Who said what on day one of Renters’ Rights Bill Lords report stage?

My Lords, before we start the debate on the first group, I want to repeat my reminders to the House in Committee on declaring interests. As we set out previously, noble Lords should declare relevant interests at each stage of proceedings on a Bill. That means that in their first contribution on Report, noble Lords must declare any relevant financial interests in a specific but brief way. Declarations do not need to be repeated in subsequent speeches on Report. As my noble friend the Chief Whip reminded the House last week, it is no longer sufficient to say that interests are set out in the register.

Clause 1: Assured tenancies to be periodic with rent period not exceeding a month

Amendment 1

My Lords, I start off with my declaration, which is in the register, that my wife and I own five one-bedroom flats in the next-door house to ours, and we have been renting out those flats for the last 30 years.

As we approach the 126 amendments now tabled for Report, and before I introduce my Amendment 1, I suggest that we take stock of where we are after seven days in Committee. I start by giving praise to my noble friend the Minister. Throughout Committee, she was always very well briefed, and she spoke to every amendment with great politeness, naming and thanking everyone who spoke. She was always available to have meetings and discussions about the Bill. I know, too, from her days as a councillor in Stevenage, about her great concern that landlord and tenant legislation should not make families homeless—she feels that very strongly. I say to her: thank you, Sharon.

However, there has been a big problem. Out of the 300-odd amendments tabled in Committee, the Government did not accept a single one—I think I am right in saying that; if I am wrong, I hope that somebody will correct me. It is true that, in the Minister’s letter of 24 June, the Government, through the Minister, have accepted three amendments. I am very grateful for that, but that is a very small number against the rejection of 300 amendments. By applying normal averages, it cannot be right that the Government were always right in Committee on all these amendments and that the rest of us were always wrong.

Moreover, in Committee, there was considerable expertise in landlord and tenant matters among Members of the House. At least a dozen of us have had that direct experience. At least half a dozen of us were declared landlords of the good and honest variety. When I joined this House 53 years ago, there was good willingness in the House to listen to the expertise of its Members—after all, that is what we are here to provide. It now seems that the Government were not prepared, during the passage of the Bill, to listen to the expertise of the House. To put it bluntly, the rejection of over 300 amendments shows that they are not listening to this House. I do not blame the Minister; I simply do not know who was responsible for the decisions that resulted in those multiple rejections.

The consequence is quite serious. As I will seek to show in relation to Amendments 1 and 41, there have been occasions when the Government have got it plain wrong, because they were not listening. As a Labour Back-Bencher, I want the Government to succeed—and they would do that much better if they were able to listen more. Therefore, on Report, may the Government start listening to us.

The purpose of Amendment 1 is to allow landlords and tenants, if they wish, to agree a fixed-term tenancy. My and my wife’s experience is as follows. We have nearly always let 12-month tenancies to our tenants. Our tenants—currently the whole lot—are couples in their 30s who are planning to own a home of their own. It therefore suits us, as well as our tenants, to agree a 12-month tenancy. After the first 12 months, we meet to discuss whether our tenants want to stay on for another 12 months; they sometimes want to stay on for three or four years or even longer. If any of them want to go early, within the 12-month period, we give full co-operation. We immediately seek new tenants. The outgoing tenants pay their rent as long as they are present in their flat and not thereafter when the new tenant has arrived. Indeed, I do not think that we have ever failed promptly to find new tenants, which is because we let out lovely flats with private use of the garden at the back of the house.

My Lords, I support Amendment 1 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. As mentioned previously, I have an interest as a landlord of over two decades, and as a former renter in the private rented sector for some 16 years, I have a combined experience in the PRS of 40 years.

The amendment before your Lordships’ House would allow a tenant and landlord to mutually agree a fixed term, as we have just heard, while restricting the landlord’s ability to regain possession of a tenanted property. It would further mean that the landlord would not be able to increase the rent over the period of the fixed term. Very many tenants would welcome such agreements and the increased security it would give them. Under the proposed periodic tenancies, after 12 months tenants would have no security as the landlord can seek possession on a number of grounds.

Polls have shown that a majority of tenants and landlords want to have fixed terms, and His Majesty’s Government have given no reason why they think they know best. The arguments against mutually agreed agreements on fixed tenancies are, frankly, unconvincing and threadbare. They result in more, not less, security for tenants, and less chance of familial disruption. The Renters’ Rights Bill rightly cracks down on rogue landlords, improves standards in the PRS and seeks to ensure a fair, workable and sustainable rental market.

Noble Lords may recall my Amendment 173 in Committee, which called for tenants to give notice not earlier than four months after agreeing to an assured tenancy, resulting in a minimum tenancy of six rather than two months. Why are the Government insisting that six months would be a disaster, as under today’s assured shorthold tenancies, but two months will be a panacea? The outcome of exclusively two-month periodic tenancies will be less security for tenants and landlords alike, and higher rents.

While I accept the need for flexibility for tenants, I do not see why an additional four months should be regarded as so unacceptable by the Government. Responsible landlords require the certainty of a minimum period to defray the cost of establishing a new tenancy. Many of these costs are one-off and cannot be passed on to the tenant under the Tenant Fees Act 2019. These cover things such as cleaning, inventories, referencing, credit checks, admin and so forth. A higher turnover of tenancies under periodic tenancies, and the financial risks associated with it, will otherwise put up rents. All long-term tenancies could potentially turn into short tenancies and the landlord will have to factor that into the rent. Another concern of landlords will be if a tenant quits in the middle of winter, when much fewer tenants are seeking rental properties. Rentals are often seasonal, and longer void periods will be the outcome. Again, this will be reflected in higher rents.

Ministers argue that it is highly unlikely that tenants will move in and out of rental properties, in effect turning long-lets into short-let properties. But that is exactly what will happen in many cases, especially in coastal resorts and city centres, already plagued by Airbnb and other short-let platforms. Figures produced by Hamptons show that properties being marketed as short-term lets are advertised at prices on average 49% higher than the same types of property for long-term rent. In the London Borough of Camden, short-lets can cost four times higher than long-lets. Deposits for short-let properties are about the same as those for long-term rent. This would make it cheaper for tenants to just rent a long-term property for two months than secure a short let for the same period.

To suggest that people will not game the system is naive. Why would short-term tenants volunteer to pay up to four times the amount of rent when they can save themselves thousands of pounds taking a property advertised for long-term rental for just two months or even less? On day one of the tenancy, they will have the legal right to give two months’ notice. Two-month period tenancies will open the floodgates to legal backdoor short lets which will be impossible to police. This will have other implications, which we are already witnessing. Landlords will gravitate increasingly to short-let platforms such as Airbnb which are more profitable than long lets and virtually unregulated.

With the associated abolition of upfront payments, which will make vulnerable people, the self-employed, pensioners and students—including foreign students—unable to prove their income, why should many landlords continue to take the risk when there is a more profitable alternative? In any event, only 7% of tenants pay anything up front, so I fail to see why this is also an issue for HMG. Banning upfront payments, which your Lordships will discuss later, was very much a last-minute government amendment in the other place, and I suspect it was badly thought through.

All this will result in fewer long-term rentals being available to tenants, less security and a profound shortage of long lets for local people in tourist hotspots. It is already happening, as people in Cornwall, Devon and Wales will know.

Nothing in the Bill will increase the supply of rental property in the PRS which, by some estimates, needs an extra 50,000 rentals per year just to stand still. A six-month minimum tenancy would underpin the viability of the PRS and ensure that more homes, not fewer, are provided for those tenants who need and want a long-term home.

Those should be where people need homes; those landlords entering the market at the moment tend to chase higher yields in the north, ignoring the south, where buy to let is rapidly becoming unprofitable. A six-month minimum fixed tenancy, if mutually agreed, gives all parties plenty of flexibility. As the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, mentioned, many tenants prefer to have even a 12-month fixed tenancy to give them added security.

The amendment would also implement a recommendation by the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee in its report on reform of the PRS in 2023, chaired by the very knowledgeable Labour MP, Clive Betts. The recommendation was

“that tenants be unable to give two months’ notice to leave until they have been in a property for at least four months”.

It noted:

“This will give landlords the legal certainty of at least six months’ rent at the start of the tenancy”.

After this period, the tenancy agreement could continue on a periodic basis as envisaged by this Bill.

I fear that, unless His Majesty’s Government amend the Bill on fixed terms and upfront payments, it will make the PRS unstable, uncertain, increasingly expensive and less viable, which would be bad for both tenants and landlords. Sadly, His Majesty’s Government are showing no sign of introducing the significant amendments necessary. As the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said, the Government listen but take no notice. As we have seen in the other place, this does not always work out well.

On 28 April, the noble Baroness the Minister, who cannot be accused of not listening, told the Committee:

“We are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the impact of our reforms. We retain powers to amend these measures should the evidence arise that they are having a significant impact on a particular group … We maintain the powers to amend, should we need to”.

I hope that His Majesty’s Government bear this very much in mind, before some of the unintended consequences and regrettable flaws in the Bill see the light of day. I was just one of 26 Peers who voted against HS2 in your Lordships’ House, and it gives me very little pleasure to say after the event “I told you so”.

My Lords, I shall speak strongly in favour of Amendment 1. I declare my interests as I rent properties in Norwich and commercial properties in Great Yarmouth through a directorship.

We live in a free-market economy, which is underpinned by the law of contract, a codified agreement between consenting counterparties. Of course, we must have safeguards and regulatory guard-rails to ensure that one party does not hold the other over a barrel, but the freedom of contract so that mutual needs can be codified and agreed is a fundamental part of the way in which we live and is one of the reasons why we have so many learned friends in this place.

I want to give some examples, from my experience as a landlord, of the type of persons who value the ability to customise the standard contract to suit themselves by entering into a fixed term. It is not the majority, but it is a significant proportion that cannot just be wished away. They include: employees on a fixed-term employment contract engaged in a particular project; students, singly or more commonly in groups, who want to secure their ideal house in advance and are able to do so only if the current occupants are sure to vacate in the summer; the busy doctor, who gets passed around the hospitals each August; and the foreign person, who is used to the concept of fixed terms in their own country and cannot understand what business it is of the state to interfere in these private arrangements. Those tenants value contract certainty so that they can focus on their work and generate wealth for our nation.

I like this amendment because it gives an additional benefit to the tenant: not just the fixed tenancy but the fixed rent. That seems a fair compromise, not least because the landlord does not need to price uncertainty into the contract—the uncertainty of a void. As a landlord I value certainty, even at the expense of locking out rent rises, because if I know there will not be a void, I can give a better price and everybody wins. I cannot see what is wrong with that.

The Government boast a commitment to

“transform the experience of private renting”.

They are doing that all right; they are making it harder for a significant minority to meet their reasonable needs. There are so many unintended consequences—the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Truscott, mentioned some of them. For a moment I thought I was going to be on my own, but I am delighted to see that there is cross-party consensus on the importance of this amendment.

I too was thinking about the abuse in holiday hotspots, where it is common ground that we want to encourage year-round occupation of homes in these coastal areas—although not the second council tax that appears to be emerging alongside. I fear the unintended consequences of this Bill. Let us contemplate a tenancy in Cornwall, taking on in June. The proposed tenant says, “Yes, I’m going to stay for a whole year”, but in the event they leave just after the August bank holiday. The problem is that by giving two months’ notice, it is a clear abuse; and to counter that abuse, landlords will factor in the risk of the vacancy. So they will jack up rents, and the person who genuinely does want to stay for the whole year is disadvantaged. Of course, they may wish to show good faith by paying in advance, but that will be discarded as well. I just cannot see how this helps anyone.

