Renters’ Rights Bill

Committee (2nd Day) (Continued)

15:20:00

Amendment 24

Moved by

24: Clause 4, page 5, line 22, at end insert— “(5ZB) The court may not make an order for possession of a dwelling-house on Ground 6B (whether or not an order is also sought on any other ground) where the landlord has not complied with section 11A of this Act.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment would make possession under ground 6B contingent on compensation being paid, rather than compensation being dependent on court proceedings.

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Property Ombudsman, TPO, for the private rented sector. I have two amendments in this group, Amendments 24 and 30. Both relate to repossession under ground 6B. Their intention is to make possession on that ground contingent on compensation being paid, rather than being dependent on court proceedings. I am grateful for the very helpful briefing on this matter to the National Renters Alliance and specifically to Safer Renting, a renter advocacy service operated by the social action charity Cambridge House. Ground 6B provides landlords with a route to vacant possession, evicting the renter in the process, to give the landlord the possibility of avoiding a range of sanctions that could be imposed or taken by a local authority when breaches have occurred. As I understand it, the purpose is to protect renters from poor landlord practice—for example, poor housing conditions—while enabling landlords to comply with enforcement action. However, it gives the non-compliant landlord grounds for possession of the property in cases where renter wrongdoing may not have occurred, yet resulting in potential homelessness for the renter. An amendment was made to the Bill in another place to give the court the option of ordering the landlord to pay to the tenant such sum as appears sufficient as compensation for damage or loss sustained by that tenant as a result of the order for possession. This is a welcome addition to the Bill. The intention of that amendment is to compensate the renter appropriately for the damages of possession. However, Safer Renting, whose staff are experts in supporting renters to access redress, believes that the mechanism for doing so via a court order has significant complications. Under the current proposal, any compensation ordered by the court may not be paid to the renter before their eviction. If compensation is not paid before the eviction, renters may be left to foot the bill for any relocation or legal expenses out of their own pockets. This is wholly inappropriate and leaves the renter in an extremely perilous position. It is surely contrary to natural justice. Ground 6B would mean that the renter is evicted from their home, forced into finding alternative accommodation—potentially at a higher rate—or faces homelessness. The renter is burdened by the highly stressful situation of having to find a new private tenancy. The renter is likely to be forced to pay for a new deposit in the intermediary period before the possession and the compensation payment, which they may not be able to afford. The renter’s housing move-on is at the mercy of the court system for their compensation—a court system with extreme backlogs and under extreme pressure. This is likely to cause a prolonged period of uncertainty and stress. The renter must find legal representation, potentially at prohibitively high costs, and is expected to take on the additional burden of pursuing an unscrupulous landlord for unpaid compensation. By making the possession contingent on compensation paid up front, the renter does not suffer these consequences and is fairly compensated for any stress and burden experienced. There are further considerations if a renter is evicted. Renters in priority need must be placed in temporary accommodation and rehoused by the council, at substantial cost to the individual local authority and the public purse. This is further complicated by the prospect that a mandatory ground for eviction could financially disincentivise councils from pursuing the necessary enforcement action against the non-compliant landlord, contradicting the local authorities’ enforcement strategy as the costs of rehousing are passed on to the local authority. This is during a period in which local authorities are spending £2.3 billion on temporary accommodation housing more than 120,000 households, and many councils are in severe financial trouble. In addition, with deposits now averaging around £1,218, the cost of a new deposit is potentially a major prohibitor to finding new accommodation quickly. Should the landlord fail to return the renter’s deposit on their vacating the property, the renter would be expected to find an additional cash sum likely to be over £1,000. This is highly prohibitive for most renters and leaves them either in potentially dire financial straits or unable to afford access to a new home. A recent survey by the property company Reposit showed that, of 1,000 renters surveyed, nearly half—48%—had to borrow money to afford a deposit. By ensuring that compensation for possession is paid prior to the possession order, renters will be able to move properties more seamlessly and not face potentially prohibitive financial burdens or barriers. As the Bill is currently presented, for the renter to access compensation they must rely on the landlord, who has already broken the law, to comply with the court order to pay compensation. There is no guarantee that any compensation ordered by the court will be paid to the renter. In this event, the renter must take the landlord to court. The courts, as I have said, are currently under record backlogs, with most recent data suggesting that the wait time for a small claims hearing is 54 weeks—more than a year. This is an egregious length of time to wait to receive the necessary and appropriate compensation for a vacant possession through a landlord’s non-compliance. Legal representation is also a major financial barrier that may prevent renters from attempting to claim compensation. Vacant possessions are typically ordered on poor-quality housing where the rent is lower; therefore, the income of the renter is also likely to be lower. It is logical to assume that the majority of renters who receive a possession order will not have the funds to support a legal claim against the landlord for the compensation that they are due. This would be a significant injustice; I hope it can be prevented. Although some renters would be able to access legal aid funding, the majority and an increasing proportion would not. Legal aid cuts have resulted in 34% fewer legal aid funded possessions proceedings since the introduction of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012—according to analysis from Safer Renting. Furthermore, compensation is not always paid by criminal landlords, even following a court order, as Safer Renting has witnessed in a high number of cases. Safer Renting’s data reveals that, in instances where award for a rent repayment order has been given against a landlord, with the proper status and assets, only 40% of landlords have complied with the order to pay the renter. When the order has been made against an intermediary landlord, compliance with the order drops even further to just 5%. This is contrary to natural justice and the intentions of Parliament in bringing forward the Bill. I hope my noble friend the Minister will consider how, without compensation paid prior to the possession of the home, renters—particularly those on low or no income—will find the necessary funds to pay for a deposit on a new home while they await a court order. What estimate do the Government make of the additional costs that local authorities in England will incur in cases where priority-need renters are evicted from their homes and placed into temporary accommodation? Will legal aid be made available to renters to enforce compensation orders made by the court under the existing provision for representation in relation to possession proceedings? If so, what is the Government’s calculation of how much extra this will cost? Finally, can the Minister say whether there is an appropriate timeframe for a renter to receive compensation following their eviction? I hope I have shown that my amendments would deliver a fairer and more just outcome for the renter, where the landlord has acted unscrupulously or without compliance. I beg to move.

15:30:00

My Lords, we welcome the Government’s commitment to rebalancing the relationship between landlords and tenants, and the abolition of Section 21, but we must ensure that the protections afforded to tenants are as robust as possible if the Bill is truly to deliver for the people who find themselves on the front line of this housing crisis. The Bill introduces new mandatory eviction grounds. Although we understand that the intention is to provide clear routes for landlords to regain property, making grounds mandatory removes the courts’ vital ability to act as a backstop and consider the individual circumstances of the tenant. It is important to test this issue in Committee, which is why we tabled Amendment 31. Although most repossessions will be able to proceed without a hitch under the new Act, ensuring that exceptional cases have a discretionary element is critical—a discretionary element that the Labour Front Bench argued for with some vigour in the previous Parliament. Indeed, the Renters’ Reform Coalition argue that the lack of discretion is one of the most significant shortcomings in the Bill. The Renters’ Reform Coalition comprises some of the leading charities that work tirelessly on the issues of tenancy, homelessness and housing, including Shelter, which I used to work for. I thank the coalition for its work on this amendment and its support on this issue. It is not difficult to imagine situations where compelling reasons for refusing immediate possession should exist. For instance, a tenant or a member of their family may have a serious terminal illness such as cancer, with a very limited life expectancy, a severe disability, or caring responsibilities for a disabled person, meaning they will necessarily need a longer period to find the most suitable accommodation. In the previous Parliament, the shadow Housing Minister, Matthew Pennycook, provided us with a useful hypothetical example, in which a terminally ill cancer patient could be evicted and at risk of homelessness because the landlord wishes to sell—a landlord, in this hypothetical scenario, with a portfolio of, say, eight houses and no compelling need to sell. In that scenario, he argued, a judge should have discretion. Mandatory grounds, such as grounds 2ZB and 2ZC, which cover possession when a superior lease ends, prevent the court taking these profoundly human factors into account. Making all grounds discretionary would offer a vital layer of protection. It would allow the courts the potential to act as a backstop, consider all factors and potentially propose alternative courses of action to avoid a damaging eviction. Obviously, some will argue that this cannot be done on the grounds of backlogs in the courts. Reforms in Scotland, where grounds for possession were made discretionary in October 2022, have shown little evidence of significantly worsening court backlogs. Indeed, if backlogs in courts, or in any institution right now, were applied to every piece of legislation that comes before us as a rationale for not proceeding or making a decision, we would be very hampered indeed as a legislative body. We all know that the reality and likelihood of tenants taking up this course of action, just like the First-tier Tribunal, will be minimal, but the existence of the discretionary approach would ensure that an all-important safety net is in place for the worst possible cases. This amendment would remove “must” and insert “may” in the relevant heading of part 1 of Schedule 1, and omit the heading of part 2. This would provide the courts with the flexibility needed to consider the specific context of each case. I understand that the Housing Minister, Matthew Pennycook, in the House of Commons has countered that this is “a step too far” and would remove “certainty” for landlords, but we disagree—or rather, we agree with his original arguments, which are no different from mine today. Should the Government remain resistant to making all grounds fully discretionary, can we please explore, between now and Report, robust mechanisms to prevent evictions that would cause severe hardship? As a fallback position, we advocate strongly for the introduction of a mandatory hardship test that courts must apply when considering possession orders under any mandatory grounds. This test would require the court to explicitly weigh the potential severity of the hardship caused to the tenant, considering factors such as health, disability, how many children there are, access to alternative accommodation and the impact on the ability to maintain employment or education, against the landlord’s stated reason for seeking possession. This hardship test would ensure that the most vulnerable tenants are not rendered homeless or forced into the inadequate temporary accommodation that we have heard described by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, simply because a mandatory ground is technically met without consideration of the dire circumstances in which the tenant finds themselves. It would provide a necessary safety net, ensuring that, while good landlords could regain their property for legitimate reasons, the system does not blindly facilitate deeply unfair and harmful evictions. We must listen to the voices of those who live with the constant fear of losing their home. We owe it to future generations to get this bit right. This amendment would strengthen the Bill to ensure that security, fairness and compassion are at its heart by making grounds discretionary—or, at the very least, by introducing a mandatory hardship test.

My Lords, my Amendments 35 and 71 both aim to help people who rent. I declare an interest as someone who rents a two-bedroom flat. I have tabled Amendment 35 because I am worried that the Government’s good policy will actually end up penalising the very people that it is aiming to help. I hope the Minister will go away from here thinking, “The Green Party had quite a good idea on that, and how nice it is to have them on our side for once”. The Government are doing the right thing for the climate and for people in putting in higher energy efficiency standards—that is a given—and doing the right thing for landlords with grants to help them meet those standards. However, the only people who do not get a guaranteed better life are the poor tenants who have to put up with the work, dust, noise and inconvenience of the energy improvements being done, with the possibility that their rent will be going up as their energy costs go down. Amendment 35 is an attempt to give tenants a guarantee that they will also get some direct benefit from the drive for net zero with two years of lower energy bills, without that saving being cancelled out by a landlord focusing on profiting from a government grant. I think this is a sensible amendment and I hope it will find favour with the Minister. Amendment 71 aims to shift the debate firmly on to the needs of the tenant and to discourage landlords from constantly changing their minds about letting out their properties. It builds on the Government’s welcome attempt to get rid of no-fault evictions by adding a new clause to the eviction process that gives the tenant a one-month financial head start. With all the costs involved with moving—the deposit and moving costs—it can be a long, drawn-out process, and, for many tenants who are self-employed or on zero-hours contracts, time is literally money and moving is a time-consuming business. I hope that passing this legislation will create a new era of stability for those in the private rental market. A whole generation of young people has had to suffer from an overheated rental market, which was firmly loaded in favour of investors and those with the money to buy properties. This legislation does not actually solve that problem, because only the Government building hundreds of thousands of social homes could probably do that, but I welcome the start the Bill is making and I hope the Minister will consider the needs of tenants even more in this way.

My Lords, I rather like the look of Amendments 26 and 27 from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and look forward to hearing her describe them. They also relate to my Amendment 142, which I will now speak to. The Bill restricts a landlord to four instances where they can recover their property and require a tenant to leave. One of these is if the landlord is selling the property. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that, where a landlord seeks to sell a property under the new ground 1A but fails to do so, the property is made available again on the rental market without unnecessary delay. The Bill requires that the property is on the market for sale for at least 12 months before, if no sale is forthcoming, it can be re-let. Market statistics show that typically about 20% of rental properties taken off the rental market do not sell and come back to the rental market. Savills puts the figure higher, at 33%. According to Hamptons, on average properties come back as available to rent after about 90 days, or three months. Where properties do sell, Zoopla figures indicate that the period between first marketing and completion is typically six months. This amendment responds to these facts and reduces to six months the period when the property is required to be unavailable to rent. I move from the market facts to the Government’s approach. I am very grateful to the Minister for the opportunity that we had to discuss this and the understanding I obtained of the Government’s thinking. I understand that the Government’s concern is that landlords seeking to increase the rent might claim the property is on the market as a means to obtain vacant possession, apparently expecting much higher rent thereafter. They would leave it standing empty for, say, six months with no rental income, and then re-let it not just at a higher rent but at one that would both recover the rent lost in that six-month period and obtain a higher ongoing rent. The assertion is that making the required period 12 months would make such assumed motivation and behaviour unworkable economically. I have struggled without success to find a period as long as 12 months credible for this purpose. So I ask the Minister: if the current rent on a property is for some reason set below the market rate, would it not be possible for the landlord simply to seek an increase to the market level in the normal way, rather than going through the convoluted processes and expense involved in removing the tenant, putting the property on the market and then re-letting it? If the rent is close to the market rate, it is surely unrealistic to expect that a landlord would be able to leave the property empty for six months, with ongoing costs but full loss of income, and then rent it out again at an uncompetitive rate, well above the market rate, in order, as the Government’s thinking seems to be, to recover six months of losses and then settle at what would be, I repeat, by definition, an uncompetitively high rent. I just do not see how that would have a chance of working. To give a quick numerical example, a landlord receiving £2,500 a month in rent who puts the property on the market and receives no rent for just six months would, after leaving aside any other costs incurred in departing the tenant and marketing the property, lose at least £15,000 of rental income. To recover this over the subsequent six months and raise a base rental amount to, say, £3,000 per month compared with the £2,500, which for our evil, rapacious landlord is a pretty modest increase of £500, would mean seeking to rent out the property at £5,500 a month—a 220% rent increase over just a six-month period. If Mr Rapacious wanted to recover his losses faster, say in one quarter—three months—the rent would have to go up to £8,000 a month, a 320% increase in rent over just six months. I must therefore say to the Minister that just six months off the market is easily more than enough to make evicting a tenant simply to achieve a rent increase a highly implausible strategy. Requiring it to be off the market for a full 12 months is not only unnecessary but a distorted intervention that simply reduces the availability of rental accommodation. Finally, I draw to noble Lords’ attention the two provisions included in the amendment. First, the property would have to have been demonstrably available to purchase on the open market at a fair market price with no suitable offers received and, importantly, the tenant and the courts could require evidence of these points and would be able to decide whether the landlord had made genuine attempts to sell. Amendments 26 and 27, which are coming up shortly, I believe, are also very helpful in this area.

