PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Renters' Rights Bill (Eighth sitting) - 5 November 2024 (Commons/Public Bill Committees)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I rise to move the new clause tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). The purpose of this probing new clause is to explore how we can ensure that renters’ credit scores are better protected against the negative consequences of having to move. I do not seek a vote on the new clause, and the detail of the wording may not be exactly right, but its purpose is to let us discuss what we can do to fix an injustice.

When tenants move repeatedly, it can affect their credit scores, making it harder for them to secure mortgages and get reasonable credit on credit cards and so on. It is not the actual act of moving home that affects someone’s credit report, but the admin that goes with it. Lenders like to see stability in personal details, so if someone moves house often, it will show up on their personal records as part of their credit report and could be a red flag. Opening more than one account with a utility provider in a six-month period would likely cause a person’s score to drop until they can prove they can pay their bills responsibly and on schedule, at which point it would start to build back up again.

It is important that we protect renters who are forced to move because their landlord seeks possession of a property for a reason that is not connected to their behaviour or ability to pay their rent. It is an injustice that renters’ credit scores suffer as a result of such actions. Fortunately, the Financial Conduct Authority is undertaking a review of credit referencing. I raise this issue in Committee because it is relevant to the work we do, but rather than looking for a vote, I am looking for a commitment from the Minister to write to the Financial Conduct Authority to ask for renters’ credit scores to be included as part of its current work.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. We aired the issue of credit worthiness and its impact on prospective tenants’ ability to secure a property during earlier deliberations on the Bill, and the Minister has given detailed responses about how the Government are treating this issue. I welcome the fact that the new clause is a probing one. In my view, it is a sensible question to pose, as is the question about the availability of rental insurance to those who may have a poor credit history when they seek to secure a property and undergo checks as part of the affordability process. I hope the Minister will give us an indication of how the issue will be dealt with, but I am confident that the Government have it in their sights and an appropriate solution is in the offing.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I add the support of the Liberal Democrats for the intent of the new clause. Clearly, tenants should not be penalised for having to move frequently, and we are interested in the Minister’s response on the subject.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central for moving the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), and I thank the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for their contributions.

The Government absolutely agree that unwanted private rental moves are not only stressful but extremely expensive in terms of both the unrecoverable costs associated with moving home and the significant up-front costs of moving into a new property, including tenancy deposits. That is why one of the Bill’s main objectives is to remove the threat of arbitrary evictions and increase tenant security.

Under the new tenancy system a small proportion of tenants will still find themselves evicted through no fault of their own in circumstances where the landlord has good reason to regain possession of the property—for example, if the landlord or a close family member wishes to live in it as their only or principal home. I therefore recognise the worthy intentions behind the new clause—namely, to ensure that tenants’ credit scores are not adversely affected by unwanted moves resulting from the use of such possession grounds.

However, I am not convinced that the new clause, which would require the FCA to issue guidance on how possession orders specifically should be reflected in an individual’s credit score, is necessary, because tenants’ credit scores are not adversely affected by evictions under ground 8 possessions. Credit reference agencies do not receive information about possession orders from the courts, and as a result possession orders are not recorded on people’s credit reports and do not negatively affect their credit scores.

I acknowledge that there is a distinct, but related, issue in respect of the impact on credit scores of changes of address in general, on which it is worth noting two things. First, the methodology that underpins credit scores is not uniform across different credit reference agencies. Experian, TransUnion and Equifax, for example, each have their own distinctive approaches to credit scores, including in how they reflect changes of address. Secondly, almost all lenders review a person’s credit report when assessing an application for credit, and a change of address would still be recorded on those reports.

Whether it is feasible and sensible to seek to have the FCA attempt to ensure that credit reference agencies treat moves resulting from the use of certain possession grounds set out in schedule 1 differently from changes of address more generally is an entirely valid question, albeit one somewhat distinct from that posed by the specific wording of the new clause. As things stand, I am not entirely convinced that it would be, but I will happily seek to ensure that Treasury Ministers engage directly with the FCA on this matter, including on the review cited by the hon. Member for Bristol Central. However, for the reasons I have stated, I will not be able to accept the new clause and ask the hon. Lady to withdraw it.

I and thank the Minister for his consideration and beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

Review of the impact of the Act on the housing market

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report outlining the impact of the provisions of this Act on the housing market in the UK.

(2) A report under this section must include the impact of this Act on—

(a) the availability of homes in the private rental sector;

(b) rents charged under tenancies;

(c) house prices; and

(d) requests for social housing.

(3) A report under this section must be laid before Parliament.”—(David Simmonds.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I suspect that we rehearsed this debate earlier, when the Minister gently rebuffed the point and commended me for trying to secure a degree of impact assessment in advance of the implementation of the measures in the Bill. These new clauses are designed to increase the degree of scrutiny on the Government, in respect of both the Bill’s potential impact in advance, where we are able to consult on that, and its impact on the housing market, on which new clause 2 would require an annual report. A lot of the debates in the Committee’s evidence sessions revolved around the impact on supply of various of the Bill’s measures. We know that those are valid and legitimate concerns, and I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response to the new clauses.

I would like to speak.

I did bob, Sir Roger.

I will bob more enthusiastically in future, Sir Roger.

I rise to speak to new clause 7, which is in my name and concerns the proliferation of short-term lets, holiday lets, Airbnbs and the like. In June 2023 there were 432,000 short-term rental properties in the UK, a steady increase from the pre-pandemic levels. Growth is particularly significant in regions such as mine. The south-west has the highest volume of listings, with 81,000 properties, while the east midlands saw a 49% rise. The increase is concentrated in holiday locations—the south-west, Cornwall and the Lake district. In Cornwall, more than one in 10 addresses are used as holiday homes, according to the Office for National Statistics.