I will talk about students in more detail later, but I am concerned that we are going to seriously disrupt the student market, not just for their convenience. Often in freshers’ week—I saw it in my own experience when I was younger—friendship groups get rammed together and pretty quickly decide they want to go into a house together, and why not? Halls do not suit anybody. The purpose of the fixed tenancy is the discipline that binds them all together. They are not related—at least not when they start; I have been in houses where that does happen—but you get a situation where one person may want to quit half way through, and it reverses the obligation. Rather than that person being forced to find another student to take his or her place, it becomes the obligation of all his former friends to undertake that core activity. The responsibility is flipped, and I do not think that is good either.

There are so many other things I could say, but this is a good amendment. It does not wreck the Bill but enhances it. It works with the grain of the way a significant minority of people, consenting adults, wish to conduct their affairs and come to a sensible contract for those it suits. I agree strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said. There are limits to where the state should interfere; it should allow free citizens to exercise the choices that they should be entitled to make. This amendment deserves our full support.

My Lords, I listened almost with shock at what noble Lords were saying because I feel as if I am living in an alternate universe. They live in the cosy one—I smiled when the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, talked about him and his wife as landlords, and I can absolutely believe that his tenants loved him and enjoyed living with him. But sadly, that is not reality—it is not the situation. People say the Government have no right to interfere; if a Government have no right to interfere in making a roof over people’s heads—the basic issue of having a home—part of government business, please tell me what they can interfere in. Defence of the realm, yes, but ensuring that people can have a safe, secure, affordable home certainly has to be the business of government.

This Bill is scarily radical. I am often guilty of saying that the rhetoric does not match up to the reality, but the rhetoric around this Bill—the biggest changes since whenever, radically changing the system—is correct. The system is meant to be changed because it is broken. It is very brave and very bold. His Majesty’s Official Opposition probably think it is very stupid, which they are entitled to think because that is their job. The real issue around this Bill is that we are leaping into the unknown. We do not know what the impact will be. We have been told that Armageddon will happen; we will have to see. We and the Official Opposition do agree that there should be formal reviews in the Bill where its impact can be scrutinised in Parliament in full—because it is that radical.

My Lords, I declare my interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association. As we begin the first day on Report, I would like to start by thanking the Minister for the meetings she has held with me and my noble friend Lord Jamieson on the Bill—we really appreciate those meetings.

I suspect that, since Committee concluded, few days have passed without Members of your Lordships’ House receiving a steady stream of questions, concerns and comments about the Bill, because despite the Government’s amendments, it remains, in our view, a flawed Bill. It is a Bill that uses the powers of government to tell two consenting adults that it knows best; a Bill that fails to acknowledge the realities of the rental market and the consequences it may bring. We are united in the belief that tenants deserve safe, secure and decent homes at a fair price, but to deliver that, we must ensure a functioning rental market with enough good quality homes to meet growing demand. That means building more homes in the right places and encouraging investment in this sector.

Regrettably, this Bill puts that at risk. Rather than increasing supply, it threatens to drive landlords out of the market, reducing the number of available homes and pushing up rents even higher. If we get this wrong, it will be the renters who pay the price. Balance is essential, and we on these Benches do not believe the Bill strikes the right balance. The Government should have brought forward a Bill that targets rogue landlords—those who break the law, put tenants at risk and undermine the proper functioning of the rental market. Instead, we have this Bill, which risks driving out good landlords while allowing the rogue ones to continue operating completely unchecked.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for leading on this group, and all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. Diversity, choice and a range of tenancy contracts all contribute to a housing sector capable of meeting a wide variety of needs, as we have heard. In that context, it is reasonable to ask the Government why they are pursuing a one-size-fits-all approach through the proposed abolition of all fixed-term tenancies. Having listened to the contributions in Committee, it is clear that there is widespread concern about this element of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is right to challenge the blanket removal of fixed-term tenancies and to reintroduce much-needed flexibility into what is currently a very rigid clause.

Industry stakeholders share these concerns. Propertymark has warned that abolishing fixed terms could destabilise the position of tenants with lower incomes or poor credit histories. Many of these individuals rely on guarantors, who, in turn, require the legal certainty of a fixed term. Without that structure, these tenants may find themselves excluded from the market entirely, excluded from finding a home, and excluded from getting on with their lives. These tenants include students without parental support, young adults leaving care, and individuals with health conditions or irregular employment. They often rely on guarantors to access housing, but those guarantors understandably require the legal certainty of a fixed-term contract. Without that assurance, the door to the rental home quietly but firmly closes.

The Government’s rebuttal is by now well-rehearsed. They claim there is no cause for concern because tenants will have the ability to give two months’ notice, thereby shaping the tenancy to their preferred timeframe. But this argument is weak and raises serious questions. How can it be right to require landlords to fundamentally alter the contracts they offer? How is it reasonable to expect a landlord to accept a tenant who cannot demonstrate their ability to pay, particularly in the absence of the legal structure and certainty that fixed-term agreements provide. Equally, why should tenants be denied the option of a fixed-term tenancy if they believe it best serves their interests? Removing that choice is not empowering, it is restricting. Tenants, like landlords, have diverse needs and circumstances. Many actively seek fixed-term arrangements because they offer clarity, stability and peace of mind. For tenants in transitional phases of life, that assurance is vital. A fixed-term tenancy can provide security that their home cannot be taken away, even within the grounds of possession remaining. This is particularly important for those on temporary contracts, such as nurses relocating to hospital placements, families seeking to remain within a particular school catchment area or individuals from overseas who require time-limited accommodation.

To remove fixed-term tenancies is to ignore the lived realities of both tenants and landlords and to strip the sector of the very flexibility it needs to function effectively. For landlords, fixed terms provide the certainty required to plan and manage their properties effectively. Removing that certainty could prompt many to exit the sector, and already is, further reducing the already strained supply of rental housing. Ironically, this supposed flexibility could leave both tenants and landlords facing greater instability.

The proposed abolition of fixed-term tenancies may lead some homeowners who currently let their properties on a fixed-term basis to withdraw from the market altogether. Faced with the uncertainty of an open-ended tenancy, some may even choose to leave their properties empty rather than risk loss of control over future use. Why are the Government not listening to landlords, the very people who maintain the foundations of the private rented sector? They are not just participants in the market; they are the backbone of the market. We on these Benches support choice and the freedom to decide a contract that works for both the tenant and the landlord, and I hope the rest of the House agrees. We will support the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, if he tests the opinion of the House.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hacking for his very kind comments and—with slightly less enthusiasm—for this amendment, which would retain a form of fixed term, during which the landlord could not use a number of “landlord circumstance” grounds, including selling. My noble friend referred to his role as a landlord, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill: I am sure he is a very good landlord. Good and honest landlords have nothing to fear from the Bill; it is not them we are dealing with here

The issue of fixed terms is one we have debated at some length and on which I know there is great strength of feeling on both sides of the House. For many noble Lords, this is an issue of free will. They believe that the Government should not interfere in a tenant and landlord’s ability to agree terms between them, and that both parties should have the choice between a periodic or fixed-term tenancy. In my view, however, that argument mischaracterises the balance of power between tenant and landlord in any negotiation. Here, I agree very strongly here with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Landlords have the choice of many tenants, all competing to offer the most favourable terms, while tenants have far less opportunity to choose between properties. Tenants cannot simply walk away if they do not like a landlord’s terms—a choice between homelessness and a fixed term is no choice at all.

To speak to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, it has been symbolic of that imbalance that, until this Bill, landlords have been able to issue a Section 21 eviction notice and remove tenants through no fault of their own. Not only does that cause distress to families; it also places a huge burden on the state as our beleaguered local authorities pick up the cost of over 100,000 families in emergency and temporary accommodation. It is therefore incumbent on the Government to ensure that tenants do not lose out. We must step in to ensure that tenants are not forced into agreeing unfavourable terms that act against their interests and remove fundamental rights to move when needed.

I accept that fixed terms have some benefit for tenants under the current system because they offer some respite from the awful threat of Section 21, which hangs like the sword of Damocles over tenants’ heads. With Section 21 gone, that advantage will be extinguished, so there is even less reason why a tenant would agree voluntarily to a fixed term. Even if freely agreed, there is nothing equal about a fixed term. Under the current system, landlords can rightly seek possession during a fixed term if a tenant breaches the terms of their rental. Possession grounds are available if a tenant misses rent payments, damages the property, commits anti-social behaviour or indeed breaches any term of their tenancy.

Noble Lords would then imagine that, in a fair contract, a tenant could also terminate the tenancy if the landlord failed to fulfil their responsibilities during the term, but in almost all cases tenants do not have this choice. Landlords can allow properties to fall into disrepair, leave properties unsafe to live in, and still tenants must pay rent month after month. This is fundamentally unbalanced. It is critical that we act to reset the scales.

My Lords, before I reveal my answer to the question just put to me by the Minister, I will make a few observations. The central one I have already made: under English contract law, parties are entitled to agree what they want to agree, and they are entitled to agree to a fixed-term tenancy. I have illustrated—as has the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, with students—the value to the tenant of having a fixed term. It has been so with our many tenants over the last 30 years; it runs to their benefit.

I thank all those who have taken part—the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Thornhill, the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, and the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. It would have been a dangerous thing for me to do, with the Chief Whip sitting in front of me, but I was minded to divide the House on this issue. However, I do not have the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and that of the Liberals. I am not quite sure about the Cross Benches; the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has not participated, so he has given me no comfort that I will get support from the Cross Benches. Therefore, it is with great regret that I feel I must withdraw the amendment, which I believe was very carefully drafted and provided all the protections necessary on an agreed tenancy. It was, therefore, a good amendment that, alas, is now being lost as I beg leave to withdraw it.

My Lords, at the heart of the Bill is a duty to protect young people, because it is primarily young people who rely on the private rented sector. Students are no exception: many are leaving home for the first time, stepping into higher education with courage and ambition. For them, the need for clarity, stability and fairness in housing is especially pressing.

Fixed-term tenancies for students, as proposed in Amendment 2, are not a loophole; they are a solution that works. They have brought order and predictability to a cyclical market. The Government recognise this, having already made concessions for purpose-built student accommodation, but that exemption applies only to the most expensive end of the market. What if the student cannot afford a glossy new block with a gym and a neat working space, and instead shares a modest flat in a converted home? We urge the Government to take a consistent approach and extend this provision across the board, because there is a great student migration and a releasing and re-letting of homes at the end of each academic year. It is a finely balanced cycle, and if we tamper with it blindly, we risk breaking it altogether.

That cycle is already under pressure. Student towns and cities are seeing a decline in student-appropriate housing. If we continue down this road, we will put higher education out of reach for many, in particular those from disadvantaged backgrounds who rely on affordable shared housing.

That is why my Amendment 5 is so vital. The current restriction on ground 4A, which limited it to properties with three or more bedrooms, is both arbitrary and unfair. Many students, in particular postgraduates, international students and mature students, live in one-bedroom or two-bedroom properties. In Committee, the Minister said:

“Limiting it to HMOs captures the bulk of typical students”

The Minister is right: it captures the bulk, but not all of them. When housing is scarce, we need all available options. When choices are limited, we must protect every viable home. Let us be clear: ground 4A is not about throwing students out of their homes, it is about ensuring that landlords can confidently re-let for the next academic year and that students can confidently plan their lives.

Amendment 6 rightly asks why six months has been chosen as a cut-off point for ground 4A. This blanket time limit could disrupt rental cycles, discourage landlords from letting to students and ultimately shrink the student housing supply even further.

The Government worry that students may rush into housing decisions too early. That may be true for some, but many students want to secure accommodation early to avoid the stress during exams. Many student tenancies begin in late summer, and students typically start looking well in advance. Limiting searches to up to six months before an August move-in means starting in February. Under the current proposals, properties may not be listed until much later in the year, forcing students to house-hunt during their final exams. That is not necessary, fair or workable. The Government should let students decide when they wish to sign the contract.

Without fixed terms and a workable ground 4A, students will face prolonged uncertainty, and it will be harder for them to plan, budget and study. We must also remember that eviction proceedings are exceptionally rare in this market. The problem is not landlords turfing students out but students facing unnecessary delays and stress when trying to secure accommodation. The current proposals simply do not address this reality.

