Renters’ Rights Bill

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that Lords amendments 39 and 68 engage Commons financial privilege. If either of those Lords amendments is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

Clause 12

Right to request permission to keep a pet

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 11.

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 14, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendment 18, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 19, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 26, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 27, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 39, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 53, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 55 to 62, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendment 64, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 67, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendments 1 to 10, 12, 13, 15 to 17, 20 to 25, 28 to 38, 40 to 52, 54, 63, 65, 66 and 68 to 77.

This Government were elected with a clear mandate to do what the Conservatives failed to do in the last Parliament—namely, to modernise the regulation of our country’s insecure and unjust private rented sector, and empower private renters by providing them with greater security rights and protections. Our Renters’ Rights Bill does just that, and it needs to receive Royal Assent as quickly as possible so that England’s 11 million private renters can benefit from its provisions.

Before I turn to the Lords amendments, I want to thank Baroness Taylor for so ably guiding the Bill through the other place. I put on record my appreciation of all the peers who contributed to its detailed scrutiny.

As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Government made several important changes to the Bill in the other place with a view to ensuring that it will work as intended and in response to the legitimate concerns raised about the implementation of specific provisions. In the interests of time, I will update the House only on the two that are most apposite.

The first change concerns the date from which a tenant is required to pay a new rent in instances where the first-tier tribunal has set a new rent amount following a tenant’s challenge to a proposed increase. The Government were elected on a clear manifesto commitment to empower tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases. It is essential that we deliver on that commitment not only to protect tenants from undue financial pressure, but to prevent rent hikes from being used as a form of back-door eviction once section 21 notices have been abolished.

However, recognising that there is inherent uncertainty about the volume of rent increase challenges that will be brought when the new tenancy system comes into force, and as a safeguard against a scenario in which the first-tier tribunal is overwhelmed by a sharp increase in challenges, Lords amendments 6 to 8 introduce a new delegated power that will enable the backdating of rent increases following determinations by the tribunal of new rent amounts. I want to reiterate what Baroness Taylor made clear in the other place—namely, that it is not the Government’s intention to make use of this new power unless and until it is considered necessary to avoid lengthy delays for genuine cases to be heard. If used, it would be subject to the affirmative procedure to allow appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. In addition to introducing that important safeguard, the Government also concluded that there is a compelling case for the use of an alternative body or mechanism to make initial rent determinations. Subject to a final viability assessment, we intend to establish such an alternative body or mechanism as soon as possible, and will confirm further details in due course.

Just last week, I was asked a similar question back home; the legislation back home is not covered by this House. The issue for those who have animals is that almost every person who has an animal in a flat, apartment or other property always looks after the property as if it were their own and the issue of animal damage does not come up. It does, however, come up the odd time, so is it not better—I think the Minister is saying this—to have an obligation rather than legislation to ensure that the tenant covers any damage by a pet, because most tenants will be accountable for their pets no matter what?

As ever, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes a good point. There is evidence that pet damage is, in many cases, not extensive or a particular issue. Where pet damage occurs, as I will come on to make clear in response to the relevant Lords amendment, we think that the provisions in the Tenant Fees Act 2019, which allow for tenant deposits to be changed in response to such issues, mean that we have the necessary delegated powers, but I will set out further detail on that particular issue in due course.

I will now turn to the amendments made by peers in the other place. We welcome the scrutiny and challenge provided, and are willing to make sensible concessions in some areas, but most of the amendments in question serve to undermine the core principles of the Bill and for that reason we cannot accept them. Let me make clear precisely, in each instance, where that is the case, starting with Lords amendment 53.

Lords amendment 53 dramatically broadens the scope of possession ground 4A, so that it encompasses not only full-time students living in houses in multiple occupation, but non-typical students, such as older students with families undertaking postgraduate studies who may live in self-contained one and two-bed properties. Ground 4A exists precisely because the Government recognise the unique nature of the student rental market and are determined to ensure that the annual cycle of student lettings continues accordingly. However, ground 4A was deliberately designed to ensure that the benefits of the new tenancy system introduced in the Bill were not denied to non-typical students. We believe restricting its use to HMOs or dwelling-houses in HMOs strikes the right balance, and I therefore urge the House to reject Lords amendment 53.

Lords amendment 64 introduces a new ground for possession for the sole purpose of allowing a landlord to regain their property to house a carer for themselves or a member of their family living with them. Everyone in this Chamber recognises the vital work carers do to support people to live independently and with dignity. However, while the Government are profoundly sympathetic to the needs of those who require care, I am afraid we cannot support this amendment for two main reasons. First, while I appreciate entirely that some peers currently own and let rental properties in close proximity to their homes, with a view to one day using them to house a carer for themselves or members of their family, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that this practice is sufficiently widespread to justify the insertion into the Bill at this late stage of a dedicated possession ground to cater specifically for it. Secondly, the definition of “carer” in the amendment—namely, anyone providing any form of care in a voluntary or contractual arrangement, is so broad that the scope for abuse, in our view, is substantial. I therefore urge the House to reject the amendment.