15:45:00

Secondly, the landlord wanting to re-let would have to offer the property back to the previous tenant on the same terms and at the same rent. I accept that a tenant might likely have found an alternative or temporary accommodation in the meantime, but this requirement is nevertheless a further disincentive for any landlords to seek to play the system. It would also make largely impossible the rent escalation tactics the Government are anxious about.

In conclusion, I understand and sympathise with the Government’s wish to prevent abuse of the ability of a landlord to ask a tenant to leave. However, not only does the data suggest that 12 months is unnecessarily long for these properties to be held as unavailable for tenants to rent, but the market economics indicate that a landlord would simply find their property unrentable at the well above market rates necessary to achieve the possible abuse the Government are anxious about. If a property is really being rented out below market rates, the landlord would be within their rights simply to seek a rent increase.

Requiring properties to stand empty for 12 months is a punitive and unnecessary intervention in both the residential sales and rental markets. It also incurs a number of other risks, including crime, and will further contract the supply of properties in what is already a very undersupplied sector. Making the period six months would easily achieve the Government’s objective, as I hope I have demonstrated, and be less distortive and destructive of the residential lettings and sales markets. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

My Lords, I declare my interest as a landlord of a residential property. I will speak to Amendments 60 and 61 in this group. I am grateful to the National Residential Landlords Association for very helpful discussions. These amendments would benefit both tenants and landlords. The first amendment would keep the threshold for mandatory repossession by landlords at two months of rent arrears, rather than increasing it to three months, as proposed in the Bill. The second would continue to permit rent arrears arising from non-payment of universal credit to be taken into account as a ground for repossession. One might think that my motivation behind these amendments is purely to support landlords but, as I said at Second Reading, I am keen to support tenants as much as landlords in improving the current system, since they are two sides of the same coin, and one cannot exist without the other. This is a golden thread running through this entire Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said on the first day of Committee, there must be “balance” in the Bill. Any weighting of the scales in favour of one—while it might be well motivated—risks being counterproductive and detrimental to both. This is amply demonstrated by the Bill proposing to increase the threshold for rent arrears to three months before enforcement action can be taken. Tenants in arrears will struggle to recover financially, making it harder for them to access housing in the future. The arrears are likely to mount up well beyond the three-month threshold. For example, if one adds on the one-month notice period, plus the average seven months for a court to process a Section 8 possession application, the tenant could end up having to leave the property with nearly 12 months’ arrears. Is that really a good outcome for tenants? In addition, responsible landlords will become more risk averse, prioritising tenants who can clearly prove their ability to sustain a tenancy in the long term. This will be particularly damaging for vulnerable tenants, including those in receipt of local housing allowance, especially as support for housing costs has been frozen from April this year. Moreover, allowing rent arrears to climb to three months before enforcement action can be taken risks intimidating good landlords into leaving the sector. A landlord is not a charity, and some depend entirely on the rent to pay mortgages or for their daily living costs. If good landlords are intimidated into selling up because it is too difficult to enforce rent arrears, tenants will very often have nowhere to live. According to Savills, up to 1 million more homes for private rent will be needed by 2031 to meet growing demand. We must keep good landlords in the sector to avoid making tenants homeless. Again, these are two sides of the same coin, and one cannot exist without the other. My first amendment would keep the threshold for enforcement action at two months’ rent arrears. I accept that, if we are going to keep the existing threshold, landlords should be required to do more to help their tenants. For example, there could be a duty on landlords, at the first sign of arrears, to seek meaningful engagement with the tenant to prevent further debt, and to show in any subsequent possession proceedings that they had done that, or at least tried to do that. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the National Residential Landlords Association produced some very highly regarded golden rules showing how this and other types of landlord-tenant engagement could work; for example, by the landlord pointing the tenant to a relevant advisory service, such as Citizens Advice and/or the debt charity StepChange. Such measures would improve the status quo while avoiding the damaging effects of moving to a three-month arrears threshold. I turn to my second amendment. It makes no sense whatever to disregard for enforcement purposes rent arrears arising from the fact that the tenant has not received an award of universal credit under Part 1 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012. This is for two reasons. First, it is unjustifiable to penalise landlords for non-payment of universal credit to the tenant. Why should the landlord suffer if the non-payment of universal credit is the fault of the tenant, or if the universal credit system has broken down in some way? Secondly, unlike in the social sector, private landlords are not allowed to know, under GDPR rules, whether a tenant is in receipt of universal credit. As such, they have no idea whether rent arrears are due to a non-payment of universal credit, especially if a tenant has multiple sources of income. Disregarding non-payment of universal credit is therefore wholly unworkable since, if the landlord does not know whether rent arrears are due to non-payment of universal credit, the Bill has the effect that they may try to take enforcement action that proves to be pointless, which is surely the last thing that this new system needs. The upshot is that landlords will be more cautious about taking on tenants on universal credit, contrary to the commendable ethos of the Bill as a whole. I ask the Minister to consider these amendments very carefully and to bear in mind the need for balance and my suggested mitigations so as to keep the status quo, having regard to the need for real evenness of handling on both sides of the landlord/tenant coin.

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 60 of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, and will speak to my Amendments 165 and 166. But, before I do, I have two apologies to give to the House. The first apology relates to my failure to speak at Second Reading, although I did speak at the Second Reading of the last Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill. The reason I was unable to speak at Second Reading is that I was, unfortunately, in and out of St Thomas’ Hospital, which looked after me very well, but I was unable to come to the House at the time of the Second Reading of the Bill. My second apology is for my absence on Tuesday of this week, the first day of Committee on the Bill. My wife had booked a short Easter holiday on the Isle of Wight, not expecting the House to be sitting immediately after Easter Monday. Rightly or wrongly, I took the favour of the family rather than the first day of Committee. I think my noble friend the Minister has forgiven me for this—at least I hope she has. Happily, however, my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, who sits behind me, agreed to be in the House for the first Committee day and to move any of my amendments should they be called. Even more happily, none was. I should declare interests which are recorded in the register. My wife and I are the landlords of five sets of tenants in one-bedroom flats in the house next door to our own. While we as landlords and our tenants will be subject to the new provisions contained in this Bill, there is nothing contentious relating to our five tenants—or to ourselves—that I will be raising during the passage of this Bill. Amendment 60, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, which I support, has been grouped among a variety of amendments relating to orders for possession. Most of them have little contact one with the other, but they are all grouped together in this same list. That certainly applies to my Amendments 165 and 166. I shall say a general word before I go on to the specific argument concerning these amendments. This Bill is, most rightly, directed to redress the balance between the landlord and the tenant in the private rented sector. This is very right, because since the Housing Act 1988, the balance has swung far too far towards the landlords—particularly rogue landlords—which has caused great distress to many innocent tenants. However, we must be sure now that we are getting the right balance between landlords and tenants. Yes, there are rogue landlords, but there are also rogue tenants. Originally, in Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1988, notices for possession for arrears of rent would not become effective until the rent was overdue for 13 weeks, relating to weekly or fortnightly rentals, or three months, relating to monthly rentals. This was altered in some subsequent legislation, and this Bill now seeks to go back to the provisions of the 1988 Act. What is the reason for this? I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could address it. What is the evidence that shorter periods of eight weeks and two months had been causing any problems? We need to look at the practical side. The maximum deposit that a landlord is now permitted to collect is calculated against five weeks of rent. The effect is that the landlord is covered for the first failure of paying rent but is not covered during the subsequent two months of non-paid rent. More than that, it will take up to two more months before the landlord is able to get a hearing in the county court for possession and unpaid rent. This means that the landlord will be without rent for at least four months. Even if the landlord succeeds in getting an order for possession and an order for the unpaid rent, the chances are that he will never get back the unpaid rent. The question that I put to the House, and indeed to my noble friend the Minister, is whether this is fair and balanced. I turn to Amendments 165 and 166, which are directed to the time in which the landlord is not permitted to put the property on the market when he has gained possession on the grounds of family need or other need specified in ground 1 or 1A of the Housing Act 1988. I adopt all that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said in his argument that this period under which the landlord is not permitted to put the property on the market—a period of 12 months—is quite excessive and quite wrong. I need not repeat the noble Lord’s arguments. The Minister was very kind to see many of us in meetings before Committee. I had the privilege of a meeting with her, at which she explained that there is an abuse by some rogue landlords in using the instrument to remove a tenant from the property, let us say, for members of his family or other persons as specified in ground 1A of the 1988 Act. She described the 12 months as a deterrent against this abuse—a means, so my noble friend said, for the rogue landlord to raise the rent. What about the genuine situation of a landlord getting possession of the accommodation, say on family grounds, to accommodate grandparents, and then one of the grandparents has a severe stroke which prevents both of them taking up the accommodation? Why should the landlord then be left with the property when he was genuinely seeking to accommodate members of his own family for 12 months? The question is: is it fair or right that the landlord is prevented for a whole year from letting out his property? That is a matter that I again address to my noble friend the Minister.

16:00:00

My Lords, I declare my direct interest in the private rented sector, with cottage lettings in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire, together with farming and agricultural lettings. I am also a member of the National Farmers’ Union and the Country Land and Business Association, which have a direct interest in Amendment 63, on which I shall speak and for which I am grateful for the support of the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, who sadly is not able to be here today. Before I turn to Amendment 63, I am also very pleased to be able to support Amendment 60 in the names of my noble friend Lord Carter of Haslemere and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. I certainly will not repeat everything that has been said, but I shall make just one further point: it is relevant to note that Paragon, a bank that specialises in the private rented sector, commissioned a survey of landlords on the proposals in the Bill and the result was that 71% of landlords put the extended time, from two months to three months, as their top concern. On Amendment 63, the Bill does not contain provisions to allow the repossession of a residential property if there is to be a change of usage. For example, if a landlord wanted to use the land for office space or commercial or retail usage, the amendment would allow them to seek possession of a dwelling house where it was intended that the use of that property, or the land on which it was situated, would be changed to non-residential and there was permission from the relevant authorities to do so. There are a number of Bills, reviews and reports in motion which cover farm diversification, which the Government are keen to encourage in the light of falling profitability in farming as subsidies are withdrawn or concentrated on environmental activities and concerns. Farmers are therefore looking carefully at their assets to see whether they can be put to more profitable usage. Obviously, this can involve the farmstead house and buildings rather than just stand-alone farm buildings. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is relevant in this context, together with the Rural England Prosperity Fund, which specifically targets facilities and building conversions that help rural businesses to diversify. In addition, we have the land use framework and a farming road map to look forward to, and it has also been announced that the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, will chair a report on profitability in farming and this will include diversification. This amendment assists in enabling this diversification, if the necessary planning permission has been granted. I am thoroughly aware that the Minister is keen not to reduce the housing stock. However, although it is possible that the proposed diversification will affect only agricultural buildings, there may be a more comprehensive development involving a farmhouse or other residential building, particularly if they are closely located to the diversification site. I therefore hope that the Minister will include this amendment as a sensible ground for possession, one which would assist in the development of the rural economy.

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Cromwell’s Amendment 142. I declare an interest in that my wife owns rental properties. I agree with what the noble Lord says about the mischief of Clause 15. It is very easy to imagine circumstances in which the owner of a property decides, in good faith, to sell it and the tenant therefore has to leave. The landlord then places the property for sale on the market but finds that, for whatever reason, after four or six months they cannot sell it. Clause 15 would prevent the landlord for 12 months from again leasing out the property. It would do so however well-intentioned the conduct of the owner of the property and however reasonable the new tenancy agreement, and even if the new lease is to the same tenant as the old one, on the same terms, including as to rent. I entirely understand the Government’s wish to prevent landlords from abusing their rights, but the breadth of this restriction is, to my mind, plainly disproportionate to the feared mischief. This is not only unfair on the landlord; it will inevitably have an adverse effect on the housing stock available for rental purposes. I appreciate that Ministers have stated that this Bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, but it seems to me very doubtful indeed that this clause complies with Article 1 of the first protocol to the convention, on the right to property. The European Court of Human Rights and our domestic courts have explained that the right to property requires a fair balance between the interests of property owners and those of the community in general. I cannot see how a blanket provision which penalises a landlord by preventing them from renting out their property, for a period of 12 months, however bona fide their conduct or however fair the terms of the lease, could possibly be said to respect a fair balance. The mischief which the Government seek to prevent requires a more tailored response. I hope the Minister will be able to say, in response to the concerns that have been expressed by my noble friend Lord Cromwell and myself, that she will be prepared to meet with us to discuss ways of making this clause more proportionate by recognising an exception for landlords who have acted in good faith and responsibly.

