Renters’ Rights Bill 2025-09-08

The Minister for Housing and Planning argues against Lords amendments to the Renters’ Rights Bill, emphasising the Government's commitment to protect private renters. He highlights key changes made in response to concerns raised during the bill’s passage through the House of Lords, including safeguards for rent increases and removal of provisions requiring pet damage insurance. The minister also addresses specific amendments related to possession grounds, re-letting restrictions, and shared owners' rights.

Shannon questions the necessity of requiring tenants to obtain pet damage insurance. He suggests that most tenants are responsible for their pets without such legal requirements, questioning whether legislative measures are necessary given the low incidence of significant pet-related damage.

The UK needs a vibrant and fluid private rented sector to deliver cohesive communities, fairness, stability, and security for families. The Bill is poorly thought through or designed to undermine the private rented sector, either by accident or on purpose. It risks driving out landlords, reducing supply of rental accommodation, and pushing up rents. Scotland's experience with rent controls shows rapid rent increases; hence, the Labour Government risks making similar mistakes. He criticises proposed changes for being incoherent and aimed at appeasing Back Benchers rather than improving the sector. The Bill should improve the private rented sector but must be done in a coordinated manner.

Responds to Sir James Cleverly's assertion that the private rented sector is highly successful by citing constituent concerns about damp, mould, and 35% rent increases. Challenges the claim that happy tenants do not write to their MPs.

Questions Sir James Cleverly's assertion of private rented sector success by pointing out Labour's consistent position on ending no-fault evictions. Challenges the contradiction in Conservative claims of not doing enough when in government while simultaneously proposing reforms.

The Minister mentioned amendment 5 in the name of the noble Baroness Scott, which would extend ground 4A to all student homes, not just those with three or more bedrooms. This is another example of the Government accepting the principle and the need to act but failing to do so. In the student rented sector it is important that tenancies match the academic year to give landlords in the sector a credible chance.

Earlier in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), the shadow Secretary of State said that my hon. Friend did not need to pay any attention to the people in his inbox who had contacted him. Was he not advocating exactly that—we should not listen because it is a small number of people, and we should accept these amendments so that this legislation can be watered down?

If the hon. Gentleman was going to criticise what I say, he should have at least listened to what I said. What I said was that extrapolating from a Member of Parliament’s inbox is not a good way of gauging the full spectrum of opinion within a cohort of people.

The shadow Secretary of State failed to address the second concern the Government have about amendment 21, which is the substantial risk of abuse that will flow from the definition of a “carer”. The definition under the amendment could be anyone providing any form of voluntary care. It could be someone who provides the weekly shop.

Once again, I stand here proud to speak in favour of this groundbreaking legislation that finally brings some balance back between the landlord’s right to profit from an asset and the renter’s right to a home. I oppose in particular Lords amendments 26, 27 and 18 proposed by the landlord lobby in the other place.

I oppose Lords amendment 18, which would reduce the restricted period from 12 months to six months. The Nationwide Foundation found that one in five landlord sale evictions in Scotland did not end up with the sale of a property. This measure would make it far too easy for landlords and agents to claim they are selling the property only to re-let at higher rent shortly after. Twelve months is an effective deterrent against unlawful, dishonest eviction.

We support the Bill but reject all 92 amendments we tabled in Committee. The Liberal Democrats aim to build 150,000 social and council rent homes per year backed by £6 billion funding from reforming capital gains tax. We oppose Lords amendment 18 as it would give cover to rogue landlords and weaken the Bill. Similarly, we reject Lords amendment 26 due to its high burden of proof requirement for tenants. However, we support amendments such as 19 and 64 which ensure justice for shared ownership leaseholders and carers respectively.

In Torbay, there is a high percentage of people who rent in the private sector. Pushing against Lords amendment 26 is essential to ensure local authorities have powers to hold bad landlords accountable and provide justice for tenants.

The Ministry of Defence says the MOD housing standard is higher than the decent homes standard, but there's no independent assessment. The Defence Committee reported that DIO’s property frequently does not meet standards and lacks accountability.

Concerned about applying a different decent homes standard to Scotland and Wales compared to England for military housing, potentially fracturing the defence estate across the UK.

Welcomes significant investment into military housing and insourcing back into public ownership of MOD homes after previous Government's privatisation deal, but questions whether these meet decent homes standard independently.

Pennycook urged Amos to engage with the concession made by the Government regarding an annual report on service family accommodation. He stressed that this would provide transparency, accountability, and reassurance for improving standards.

Amos welcomed any reports dealing with the issue but criticised the Government's lack of action to legislate for service families' accommodation. He highlighted that private and social renters would receive protection in primary legislation, while military service families would not.

Beales emphasised the importance of the Renters’ Rights Bill to address issues faced by renters, such as section 21 evictions and insecure conditions. He argued against Lords amendments that would weaken key provisions of the bill.

Slade highlighted the urgent need for the Renters’ Rights Bill to protect tenants from poor housing conditions and energy inefficiency. She criticised the Government's lack of action regarding service families' accommodation, emphasising their right to decent homes.

Denyer questioned whether Lords amendment 18 would undermine the Bill’s aim to end no-fault evictions by allowing landlords to easily evict tenants and re-let at higher prices within six months.

Expresses concern about landlords rushing to evict tenants before the law changes. Argues that tenants with pets are beneficial for landlords and cites research showing lower vacancy rates and marketing costs due to pet-owning tenants. Opposes Lords amendment 11, which would allow landlords to request a pet deposit equivalent to three weeks’ rent.

Declares interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cats. Argues against Lords amendment 11, citing concerns from pet owners about affordability and transparency. Supports research showing that 76% of landlords do not encounter damage caused by pets. Opposes additional pet deposit requirement, arguing it is unaffordable for tenants and could price them out of having a pet.

Opposes Lords amendment 11 due to concerns about pricing people out from owning pets during the cost of living crisis. Supports introduction of large up-front deposits, arguing it is important for tenants to have a pet they love and want to be with. Urges Government to work closely with animal welfare charities when developing guidance for the Bill.

Speaks against Lords amendments 58 to 62, which expand eviction grounds, and Lords amendment 27. Supports core principles of the Bill: ending no-fault eviction, providing stability for individuals and the private rented sector, introducing a private renters’ database, an ombudsman, and establishing Awaab’s law in the sector.

Welcomes the Government’s move to empower tenants, but raises concerns about certain amendments that would weaken security of tenure for renters. She supports Lords amendment 39 which extends decent homes standards to Ministry of Defence accommodation and opposes Lords amendments 26 and 11.

Supports the Bill's measures but raises concerns about domestic abuse survivors being forced to remain in unsafe tenancies. He highlights a case of his constituent Caitlin who has faced financial impacts due to her partner’s coercive control and urges for stronger protections.

Defends the Government's position on Lords amendment 75, arguing that it strikes the right balance for non-typical students. Discusses changes regarding pet insurance and deposits, citing a report showing minimal damage from pets compared to other causes. He supports maintaining five weeks’ deposit requirement but is open to review.

Asks the Minister to consider primary legislation for service family accommodation, suggesting that current proposals are insufficient.

Acknowledges carers' contributions but argues against the proposal due to lack of evidence and risk of abuse. Suggests an existing ground already allows for accommodation adjustment.