Amendments made: 241, page 152, line 14, at end insert—

“Tenancies to which Chapter 1 of Part 1 applies on conversion to a periodic tenancy

A1 Where the extended application date in relation to an existing tenancy is the date on which it is converted to a periodic tenancy, the amendments made by Chapter 1 of Part 1 do not apply in relation to the tenancy until immediately after it is so converted.

Section 1: existing tenancies continue as modified

A2 The application of section 4A of the 1998 Act (inserted by section 1) in relation to an existing tenancy does not bring that tenancy to an end, and the terms of such a tenancy are not affected by the application of section 4A of the 1988 Act except as provided by that section.”

This amendment makes provision like existing paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 but applying to contractual periodic tenancies as well as statutory periodic tenancies. It also makes it clear that the application of clause 1 to an existing tenancy does not create a new tenancy.

Amendment 186, page 152, line 22, leave out “116(2)(b)” and insert

“(Application of Chapter 1 of Part 1)(3)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment NC28.

Amendment 242, page 153, line 2, leave out paragraph 2.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 241.

Amendment 187, page 154, line 16, leave out “116(2)(b)” and insert

“(Application of Chapter 1 of Part 1)(3)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment NC28.

Amendment 199, page 154, line 30, at end insert—

“Section (Assured agricultural occupancies: opting out etc): existing opt-out notices for assured agricultural occupancies

8A Where an existing tenancy would be an assured agricultural occupancy but for a notice served under paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 2A to the 1988 Act, the tenancy is to be treated for the purposes of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of the 1988 Act as amended by this Act, on and after the extended application date, as a tenancy in relation to which an opt-out notice has been served under section 24A of the 1988 Act (inserted by section (Assured agricultural occupancies: opting out etc) of this Act).”

This amendment ensures that where tenancies have been opted-out from the assured agricultural occupancy regime, those tenancies continue to be opted-out tenancies as provided for in amendment NC29.

Amendment 243, page 154, line 34, at end insert—

“Schedule 1: student accommodation ground

9A In relation to an existing tenancy, paragraph (za) in Ground 4A in Schedule 2 to the 1988 Act is to be read as if for “before the beginning of the tenancy or on the day on which it began” there were substituted “before the extended application date (within the meaning given by section (Application of Chapter 1 of Part 1)(3) of the Renters (Reform) Act 2024)”.”

This amendment makes transitional provision for the new ground of possession for student accommodation, Ground 4A.

Amendment 188, page 154, line 34, at end insert—

“Schedule 1: stepping stone accommodation ground

9B In relation to an existing tenancy, paragraph (b) in Ground 5H in Schedule 1 to the 1988 Act is to be read as if after “agreement” there were inserted “or in a written statement given to the tenant before the extended application date (within the meaning given by section (Application of Chapter 1 of Part 1)(3) of the Renters (Reform) Act 2024)”.”

This amendment makes transitional provision for the new ground of possession for stepping stone accommodation, Ground 5H.

Amendment 189, page 155, line 1, leave out “116(4)” and insert

“(Application of Chapter 1 of Part 1)(3)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment NC28.

Amendment 190, page 155, line 2, at end insert—

“Existing tenancies subject to possession notice

10A Where, immediately before the extended application date, proceedings for an order for possession under section 8 of the 1988 Act in reliance on a valid notice given under that section of that Act have been commenced in relation to an existing tenancy and have not been concluded, or have not been commenced but have not become time-barred—

(a) the notice remains valid until any time when such proceedings in reliance on the notice become time-barred or are concluded, and

(b) until that time the amendments made by Chapter 1 of Part 1 do not apply in relation to the tenancy.

For the purposes of this paragraph, proceedings are “time-barred” after the time limit mentioned in section 8(3)(c) of the 1988 Act.”

This amendment prevents the amendments made by Part 1 of the Bill from affecting an assured tenancy that is subject to a live possession notice at the time when those amendments would otherwise apply to it.

Amendment 191, page 155, line 5, leave out “116(1)” and insert

“(Application of Chapter 1 of Part 1)(1)(a)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment NC28.

Amendment 192, page 155, line 7, leave out “116(5)” and insert

“(Application of Chapter 1 of Part 1)(4)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment NC28.

Amendment 244, page 155, leave out line 8.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 242.

Amendment 194, page 155, line 10, leave out “116(4)” and insert

“(Application of Chapter 1 of Part 1)(3)”.—(Jacob Young.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment NC28.

