 not moved.

Clause 86 agreed.

Clause 87: Access to the database

Amendment 233 not moved.

Clause 87 agreed.

Clause 88: Disclosure by database operator etc

Amendment 234

Moved by

234: Clause 88, page 119, line 4, after “(2)” insert “or (3)” Member’s explanatory statement This enables a database operator to disclose information from the database to the Secretary of State.

Amendment 234 agreed.

Clause 88, as amended, agreed.

Clauses 89 and 90 agreed.

Clause 91: Restriction on gaining possession

Amendments 235 to 240 not moved.

Clause 91 agreed.

Clause 92: Financial penalties

Amendment 241 not moved.

Clause 92 agreed.

Clause 93: Offences

Amendments 242 and 243 not moved.

Clause 93 agreed.

Amendment 243A not moved.

Clauses 94 to 98 agreed.

Clause 99: Rent repayment orders for offences under the Housing Act 1988 and sections 68 and 93 of this Act

Amendment 244

Moved by

244: Clause 99, page 126, line 7, at end insert— “(aa) in line 5 of the table in that subsection, in the third column, for “control or management of unlicensed HMO” substitute “offences relating to unlicensed HMOs”; (ab) in line 6 of the table in that subsection, in the third column, for “control or management of unlicensed house” substitute “offences relating to unlicensed houses”;”Member’s explanatory statement This updates the description of offences under section 72(1) and 95(1) of the Housing Act 2004 to reflect changes made to those provisions by clause 105 of the Bill.

Amendment 244 agreed.

Amendment 244A not moved.

Amendments 245 to 248

Moved by

245: Clause 99, page 126, line 34, leave out “, 2B” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name amending clause 99 to insert a new row into section 44(2) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 to deal with this case.

246: Clause 99, page 126, line 36, at end insert— “(aa) in subsection (2), after the first row of the table insert—

“an offence mentioned in row 2B of the table in section 40(3)

the period of 2 years ending with the date of the offence or, if the tenancy ends before that date, the date on which it ends”;”

Member’s explanatory statement This provides that the amount of rent to be repaid under a rent repayment order in relation to an offence under section 16J(2) of the Housing Act 1988 is to be calculated by reference to the rent paid in respect of the two years prior to either the date of the offence, or if the tenancy ends before that date, the date on which it ends.

247: Clause 99, page 127, line 6, leave out “, 2B” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name amending clause 99 to insert a new row into section 45(2) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 to deal with this case.

248: Clause 99, page 127, line 8, at end insert— “(aa) in subsection (2), after the first row of the table insert—

“an offence mentioned in row 2B of the table in section 40(3)

the period of 2 years ending with the date of the offence or, if the tenancy ends before that date, the date on which it ends”;”

Member’s explanatory statement This provides that the amount of rent to be repaid under a rent repayment order in relation to an offence under section 16J(2) of the Housing Act 1988 is to be calculated by reference to the rent paid in respect of the two years prior to either the date of the offence, or if the tenancy ends before that date, the date on which it ends.

Amendments 245 to 248 agreed.

Clause 99, as amended, agreed.

Clause 100 agreed.

Clause 101: Decent homes standard

Amendment 249

Moved by

249: Clause 101, page 129, line 2, leave out from “(homelessness)” to end of line 4 Member's explanatory statement This amendment would make the Decent homes standard apply to all homeless temporary accommodation provided under the Housing Act 1996.

I thought that my amendment was never going to come. Amendment 249 stands in my name, and I am glad to support Amendment 252, to which I have added my name, and Amendments 250 and 251 in this group. I declare my interest as co-owner, with my wife, of one rather modest apartment in the West Midlands, which we let out. As someone who has chaired a wide range of housing associations, including a large local authority transfer and an arm’s-length management company, I have seen the huge positive impact that the decent homes standard has had since one was first applied to social housing. Not least, it has forced landlords to pay proper attention to their existing stock, rather than focusing all their energies and resources on new developments. Hence, I am delighted that this Bill will, for the first time, extend the standard to much of the private rented stock; it is a sector desperately plagued by underinvestment in repairs, maintenance and stock improvement. One in five privately rented homes does not currently meet the decent homes standard compared to 10% for social housing. More than one in 10 has a category 1 hazard, which is two and a half times the figure for social housing. My amendment, along with those in the names of other noble Lords that I wish to support in this group, seeks to test whether there is appetite in your Lordships’ House to extend the application of the standard to others whose homes will not be covered as the Bill stands. Amendment 249 would make the decent homes standard apply to all homeless temporary accommodation provided under the Housing Act 1996. Record numbers of individuals, families and children are currently housed in temporary accommodation. Some 117,450 households were in temporary accommodation in March 2024, which was a rise of 12.3%, almost an extra one in eight, from the previous year. Extending the decent homes standard to this large group of people would enable those living in temporary accommodation to expect basic standards from their accommodation. The very phrase temporary accommodation is something of a misnomer. Many of those who live in such properties are housed there for years at a time. Moreover, the same property may then be used for further so-called temporary tenancies. While I understand that sometimes it may appear better to allow a family to live for a short while in a property that is awaiting imminent major refurbishment or even demolition rather than leave the building empty, this is not what is happening in the vast majority of cases. I have previously raised in your Lordships’ House the particular plight of children in temporary accommodation. I remember a very good conversation with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, a year or two ago. The figure was then more than 130,000, and it is still rising. They are often housed many miles away from their schools and play friends. Managing an education in such a context is desperately difficult. Some schools in Manchester are already having to put on special provision for children living in temporary accommodation, so imagine what it means to have to do that in a home that does not meet a basic standard of decency. We are failing such children utterly. Alongside families with children, many residents in temporary accommodation have particular vulnerabilities in terms of health and are often not well equipped to advocate for themselves. A national standard will make a huge difference. My amendment would close a glaring loophole in the current Bill whereby private landlords could escape the decent homes standard by switching to providing temporary accommodation. Allowing the poorest quality homes in our nation simply to move to another form of tenure without doing anything to tackle their condition defeats the whole object of extending the standard at all. I shall not steal the thunder of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, whose Amendment 250 would extend the standard to accommodation used by HM Armed Forces families, save to remind us that these households, containing those on whom we rely for our nation’s defence, deserve the very best from us. Amendment 251 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister of Burtersett and Lady Janke, and my right reverend friend the Bishop of Chelmsford, who cannot be in her place tonight, would extend the standard to accommodation provided for those who have fled war, terror and persecution and are now seeking, lawfully, to rebuild their lives here. Amendment 252 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Whitaker and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, to which I have added my name, would extend the application of the decent homes standard to mobile homes that are rented for residential purposes. I have been a long-term advocate for the rights of Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller households, which often experience levels of prejudice beyond that of almost any other ethnic group in our society. They simply seek live a way of life that they have followed for centuries and have long been a vital part of the workforce, especially in rural areas where short-term temporary agricultural workers with high mobility are required at particular points in the seasonal cycle. These amendments seek to extend to some of our most vulnerable or deserving households a standard that the Bill already agrees is the proper one for most of our citizens. I hope that in responding to the debate the Minister will be able to indicate some movement or at least offer scope for further discussions with us on these important issues ahead of Report.

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. In particular, I draw to your attention Amendment 250 in my name which would extend the decent homes standard to accommodation used by service families. Our service personnel and their families make extraordinary sacrifices for our safety and security. The very least we owe them is decent housing. The current state of service accommodation is, in many cases, unacceptable. Satisfaction levels with both service family accommodation, SFA, and single living accommodation, SLA, fell to their lowest reported levels in 2023 impacting recruitment and retention. The Defence Select Committee reports that one-third of SLA and two-thirds of SFA are in such poor condition that they are essentially no longer fit for purpose. We hear persistent reports of damp and mould, inadequate maintenance and repairs and poor communication. We cannot discuss the state of military housing without acknowledging the damaging legacy of some past decisions. The sale of 57,400 military homes to Annington Property Ltd in 1996 under the Conservative Government was described as a disastrous fire sale. The deal left the Government trapped paying rent and maintenance costs with no power to plan or make major upgrades. Indeed, the Public Accounts Committee concluded that service families were, “badly let down for many years” under the previous housing contracts. The taxpayer was left nearly £8 billion worse off due to that original deal, with money that should have been spent on maintaining homes lost. The current Labour Government have taken welcome steps. They repurchased 36,000 homes from Annington in January, a deal that is expected to save £230 million a year in rent. A defence housing review was launched in February. A new consumer charter promises measures such as higher move-in standards, more reliable repairs and a named housing officer for every family. It is welcome that the MoD has agreed with the conclusion that the current complaints process is inefficient and that a new, simpler, two-stage process is being devised. I now come to the “however” bit, I am afraid. The scale of the problem is immense, a result of historic underinvestment over decades. Estimates suggest billions are needed, potentially £2 billion to £2.4 billion for SFA alone, and more than £1.5 billion for SLA. I reassure the Minister that we did our costings in our manifesto and definitely identified funding in some of these areas. While investment plans are being set out, questions remain about whether funding will be sufficient and sustained to address the condition of the entire estate. Amendment 250 is crucial because it would continue the work of my colleague in the House of Commons, Helen Maguire MP, a former captain in the Royal Military Police who served in both Bosnia and Iraq; it would reinforce the work of the MoD; and it would honour the Kerslake commission. It would ensure that the decent homes standard, which provides a very clear benchmark for acceptable housing quality, was legally applied to service family accommodation. The amendment goes beyond acknowledging the problem of setting targets. It would establish a right to a decent home for those who serve our nation and their families. They deserve homes fit for heroes, and the amendment would be a vital step towards making that a reality. It would ensure accountability. It would provide service families with the basic standards that they have every right to expect. I urge the Committee to support the amendment. After all, it is only right that our service personnel and their families live in safe, clean homes that meet basic, dignified standards, especially when they risk their lives to keep us safe. Pride in our Armed Forces must mean pride in how we house them.

21:15:00

My Lords, I shall speak particularly to Amendment 251 in my name. I wholeheartedly agree with all that was said by the right reverend Prelate, and if we were able to his agree to his amendment now—the Minister could nod her head if that is about to happen—then we could bring an end both to what I am going to say and, dare I say, to some speakers on the next two amendments as well. The right reverend Prelate’s amendment would cover it all. In the, I hope, unlikely event that that does not happen, I will speak to Amendment 251, which seeks to extend the decent homes standard to include asylum accommodation. In doing so, because I am going to speak with particular reference to the situation in London, I must again declare my interest as co-president of London Councils, the body that represents all 32 London boroughs and the City of London, and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I spoke at Second Reading of the extensive evidence from London borough councils about the poor standards of asylum accommodation, particularly in London but by no means exclusively there. Many of the things that I said then and will say again today apply to too many other parts of the country. London boroughs have reported issues of low-grade temporary accommodation properties, with multiple category 1 hazards, leaving the private rented market and being procured by Home Office accommodation providers. The Minister has received a letter from London Councils, signed by the lead spokespeople of all three parties on that body and the chief executive officer of the Chartered Institute of Housing, asking that the Government consider how the Bill can ensure inclusion of Home Office accommodation within its provisions to ensure that asylum seekers and refugees benefit from the same protections that all private and social renters receive. In her response, the Minister agreed to discuss these issues with the Home Office. I am grateful to her, as is London Councils, for arranging a meeting between officials and London Councils to discuss this in more depth. I understand that that meeting has now taken place, so I look forward to hearing from the Minister what conclusions she has drawn from those discussions and, more particularly, what action is now to be taken. Extensive feedback from London local authorities has consistently highlighted evidence of poor standards across asylum accommodation. As we know, enforcement action is slow and all too often ineffective. There is also widespread concern, not just from London Councils and not just in London, that not including Home Office accommodation will inevitably result in a two-tier system in which a small minority of rogue landlords may be incentivised to procure poor-quality accommodation for use as asylum accommodation. In Committee in the other place, the Government argued that extending the provisions of the Bill to asylum accommodation is unnecessary. I hope and believe that we have come a long way from that now, and that the Minister is convinced by all the evidence she has had from those working in the system that all is far from well. Clearly, there are practical difficulties of implementation to be resolved, but if there is a will then there is a way to do so. Including asylum accommodation in the provision of the Bill would be a strong incentive; not doing so would inevitably have the opposite effect. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s positive response.