Finally, Amendment 7 seeks to include apprentices in the definition of students. Like university students, they would benefit from a fixed-term tenancy aligned with their training periods, offering much-needed stability. I hope, having listened to the Government’s arguments in Committee, that they have reflected and that we can agree that it is only fair that apprentices and their landlords have access to the same arrangements as university students.

The Government have already made partial concessions, but now we need a principled and wholehearted attempt to preserve a functioning, fair and inclusive student rental market. Amendments 2, 5, 6 and 7 are constructive and proportionate. They reflect what is already working, they address what is currently broken, and they would help ensure that going to university remains a viable choice for young people across the country. I urge the Minister and the House to support these amendments. We would be minded to test the opinion of the House, for the reasons that I have underlined. I beg to move Amendment 2 in my name.

My Lords, I declare once more my interest as a landlord who rents properties, often to students. Your Lordships will be delighted to know that I will not be jumping up and down on every group today, but I do want to challenge the quite obstinate prevention of fixed tenancies for students—and, importantly, groups of students—many of whom will be moving into their first home outside hall.

I want to outline some of the adverse consequences of this Bill if enacted unamended. It will reduce the supply of rental properties by discriminating against private landlords. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, speaking in the earlier group, seemed to fail to understand the dynamic effect: if landlords leave the market and there is lower supply, costs will rise and students will pay more.

It will reduce the choices of property available to students, because this Bill allows student tenancies only in halls of residence. This will not suit everybody. It reduces the choice of landlord. It favours the monopoly supplier—the institutional provider of halls of residence—rather than the private landlord. In my personal experience, my wife has become “mother”, so to speak, in particular to foreign students who have rented with us on their first time overseas. All that will be swept away, because institutional providers of student accommodation do not have that in their ambit.

It will create an overheated market in September, that is for sure, and—guess what?—that will cost more for students. It will also cause massive inconvenience for second-year and third-year students at university. I agree with my noble friend that this should not be just about universities; those with apprenticeships should also benefit from these amendments. But it means that second-year and third-year students will have to fly back. They may have got a work placement overseas. They will have to fly back early to try to secure a home when they could have sorted it out well before, in February or March.

The consequences of this Bill mean that it will be harder for friendship groups to get the certainty of a house with their friends. I have mentioned issues around clearing. The Bill will prefer established students from good backgrounds, with parents with sharp elbows, who understand and are able to transact draft contracts more quickly. It will aggravate the difficulty of getting guarantors lined up at pace.

It introduces protections for the current students—I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said in the previous group—but we need to balance that against the disadvantage to students one year behind, who also have rights and who also want to secure a place in their following year.

Students will be forced into these new student blocks. Some of them are really luxurious. There are cinema rooms and pizza places—the whole thing—but it is costing a fortune, and not everybody wants to go to that expense when they can make savings in the private market.

I spoke earlier about the importance of the fixed tenancy, which is a discipline that keeps everybody together and protects everybody’s interests. It is important that we dwell on this, particularly for students. Unlike in the wider private rented sector, where family relationships or other stronger forms of relationship exist, friendship groups at university can be more transient. We have spoken a lot already about the balance of power between tenant and landlord, but we should also consider the balance of power when someone in a friendship group in a house wants to cut and run, leaving his former friends high and dry. That is a real perverse situation that runs against natural justice and good order.

My Lords, I support the excellent amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in particular Amendment 5, which strongly resembles an amendment which had cross-party support at an earlier stage of our deliberations on the Bill and I hope will continue to have that support. It seems to me that the proposals that we have before us will lead to a two-tier system, in which advantaged students who can afford the higher rents will go into the purpose-built accommodation, but the lower-cost, more flexible accommodation—often smaller, private lettings—will be much reduced, and that will be very bad news for access to university.

I do not by and large believe conspiracy theories, but on this occasion I think that the interests of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are very different from the interests of the Department for Education. If students are no longer travelling to university so much, if some students are deterred from this accommodation, and if other types of tenants move in instead, that is not a problem for the department sponsoring this Bill; in fact, it might almost be a help. It will then be able to say that other people have been able to find private rented accommodation and the adjustment has been borne by a particular group of students. Meanwhile, the Department for Education, with its commitment to social mobility and opportunity, will be facing the consequences of fewer students going to university since they cannot afford the high-rent environment which is now being promoted. So, I am concerned that the department steering this Bill is not taking proper account of the legitimate interests from a different perspective of education and social mobility.

I very much regret that the Minister, despite her courtesy in meeting up with myself and others, which we have appreciated, has not been able to make any concessions, even moving from three rooms to two rooms or one room. I hope at least, however, she will be able to flesh out a statement she made a few minutes ago in the debate on the previous amendments, when she said that the Government would “continue to monitor the market”. Will she assure the House that this monitoring of the market will include monitoring student access to the private rented sector as part of their participation in higher education?

My Lords, I too offer strong support to Amendment 5. In that context, I declare an interest as an employee of King’s College London.

The profound change, in varying ways, to the rental market that the Bill will introduce is not very well understood outside this Chamber, but some of the people who have become very aware of it, in my experience, are people who currently let to students. I first became aware of this when told by a number of people that they do not see themselves letting to students in future, thank you very much. These are people who have small rental properties. I know that that the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, whose amendment I was happy to support in Committee, is also aware of this. He has highlighted the fact that we now have a bifurcated system.

The Government have rightly acknowledged that student housing is a major issue and have introduced some clear provisions that cover purpose-built student accommodation, and indeed student halls, but fail to cover anything that does not have at least three bedrooms and is being let to students. The problem is that a large proportion of the cheaper student housing outside major cities is of exactly that type. What somewhat astonishes me is that we have a situation in which there is not likely to be any harmful impact on the provision of student housing at the expensive top end of the market but a very major impact on smaller, cheaper rental properties at the lower end, which are of course the ones taken by students from lower-income families and people who are not in the major cities but are in other places. I am somewhat puzzled that the Government have been so determined not to extend ground 4A to, at least, properties with two bedrooms. I really do not understand it and I therefore strongly support the amendment.

I would like to lay something for the future about Amendment 7. I notice that it is a probing amendment and, of course, apprentices are not students—they are employees, many of them rather adult employees—but in future, if and when we revisit the issue of making accommodation easily available to people who are, in effect, students, and that will include apprentices, we should pay this considerable attention.

If we look back 200 or 300 years, especially in London, we see that it was full of apprentices who had come from elsewhere in the country. They served their apprenticeships in London and then went back out, and they could do so because part of being an apprentice was that you lived with your master. We do not have that any more, and the result is, again, enormously reduced opportunities for people who live in less economically advantaged places. If you are a low-income school leaver, you will have far fewer apprenticeship opportunities open to you in your hometown, and we are not doing anything to make accommodation easily available to apprentices who might want to be employed in economically more favoured regions.

Apprentices are not students so it is too late for this Bill to do anything about them, and it probably was not possible anyway, but I flag this conundrum as something that—if we ever come back, review the consequences of the Bill and make some changes—I hope the Government might put something on the table about at the same time.

My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. In Committee I was one of those probing the Government’s intentions on purpose-built student accommodation, houses in multiple occupation—HMOs—and the application of ground 4A to those properties but not to smaller units in the private rented sector that some students might choose to live in.

I listened very carefully to the Minister’s reply in Committee and have thought further. Indeed, I have listened carefully to the debate so far and I am sorry to have to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, although I agree with him that it will be very important for the Government to monitor the impact of the student market on the private rented sector. I will explain why I take that view.

I have reached the conclusion that there is a good reason to restrict the application of ground 4A to purpose-built student accommodation—the very large blocks—and houses in multiple occupation. The danger of not doing so is that some unscrupulous landlords renting smaller units of accommodation which do not qualify for the term HMO might decide to call tenants students when they are not students, to get around the provisions of the Bill. I think that would be a serious defect in the Bill. Indeed, as the Minister said in her reply on this issue in Committee:

“The core principle of the Bill is that tenants should have more security in their homes, and we think it is right that these groups should not be exposed to potential eviction using ground 4A”.

I have come to the conclusion that the Minister is right on that matter and, for that reason, ground 4A, I submit, should be restricted to purpose-built student accommodation and houses in multiple occupation.

It is quite straightforward that we know who students are. The universities issue certificates and those certificates are handed to the local authority in the case of council tax, so they can get the 100% council tax allowance. It is not difficult to identify who those students are. Does the noble Lord agree? Has he thought whether the existing statutory process for determining who a student is would be sufficient to avoid the jeopardy that he has suggested?

The very point that the noble Lord raises is that I do not think it would be sufficient. Indeed, when I spoke on this issue in Committee, I suggested that the council tax register, because whole-student households do not pay council tax, would potentially be sufficient; I just do not think that is the case. It is not just about university accommodation. it is about students more generally. Indeed, there is an amendment coming up on the Marshalled List to define who is a university student. So I think it is a great deal more complicated than the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, has indicated to us.

I have concluded that those students who are in smaller units of accommodation will be protected anyway, as tenants under the Act. I have concluded that, on this matter, the Government should be given the benefit of the doubt, but I hope very much that the Minister will be able to meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, which is that they have to keep this matter under review.

My Lords, as this is the first time I have addressed the House at this stage of the Bill, I will just remind your Lordships that I am a chartered surveyor. I think that is probably the only interest I need to declare, other than being the father of three children. They are now long out of university, but I witnessed the process of them living in halls and subsequently in the private rented sector, two of them within the city of Bristol, and I got to know one or two of the people who let to students as a business model. The properties are not necessarily large—some of them are very small; it depends on what model they are using. I am worried about what seems to be an acceptance of what the Minister said will be a process of review.

Review done by government is an incredibly blunt and ponderous instrument. I predict that if there was a review looking at a particular problem, a lot of serious damage would have occurred by the time it had been completed or the matter actioned and put into regulation, or whatever other form it was going to take.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments on students, and all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. As noble Lords will be aware, the proposals on student accommodation have been subject to great consideration and debate both inside and outside this Chamber and in the other place. I thank all those who have written to me, and I am sure to other noble Lords, on this subject.

Amendment 2 seeks to retain fixed-term tenancies for students living in private rented accommodation.  I can only repeat that fixed terms serve only to lock tenants in. They oblige them to pay rent even if the condition of the property is poor, or if their circumstances change and they need to move out as a result. In the current system of fixed-term tenancies, we often hear of students who have dropped out of university but are still obliged to pay rent for their accommodation—I could mention some examples, but it is probably not appropriate to do so. This is not the right approach. We want all tenants, including students, from whichever demographic group they come from, to benefit from the increased security and flexibility that the Renters’ Rights Bill provides.

Students pay the same rent—often higher rents—as other tenants and so should have the same rights as everyone else. We have introduced a new possession ground to allow the cyclical nature of the student market to continue and to provide landlords with confidence. I recognise that the noble Baroness is trying to create parity between students in the private rented sector and those in purpose-built student accommodation, as their tenancies will be exempted from the assured system and landlords will be able to offer fixed-term tenancies. However, we have exempted purpose-built student accommodation from the assured tenancy system due to its unique business model. Often, PBSA cannot be let to non-students due to its location or the services it provides alongside accommodation.

 We have also exempted this sector from the protections of the assured tenancy system because we are satisfied that the Unipol codes of management practice provide an alternative route to ensuring that tenancies are at a high standard. There is no such code for private student landlords, and it would be wrong to mirror the exemption.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, who asked about monitoring—

I am sorry to interrupt, but does the Minister accept that purpose-built student accommodation is for the more wealthy? Young people who are struggling to go to university will go with the private rented sector and not the expensive specific accommodation. Has she done any work on that, and does she realise that that is what is happening out there?