My Lords, Amendment 64 in my name is in regard to the family. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted and Lady Neville-Rolfe, for their support for this amendment. The Bill allows a landlord to take possession of a property for a family reason. This is a small extension to the number of reasons for which a landlord could take possession of a property. That reason is that a property is to be used by a carer for a family member who requires full-time care. The amendment clearly sets out that the property needs to be in close proximity to the landlord’s family home and be used by the carer. The reason for the close proximity is so that the carer can attend not only on a daily basis but, more importantly, be available to attend in emergencies, quickly and efficiently. These can be on a regular occurrence in some cases. The types of properties that I have in mind are: annexes on homes; a flat in a block of flats where the landlord’s primary residence is located; properties in less urban areas, such as rural villages, hamlets and remote farms; and small property clusters where properties are in short supply. I appreciate that tenants would be forced to leave a property, but this amendment does not seem to shorten the four months’ notice period. The Bill allows some landlords the opportunity to gain possession for an employee or a worker for agricultural purposes under ground 5A in Schedule 1. I have assumed that the reason why this exemption has been included is that agricultural workers need a property close to their place of work due to the nature of the work, and at all times of day. The need of a carer is similar to that of the agricultural worker: they need to be close to the patient and could be on call and work unsociable hours. Most landlords’ and tenants’ relations are generally good, and most likely, the landlord would make the tenant aware that the tenancy could be terminated if a property needs to be for a carer. To leave a property is an unsettling upheaval for a tenant and their family, but they would be given four months’ notice. If there is good communication between parties, everybody lives in the knowledge that this could be a possible outcome and plan accordingly. Financially, if you own an appropriate property, this is the most practical way a landlord or their family can provide the most cost-effective accommodation for a long-term carer, and when the family is facing a high demand on its finances. Only a limited number of landlords will use this possession right, but if needed, it would be welcomed by the family, as it would give flexibility in times of sadness and when time requires the need for it. I thank the Minister for her engagement on the Bill and for our short discussion on the amendment. I note the Minister’s suggestions that alternatives could be found to house a carer, but my response is that to find a property in the correct location and which is suitable for a carer would be extremely difficult in this current high-demand rental marketplace. The second suggestion was that the tenant has the right to a secure home. The other side of that debate would be: would it not be a reasonable case that the landlord has a right to gain possession of their own assets for the benefit of their well-being or a family member’s own caring needs? Properties are owned for many purposes: in some cases, for financial reasons, like investments, and to provide regular income or pension funds. It may be available to rent during a job relocation or as a future residence in a desired location. All these landlords who own such properties could gain possession under the Bill when needed. However, if the property owner who may wish to use a property for a legitimate family reason, to care for a family member, cannot gain access to the property at the time of need, then this amendment seeks to rectify this. In summing up the group beginning Amendment 10 in Tuesday’s Committee, the Minister said that those amendments did not meet “the bar to overrule the general principle that private renters should have secure homes”.—[Official Report, 22/4/25; col. 615.] I believe that a long-term carer of somebody crosses that bar to enable possession for a family.

My Lords, unfortunately, I was unable to speak at Second Reading, but I saw that the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, raised an issue that I wanted to raise, concerning the matter of carers, and I have been pleased to co-operate with him to produce Amendment 64. First, I declare my interests as a private landlord for over 25 years, both in a personal capacity, with lettings in Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire, and also as an experienced—though unpaid—trustee-type director for lettings in Buckinghamshire. Being a landlord started accidentally: when I rented a property, I intended to sell to a friend in need. Then, like many self-employed people without an employment-linked pension, I saw its value as pension provision instead of selling it and that it kept the asset available, if needed, for business-loan security. I have had conversations about the extra risks and costs, should we sell and what it means for rents. I have, as the Minister said we should on Tuesday, examined our business models. Even without exposure to mortgages, the effect is that rents will rise and will track market rates sooner rather than risk larger, less frequent adjustments that are more likely to attract challenge, which, of course, would exert an inflationary feedback loop on rents. In a nutshell, it has made it riskier to be a benign landlord.

16:15:00

Against the downside for landlords of not having guaranteed periodic possession of their property, the Bill provides more grounds for repossession. That is the bargain—the balance—but it has to be workable. The courts, or any alternative mechanism that might be invented, must be procedurally fast and sufficiently streamlined. It would be both unsound and unreasonable if the balance, through costs or hurdles for regaining the possession of property, were, in general, further loaded against small private landlords. That is not to say that I am against extended notice or vacating periods for tenants, especially for special circumstances, but in the instance of private landlords owning a single or a few properties, there must be possession rights—not just possibilities—for their property and the ability to realise the best value of the asset to provide for family health, financial or care provision. However, as I have also mentioned, it is a self-employed and small-business asset security issue of not insignificant economic consequence.

It has certainly been in my business model—as the Minister likes to call it—to consider whether the property was suitable for ageing parents or family returning from overseas and, through rent or sale, to finance retirement and eventual residential care. Measured against those lifetime considerations, a missing criterion stands out: where a landlord or member of their family needs the property for a carer. I have a personal interest to declare here as a member of my wider family purchased the flat above theirs in a converted house with a downstairs flat and an upstairs flat specifically so that when their disabling condition deteriorates to the point of needing a full-time, on-call carer, it would be possible to situate the carer in that adjacent flat. Since investigating the issue, I have been made aware of others in similar positions. Not all properties are large enough or adaptable for a live-in carer, and not everyone—either the carer or someone who is cared for—wants that, either for privacy reasons or because they have family.

I hope that the Minister can see the good reasons and good sense in Amendment 64, or something similar, and recognise that it does not disturb the general tenant-landlord balance of the Bill. It would be perfectly possible to provide evidence of the need for a carer. Various other amendments in this group also have value without disturbing that balance; in particular, I note the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and his comments on human rights, with which I concur.

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 64, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, to which I have added my name. They have both spoken with immense good sense and from knowledgeable positions. I am sorry that I was not present at Second Reading, but I believe that it is essential that the Bill allows a landlord to seek possession of a property where it is needed to house a carer or carers for the landlord or his or her family. I will illustrate the problem with a case study of my own, and in so doing declare an interest. My husband and I own a house close to our own in a small Wiltshire village which we bought for use by a carer as and when we reach that stage. We usually let it out, in the meantime, to local people, and it appears in my register of interests, to which I refer the House. With the demise of shorthold tenancies, we face the prospect of not being able to get it back once let again. Moreover, even as and when we do offer it to a carer, if the appointment does not work out, we lose the property. We have discussed in other debates the importance of carers, the problem of supply of beds in old people’s homes and support for the elderly. This is a particular problem in rural areas like ours, making it all the more important to encourage independent provision. I urge the Government to think again on this and return on Report with a suitable amendment. I am glad that the Government more generally are increasingly realising the bad effect of too much regulation on growth and competitiveness, which is well documented now in academic literature. Coming to this Bill, and indeed this group, cold from my common-sense ex-business perspective, I felt a chill down my spine. Most landlords, in my experience, are reasonable, but there are several well-intentioned amendments before us today seeking to tighten regulation and add further detail and impractical conditions. These could have a profoundly perverse effect and put more pressure on the overworked courts. For example, the amendment on discretion would certainly increase their workload, and, in practice, these would further reduce the supply of rented property. We heard this week at Questions that this had collapsed as a result of this Bill. An overheated market, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is thus being fired up further. This is what we need to work on together to reverse and keep good landlords in the sector, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, explained, saying that Savills thinks landlords will need 1 million more rented homes by 2031. That does not now look possible. I just hope that the Government will think again, resist burdensome additions and consider some sensible lightening of the burden of the kind that I and my fellow Peers propose in this amendment. Other examples would those given by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in Amendment 60 and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, in Amendment 142.

My Lords, I refer to my declaration of interests with respect to this Bill, including a large portfolio of residential property in north Norfolk, 93% of which is let out to local people, key workers and direct agricultural workers, with only seven holiday lets and seven lets to family members. This schedule is on grounds for possession, and some excellent amendments have been put forward, to which I urge the Government to give serious consideration. However, as a generality when talking about grounds for possession, as a landlord, I do not want to lose tenants. I hate voids. As an example, I have 47 tenants who have been my tenants for between 21 and 40 years, and 45 who have been my tenants for between 11 and 20 years. These are people I know. They are my friends, they are in the community, they are contributing to the community and they, of course, live in it. Many noble Lords have spoken about the importance of not losing good landlords, and this Bill, as it is currently written, is very much in danger of creating that reality. I turn now to Amendment 63 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to which I have added my name. It is essential that we allow a property owner to manage his or her property for change of use to commercial, whether that be retail, office or industry. Let us assume a farmyard with a cottage that has a sitting tenant. The landowner gets planning permission for a block of offices or retail. Those offices and retail are going to produce a huge kick to the economy, jobs for the builders and groundworkers, and then, once they are occupied, jobs for the people working in them. So it would not be right that a single person or a family living in a cottage could stymie that development. The reality is that a landlord who is sensible—which most landlords are—would have open communication with their tenant, explain what is going to happen and try to offer them a different property. If a tenant refuses to move, that will have a real effect on the economy. This Government—who talk about growth—really need to understand that, by not accepting this amendment, they will very much be stymieing growth. I will give another example, again I am afraid from my own playbook. It is an example of planning permission—albeit for residential, which does not necessarily refer to this amendment, and on green belt land. We are building 23 houses at the moment. Eight are for private sale, four are for affordable rent, two are for shared ownership with Broadland Housing Association, four are for intermediate rent with Homes for Wells, which is not really a housing association, and five will be retained by us for private rent. If this Bill goes through as it is proposed by the Government, why would I bother? It is really important that the Government listen to all these sensible amendments being proposed and I really hope the Minister will do so.

My Lords, I firstly declare an interest as a private landlord of residential properties in Hampshire. I support Amendment 60, to keep the rent arrears landlord legal action limit to two months rather than four. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, said, landlords are not charities, and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, agreed with this. I also support Amendment 63 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, which also seems very sensible. Local authorities are already reluctant to sanction a change of use from residential to commercial, so they exercise careful control over this. As the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, said, money from permission to convert residential properties to commercial can be used to pay for and improve properties, and something that has not been mentioned much so far is the EPC problem that a lot of these cottages have, and the extra money that needs to be found to pay for this.

My Lords, I would like to thank all the parties in the renters’ coalition for their work on many aspects of the Bill, particularly this one. They have very patiently answered my every query as I have attempted to familiarise myself with all the grounds for possessions and the implications of that. Before I move to the detail of my Amendments 26 and 27, I would like to offer support for Amendments 24 and 30 from the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. If one recalls—because she was right at the beginning of the debate—this was about ground 6B, when the house is required back for works to be done to it. Given that the landlord is not obliged to provide alternative accommodation while the works are done, we believe it might justify consideration of compensation, mainly because—this is interesting—6B is already being described on property websites as a “loophole”. Ground 6B currently lacks clear definitions and proper oversight, so it runs the risk of being misused, disputed or even ignored. Any moves to reduce court use, given our concerns in this regard, are also to be clearly welcomed. Amendments 26 and 27 pertain to the two no-fault grounds for eviction: namely, ground 1, moving in a family member, and ground 1A, selling the property. First, the increase in notice periods from two to four months for eviction on these grounds is most welcome, giving tenants more time to find a new home. Amendment 71 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, strengthens this further by the discussion of compensation, as she outlined, and we feel that this complements our amendments.

16:30:00

On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, it is really irritating that he is always so reasoned and reasonable—and even mildly persuasive. But I am instinctively against it. I am reminded of something that a very reputable estate agent once said to me: “Dorothy, every property is saleable; it all depends on the price”. So please do not tell me that somebody could not put their house up for several months at a much higher price than might be expected in order to try to meet that. But, because the amendment was mildly persuasive, I will be very interested to listen to what the noble Baroness has to say on that matter.

Turning to the amendments, the whole point of these two amendments, which work together—one on pre-eviction evidence and one on post-eviction evidence—is that there is a genuine feeling that these are the two areas, or the one ground, if you look at it that way, where there is clearly some potential for abuse. These are both open to abuse unless the evidential threshold is high, clear, up front and in the Bill to act as a deterrent.

I am aware from the debate in the other place that the Government believe that the courts are best placed to interpret the available evidence, rather than writing this into the legislation. However, the guide to the Bill also suggests the kind of evidence that landlords might provide. So, my one question to the Minister is: why can this not be provided in the Bill?

With these proposed amendments we are seeking commitment from the Government on exactly the sort of evidence that would be acceptable. It is the department’s opportunity to set the height of the evidential bar. The hope is that this will then act as a deterrent to the very small number of unscrupulous landlords but should not in any way deter a legitimate sale or a legitimate move of a family member into the house. I am well aware that the proposed amendments are highly unlikely to make their way into the Bill—curly down face—but my aim is to try to secure from the Minister what sorts of evidence they might consider acceptable.

Amendment 27 refers to pre-eviction evidence. Ground 1 is deemed to be vulnerable to being used in much the same way as Section 21, unless there is a high evidential threshold. Without this, any of the issues connected to Section 21 will persist. For example, landlords should not be able to use ground 1 as a pretence to evict a tenant who has complained about the need for repairs in the knowledge that they are unlikely to face sanctions for having lied: “Of course I am going to move somebody in; of course I will do whatever”. If landlords still feel they are able to undertake retaliatory evictions, any ambition to provide security of tenure for these private renters will have failed. However, if the landlord or the family member is required to provide a statement of truth to the court, as in this amendment, this will act as a significant disincentive to lying to the court as it would expose the landlord or family member to litigation.

With regard to ground 1A, requiring landlords using this ground to sell, if they need to provide evidence that they have taken initial steps to begin to sell the property, with evidence of a record of engagement from a reputable agent, again, this will be a useful disincentive to abuse. Scottish law already requires the landlord to provide evidence of the intention to sell, and, interestingly, despite a higher threshold than in this Bill for using this eviction ground in Scotland, recent research from Indigo House indicated that in a significant minority of cases—around one in five—the feeling was that this ground might have been misused, because it was found that these properties were still registered on the landlord registration base after the sales ground had been used. It is clear that a higher bar is needed and this is why we feel that both pre-eviction and post-eviction use of the sales ground will be required to provide firm proof that the ground has been used as intended and to prevent abuse.

Amendment 26 would require a landlord to submit verified evidence of the progress towards the occupation or sale of a property obtained under these grounds no less than 16 weeks after the date of the order, and to verify this by a statement of truth. That statement of truth would need to be provided to court, the tenant and the local housing authority. This should have several positive effects. Disincentivising abuse is clearly the most important. There needs to be a clear and high evidentiary threshold for using both grounds to prevent abuse—I am aware that I am beginning to sound like a broken record. The landlord, knowing that they have to provide that statement of truth post eviction notice, will be less likely to fraudulently evict a tenant in the first place; and, if a landlord lies to the court, they will be open to litigation and may be liable to pay damages to the tenant under Section 12 of the Housing Act 1988. The good, honest landlord will be able to do this relatively easily, and it will assist enforcement. The landlord’s statement of truth being served on the tenant and the housing authority will significantly improve the ability of both the tenant and the local housing authority to pursue justice where a landlord has clearly abused the grounds.