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group and will speak to Amendment 252 in my name and those from the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, for whose support I am most grateful. The right reverend Prelate’s observations, drawn from experience, were extremely valuable. I also thank my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe for her earlier support for this amendment. This amendment simply brings the homes that caravan dwellers rent within the scope of the Bill and is surely uncontentious. It is still not generally realised that, for the Romani Gypsies and Irish Travellers, who keep to their traditional—and legally recognised—way of life, a caravan which is their residence is as much a residence as any other dwelling and should be eligible for the same legal protection. The owners of such caravans should respect the decent homes standard as much as for any other rented dwelling, and, in many cases, this is sorely needed. I know of a case where a new Gypsy and Traveller site, built only four years ago, was from the day the family moved in infested by rats, frequently flooded and subject to damp, mould, slugs, trip hazards, faulty electrics, a broken boiler and sewage back-up across the site. This had terrible effects on the family’s physical and mental health. Childhood asthma returned and medical treatment was needed. I remind the Committee that Gypsies and Travellers have the worst health outcomes of any minority ethnic group, and this example shows one reason why. All these health and safety hazards were the result of structural issues in the rented amenity block and site as a whole, for which the site owner was responsible. The family contacted the site owner in over 50 emails over the years and went through the formal complaints process. When they contacted the Housing Ombudsman, they were told that cases concerning the management of Gypsy and Traveller sites were not investigated. Does that not make it clear that there is a lack of effective protection for families living on Gypsy and Traveller sites? Why should they not have equal protection and equal status with other renters? I know my noble friend the Minister understands this and I hope she will accept the amendment.

My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 252A. I guess I am still learning about this Committee, because all the speakers have been exceptionally generous, saying that they support all the amendments in this group—perhaps they have not read my amendment, which excludes a certain number of properties from the decent homes standard. I think it is also fair to say that the only other amendment in this group that I actively support is that proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. On Armed Forces accommodation, I ran some surgeries, because I was pretty appalled at the state and operations of the property arm of the Ministry of Defence, which contracted two different suppliers but did not seem to have a grip on what was going on. The change that happened nearly 30 years ago is, in hindsight, regrettable. It is why the previous Administration initiated the process, which I congratulate the Government on completing. One of the strategic changes that should help families in the Armed Forces is the move towards lifetime basing. This applies to the majority of our Armed Forces, although not specialist regiments like 23 Parachute Engineer Regiment—based just outside Woodbridge—which necessitate quite a number of people in rotation. Our Armed Forces, of course, deserve the best. There is nothing more concerning than somebody who is abroad thinking not only about the key strategic or tactical role they are playing but also the state of their loved ones’ housing back at home. My Amendment 252A is driven by my concern about how, in effect, the policy of requiring EPC level C certificates for all private rented property risks removing many homes from the private rented sector across the country, particularly in rural areas. On applying the decent homes standard, EPC legislation, or the required minimum standards on energy efficiency, does not legally apply to social housing; instead, there is a target that is set which is expected to be met. We are now seeing a situation where the decent homes standard, which currently only applies to social housing, is going to be applied to the private sector. That is in a broad sense a good thing, but I am particularly concerned about aspects of it that will drive landlords out of the market and the effect on rural communities. According to a survey conducted by MHCLG last summer, there are about 2.6 million homes that do not meet EPC level C and have a rating of D or lower. That is 60% of the private rented sector, so this is concerning. I completely understand the need to address fuel poverty; in the other House I founded the APPG on fuel poverty. I was particularly focused on off-gas grid, which of course covers a lot of rural communities, but also inner cities such as Manchester, Salford and the other areas represented by the right reverend Prelate. We should bear in mind that the MHCLG currently estimates that 10% of those properties cannot in any way be upgraded to reach EPC level C. That still leaves 90%, but the challenge now is the variation in what is going on to upgrade those homes, some of which could require significant investment. Where it is reasonable—and by that I mean the amount of investment needed to make the adjustment—we should of course try to ensure that these properties are suitably warm. That would be helped if pensioners still had the winter fuel allowance and did not have to worry about whether they heat or eat. We must look at how we can address that without losing the housing capacity that is available. Under the current regulations, there is a £3,500 cap on required investment to make the changes to get to the current minimum level E. As I say, I support the ambition to head that way, but now the proposed policy being consulted on is for a £15,000 cap on required investment, below which there would be no exemption. Let us get practical. I appreciate that the Minister may not be prepared for my question, but it should be considered by her department: what rural assessment has been conducted on this? It is standard government policy to undertake what is often known as rural-proofing when considering policies that will impact rural communities. I am genuinely concerned about that and about the possibility that the proposals for changing the methodology on ascertaining the EPC level will have a significantly detrimental effect on rural communities right across the country.

21:30:00

I must admit that there is an error in my amendment. There was a misunderstanding between me and the Public Bill Office. As it reads, it excludes not only rural communities but also any house built after 1900. The ONS did surveys, statistics and assessments and confidently asserts—when people hear this, they will say, “Of course that makes sense”—

“Age of the property is the single biggest factor in energy efficiency of homes”.

The proportion of houses in England built before 1900 is 15% of all homes and in Wales it is 23% of all homes. It is nigh on impossible for the majority of those homes to achieve EPC level C. That is principally because they are built of solid brick, so you cannot do cavity insulation. When you start to do external and internal cladding, the costs mount up, and that factor does not go away. It goes away to a certain extent for properties built up to 1930, but the extra costs of dealing with listed properties is also a significant factor in how difficult it is to get these properties adapted.

Going back to thinking about the challenges, I appreciate that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester understandably talks about temporary accommodation. He and I both know that we need to focus on getting those 700,000 empty homes back into being used as homes. I could be a little bit cheeky here: the Church of England is, I think, the third largest landowner in the country and one of the wealthiest institutions. I would love to see all the empty rectories being opened up or, indeed, potentially sold and the money reused to extend in that way. I appreciate that the Church Commissioners have to balance the books like everybody else, but I did go into some detail looking at this.

My own house is EPC level D. It is quite interesting that where I used to rent in London had actually made it, I think, to C. That said, the consistency of how the EPC is measured was quite stark: the neighbouring flat had quite a different rating, and different attributes were attributed to exactly the same external walls, so that shows a slight inconsistency. Even now, if I wanted to get my house from a D to a C—not that I am going to rent it out anytime soon—the estimate is that it would probably cost £14,000, which in energy bills repayment would take over 50 years to pay back. I am 53; I hope to last another 30 years, but nowhere near another 50. We just have to get realistic about this. I appreciate that the Government cite all these wonderful other schemes. I actually applied to be evaluated under the Great British Insulation Scheme. All I will say is that once I got through a certain part of the system, the firm wanted to have my pre-agreement to building adaptation, in terms of ventilation, in order to go any further, so I stopped the process.

In conclusion, I agree that we need to improve the quality of homes; what I am concerned about, when I think of renters in this situation today, is that some of this legislation will drive down the amount of property available, particularly in rural communities. We need to keep bearing in mind, when we do all this legislation, who it is we are trying to help. Of course, we want the rogue landlords to go. Of course, we want nicer homes for people. But ultimately people choose to live in the countryside—that is where they have grown up, or whatever it is—and we need to make sure that they can continue to have a home there. That is why I have tabled this amendment.

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 252A in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey, which would exempt certain buildings from an EPC requirement. I hope that noble Lords were listening to what she said, because it is absolutely true: the methodology used for assessment of EPC is not foolproof. As my noble friend said, the assessment seems heavily weighted against older buildings, and while she referred to early 20th-century buildings, a decent proportion of houses in this country are from the 18th and 19th centuries. They have even greater problems: for instance, double-glazing is required as one of the ways to achieve EPC C. Many 18th-century and 19th-century houses have shutters, which, when closed at night, do a similar job, but that is not part of the assessment. Many such houses are in rural settings, so what my noble friend said is so true. My noble friend alluded to the variation in assessment of EPCs by different assessors. As an experiment on one property that we own, we got two separate assessors in—they did not know that they were being tested against each other—and, you guessed it, each of them came up with a different EPC grade. That is a real problem; the assessment needs to be sorted out. I think it was in the newspapers that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Mr Miliband, had a similar situation, with two different assessments. On listed buildings, there has been a lot of campaigning by various organisations. You cannot take out 18th-century and 19th-century sash windows and replace them with double-glazing—at least, you can, but it completely ruins the look of the building. A number of people prefer to live in a house which looks nicer but might need a little more heating or a log burner. As my noble friend said, the Bill is very likely to result in the law of unintended consequences. Many houses will be sold and lost to the rental market, and that will create for this Government and this country an even bigger problem. After the Second World War, some landlords—not that I would want to do this—even took the roofs off their houses so that they were no longer houses. Finally, I am sorry, but I want to speak against Amendment 251 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. If we are to apply the decent homes standard to asylum accommodation, I am afraid that that has to be last in the queue while we sort out the accommodation for our own people in this country.

My Lords, a number of speakers have driven home in detail the problems of rural areas with old buildings. The choice is quite simple: we either continue with the existing exemptions or knock down about a third of them and start again. Can the Minister tell us which it is going to be?

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Tope’s Amendment 251, which I have also signed. We have all spoken of the support we give this Bill because it offers the opportunity to address the problems and injustices suffered by renters in the PRS, which is the most insecure, most expensive and lowest quality of any tenure. However, the Bill fails to recognise that certain vulnerable groups of tenants suffer disproportionately, as we have heard, and need special measures to give them the level playing field they need to be able to live in suitable accommodation that is fair, reasonable and secure in the private rented sector. Refugees and asylum seekers are just one such group, and their housing experience is in need of radical reform. My noble friend’s amendment, suggesting that the decent homes standard should apply to housing for refugees and asylum seekers, offers an opportunity to move forward. However, the asylum housing system in the United Kingdom leaves tens of thousands of people in inadequate accommodation, where they often live for years in conditions that significantly undermine their physical and mental well-being. The current outsourcing of asylum housing to private companies has created a system that is marked by significant issues, including exorbitant costs, excessive profit making, substandard housing, and inadequate safeguarding and oversight. I read in the Sunday Times this week that the owner of one such company, Clearsprings Ready Homes, is now a member of the Sunday Times rich list as a result of rapidly expanding contracts from the Government at the taxpayer’s expense. These providers need to be properly accountable. Refugee organisations report appalling conditions and many incidents of poor, unsafe and cold properties with infestations and mould. It should therefore form part of contracts with providers that the decent homes standard should apply to properties that are paid for by government. Taxpayers’ money is being used to fund substandard accommodation and providers are not being sanctioned. Many of those who are obliged to live in such misery are children, forced to live in virtual isolation and incarceration with housing conditions that are woefully inadequate for their needs. I therefore support my noble friend’s amendment and call on the Minister to reflect on this situation. If she is unwilling to amend the Bill, can she say what the Government are proposing to do to resolve the desperately pressing circumstances of refugees and asylum seekers and the housing crisis that they face?