Students who take up accommodation should have the same rights as anybody else who is taking up accommodation. That is why we do not want to exempt from the benefits of the Renters’ Rights Bill students who want to rent in the private rented sector.

To come on to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, about monitoring, we will monitor this element of the Bill, along with all aspects of it, and I will give noble Lords more detail about that—it comes up under a future set of amendments, but as he has asked the question, it is important to respond to it. We will evaluate the process, impact and value for money of the reforms in line with the department’s published Housing Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy. The evaluation will involve extensive data collection through interviews, surveys and focus groups with a range of stakeholders, as well as trusted data sources. We will talk to tenants, landlords, letting agents, third sector organisations, delivery partners, the court service and government officials. I will say more about the court service later on, because, to some extent, that needs a much more immediate and dynamic monitoring process.

The primary data will be supplemented by monitoring data from existing surveys and new data produced by the reforms. Reports will be produced for publication approximately two and five years after implementation, in line with commitments made in the Bill’s impact assessment to publish findings. Therefore, they will be available for parliamentary scrutiny. It is important to say at this point that we want to make sure there is a process by which we can review the provisions in the Bill.

I am grateful to the Minister for that very full explanation of the monitoring. In her long list of organisations that would be consulted, I do not think she had universities. Will she assure the House that they will be included as well?

My apologies to the noble Lord; that was probably my speedy reading rather than an omission on the part of the information I have—so, yes, I agree with him that this is part of the monitoring process.

Amendment 5 seeks to expand ground 4A, which allows students living in HMOs to be evicted in line with the academic year. It seeks to address the concerns of some noble Lords that the scope of the ground needs to be expanded to all student properties. It would remove the HMO restriction and allow students living in self-contained accommodation—one and two-bedroom properties for example—to be evicted each year.  We have thought carefully about the design of ground 4A, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for also giving it great thought. We want to ensure the cyclical nature of the typical student market is maintained. We therefore believe limiting it to HMOs achieves this by capturing the bulk of typical students—that is, groups living in a house share. Meanwhile, students who need more security of tenure, such as single parents living with their children, or postgraduate couples living together who have put down roots in the area, will be protected.

The core principle of the Bill is that tenants should have more security in their homes, and it is right that these groups should not be exposed to potential eviction using ground 4A. Self-contained one-bedroom and two-bedroom homes are also easier to let to non-students than student HMOs. I do not agree with the conspiracy theory that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, spoke about, but if a landlord cannot gain possession in line with the academic year, they are more likely to be able to let the property out to non-student tenants. That gives another way through for landlords.

On Amendment 6, noble Lords may remember that, in the Committee evidence session in the other place, it was highlighted that students are often pressured into signing contracts for the next academic year very early in the term, before they have had a chance to form stable friendships or assess a property’s proper condition and location. To discourage this practice, we amended the Bill to prevent landlords using ground 4A if they had agreed a tenancy more than six months in advance of tenants gaining the right to possession. This amendment seeks to extend this six-month limitation to allow landlords to sign tenancies up to nine months in advance. I am not convinced that this would be the right approach.

As I have highlighted, in many cases students are expected to commit to properties within just months of arriving at university, before having the opportunity to form lasting friendship groups or evaluate whether a property meets their needs in terms of condition or location. The purpose of this measure is to act as a strong disincentive to this practice, while striking the right balance. It avoids pushing students into signing tenancies before Christmas—when students are still settling in—but continues to allow flexibility for students who prefer to secure accommodation in advance of the summer period and does not interfere with typical exam periods. Extending this limit to nine months would undermine that balance and risk reinforcing the practice that this measure is intended to discourage; for example, tenants in a competitive market may be forced to search for tenancies starting in September during their January exam period.

Amendment 7 seeks to expand the student ground for possession, so that it can be used to evict a tenant undertaking an apprenticeship. While I understand the support for apprenticeships and share the noble Baroness’s wish to support people undertaking them, I do not believe that this would be the right approach. Ground 4A was created in recognition of the unique, cyclical nature of accommodation for those in traditional higher education. Those in other types of education, such as apprenticeships, are less likely to live in cyclical accommodation and need the security of tenure that the Bill gives tenants. Those on apprenticeship schemes, for example, earn a wage and tend to hope to stay at their company once the apprenticeship is completed; they live lifestyles much more akin to the working population than to university students. They will therefore benefit from all the increased security of tenure that the Bill will give them. For the reasons I have set out, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw her amendment.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and all noble Lords who have spoken; they have considerable interest in and knowledge of the sector. Having listened carefully to the debate, and given that the House has rejected the principle of fixed-term tenancies for all, I intend to withdraw Amendment 2.

On Amendment 6, concerning the timing of student tenancies, and Amendment 7, on expanding the definition of students, I recognise that there is sympathy for the concerns I have raised. However, I do not believe that there is enough support in the House to carry them; I will therefore not move those amendments.

Over the past number of months, we have listened to student organisations and universities across this country about the supply of student housing and the types of housing that students—of many different types—want to be made available in the sector. I have listened on the issue of monitoring, but I am worried that, when we eventually find out that it will have a detrimental effect on the sector, a cohort of young people will have suffered during that period of time. We do not think that is correct.

The other issue is around taking out certain types of accommodation from the sector. What will happen then? The rest of the accommodation will become more expensive for the students who need it. That concerns us as well.

There is an issue of capacity and supply in the market, and that remains very pressing. We believe that the Government’s response could have been better; it is pretty unconvincing. Therefore, we will test the opinion of the House on Amendment 5.

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. Anti-social behaviour is a scourge on our communities, but it is particularly devastating from a housing perspective. It undermines community spirit, leaving tenants feeling trapped and helpless. It strips away the very essence of what makes a house a home. Too often we overlook the consequences. It is not just the cost of repairs, increased security and time-consuming administration of complaints, placing an unsustainable burden on housing associations and local authorities, but the misery and social breakdown it can cause in communities. As currently drafted, the Bill weakens the powers available to local authorities and social landlords to tackle anti-social behaviour. That is why we have sought to bring back Amendment 3 today to preserve the ability of social landlords to demote tenancies in response to such behaviour.

Demotion is not about punishment for its own sake. It is a vital tool—a proportionate deterrent that enables landlords to uphold community stability. Whether it is loud noise, vandalism or intimidation of tenants, those engaging in persistent anti-social behaviour must know there are consequences. Without the option to demote, how are landlords expected to maintain safety and harmony in their communities? Those with experience in local government will know that when a tenant causes disruption, it is often the landlord who receives the enforcement pressure from the council. If landlords are to be held to account, they must also be empowered to act. Amendment 3 would ensure that social landlords retain this power. It is not a radical departure but a practical necessity to deal with real-world situations where one tenant’s behaviour causes misery to many others.

This is about protecting the quiet minority—the families, the elderly and the vulnerable who rely on their home being a place of safety. It is about ensuring that social landlords are not left powerless in the face of persistent disruption. I urge the Government to reflect on the value of demotion as a tool of last resort and the message it sends that anti-social behaviour has consequences and that community cohesion matters. In conclusion, if we are serious about supporting tenants and local authorities, we must ensure they have the tools to act decisively and fairly. I beg to move.

My Lords, we say ditto to every single thing that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said about anti-social behaviour. We all know it blights people’s lives and how difficult it is to stem it. We have arrangements where councils work with their local strategic partnerships to deal with it. Nobody is disputing that.

The reason we have come to the conclusion that demoted tenancies are not needed is really very simple. I contacted the National Housing Federation, whose members are social housing providers. It genuinely does not see a need. It is comfortable enough with the Bill and how it deals with anti-social behaviour. It wants to know that it has effective tools to deal with anti-social behaviour and is concerned about the capacity of the courts to deal with evictions based on anti-social behaviour.

My instinct straightaway was to support the amendment on demoted tenancies, but the National Housing Federation said it did not see the point of it but did want to know that it was going to get the tools to deal with things. Many providers, ones I know personally, feel that they deal effectively with anti-social behaviour, including my own council and I suspect the Minister’s. They were concerned about having those tools and the capacity of the courts to deal with that ground when they choose to use it.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for this amendment. It seeks to reintroduce social landlords’ ability to apply for a demotion order in response to the anti-social behaviour of a tenant. I can honestly say that one of the most frustrating things I dealt with in 27 years as a councillor was anti-social behaviour. While we all agree with the need for tackling the blight of anti-social behaviour on individuals and communities as a priority, I cannot accept the amendment as a way of dealing with that. It would fundamentally go against one of the core principles of the Renters’ Rights Bill—to improve security of tenure for renters. There is also a technical reason, which I shall come to shortly.

The amendment would seemingly enable landlords to demote social tenants to a less secure form of tenancy. As I said in Committee, as drafted, the amendment would not work: the Renters’ Rights Bill will move tenants to a simpler tenancy structure whereby assured shorthold tenancies and the ability to evict a shorthold tenant via Section 21 are abolished. There will, therefore, no longer be a tenancy with lower security to which one can demote tenants. For the amendment to work, a reversal of measures in the Bill to remove demoted tenancies and assured shorthold tenancies would be required.

Tackling anti-social behaviour is a top priority for our Government and a key part of our safer streets mission. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, many councils and housing associations already do a great job in tackling this in partnership with each other, but I accept that it can still be an issue.

The Bill will shorten the notice period for the existing mandatory eviction ground, with landlords being able to make a claim to the court immediately in cases of anti-social behaviour. The Bill also amends the matters that judges must consider when deciding whether to award possession under that discretionary ground. This will ensure that judges give particular regard to whether tenants have engaged with efforts to resolve their behaviour and the impact on other tenants within HMOs.

For all those reasons, we feel that the amendment is unworkable and unnecessary, and ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her comments, and I am grateful for the wide recognition of anti-social behaviour and the problems it causes. While we will not press the amendment today, I hope the Government have truly heard the problems that this causes. Evicting someone and going to court is very draconian, and this proposal would provide the opportunity of an interim step without the need for eviction. That is a useful tool, but I recognise the Minister’s comments. I hope that the Government will reflect and consider how the Bill can more robustly support those affected by persistent anti-social behaviour. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, we return to the issue of equalising definitions across the Bill, not just for consistency but for fairness, and ensuring that the definition of “family” is the same when it comes to guarantors and grounds for possession. It is not about expanding the law, but about clarity and equity. We want to place on record and state clearly that we believe the Government are making a mistake in resisting this change.

Amendment 21 is sensible and necessary; possession, for the purpose of housing a carer, is an issue of growing importance. Many families are already making plans for future care needs. With social care under increasing pressure, we believe that this amendment is timely and proportionate. We must allow older or less able people to stay in their own home if that is what they choose. Having a carer close by or even in the annexe next door would enable them to do so. I hope that the Minister understands the value of this ground.

Finally, Amendments 22 and 23, the first in the name of my noble friend Lord Leicester and the second in my own name, speak to the need for a clearer message around redevelopment, not only for commercial purposes but for private regeneration as well. Really good regeneration in urban areas requires a certain scale. When a large site is available, something truly transformational can be achieved, as we have seen with the King’s Cross redevelopment. But large sites like King’s Cross are the exception: they just do not exist. Many forward-thinking investors and developers seek to build up a site of sufficient scale through piecemeal acquisition over many years, continuing to let the housing and commercial properties in the meantime.

We believe that we should support and encourage those seeking to do these high-quality regeneration projects. Are the Government seriously suggesting that the tenancy should be terminated on change of ownership and the home left vacant, potentially for many years, thereby not only reducing the rental housing stock but undermining the viability of such large-scale regeneration projects and blighting the neighbourhood? Would it not be far better to allow property owners to continue to rent their homes until such time as the property is needed for redevelopment? I beg to move.

My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 21 in my name; I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted and Lady Neville-Rolfe, for their support. This amendment makes a very small change to the Bill, but it could make a significant difference to the lives of individuals who need long-term full-time care due to their age or disability.