The Liberal Democrat policy would be to license the system. We would like to see holiday lets controlled in a similar way to other rental properties. A licensing system that aligns short-term lets with the requirements of longer-term properties would address disparities in regulation. The danger that we face today is in regulating the private rented sector but not moving forward on the regulation of short-term lets. That would create disparity and could lead to the leeching of more homes into the Airbnb, short-term let sector.

We also want to see the creation of a new planning use class for short-term and holiday lets. I am aware that most recently, in February, although it has repeatedly come up, the then Government stated that planning permission would be required for short-term lets—that is lets of more than 90 nights per year—and that a mandatory national register would be created. We are waiting for that, and we are interested to know what the new Government will do in that policy area.

Landlord groups such as the National Residential Landlords Association and Dexters letting agency have argued that the Bill risks pushing landlords out of the sector and into short-term holiday lets. The NRLA estimates a 1% to 2% drop in rental stock. There is agreement on the topic across the sector, and there is a plausible worry that without any additional controls there will be a leeching of stock into more short-term holiday lets. For locations that particularly suffer from that phenomenon, the consequences could be the closure of businesses and services locally. New clause 7 would put into the Bill a requirement for a review of the legislation’s impact on the provision of short-term lets, so that the issue can be controlled.

I am afraid I will have to resist all three new clauses. Although I will try to limit it, I fear that I may be somewhat repetitive in doing so, because the Government’s logic in each instance is similar.

As the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner has made clear, new clause 2 would introduce a legal requirement for the Government to publish an annual review of the impact of the Bill’s reforms on the availability of homes. In particular, it would require an assessment to be made on the availability of homes in the private rental sector, rents charged under tenancies, house prices and requests for social housing. As per our previous discussion, I recognise that the underlying rationale for the measure is an interest in the practical difference the legislation will make over the coming years. I reassure the Committee that this is an interest I share, which is why we are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the private rented sector reform programme introduced by the Bill.

I will not detail the Government’s general approach to monitoring and evaluation, but suffice it to say that we believe that setting an arbitrary deadline for the work in law—as the new clause would require—would be an unnecessary step, and there is a risk that it would detract from evaluation and prevent us from conducting as robust an assessment as possible. However, given the interest in the Bill’s impact, I wish to reassure the Committee that we do not expect the Bill to have a destabilising effect on the rental market. This Government value the contribution made by responsible landlords who provide quality homes to their tenants. We will continue to work with good landlords and their representative associations throughout implementation.

New clause 3 would introduce a legal requirement for the Government to appoint an independent person to prepare a report on the impact of the reforms to the tenancy system and the grounds for possession. We are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the impact of our reform programme in line with the Department’s evaluation strategy; however, setting an arbitrary deadline in law for that work is unnecessary and, again, may detract from the quality of evaluation and prevent us from conducting as robust an assessment as possible.

New clause 7, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, would introduce a legal requirement for the Government to publish a review of the extent to which the abolition of fixed terms and assured shorthold tenancies and the changes to leasehold covenants lead to landlords leaving the private rented sector to provide short-term lets within two years of the Bill passing. It is important to state that this Government value the contribution made by responsible landlords who provide quality homes to their tenants, and believe they must enjoy robust grounds for possession where there is good reason to take their property back. As such, good landlords have nothing to fear from our reforms and should be in no rush to change legitimate business models, as I have said repeatedly.

The private rented sector has doubled in size since the early 2000s. There is no evidence of an exodus since reform was put on the table by the previous Government. Our proposals will ensure that landlords have the confidence and support they need to continue to invest and operate in the sector.

Will the Minister comment on whether, and how soon, the Government are likely to introduce a use class, which the previous Government committed to?

I will come to the specific proposals under consideration for short-term lets and holiday lets. The use class was consulted on as one of a number of measures that the previous Government introduced. I will touch on that specific point shortly.

I will preface this with a point that I think all Committee members appreciate. The Government are very alive to the fact that there are many parts of the country—coastal, rural and some urban constituencies—where excessive concentrations of short-term lets and holiday homes are having detrimental impacts, not least on the ability of local people to buy their own homes or, in many cases now, rent their own homes. I have stated this on many occasions in the House since being appointed, but I will say it again: that is the reason why we will progress with abolishing the furnished holiday lets tax regime, and with the introduction of a registration scheme for short-term lets. That will give local authorities access to valuable data on them.

Those measures were committed to by the previous Government, and we will take them forward. However, as I said a number of times in the previous Parliament, we do not think they go far enough and we are considering what additional powers we might give to local authorities to enable them to better respond to the pressures they face as a result of the excessive concentrations of short-term lets and holiday homes. I hope to say more on that in due course.

In respect of this Bill, we are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the impact of our reform programme in line with the Government’s evaluation strategy. However, setting an arbitrary deadline in law for this work is unnecessary and may detract from our efforts in that regard. On that basis, I encourage Members not to press their new clauses.

Given the Minister’s response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Assessment of operation of possession process

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must prepare an assessment of the operation of the process by which—

(a) on applications made by landlords, the county court is able to make orders for the possession of dwellings in England that are let under assured and regulated tenancies, and

(b) such orders are enforced.

(2) The Lord Chancellor must publish the assessment at such time, and in such manner, as the Lord Chancellor thinks appropriate.