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate on the decent homes standard and its potential application across a broader range of accommodation types. As we have heard, the Bill introduces new powers for the Secretary of State to specify additional standards for qualifying residential premises, which offers the potential to raise housing quality and improve conditions for tenants across England. This is, in principle, a welcome ambition, particularly if it helps to extend protections to the most vulnerable in our housing system. We must recognise the dignity of all residents, regardless of tenure. However, while the intention behind these amendments is laudable, it is vital to interrogate the practicalities and the legal impact of such proposals. For instance, how would the Government define “qualifying residential premises” in the context of asylum accommodation, where providers may be delivering services under a Home Office contract rather than under tenancy agreements? What enforcement mechanisms are appropriate in temporary or institutionally managed housing? Where would the burden of compliance ultimately fall? We must also examine the legislative implications for landlords and housing providers, particularly those operating on constrained margins. Applying a uniform standard across such a diverse landscape of housing may sound straightforward in principle but in practice it could impose significant compliance costs, particularly in sectors such as mobile home parks or supported houses, where the business model and the regulatory framework already differ markedly from the private rented sector. Stakeholders such as G15, representing London’s largest housing associations, have raised these very points, urging caution in implying one-size-fits-all approaches and stressing the importance of clarity, resourcing and consultation. Similarly, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has warned of the unintended market disruption that could follow from ambiguous or overly broad standards, particularly if applied unevenly or without sufficient support for implementation. Amendment 252A, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, seeks to exempt certain buildings from the requirements to maintain specified energy efficiency criteria, specifically those in rural areas, those that are listed buildings or those that were constructed prior to 1900. This raises an equally critical set of questions. As we have heard, many older and listed buildings simply cannot meet modern EPC targets, such as EPC C, without intrusive and costly works that may fundamentally alter their structures or even their appearance. The amendment, therefore, is a measured and proportionate intervention designed not to weaken the decent homes standard but to ensure that it is applied with practicality and flexibility where needed. Finally, we must ask whether there is a clear and coherent framework in place for assessing which tenures and building types should fall under the decent homes umbrella and whether, without such a framework, we risk creating legal uncertainty or burdens that will ultimately be passed on to tenants themselves.

21:45:00

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender, Lady Whitaker and Lady Coffey, for their amendments on the decent homes standard and standards within the private rented sector. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Scott, for their comments in this group. Let me say how much I agree with the right reverend Prelate’s words about the decent homes standard and how dramatically that has improved homes in the social rented sector. Amendment 249, tabled by the right reverend Prelate, would remove the power that allows Ministers to specify in regulations what types of temporary homelessness accommodation the decent homes standard will apply to. People living in temporary accommodation deserve a safe and decent home. I therefore agree with the right reverend Prelate’s aim of ensuring that such accommodation meets minimum decency standards. I can confirm that it is the Government’s intention that as much of this sector as possible is covered by the decent homes standard—I feel really strongly about this. I was told by the Mayor of London last week that one in 21 children in London are currently in temporary accommodation; that is probably more than one in each classroom of children. It is absolutely shocking that this is the case. Of course, the long-term answer is our commitment to the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. We have already invested £2 billion in making a start to help towards that situation. However, it is important that I say that the pressures on the supply of temporary accommodation mean it is important that we carefully consider how we apply the standard to this sector. Having this power allows us fully to examine these issues and to consult. That will make sure that we strike the right balance between improving standards and avoiding risks to supply. I am of course very happy to meet the right reverend Prelate on this issue, because we all want the same outcome. For now, however, I ask that he withdraw his amendment. Amendment 250, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, seeks to bring service family accommodation provided by the Ministry of Defence within the scope of the decent homes standard provisions in the Bill. I certainly agree with her that the conditions of much of the service family accommodation that we inherited were absolutely shameful. I strongly agree that we owe our dedicated military personnel and their families safe and decent homes. However, as the Minister set out when this amendment was debated in the other place, bringing this accommodation within the scope of the enforcement system established by the Bill is not the right way to achieve this. I will explain why. Our Government are determined to deliver homes fit for heroes. Noble Lords will be aware that the Ministry of Defence has recently completed a landmark deal to bring military housing back into public ownership—the deal that the noble Baroness referred to. This represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to provide service families with a better standard of accommodation while contributing to our economic growth mission and boosting British housebuilding overall. Alongside this deal, the MoD has started work on a new defence housing strategy, to be published later this year, to deliver a generational renewal of military housing. In April, the MoD announced a new consumer charter for forces family housing, which will form part of the strategy. The charter will introduce consumer rights for forces families, from essential property information and predictable property standards to access to a robust complaints system. On standards, the MoD already uses the decent homes standard as a benchmark for service family accommodation. Homes below that standard are not allocated to service personnel and their families. The MoD uses its own higher defence “decent homes plus” as the target standard for service family accommodation. As part of the new strategy, the MoD is reviewing that target standard in line with the recommendations of the excellent Kerslake review that the noble Baroness referred to and the House of Commons Defence Committee. On the specifics of the amendment, we consider that the approach we are taking in the Bill to apply and enforce decent homes for privately rented homes is just not the right one for service family accommodation. There are particular challenges in bringing accommodation within scope of local authority enforcement, including access to the more than 6,500 homes that are located “behind the wire” on secure sites. The Government are already taking action to ensure that service personnel and their families have homes of the quality they deserve, as part of our commitment to renewing the contract with the people who serve us. By regaining ownership of military housing, we will now be able to embark on a substantive programme of redevelopment and improvement, which will enhance recruitment and retention in the Armed Forces and, with it, our national security. My right honourable friend John Healey, the Secretary of State for Defence, has set out his commitment to improved military housing and will report to Parliament later this year, when the defence housing strategy is published. Given this, I hope the noble Baroness will agree that her amendment is not required. Amendment 251, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, would extend the decent homes standard provisions in the Bill to Home Office asylum accommodation. This would require such accommodation to meet the decent homes standard requirements and increase the scope for enforcement by local authorities. A number of noble Lords raised this issue during the Second Reading debate. Following that debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, mentioned, officials from both my department and the Home Office met London Councils and the Chartered Institute for Housing to discuss their concerns. I can assure the Committee that the Government share the objective of ensuring asylum accommodation is of a good standard. However, I do not consider that this amendment is the right way to achieve this. There are already robust processes in place in respect of standards for all types of asylum accommodation. The contracts that the Home Office has with accommodation providers explicitly include standards requirements based on the decent homes standard, as well as the Welsh quality homes standard and the Scottish housing quality standard. Those contracts, including the standards requirements, are publicly available to view on the GOV.UK website. There is also a clear complaints process in place. Inspectors inspect the properties on a targeted and rolling basis. There are also several reasons why the amendment would not be appropriate to bring asylum accommodation within scope of the decent homes standard provisions in the Bill. First, these provisions introduce the decent homes standard for privately rented homes in England only, whereas there is asylum accommodation across the United Kingdom. Accepting this amendment would therefore result in a fragmented system, with different standards requirements and enforcement systems applying depending on where in the United Kingdom the accommodation was based. The Government wish to avoid this. In addition, we wish to avoid situations in which requirements to comply with the decent homes standard would mean that certain types of asylum accommodation could no longer be used, even if there was no alternative. For example, we want to end the use of hotels over time, but it is sometimes necessary to meet the legal duty to accommodate destitute asylum seekers. That accommodation might not meet the decent homes standard requirements, such as full-board hotels where there are no kitchen facilities for asylum seekers to use themselves. I appreciate that they are certainly not ideal for families seeking asylum, and they would not meet the decent homes standard. Standards requirements already apply to asylum accommodation, and there are adequate routes of redress for occupants when things do go wrong. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press this amendment. Amendment 252, tabled by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, seeks to bring rented mobile homes within the scope of the decent homes standard provisions. While I am sympathetic to the aims of my noble friend, I cannot support this amendment, as the decent homes standard is not suitable for mobile homes. The decent homes standard has been specifically designed to apply to residential buildings. This is integral to the design and operation of the standard. For example, the housing health and safety rating system, the assessment method that underpins parts of the standard, was specifically developed to assess health and safety risks in buildings. As a result, it is not possible to apply and enforce effectively the decent homes standard in respect of types of accommodation that are not buildings. This amendment would therefore not achieve the desired outcome of improving the quality of rented mobile homes. I am, of course, happy to discuss further with her how we might seek to achieve what she has been trying to achieve for many years. Given this, I ask my noble friend not to press her amendment. Finally, Amendment 252A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would limit the breadth of the decent homes standard as it applies to the private rented sector. We will be launching a consultation on the content of the decent homes standard for social and privately rented homes in the coming months. We will consider carefully the responses before finalising the detail of the standard. The regulations we will make to implement these requirements will then be subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the affirmative procedure. I acknowledge that the PRS is a diverse sector with a broad range of differing housing types, and some may have features that, as the noble Baroness rightly pointed out and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, mentioned, make it very difficult to meet certain aspects of a decent homes standard. We want landlords to take reasonably practicable steps to bring their properties up to standard, but we will not unfairly penalise those who are unable to do so. The legislation we are introducing will therefore provide local councils with a range of enforcement tools to respond to different circumstances. We will publish statutory guidance to support councils in dealing with such issues in a pragmatic and proportionate way that is fair both for tenants and for landlords. Accepting the amendment would result in different standards applying to different types of PRS homes, which would make it harder for tenants and landlords to understand what requirements apply, and more challenging for local authorities to enforce. As I have stated, the legislation will provide local authorities with flexibility, and we consider that this will provide a more effective and fairer way of dealing with situations when a property cannot realistically meet the standard. As I am the MHCLG Minister with responsibility for net zero, I have a lot more information on how we intend to operate EPC and the minimum energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector, and I am happy to write to the noble Baroness with a lot more detail rather than take up the Committee’s time tonight. But on that basis, I ask her not to move her amendment.

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has been characteristically good natured and very well informed, and I am very grateful in particular for the way the Minister has responded to the various amendments in this group. Because we are going to have a rather late night tonight, I will not say too much at this stage. I wish to respond to some of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. I did not speak to her amendment in my introduction because I did not understand it in the form in which it appeared on the Marshalled List; I am very grateful to her now. I guess I should declare an interest: my daughter lives in a pre-1800 former gamekeeper’s cottage in a very rural part of Devon. She is not a tenant because she managed somehow to negotiate a very favourable mortgage rate with “the bank of mum and dad”, with which I think many of your Lordships will be very familiar—all too familiar, I fear. I understand the complexities of trying to get that cottage up to anything like a decent environmental standard, so I have great sympathy. The noble Baroness mentioned in particular the Church of England’s land. The Church Commissioners, which I chaired in succession to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, until about 15 months ago, currently has a development land portfolio sufficient for about 30,000 homes, and we would like to develop that out to make more homes for people to live in. We recently set up a group that I am now the chair of, the Church Housing Association, which was registered with the regulator about six weeks ago. It is looking to utilise more Church land, particularly land owned by parishes and dioceses, in order to produce more social housing, particularly housing at social rent level, across the country. I am hoping to meet with Homes England and others in the near future to progress that. My own diocese is going through a very determined process of evaluating all parsonages, selling the ones we do not need and investing the money in improving the ones we are going to keep. So I hope the noble Baroness will agree that this is the right way to take these matters forward. I am very grateful for all that has been said tonight and I look forward to meeting the Minister to further some of the conversations we have had. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 249 withdrawn.

Amendments 250 to 252A not moved.

Clause 101 agreed.

Amendment 253

Moved by

253: After Clause 101, insert the following new Clause— “Use of licence conditions to improve housing conditionsIn section 90 of the Housing Act 2004 (licence conditions), for “the management, use or occupation of the house concerned” substitute “all or any of the following—“(a) the management, use and occupation of the house concerned, and(b) the condition and contents of the house concerned.””Member’s explanatory statement This amendment would enable local authorities operating selective licensing schemes to use licence conditions to improve housing conditions.

My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 254 and, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, Amendments 267, 268 and 269. Amendments 253 and 254 would remove unnecessary barriers to the use of licensing schemes to improve housing standards. Licensing is an important tool for improving housing standards because it is proactive. It provides a means for local authorities to inspect privately rented housing using enforceable conditions, and to identify and resolve problems without the need for tenants to have complained.