I also thank the Minister for her time in meeting with us to discuss the amendment. We have listened, but still feel strongly that our amendment is important to those who need care. We do not see that it would create a loophole, which was one of the Government’s concerns, or that it treats tenants unfairly when trying to ensure that they have security of tenure and are not moved on unnecessarily from a home that they enjoy and are settled in.

For a loophole to be abused, there must be opportunities in the wording or function of the clause for this happen. We believe we have addressed this, as the property needs to be in close proximity to the landlord’s residence—for example, an annexe or a flat within the same block, or in the same street or village—so that daily and emergency care can be provided to the person who needs care.

Due to the proximity, the tenant would be aware of where the landlord lives. If there were a caring requirement for the landlord or a member of their family and notice was given on the grounds of the need for a carer, they could investigate, ask neighbours or visit the landlord for confirmation. If they were not satisfied that the requirement was met, they could use the provisions in the Bill to challenge the notice.

One of the principles of the Bill is to provide more security of tenure. This amendment would change the Bill in only a very small way as it would apply only to a small number of properties, but for a very important and valued reason for a family.

We have spoken to several national care organisations, which support our amendment. There are many benefits if a long-term carer lives close by, and these were pointed out to me by the National Care Association.

Continuity of care is so important. Carers have private lives, and this separate property would give the carer the opportunity to live their own life in their own space, thereby improving retention and their own mental and physical health. It would also give private space to the family in their own home, which can only help with all the family’s health needs.

During Covid, a lot of live-in carers suffered from loneliness when living in the same property as the person they were caring for. Allowing them their own housing would be a big advantage. Caring is a professional and skilled job, and therefore, when care is provided, it should be done by the most appropriate skilled person. Surely, this could be a professional carer.

If the individual being cared for has a family member living with them who could be the carer, would it not be more appropriate if that individual went out to work and did an appropriate job with the skills they have, rather than doing the job of the carer, when a professional carer might provide better care? Is not one of the Government’s primary objectives to get people into work? Surely, this must involve doing roles that they are most productive in.

Many people of different ages require full-time care, and this can be for many reasons and can come unexpectedly due to age, significant health reasons or sometimes, sadly, an accident. If there is a need for long-term care then surely, if you have a property in proximity, you should be able to gain possession. Is it not reasonable and fair to extend the grounds to allow a professional carer to live at the property, rather than a reluctant family member providing care services?

In terms of care, surely keeping an individual in their own home rather than in a care home or another institution, would benefit not only them but society in general. This amendment achieves this without adding pressure on the already stretched social care sector. We acknowledge that some tenants will suffer disruption by having to leave their property. This is the same as if the landlord wishes to sell the property or move a family member in, but this is for a very specific reason and most tenants would understand why notice has been given.

The amendment is all about family and landlords gaining possession for the use of a property for the family. That is what ground 8 lists. All we seek is to extend the provision for what is an essential service for a family in a time of need. We hope that the Government consider this amendment and make this small change for the benefit of those in care. If they are reluctant to do so, I may need to test the opinion of the House on this matter.

My Lords, I added my name to this amendment and spoke during previous Bill stages. I declare my interests as a private landlord, in my own right and also as a trustee, and as having a relative who purchased the flat above theirs when a carer was needed, which was going to be the case in due course. That planning is now, of course, in some disarray: they wonder whether they must evict the present tenant and bring forward the employment of a carer, even though that is not yet necessary.

Since the discussion in Committee and since speaking with the Minister, whom I thank for her time, I have spoken to various care organisations, which are all supportive of the amendment. They made some recommendations that lie behind the changes in language since the amendment was tabled in Committee. The care organisations have taught me that there is a very wide way in which carers are used, both in the regulated sector and outside it, on which many people rely for vital tasks, health and personal care. Absent the voluntary sector, a lot more costs would fall on health and social services.

However, it is not always easy to find a family member who can do this. Families are much smaller nowadays—my husband and I were adding up what has happened in our own family and, if we chase it back, 14 at our age level will end up being replaced by far fewer at the grandchild level. With those kinds of circumstances, with many more people working, women not wanting to stay at home and families spreading much further from where they grew up and from where parents or others needing care within the family might be, the care organisations say that the reliance is on what they term “loved ones”. It is a very wide phrase; quite often, it means friends and neighbours whom they have lived close to who have helped one another during their lives. When one of them falls ill or becomes disabled or, in many sad cases, is a survivor of cancer who has been left with life-changing circumstances, they become the carer who helps them. As their condition deteriorates, it may be necessary for the carer to be nearby.

The care organisations that I have spoken to, and which support the amendment, are the Homecare Association, Care England, the National Care Forum, the National Care Association and Carers UK. I thank them for their time and recommendations.

We are quite aware that the Minister does not want to create loopholes—that was the main feature of the discussion that we had. For that purpose, we have provided that regulations can be made to amend the definition of “carer”. In many ways, I would prefer it if we did not have that there, because the Minister could make regulations that took away anything useful, but I am hoping that it would be done only in the light of experience if one found that the term was being somehow abused.

In considering carers, we also need to look at care patterns. Many people who need serious care have several carers, who have to operate in shift systems, whether that be daily, weekly or monthly. Sometimes, the carer may come from overseas and stay for six weeks, and then they go back and somebody else comes in, so there is a rolling pattern. It will be very difficult if they cannot necessarily be conveniently located.

So I ask the Minister to think again. Yes, there may not be a great number of people who would be helped by the amendment in the way that a huge number of renters will be helped by the Bill, but in a civil society being a minority has never been a ground for discrimination. Therefore, I ask the Minister to think about this and to understand that, like her, we do not want cheaters to abuse this; we want people who are in need of this service to be able to avail themselves of properties that, often, they have bought to plan for their care—and, indeed, in order not to be a burden on the state. Should they not be allowed the peace of mind that they will be able to fulfil those plans?

My Lords, I also support Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, to which I have added my name. I am particularly grateful for the warm words of my noble friend Lord Jamieson and for the support of the various carers organisations which do such an important job in our society.

The Bill will allow a landlord to take possession of a property for a family reason. Our small extension would allow a nearby property to be taken back in hand if it were needed to house a carer. In the meantime, it would be available, for example, as a dwelling for a struggling local couple or an individual seeking a home.

With ever-growing numbers of the aged and disabled, with the move to smaller homes and smaller families, and with a scarcity of care homes and hospices, the provision for short-term housing of professional carers, often changing at short notice, will become more and more important in coping with our ageing population. This is particularly true in rural areas, which are being so battered by other changes the Government have felt it necessary to make.

I declare an interest, recorded in the register, as the owner of such a cottage bought specifically for a carer and generally let to a local on a shorthold tenancy. Such tenancies have expanded the rental market hugely in this country and will be completely swept away by the Bill. So, we need to do what we can together in this House to moderate its perverse consequences—notably in this case to make things better for carers. Fortunately, neither my husband nor I yet need a carer, but we may need one eventually, and my concern, like that of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, is a general one. I can guarantee that I am not alone.

I have no idea how the Government will find the 1 million more rented homes Savills believes we need by 2031 unless they make some sensible technical changes to the Bill, which is being constructively debated by knowledgeable experts here in this House. Our Amendment 21 falls into that category. I hope others will join us in the Lobby and in calling on the Government to think again on this issue.

My Lords, I did not intend to speak to this amendment but, since I am, I declare that I do not rent out any residential property, but my children are tenants and rent out property in their own right. There are two sources of potential misery here: one is turning out a tenant, the other is being unable to provide care for a family member. I know how I would feel if I was in a situation where I had to deny a family member professional care despite owning a property that could accommodate a carer. I am interested to hear how the Minister feels about this, what she would do in those circumstances, and what other Members of this House would do if the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, calls a vote on this matter.

My Lords, in speaking to my Amendment 22, I also express my support for Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. I declare an interest as a property owner of both commercial land and residential houses. If one acquires planning permission on a parcel of land that might have, to take a brownfield example, a few workmen’s terraced houses or, in a rural setting, perhaps a farmworkers’ cottage that might be in the middle of a proposed development, my amendment seeks to allow the landowner or developer to gain possession of said property or properties.

When I look out of the window of my flat in King’s Cross, which the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, alluded to and which was developed by Argent—a brilliant place-maker that has worked in Manchester, created a marvellous area in Tottenham Hale, and produced a high-quality mix of leisure, retail, high-end accommodation, medium-level accommodation and affordable accommodation, but which takes decades to assemble land—I see commercial property that has been bought by developers and converted into flats. Many of these developments have a high proportion of affordable accommodation, which seems to be the largest amount of development happening in Britain at the moment.

However, this should go both ways. We in this country hear we are losing industry and are only a service economy. We should be doing our utmost to produce jobs. The unemployment figures are already rising. If the examples I have mentioned achieve planning permission and the tenant is removed—the reality is that the developer or landowner would do that by negotiation and try to find suitable alternative accommodation for that person—but the tenant then says, “No, I’m not leaving at all”, then the whole opportunity for growth ceases. Were the development to go ahead then, because of the planning permission it has achieved, a great number of jobs would be created in the short-term in its construction, which might take two to four years, and then in the occupation of those commercial buildings. It is a win-win. The Government say they want growth, but if they do not allow my amendment, nor that of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, then they are not acting in the best interests of growth.

I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, on providing accommodation for a carer, which is very well thought through. We should all support it. It seems that there is a great deal of support around the House for it. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, is somewhat wider than mine—it is on redevelopment and regeneration—but they are effectively the same thing: they are looking for growth.

I have sat in on much of this debate. It is a shame that the Government are not listening. Good Governments listen to differing views and take note. There are many good amendments being put forward. Government through ideology and a large majority does not lead to good law.

My Lords, I support Amendment 22 from the noble Earl, Lord Leicester. I declare my direct interests in the private rented sector, with lettings of cottages in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire, and in direct farming and agricultural lettings in those counties. I said in Committee that a number of Bills, reviews and reports are in motion that cover the whole issue of farm and other diversification in rural areas, 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 a more profitable use. Obviously, this can involve farmstead cottages 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.

This amendment would assist in enabling diversification if the necessary planning permission has been granted or there is a permitted development right. I am thoroughly aware that the Minister is keen to protect all assured tenants from eviction for whatever reason, and keen not to reduce the housing stock. However, in granting that planning permission, the authorities will already have given due consideration to the potential conversion and any loss of residential buildings through change of use. They will have agreed that the merits of the planned development outweigh the retention of the residents. I therefore hope the Minister will include this new ground 8A amendment as a sensible ground for possession, which would assist in the development of the rural economy.

I will mainly speak to Amendments 4 and 21. It is fairly obvious that we will support Amendment 21 from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford.

We have a problem with Amendment 4—or we did to start with, but then I took legal advice. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asserted that we needed clarity and consistency across the Bill. I suspect we have more lawyers than any other profession in this House, and guess what: I got slightly different answers. However, the message was quite consistent: we absolutely do not need to have the same definition of family, in this case, across a whole Bill because we are dealing with very specific, different things.

My understanding is—and I am certain that the Minister will correct me if I have this slightly wrong—that the amendment to ground 1 deals with the diversity of the modern family and the kind of things that can happen, but it is about the repossession ground, so it has been drawn fairly tightly for obvious reasons. However, the definition in Clause 20 is clearly broader because it relates to the removal of the guarantor liability for rent after a family member in a joint tenancy dies. It is a sympathetic amendment and a sympathetic broadening, casting the net a little bit more widely, as it seeks to protect bereaved families, whereas we necessarily want to keep the definition in ground 1 fairly tight to avoid abuse. We have resolved our position on that, so we will not support Amendment 4.

I want to hear what the Minister has to say on Amendments 22 and 23, because I believe there are grounds to do what they would do already in the Bill. I am genuinely interested to hear the Minister’s response to those amendments.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for their amendments, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Carrington, for their contributions to the debate.