To conclude, we believe that asking landlords for robust evidence to evict a tenant should not prove onerous if landlords are planning to use the eviction ground as intended. Evictions can cause significant disruption and hardship for tenants, so there should be a high threshold for evidence to ensure that evictions are served only where there are legitimate grounds. A high evidentiary threshold provides a deterrent for misuse, giving some protection for renters, even if, in reality, it is highly unlikely that they will reverse the eviction in the courts. It is about incentivising landlords to do the right thing, which most of them will do, but deterring the small minority of unscrupulous ones. Perhaps the Minister could give at least some consideration to the legitimate concerns behind these amendments.

Perhaps I may be allowed another very brief speech, since I was commented on earlier. I am always grateful for any compliments I receive, no matter how backhanded, about my persuasiveness, so I thank the noble Baroness for those. I will just comment that the idea that you would put your house, flat or property on at a silly price is immediately contested by my amendment and beefed up by her amendment as having to produce evidence to that fact, so I do not think that really holds water. I encourage her to be convinced: not, as she suggested, to give in to her instincts, but to look at the economics, the logic and the maths, which simply demonstrate that six months is more than adequate, and 12 months is excessive.

The noble Lord is, as I said, very persuasive.

My Lords, the amendments in this group represent yet another instance where the rights of renters intersect with those of landlords. This group of amendments is indicative of the broader Bill and, rather than increasing the availability of homes, we believe it risks reducing the supply of rental properties. This could drive up costs for renters at a time when the cost of renting has already risen significantly. It is, of course, important to make sure that the legal framework which governs this relationship protects those who are renting, but we cannot forget the landlords. They should also have their rights upheld. Landlords should have their rights over their properties respected and retain the ability to recover possession of their homes when they need to. I start by speaking to Amendments 24 and 30, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe. They assume that the landlord is in some way liable to pay compensation for exercising rights, which surely are theirs by virtue of the fact that they actually own the property. Determining when in specific cases compensation is required is surely the responsibility of a court. To assume that compensation is always required tips the balance against the landlords and would likely discourage many responsible, principled landlords from entering the market and meeting the high demand for rented properties that we see across the country. In the same vein, Amendments 26 and 27, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would place an administrative burden on landlords, which would have a dampening effect on the housing market. Houses are important personal assets. Piling on layers of regulation will further suffocate the market and limit the agency of landlords to use the assets that they own. Conversely, we believe that Amendments 60 and 61, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, strike an appropriate balance, recognising that landlords need to be protected from bad actors, who could have a devastating financial effect on them. Landlords should not be punished for supplying rental properties to the market. Maintaining the existing possession grounds for rent arrears would mean that they can operate in the market with confidence that they will not be left out of pocket. Amendments 63 and 64, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord de Clifford, further speak to the fact that landlords should retain the right to make use of their own property as they see fit. It is neither the role nor the place of government to dictate to home owners how their personal property should be used. Amendment 71, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, seeks to conflate the rights of the landlords with their responsibilities. The landlord, by owning the property, has the right to make decisions about how that property is used. The tenant, in renting from that landlord, is expected to respect the rights of the landlord as the property owner. This relationship does not in any way suggest that the landlord should be liable to forgo income while still providing the service. This measure would clearly disadvantage landlords in their legal relationship with their tenant and would depress the market, which is already undersaturated. Finally, I welcome that Amendments 142, 165 and 166, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Hacking, strike the appropriate balance between the rights of the renters and the rights of the landlord. We need to remember that we are talking about a market, which requires flexibility and adaptability so that it works for consumers and providers. Allowing landlords to make these decisions without being hamstrung by long-term obligations means that they can act in the mutual interest. A flourishing market benefits renters as much as landlords. This balance is imperative to achieve a flourishing market. I urge the Government further to consider, between now and Report, this crucial balance between landlords and tenants, most importantly to protect the tenants in this sector.

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lady Warwick and Lord Hacking, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill, Lady Grender, Lady Jones, Lady Bowles, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Scott, the noble Lords, Lord Carter, Lord Carrington, Lord de Clifford, Lord Cromwell, Lord Northbrook and Lord Pannick, and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for their amendments and comments during this debate. It was great to hear from the noble Earl about the long-term tenancies that he has, of 21 to 45 years. I made the point at Second Reading and on Tuesday about the symbiotic relationship that can and should exist between landlords and tenants. Our aim is to foster that relationship and the balance that makes it work properly as we go through the process of this Bill. Amendment 24 and Amendment 30 seek to make possession under ground 6B contingent on compensation being first paid by the landlord to the tenant. Amendment 24 specifically prevents a court making an order for possession unless compensation has been paid; Amendment 30 sets out that landlords must pay compensation at a level set by the Secretary of State in regulation before they can take possession. Ground 6B allows a landlord to evict tenants where they are subject to enforcement action and eviction is the only way that they can comply. It is intended to prevent landlords ending up in the legal limbo of having broken the law but having no route to comply with it.

16:45:00

While I understand the intent behind these amendments—that tenants should always be compensated when they are evicted due to a landlord breaking the rules—I believe that the Bill already takes the right approach on this issue. A court is best placed to decide, on a case-by-case basis whether compensation should be paid, as is currently provided in the Bill. There can be circumstances where a landlord is subject to enforcement action due to actions of the tenants, for example, cases of overcrowding. As such, it would not be appropriate to dictate that compensation must be paid in all circumstances before possession can be granted, nor for those circumstances and the level to be set in regulations that would be unable to account for the nuances of each case.

My noble friend Lady Warwick made a point about legal aid, on which I will comment. Civil legal aid is available for possession claims brought by a landlord or a mortgage lender, subject to financial means and merits tests. For those at risk of possession proceedings, loss of their home or illegal eviction, free non-means tested legal advice is available through the Housing Loss Prevention Advice Service. Through HLPAS, tenants can receive advice on housing, welfare, benefits and debt as soon as they receive written notice that their landlord is seeking possession of their home.

The Ministry of Justice has also recently consulted on increasing fees for housing and immigration legal aid work, which would inject an additional £20 million a year once fully implemented. This uplift would help to make sure that vulnerable people forced into housing legal battles and at risk of losing their home have access to legal advice. The MoJ is currently considering the consultation responses.

The court will determine on a case-by-case basis a reasonable amount of compensation to cover the loss and damage caused by an eviction. We expect the court to set out a timeframe—my noble friend Lady Warwick referred to this—in the order. That will determine the time that the landlord has to pay. If the compensation was not paid, the tenant could seek enforcement of the relevant debt in the county court system. The landlord could also be found to be in contempt of court, which carries extremely serious consequences, as we all know.

I turn to Amendment 26 and add my thanks to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, to the Renters’ Reform Coalition, which has done a huge amount of work on this Bill, for which I am grateful. While I appreciate the sentiment behind the noble Baroness’s amendment, which seeks to prevent abuse of the moving and selling grounds for possession, I do not think that this is the right approach. This amendment seeks to do two things. The first is to require landlords to submit further evidence demonstrating compliance with ground 1 or 1A, when possession has been granted, within 16 weeks. The second is to set what evidence the landlord would need to submit to the court, that evidence being the property’s occupancy status, the progress of any sale and a statement of truth signed by the landlord.

Current provisions in the Bill mean that landlords will already be required to present evidence that the ground is met before being granted possession. For ground 1, which relates to moving in, the landlord would need to provide evidence verified by a statement of truth signed by either the landlord or the family member if they intend to move into the property. For ground 1A, the landlord would need to provide evidence verified by a statement of truth signed by the landlord. The evidence must include a letter from a solicitor or estate agent confirming engagement in relation to the sale of the property.

To require a landlord to provide additional evidence afterwards would create a greater and unnecessary burden on both landlords and courts. Additionally, the amendment does not detail what would happen if a landlord did not comply with providing the additional evidence. In the current form of the Bill, landlords will be unable to market or relet a property for 12 months after using the moving or selling grounds. This constraint was designed to be easy for tenants to identify when seeking rent repayment orders or for local authorities wishing to prosecute abuse of the ground, which carries a fine of £40,000. This also ensures that tenants who leave during the notice period, as we believe many do, are protected, not just those where possession is sought via the courts.

The amendment also seeks to set evidential requirements for judges. Judges are best placed to exercise discretion and make these decisions without fixed evidential requirements. I am further concerned that the proposal for landlords to be required to submit evidence demonstrating compliance after the possession order has been granted would unduly burden the courts.

Amendment 27 proposes to prescribe the evidence that must be presented to a court when a landlord seeks possession using grounds 1 or 1A for a judge to be able to award possession. First, this amendment seeks to curtail the discretion that judges will have to respond to evidence provided on each case. Judges may therefore be less likely to consider wider evidence, which could inadvertently lower the threshold for ordering possession.

As I have said, judges are best placed to determine whether a ground is met based on the evidence provided on a case-by-case basis, and we should not seek to restrict judicial discretion. Although we will not stipulate what evidence a landlord must submit to the court, we will issue guidance to landlords about navigating the possession process, including the types of evidence a court might consider, prior to commencement.

Secondly, I turn to the matter of requiring the landlord, or the family member, if moving in to provide evidence verified by a statement of truth. It is the landlord who will be held accountable for abiding by the rules of the possession grounds set out in the Bill. Furthermore, a statement of truth must be signed on the possession claim form. The form makes clear that making a false statement could lead to prosecution for contempt of court. Tenants can, under Section 12 of the Housing Act 1988, also seek compensation if it becomes clear that a landlord misled the court when possession was awarded. In our view, adding further requirements would create additional hoops for a landlord to jump through without offering any greater guarantee that evidence provided was truthful.

Misusing the grounds is unacceptable. To prevent abuse, landlords could be given a fine of up to £40,000 if they knowingly or recklessly misuse the grounds or if they market or re-let their properties within 12 months of using the moving and selling grounds. Tenants can challenge evictions in court if they believe the landlord is misusing the grounds. If this happens, the landlord will need to demonstrate that their intention to sell or move in is genuine.

Amendment 31 seeks to make all Section 8 grounds for possession discretionary. I appreciate that the noble Baroness’s amendment is intended as a probing amendment and acknowledge her expertise in this area. I, too, thank Shelter for its work on the Bill and for meeting me. I had a very good meeting with Shelter quite recently on the Bill.

This amendment would mean that for all applications for possession made to the courts landlords will have to demonstrate that the ground has been met and that it is reasonable for a possession order to be made. A judge would have to be satisfied that the ground is proven and decide whether it is reasonable to make a possession order considering all the circumstances. This would significantly increase uncertainty for landlords about whether possession would be granted, including in the circumstances where we have said the grounds should be mandatory. This would also be very likely to increase the workload of the courts beyond what is reasonable.

We want landlords to have robust grounds for possession where there is good reason to take their property back. It is right that landlords have more certainty in some circumstances, for example, where a tenant owes more than three months’ rent or a serious criminal offence has been committed. Having more certainty of outcome with mandatory grounds for possession will give landlords greater confidence in the market. Without this certainty, we have to be realistic that many landlords will simply not wish to stay in the private rented sector. We must get the balance right between giving tenants more security and ensuring that the sector remains viable for landlords to remain in. We have had a lot of discussion about that already.

Amendment 35 seeks to prevent landlords using ground 1A to evict their tenant when they wish to sell their property if they have used a government grant scheme to carry out energy efficiency improvements in the previous two years. I understand the genuine reasons for the amendment and of course welcome the support of the Green Part. However unusual that might be, it is always welcome. I am the MHCLG Minister with responsibility for net zero, so I take all this very seriously. We have sought to ensure that grounds for possession are fair to both landlords and tenants, with tenants having greater security in their homes and landlords being able to take possession when necessary.

I am not of the view that this amendment represents the right approach. Landlords are already prevented from selling their property during the first year of a new tenancy and it would not be right to restrict that ability further. Government grant schemes targeted at improving the energy efficiency of housing stock will still have had their intended effect, even if the landlord sells the property due to a change in circumstances once they have carried out the works.

Amendment 60 seeks to reduce the mandatory rent arrears threshold in possession ground 8 from three months’ rent to two months’ rent. We are increasing the mandatory arrears threshold to give greater protection to tenants who temporarily fall into rent arrears. This is to allow more time for a tenant to repay their arrears and remain in their home when facing one-off financial shocks, such as losing their employment. We can all agree that it is better for tenants and landlords to sustain tenancies where they can.

Three months’ rent arrears was the threshold for mandatory eviction that was set when the assured tenancy system was introduced by the Housing Act 1988, before being reduced in the 1990s. We consider that that original threshold was the right balance. It is also worth noting that landlords will still have access to discretionary rent arrears grounds for amounts below three months’ arrears, such as when there is frequent delay or late payment of rent.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to mediation processes to refer tenants to financial support services. We continue to consider how to facilitate pre-court negotiations between landlords and tenants. Court action should always be a last resort, so we want to see what more we can do to help to provide mediation between landlords and tenants before we get to a court case.

Amendment 61 would remove a key protection for vulnerable tenants, which ensures that arrears accrued due to waits for universal credit do not count towards the mandatory eviction threshold in ground 8. If this amendment was accepted, in future a tenant who was waiting to receive a payment of universal credit to which they were entitled would be open to mandatory eviction. That cannot be the right position for us to take.

It is important that tenancies that are otherwise financially sustainable should continue, with tenants protected from one-off financial shocks. For example, it is feasible that a tenant who lost their job and had to apply for universal credit could breach the arrears threshold while waiting for their first payment. Evicting that tenant and potentially making them homeless would not help the situation, whereas giving them chances to resolve the arrears would ensure that the tenancy could continue, benefiting both them and the landlord and ensuring that the landlord was able to claim the arrears once the payments were made.

Amendment 63 seeks to create a new ground for possession to enable landlords to convert a residential property to non-residential use. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for a helpful meeting yesterday. While I understand the intent behind this approach, I do not believe that it is the right one. The proposed new ground just does not strike the right balance. With so many pressures on housing supply, it would not be right to encourage residential lets to be converted to other uses. Where landlords wish to convert their property to a non-residential use, it is right that they should do this as tenants move out, rather than by evicting a tenant through no fault of their own. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for raising the issue of farm diversification with me yesterday and for pointing out that farmers also turn their land into residential land, as the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, also mentioned. I thank the noble Earl for his contribution towards dealing with the housing need that we are facing.