22:00:00

Licensing is self-funding. Licensing schemes pay for themselves through the fees that are charged. They thereby provide a sustainable and predictable source of income that enables local authorities to maintain staffing levels and support the training of new officers. Licensing supports targeting. Licensing schemes enable local authorities to target regulation where it is most needed: in other words, on tackling the worst landlords and supporting the most vulnerable tenants. The problem, however, is that local authorities are having to implement licensing schemes in the face of unnecessary barriers to their effectiveness. One of these unnecessary barriers is that local authorities operating selective licensing schemes are not permitted to use licence conditions to improve housing conditions—that is, the physical state of the licensed properties.

This makes no sense, for two reasons. Local authorities can introduce selective licensing schemes to address poor housing conditions. This means that there is currently a peculiar disconnect in the licensing legislation, highlighted by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, whereby local authorities can introduce selective licensing schemes to address poor housing but cannot include in the licences themselves conditions requiring the physical state of the licensed properties to be improved. If they are permitted to do the former, what justification can there be for not permitting them to do the latter?

Secondly, local authorities are permitted to include such conditions in licences for properties covered by additional HMO licensing schemes, so what justification can there be for not permitting them to include such conditions in licences for properties covered by selective licensing schemes? Amendment 253, by permitting local authorities operating selective licensing schemes to use licence conditions to improve the physical state of the licensed properties, would remove the peculiar disconnect I have mentioned and would give local authorities the same discretion in relation to the licence conditions used in selective licensing schemes as they already have in relation to those used in additional HMO licensing schemes.

The second unnecessary barrier is that local authorities are not permitted to implement additional HMO or selective licensing schemes that last more than five years without repeating a time-consuming and expensive designation process. This does not make sense either, as local authorities introduced these schemes to bring about large-scale improvements, which are unlikely to be fully achieved within five years. Amendment 254 would address this issue by increasing the maximum duration of these schemes from five to 10 years. That increase would allow local authorities to advertise longer-term posts and include training of new staff in these schemes. It would also provide more time for local partnerships formed through such schemes—for example, to resolve antisocial behaviour—to become embedded and effective.

A third unnecessary barrier is the requirement for local authorities that are establishing selective licensing schemes using certain criteria to ensure that the private rented sector forms a high proportion of properties in an area. However, if there are issues in the private rented sector which can be addressed through selective licensing schemes, it seems arbitrary for local authorities to be enabled to establish such schemes without ensuring that the sector forms a high proportion of the properties. I welcome the fact that the Government have recently enabled local authorities to introduce selective licensing schemes of any size without approval from the Secretary of State. I suggest that that makes it all the more urgent for these other unnecessary barriers to the effectiveness of such schemes to be removed. I hope the Minister agrees that the proposals I am making are small but important, and that Government will agree with them.

Amendments 267 to 269 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, relate to the passing of the Housing Act 2004. At that time, the institutional private rented sector did not exist. As a result, selective licensing provisions were drafted for smaller individual landlords. While selective licensing remains an important tool for local authorities that have deep-seated issues in their areas, the provisions of the Act may not work well for larger institutional landlords. To rectify this incompatibility, these three amendments seek to take account of the impact licensing has had on institutional landlords without undermining the intentions or principles of licensing.

Amendment 268 is to Section 91 of the Housing Act and seeks to address the ability to transfer the licence from one named person to another, which does not currently exist under the Act. It is right that this prohibition on transfer applies to bad landlords simply seeking to pass their licence on to family members or friends. That behaviour should continue to be discouraged. However, in a corporate setting, this requires landlords to apply for an entirely new licence every time the staff member holding the licence leaves the company, despite the corporate landlord managing the company remaining the same. A licence can cost over £1,000 per unit. To relicense a large-unit development therefore can cost several hundred thousand pounds. This is a huge cost to incur for a purely administrative change and is far in excess of the cost the local authority will incur for changing the name on the licence and conducting a fit and proper person test.

It also leads to perverse outcomes, where institutional landlords vest the licence in the name of the employee least likely to leave the company, rather than the most qualified person to be held accountable. Amendment 268 would rectify this situation, allowing institutional landlords to transfer licences between employees of the same institutional landlord. Importantly, it would not change the existing provision for individual landlords, allowing local authorities to continue to exercise their important monitoring powers.

Amendment 269 seeks to address delays faced by institutional landlords when bringing upwards of hundreds of often much-needed rental units into the market at once. Local authorities can be overwhelmed when an institutional landlord seeks to license a large number of units at once due to insufficient resource to process these applications. This has led in some situations to local authorities requesting that the landlord stall its applications until the local authority has the resource available.

While institutional landlords will comply with this request, the law does not allow for these situations. It requires that a licence is applied for at the earliest opportunity. Failure to apply for a licence, even at the request of the local authority, leaves institutional landlords in breach of the Act and liable to a rent repayment order, despite the circumstances being entirely out of their control. Amendment 269 would address this problem by allowing the local authority to issue a temporary exemption where it must extend the time needed to process applications.

Finally, Amendment 267 aims to amend Section 87 of the Housing Act with the objective of addressing the high costs faced by institutional landlords licensing their properties—another consequence of the institutional rented sector being subject to an Act drafted before its emergence in the UK market. Applicants for selective licences pay a fee per unit, as is appropriate for individual landlords with multiple separated units in a locality. However, institutional landlords develop large blocks which are very unlikely to fail property or management standards due to their recent development and high standards of management. Licensing units in these purpose-built blocks may require little more work for a local authority than licensing an individual unit. Despite this, institutional landlords are charged individually for each unit in their blocks.

Amendment 267 seeks to address this inconsistency, as well as the disproportionate costs faced by some institutional landlords, by allowing a local authority to apply a proportionate approach to fixing fees. This proportionate approach could cap the total fees for multiple units in a block to a limit, which would be set via regulation. There would need, I think, to be some consultation on this matter.

There would also need to be clarity on the powers of a local authority because this amendment would remove the current requirement in Section 87(1) of the Housing Act 2004 for selective licensing applications to be made to the local housing authority and could thereby lead them to being processed by other bodies in the private sector. The licences are usually drafted after the local authority has inspected the property. The processing of the applications is undertaken by trained environmental health practitioners who understand the local private rented sector market, as well as the type and location of the property.

The licences contain specific provisions to address the issues for which the scheme has been brought into effect. Local authorities would seem to be the bodies that are best placed to deliver a locally tailored approach. Moreover, if the body processing selective licensing applications were to be different from the body processing HMO licensing applications, an extra layer of complexity would be created; this would be particularly problematic where applications were incomplete or insufficient fees had been paid.

I realise that I have spoken at some length on these matters. They are very important issues. I very much hope that the Minister, who I know has had discussions with the relevant bodies, may be able to give some comfort on these five amendments because they all reflect problems that it is within the capacity of the Bill to solve. I beg to move.

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this group of amendments in this important debate concerning property licensing. This discussion touches on a particular practical part of the regulatory framework: how local authorities manage and enforce licensing regimes for rental properties and meet appropriate standards of safety and quality. The amendments in this group, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Young of Cookham, address both the effectiveness of the licensing schemes and the administrative burdens that they impose on landlords, local authorities and tenants alike. Amendments 253 and 254 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, speak to the role of selective licensing in improving housing conditions and propose to extend the maximum duration of these schemes. We already have selective licensing. UK government guidance is clear that local authorities can use this process to tackle poor housing conditions, as well as other issues. These are worthy proposals. We will listen carefully to these concerns and work with noble Lords across the House both to get the balance right and to ensure that the Bill plays its part in driving up the quality of housing, particularly in the areas where local authorities can clearly demonstrate poor housing conditions or evidence of anti-social behaviour. However, we must also ask: are licensing schemes always the right lever for improving housing quality? In the right circumstances, licensing can help drive up standards, but, if it is poorly targeted or applied too broadly, it risks creating unnecessary bureaucracy and placing costs on good landlords while doing little to deter the worst offenders. We must guard against the risk of licensing becoming a tick-box exercise rather than a tool for real enforcement. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for introducing Amendments 267 to 269, tabled by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. They are pragmatic and draw on my noble friend’s extensive experience in both government and housing policy. They propose more proportionate licensing fees in large blocks, simplified procedures for name changes and facilitated bulk applications. All are practical measures designed to reduce red tape and bring common sense to what can sometimes be a cumbersome process.

22:15:00

In particular, Amendment 267 raises a real-world issue when a large block of flats under a single management structure is subject to individual selective licence fees for each unit. It can result in duplicated administration and disproportionate cost. In such cases, we must ask whether the fees truly reflect the regulatory effort involved or whether they risk being seen unfairly as a revenue-raising mechanism. Similarly, the proposals to simplify name changes on licences and allow bulk applications speak to the need for digital modernisation and administrative efficiency. These are not controversial suggestions; they are in effect overdue.

From the perspective of landlords, especially professional landlords and institutional investors, we must recognise that licensing, while important, must be predictable, transparent and administratively workable. The private rented sector has changed dramatically over the past two decades, and the regulatory framework must evolve to reflect those realities and encourage investment in the sector to increase supply to the benefit of tenants. We on these Benches support effective local authority oversight, but we also believe that licensing must be targeted, evidence-based and cost-justified.

We would welcome the Government’s views on the following points. Do they agree that the licensing process should be simplified, particularly for landlords who already meet high standards of compliance? Crucially, will they consider clearer national guidance to help local authorities balance enforcement powers with administrative fairness? We want to see a system that works for tenants and local authorities alike, but also one that does not discourage responsible landlords or entrench unnecessary bureaucracy.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Young of Cookham, for their amendments relating to selective licensing, and I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for moving the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Young, in his absence. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his comments. Amendment 253, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seeks to allow local authorities to use selective licence conditions to improve housing conditions. We acknowledge and share the noble Lord’s intentions to improve housing conditions. We believe that all renters deserve to live in safe, secure and quality homes. With the introduction of a decent homes standard and the application of Awaab’s law through this Bill, the Government will reform and improve conditions across the sector. We think it is important that these measures benefit all renters and local authorities in tackling poor-quality homes, regardless of whether they are in selective licensing areas. Amendment 254, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seeks to allow local authorities to increase the maximum duration of selective and additional HMO licensing schemes from five to 10 years. As many noble Lords will be aware, the Government recently removed the requirement to obtain Secretary of State approval to introduce larger selective licensing schemes. We think it is right that local authorities have greater autonomy to implement schemes provided that they meet the statutory criteria. However, we also recognise licensing schemes do, as noble Lords have said, place additional burdens on landlords. It is therefore important that local authorities monitor any schemes to make sure that they are proportionate and are continuing to achieve their aims. A maximum scheme duration of five years strikes the right balance in giving local authorities time to make this assessment, while also ensuring that landlords are not by default subject to increased regulation for prolonged periods. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, to withdraw his amendments. I turn now to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. Amendment 267 seeks to streamline the selective licensing application process and cap the total fee that local authorities can charge for licensing similar properties in a block under single ownership. The Government recognise that selective licensing imposes a burden on landlords. The financial and administrative cost can be particularly significant for large portfolio landlords, such as those operating in the build-to-rent sector. Local authorities already have discretion to streamline licence applications and fees for landlords whose properties meet the requirements for block licences. Where appropriate and consistent with the aims of their licensing schemes, we would encourage local authorities to make greater use of block licences. This reduces the burden on large portfolio landlords and can better reflect efficiencies for local authorities in licensing such properties, for example, the ability to inspect multiple properties in a block during a single visit. It is right that licensing schemes continue to be determined locally and that local authorities have the flexibility to decide the best application process and fees to support delivery of schemes. Placing a cap on application fees could cause issues due to regional differences in costs between local authorities and potentially undermine the success of some schemes. Amendment 268 seeks to allow the transfer of selective licences in circumstances where the licence needs to be passed to an employee of the same corporate body. As noble Lords will be aware, under Section 91 of the Housing Act 2004, licences currently cannot be transferred, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, explained. A new licence application is needed where a change to a licence-holder is required after a licence has been issued. A crucial part of the application process is ensuring compliance with the fit and proper person test. This is designed to ensure that prospective licence-holders do not pose a risk to the welfare of tenants. I am sure it is not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Young, but accepting this amendment might mean circumventing those important checks for any new licence-holders within the same organisation. I accept that it may seem excessive for a local authority to require a full licence application to be submitted where a licence needs to be transferred due to changes in staff in cases where there are no other changes to the management or use of the property. We would encourage local authorities to take a proportionate approach in these cases, for example, by requiring only details of the new licence-holder to be provided in the application and charging a fee that covers only the essential parts of the application process, for example, the fit and proper person test. Amendment 269 seeks to allow a local authority to grant a temporary exemption from selective licensing to an applicant where it has determined that it requires more time to process the relevant licence application. I recognise the issues this amendment attempts to address. Where a local authority has received multiple licence applications from the same applicant, it needs sufficient time to review them. As a result, applicants may receive a decision after the period they deem reasonable. I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about digitisation of this process and making the whole process more efficient. Local authorities are already required to determine all licence applications within a reasonable time. We would encourage them to set out clearly their expected processing timelines when inviting applications. When planning a licensing scheme, local authorities should also carefully consider the level of resources needed to process applications to avoid large backlogs being created. However, regardless of any challenges a local authority may face in processing licence applications, landlords with licensable properties should apply for licences. This ensures that they are protected from enforcement action being taken against them for having control of or managing an unlicensed property. With this in mind, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Young, not to press his amendments.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very full explanation. I think the best course of action would be to review in Hansard what she has said and look at ways in which we might progress some of these issues by the time we reach Report in a few weeks’ time. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 253.