(3) In this section—

‘assured tenancy’ means an assured tenancy within the meaning of the 1988 Act;

‘dwelling’ means a building or part of a building which is occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling;

‘regulated tenancy’ means a regulated tenancy within the meaning of the Rent Act 1977.”—(David Simmonds.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

At risk of rehearsing the debate we have already had, the new clause seeks to address the assessment of the possessions process. In evidence to the Committee a degree of concern was expressed on the part of landlords that the backlog in the courts may make it difficult to secure possession when that is necessary. Governments of all parties, including the previous Government, have put in place measures seeking to address that. We know that they are beginning to bear fruit, but it is important in maintaining the confidence of landlords both to come to the market and to remain in the market that they know it is possible to secure a court hearing, should one be necessary to gain access to the property. The new clause seeks to ensure that an assessment of that process is carried out.

New clause 4 would require the Lord Chancellor to prepare an assessment of the operation of the process by which the county court is able to make possession orders for rented properties and by which such orders are enforced. The assessment would be published at such time and in such a manner as the Lord Chancellor saw fit.

Hon. Members who followed the debates in the last Parliament will recall that the previous Government introduced a similar clause to their own Renters (Reform) Bill in the late stages of that Bill’s progress, via a Government amendment, together with a clause that prevented the Secretary of State from laying regulations to bring tenancy reforms into force for existing tenancies until after the Lord Chancellor’s amendment had been published. This Government have been clear that we will not follow a similar approach. We do not consider it reasonable that the implementation of our reforms should be constrained by such an assessment, not least an assessment of the kind proposed in the new clause, which is extremely broad and undefined.

The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner tabled amendment 64, which would delay commencement until the Lord Chancellor has carried out and published the proposed assessment. I reaffirm that we have no intention of delaying these urgent and necessary reforms while awaiting an unnecessary assessment of the possession process against what is an unspecific metric. We will instead move ahead with tenancy reform as quickly as possible, but in conjunction with an extensive parallel workstream with colleagues from the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to ensure that the courts are ready at the point of implementation.

In any case, the assessment required by new clause 4 is entirely unnecessary and unhelpful, because data on the operation of possession proceedings for rented properties is already published by the Ministry of Justice on a quarterly basis, and will continue to be. Court rules specify that possession claims requiring a hearing should be listed between four weeks and eight weeks of receipt.

The Committee may be interested to know that figures for April to June 2024 show that claim to order median timeliness is 8.1 weeks, suggesting that—I am not necessarily attributing this to the shadow Minister—some of the more alarmist statements about the readiness of the county court system may have more to do with fundamental opposition to the abolition of section 21 and the current tenancy regime than they are an impartial assessment of court performance.

The proposed assessment would provide no obvious additional insight or benefit to any interested parties, in our view, and would merely detract from the vital work of the courts and tribunals by subjecting them to a nugatory additional process. All our focus is on ensuring that HMCTS is ready to stand up the new system at the point of commencement, and that should be our focus in the coming weeks and months. On that basis, I kindly ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his new clause.

It is pleasing to hear from the Minister that the performance of the courts in this respect was so good under the previous Government. I am aware that one of the challenges has been the construction of a new IT platform to enable the new measures envisaged in the Bill to operate efficiently. This might be a legitimate concern for landlords to express, especially given that although the overall performance was good, there have been regional variations that have given rise to concern. However, bearing in mind what the Minister has said and the fact that there would be a degree of transparency about the data, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

Repeal of requirement for selective licensing

“Part 3 of the Housing Act 2004 (Selective licensing of other residential accommodation) is repealed.”—(David Simmonds.)

This new clause would remove the ability of local housing authorities to designate areas as subject to selective licensing.

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The measures for selective licensing have been in place for some time, and we certainly see lot of learning from the local authorities that have operated them. On the whole, those have tended to be in high-density urban areas. Clearly, a concern for the Opposition is how that interacts with the new measures introduced in the Bill, whereby there will be a nationally procured database with a set of accountability measures operated by the Secretary of State. That could interact unhelpfully with local databases. I hope that the Government are determined to learn the lessons from those existing selective licensing arrangements. The Opposition’s view is that given the measures introduced by the Bill, selective licensing in the way that it is currently undertaken would no longer be necessary nor appropriate.

New clause 9 would head in the opposite direction from new clause 5. It is about removing unnecessary barriers to the use of licensing schemes to improve housing standards. The new clause would do two things. First, it would increase the maximum duration of discretionary licensing schemes from five years to 10. Secondly, it would enable local authorities operating selective licensing schemes to use licensing conditions to improve housing conditions.

Licensing can be an effective way to improve housing standards for at least three reasons. First, it is proactive. It provides a means for local authorities to inspect privately rented housing using enforceable conditions and to identify and resolve problems without the need for tenants to have complained, and it provides that proactive regulation in a locally tailored form. It makes major contributions to area-based issues such as crime, antisocial behaviour and waste management, and it brings together a range of bodies to focus additional support services—for example, for landlords and tenants, improving public health and reducing burdens on the NHS. There are a huge number of wins, and I have experienced that at first hand with licensing schemes in my local authority.

Secondly, licensing is self-funding. It means that the market pays for its own regulation, which is a good principle, rather than relying on the taxpayer. It provides a sustainable and predictable source of income that enables local authorities to maintain staffing levels and support the training of new officers.

Thirdly, licensing is targeted. It enables local authorities to target regulation where that is most needed, so that the worst landlords and the most vulnerable tenants get the most attention and landlord costs can be minimised in other areas.

The problem, however, is that local authorities have to implement licensing schemes with their hands tied behind their backs, because previous Governments have made various decisions that have placed unnecessary and irrational barriers in their way. Given that licensing schemes are expensive and time-consuming for local authorities to initially introduce, it does not make sense to restrict the period over which they can act to only five years.