Amendment 64 aims to create a new ground for possession to support those families who need a carer. It would allow a landlord to seek possession of a property to accommodate a carer for the landlord, landlord’s spouse or other member of the landlord’s family. The ground is qualified by a requirement for the property to be in close proximity to the person requiring care, in order to facilitate emergency callouts when that person is a family member. While I understand the motivation behind the amendment, as clearly set out by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles and Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, a core principle of the Bill is to increase the security of tenure that tenants enjoy. Throughout the Bill, we have created a ground for possession only when the circumstances are compelling. In our view, the amendment does not meet that high bar. We think that very few landlords will both require a carer who needs accommodation and happen to have a property of the right size and type available near their own home. Given the likely limited use of this ground and the risk of abuse, we do not think that it is justified. Where care is required, I also highlight that, should a landlord wish to accommodate a close family member who is acting as a carer to the landlord or their family, possession ground 1 may be available.

17:00:00

Amendment 71 seeks to require landlords to forgo the last month’s rent and any other charges due if they have served notice to evict a tenant in order to move into or sell a property. While I understand that the aims of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, are to compensate the tenant for being evicted through no fault of their own, I do not believe this to be the right approach. We have put much thought into the design of the grounds for possession and believe that it is key for the market that landlords have the flexibility to move into or sell their property when this is necessary. We have designed these grounds with safeguards to prevent abuse. However, it would not be right to go further and require a landlord to effectively pay the tenant compensation. A landlord who needs to sell or move into a property may be in financial difficulty themselves and requiring them to forgo the last month’s rent from the tenant would be an undue burden.

Amendment 142 seeks to create a new exception to the letting and marketing prohibitions. This exception would allow reletting a property after six months, instead of 12 months, if possession is gained using ground 1A, subject to conditions. It is proposed that this reduced restricted period should be permitted, as long as the landlord can evidence that they have tried to sell the property at a fair market rate and have not received a suitable purchase offer. The landlord must also offer the property back to the original tenant at the same price. The noble Lord’s concerns seem to relate to rent increases and, of course, all landlords can increase rent by the Section 13 notice once a year.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, raised the issue of the ECHR. The Government have set out their ECHR analysis in their published ECHR memorandum. The tenancy reform measures in this Bill engage A1P1 rights of landlords. They constitute a control of use of the landlord’s property and are justified in their pursuit of the important aim of improving the security of tenants. The restrictive period is an important element for preventing misuse by landlords of the possession grounds.

The current 12-month restriction on reletting is being introduced to prevent abuse of these possession grounds. This length of time will make it unprofitable for a landlord to evict a tenant with the intention of reletting the property to another tenant at a higher rent. The restriction has the practical effect of the landlord forgoing rent for that period and removes the financial incentive to misuse the grounds. I believe that this amendment from the noble Lord would undermine an essential protection. In addition, the amendment would be extremely impractical. It seems unlikely that a tenant would accept the offer, having already experienced the upheaval and costs of moving home once evicted. The tenant will also be mindful that the landlord may try again to resell the property before long.

Amendment 165 seeks to reduce the letting and marketing restriction when the moving and selling possession grounds have been used. As will have become clear by now, the Government will have zero tolerance for any attempts by unscrupulous landlords to evade the new tenancy system. That is why the 12-month restricted period is so important. We will give local councils the power to issue fines to deter unscrupulous landlords from exploiting these grounds as a backdoor means of eviction. I accept that good landlords’ circumstances may change, but it is vital that the decision to evict a tenant is done when there is a clear reason. If a sale falls through, most landlords will continue their attempts to sell the property rather than fall back on another tenancy—they may even reduce the price, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said. The original tenant is after all losing a home and that decision cannot be made without good reason or on the basis of a fair-weather decision to sell or test the market. As with other similar amendments, I believe that shortening this time would undermine our efforts to protect tenants.

Similar to Amendment 165, Amendment 166 seeks to reduce the letting and marketing restriction when the moving and selling possession grounds have been used from 12 months to six. Specifically, this amendment focuses on when a claim form has been used to evict without notice—for example, if the court has waived the requirement for notice to be served on the tenant. As I have set out, the 12-month restricted period is a key measure to prevent abuse of the moving and selling grounds. Any reduction in this period would seriously undermine this protection and could reduce security of tenure for tenants.

We have put much thought into the design of the grounds for possession. For the reasons I have outlined, we are not convinced that these amendments are the right approach and I respectfully ask that they not be pressed.

With regard to the amendment concerning carers, the main reason for rejecting it seems to be that it would not be widely required; that it would only be a small minority who might find themselves in that situation. But is not the majority of this Bill based on the actions of a small minority of landlords? Therefore, we should look at both sides of the minorities argument. The Minister said that the ground could be exploited. If such an amendment were to come forward in a fuller form on Report, it could clearly lay out the evidence that it would be necessary for the court to see—just the same as for a sale or any other purpose. For the purposes of a probing amendment, of course, that is not there. I would ask to have another meeting with the Minister—I know that the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, has had one, but perhaps those of us who are interested could have another. I do not see that there is any substance in saying that because it is a minority it does not apply; the whole Bill is about minority behaviour. Therefore, it is very relevant that any minority should be considered.

I thank the noble Baroness for those further comments. I am of course always happy to have a further meeting with her and the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, on this subject. A core principle of the Bill is to increase the security of tenure that tenants enjoy. We want to keep our focus on that, but I understand the point the noble Baroness is making and the reason for putting forward the amendment. I think the words I used were that there was likely to be very limited use of this ground and a risk of abuse and that, where a family member would act as carer, there is another possession ground that can be used, but, of course, I am happy to meet and discuss it with her before Report.

It is always helpful to remember that we judge a democracy on how it treats its minorities. The Minister referred to my appearing to be interested in rent. I was interested in discussing the issue in the shape of rent because that was the reason I was given for a 12-month barrier to reselling the house: that the rapacious landlord would seek to make profit from doing so. I hope that the example I have given and the explanation and logic I provided demonstrated fairly compellingly that 12 months is simply excessive. I am sorry that I have not convinced the Minister of that. Perhaps we can have a further discussion, because I think the evidence will demonstrate that six months is more than adequate to put off a landlord from taking the risk of having no income for six months, and possibly costs in addition, and then trying to recover that over time.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for his further clarification. I considered that we had a very useful meeting earlier on this and I have thought about it very carefully. I think the current 12-month restriction on re-letting is the right one to prevent abuse of those possession grounds, but of course I am happy to meet him and discuss it further.

Can I also ask whether the Minister can provide any advice or evidence that she has been given concerning the issue of the European Convention on Human Rights and the right of access to property, as spoken about by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick?

The analysis on the ECHR is published in the ECHR memorandum. That information is set out in that document.

What about the legal advice?

The advice I have is that it is in the ECHR memorandum, so I refer the noble Baroness to that. If she wants further advice once she has looked at it, I am happy to take that back to the department.

The ECHR memorandum does not address the scenario outlined by the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Pannick. It simply does not refer to that. That scenario looks at how this provision will affect bona fide, good landlords. Yes, there are possibly some rapacious landlords out there, but the vast majority are not. They might need to sell their property, and to have to wait a year to be able to do that is simply disproportionate.

I am happy to get further written advice for the noble Lords.

I do not wish to detain the Minister with yet another question, but I will perhaps ask a little cheeky one. She referred a number of times to useful meetings with tenant representative bodies, which I have also had quite a number of meetings with. Can she tell us how many meetings she has had with landlord representative bodies?

I have had meetings with landlord representative bodies, but I cannot tell the noble Lord the number off the top of my head. I will write to him with that.

I promise this will be my final point. Is the Minister monitoring carefully—I think in the past she said she was—how many landlords are leaving the sector? To state the blindingly obvious, many more people can afford to rent than can afford to buy. If large numbers of landlords are leaving the sector—and it would be really helpful to have some figures on that—where are those people going to live: with mum and dad, or on the streets?

I do not know whether the noble Lord was present on Tuesday, but we had an extensive discussion about the impact of the Bill. I set out the Government’s assessment that it will not have an unreasonable impact on letting, and that the department will carefully monitor the Bill’s impact going forward.

Before the Minister sits down, would it be possible, before Report, for her to look at the latest situation? On Tuesday, we had an exchange on the negative impact, which woke me up to all this. I think the last thing that either side of the House wants is fewer houses to let; I think the opposite is our general objective.

Happily, my noble friend has already sat down, so I need not use that phraseology. She will remember that all my amendments discussed today related to the 12-month provision. Will she agree to my also coming to any further discussions she has on the 12-month issue?

All noble Lords, including my noble friends, will of course be welcome to any meetings that are held.

My Lords, I will not attempt to critique the Minister’s response to other amendments or indeed to summarise comments on them. They were all about repossessions, but they were so very different that it would be impossible to do that. I admire the Minister, and indeed the Opposition Front Bench, for trying to pull them all together into one discussion. I will not critique them, but I will look very carefully at what the Minister has said. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her support for my amendments. I know the Minister sought to reassure me that the Bill was capable of covering the concerns that I had expressed. She commented that the courts were best placed to decide on compensation—of course I appreciate that—and that the courts would set out a timeframe for compensation, which I very much welcome and understand. But I am still very conscious of the concerns of the Renters Alliance and its various constituent organisations about the impact of these repossessions, particularly on the most vulnerable, when they are evicted at no fault of their own and are in financial difficulties and under a lot of stress as a result. I hope the Minister will agree to see how this very real problem could be resolved. I am reluctant to ask her for another meeting when so many others have already been agreed to, but I would appreciate it very much if we could sit down and discuss this, because I feel I would need personally to be reassured that there are parts of the Bill that would satisfy the concerns that I have expressed. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 24 withdrawn.

Amendment 25

Moved by

25: Clause 4, page 5, line 26, at end insert— “(5AA) The court may not make an order for possession of a dwelling-house let on an assured tenancy granted in accordance with section 554(3)(c) (before its repeal) or (ca) of the Housing Act 1985 on any of Grounds 1 to 5H or Ground 6A.”Member’s explanatory statement This restricts the grounds that are available where premises are let on an assured tenancy which is granted to the former owner-occupier of a defective dwelling under section 554 of the Housing Act 1985.

Amendment 25 agreed.

Amendments 26 to 28 not moved.

Amendment 29

Moved by

29: Clause 4, page 7, line 2, after “2ZA” insert “or Ground 2ZZA” Member's explanatory statement This amendment, along with other amendments related to new Ground 2ZZA in the name of Lord Carrington, seeks to ensure that where the intermediate landlord is given less than 3 months’ notice to quit, the duration of any notice they are required to give to their tenant is limited to 2 months.

My Lords, I have already declared my interests earlier in the debate today. In speaking to this group of amendments, I thank the Minister for discussing them with me yesterday in great detail. I also forgot to thank her for the discussion that we had on the previous amendment. The amendments that I have tabled are designed to ensure that an intermediate landlord who is, under the terms of his tenancy, obliged under a notice to quit to release his tenancy in less than three months, can give notice to his own subtenant limited to two months rather than the Bill’s four months, so that he is not in contravention of the head tenancy. It is proposed that ground 2ZA is amended to reduce the notice period to two months to avoid situations where an Agricultural Holdings Act tenant is forced into breaching the terms of their agreement through no fault of their own.

17:15:00

The policy principle behind ground 2ZA, granting possession due to the termination of a superior agricultural tenancy, is thereby made workable. Currently, where a superior landlord has served notice on an intermediate landlord, the proposed notice period that the intermediate landlord is required to give their tenant is far too short and may exceed the notice period that the intermediate landlord has himself been given.

Under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, to which this ground would apply, where a tenancy agreement allows, a superior landlord can serve notice to quit on a tenant requiring vacant possession within three months. If the AHA tenant—the intermediate landlord—is required to give their tenant four months’ notice, they will be unable to deliver up the AHA tenancy with vacant possession, thus putting them in breach of their tenancy agreement. The AHA tenant will be required to quit the holding at the end of their three-month notice period. Further complications may arise where the tenant does not vacate after four months, as the original breach of not delivering up the holding with vacant possession will become exacerbated—I hope that noble Lords are all following me.

The discrepancy in notice periods seriously undermines the policy intention behind the creation of this new ground, which is to avoid an intermediate landlord breaching the terms of their tenancy. If the tenant farmer is given three months’ notice, then the notice period required for their own tenant must be no longer than two months.

My apologies to noble Lords for this somewhat complicated explanation, but this is a fairly technical issue that can be resolved by this small amendment on the timing of a notice. There are no points of principle involved, as far as I am concerned.

The Minister, at our meeting yesterday, for which I am deeply grateful, said that the amendment was not necessary as the superior landlord would in any event still be able to obtain possession after four months, come what may. Unfortunately, in many developments, which is what this is all about, there is a real need to regain the whole site with vacant possession on a timely basis. Allowing the assured tenant to remain in the holding after the intermediate landlord has left would slow down the process of regaining vacant possession of the site and might delay or adversely affect the planned development. I beg to move.