Amendment 253 withdrawn.

Amendment 254 not moved.

Schedule 4: Decent homes standard

Amendments 255 and 256

Moved by

255: Schedule 4, page 228, line 11, leave out “improvement notice” and insert “prohibition order” Member’s explanatory statement This replaces a reference to the improvement notice with the correct reference to the prohibition order.

256: Schedule 4, page 229, leave out lines 1 to 6 Member’s explanatory statement This amendment removes an amendment to section 33 of the Deregulation Act 2015 that is not necessary as a result of paragraph 68 of Schedule 2, which repeals this section.

Amendments 255 and 256 agreed.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed.

Clause 102 agreed.

Schedule 5 agreed.

Clause 103: Rent repayment orders: liability of landlords and superior landlords

Amendment 257 not moved.

Clause 103 agreed.

Clauses 104 to 113 agreed.

Amendment 258

Moved by

258: After Clause 113, insert the following new Clause— “Illegal evictions: police and local authority duties(1) Where a police force or local housing authority in England receives a complaint alleging that an offence or offences contrary to Section 1 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 (‘PFEA offences’) has been committed, it must—(a) notify the local housing authority (where the complaint has been received by a police force) or the police force (where the complaint has been received by a local housing authority) (‘the other party’) with responsibility for the area to which the complaint relates, and(b) co-operate with the other party to promptly and effectively investigate the alleged PFEA offence(s) and any offences committed at the same time, in furtherance of, or as a consequence of, the alleged PFEA offence(s).(2) Where a police force or local housing authority receives an allegation that PFEA offences are being committed or at risk of being committed, it must take reasonable steps to prevent those offences continuing or being committed, including, but not limited to, by cooperating with the other party and by taking reasonable steps to assist tenants to regain access to properties from which they have been unlawfully evicted. (3) The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities, and Local Government, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, issue joint statutory guidance as to how police forces and local housing authorities are to discharge the duties in subsections (1) and (2).”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment addresses the poorest end of the rental market by removing ambiguities between police and local authorities, clarifying police duties (illegal evictions often incorrectly seen as civil) and enabling efficient information sharing.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, for adding their names in support of the amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who cannot be here at this time, but who has authorised me to say that he both supports the principle of the amendment and believes that it is deliverable in practice. Given the role of the police in this amendment, his assessment and support have been invaluable. I am also grateful to the organisations Safer Renting and ACORN for their assistance in highlighting the urgent need for this amendment, and to the Bill team for working their magic in drafting. At Second Reading, I underlined concern about those at the bottom end of the rental market; here are the economically and socially vulnerable. They are the most likely to face illegal and sometimes forcible evictions. They are also often the least equipped to resist illegal evictions. It is this shadow private rented sector, the lowest part of the rental market, that most needs help and, in particular—as so often with the legislation that we like to pass in Parliament—needs proper support through effective and well organised enforcement of renters’ rights in what can be a wild world of criminal landlords who pay little mind to the niceties of tenancy agreements when removing tenants. That is what this amendment seeks to address. Illegal eviction is defined in the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 as a criminal offence—it was referred to earlier this evening by the Minister as a serious criminal offence—that can include physical force, the changing of locks, depriving renters of essential services, and other forms of interference and harassment. Figures from 2022 show that 8,750 illegal evictions were reported in that year; the actual number will, of course, be higher than this. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, earlier cited a figure of about twice that. However, currently prosecutions for illegal evictions are very low. The police do not act in 91% of cases, making an enforcement rate of below 0.3%. I underline that this is not to blame the police; rather, it arises from a legislative ambiguity that needs resolving. While the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 set out the legal definition of illegal eviction as a criminal offence, it did not include a duty on the police to enforce the protections. The results of this have been, first, ambiguity of responsibility between local authorities and police as to which is the enforcing agency. This, in turn, has led to councils and police each referring renters to the other organisation. Secondly, the police have almost always held the incorrect belief that illegal evictions are a civil matter. The amendment also takes into account the need to be realistic about overstretched police time and resources. The duties under this amendment have two aspects: reporting and intervening. On reporting, in the interests of joined-up working, the police will notify the local housing authority when a complaint has been made, and vice versa, when a complaint is received by the housing authority. The immediate anxiety here is to avoid imposing an additional reporting burden on front-line officers and officials. But any incident raised with the police or the local authority gets reported, or it certainly should. That report can simply be electronically copied to the other so that both can be aware, spot patterns and so forth. So it is not really “more flipping paperwork”, because adding a cc to a report is not really very onerous.

22:30:00

On intervening, as mentioned, typically this has been considered to date by the police as local authority territory. Collaboration between local authorities and the police is, of course, important, and there are some examples where it works well. I am also loath to create even more work for stretched police resources and people. However, the law is that illegal evictions are a criminal rather than a civil matter. Therefore, this is a police matter, and clarifying that is at the heart of this amendment.

I should also say that, in reality, when being forcibly evicted, particularly at night, the number that the tenant is going to call is likely to be the police rather than the local authority. The amendment requires the police to take reasonable steps to prevent an illegal eviction offence continuing if a tenant has either been illegally evicted or if they believe that a tenant is at risk of illegal eviction.

Finally, there is a tendency for local authorities and some police to conduct investigations separately. The amendment requires local authorities and police to co-operate when an alleged illegal eviction has taken place.

This amendment, by clarifying and streamlining the roles of police and local authorities, will support those most at risk of illegal eviction. It is the area in most acute need of protection, not just in law but in practice.

In closing, I thank the Minister for the opportunity that she provided to discuss this amendment with her and her team. However, having discussed this in detail with tenant groups, I do not share what I think is her view, based on her own very successful local authority experience, that this is not a significant problem and that the current system is effective. Tenant group representations suggest the acute need for this amendment, and I hope that the Minister will reconsider and accept this amendment or perhaps bring forward a suitable government amendment in its place. If she would find it helpful before Report, would she perhaps meet these groups—we have already secured a meeting, I believe, during the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy—to clarify this specific amendment? I beg to move.

I shall confine myself to two sentences, because the exposition from my noble friend covered the ground so admirably. I can only imagine the nightmarish, Kafkaesque scene whereby a family is being turned out of their home and call the police, who, if an officer turns out at all, take the side of the landlord, who is committing a criminal offence. What seems badly needed is the clear statutory guidance proposed by this amendment, coupled with the instruction that prevention of cruel and illegal evictions by landlords has to be grounds for both co-ordination and intervention by the relevant police force and the local housing authority working together. I support this amendment.

I want to scratch lots of bits out, since the noble Lord, Lord Best, was so succinct. Amendment 258 is in the name of Lord Cromwell and has notable signatories, and the noble Lord sold this amendment well. In short, this is an amendment that should not be needed, if the police and local authorities did their jobs correctly, as per the law, as outlined in the Protection from Eviction Act. This amendment is rightly seeking to reinforce what should be happening but we know is not. The already mentioned organisation, Safer Renting, monitored data from its clients over a given period, which revealed that, when the clients were going through an illegal eviction, and while it was in progress they called the police for assistance, worryingly in only 9% of cases did the police actually go to the property and assist the tenants. Therefore, as the noble Lord said, in 91% of cases they either failed to turn up, or turned up and sided with the landlord. Interestingly, so concerned was Safer Renting about these statistics that it decided to do something about it. To its credit, in partnership with the Metropolitan Police and the GLA, it developed a training course for officers. Approximately 8,000 officers took the training but, sadly, this did not mean it recorded any significant improvement when talking to its clients, which begs a lot more questions that are probably not answerable here. As has already been said by several noble Lords, it is imperative that the police understand the harassment before and during an illegal eviction—or, indeed, what constitutes criminal offences—and, most importantly, that they co-operate with the local authorities charged with the role of prosecuting these rogues and criminal landlords. Shockingly, that is not always happening. Safer Rentings’ illegal eviction count for England and Wales in 2022-23 showed 8,748 illegal evictions—that is one every 67 minutes. It is not necessary for the police to prosecute these offences unless they witness criminal actions taking place alongside the eviction, but it is crucial for them to understand the law both to refer them to the local authority and to co-operate with the authority’s investigations. We support this amendment, but we hope the Minister will reassure us that it is not needed.

My Lords, Amendment 258, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, aims to provide greater clarity for local housing authorities and police forces in responding to cases of illegal eviction. Illegal eviction is a serious offence; it is not simply a housing matter but often a brazen abuse of power that leaves some of our most vulnerable renters without recourse. That said, we have reservations about the practicalities of this proposal, but I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, having asked the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, his views on it. In essence, the amendment would place a statutory duty on police and councils to notify each other when a complaint of illegal eviction is received, to co-operate in investigating the offence and to take reasonable steps to assist the tenant. The intent here is understandable —tenants report illegal evictions and are, as we know, bounced between bodies, with the police saying it is a civil matter and councils struggling with limited capacity. Although the intent behind the amendment is undeniably well-meaning, we just have to pause and ask whether it might inadvertently entrench confusion within the statutory framework rather than resolving it. Without clear definitions, the proposal to impose duties on local housing authorities and police forces to co-operate and assist opens the door to operational ambiguity. What exactly constitutes “reasonable steps to assist”, and what measurable outcomes are expected from this co-operation? Without these clarifications, there is a real risk of creating more confusion for the very tenants we want to protect. We also want to be very careful about the practical burdens. As the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said, both councils and police forces are grappling the whole time with existing resource shortages. This amendment adds new responsibilities without addressing the underlying issue of capacity. Should we not first evaluate whether these agencies are equipped to handle their current workload before we impose further duties? What assessments have been made of the additional resource implications of this? There is great merit in the principle behind the amendment—namely, the need for clearer co-operation and more decisive enforcement—but there are significant questions about whether, as drafted, it achieves that aim in a proportional, workable manner. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and I ask the Minister: is the guidance clear enough, particularly to police forces, that it is an illegal act and it is against the law? Is there enough guidance? Are they being told exactly what they have to do? Do local authorities have clear guidance about looking after the tenant, which is their responsibility if they have been evicted and they are homeless at the time? Can this not be done in a different way by insisting that the Home Office work with MHCLG to try to embed the guidance that is already there and insist that both organisations deliver what they should be delivering at the moment?