Third Reading

King’s consent signified.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This Bill is an opportunity for us to improve the life chances of millions of private renters across the country, and I hope that we have also given reassurance to the millions of good landlords who endeavour to provide homes for those who rely on the private rented sector. When the Government set out their levelling-up missions in 2022—as the Levelling Up Minister, I feel this keenly—we made a clear commitment to halve the number of poor-quality homes by 2030 to

“Restore a sense of community, local pride and belonging especially in those places where it has been lost.”

When housing is secure and safe, it is the launch pad for rich and fulfilled lives and gives people

“a place they’re truly proud to call home”.

This Bill marks the biggest change to the sector in more than 30 years. Rightly, Members have pressed the Government to ensure that it strikes the right balance, improving the sector for all while ensuring that no party is unduly burdened either by cost or by process. I believe that the Bill now strikes that balance, and I am proud to have taken it through the House as my first Bill as a Minister. I should add that taking it over 24 hours before the beginning of the Committee stage was an added excitement that I shall not forget. Let me again pay tribute to my predecessors, my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) and for Redditch (Rachel Maclean).

At this point, I invite Caroline Lucas to intervene, if she wishes to do so.

Large rent increases should not be used as a back-door method of eviction, but it is crucial that landlords are able to increase rents in line with market levels to maintain investor confidence. We have listened to concerns, and we think it fair that the tribunal is not limited when determining that market rent. This means that, as the hon. Lady said, the tribunal has the freedom to make full and fair decisions, and can continue to determine the market rent of a property. I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns, but it is important that all our measures are proportionate and that we do not allow the tribunal to become overburdened by too many complaints. I therefore think that this is a necessary safeguard.

Obviously, in a number of areas we have listened to the sector and moved on from the White Paper. The hon. Lady’s point is legitimate, but the reason the tribunal is able to set a rent that is above the landlord’s initial request, and to set a market rent, is that we want to ensure that it is not overburdened with repeat requests that challenge rent increases that are perfectly reasonable.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why we have acted in this way.

We have heard from Members in all parts of the House, and I thank them all for their contributions during the Bill’s passage. They have worked collaboratively and diligently to ensure that this important legislation becomes law. I want to record my thanks to all my officials—I cannot name them all, but a few of them are Leah, Guy, Steph and Ross—as well as those in my private office team and the Clerks. I thank Members on both sides of the House, notably my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) and for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), for all their work, and of course I thank those in the Government Whips Office. Above all, I thank all the groups that I have had the pleasure of meeting as they represent the interests of both tenants and landlords across the wider sector.

I hope that our colleagues in the other place will take the collaborative approach that has been taken in this House, and will pass the Bill with the speed that it now deserves to give certainty and security to landlords and tenants throughout the country.

Let me start by thanking the Clerks, the House staff and the Library specialists for facilitating our debates on the Bill, along with all the experts and external organisations that have engaged extensively with us on it. I also put on record my thanks to all hon. Members who have contributed to our proceedings at all stages, particularly those who served on the Public Bill Committee. I especially thank my hon. Friends the Members for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), for Westminster North (Ms Buck), for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) for their forensic scrutiny of the Bill’s provisions, and the considerable efforts that they have made to strengthen it as a whole.

I offer my sincere thanks to the Minister for the manner in which he has approached our exchanges on this important piece of legislation. In being handed this as his first Bill to take through the House, he has been given an unenviable task, to put it mildly, but he has borne his troubles with good grace. I have very much appreciated the civil way in which he has engaged with me throughout and his efforts, within the severe constraints under which he is no doubt operating, to make a number of small but sensible improvements to the Bill.

Once again, I put on the record the thanks of Labour Members to all those who have campaigned tirelessly—in many cases, over decades—for a reformed private rented sector. I particularly thank all the organisations that have joined Labour over recent months in urging the Government to amend the Bill so that it levels decisively the playing field between landlord and tenant, especially the 20 that make up the Renters Reform Coalition.

Labour has consistently argued that the case for fundamentally reforming the private rented sector is as watertight as they come. A state of affairs in which more than 11 million people in England—not just the young and mobile, but many older people and families with children—live day in, day out with the knowledge that they could be uprooted from their home with little notice and minimal justification, and where a significant minority of them are forced to live in substandard properties for fear that a complaint would lead to an instant retaliatory eviction, is intolerable. The sector should have been transformed a long time ago.