New clause 9 would amend sections 60 and 84 of the Housing Act 2004 to increase the maximum duration of discretionary licensing schemes, which includes both selective licensing schemes and additional—sorry, jargon again—for HMOs from five to 10 years. That would allow local authorities to advertise for longer-term posts for officers and to include training of new staff in those schemes. It would also provide more time for local partnerships formed through such schemes to become embedded and effective.

The new clause also addresses another issue, which was highlighted by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health during oral evidence. That respected body pointed out that it does not make any sense to have the current peculiar disconnect in the 2004 Act, whereby local authorities can introduce selective licensing schemes to address poor housing conditions, but they cannot include a directly enforceable requirement relating to the housing condition as a condition of the licence—so they do not have the tools to do what they are set up to do. The new clause would therefore amend section 90 of the 2004 Act to enable local authorities to use licence conditions to improve housing conditions directly.

I stress that the new clause does not cover all that needs to be done to remove barriers to licensing. For example, I also urge the Minister to commit the Government to removing the Secretary of State’s ability to veto selective licensing schemes covering more than 20% of the local authority area.

I can see that the Minister is nodding in recognition of that, and I thank him. It does not make sense for local authorities introducing selective licensing schemes to have to spend a lot of money on preparing the paperwork for the scheme without knowing whether it will ultimately go ahead. I have seen at first hand the unnecessary impact on officer time and the cost to local authorities.

Similarly, I urge the Minister to commit the Government to removing the requirement for local authorities establishing selective licensing schemes to ensure that the private rented sector forms a high proportion of properties in the area. If there are acute issues in the private rented sector that can be addressed through a selective licensing scheme, it seems arbitrary for local authorities to be unable to establish such a scheme just because that sector does not form a large proportion of the whole housing stock. The reason why those measures are not included in the new clause is that they do not require primary legislation, as far as I understand it, but I raise them because they are directly connected to the content of the new clause.

In conclusion, the changes that I am suggesting are small, but they could make a big difference to housing standards on the ground and to the ability of local authorities to do their work. I will not push the new clause to a vote, but I sincerely hope that the Minister will actively consider it. I know that the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health would be happy to meet him to discuss any further details.

As we have heard, new clause 5 seeks to abolish selective licensing. This would remove the ability of local authorities to set up a selective licensing scheme of any size in their area. In contrast, new clause 9 seeks to extend selective and additional licensing of houses in multiple occupation by allowing local authorities to increase the maximum duration of schemes from five to 10 years. It also seeks to allow local authorities to use licence conditions under selective licensing to improve housing conditions, as the hon. Member for Bristol Central made clear.

This Government support selective licensing. It allows local authorities to proactively and more intensively target specific issues in private rented properties, where it is needed most. That includes tackling poor housing conditions and antisocial behaviour. If we abolish selective licensing, local authorities will lose a crucial tool in taking effective enforcement action against landlords who flout the rules. However, I take the shadow Minister’s point, and I reiterate that it is important that the selective licensing system, and the system introduced by the Bill, operate effectively alongside each other. That is very much our intention.

However, we recognise that licensing imposes a burden on landlords. Correspondingly, we think a maximum duration of five years for discretionary licence schemes strikes the right balance for the following reasons. It gives local authorities time to realise improvements while ensuring that landlords are not by default subject to increased regulation for prolonged periods. Of course, licensing in any given area may be part of a longer-term strategy. That is why, where a scheme has expired and there is still a case for licensing, local authorities may simply introduce a new scheme to drive further improvements. The duration that the hon. Member for Bristol Central is seeking selective licensing schemes to cover can be achieved in any given local authority area, if the local authority simply extends matters through a new scheme. We think that a five-year timeframe gives an opportunity to review the effectiveness of individual discretionary licensing schemes and ensure that they are proportionate in achieving their aims.

The broad intention of the hon. Lady’s new clause is to improve housing conditions. Let me be clear again that every private renter, not just those in licensed properties, has the right to a good-quality home. That is why, through the Bill, we are introducing a decent homes standard and applying Awaab’s law to the sector to tackle the blight of poor-quality homes.

Our reforms will establish a level playing field across the sector, ensuring that all renters and local authorities, not just those in areas with licensing schemes, can challenge and enforce against dangerous conditions. I will not address the hon. Lady’s specific point on the Secretary of State’s veto, because it is somewhat outside the scope of the Bill, but I take that on board. On the chartered institute, I will say nothing more at this stage other than that we will continue to review the use of selective licensing as we develop the database and other measures in the Bill. On that basis, I ask the hon. Members not to press their new clauses.

We remain a little concerned that where selective licensing schemes are in operation alongside the measures introduced by the legislation, a degree of ambiguity and potential confusion is created, especially for some landlords who may seek to evade responsibility. Two schemes of a similar nature will be in place, with potentially different fees and standards in operation. However, I accept the numbers on the Committee, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

On a point of order, Sir Roger. In view of the Minister saying that the matter is beyond doubt, I am happy to withdraw the clause.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I rise to speak in support of new clause 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who is not a Committee member. The new clause would provide protection for bereaved guarantors by prohibiting the application of a guarantor agreement in the event of the death of a tenant. My hon. Friend was motivated to table the new clause following the tragic case of her constituents who lost their son to suicide.

The young man was a first-year university student who had signed a private tenancy for his second-year accommodation. Very sadly, he died by suicide months before the new tenancy was due to start. His parents had signed a guarantor agreement that applied in the event of the tenant’s death, and while they were grieving the loss of their son, the letting agent pursued them for the rent on the property in which he would never live. That type of clause is not common to all guarantor agreements, and it is entirely unnecessary, because the loss of rental income due to the death of a tenant is an insurable risk for landlords.