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for his amendment and for meeting me to discuss it. The amendment would place a duty on local authorities and police forces to share information regarding alleged offences contrary to Section 1 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott. Local authorities and police forces would also have a duty to co-operate in the investigation of these offences and take steps to prevent offences from occurring or continuing, as well as assisting tenants to gain access to properties from which they have been illegally evicted. The Secretary of State would be required to produce statutory guidance outlining how these duties would be discharged. The Government are clear that illegal eviction is unacceptable. Changes introduced in the Bill will further empower local authorities to penalise those who illegally evict, giving them the option to issue a financial penalty of up to £40,000 as an alternative to prosecution. Illegally evicted tenants are also entitled to receive a rent repayment order. Local authorities will be provided with new investigatory powers alongside the powers that police forces have to investigate and prosecute breaches of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. However, I am concerned about the administrative burden that a reporting duty might place on police forces. The department is trialling approaches to improving multi-agency targeting and the disruption of rogue and criminal actors operating throughout the private rented sector. For example, Liverpool City Council’s private sector housing intelligence and enforcement taskforce—a snappy title, I know, but it does what it says on the tin—has successfully carried out joint operations with Merseyside Police and the Home Office. The Government will continue to explore how we can encourage more effective collaboration between the police and local authorities. I am happy to add this topic to the agenda for the meeting that I have already agreed to with my noble friend Lady Kennedy and Safer Renting, and to take another look at the existing guidance to make sure that it does what it needs to do. With that said, I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, to withdraw his amendment.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their contributions. I do not want to detain the Committee too long, but I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, regarding her comments on co-operation and working it out in detail, that we found, in trying to specify every detail of what would go into the database, that it is much better to let the two responsible bodies work it out for themselves. They are grown-ups and they can work that out. With regard to it being a further duty on the police, it is not a further duty but an existing one; it clarifies what they are supposed to be doing. I do not want to pray in aid the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, too much in his absence, but he certainly felt that that was a realistic thing that they could deliver without their resources being too stretched. Sharing information and co-ordination is something that we ought to be able to take for granted, but it is a “nice to have”. The really important bit is that they intervene when people are being illegally evicted and that the police take that responsibility firmly on themselves. That is currently not the case, because they still have this ingrained idea that it is a civil offence, not a criminal one, which is incorrect. That said, I am grateful to everyone for their comments. I look forward to the meeting. I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to meet the tenant groups, which are passionately convinced that this amendment is essential. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 258 withdrawn.

Clauses 114 to 133 agreed.

22:45:00

Clause 134: Use by local housing authority of certain information

Amendment 259

Moved by

259: Clause 134, Page 155, line 27, at end insert— “Energy Act 2011”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment gives authorities the power to use this data to enforce minimum energy efficiency standards.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I will move Amendment 259, a three-word amendment that provides argument for the value of explanatory statements. As this explanatory statement says, the addition of “Energy Act 2011” would give local authorities “the power to use this data”— about home energy efficiency— “to enforce minimum energy efficiency standards”. As we have discussed often on this Bill, many renters are stuck in cold, damp, leaky homes. Sometimes there are very simple and cheap fixes, such as adding or topping-up loft insulation. Sometimes they are more complicated and challenging fixes, such as insulating solid wall properties. This amendment gives local authorities the power to obtain and use energy efficiency information to help private renters. This could allow housing officers to support tenants in the most poorly insulated homes or, importantly, it could support councils to develop the street-by-street insulation programmes that can bring economies of scale and support widespread installation of insulation. The case study is quite an old but lovely one. In Kirklees, a Green councillor, Andrew Cooper, was one of the driving forces behind a street-by-street insulation programme. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, claimed credit for it, which may be the first time that we have seen a Green achievement being so claimed. I saw reports on how that worked out afterwards. One of the things that really came through was how much people are concerned about cowboy builders, which might be true of landlords as well as tenants, but that they trust their local authorities. That street-by-street process works well, but to make that happen you need the data. That is what this modest amendment is designed to achieve. It builds on the positive Clause 134, which will give local authorities more data to support tenants and take enforcement action against failing landlords. Given the hour, I will leave the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, to explain Amendment 274, which is related to this. I hope that the Minister can set out—briefly, given the hour—how the Government plan to ramp up support for domestic energy efficiency, especially for private renters. As we have just heard, so many are in vulnerable situations. Given the cost of living crisis, this is often seen as an environmental measure, but it is a crucial anti-poverty measure. We need to make this as easy and simple for local authorities to achieve as possible. I beg to move.

My Lords, I declare my interests as a previous chair of Peers for the Planet and a director of that organisation. I will speak to my Amendment 274, which is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, who cannot be in the Chamber this evening. It continues the theme of energy efficiency that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has just spoken about on her Amendment 259. She dealt specifically with the issue of data on energy efficiency. I wish to contribute particularly on the issue of financing energy-efficiency measures. This is the first time that I have spoken in Committee on this Bill, mainly because of my interaction with the Minister and her officials in the run-up to it, during which several issues were clarified very helpfully. The issue of improving energy efficiency in the private rented sector has been discussed at length and on multiple occasions in this House. I hope that the current consultation will go some way to address the lack of coherent and consistent long-term policy certainty in this area, because it has suffered from stop-go and from changes of administrations and forms of assistance that have been incoherent and stopped us making progress. Of course, one of the main issues preventing progress in this area is funding, so my amendment seeks to break through some of the barriers to progress by requiring the Government to publish a road map on how private finance initiatives could be scaled up to support the funding of energy-efficiency measures. Other speakers in the Committee have pointed out the problems that exist because of the quality of the stock in the private rented sector. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester pointed out, nearly half the housing stock in the private rented sector has an EPC rating below C. Although fuel poverty has fallen 35% among owner-occupiers and 54% among council tenants since 2010, it has fallen only 4% for private renters. Their homes are still disproportionately damp and cold, causing both short- and long-term health issues, with higher bills adding insult to injury. Of course, this is an issue where we should take action not only because of the need to help people in this situation but because of the detrimental effects this has on our achievement of net zero and improving our energy security. However, while there has been widespread agreement about the value of improving energy efficiency, finance has always been an obstacle to progress. The costs of improving the quality of housing will be substantial, as others have said, given where we are starting from, and it is not realistic to expect the Government to foot the bill in its entirety, nor to put intolerable burdens on landlords. We need to find a way to finance these improvements that will work for tenants, landlords and the public purse. I recognise that the Government are doing some work on this and looking at how barriers can be overcome. The green home finance accelerator fund, due to end in June, has a number of projects looking specifically at rented properties and a number of pilot schemes. I would like to hear from the Minister what steps the Government plan to take in response to what they are learning from the experience of the fund and to what timetable they will be working. There is also a growing number of innovative private sector finance mechanisms that deserve serious attention. As the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association recently reported, the high upfront costs of installing energy-efficient technologies remain the biggest challenge for landlords, and ensuring that there is private capital to support this process, and investment to help drive down the costs of energy efficiency, is paramount. To meet this challenge, a number of policy proposals have been made that my amendment would prompt the Government to consider. The UK Green Building Council, for example, has proposed a warm home stamp duty incentive, where stamp duty would be adjusted up or down depending on the EPC of a property and a rebate would be triggered within two years of purchase if the energy efficiency of the home had been improved. The Local Government Association has recently recommended that the Government should incentivise landlords through tax rebates. France has added energy efficiency improvements to the list of deductible costs of managing a property, such as legal fees or insurance. Within the UK, Scotland has introduced low-interest loans for landlords. Such loans could be linked to the property, rather than the individual, for which there is the precedent of the interest-free loans that were available to install renewables. Property-linked finance has been deployed in several other countries, and these are all measures that deserve serious consideration by the Government. They could cut through the Gordian knot of all agreeing that a great deal needs to be done but no one being able to see how it could be financed. I hope that when the Minister responds, she will provide a little more detail on the Government’s thinking in this area, particularly on ways of incentivising landlords and how the Government intend to make progress in an area about which much has been said but too little has been done.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Bennett, for tabling these amendments and generating this debate. We on these Benches support both amendments. Every renter has the right to a warm and energy-efficient home as part of a decent standard of living. Improving energy performance in private rentals not only is vital for tenants’ comfort and reducing fuel poverty but contributes to the all-important climate target. I thank the LGA for its briefing. It is concerned about how enforcement will be enhanced to ensure that minimum energy-efficiency standards in the PRS are upheld. As we know, the sad reality is that some landlords continue to let out inefficient, poorly insulated properties, leaving tenants with high energy bills and cold homes. Indeed, tenants in the private rented sector living in the least efficient homes are paying as much as an additional £1,000 a year on their energy bills, compared with someone living in a relatively energy-efficient home. As we heard in previous discussions, an expansion of the rent repayment orders to cover situations where a landlord lets a property that fails to meet the minimum energy-efficiency requirements would mean that if a landlord breached energy standards, for example by renting out a property below the legal EPC threshold, the tenant or council could apply for an order to reclaim up to 12 months’ rent, which we think will be a powerful deterrent against non-compliance. Amendment 274, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is an extremely useful step towards the ultimate goal of making homes warmer and more sustainable. It proposes a clear government strategy to unlock private finance, for example with green loans or incentive schemes for landlords to retrofit insulation and efficient heating. It makes me a little nostalgic for something that we think was an excellent model, but it was on a wider infrastructural basis. I refer to the Green Investment Bank, which was introduced in the early days of the coalition Government. The National Audit Office praised it for having a clear rationale, mission and objectives, backed by sound oversight. The then Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the NAO and the Institute for Government all concluded that it had largely been successful in scaling up the UK’s green investment during its early years. It invested £3.4 billion into green projects, attracting £8.6 billion of private capital—a healthy £2.50 of private investment for every £1 of public money. Its portfolio was expected to deliver a 10% return by 2017. Sadly, in 2015, the Conservatives flogged it off and that 10% return was not realised. I would love to be able to tempt the Minister to look at that model as a really interesting way of pulling in investment. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for recalling the excellent Kirklees Council scheme. I think it was the local authority with the largest number of retrofitting and insulation projects. It was award winning. I would not want to miss the opportunity of mentioning that my noble friend Lady Pinnock was then leader of Kirklees. It drew on finance that it received for an infrastructure project; it decided to insulate across every tenure in the largest local authority area. I believe that it is still the largest local authority area, unless anyone wants to correct me. These remain excellent examples of how facilitating investment in measures such as insulation, efficient boilers and double glazing, the Government can ensure that landlords have the means to comply with higher energy requirements rather than simply exiting the market or passing the costs on to their tenants. We therefore welcome this proposed roadmap and data collection and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