It is worth noting that to better support affected shared owners, the Government have already taken a number of steps to provide greater clarity about what flexibilities and assistance shared owners should expect from registered providers, including in relation to subletting at market rates. We also recognise that there is more that might be done, outside this legislation, to mitigate the impact of the building safety crisis on shared owners, and are committed to exploring all options. However, while I very much commend Lord Young of Cookham for championing the interests of shared owners in difficulty, and am more than happy to continue to engage with him to determine if there is a way to provide them with greater support that does not undermine the core principles of the Bill, I am afraid that I cannot accept Lords amendment 19 at this time, purely because the Government remain of the view that it could undermine protections for the small subset of tenants who happen to rent a sublet home from a shared owner.

Lords amendment 11 would allow landlords to require an additional deposit, equivalent to three weeks’ rent, as a condition of consent to a tenant’s request to keep a pet. We cannot support this amendment. Requiring a further three weeks’ deposit would cost the average tenant in England over £900. Such sums would be unaffordable for many tenants and would greatly exceed the average deposit deduction for pet damage of £300. We are satisfied—this speaks to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—that the existing requirement for five weeks’ deposit for typical tenancies is sufficient to cover the risk of any damages relating to pet ownership. Crucially, as I mentioned, we already have the delegated powers necessary, under the Tenant Fees Act 2019, to allow higher deposits for tenancies with pets, should evidence come forward to the contrary. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject Lords amendment 11.

Lords amendments 26 and 27 would require local authorities to meet the criminal, rather than the civil, standard of proof when imposing penalties for rental discrimination and rental bidding breaches. The Government are absolutely clear that the civil standard, which is aligned with similar legislation, such as the wider anti-discrimination provisions of the Equality Act 2010, is the appropriate one to apply in these circumstances. Requiring local authorities to meet the more stringent criminal standard of proof for provisions that cannot lead to a criminal offence where the conduct persists would make local authority enforcement extremely challenging, and would be prohibitively resource-intensive. We cannot accept the amendments for those reasons, and I urge the House to reject them.

Finally, Lords amendment 39 would bring service family accommodation within scope of the modernised decent homes standard that the Government are introducing. I begin by once again acknowledging the integral role that safe and decent accommodation plays in the lives of our service personnel and their families. The Government are absolutely determined to improve the standard of service family accommodation across the entire defence estate—in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as England. However, the Government cannot accept the amendment. As has been debated at length at various stages of the Bill, the Ministry of Defence is absolutely clear that subjecting secure defence sites to local authority inspections, as this amendment would do, is unworkable due to access and security constraints. In any case, as we have made clear many times, the MOD already applies the decent homes standard as a benchmark, has gone further with its decent homes plus standard for service family accommodation, and has committed to complying with Awaab’s law requirements, and to mirroring any of its timescales for dealing with damp and mould in its key performance indicators.

As the House will know, earlier this year, the MOD announced an additional £1.5 billion investment in service family accommodation as part of a £7 billion commitment over the next five years, and in the coming months, the Government will publish a defence housing strategy, setting out clear renewal standards and further steps to improve accommodation for the men and women who serve our country. Importantly, those renewal standards will apply to the whole UK defence estate, ensuring that the different nations of the UK are not subject to different decency standards, as would be the case under Lords amendment 39.

We believe that there are very strong reasons for objecting to that amendment, but I appreciate fully that peers want certainty that all service accommodation will be brought up to the requisite standard. With a view to providing greater confidence about the Government’s clear intentions in this area, I can confirm today that the MOD will lay before Parliament and publish on gov.uk an annual report on the standard of service family accommodation in the UK. I hope that the transparency and accountability that annual reporting will facilitate will provide sufficient reassurance of the Government’s commitment to the commendable objectives that underpin Lords amendment 39. However, for the reasons I have provided, we will not be able to accept it today.

I mentioned at the outset that the Government are willing to make sensible concessions in some areas, and that is the case for Lords amendments 55 to 57, which would expand ground 5A to allow landlords to evict their tenants to house self-employed workers and other types of workers engaged in agriculture. Peers also agreed to Lords amendments 58 to 62, which would expand ground 5C in order to allow landlords to evict a wider range of workers than just tenants who are employees.

Having reflected on our position, the Government have tabled amendments in lieu that narrowly expand ground 5A to allow agricultural landlords to evict assured tenants in order to house both employees and non-employed workers engaged in agriculture. We believe this small technical change will support the Government’s clear intention of ensuring that the agricultural sector can continue to function effectively without compromising wider security of tenure, and I am pleased that both Lord Carrington and the National Farmers Union have indicated their support for these changes.

To conclude, the Bill has undoubtedly been improved as a result of the scrutiny to which it has been subjected, but the Government are not prepared to allow our core principles to be undermined in the way that the amendments would. I urge the House to support the Government’s position, and I look forward to the remainder of the debate.