New clause 8 would prevent guarantor agreements from applying in the event of the death of a tenant. It has been tightly drafted with the assistance of lawyers from Shelter. My hon. Friend is extremely grateful to the Minister for his positive engagement on the issue, both prior to the general election and subsequently. Although I do not seek to press the new clause to a vote, I hope the Minister will be able to give assurances either that the Government will accept the new clause or introduce an amendment to the Bill to the same effect.

I hope we can all agree that no one who is grieving the loss of a person for whom they have acted as a guarantor should be pursued for that person’s rent. That small change in the law would prevent the distress that was caused to my hon. Friend’s constituents from happening to anyone else.

I support new clause 8, and I would also like to speak in favour of new clause 14, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). New clause 14 seeks to address an injustice around guarantors for students. In this speech, I cite heavily evidence provided by the National Union of Students and individual student union officers in my home city of Bristol, all of whom are very concerned about this injustice.

The widespread landlord practice of demanding that tenants provide a guarantor is discriminatory, especially in this situation. Tenants are asked to put someone forward, normally a parent or relative, who owns a house in the UK and/or earns an income typically above the national average. The guarantor is asked to guarantee to pay the rent should the tenant default, and to pay for any damage to the property should the tenant be unable to do so.

Although for some, this is just an inconvenience, for tenants who are from deprived socioeconomic backgrounds, who are estranged from their families, who have a background in care or who are coming to the UK, such as international students from abroad, it can be a huge barrier to securing a home. The practice can push those unable to find a suitable guarantor into unsustainable debt, because they are forced to pay either months of rent up front or for costly guarantor schemes run by private companies. Others are forced into hostels or sofa surfing, and can even be made homeless.

The stats are stark: 13% of students experience homelessness during their studies, and that figure rises to 29% for international students. This issue has a detrimental impact on the lives of student renters and their ability to focus on their studies. It is imperative that we address the issue to ensure fair and equitable access to housing for all tenants, including students, allowing them to flourish in their education.

Landlords have several other means available to protect themselves against potential losses, including tenant referencing, rent guarantee insurance and deposit protection schemes, all of which make guarantor schemes unnecessary. I am not pushing for a vote today, but I ask the Minister to have a dialogue—if he is not doing so already—with the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley, who tabled the new clause, and the NUS, with a view to including the changes in the next version of the Bill. Finally, I should mention that I have joined the all-party parliamentary group for students.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke for speaking to the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), whom I commend for her work in this area, not just in this Parliament but in the previous one. She has been prodigious in pursuing this issue on behalf of her constituents, and I have reflected further on the points that she made on Second Reading.

The Government agree that it is unacceptable for bereaved guarantors to be held liable for unpaid rent where the only reason for it is the sad death of a tenant. Guarantor arrangements are not usually intended to protect landlords against the risk of financial loss caused by the death of their tenant; rather, they are used by landlords to reduce the financial risk of letting to a tenant who, for example, may have no previous residency in the UK and consequently no references from former landlords, or who might not successfully pass credit checks.

Although we understand that few landlords would use guarantor agreements to pursue debts that occur after a tenant’s death, we do know that sadly some do. This is an unacceptable practice that compounds the grief that families face after unexpected bereavements. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke will be reassured to hear that the Government have been considering this issue closely and in detail. We take it very seriously, and I am extremely sympathetic to the issues raised. I hope to be able to say more on Report about the matter and about the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood.

I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central for speaking to new clause 14, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work on this issue, and for his engagement with me and on the Bill more generally. The Government understand that obtaining a guarantor may be difficult for some prospective tenants, and I absolutely sympathise with those who are in that situation. For some tenants, the requirement can, as the hon. Member for Bristol Central made clear, effectively block access to the private rented sector.

The Government are clear that landlords should consider a tenant’s individual circumstances when negotiating rental contracts. I have been concerned to hear anecdotally about some landlords insisting that all tenants provide a guarantor, regardless of individual circumstances. That said, and ever mindful of the unintended consequences of weighing in without thought, I am aware that the use of guarantors can give landlords confidence to provide tenancies to individuals who otherwise may struggle to gain accommodation. That might include those with a history of rent arrears or with no previous rental history, those who are moving out of home for the first time and foreign students. As such, I am concerned that the wording of the new clause may inadvertently make it harder for those tenants to find a place to live, despite the honourable intentions behind it.

I recognise the importance of getting the balance right between barriers and enablers to accessing the private rented sector. I will continue to engage with hon. Members more broadly and with wider stakeholders, but in particular with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley, who has diligently pursued the matter. For the reasons I have given, however, I respectfully ask my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke to withdraw the new clause.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 10

Home Adaptations

“(1) The Housing Act 1988 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 16 insert—

‘16A Home adaptations

(1) It is an implied term of every assured tenancy to which this section applies that a landlord shall give permission for adaptations where a local council has carried out a Home Assessment and recommends adaptations which constitute reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. Tenants have the right to appeal a landlord’s refusal to adapt a property.

(2) This section applies to every assured tenancy other than a tenancy of social housing, within the meaning of Part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.’” —(Carla Denyer.)

This new clause would ensure that landlords give permission for home adaptations where a Home Assessment has been carried out.