23:00:00

My Lords, we all want to see energy efficiency, better homes for tenants and reduced fuel poverty but, as we discussed earlier this evening, this needs to be done in an affordable and pragmatic way that does not force older, rural and heritage homes out of the rental market. Amendment 259 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to extend the powers of local housing authorities to use available data to enforce and exercise their functions under the Energy Act 2011. As the noble Baroness has established, that Act provided obligations on landlords to meet certain energy efficiency requirements for their properties before they are able to let their properties to tenants. Clause 134 already enables local housing authorities to use the information they possess to enforce housing offences and other functions under a wider range of legislation than was previously permitted in the Housing Act 2004. This amendment would therefore extend the already expanded remit of Clause 134 to the domain of energy efficiency. We understand the intentions of the noble Baroness in this amendment and will be interested to hear the response from the Minister. However, I question the necessity of the amendment. The Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015, made under the Energy Act 2011, already provide for the energy efficiency regulations to be enforced by local authorities in the case of domestic private rental properties and by trading standards in the case of non-domestic private rental properties. Those enforcement authorities are empowered by the 2011 Act to impose monetary penalties of up to £5,000 for any landlord who breaches the energy efficiency regulations. Given the powers that already exist and the highly significant changes to energy performance certificates that the Government plan to implement, this amendment appears unnecessary. A review of energy efficiency improvements required and the methods for funding these improvements would be more appropriate, which is why we support Amendment 274 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, supported by my noble friend Lady Penn. This amendment would simply require the Secretary of State to publish a roadmap for using private finance initiatives to provide the funding for any required improvements to energy efficiency for the private rental sector. This is a sensible and measured approach to the issue at hand, as opposed to any prescriptive requirements. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Hayman, for their amendments relating to minimum energy efficiency standards, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—who I think described herself as the Green night owl—the noble Baroness Lady Grender and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for contributing to the debate. I turn first to Amendment 259 in the name of noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. This amendment would allow information given to local authorities by tenancy deposit scheme administrators to be used by local authorities for a purpose connected with their functions under the Energy Act 2011, including enforcement against breaches of minimum energy efficiency standards under the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015. I reassure the Committee that local authorities are already equipped to enforce the private rented sector minimum energy efficiency standard of an EPC rating of E. In February, a consultation was published to amend regulations and raise energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector, addressing fuel poverty and carbon emissions. The consultation proposes that local authorities will be empowered to issue fines of up to £30,000 for non-compliance with the new minimum energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector. To respond to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, officials from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero are exploring support for enforcement in collaboration with stakeholders, including local authorities. Local authorities often identify non-compliance during other property engagements and can take appropriate action. A local authority may issue a compliance notice to a landlord suspected of breaching the energy standard. If the landlord fails to comply, the authority has the power to issue a penalty notice. Of course, I recognise the value that data plays in aiding enforcement, which is why we have widened access to information for other enforcement purposes through the Bill. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 274, from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, would require the Secretary of State to publish a road map for scaling up private finance initiatives to support the funding of energy-efficiency improvements in privately rented homes within six months of the passage of the Bill. I strongly support improvements to energy efficiency in privately rented homes. The Government have pledged to take action to stand with tenants and deliver the safety and security of warmer, cheaper homes. In February, we published our consultation on improving energy-efficiency standards in the private rented sector in England and Wales. The consultation closed on 2 May. We are analysing the responses and expect to publish a government response later this year. I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, as we recognise the important role that private finance will play in supporting the private rented sector to meet the proposed energy-efficiency standards. We are currently considering the consultation feedback and options to further support landlords to make the necessary improvements to their property. I believe that the amendment is not necessary as the information on support, including private finance to fund energy-efficiency improvements in privately rented homes, will be available shortly.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and everyone who has taken part in this short debate, which was marked by a remarkably strong degree of agreement. Everyone agrees that home energy efficiency is something on which we really need to take vital action. I was reminded of a stat, which I learned probably a dozen years ago, that British homes were, in terms of energy efficiency, the second worst in Europe, behind Lithuania. I am not quite sure how Lithuania has done in those 12 years since then, but I know that we have made very little progress. I will briefly pick up a couple of technical points. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the Minister both talked about local authorities having enforcement powers or, indeed, enhanced enforcement powers. But you can take enforcement only when you have the information—the data—that enables you to know when to take action. Just guessing which might be the homes that are not great is not a really effective way to proceed. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for the Lib Dem support for this amendment and also for embracing Kirklees. Everyone wants to embrace Kirklees, and really where we want to get to is a situation where we can embrace every town and city in the country with the same kind of project, particularly with those street to street-type arrangements. I have one final comment. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, spoke about long-term policy certainty, which reminded me of going—I think it was in 2012—to the Insulate UK presentation. It was the insulation industry’s annual expo, and the whole industry was shutting down because the funding had disappeared. That boom-bust, boom-bust has been an enormous problem. We have not mentioned this yet, but, of course, we are talking also about huge numbers of opportunities, particularly for small independent businesses in every town and city up and down the land, if we find the funding and if we find the data and the push to make it happen. I reserve the right to come back to this to look technically at the details, but in the meantime, of course, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 259 withdrawn.

Clause 134 agreed.

Clause 135: Investigatory powers under the Housing Act 2004

Amendment 260

Moved by

260: Clause 135, page 156, line 30, after “entry),”, insert— “(a) in subsection (5)(a), omit “known), and” and insert “unoccupied), or;””Member’s explanatory statement This amendment seeks to allow the 24 hours’ notice requirement for an inspection under Section 239 of the Housing Act 2004 to be served solely on the property’s occupier.

My Lords, in moving this amendment, I am grateful for the help of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, which has worked with local enforcement teams in my diocese to help us get to this amendment. Local enforcement will be vital to making the intention of the Renters’ Rights Bill a reality, including the extension of the decent homes standard. However, an amendment to the power of entry that councils are going to use to enforce that standard is needed so that negligent or criminal landlords do not get a tip-off of inspections in advance, which would allow them to frustrate that process or to put pressure on the tenant. Enforcement officers would never tip off the proprietor of an off-licence in advance of an under-age mystery shopper trying to buy alcohol or cigarettes but, as currently drafted, this Bill will require enforcement officers to give landlords a 24-hour tip-off for any formal inspection of compliance with the decent homes standard. The power of entry under the Bill comes from Section 239 of the Housing Act 2004. It is completely appropriate to give notice to the occupier—I mean, it is their home; they are probably the one who made the complaint that led to environmental health officers or enforcement officers wanting to come round to have a look at it—but why on earth do we give the landlord that 24 hours’ notice? Indeed, we know already from what enforcement officers tell us that, where there is a requirement to tip off landlords, it allows criminal landlords to take lawful countermeasures. These include things such as forcibly removing tenants from an overcrowded property, pressuring tenants not to let enforcement officers into their home or taking retaliatory action, which can dissuade tenants from pursuing complaints. They can also prompt them to withdraw complaints; indeed, there is every reason why a tenant may not want the landlord to know that they have made a complaint at this early stage of the process. Finally, I would urge that focusing the notice requirement on the occupier is consistent with equivalent enforcement legislation. For example, council enforcement officers’ powers of entry under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 include no requirement to give notice to a property’s owner. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle—I see that she has just left us—I am not a night owl: should it get to midnight and I am still here, these fine ecclesiastical robes will, like Cinderella’s dress, turn to rags. I trust that we can have an effective but brief debate on what is, I think, a simple and clear proposal. I hope that the Minister will agree that this is a timely and sensible amendment. I beg to move.

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for this amendment on powers of entry into properties. Of course, there is a fine line here: we are trying to balance landlords’ rights to know what is going on in their properties, especially regarding enforcement, with the rights of the occupiers of the property to be informed when powers of entry are being exercised by enforcement authorities. The amendment would remove the current requirement for a notice to be provided to both the owner and the occupier of the property before the authority can exercise any power of entry under Section 239 of the Housing Act 2004. This would mean landlords not having to be told that their property is going to be entered for survey or examination. I would argue that the owner of the property should have the right to be informed both that their property will be investigated by enforcement authorities and that the authority will exercise its power of entry into the property. This is the case as things stand now, and I believe that that is how it should remain.

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for his Amendment 260 and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her comments. This amendment to Section 239 of the Housing Act 2004 seeks to enable local authorities to inspect PRS properties without the need to give 24 hours’ notice to property owners where the property is occupied, while retaining the notice requirement for tenants. Section 239 currently requires local authorities to provide 24 hours’ notice to owners—if known—and occupiers before an inspection can take place. We are aware that the current requirement to provide property owners with 24 hours’ notice enables some unscrupulous landlords to hide evidence of breaches of PRS legislation, intimidate tenants and obstruct inspections. We recognise that the current notice requirement may, in some circumstances, hinder local authorities’ ability to address tenants’ unsafe or hazardous living conditions effectively. While we are supportive of any efforts to improve local authorities’ ability to enforce against rogue landlords and appreciate that this amendment is in support of that objective, we must carefully consider its implications. We will continue to have conversations with the right reverend Prelate and with stakeholders, and we welcome noble Lords sharing their views on this matter so that the Government can take them into consideration. For these reasons, I ask the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester to consider withdrawing his amendment.

23:15:00

My Lords, this has been exactly the brief debate that I was hoping for on this matter. I am very grateful to all noble Lords for exercising restraint. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for her response, and I look forward to continuing those conversations. We have time before the Bill is finalised to get this right, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 260 withdrawn.

Clause 135 agreed.

Clause 136 agreed.

Amendments 261 and 262 not moved.

Amendment 263

Moved by

263: After Clause 136, insert the following new Clause— “Review on impacts of the Act on private rented sector(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the impact of this Act on the private rented sector.(2) The review must, in particular, assess the impact of the Act on—(a) the supply of housing in the private rented sector,(b) rent levels and affordability,(c) the security of tenure for tenants,(d) the regulatory and financial burden on landlords, and(e) any other factors the Secretary of State considers relevant. (3) In conducting the review, the Secretary of State must consult—(a) representatives of tenants and landlords,(b) local housing authorities, and(c) any other persons or bodies the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(4) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the review before Parliament no later than two years after the day on which this Act is passed.(5) The report must include—(a) the findings of the review, and(b) any recommendations for legislative or policy changes the Secretary of State considers necessary.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment requires the Secretary of State to review and report on the impact of the Act on the private rented sector, including housing supply, rent levels, tenant security, and regulatory burdens, within two years of its enactment.

My Lords, Amendment 263 is in my name, and was kindly signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon. My noble friends Lady Janke and Lady Grender will speak to their own amendments in this group, and we will all aim to be brief due to the lateness of the hour. All through every day of this Committee, there has been a series of common threads, regardless of the groupings. One such thread is the uncertainty of the impact on the supply of homes to the private rented sector. We have had claims and counterclaims, but the reality is that no one knows exactly what will happen yet, because this is a genuinely radical Bill. A sub-theme, if I may call it that, has been the plea throughout the Bill’s passage for various aspects of it to be reviewed. My amendment tries to pull these concerns together and seeks to provide an honest, full and all-embracing review to be presented to Parliament no later than two years after the passing of the Act. Two years seemed like a long enough time to gather data and see trends, but not too long to make changes, if it were apparent that changes needed to be made. The proposals in the Bill are so far-reaching, the legalities complex and the regulations as yet largely unknown and awaiting guidance or agreement through secondary legislation. But the impact of them could, we hope, be extremely positive and change the rental market for the better—or it could be a total disaster. We have certainly had plenty of hyperbole and tub-thumping rhetoric to that effect. Maybe it will simply be somewhere in between: the curate’s egg. This amendment tries to cover all the important key indicators. As the explanatory statement says, it “requires the Secretary of State to review and report on the impact of the Act on the private rented sector, including housing supply, rent levels, tenant security, and regulatory burdens, within two years” of the Bill’s enactment. It also helpfully suggests who might be consulted upon, but—also helpfully—it includes the option for whomsoever is deemed appropriate by the Secretary of State. I do not think it would be helpful at this time of night to expand on why each of these things is extremely important, but we know that they are, and that is why they are listed in the amendment. For that reason, we would like to see this, or something very similar, on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