My Lords, I was expecting a slightly longer debate this time, as we have been proceeding slightly more slowly than the other day. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for bringing this debate on notice periods for intermediate landlords. Intermediate landlords make the rental market more flexible and accessible, precisely the kind of benefits we should be seeking to expand, yet the Bill now risks removing them. These landlords play a vital role in our housing system. They unlock additional housing options by turning single lets into shared accommodation. They offer more affordable arrangements and provide the flexibility that is so essential in urban and rural areas closely tied to the job market. It is therefore vital that any legislation we pass recognises their contribution and protects the value they bring to the sector. In the previous debate, many noble Lords talked about the red-hot market and the lack of housing. I genuinely worry about the risk of reducing the amount of housing. On that note, I turn specifically to the amendments before us in this group and thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for giving us such an erudite summation of a rather technical area, which I could not and do not wish to replicate, and therefore I shall move on swiftly. These amendments will certainly assist the Committee in considering how best to address this issue. Protecting small-scale renters should be the priority for us all. I hope to work constructively across the Committee to ensure that we get this right. From housing associations to charities and small local businesses providing accommodation, intermediate landlords are vital to the supply on which a secure, reasonably priced and decent rental sector depends. Amendments 37 and 38 apply explicitly to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 and the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1985. These tenancies by their nature can be very long indeed, even multigenerational. The tenanted property can include farmhouses and cottages, which could be occupied either by agricultural employees or open market tenants, depending on the terms of the superior tenancy. While in some cases they may have fixed termination dates, in other cases these tenancies could be brought to an end unexpectedly with a short timescale. It is right that these intermediate landlords should have the power to terminate subsidiary tenancies in a shorter timeframe in order to deliver the property back to the superior landlord in compliance with the superior tenancy agreement. Otherwise, the risk is that they may choose not to let such properties. There are many such tenancies already in place that will not and could not have anticipated this Renters’ Rights Bill. Intermediate tenants could well be put in a position of being in breach of their own tenancies, with negative financial implications.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for the amendments and for the meeting we had yesterday, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his comments on this set of amendments. Amendment 28 works together with Amendments 29, 37 and 38 to insert a new ground for possession, numbered 2ZZA. This proposed ground for possession is well intentioned but, in the Government’s view, unnecessary. It seeks to replicate ground 2ZA with a notice period of two months rather than four in the limited circumstances where agricultural landlords have been given short notice to vacate of three months or less by their superior landlord. Ground 2ZA already covers these circumstances and allows superior landlords and courts to treat a notice given under ground 2ZA as valid even after the intermediate landlord is no longer legally involved once their lease has ended, thus providing the affected tenant with the same protection. Amendment 28 specifically seeks to ensure that the proposed ground has two months’ notice. This goes against the general principle of the Bill that tenants should generally be given four months’ notice to uproot their lives in circumstances where they have not committed any wrongdoing. We do not believe that a tenant’s security of tenure should be undermined due to the actions of a superior landlord and encourage communication between all parties, where a superior landlord’s notice to the intermediate landlord is shorter. By creating ground 2ZZA with a shorter notice period for circumstances where the intermediate agricultural landlord has themself been given short notice by their superior landlord, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is seeking to ensure that the superior landlord is not left managing the subtenancy. Amendment 29 adds ground 2ZZA to the list, in subsection 4(3)(f) of the Bill, in which a notice given by an intermediate landlord can be treated as a notice given by a superior landlord once the intermediate tenancy has ended. As superior landlords will already be able to evict tenants under a notice given by an intermediate landlord, we do not think the noble Lord’s proposed ground 2ZZA is required. Amendment 37 is an amendment specifically to ground 2ZA, disapplying it in the circumstances in which the noble Lord wishes ground 2ZZA to apply. Further to what I have already said, this highlights the redundancy of the proposed ground 2ZZA. Clearly, ground 2ZA would apply already, to the point that it needs to be disapplied to make proposed ground 2ZZA work. I am sorry—I hope everyone is following this. Amendment 38 inserts the proposed ground into Schedule 1 to the Bill. For all the reasons I have already highlighted, in our view the amendment is not required. As such, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

I thank the Minister for her extremely clear description of this amendment and why it might not work. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, very much for his own contribution. Everyone is probably now completely befuddled by the whole thing. I will not take up any more of your Lordships’ time, and I certainly will withdraw the amendment. However, we will be looking further at the legal implications of this.

Amendment 29 withdrawn.

Amendment 30 not moved.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed.

Schedule 1: Changes to grounds for possession

Amendment 31 not moved.

Amendment 32

Moved by

32: Schedule 1, page 167, line 17, after “landlord’s” insert “or the landlord’s spouse’s, or civil partner’s, or co-habitee’s” Member's explanatory statement This amendment, and others in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook, seeks to apply the same definition of family member which is used in Clause 21 of the Act in Schedule 1 to ensure the internal consistency of this Act.

My Lords, I will move my Amendment 32 and speak to Amendments 33 and 34 in this group. All three of these amendments are underpinned by the same principle, that of consistency. When anybody involved in a tenancy speaks about “family members”, there should be clarity on what that means, but the Bill is not consistent in its definition of a family. This inconsistency will make it much harder to achieve clarity for those who will have to work with this legislation in the real world. I will briefly outline the two definitions of the family that are currently in the text of the Bill. In Clause 21, which relates to renter guarantors, the Government have defined family members in a broader way, including nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles, partners, children and cousins within the definition. In Schedule 1, which we are debating today, the definition is much narrower, limiting the definition of family members in that part of the Bill to parents, grandparents, siblings, children and grandchildren. We have tabled these amendments to highlight this inconsistency, which will create an imbalance between the definitions of the family of a tenant and that of a landlord. While inconsistency applies to nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles, partners, children and cousins, I will use the example of cousins to illustrate my point. Surely whether a person is a landlord or a tenant, all families should be treated equally before the law. It cannot be right that a tenant’s cousin who is a rent guarantor is defined as a family member, but a landlord’s cousin is not defined as a family member for the purposes of ground 1. Can the Minister please explain why she believes it is acceptable for a cousin of a tenant who is their rent guarantor to be treated as a family member, but the cousin of a landlord is not treated as a family member for the purposes of ground 1, under this legislation? Does she agree that this is an inconsistent way of defining family members? We are also interested in the perverse outcome that would result in a circumstance where a cousin of a person acts as a rent guarantor but also has another cousin who is a landlord. Under Clause 21, they would be the tenant’s family member; under Schedule 1, they would not be the landlord’s family member. In the real world, they are family members in both cases. It is unacceptable that an individual in this position would be treated in one way in respect of their relationship with their cousin who is a tenant and in a different way in respect of their relationship with their cousin who is a landlord. Additionally, I am not certain whether cousins of tenants and cousins of landlords are different classes of people. If we are to treat cousins as a class of people for the purposes of the Bill, it seems that the Bill will affect private interests of cousins of landlords in a different way to the interests of cousins of tenants. We feel that this is unacceptable, and it should be resolved.

17:30:00

Of course, there are two ways to achieve consistency across the two parts of the Bill. As I have said previously, although we may disagree on much of the content of the Bill, we support the Government’s desire to strengthen tenants’ rights, so we do not feel that it would be appropriate to achieve consistency by narrowing the definition of the tenant’s family in Clause 21. I think the Minister would agree with us on that. If we agree on that point, the only option that remains is to achieve consistency by using the same definition of the family in Clause 21 and in Schedule 1.

Amendments 32, 33 and 34 would achieve equality and consistency. I recommend them to the Government, and I hope the Minister will take these arguments on board and see the merits of the case we are putting forward. I look forward to hearing from her and hope she will be able to accept these today—and if not today, then perhaps before Report. I beg to move.

My Lords, I will speak very briefly from these Benches to say that there is some nervousness on our part with regard to these amendments and the potential for loopholes to be created. If the discussion is that this is a meeting of equals between tenants and landlords, then I am not sure that this is entirely the case from all the experience and data that we have so far. Let me stress that one of the reasons why we are very excited about the data section, which we will come to later in the Bill, is that we have quite a strong belief that there is limited knowledge about who is out there and who is a landlord right now. All we know about are the responsible ones who register themselves and provide information. A tenant by very definition is not an equal to someone who owns a property. There may be exceptions to that case, such as tenants who are in high-end properties, but on the whole the tenants we are talking about within the Bill are the ones who struggle on a weekly basis to pay their rent. Therefore, it is not a meeting of equals.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments. Amendments 32, 33 and 34 seek to expand the definition of a family member for the purposes of possession ground 1. This mandatory possession ground is available if the landlord or their close family member wishes to move into the property. These amendments widen the ground to allow a landlord to claim possession from an existing tenant to move in relatives of their spouse, partner or co-habitee, along with nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles or cousins. In choosing which of the landlord’s family members can move in under ground 1, we have reflected the diversity of modern families while drawing a line short of where some might wish. But we are of the view that to expand the ground any further would diminish tenant protections too far. It would open tenants up to evictions from a wide range of people—potentially very significant numbers indeed where families are large—while providing more opportunity for ill-intentioned landlords to abuse the system. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked why “family member” is used in Clause 21 while close family member is used in the moving-in ground. The moving-in ground is designed for very specific circumstances where a landlord’s family member is in need of accommodation, so it is right that this definition is narrower, as tenants risk losing their home. New Section 16N of the Housing Act 1988, “Guarantor not liable for rent payable after the tenant’s death”, as inserted by Clause 21, is specifically targeted to stop those grieving being held liable after a tenancy should have been ended, and it is right that this is a broader protection. The use of guarantors is wide ranging and, as such, a wider definition is needed to encompass all relevant persons. However, that is not the case when a tenant is facing eviction from a property. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

My Lords, I thank the Minister. These amendments may appear complicated in their drafting, but they have one simple objective which is to deliver a consistent definition of the family across the Bill. While I am very disappointed that the Government do not feel able to accept the amendment today, I hope that the Minister is willing to discuss a way to resolve this inconsistency in future meetings as we make progress on the Bill. The law should be as simple as possible and, crucially, consistent, so that those who have to deal with the legislation in the real world can do so without unnecessary confusion. It is clear that two different definitions of the family will create confusion. A consistent definition would prevent that confusion. While I reserve the right to bring this back on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 32 withdrawn.

Amendments 33 to 35 not moved.

Amendment 36

Moved by

36: Schedule 1, page 170, line 18, leave out from “under” to “or” in line 20 and insert “a tenancy of an agricultural holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 which is a tenancy to which that Act applies” Member’s explanatory statement This brings this provision into line with the definitions used in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.

Amendment 36 agreed.

Amendments 37 and 38 not moved.

Amendment 39

Moved by

39: Schedule 1, page 171, line 10, leave out from “under” to “or” in line 12 and insert “a tenancy of an agricultural holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 which is a tenancy to which that Act applies” Member’s explanatory statement This brings this provision into line with the definitions used in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.

Amendment 39 agreed.

Amendments 40 to 46 not moved.

Amendment 47

Moved by

47: Schedule 1, page 173, line 14, at end insert— “In a case where, because of paragraph 8(7) of Schedule 1 to the 1988 Act, a tenancy becomes an assured tenancy, the condition in paragraph (c) of the first paragraph of this ground is met if the written statement referred to there is given within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the tenancy becomes an assured tenancy.”Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on the amendment to clause 34 in my name.

Amendment 47 agreed.

Amendment 48

Moved by

48: Schedule 1, page 173, line 30, leave out “a person” and insert “an agricultural worker” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment, along with other amendments related to new grounds for possession for occupation in the name of Lord Carrington, seeks to enable the landlord to gain possession of the dwelling-house to house their agricultural worker regardless of the worker’s employment status (i.e. employee, worker, self-employed person or contractor).

My Lords, I already declared my interests earlier in the debate. I will speak to Amendments 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58. Some of these amendments have been kindly supported by the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and the noble Lords, Lord Colgrain and Lord Roborough. The objective of Amendment 48 is to broaden the definition of “agricultural worker”, regardless of the worker’s employment status to cover not only a direct employee but a self-employed person or contractor, as this reflects modern farming employment practices. In my meeting with the Minister, to whom I am most grateful for her attention, I learned that she was worried that this could open up an exemption for a wider group of workers, but I hope that I have reassured her that this specifically covers only agricultural workers. Her suggestion that the same could be achieved by allowing self-employed workers to occupy a property under licence would not be appropriate for longer-term workers, which this amendment seeks to address. We believe that a ground for possession should be available where there is a need to house a non-employed agricultural worker; for example, a self-employed party to a share-farming arrangement on the farm or a self-employed shepherd or cowman. It is quite common in the agriculture industry for workers to be self-employed, but, given the nature of their work, especially if it is with livestock, they need to live on the site. Currently, ground 5A provides a means of getting possession where the dwelling is required to house someone who will be employed by them as an agricultural worker. However, it does not cover the situation where the worker is self-employed. Similarly, ground 5C does not adequately provide for possession where a self-employed worker has been provided with a dwelling, but the work contract has ended. It applies only when the tenant has been employed directly by the landlord. We would like to see extensions to grounds 5A and 5C to cover situations where the worker/tenant is self-employed as well as employed. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this amendment, which purely reflects current employment practices in the farming industry and is certainly not designed to cover non-agricultural workers. I turn now to Amendments 50 and 53 in this group. By way of background, in the rural private rented sector the average length of a tenancy is around seven years, so there is little churn in view of the long-term nature of accommodation in rural areas. Combined with the shortage of rural affordable housing, which I hope will be addressed in the Planning and Infra- structure Bill, the availability of housing to support rural growth, particularly that driven by the increasing need for farm diversification due to lack of profitability in farming, is a clear and continuing problem. This diversification is being encouraged by the Government through schemes such as the Rural England Prosperity Fund. However, this diversification will be held back if it involves the necessity to house an employee on site and there is no availability of housing. Rural landlords in the private rented sector have traditionally been the employer of their tenants. Historically, they have primarily housed agricultural workers, but with mechanisation, fewer mixed farms and employment costs, these cottages have been rented to others. At the same time, legislation governing the private rented sector has evolved to give extra statutory protection to agricultural workers. However, as farms have modernised and have been encouraged to diversify, many farmers and landlords have businesses which employ staff to operate in non-farming sectors but still need to be housed by the landlord for the better performance of their duties. The system of assured shorthold tenancies has allowed farmers and landowners to recover cottages at the end of the fixed term and thereby house the employee for the new enterprise. In a situation of assured tenancies, this option will not exist, so the prudent owner may well take the view that he cannot risk an assured tenancy and therefore keep the house unoccupied. This could affect supply in an already-stretched private rented sector. While it remains very important that rural landlords are able to house incoming agricultural workers—new ground 5A —it is increasingly important that they are able to gain possession from a non-employee PRS tenant in order to house an employee of their diversified business. This amendment would allow possession where the property is required for housing a person who, for the better performance of their duties, is required to be, or is by custom, housed by their employer. In order to conform with an assured tenancy, this circumstance could be made a prior notice ground in an assured tenancy if a fixed-term tenancy is not allowed. The possibility of registering such properties would allow an incoming tenant to be aware that such properties can be let only on fixed terms. Examples of such employees include security personnel, housekeepers, catering staff, wardens and groundsmen. I urge the Minister to favourably consider this amendment, in light of the real needs of the rural economy, where housing is in very short supply and the need for rural diversification from farming is paramount. The Bill is currently geared toward the urban PRS and does not take sufficient account of the different challenges in the rural sector. I beg to move.

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on Amendments 48, 49 and 51 and, subsequently, 50 and 53. On the first ones, the noble Lord is absolutely right that, in the 21st century, the terms of employment in agriculture have moved on: they are not based on the old direct employee relationship. There are increasing numbers of self-employed people—the noble Lord mentioned stockmen and stockwomen, and many stockmen will be self-employed and work for two or three farmers, with two or three herds. Obviously, it puts you at an advantage if you can provide them with a house.