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would ensure that landlords give permission for home adaptations where a home assessment has been carried out. There are 16 million disabled people in the UK—that is more than a fifth of the population—and 19% of them live in the private rented sector. The Equality and Human Rights Commission estimates that a shocking one in three disabled people live in private rented properties that are unsuitable for them. Research by the National Residential Landlords Association found that only 49% of landlords—less than half—were willing to let to a tenant who required adaptations for accessibility needs. That number does go up when landlords are made aware of the funding that is available, but it still falls far short of where it needs to be.

Disabled renters need the landlord’s consent to make any adaptations to their homes. The Equality Act 2010 already imposes a duty on landlords to allow and make reasonable adjustments on request from their disabled tenants. Common home adaptations include changes to make the premises safe, facilitating access to things including use of the bathroom, washing facilities, cooking facilities, light controls and so on—things that it is perhaps easy for us to take for granted.

Disabled renters who are unable to self-fund may request that their local authority pays for smaller adaptations. That includes things such as grab rails to make it easier to get in and out of the bath. Through the disabled facilities grant, which is in a separate bucket, local authorities provide up to £30,000 to pay for major works that cost more than £1,000.

I tabled the new clause to prompt a discussion about the concern raised by Disability Rights UK, which points out that, unfortunately, the disabled facilities grant is a postcode lottery system that is failing and is not fit for purpose in its current form. An investigation by journalist Vicky Gayle found that in nine council areas in England and Wales, people had to wait on average more than a year to see an occupational therapist and complete the pre-application steps. On top of that, 80% of local authorities in England and Wales are using discretionary powers to top up funding, and that extra money varies wildly from council to council. There are many common barriers, including the fact that private landlords often refuse to make adaptations and many are unaware of their legal obligations to do so.

I very much sympathise with the intent behind the new clause, but I am afraid I will have to disappoint the hon. Lady by saying that I do not think it is necessary, and I will set out why. The Government strongly agree that landlords should not unreasonably refuse disability adaptations. As she rightly says, there is already a requirement in law that they do not. The Equality Act 2010 provides that landlords cannot unreasonably refuse a request for reasonable adjustments to be made for the purposes of a disabled person using their home. Where consent has been sought and is refused, the burden is on the landlord to show why their refusal or any conditions are reasonable.

The hon. Lady said that the Bill does nothing to target the problem that she outlines, but I think it takes a series of steps that will support disabled renters to challenge unreasonable refusals without fear of retaliatory eviction—I am talking about the general overhaul of the tenancy system, which should provide them with more confidence in that area. In addition, when the new PRS landlord ombudsman is established, tenants may be able to make a complaint to it if they think that the landlord should have given permission for disability adaptations but has unreasonably refused to do so. That is another means of redress that will be introduced through the Bill.

Notwithstanding the hon. Lady’s point about a postcode lottery—we could rehearse for many hours the pressures on local authorities’ budgets—where a tenant has applied for a disabled facilities grant, local councils have the power to override the requirement for tenants to have the landlord’s permission to make adaptations, and to award the grant without permission if they believe that permission was withheld unreasonably. For those reasons, although I will reflect on the point that she made and although I sympathise with the intent, the new clause is unnecessary and I kindly ask her to withdraw it.

I will be honest: I am not convinced that the new clause is unnecessary, but I can do the maths so will not seek to divide the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 11

Rent controls

“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a body to be known as the Independent Living Rent Body within 12 months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act.

(2) The ‘proposed rent’ referred to in section 55(2) must be no more than an amount set by the Independent Living Rent Body.

(3) The amount referred to in subsection (2) must be calculated as a function of property size, quality, local incomes, location, and such other criteria as the Independent Living Rent Body sees fit.”—(Carla Denyer.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Thank you for your forbearance, Sir Roger, as I have proposed quite a few new clauses this afternoon, but this is the last one from me. New clause 11 proposes setting a control on the amount that a stated or advertised rent can be. A control would be set by an independent living rent body, taking account of the property’s size and quality, as well as local incomes, location and other criteria that the body sees fit to include. Local flexibility will be vital.

We have a generation of people who will never be able to earn enough to have a mortgage, and who cannot even afford their rents now. New clause 11 recognises that and aims to bring some urgently needed fairness and balance to a private rented landscape that has become grossly distorted. Giving an independent body the power to set a ceiling for new rents is similar to models of new rent regulation in Germany and Spain.

I have tabled new clause 11 to probe the Minister, and I want to be clear from the outset that I am acutely aware that this is a complex policy area and that there is no silver bullet for the terrible problem of sky-high rents in the private rented sector. I know that I will be challenged in this debate, and I welcome that; there is a vital discussion to be had to ensure that unintended consequences are avoided, and I do not dismiss the importance of that. At the same time, I hope that we recognise the significance of the debate over what we do about the affordability of rents.

I put it to the Committee that we need to consider rent controls both within and between tenancies, because unaffordable private rents are hurting people and hurting our economy. Key workers are forced out of cities and out of the communities that they have made their home. Average rents in inner London, as those of us who are newly elected MPs and getting flats in inner London are very aware, are rather high. In fact, they are 106% of a teaching assistant’s salary.

The average rent in my constituency of Bristol Central has hit nearly £1,800 a month. If a 21-year-old living in Bristol rents a single room today at the average rate, they will have put £80,000 into their landlord’s bank account by the time they reach their 30th birthday. Rising rents in Bristol forced renter Anny, her key worker partner Alex and their four-month-old baby to move city completely, and to move away from their support network when they needed it most.

Private renters spend a disproportionate amount of their income—an average of 33%—on housing costs, compared with just 10% for mortgage holders, and a shocking one in five renters spends more than half of their income on rent. That has a knock-on effect on the economy. Renters are giving more and more of their wages to landlords. Many cannot make ends meet and are ending up homeless, and those who can just about afford not to become homeless are certainly not able to save anything like the eye-watering sums needed to get on the housing ladder.