My Lords, having been extremely brief on everything, I beg noble Lords’ indulgence on this issue, which is extremely important. I sincerely hope we make a bit of progress on it. I want to thank the Renter’s Reform Coalition for their very hard work on this amendment, indeed, on the whole of the Bill. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, who strongly supports this amendment but is unable to be here tonight. While this was debated on Report in the House of Commons in terms of its drafting, the original proposal was ruled out as not in scope of the legislation. Therefore, this is a new draft to reframe it as a review of the impact of the Bill on rents. The amendment has been redrafted in response to that feedback. To be clear, according to the Renter’s Reform Coalition, the likely projection of increase in rents as a direct result of the Bill is limited to the net core cost to landlords of £12 per home per year or 0.1% of mean annual rents. I will explain why rents continue to be a problem in spite of whatever the impact of the Bill is likely to be according to the coalition. This amendment proposes that the Secretary of State must within 18 months of passing the Bill establish a body to report on the impact of the Act on rent levels in the private rented sector. A report published under this proposed new clause would include an analysis of any changes in average rent levels, an overview of the historic affordability of properties and consideration of proposals for improving the affordability of properties. The report should also include characteristics such as age, income and employment status. Some of the context will be very clear to noble Lords. Private tenants have the highest weekly housing costs of any housing tenure, with lowest income tenants in particular often spending huge proportions of their income on rent. On average, renters spend 34% of their household income on housing, compared to 19% for mortgagors and 26% for social renters, and high rents hit poorer tenants hardest. One in three private renters spends at least half of their monthly household income on rent alone. Nearly 30% of private renters struggled to pay their rent in 2022. England’s rent burden as a share of disposable income is among the highest in Europe. An analysis from Generation Rent has shown that not a single borough of inner London is affordable for roles across education, healthcare, social care, construction, retail, commerce and hospitality. Recent data released by Zoopla shows that renting a new home is on average £270 per month more expensive than in 2021, meaning that rents have increased by more than £3,000 annually in just three years. An increase in housing affordability would enhance the Government’s objective of driving growth. New research from the Mayor of London, London Councils, Trust for London and G15 shows that a 1% increase in housing affordability in this city could yield a boost of £7.3 billion in economic output over a decade. This research clearly showed that worsening housing affordability has a negative impact on productivity. We welcome the fact that the Government are ending the bidding wars, but without also including something that acknowledges the issue of rent—and this is a very small version and modest in terms of what it does to the Bill—rents will remain too high across the board, and there will be no measures within the Bill to tackle that issue, or the current measures will be limited. The amendment stipulates that any report made would need to include proposals for improving the affordability of rent levels in the private rented sector, but it does not prescribe what those policies should be. A report of this nature is an invaluable opportunity to consider the factors that make renting increasingly unaffordable and measures to address these factors in the round. Undertaking this thorough assessment of this complicated issue will take time, given the various intersecting factors that are contributing to the unaffordable nature of renting. The report could consider: supply and demand in the private rented sector; the role and long-term future of the local housing allowance; the shortage of social housing; the effects of various kinds of rent control and stabilisation measures in comparator nations; an assessment of the potential impact of introducing any kind of rent measures—our preference would be for rent smoothing, as we have discussed several times, not rent controls; any impact on rent prices since the passing of the Act; and other relevant factors. In other words, this is not about being prescriptive but about studying all the impacts on rent. The impact report proposed in this amendment would provide an ongoing mechanism for acknowledging the scale of the affordability crisis. It would provide an opportunity for the Government thoroughly to assess the available evidence on unaffordability in England. This amendment, as I have said, would not commit the Government to any one policy or approach but aims to gather evidence, data and information in a way that we do not believe is currently sufficiently gathered, and neither does the Renters’ Reform Coalition. It is also an opportunity for the Minister to commit publicly to further considering how to bring rents down in relation to incomes. I will draw my remarks to a conclusion, but this amendment is simply seeking to strengthen what the Government are already trying to do to improve the private rented sector. Without this piece, there is something very substantial missing. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

My Lords, my Amendment 273 would require, within 12 months of implementation, a report on the impact of the Bill on BME and ethnic groups. I thank Race on the Agenda and Shelter for their briefings. The private rented sector has the highest number of ethnic minorities relative to other tenures—23% compared with 19% among social renters, and 8% among owner-occupiers—yet black renters are disproportionately faced with barriers that prevent them securing a home in the sector compared with white renters. Generation Rent’s 2024 survey of private renters around the UK revealed that minority-ethnic renters were significantly more likely to face obstacles in accessing new tenancies. Racial minority respondents were almost twice as likely to have been refused a tenancy when they attempted to move home, with 12.5% reporting this experience compared with 6.3% of white British or Irish renters. Some 7% of England’s population are BME, yet in June 2024 20% of homeless households were BME; 8% of households living in poor conditions were BME compared with 3.5% identified as white households. It is well-documented that black and minoritised groups experience both income and wealth inequality. This makes it much more difficult for these groups to cushion the shocks of rent increases or large deposits, pushing them deeper into problem debt with the associated mental health difficulties that that brings. Measures in the Bill, such as banning discrimination against people on benefits and families with children, should help reduce discrimination against BME groups, as will the ending of the bidding up of rents and the constraints on upfront payments. These are also positive measures. I will end with a comment from Race on the Agenda. “We note that although some provisions are made in the Bill to address housing discrimination in general terms, there is a problem as the Bill has not conducted a full racial impact assessment and does not sufficiently include robust measures to tackle racial discrimination in housing and homelessness”. I hope that, in the light of this, the Minister will embrace the need for the review set out in this amendment.

23:30:00

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for opening this group and introducing her Amendment 263. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review and report on the impact of the Act on the private rented sector, including housing supply, rent levels, tenant security and regulatory burdens, within two years of its enactment. We on these Benches do not support reviews for the sake of reviewing. They often consume time and public funds, and require precise delivery in order to answer the questions they set out to answer. However, this legislation poses a significant risk to the market. Noble Lords from across the Committee agree that we must protect tenants and ensure they have access to secure, stable and decent housing at a fair price. We have been clear this Bill does not deliver that. The Government must review the efficacy of the Bill and be held accountable for the decisions they have taken and insisted on. To achieve this, we need a functioning market with an adequate supply of good-quality homes to meet a growing demand. Ensuring the availability of homes is key to making accommodation attainable and keeping rents affordable. Any legislation in this area must strike a difficult but essential balance between these competing interests. Only by getting that balance right can we hope to achieve an efficient and effective rental market. We, along with the many stakeholders we have consulted, believe that a review is necessary and that it should be brought before Parliament. I am keen to know whether the Government are giving the amendments in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Janke, serious consideration. Can the Minister say how the success of this Bill will be judged? What does success look like in the eyes of the Government? In our view, the fear and uncertainty surrounding this Bill is already having a negative impact. On the first day in Committee, I quoted figures from Savills and I will underline them once more. According to Savills, the number of rental properties available on their books in quarter 1 of 2025 is down 42% compared with the same period in 2024. That is 42% fewer homes for families, and 42% less choice for people searching for somewhere to live. If the Government are confident in the positive impact of this Bill, what reason does the Minister have for not reviewing its effects on the housing market, specifically its impact on the availability of rental homes, rent levels, house prices and the demand for social housing? If the Bill were to have a damaging effect on the rental market, surely Ministers would want to know. Getting this balance right is paramount. It is the difference between a functioning, accessible rental market and one that is suffocated. It is the difference between tenants being able to find a secure and affordable home, and landlords leaving the sector altogether. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill, Lady Grender and Lady Janke, for their amendments, which propose several different types of reviews to the future Act, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her comments. I have to ask why we do not have a functioning effective rental market—we were not in government over the past 14 years. Amendment 263, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would introduce a legal requirement for the Government to carry out a review of the Bill’s impact on the private rented sector. This review would be conducted, and subsequently reported to Parliament, within two years following the Bill’s receipt of Royal Assent. In particular, it would require the review to consider the Bill’s impact on supply, rent levels, security of tenure and the burdens on landlords. It also prescribes that the Government must consult with representatives of landlords, tenants and local authorities during the preparation of such a review. I know the Committee shares my interest in the practical impact that this legislation will have on the private rented sector. I reassure the Committee that this interest is at the heart of the Government’s commitment to monitor and evaluate robustly the impact of our reforms. Our approach will build on the department’s existing monitoring of the housing sector. Our process, impact and value for money evaluation will be conducted in line with the department’s published evaluation strategy. Our monitoring work will make use of a range of data, including the results of the English Housing Survey, data from relevant stakeholders, including local authorities, and data generated from the reforms themselves. We will also deliver an evaluation involving extensive data collection through interviews, surveys and focus groups. These will be conducted with a range of stakeholders, such as tenants, landlords, letting agents, third sector organisations, delivery partners, the courts service and government officials. Monitoring data from existing surveys and new data produced by the reforms will supplement these findings. I can also reassure the Committee that the conclusions of our evaluation will be published in a timely manner, in line with our broader policy on the publication of research. This includes an interim evaluation report on the processes, early impacts and intermediate outcomes, which we will produce in the early years after implementation. I hope this gives the Committee confidence that the Government’s proposed approach to monitoring and evaluation is the right one. Setting an arbitrary deadline for this process, as the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would do, we believe represents an unnecessary step. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. Amendment 270, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, would mandate that the Secretary of State carry out a review of rent affordability in England, with a report to be laid before Parliament within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. This amendment would require this review to be wide-ranging, encompassing the affordability of rents across both the private and social sectors, the impact on tenants, and regional differences. It would also require specific assessment of the effectiveness of measures to control excessive rent increases and the uptake and outcome of the tribunal. As I already noted, the Government are committed to very robust monitoring and evaluation of the private rented sector reform programme. We will also continue to monitor trends across the industry as a whole, using a range of data sources, which include the Valuation Office Agency rental prices data, the Office for National Statistics rental price index, and data from the English Housing Survey and the English Private Landlord Survey. This will enable us to respond to unexpected impacts or unwelcome outcomes and initiate appropriate changes where these are needed. Finally, Amendment 273, from the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, would introduce a legal requirement for the Government to produce a report on the impact of the Bill once it is an Act on different racial and ethnic groups in the private rented sector. I have already outlined at length our broader plans for assessing the impacts of the Bill. Regarding specific impacts on racial and ethnic groups in the sector, the department follows the Ethnic Group, National Identity and Religion guidance published by the Office for National Statistics. Ethnicity statistics are regularly collected and published by the department about tenants and landlords to understand the demography of the private rented sector through the English Housing Survey and the English Private Landlord Survey. This data supports our continued compliance with the requirements of the public sector equality duty and wider government responsibility by contributing to the race disparity audit. It is also worth stressing that, in keeping with the public sector equality duty, once the Bill is an Act, Ministers will continue to have due regard to the equality impact of decisions on groups by reference to relevant protected characteristics. This includes the protected characteristic of race.

I understand the collection of the data, which I think is excellent so that we know what is going on, but how is that going to be scrutinised by Parliament? Will that come in a report? If it is, when will that first report come to Parliament for scrutiny?

I will write to noble Lords confirming the policy on publication of research. I think it is a matter of publication and then for Members to call it forward if they wish to scrutinise it further.

I thank the Minister for that. I am glaring at the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, because she filched one of the things I was going to say, but she is absolutely right—great minds think alike. Although we are coming at the Bill from completely different positions, we are agreed on this issue. Her summary of my Amendment 263 actually said it all as to why we feel we need something in the Bill. If the Government are confident about the way they will monitor and evaluate, why not put something in the Bill? As for an arbitrary date, surely, after two years—bearing in mind that you can come back whenever you like within that period—you will have some indication of the trend. That is what is bothering us: the uncertainty and radical nature of the Bill, which we hope will be successful. We reserve our right to come back to this issue, but for now I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 263 withdrawn.

Amendments 264 to 271 not moved.

Amendment 272 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendments 273 to 275A not moved.

My Lords, it is now 11.41 pm. We have made good progress scrutinising the Bill this evening, having completed 13 groups of amendments. We have three groups remaining. Given the hour, and as agreed by the usual channels, I will now resume the House, and we will return to complete the remaining three groups after Second Reading of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill tomorrow. I am grateful to all the staff of the House who have stayed so late to support us tonight, and on Monday. I particularly want to thank the staff in the Public Bill Office for their work to facilitate proceedings. I greatly appreciate all the work they have done, along with that of the other staff of the House, including the clerks, doorkeepers, attendants, catering staff and Hansard reporters. I look forward to completing Committee on this important Bill.

House resumed.