17:45:00

On contractors, there is much talk about new entrants to farming and giving people tenancies, but the reality is that most new entrants come via setting up their own contracting business—which obviously could include working for the farmer.

I was pleased to hear the noble Lord mention share farming—it is very popular in America and Australia and is now increasingly beginning to show its face here in Britain. It is really important in areas of high rent. If you are a farmer in, let us say, the Thames Valley, home counties or A1 corridor, where rents are high, and if you employ a new agricultural worker from out of the area, it is really important that you are able to give them accommodation. So these amendments should be agreed.

I wholeheartedly agree with Amendments 50 and 53, concerning better performance of duties. The noble Lord mentioned people working in a household where security or caretaking is important, but there are also nature wardens on national nature reserves, where people need to be close to their area of work because they are wardening an important habitat.

I will leave it there. These are very sensible amendments and I would be very surprised and disappointed if the Minister did not take them on.

My Lords, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for raising a critical issue that is at crisis point: namely, housing in rural communities. We on these Benches understand the need to support those in the agricultural community, who are on unique tenancy arrangements for a variety of historical reasons. These tenancies often involve longer durations, inter- generational involvement and a closer relationship between the land and the livelihood than is typical elsewhere in the rental sector, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, described. As such, it is vital that any legislative change reflects the particular realities of agricultural life and does not introduce any unintended uncertainty or disruption. Crucially, it is important to ensure that there is greater clarity for both landlords and tenants operating under agricultural tenancies. In a sector where long-term planning and security of tenure are essential, both parties require clear and consistent rules to navigate their rights and responsibilities with confidence. That said, we on these Benches are somewhat hesitant about the proposed amendments in this group to introduce a new repossession ground for these tenancies. We believe it is possible that there may be more effective ways to provide reassurance to those living under such arrangements. On that basis, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

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

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

I was here earlier.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for bringing a debate on possession grounds. This is an important issue, as it ensures that a landlord—who is often also the employer—can regain possession of a property when it is needed to house a new employee. I will address Amendments 48, 49, 51 and 52, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. These amendments raise an important and complex issue concerning agricultural tenancies, particularly in the light of the proposed reforms to tenancy law, including the abolition of fixed terms and the removal of Section 21 no-fault evictions. At present, agricultural landlords can avoid creating an agricultural assured occupancy—an AAO—by serving notice before the tenancy begins, thereby establishing it as an assured shorthold tenancy, or AST. This provides access to Section 21, which allows landlords to regain possession without the need to demonstrate fault. It is a mechanism widely relied on in the agricultural sector, where housing is often tied to employment or operational needs. With the removal of Section 21, this option will no longer be available. As a result, there will be a significant shift in the way in which agricultural landlords recover their properties. We must ensure that alternative grounds for possession are workable and fair, and can lead to the recovery of a property. I do not suggest that there are easy answers here. However, I believe that this area requires careful scrutiny and targeted solutions. I believe the noble Lord’s amendments offer a useful starting point for this discussion and he has rightly brought this to the attention of the House. I urge the Government to consider these issues closely and to engage further with agricultural landlords to ensure that they have the means to house new farmers under their employment. Finally, I will talk to the remaining amendments in this group: Amendments 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 63. We must recognise the value of maintaining the availability of essential employment-linked housing and consider how best to safeguard it in practice. This of course must have thoughtful consideration, as the implications of any decision made affect not only the landlord and the employer but the broader rental market. I hope the Government will give serious consideration to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, as part of a broader and much-needed discussion on how landlords can fairly regain possession of a property when a tenancy is tied to employment that has come to an end. I have milked many cows in my life, and even at Easter I was lambing ewes, so I know a lot about this. Many roles with occupational housing are time-sensitive and hands-on. A new employee may require immediate access to the same accommodation as the previous employee in order to perform their duties. Herdsmen and herdswomen are often up at 3.30 in the morning to begin milking and shepherds may be lambing right through the night into the dawn, and for their own welfare as a family they need to be on site to fulfil that role. Animal welfare on farms also requires staff to immediately be available at all times, whether it is for calving, lambing, farrowing or just for sick animals, so accommodation on site is absolutely critical. The same applies to those managing diversification of agricultural properties and businesses, managing holiday accommodation or providing security for storage facilities on the farm, for example. Failure to ensure timely access to such housing can have significant operational impacts. It can delay essential work and place considerable strain on the profit-making enterprises already operating within tight margins. This debate is therefore not only about the protection of property rights; it is fundamental to supporting those agricultural businesses, the people employed in them and the welfare of the stock on those farms, which rely so heavily on occupational housing as a practical necessity.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for these amendments relating to agricultural tenancies, and thank him, the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their obvious farming expertise as they have taken us through the rationale for the amendments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for her comments about the long relationships that are often prevalent in rural tenancies. It is important to make the point that one of the aims of the Bill is to facilitate those longer tenancy relationships. I will make a few general comments, particularly that we appreciate that the agricultural sector has distinct requirements, and it is often vital for workers to live on-site to carry out their duties, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, very ably described to us. That is why we have included ground 5A. However, this must be balanced with the needs of the wider rural community. This ground balances both. It allows agricultural workers to be housed while protecting other tenants who may work in critical local jobs. Widening the ground—for example, to include contractors—could, we believe, open the ground to abuse and decrease rural security of tenure. For example, a landlord could contract someone to do a nominal amount of agricultural work for their business and, on that basis, use the expanded ground to evict a tenant in respect of whom no other grounds were available. The noble Earl, Lord Leicester, talked about the self-employed and contractors. We recognise that it is sometimes necessary for landlords to move tenants on where accommodation is intended for a particular purpose, and understand that employee accommodation plays a critical role for many employers, so we are strengthening the possession ground by making it mandatory. It would not be right to broaden the ground too much, and thereby reduce the security of tenure for more tenancies, as this would be contradictory to the purpose of the Bill. There are other arrangements that a landlord can use to help their contractors with accommodation when they are working away from their home, such as paying expenses for the contractor to make their own arrangements, using licences to occupy, or paying for them to be hosted in an Airbnb. As people working away from their home are often working on short-term projects—for example, in the construction industry—tenancy agreements are unlikely to be the right solution in these circumstances. Taken together, Amendments 48 to 53 would expand the types of agricultural worker that other rural tenants can be evicted in order to house. Amendment 48 replaces the word “person” in the ground with the term “agricultural worker”. As I have discussed, we do not support the overall intent of these amendments, which would reduce security of tenure for all rural tenants with a landlord engaged in agriculture. Amendment 49 removes the requirement for the incoming tenant to be employed by the landlord, replacing it with a broader definition of “working for a business operated” by the landlord. Amendment 50 specifically mentions service occupants, who are defined later. Amendment 51 changes the wording of the ground from “employee” to the broader “agricultural worker”. Amendment 52 adds a definition of “agricultural worker” for the purposes of the ground which is far broader than an employee. Amendment 53 defines “service occupier” for the purpose of the ground. The current drafting of ground 5A allows for tenants to be evicted only in order to house employees. Together, these amendments expand this group to include service occupants, contractors and self-employed persons. This definition is far too broad and would endanger security of tenure for existing rural tenants. It would give a landlord running an agricultural business a much freer hand to evict anyone living in their property by, for example, creating a contract with another person to do a nominal amount of work for them. It is just not the right balance. Rural tenants do not deserve less security than others, and the amendments proposed would open up tenants renting from a landlord involved in agriculture to being evicted in a much wider range of circumstances. For this reason, I ask for Amendment 48 to be withdrawn.

18:00:00

Amendments 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58 propose to expand possession ground 5C. Taken together, they would allow landlords of tenant workers, contractors and the self-employed to seek possession of a tenant’s home in the circumstances described within the ground that are currently available only in respect of employees. While we recognise that employee accommodation plays a critical role for many employers and have strengthened the possession ground by making it mandatory, we do not believe that it would be right to include other forms of work arrangements. This could leave the ground open to abuse by potentially enabling back-door Section 21-style evictions. Other types of arrangements may be available for those circumstances, such as licences to occupy. The circumstances where a landlord provides accommodation for tenants on, for example, short-term contracts are likely to be limited.

To turn to each amendment individually, Amendment 55 would allow a landlord to seek possession from a worker tenant who is not an employee when the work has ended. As previously mentioned, we do not want to broaden the ground and reduce security of tenure for more tenants. Amendment 56 would enable a landlord to seek possession of a property that had been provided to a tenant worker for an early stage of work which has been fulfilled. This is broader than the current drafting of ground 5C, which allows only employees to be evicted in this situation. While we appreciate that some employers want to help their employees to relocate or work in a different area for a period, we do not think that this ground should be expanded to include other types of workers. Workers on contracts such as those proposed to be covered by the amendment are less likely to require accommodation for a longer period. Employees are much more likely to have a long-term relationship for which housing will be required. Therefore, it is not necessary to widen the ground.

Amendment 57 would allow a landlord to seek possession of a property provided to any tenant worker for an early stage of work which has ended to let the property to any other current or future workers, including those who are self-employed. This ground is intended for a narrow purpose—to allow employer landlords to gain possession of their property when the purpose of the accommodation has been fulfilled to enable them to let it to another employee and not to other types of workers.

Amendment 58 would expand the definition of “the employer” within ground 5C. This new definition would include a person with whom a contract for work was entered into—rather than an employer in the strict sense who enters into an employment contract with an employee. This would allow a landlord who had contracted the services of a worker tenant to use ground 5C to seek possession of the property. We want as many tenants as possible to enjoy security of tenure in their homes. Broadening this ground in this way could mean that many more tenants would lose access to this security. As previously stated, other arrangements exist that may be suitable in these circumstances, such as licences to occupy.

Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 48 and not move his other amendments.

Can the Minister explain how this scenario will work? It happens quite a lot, particularly on dairy farms, in my experience. Let us say that an employee milking as a herdsman, living in the one herdsman’s property on the farm, leaves at quite short notice. The day after that employee goes, the cows still have to be milked. The only way to get somebody in quickly to milk them is on contract—that is an easy way of doing it. How will you get that person living close enough to be able to look after the welfare of that herd of cows and milk them twice or three times a day when you do not have any property because you cannot get rid of the employee who has left?

Presumably there would be a time lag anyway because of the notice period that is required. Whatever arrangements are made in those circumstances would need to be used in the circumstances that the noble Baroness describes.

I just add that there may not be a notice period if there has been an accident. I thank all the noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Grender. I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has to say before Report. There are two themes to these amendments. The first is the change in farming employment practices, and these amendments are designed to cater for that. The second theme is farm diversification, which this Government are keen, quite rightly, to encourage. As we all know, diversification ought to lead to growth and growth ought to lead to more housing, as there will be more wealth. I think the Government should, if possible, broaden the way that they look at these two amendments. The Minister mentioned that the proposals that have been put forward are open to abuse. I say only that the abuse would be by a very small number of people, whom one could probably deal with in a different way. Airbnb and licensing are solutions for certain types of contractors or employees who are brought in for a limited period, but are certainly not suitable for the longer term. It is not in any landowner’s interests to get rid of a tenant who is paying a decent rent in order to put in an employee who is not paying a rent, unless he really has to, so I do not think that abuse is really an issue. However, I see that we need to look at the definitions very carefully and I am happy to sit down again to try to come up with some definitions of who should qualify for this. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 48 withdrawn.

Amendments 49 to 58 not moved.

Amendment 59

Moved by

59: Schedule 1, page 174, line 29, at end insert— “(2A) After the second paragraph of the new Ground 5C insert—“This ground also applies to the letting of a dwelling-house to a tenant in consequence of the tenant’s service in the office of constable, but with the following modifications.“Employment” means service in the office of constable.In the first paragraph of this ground, in paragraph (d), “the employer” means any of the following persons—(a) the chief officer of a police force;(b) a policing body;(c) in relation to a constable’s service under the direction and control of a person who is not a constable (the “senior person”)—(i) the senior person, or(ii) a person or body with the function of maintaining or securing the maintenance of the body of which the senior person is a member.The first paragraph of this ground has effect as if the following were substituted for the second paragraph (b)—“(b) the tenancy was granted for a particular purpose relating to the tenant’s service as a constable and—(i) that purpose has been fulfilled, or(ii) the tenancy is no longer required for that purpose.”In those modifications—(a) “service in the office of a constable” includes a constable’s service under the direction and control of a person who is not a constable;(b) “chief officer of a police force” means— (i) a chief officer of police (which has the same meaning as in the Police Act 1996 — see section 101(1) of that Act),(ii) the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence Police,(iii) the chief constable of the British Transport Police,(iv) the chief constable of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary,(v) the chief constable of the Police Service of Scotland, or(vi) the chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland;(c) “policing body” means—(i) a local policing body (which has the same meaning as in the Police Act 1996 — see section 101(1) of that Act),(ii) the Secretary of State in relation to the Ministry of Defence Police,(iii) the British Transport Police Authority,(iv) the Civil Nuclear Police Authority,(v) the Scottish Police Authority, or(vi) the Northern Ireland Policing Board.””Member’s explanatory statement Police officers are not employees but office holders (the office of constable). This amendment expands Ground 5C so that it applies to constables as well as to employees.

Amendment 59 agreed.

Amendments 60 to 64 not moved.

Amendment 65

Moved by

65: Schedule 1, page 187, line 4, at end insert— “New ground for possession for property which is needed to house a protected tenant 24A After Ground 8 insert—“Ground 8A The landlord seeking possession requires the dwelling-house for the purpose of housing a person who either—(a) was employed by the landlord, or in the case of joint landlords seeking possession, by at least one of those landlords, and whom the landlord has an ongoing statutory duty to house after the job has ended as provided by the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 or this Act, or(b) is the former employee’s successor under the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 or this Act.””Member’s explanatory statement This new ground for possession allows possession of a property where it is needed for the landlord/s to provide Suitable Alternative Accommodation under the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 or this Act to a protected former employee (or their successor) whom the landlord has a lifetime duty to house.