Amendment 4 seeks to expand the definition of “family member” for the purpose of the moving-in ground, ground 1, to a much wider range of relations. This mandatory possession ground is available if the landlord or their close family member wishes to move into a property. This amendment would allow landlords to evict their tenants in order to house nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles or cousins. It would enable the ground to be used to house the equivalent relatives of their spouse, civil partner or cohabitee. The family members we have chosen who can move in under ground 1 aim to reflect the diversity of modern families, but this is balanced with security of tenure for the existing tenant, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, indicated.

I appreciate that this draws the line short of where some might hope, but to go too far would open up tenants to evictions for a wide range of people, potentially very significant numbers of cousins, nieces and nephews, where families are large. I know that this depends on families—it would certainly be a large number in my family. This would provide more opportunities for ill-intentioned landlords to abuse the system. It is right that the definition used here is narrower than the definition in Clause 20, which removes guarantor liability for rent after a family member in a joint tenancy dies. That is because this is a possession ground, so it results in people losing their homes; whereas Clause 20 protects bereaved families, where the net should be cast more widely.

Amendment 21 aims to introduce a new ground for possession that would permit the landlord to seek possession of their property for the purpose of housing a carer for them or a member of their family who lives with them. This is qualified by the requirement that the property is within sufficient proximity to the landlord’s residence to facilitate emergency callouts. I thank all noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for their considered and passionate engagement on this proposed ground in Committee and when I met Peers to discuss the proposal in the run-up to Report. I recognise the difficulties they highlighted that may be faced by landlords who wish to evict their tenant in order to house a carer. We are all aware of the importance of carers and the remarkable work they do in supporting individuals and families in difficult circumstances. These amendments clearly come from a good place, and I am sympathetic to noble Lords’ concerns.

However, there are some practical considerations that weaken the rationale for this intervention. Adding more possession grounds increases opportunities for abuse by those unscrupulous landlords who, sadly, exist in the market. We are committed to giving renters much greater security and stability so that they can stay in their homes for longer. That is why we have developed very specific grounds. We also think that there are very few landlords who would be in the position of both needing a carer and owning a second property close to their home to accommodate that carer. I appreciate the examples that both noble Baronesses gave. Given the potential risk of abuse and the very narrow group of people who might benefit from this ground, we do not think the additional ground is warranted. Our view is that it is not fair that a tenant should lose their home, with all the disruption that entails, in order for another person to be housed in those circumstances.

The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, talked about supporting people into work, but this amendment might involve another local worker being evicted to house that carer. Indeed, if the evicted tenant were also a carer, it would be likely to deprive one of the very organisations that have been contacting noble Lords of a key member of their staff, so we have to be careful that we do not cause those kinds of circumstances.

Amendment 22 seeks to create a new ground for possession to enable landlords to convert a residential property to non-residential use. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, that I too visited the King’s Cross development when I was looking at the development of the central part of Stevenage. The work that has been done there is fantastic.

As I stated in Committee, in response to a similar amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I do not believe that the proposal in Amendment 22 is the right approach.  The Government have thought carefully about where landlords should be able to take possession of their properties, particularly where it would lead to a tenant losing their home through no fault of their own.

Encouraging residential lets to be converted to other uses, at a time of such chronic pressure on housing supply, would not be right. It is for the same reason that the Bill abolishes ground 3, which enables landlords to evict long-term tenants in order to turn the dwelling into a holiday let.  Where landlords wish to convert their property to non-residential use, it is right that they should do this as tenants move out, rather than by evicting a tenant who has done nothing wrong.

It is also worth noting—as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to—that the existing redevelopment ground, ground 6, could potentially be used in some circumstances. This is the right approach, not the approach put forward in the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Leicester.

I turn to Amendment 23. This well-intentioned amendment would create a new mandatory possession ground to allow landlords to evict tenants in order to redevelop their property, if they have received planning permission for the works and these works cannot be carried out with the tenant in situ. I am pleased to be able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, that landlords will already be able to evict in these circumstances. They can do this by using the existing, broader mandatory redevelopment ground, ground 6. This also does not require the landlord to prove that they have planning permission, which may not be necessary in all circumstances. In effect, this proposed new ground would merely duplicate ground 6, but with additional constraints. For the reasons I have set out, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Before the Minister sits down, can she be categorical that anybody seeking to redevelop their property would be able to terminate a tenancy to do so?

You can use the existing, broader mandatory redevelopment ground, ground 6, when you are redeveloping property.

In respect of Amendment 21, does the Minister accept that denying someone the ability to move in a carer to look after their family in the way that was outlined will be an enormous temptation for abuse? The best outcome in that context is likely to be that people will simply hold the property empty for very many years in case they might need it. That will not create much help for the rental sector.

I will reiterate my comments. When evicting one tenant to put another tenant in, you may well be evicting somebody else’s carer to put your carer in. Of course, we do not want to see properties sitting empty but, if people have a property, that is their choice. The idea that you might evict one carer to put another carer in, for example, is just not acceptable.

I hear what the Minister is saying about pushing a tenant out to put a carer in, but she is touching on a very specific case, where you are putting out a tenant who happens to be a carer so as to put another carer in. I would submit to her that that is a very tiny example.

The sheer emotional impact of not being able to care for somebody by putting a carer in will simply invite people to abuse the system: to find ways to get around it, or simply to hold the property empty. I wonder how Members of this House would react if they were in the situation of not being able to provide care to a loved one because, despite owning a property, they were unable to put a carer into it.

I simply add that it does not have to be another carer; it could be any of the key workers who we talk about so often who are in need of housing. There are other options for people. If landlords are receiving rent for that property, while I appreciate that there may be further shortages making it difficult to find somewhere near enough to the property, but there is the option of using the rent secured on one property to rent alternative accommodation for a carer.

Those of us who deal with economic matters will have to point out that there would be tax paid on the rent, so there would not be a great deal left to be able to rent the next home. That is not an economically viable solution, even if there were another adjacent property to rent with what was left of the rent after deductions.

I am sorry; I can only come back to my point. It does not seem equitable to evict one family to house another family. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions. Turning to my first amendment, I recognise that the Minister has given some serious consideration to the definition of family and is satisfied with the Government’s position. We respectfully disagree, but I will not press Amendment 4 and will therefore withdraw it.

We have had an excellent debate on Amendment 21. I thank the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for introducing it and the many noble Lords who raised issues on it. They have spoken with clarity and conviction. We believe that allowing a property to be used to house a carer in a time of need not only is reasonable but can be vital to the well-being and living standards of the property owner, and on these Benches we are pleased to support this amendment.

Finally, turning to the issue of redevelopment and regeneration, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for his amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his contribution. Revitalising areas is key to improving living standards and supporting the long-term well-being and development of communities, delivering the growth that this Government have said is their number one priority. It is also crucial to delivering the homes that are so vital, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the Minister said earlier in the debate. I appreciate the Minister’s comment that this may already be covered, but we are not satisfied that it is. The Minister’s comments were not conclusive when I sought clarification. I will therefore test the opinion of the House on Amendment 23.

My Lords, on behalf of the young people looking for student accommodation in the future at a reasonable rent, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

My Lords, I shall speak also on Amendments 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. I apologise that there are so many; I actually tabled only one but the Table Office divided it.

The amendments cover grounds for possession as they relate to self-employed agricultural workers. It is clearly understood that the key aim of government is to provide more security for tenants in the private rented sector—hence the abolition of Section 21 no-fault evictions. I thoroughly support this policy, but reforms must be implemented carefully when it comes to the rural economy to take into account the particular circumstances of the agricultural sector in order to avoid negative impacts, such as the necessary housing of farm workers who are crucial to the nation’s food security, as well as to a thriving rural economy.

Accordingly, special protections specific to agriculture are required. That is already partly recognised in the Bill in ground 5A, but limited to direct employees. Agriculture is unique in terms of tenanted housing, as often agricultural workers are provided with accommodation to enable them to be close to their place of work. A worker can often be required to work long hours during certain seasons, such as lambing or harvest, or unsocial hours, such as early mornings and late evenings, in the case of dairy farming. There are also animal welfare considerations that require workers to be close at hand at all times.

Following Committee in the Lords, I withdrew the original amendments to address the Minister’s concerns. She said then that there were other arrangements that a landlord could use to help their contractors with accommodation when they are working away from their home, such as paying expenses, using licences to occupy or paying for them to be housed in an Airbnb. She is absolutely correct, as contractors can be somewhat different from employed or self-employed farm workers. I have therefore removed contractors from this amendment.

The Minister’s 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. I also point out that licence agreements are generally unsuitable for long-term occupation, and in some instances can actually be considered as a tenancy, especially when the occupant of a dwelling has exclusive occupation of all or part of the dwelling.

I know the Minister was worried that these amendments could open up an exemption for a wider group of workers, and I hope I have reassured her that this specifically covers only genuine full-time agricultural workers. The revised amendments, which add only self-employed agricultural workers to this category, also deem that the nature of the self-employment should be genuine and meaningfully full-time. Hence, reference is made to working a minimum 35-hour week. Furthermore, the revised amendments confirm that there is no intention to alter the security of tenure afforded to assured agricultural occupants. That is because the Bill states that grounds 5A and 5C do not apply to this type of worker.

We believe that the ground for possession should be available where there is a need to house self-employed agricultural workers—for example, a self-employed party to a share-farming arrangement on a farm or a self-employed shepherd. It is increasingly common in the agricultural 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 site. Some examples of workers who might fall into this category are dairymen, sheep shearers, relief milkers or tractor drivers. Currently, ground 5A provides a means of getting possession where the dwelling is required to house someone who will be employed as an agricultural worker. However, it does not cover the situation where that worker is self-employed.

On the same theme of self-employed workers, 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 where the tenant has been employed by the landlord. In summary, we would like to see extensions to both ground 5A and ground 5C to reflect modern farming employment practices and cover situations where the worker is self-employed as well as employed. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to accept this amendment, which purely reflects current employment practices in farming, is non-political and is not designed to cover non-agricultural workers.

My two other amendments in this group, Amendments 10 and 12, cover the status of service and key workers. Much of the debate, within this Chamber and beyond, is rightly focused on the Bill’s impact on the private rented sector in urban rather than rural areas. These amendments seek to address two critical concerns: first, how we ensure that rural businesses can continue to function effectively and house employees; and, secondly, how to support the housing needs of key workers, in both urban and rural areas.

In many rural communities, landlords have typically also been a major employer in the area, and the convention is that they house employees of their businesses. Traditionally, the most common form of employment was in agriculture, and this is reflected in the specific legislation for agricultural worker tenancies. But, as successive Governments have encouraged rural diversification, we have seen a growing number of businesses beyond farming employing and housing workers. This has become more frequent as affordability challenges have meant that accommodation often needs to be offered as part of an employment package to attract and retain staff. Alongside this, more properties have been let to non-employees under assured shorthold tenancies, which have maintained flexibility. This system has allowed landowners to regain possession at the end of a fixed term, enabling them to house new employees as business needs evolve. Without a clear right to repossess in such cases, we risk seeing vital rental properties in rural areas either being sold or left empty. This is not hypothetical: we have already seen the consequences in Scotland following the ending of its equivalent of Section 21.

These amendments aim to ensure that rural businesses can continue to house the workers they need, while also supporting the broader functioning of rural and urban communities. In Committee, the Minister raised two objections to a similar amendment: first, that ground 5A already covers this issue; and, secondly, that we must protect tenants in critical local jobs. However, ground 5A, while welcome, does not go far enough. As the Minister acknowledged, the agricultural sector has unique needs, hence the inclusion of ground 5A, but 85% of rural businesses do not relate to farming or forestry. Many of these businesses still require staff to live on or near the site to perform their duties effectively. If the logic behind ground 5A works for agriculture, it should also work for these other rural enterprises. These amendments would extend repossession rights to cover incoming service occupancy workers—those who are required to live in a property for the better performance of their duties.