Private renters have less disposable income, and therefore less buying power, in the local economy, too. Research by the Women’s Budget Group and Positive Money UK found that high private rents disproportionately impact the spending power of women and black, Asian and minority ethnic households. The knock-on costs to the taxpayer are high, too, through spending on housing benefit and temporary accommodation.

I know that the Minister has already made it clear that he will not accept the solution proposed in new clause 11, but I hope that he will at least accept that private rents are much too high relative to incomes and tell us how the Government plan to address that crisis in the here and now.

For two reasons, I am concerned that changes to the tribunal do not go far enough to address high rents, as the Bill stands. First, as discussed previously, most tenants will not use the tribunal system, because they do not have the time and energy to navigate it. Secondly, even if every tenant did so, it would not result in rents coming down overall, in relation to incomes. The tribunal panel judges only whether a rent rise is fair based on the price of new rentals of a similar size in the area, and the prices of new rentals have outstripped inflation consistently. Rental index data from the Deposit Protection Service backs that up. It found that rents outstripped inflation by a third last year, and Rightmove reports show that asking rents outside of London have risen 60% since 2020, far outstripping inflation or wage growth.

During our evidence sessions and previous discussions in Committee, we heard the important point that rent controls are not simply one thing; they are a category of policies. In an earlier sitting, we discussed in-tenancy rent controls, to stop rogue landlords hiking rents in order to kick people out, in lieu of using section 21. That is one thing, but the new clause goes further by aiming to address the unaffordable level that private rents have reached and rent hikes between tenancies.

I expect that the Minister will mention social housing. I agree that increasing the social housing supply is critical; however, the private rented sector is in an affordability crisis now, and it will take huge amounts of effort and time to increase the social housing supply at the scale and pace needed to have any impact on private rents. Models from Generation Rent and other economists predict that building 1.5 million homes over this Parliament will decrease the rent burden by just over 1%. More social rented homes are essential, but the cost of private renting is so distorted—the market is failing so badly—that we need Ministers to step in and treat rent affordability as the acute housing emergency that it is.

I am sure the Minister will also use the example in Scotland as a reason not to have rent controls here. I would strongly caution against that, though, because the data on whether rents have increased overall in Scotland are shaky, as we heard in the evidence sessions, and, if there have been increases, the data on whether they are anything to do with rent controls are even more so—if necessary, I am happy to go into that in more detail in the debate.

I imagine that the Minister will also highlight the potential unintended consequences on the supply side and the possibility that landlords will leave the sector. However, it is not enough simply to assert that any form of rent control—remember that this is a whole category of options—will break the private rented sector or cause lots of landlords to leave. That needs to be interrogated, with proper consideration given to the contrary case that rent caps would provide a clear and stable regime for rent rises for landlords, so that they know how much they can raise the rent by and plan for the future.

I encourage the Government and the Committee to look to European countries where rent caps co-exist with large private rented sectors, such as in Germany, where more than half the population rents privately and where they also have in-tenancy rent caps. In particular, I draw the Committee’s attention to comments by the chief executive officer of Greystar, one of the world’s biggest landlords, who said recently that rent controls need not stop big investors from funding new homes:

“You do not have to have the windfall of a year of 14 per cent rent increases in order to have a viable investment product…We operate in a lot of markets around the world where rent control does exist.”

The argument against rent controls is that they will break the private rented sector, but it is already broken, with immediate and severe consequences right now, for all the reasons we heard about in the evidence sessions. However, we need to talk about the risks attached to any policy of in-tenancy and between-tenancy rent controls. Any system to introduce them needs to be carefully designed and built—I acknowledge that, and I know that point will be made to me in a moment. Some robust work already exists on the kind of principles we should consider in designing a workable system, and my new clause 11 is just one suggestion.

The hon. Lady might be coming on to the impact of the criteria in the new clause, but I am concerned that the market could respond to them by drawing investors into just one location that was already a serious hotspot. It would be helpful to understand more about why they might help.

Will the hon. Member clarify what she means by “drawing into” in that context?

I was referring to the suggestion that the proposed independent living rent body would start setting rents under subsection (2) based on the property size, quality, local incomes and location. Given the constrained market that would establish, surely it might reduce availability even further.

The hon. Member is correct that I was coming to that, but I thank her for asking anyway—I do welcome a debate. There is some robust work on what rent controls can look like and, without wishing to give any spoilers about the organisations that provided us with evidence, I understand that more is coming. I draw the Committee’s attention to work done in 2019 by the New Economics Foundation, which looked at how we might arrive at a rent control system in London. It set out six key building blocks all about how to transition carefully and gradually from the current market free-for-all to a controlled system, and there are some lessons to be learned there about how we address supply issues.

The hon. Lady’s new clause, which she has set out clearly, seeks to require the Government to establish an independent body to set the maximum rent at which a landlord could advertise a property in writing, under clause 55, which I remind Committee members requires a landlord or a person acting on their behalf to state a specific and proposed rental amount in a written advertisement or offer for a proposed letting. Although I very much recognise the concerns in relation to rising rents generally and extortionate within-tenancy rent increases in particular—I do not think anyone on the Committee dismisses those concerns, particularly in parts of the country with hot rental markets, as referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster—I do not believe the approach proposed in the new clause is necessary or proportionate.

I understand from the hon. Member for Bristol Central that her new clause is intended to provoke debate, and I am more than happy to debate it. However, I must confess that when I was considering the new clause’s specific wording, I struggled somewhat to ascertain how the new independent body would operate. I think she has given us a bit more clarity on her thinking, but I am still a little unsure. I will therefore put the two options in my mind that it might reasonably take.