The Bill as introduced was a good starting point for the reform that is necessary, but Ministers could and should have strengthened this legislation, rather than progressively watering it down in a forlorn attempt to appease a minority of malcontents on the Government Benches. As a result of the Government’s unwillingness to face down that minority, the Bill that we send to the other place today is not only far weaker than it need be, but in danger of being fatally compromised.

We will not oppose the passage of the Bill tonight, because it is essential that it progresses, but we hope that the noble Lords address that danger and that over the coming months we can convince the Government to think again and ensure that this long-overdue piece of legislation truly delivers for renters.

It is a great tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister that he has got the Bill into a form that is far better than it was on Second Reading, and that it is so much improved that there will not be a Division on Third Reading. That does not mean that everybody on the Conservative Benches is satisfied with all of the content of the Bill, although it is significantly improved.

I recall the enthusiasm with which those on the Conservative Benches greeted the Third Reading of the Housing Act 1988, which is being substantially amended by tonight’s proceedings. That Act introduced a fundamental supply-side reform and was at the heart of the Thatcher revolution, which transformed the private rented sector from one in which nobody wanted to engage. The sector was shrinking, and young barristers like me were making a living by trying to defend the interests of landlords who had haplessly found themselves on the wrong end of the legislation.

We have moved a long way since then, and one of the essential elements of the 1988 Act was the shorthold, which was a privately arranged agreement between a landlord and a tenant. For a period, the tenant would be able to have exclusive possession of a property that was rented by the landlord. During that period, neither the landlord nor the tenant would be able to renege on the agreement. The rent would remain the same, and the landlord would not be able to say that they needed to get repossession of the property for any reason at all.

It seems to me that the shorthold principle is still missing from the Bill. There was an amendment that would have brought back something like a shorthold provision to provide privity of contract between a landlord and a tenant who wish to enter into an agreement on a property, in the same way that one can agree to rent somebody’s car or caravan. The principle of privity of contract, which is fundamental to conservative beliefs, was enshrined in an amendment that was deemed to be a wrecking amendment. I hope that that amendment, which was signed by more than 50 colleagues, will be resurrected in the other place, where the rules are different, that the principles enunciated in it will be taken forward and that the Bill will be further improved in the other place.

We need to ensure that we support conservative legislation that is designed to increase the size of the rented sector rather than shrink it. I fear that the inevitable consequence of this—we have already seen a bit of this in Scotland—will be that, because the Bill will reduce the supply of private rented accommodation, the cost of that accommodation will go up faster than the rate of inflation. The sort of people who have been campaigning in the alliance to which Matthew Pennycook was referring, will then say, “Stop there! We must have rent controls and price controls over rents”, because one set of regulations creates another set of regulations. Then we will be back to where we were in 1977.

That consequence is likely to flow from what we are approving tonight, and I just hope that it will be amended in their lordships’ House so that the supply-side reforms, which are so fundamental to the 1988 legislation, can be carried forward and we can give fresh confidence to people who are thinking about entering the private rented market, and fresh confidence to those already in it so that they do not withdraw from it as they are doing at the moment in increasing numbers. It does not help constituents who are trying to get rented accommodation if that accommodation continues to escalate in price.

I hope that, if there is to be a response to this short debate, we will be able to have a guarantee that under no Conservative Government will we ever have any system of rent controls. I hope that the Government will be able to assure us that, as a consequence of this legislation, we will be able to increase the size of the private rented sector rather than diminish it further.

I want to conclude by congratulating my hon. Friend Anthony Mangnall on having waged his campaign, although it was not a one-man campaign because a large cohort of people behind the scenes supported of his amendments. As a result of those amendments, the Bill has been improved significantly. One of his amendments was not selected, and that is still, in my view, unfinished business, but we should not shirk from congratulating him on having carried this campaign forward so effectively and successfully.

When the Bill comes back from the other place—maybe in another year and a half since it was first presented—we might be on the other side of a general election. Some of us might think it would be better if we did not have the Bill on the statute book by the time of the general election, but that is another story. I will not go into that now. Whenever the Bill comes back, I hope that it will be in an improved form and that even more of my hon. Friend’s amendments, which are well supported on the Government Benches, will be included in the text of the legislation.

With the leave of the House, I would just like to confirm to my hon. Friend Sir Christopher Chope that we do not intend to introduce any sort of rent controls.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.