A good example is a rural business that diversified into hosting weddings to remain viable under changing agricultural policies and profitability. It now needs to hire a full-time wedding planner, someone who must be on site at short notice, work irregular hours and take on responsibilities for security and caretaking. However, the business cannot recruit because there is no housing available nearby. One of this rural business’s cottages is currently let to a non-employee. If the business were to seek repossession of this property to house this wedding planner, ground 5A would not apply and it would be unable to obtain possession. Amendments 10 and 12 would allow repossession of this property to protect the viability of the business.

I appreciate that the ambition of the Bill is to protect the security of tenure of more households. However, if we do not strike the right balance and make it more difficult for businesses to employ and house staff, they will simply hold properties vacant for potential future employees or sell them. This will further restrict the availability of private rented housing in rural areas.

I turn to the second point, which is the protection of tenants in vital local roles. The amendment is needed to address the efficient functioning of the rural economy, which includes housing those in vital local roles. The principle has been accepted for housing incoming agricultural workers; this is simply an extension of that. The Government are concerned about housing vital key workers in rural areas, so I have strengthened the amendment to include a provision allowing repossession where the property will be used to house an incoming key worker. Such workers are broadly defined as certain NHS employees; carers, who we have already talked about; teachers; and police and security staff, et cetera. In many rural areas, key workers face long commutes due to a lack of suitable housing. This undermines recruitment and retention and ultimately harms local services. These amendments would allow rural landlords to offer housing to key workers, ensuring the viability of rural areas.

While my focus is primarily rural, the benefits extend to urban landlords, such as NHS trusts or housing providers, and to key workers such as firefighters, on-call carers and others whose proximity to work is essential. In short, these amendments would make the private rented sector more responsive to the needs of both rural businesses and urban communities. They strike a balance between tenant protection and operational necessity and I urge the Minister to support them. I beg to move.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for bringing what is a quite small technical issue, even if there are many amendments related to it, particularly regarding farmers and their tenants. We understand that, technically, Amendments 8, 9, 11 and 13 to 17 relate to one very small, specific, technical issue, which is that if a dairy farmer, say, is on a contract, or is a freelancer but needs to be moved in to the site, then that repossession should be able to happen. So it is about viable businesses and about ensuring that somebody who is highly relevant can live next door to where they are working.

We understand, or we thought we understood, that licence to occupy would cover this. We also worry about the hours relating to this, although we note that one of the amendments specifies a 35-hour week. Therefore, I want to know from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—I am happy to sit down and make way for him to answer—whether it would be possible to apply a loophole so that someone could work for just one hour and then get through a loophole that has been applied by these amendments.

The answer is “No”. The whole reason for putting 35 hours a week in there is to make sure there is no loophole, and it is drafted as such.

I thank the noble Lord.

On Amendments 10 and 12, we on these Benches are concerned that they technically widen the scope beyond where we are comfortable. However, regarding Amendments 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16, we hope that the Minister has heard the technical detail that is required for a very specific profession and will look favourably on taking this away and having another look.

My Lords, the agricultural sector of this country and its workers are without doubt the lifeline of the nation. I therefore thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his proposed amendments that make provision for agricultural landlords and workers, bringing the welfare of the agricultural sector into overdue consideration.

Today, the British agricultural industry contributes £14 billion to our economy and puts food on our plates three times a day. Agricultural landlords lie at the heart of this. They provide the means for this essential lifeline by providing on-site housing for workers who are required to be at hand to fulfil their duties 24 hours a day. From milking cows daily at three o’clock in the morning to delivering lambs throughout the night in the spring, on-site and proximity housing ultimately facilitates workers’ ability to produce the food on which we all depend. It is therefore crucial that we consider the effects of the Renters’ Rights Bill on these agricultural workers and, in the case of the Bill’s failure to protect their livelihoods, consider proposed amendments so that the Bill does not obstruct one of Britain’s lifelines.

As drafted, the Bill clumsily allows for occupants to remain in a dwelling house even if they no longer work for the landlord, which is usually the requirement for the occupancy of such housing. Similarly, as my noble friend Lord Roborough stated on 12 May, the wording of this Bill also does not allow for the possession of a house dwelling as long as the occupant remains in agricultural employment, with no indication as to the specific type of agricultural work that the occupant carries out, or whether proximity to certain facilities or animals is necessary.

This ultimately risks the deprivation of housing for current full-time workers, who may depend on the occupied dwelling house to be able to fulfil their duties, not to mention simultaneously risking the inability of the agricultural sector to function effectively, due to an inefficient proximity to work that this lack of provision may cause.

Amendments 8, 9 and 11 to 16 therefore ensure that such damage may be averted by allowing an agricultural landlord to possess their property for the use of their own full-time agricultural workers, and thus retain the efficacy that fuels this industry. Amendment 11 is particularly important, because our country’s modern agricultural industry is changing. One of those changes is that many of the employees are self-employed, particularly in jobs in the dairy industry and the sheep industry, where milkers and shepherds are often self-employed. So we will support the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, if he moves his Amendment 11.

As previously emphasised, it goes without saying that the agricultural sector serves to provide for every one of us, and it is in the same vein that proposed Amendments 10 and 12 also serve. In the Bill’s current form, the absence of provision for service occupants overlooks the reality that many agricultural workers’ contracts express: the worker must live in a particular residence where they can better perform their duties. This is of particular relevance to the contracts of agricultural workers who, out of both duty and British custom, are often housed by their employer, who is also the landlord.

By allowing possession to be made for service occupants and key workers, in Amendments 10 and 12 the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, rightly seeks to uphold the implements and customs that facilitate effective and key agricultural operations, and the welfare of agricultural employees. However, with the more comprehensive inclusivity entailed by service occupants and key workers, the amendments also make provision for workers in other vital sectors where similar contracts exist. These include, but are not limited to, the NHS, healthcare, education professionals and emergency service workers. With Amendments 10 and 12 in place, whether one of those key workers needs to rise in the early hours in the lambing season to check the ewes, or provide immediate care for an elderly person, or is putting out a fire, their crucial duties can be carried out only with the due expediency granted by their proximity and not if they are hindered by the limitations put in place by the Bill.

My Lords, I support Amendments 8 and 9, et cetera, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about treating self-employed agricultural staff as full-time staff members on a farm for the purposes of the Bill. As this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill—probably the only time I am going to speak on the Bill—I declare my interest as a farmer and someone who has a dairy, because it is about dairies that I want to speak.

Cows have to be milked twice a day. It is not only from the point of view of the welfare of the farmer, and perhaps his or her bottom line, but from the point of view of the welfare of the cows. The cows have to be milked twice a day or they really suffer. Cows can actually die from not being milked, so it is really important that they are milked twice a day. Most dairy farmers now employ their dairymen or dairywomen—I am pleased to say there is a considerably greater number of women who are dairy farmers these days than in the past—through an agency, because it is the duty of the agency, if the dairyman suffers a heart attack or gets run over, or something terrible happens, to produce a dairyman literally the next day so the cows can continue to be milked. It really is very important for the welfare of the cows and the farm.

These staff, who are self-employed through an agency, are treated on the farm as part of the farm team. Although technically they are self-employed, they must be treated as being employed members of the farm for the purposes of the Bill. They usually occupy a vital house, probably close to the dairy. There is not only milking twice a day; a good dairy person has to spend two or three hours a day, in addition to the milking, watching their cows, seeing that their welfare is okay and they are in full health, and that their feet do not need treatment, and whether they are on heat. It is a really important role.

Although I am only speaking about dairy people, I am sure the same applies to herdsmen in a beef herd, or shepherds looking after a flock. The point is that these people are employed through an agency, therefore they are self-employed. It would really not be at all right—and I am talking about the welfare of the cows, apart from anything else—if these people were excluded from being treated as ordinary members of staff for the purposes of the Bill.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for these considered amendments, which reflect the debate we had around his similar suggestions in Committee, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for speaking in our discussion.

As noble Lords will be aware, we have responded to the needs of the agricultural community and incorporated ground 5A in the Bill. 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. However, this must be balanced with the needs of the wider rural community. We believe this ground balances both: it allows agricultural employees to be housed while protecting other tenants who may work in critical local jobs.

Widening the ground to include, for example, self-employed workers could open the ground to abuse and decrease rural security of tenure. For example, a landlord could engage someone on a self-employed basis to do a nominal amount of agricultural work and on that basis use the expanded ground to evict a tenant in respect of whom no other grounds are available. Amendment 8 would expand ground 5A, which, as drafted, will allow landlords to evict assured tenants to house an agricultural employee. The amendment would mean that landlords could evict their tenants to house self-employed workers and other types of workers engaged in agriculture.

As we have made clear, a key aim of the Bill is to increase tenants’ security, and the grounds for possession have been designed narrowly to reflect situations in which we think it is right that a tenant could lose their home, often through no fault of their own. Expanding the types of workers a tenant can be evicted in order to house goes against this principle and would reduce the security of tenure in rural areas.

Amendment 9 works with Amendment 8 to ensure that tenants could be evicted only to house workers who would be working for the landlord for at least 35 hours a week. I understand the intent behind this: it aims to address the concerns I expressed in Committee that the similar expansion of the ground that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, proposed then would open up the ground to abuse. However, I am still not convinced that any expansion of the ground is the right approach. Amendment 11 is purely consequential on Amendment 8, removing a reference to “seasonal or permanent employee” which Amendment 8 has moved so that it appears earlier in the text of the ground.

I ask the noble Lord not to push these amendments to a Division for the reasons I have set out. In short, we do not wish to degrade the security of rural tenants to house wider categories of workers. The narrow drafting of the ground proposed by the Government is proportionate, and by focusing on agricultural employees it achieves a fair balance for all.

Amendment 10 seeks to expand the agricultural worker possession ground, 5A. This would permit a landlord to seek eviction of a tenant to house key workers and service occupants as well as agricultural employees which the ground as drafted allows. Ground 5A is designed to allow landlords to house employees working for them in agriculture. This ensures workers who genuinely need to live on-site can be accommodated and recognises that employees may need to live on-site only for a limited period. We have balanced this with the needs of all tenants for security and stability in their homes.

Expanding this ground to other types of workers from different sectors would not be right. It would allow tenants to be evicted through no fault of their own to house a wide range of employees; for example, a teacher or a healthcare worker who is an employee of the landlord. For this wider group of employees, we do not believe that landlords directly provide accommodation on a large scale or that in most cases such individuals need to live on-site. In fact, this might see one key worker being evicted to house another, a point I made under a previous amendment.

Amendment 12 works with Amendment 10 to clarify the definitions for both key workers and service occupants. It also seeks to give power to the Secretary of State to amend the key worker definition by regulations. This would allow a future Government to potentially expand the definition to include many other types of worker without suitable scrutiny, which could significantly degrade tenant security. Employment ground 5C may be available to landlords who need to provide accommodation to tenants as a consequence of their employment. In our view, if a landlord needs to accommodate someone on-site, it is right that housing is kept for this purpose and that other tenants do not see their lives disrupted after a short period in a property.

Amendment 13 works together with the other amendments in this group to expand ground 5C to allow landlords to evict a wider range of workers rather than just tenants who are employees. The amendment would change the condition within the ground that the dwelling was let to a tenant as a result of their employment by expanding it to include “work” as well as “employment”.

I am clear in my view that expanding the ground for possession is not the correct approach. Ground 5C is narrowly drafted to allow employer landlords to evict tenants when the accommodation is no longer required for their employment. Expanding this ground further would reduce security of tenure for a much wider group. I am not persuaded that opening the ground more widely is justified for more informal working arrangements. If a tenant is an employee, it indicates a long-term relationship which could require accommodation, whereas this is much less likely to be the case for other types of worker.

Amendment 14 works together with the others in this group to expand ground 5C, as I have described. The amendment would expand the condition that the tenant has ceased to be employed by the landlord to include circumstances in which they have ceased to work for the landlord—a much broader definition. For the reasons I have explained, I am not convinced and have not been persuaded that any expansion of the ground is the right approach.