My Lords, I repeat that I declared my interests earlier in the debate, so I will not bore your Lordships with them again. I am now talking about Amendment 65, on which I am pleased to have the support of the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. Once again, it is a fairly technical matter, so I will try not to send everyone to sleep. I thank the Minister for her engagement on this issue. I have taken on board her concerns, which relate principally, as we have heard throughout these debates, to making sure that the rights of assured tenants are not affected. Many former or current agricultural employees have protected tenancies under the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 or they have lifetime security of tenure as assured agricultural occupants under the Housing Act 1988. While landlords have the statutory duty to house these protected tenants for their lifetime, and for at least one succession to a spouse or other family member, they have the right under the above statutes to offer such tenants suitable alternative accommodation—SAA. Often, the tenants of these houses occupy housing required for a new agricultural worker or a property that is no longer suitable for them due to age or infirmity. In its current form, the Renters’ Rights Bill does not address the fact that a property may be occupied by a protected tenant. To offer that property to a new agricultural employee or rehouse an aged retiree to ensure that their housing needs are appropriately met, another property is required to offer as suitable alternative accommodation to that protected tenant. There is currently no ground in the Bill to allow possession of a PRS property in order to rehouse a tenant whom the landlord has a statutory lifetime duty to house. This amendment will enable landlords of rural properties to manage their properties when rehousing protected tenants. The amendment is vital because of the longer-term nature of accommodation in rural areas. The average tenancy, as I said in a previous debate, last for 7.5 years and it is often not possible to rely on a natural churn of tenancies in order to offer the suitable alternative accommodation when it is needed. A nearby vacant rental property is often unavailable. Accordingly, our amendment deals only with the issue of suitable alternative accommodation under the terms of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 rather than the Rent Act 1977, covering non-agricultural workers. It aims to ensure that the existing right can be honoured: in other words, that properties will be provided for protected tenants when required. The amendment enables landlords to provide such accommodation when it is needed. This is particularly important when it comes to former agricultural workers who have lifetime security of tenure under the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976. It should be noted that it is very common that such workers are moved on retirement to an alternative property owned by the employer, as the particular property they have occupied as part of their job is key to the nature of their work: for example, the dairyman’s house and things like that. This amendment is in some ways similar to Amendment 62, from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, which seeks to facilitate the housing of retired clergy. In both cases, the properties required are usually used for employees, but they will be let on the open market for times when they are not required by employees or former employees. Employers need to know that they will be able to regain possession as and when needed, or else they will not let them out. However, the big difference between this amendment and Amendment 62 is that, in the case of Amendment 65, the landlord has a statutory duty to house the employee under existing legislation. The Bill already acknowledges in new ground 5A the fact that it is critical to certain jobs that an employer can house an incoming agricultural worker. The point of this amendment is to ensure that, when an incoming agricultural worker comes into a property, that property can be made available to the outgoing retired agricultural worker whom the landlord has a statutory duty to House, even after the job has ended. This amendment is a key part of the mechanism for making way for an incoming agricultural worker, so that a different property can be freed up for the retired outgoing worker. In short, it is like the incoming agricultural worker ground but it is, in effect, an incoming retired agricultural worker whom the landlord has the duty to House. This circumstance could be made a prior notice in an assured tenancy if a fixed tenancy is not allowed. That would mean that PRS tenants would be on notice from the outset that this is the type of house that a landlord usually uses to house employees—incoming or retired—and they may give notice in the future on this ground. Finally, as I am sure the Minister will point out, there is the possibility, under Section 27 of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976, of applying to the local authority to have retired agricultural workers housed. This is only in very limited circumstances where the following conditions are fulfilled: the house is occupied by a qualifying worker, protected by the Housing Act 1988 or the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976; it is required for an incoming agricultural worker; the employer cannot by any reasonable means provide alternative accommodation; and the authority ought to provide it in the interests of agricultural efficiency.

18:15:00

I have been encouraged by the Minister to look to the local authority or other landlords, but, in reality, local housing authorities, even if the above conditions were met, rarely have available social housing to offer retired farm workers. This option is so unrealistic that the body—the agricultural dwelling house advisory committee—that used to be convened to assess agricultural efficiency and so on in these cases, was disbanded in 2013. The committee has not been replaced.

Even if there is housing available from the local authority, landlords, where they have been the employer, may feel responsible for their long-term protected tenants and do not want to relinquish housing responsibility to the local authority. Other local landlords—many of whom, according to a CLA survey, are currently considering exiting the PRS sector—may have no, or only unsuitable, properties to offer. So this new ground for possession is needed to ensure that the farming economy can operate efficiently, and that duties of landowners under the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 can be fulfilled.

I hope the Minister will acknowledge this issue and agree to the solution proposed in the amendment. I beg to move.

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on Amendment 65. I take this opportunity to apologise that, sadly, I was not able to attend the first day of Committee on Tuesday, when, had I been able to, I would have supported the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester in his Amendment 62, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, noted, is reasonably similar to this. I shall embellish what the noble Lord has said clearly with two examples. One example is a house that has been lived in by a protected tenant family but, 30 or 40 years on—that is the reality of protected tenancies—the house might need serious refurbishment, which after 35 years may cost north of £100,000 to comply with EPC or MEES, and will take nine or more months to complete; and the need to find a house to put said old and retired couple in more suitable accommodation while retaining their protected tenancy status. That accommodation might be an almshouse or a bungalow. The second example is a protected tenant family that may have been a large family, with three or four children back in the day, occupying a four-bedroom house. The children have married or moved away. The father is deceased and the widow is knocking around in a large four-bedroom house that is expensive to heat and manage; perhaps it has a dangerous old staircase, with a bathroom downstairs and the bedrooms upstairs. One has to think about this, because that is denying a large house to a young, growing family who may themselves be in a two-bedroom flat or house. A simple solution—which, again, would come through negotiation, but I am sure would be welcomed by a widow—would be a house swap, with the widow retaining her protected tenancy. That would mean evicting the small, growing family, but offering them the opportunity to move into a larger house. There are quite a few examples in the rural tenanted sector—and, I suspect, in the urban sector—where families have stayed in houses for many years, but then the family, having grown for 20-odd years, starts reducing in size but they remain in a big house. So it is important that protected tenants can be housed in smaller houses and that the tenants of those smaller houses are moved out, to allow the churn of housing as families grow and then reduce in size.

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for speaking prematurely. I speak as someone—I should declare this interest—who has a small farm, as I said earlier, which is very small in comparison with those of some of the noble Lords who have spoken. However, I have seen at first hand some of the problems that have been described. In particular, I remember one old lady who carried on in a house where she simply was not able to manage the property and its upkeep. What I think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Lord opposite are suggesting would help to avoid very painful, costly legal cases where people have to try and get somebody out, which causes enormous bad feeling and cost. I am in favour of this amendment and would have been in favour of previous ones because I think in farming at the moment the difficulties that landlords face are so immense—I will not go through them all now—that the ability to keep a farm going, which is the interests of tenants and future tenants, is prejudiced if they cannot get back suitable accommodation. I completely understand the desire, which I am sure the Government have, to offer security to tenants. In fact, that is an extremely important part of the fabric of our society, but we have moved on in some ways and what has happened in farming and what I have observed around me in mid-Wales is that there is a need to be able to get back certain properties to bring in younger people to farm. I broadly support these amendments and suggest to the Government, with great respect, that if there is any way that they can move to accommodate them, I would very much support them.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for moving this amendment and again he has given an excellent technical explanation of the need for it. I shall not try and repeat it, in the certain knowledge that I would not give as good an explanation. It recognises the enduring statutory duties placed on certain landlords to house former employees. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, who have further explained and emphasised the issues and why this amendment is necessary. Many of these tenants are retired agricultural workers who have given years, sometimes decades, of service and who now occupy homes with lifetime security of tenure. As such, landlords—often small family-run farming businesses—continue to shoulder a statutory duty to provide housing, even after the employment relationship has finished. This is not merely a moral obligation; it is a legal one that increasingly runs into practical difficulty. The housing needs of retired employees can evolve over time. A once necessary dwelling may no longer be suitable, as has been mentioned, due to age, health, or changes in family circumstances and numbers. At the same time, that same property may now be needed to house a current employee whose work is essential to the functioning of the farm. Yet under the current drafting of the renters reform Bill, landlords cannot regain possession of that alternative accommodation in order to fulfil their continuing statutory duty. Amendment 65 corrects that oversight. It provides for a narrow, targeted new ground for possession applicable only when the landlord is required to rehouse a protected tenant or their successor, and only when suitable alternative accommodation is required for that purpose. This is not about weakening tenant protections or finding a loophole—far from it. This is about balance, ensuring that landlords who remain bound by statutory obligations are able to meet them in practice. Without this amendment we risk trapping landlords in a legal Catch-22, where they are legally required to provide suitable housing but legally prevented from doing so. Importantly, they will be able to provide accommodation to retired employees who may have given many years of service and who deserve secure accommodation in their retirement, without the risk of breaking the law or leaving accommodation empty in expectation of its use later. This amendment does not open a back door to wider evictions; it simply ensures the fair and functional operation of existing, long-established housing duties. It is balanced, proportionate and essential to upholding the very laws that protect these tenants.

My Lords, once again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his amendment which would create a new ground for possession, and thank the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley of Knighton and Lord Jamieson, for their contributions to this debate. This ground would enable a landlord to seek possession of a tenanted property in order to re-let the property to a person to whom they have a lifetime duty under the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 or the Housing Act 1988. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his collaborative engagement on this matter and for helping me through his reasoning for the amendment, both in our meeting and his clear explanation in this Chamber. However, our position towards this amendment remains the same. It would go against the general principle of increasing security of tenure for assured tenants that is consistent throughout the Bill. We do not agree that there is a compelling reason that this particular group of agricultural tenants need to be housed in specific dwellings at the expense of existing assured tenants. Where a landlord has a statutory duty to house an agricultural tenant or their successor, in many cases landlords will be able to move tenants as and when suitable properties become available. Landlords can also use the existing discretionary suitable alternative accommodation ground 9, which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, mentioned, to move an assured tenant to another property if needed. The noble Earl, Lord Leicester, referred to the issue of underoccupation, which all landlords face. I certainly faced it as a social landlord when I was a council leader; it is not unique to farming. The idea that mandatory eviction is the answer to this, rather than incentivising people to move on from underoccupied properties, would be a completely new area of legislation to be considered and would be out of scope of this Bill. The new ground would mean that an existing assured tenant could be evicted through no fault of their own, simply moving the problem around and creating insecurity for tenants. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, this is similar to the issue we discussed on Tuesday in relation to retired clergy. I understand the distinction that the noble Lord made in relation to the statutory duty, but it is not for a specific property. The issue of just moving the problem around is the same. As such, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

I thank everyone who has contributed, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, my noble friend Lord Berkeley of Knighton and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. I think we must agree to disagree on this. The Minister, quite rightly, is trying to uphold the essence of the Bill, which is security of tenure for assured tenants, and does not appear to be able to consider the fact that some properties should have a sticker on them saying “prior notice could be given for the occupation of this property”. I think that would be a sensible solution because there are two big things that this Bill does not take account of—no doubt among others. First, the rural economy is very different from the urban economy. We do not have the housing that is available in the urban economy, and we are going through a revolution in terms of farming. Secondly, and I keep emphasising this, the farmer or landowner has a statutory duty. That was put firmly in an Act passed, I believe, under a Labour Government: the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976. I urge the Government to consider this again, but in the meantime, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 65 withdrawn.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed.

Clause 5: Possession for anti-social behaviour: relevant factors

Amendments 66 and 67 not moved.

Clause 5 agreed.

18:30:00

Clause 6: Form of notice of proceedings for possession

Amendment 68

Moved by

68: Clause 6, page 8, line 21, leave out “may” and insert “must” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment seeks to understand in what circumstances the Government feels it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State not to publish the form or ensure the form is the up-to-date version.

My Lords, I will be brief. Amendment 68 seeks to make a modest but sensible change to Clause 6 by replacing “may” with “must”. The intention here is clear: to ensure that the Secretary of State is under a duty—not merely a discretion—to publish the prescribed form for a notice of possession and to ensure that it is kept up to date. We simply do not understand why the Government believe that discretion is necessary in this case. If a form is to be relied on by landlords and tenants alike, and ultimately by the courts, it must be accessible and current. Anything less introduces the risk of confusion, inconsistency or even procedural unfairness. Can the Government kindly explain the rationale behind retaining this discretion? In what circumstances does the Secretary of State envisage not publishing the form or not ensuring that the version in use is the most recent? This is a matter of basic clarity and procedural transparency, and I hope the Minister can provide some reassurance on this point.

My Lords, I find myself in a strange position: having argued earlier on discretionary powers to change “must” to “may”, I now find myself in support of changing a “may” to a “must”. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that making this open, available and transparent would be a good thing. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

My Lords, I would have thought that common sense alone would have encouraged the Government to accept the amendment on the grounds that, surely, it is one way of avoiding potential legal arguments where people will get into a dispute over the actual process and will argue that form A should have been in one form and form B in another. Surely, it is relatively straightforward to ensure consistency, clarity and certainty. Having a position where forms are not published does not seem to make any sense, and I would appreciate it if the Minister could explain to the Committee why it would be in the Secretary of State’s interest even to have the burden of that responsibility, never mind the difficulties that tenants and others might have. Surely anything that could create certainty and remove grounds for illegal dispute would be in the interests of the Minister and the Government.

My Lords, I hope that I can explain this very quickly and simply. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendment regarding the form of notice for proceedings. Clause 6 allows the Secretary of State to publish the prescribed form to be used when landlords serve notice of intention to begin possession proceedings. The form will continue to be published on GOV.UK. Amendment 68 by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would not affect whether the Government are required to prescribe that form. This requirement is already laid out in Section 8(3) of the Housing Act 1988 and is not repealed by any measure in the Renters’ Rights Bill. Clause 6 provides that regulations may allow the Secretary of State to publish and update the required form without the need for any updates to be made by way of statutory instrument, as is currently the case. It is crucial that the information that landlords are required to provide reflects current law. This clause will allow regulations to be made so that we can update the forms at speed and respond to changing circumstances. As the notice of possession proceedings remains a prescribed form under Section 8(3) of the Housing Act 1988, the requirement for the Government to prescribe the form persists; however, Clause 6 provides a simpler mechanism in which the form can be updated—it is the mechanism that changes. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. I am afraid that I am still confused, and what I would like to do is to read her explanation in Hansard and reserve the right to bring this back if we do not think that it is clear. It did not quite make sense to me, but I am sure that it might if I read it in the next couple of days. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 68 withdrawn.

Clause 6 agreed.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 6.36 pm.