It could mean that every landlord and letting agent in England would need to engage with the body proposed by the hon. Lady to set a maximum starting rent for every property they seek to advertise on every occasion that they require a new tenant. I think that is what she was driving at when she said that it would have to take into account specific factors relating to each property. We are debating the specific measure rather than a general point but if that is the case, the costs of administrating such an arrangement, which would have to apply to the approximately 950,000 new lets that occur each year, would be likely to be enormous. In my view, it would almost certainly have an impact on the time that landlords and tenants take to agree a rental price.

If, as the hon. Member for Bristol Central touched on later in her remarks, the body would simply be required to set maximum rents on the basis of broad principles and therefore not account fully for variation in the market, it would in effect be overseeing a form of rent control. The Government believe that would impact negatively on tenants as well as landlords, as a result of reduced supply, discouraged investment and declining property sales, as I have set out in detail previously.

I gently push back on the hon. Lady’s assertion that I am just asserting such a point; I have given the Committee extensive references to some of the negative impacts of various forms of rent control in other countries. There are academic studies on countries such as Sweden and Germany, and from cities such as San Francisco and Ontario, which show that rent regulation can have those precise effects. I was in Rome at the G7 yesterday, discussing this very matter with the German Housing Minister, who acknowledged that while there are benefits to the system in Germany, it has had an impact on supply in places. It could have a detrimental impact on tenants if we introduce it into our system here.

I am more than happy to debate. I think we will debate the issue throughout the Bill’s remaining stages in this place, and I am sure it will be a source of debate in the other place and again when it returns to us. I do not want to test your patience or the Committee’s, Sir Roger, by repeating the long discussion we have already had about rent control. I simply reiterate that the Government are confident that the Bill strikes the right balance when it comes to addressing, in particular, unreasonable within-tenancy rent increases. We do not believe the establishment of a body along the lines that the hon. Lady proposes would be beneficial to tenants or landlords.

I have made the point, and will do again, that the legislation is not the Government’s only answer to affordability pressures in the private rented sector. The hon. Lady referenced the Government’s intention to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. I appreciate the urgency with which that needs to take place. She is more than welcome to clarify the point, but I hope she commends the additional £500 million of funding in the recent Budget, the top up to the affordable homes programme this year and the action we are taking on right-to-buys, giving local councils 100% retention of discounts from sales. There will be more to come, not least when we set out further Government investment in the spending review next year.

On the basis of all the points I have made, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw new clause 11. I do not think it will be the last time we debate the matter as part of the Bill or more widely across the Parliament.

I certainly welcome additional funding for social housing, and I know that many local authorities do too, although I suspect that most if not all would also say that they need more than that. In terms of what exact model of rent controls we are talking about and how the independent living rent body works it out, I am deliberately not attached to exactly how to do that.

As I mentioned, there are 17 European countries that have some form of rent controls; they are all tailored to specific circumstances and some have worked better than others. My point is that we should not rule out an entire category of available tools on the basis of looking at a few examples that have not worked. I would rather we look at how we could make it work or, if not, at what the Government are going to do instead to tackle affordability in the private rented sector, given that the positive measures on social housing are unlikely to bring down rents in that sector by anything like the necessary amount.

As it is clear that the Minister will not support new clause 11, I suggest he should at least consider the merits of setting up a living rent commission to undertake work to inform evidence-based decision making about what we can do on the issue. When I was a Bristol city councillor, I was the co-proposer with a Labour councillor of commissioning a local version of that work to look at how rent controls could theoretically work in Bristol if the Government gave the council the necessary powers. We took that route specifically because we were aware that several options were available, so we first needed research on how it might work and how to avoid unintended consequences. I would love the Government to commission an equivalent study at a national level so that we can make informed decisions in future.

I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Lady that commitment. She somewhat downplays the amount of thinking that has gone into this legislation by my officials, me and my colleagues as to the appropriate and necessary measures. We think the measures strike the right balance. This legislation is not the only intervention we are making on affordability pressures in the private rented sector. As I have said, I am more than happy to continue the debate with the hon. Lady in the remaining stages of the Bill.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

May I take this opportunity, Sir Roger, to put on the record my thanks to you and to the other Chairs of the Bill Committee? Several Committee members are new to the process, and you and the other Chairs have done an incredibly effective job, with patience and generosity, of helping everyone to navigate the process.

I thank our exemplary Clerks, the Hansard Reporters, and the Doorkeepers for overseeing our proceedings. I also thank my officials and private office team, who have supported me and worked tirelessly over a short time to bring forward the Bill that we have debated in recent weeks.

Finally, I thank all hon. Members, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington and the hon. Member for Bristol Central for the spirited and constructive dialogue we have had. I value all the contributions and the challenges that have been made. I know that we are united in wanting to deliver the best legislation that we can for all our constituents.

As we end this stage of scrutiny and prepare for Report stage, I hope we can all agree that these important reforms will finally provide certainty for the sector and deliver meaningful change to millions of renters and landlords. I look forward to further engagement with all hon. Members as the Bill progresses through its remaining stages.

I share the Minister’s sentiments. I will pay him the highest compliment that I can: at times, he could have been a Conservative in the way he addressed the issues that I raised. I add my thanks to the officials, as I know that the Minister’s swift responses would not have been possible without their diligent work behind the scenes; I am enormously grateful that issues have been dealt with in such detail. I also add my thanks to Committee members for their sensible and sound contributions. I am sure the debate will continue, but we have carried out an efficient piece of work.