Amendment 15 also works with other amendments in the group to expand ground 5C. In parallel to Amendment 14, it would expand the condition that the tenancy was granted for an early period of the employment—for example, to help with relocation—to include circumstances where the tenancy was granted for an earlier period of the tenant’s work, a much broader definition.

Expanding the employment ground to allow landlords to house and evict non-employee workers is not the right approach, as I have explained. Workers who are not employees are also much less likely to require the long-term accommodation a tenancy entails. Other arrangements, such as licence to occupy or service occupation, may be more suitable for shorter-term contractors or self-employed workers.

Before the Minister sits down, on self-employed workers in the agricultural industry, has MHCLG discussed this issue with Defra? Defra would know how the industry has changed over the past years and how critical it is to have self-employed workers on specific jobs in agriculture. It is going to be very difficult for farmers, particularly livestock farmers, to manage in certain circumstances on the farm, as we have heard from the noble Lord opposite.

I have not personally discussed the issue with Defra, but I am sure that officials in MHCLG will have done so, and—

If my noble friend the Minister does discuss it with Defra, she will find that Defra has nothing like the numbers of people with experience of farming that it had 10 years ago. It has been completely denuded and she would not find the answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness opposite.

I was about to say, before the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, intervened, that I am always happy to discuss these important issues further with noble Lords and to refer back to colleagues in Defra and elsewhere. Nevertheless, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to withdraw his amendment.

I thank the Minister very much. I appreciate her response, but I am afraid that I am somewhat disappointed by it. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of the farming industry and the rural economy.

I greatly appreciate the words of the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Scott, as well as of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, who brings very practical experience as a dairy farmer, whereas I am only a sheep and arable farmer.

To pick up on what the Minister said about this being a loophole, the whole point of my amendment saying that the person has to be a genuine worker, working 35 hours a week, is surely sufficient to deny that claim. Reluctantly, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

My Lords, I understand that it has been agreed that a number of amendments are regarded as consequential on Amendment 8.

Amendment 9

My Lords, I will speak to group 6 and to Amendments 18 and 19 standing in my name. These amendments concern the point at which rent arrears become a valid ground for possession, an issue of considerable importance to landlords and tenants alike. The most recent English Private Landlord Survey shows that 45% of landlords own a single rental property and a further 38% own between two and four. That means over four-fifths of landlords operate on a very small scale, far from the image of institutional landlords with deep financial reserves. These are individuals and couples, often retirees, who rely on rental income for their own stability. They form the backbone of our rental sector.

With that image in mind, I turn to the amendments in this group. Under the proposals in the Bill, landlords will be prevented from initiating possession proceedings for 13 weeks of arrears in the case of weekly or fortnightly rent, or three months where the rent is paid monthly. That is a significant extension from the current thresholds of eight weeks and two months, respectively. Amendments 18 and 19 in my name are not about undermining tenant protections—far from it; they are about retaining the status quo, which has for many years struck a workable balance between supporting tenants through temporary difficulty and allowing landlords to respond promptly when rent is not being paid. When landlords are prevented from acting until arrears have been built up to such a degree, the financial consequences can be severe, not only for landlords themselves but for tenants too, who may find the ultimate possession proceedings more inevitable and more traumatic as a result. Early intervention can help avoid escalation.

Amendment 20 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is fundamentally right in principle. Landlords who provide a private service in an open market in exchange for a fee should not be penalised for government failure. If the Government fail to make payments, that is not the fault of the landlord, and they should not be made to suffer as a result. Therefore, if the noble Lord was to test the opinion of the House on this issue, we would support it.

These amendments speak to a broader principle that must underpin this Bill—balance. Yes, we must protect renters from unjust eviction, but we must also enable landlords to operate viably, to maintain confidence in the sector and to continue providing the homes that so many people depend on.

My Lords, I have Amendment 20 in this group and declare an interest as a former landlord. Amendment 20 was tabled in Committee, but I have retabled it because I do not feel I have had an adequate answer from the Government. The amendment would continue to permit rent arrears which arise from non-payment of universal credit to be taken into account as a ground for possession. Not to do so is unworkable and unfair.

Taking unworkable first, since this is the point which must surely concern the Minister, I suggest that it is unworkable because, unlike in the social sector, private landlords are not allowed to know, under data protection rules, whether a tenant is in receipt of universal credit. The Department for Work and Pensions is not allowed to tell them. As such, the landlord will have no idea whether rent arrears are due to a non-payment of universal credit and, unbeknownst to them, will be legally prevented from taking enforcement action. A landlord might discover that rent arrears were due to a delayed universal credit payment and therefore unenforceable only once the case reaches court, thereby piling yet further quite unnecessary pressure on the justice system. This creates significant uncertainty and risk for responsible landlords, particularly smaller landlords. Disregarding non-payment of universal credit is therefore completely unworkable. It will lead to unnecessary enforcement action, which is surely the last thing this new system needs.

Turning to why it is unfair, I ask why the landlord should be penalised if the non-payment of universal credit is the fault of the universal credit system breaking down in some way. This is especially problematic for landlords renting out just one or two properties who rely on timely payments to meet their own financial obligations. If the Government are serious about sustaining tenancies, then addressing the root causes of delayed benefit payments would be more effective. In other words, protecting tenants from administrative delays should be the job of the welfare system, not landlords. Otherwise, the upshot could well be that landlords will be much more cautious about taking on tenants on universal credit. Is that what Ministers really want?

In response to this amendment in Committee, the Minister told your Lordships on 24 April:

“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”.

With great respect to the Minister, I cannot help feeling that this is slightly naive. Is it really of benefit to a landlord to ensure that the tenancy continues when a tenant has accrued three months’ worth of arrears and, in the process, may have seriously damaged the landlord’s financial position—for example, in being unable to support their family or unable to pay the mortgage and forced to take enforcement action? Why should landlords be penalised for the state’s failure to pay universal credit promptly?

Paragraph 24(d) of Schedule 1 should therefore be omitted. It is unworkable and unfair. If, however, the Minister continues to think that paragraph 24(d) is fair on landlords, can she at least give some assurance that they will have a way—notwithstanding the data protection rules—of finding out whether rent arrears are due to delays in payment of universal credit, so as to avoid clogging up the tribunal system with unenforceable claims?

I can help the noble Baroness here, because Section 16 of the Data Protection Act—a Henry VIII power, in fact—enables the Act to be amended so that the list of exemptions in Schedule 2 to that Act is expanded. It could be amended in that way by regulations to enable the landlord to know whether rent arrears are due to delays in universal credit. This would not deal with the fairness points I have made but would deal with the unworkability points. If the Minister were able to give the assurance that the tribunal system will not be clogged up with unenforceable claims, I would not press my amendment.

My Lords, much of what we have been debating is about balance. We have heard that word a lot today, and I guess it is fairly obvious to noble Lords by now that when it comes to a balance, we come down in favour of the tenant. We believe the balance has been tilted very much the other way from time immemorial due to the complete lack of supply, the lack of social housing and the beauty parade whereby landlords can choose whom they want to let their properties to.

We feel that the Bill intentionally aims to give tenants more time to address their financial difficulties and therefore avoid eviction. We believe that is the right and the moral thing to do because of the additional cost to society of more homeless and evicted people and more costs to local authorities; it is a nasty, invidious vicious circle. But we do not totally have rose-coloured specs on: we seek reassurances from the Minister that landlords have robust grounds for possession, when necessary, when it comes to arrears. We all know that arrears are painful for landlords, especially if they still have a mortgage, but the good news is that most of them do not. In the situation that the noble Baroness outlined of a couple having one or two houses to rent for their pension—generally properties that were inherited from their parents that they decided to rent out—almost half of landlords do not have a mortgage, and a further 20-something per cent have only small mortgages. More than 70% of landlords are not in a dire financial situation and, as someone rather flamboyantly said, needing to feed their families. I see no evidence of that.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for their amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her comments.

Amendments 18 and 19 seek to decrease the threshold for mandatory eviction under rent arrears, ground 8, from three months to two, or 13 weeks to eight where rent is paid weekly. I do not believe that this is the right approach. We have taken the decision to restore the threshold for mandatory evictions to the levels originally set by the party opposite in the Housing Act 1988 before they were reduced in the 1990s.

Three months, we believe, is the right balance. It gives landlords facing significant arrears certainty of possession, but allows tenants facing one-off financial shocks enough time to get their financial affairs in order and not lose their home if their tenancy is otherwise sustainable. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that ground 8 is a mandatory ground, but it is worth noting that mandatory eviction is not the landlord’s only route to possession. Landlords facing frequent arrears and late payment of rent that indicate an unsustainable tenancy can also pursue eviction via the discretionary grounds 10 and 11. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 20 seeks to remove a key protection for vulnerable tenants from the Bill. It would allow tenants to face mandatory eviction when they have breached the three-month rent arrears threshold due to not receiving a universal credit payment to which they are entitled. This would not be right. We want to protect those vulnerable tenants who have suffered a change of circumstances, such as redundancy or an accident, by helping them remain in their home. It would not be right for them to face another destabilising event by allowing landlords to evict them, potentially making them homeless because they are waiting to receive universal credit that is due to them. Not being able to pay their rent on time because they have not received universal credit they are entitled to does not mean that they are a bad tenant. It is right that these tenants are given time to resolve their arrears; it is also important that tenancies that are otherwise financially sustainable should continue. That will benefit both the tenant and the landlord.

We have heard concerns that landlords might face uncertainty in pursuing possession claims if they do not realise that arrears are caused by an outstanding benefit payment. That is subsequently used as a defence in possession proceedings. Of course, we would strongly encourage tenants and landlords to communicate; it is clearly in the tenants’ interest to explain their situation before the case reaches court. I note too that there is an element of uncertainty in any possession case, and this requirement is not unusual in that regard.

I have heard the point that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, made about data access and I will take that back to the department. I hope he agrees that we are justified in our approach and that he will not move his amendment.

My Lords, the amendments before us, in particular Amendments 18 and 19, seek to preserve a workable and fair framework that supports both tenants and landlords. The current thresholds, allowing landlords to begin recovery proceedings after eight weeks or two months of arrears, have stood the test of time because they offer a sensible compromise.

Moreover, early intervention is often in the best interests of tenants themselves. Addressing arrears sooner rather than later can prevent problems escalating to the point where eviction becomes unavoidable—a consequence that benefits no one. Our goal must be to craft legislation that is fair and balanced, which ultimately safeguards the rights of renters while ensuring stability for landlords.

Although it is imperative to safeguard tenants from unfair evictions, we must ensure that the protections do not inadvertently place landlords in an untenable position, thereby threatening the very housing supply we all seek. We will not put these amendments to a vote, but we think that Amendment 20, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, represents a very sensible improvement to this part of the Bill, and we will support him if he chooses to divide the House.

I am very grateful for all the support that my Amendment 20 has received. This amendment was genuinely meant. I was concerned about fairness, but above all about workability. The tribunal system, which we will come on to in more detail in later amendments, needs to have before it only the cases that absolutely have to be resolved. The last thing I or anybody wants to happen is for the tribunal system to be clogged up with unnecessary cases, which was my principal concern.

However, I listened to what the Minister said, and I am grateful that she will look more carefully at the data protection point, which, frankly, is a better way of dealing with this than relying on tenants and landlords to speak to each other. On that basis, and if she would be so kind as to write to me once she has had those discussions with the department so that the position is on the record, I will not press my amendment.

I just confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that I will respond to him in writing.

My Lords, I thank the many Peers who passionately supported this amendment. I listened to the Minister and feel that a concession with regard to possession of a house for carers is not forthcoming. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

My Lords, we should be supporting regeneration, enabling more housing and employment, and the renting of property in the meantime. While I appreciate the comment from the Minister, I am not reassured. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House.