My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for his Amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for moving it so ably, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her amendment. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. He may remember that I visited some of the housing that he developed when he was a council leader to pinch some ideas for my own local authority. It was indeed very accessible.

Amendment 56, from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, would require landlords to allow disability adaptations when a local authority has carried out a home assessment and recommended changes to be made. While the Equality Act 2010 already provides protections for disabled renters, I completely accept that they are not always as well understood as they should be. It is right that we consider how to address barriers preventing disabled renters getting the home adaptations they need. However, as I stated in Committee, I do not consider that this amendment is the right way to do this. A new requirement linked to local authority home assessments would create a confusing two-tier system. As a consequence, even these well-intentioned measures might make it harder for people who are not eligible for disabled facilities grants to access adaptations.

As I previously set out, the Government have committed to take steps to clarify matters further to support disabled renters. We all recognise what a vital issue this is and the difference it can make to someone’s life to have adequate access to their property. We will look to ensure that the written statement of terms that landlords will have to provide to new tenants includes the duty on landlords not to unreasonably refuse tenant requests for disability adaptations.

We also intend to work closely with the sector to deliver a communications and engagement programme to raise awareness of disability-related rights and obligations among tenants and landlords, and we will explore enhancing guidance to help landlords and tenants better understand the current system. This is in addition to existing provisions in the Bill that empower disabled tenants to request the home adaptations they need. For example, by abolishing Section 21 evictions, we will remove the threat of retaliatory eviction, and the creation of the new ombudsman will give tenants a new route of redress when their adaptations are refused.

The Government have also increased funding for the disabled facilities grant, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned. We have increased the grant by £86 million, bringing the total amount to £711 million. On the role of local authorities, they must provide a decision on the disabled facilities grant application within six months of receipt and the works must usually be completed within 12 months of the approval date. I appreciate that that can feel like a long time when you are waiting for an adaptation, but the Government have published guidance for local authorities in England to help to support the efficient local delivery of the disabled facilities grant, including speed of delivery. I appreciate that in some areas the availability of occupational therapists to do the assessments has proved an issue. Many local authorities are looking carefully at this issue, and I know we will be taking steps to address it.

We also continue to fund an organisation, currently Foundations, to act as a national body for disabled facilities grants and home improvement agencies, providing expertise and support to local authorities around their disabled facilities grant and home adaptations delivery. So there is a lot going on to support the work being done in relation to disabled facilities grants. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, on behalf of the noble Lord, will agree that the new measures I have outlined, together with the existing provisions in the Bill and the increase in funding, are meaningful ones that will improve the lives of disabled renters, and I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

On Amendment 72 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—I was delighted to hear about the accessibility of the commercial development in Yeovil; that is great news—the Government recognise that it is not always as easy as it should be for disabled tenants to get their home adaptations, but the approach taken by the amendment, in defining “minor” in relation to cost alone, does not account for other key factors relevant to whether disability adaptations can be made. As I mentioned in Committee, these important factors include the need to obtain consent from relevant third parties, building regulation requirements and consideration of how the property might be returned to its original condition, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and such issues will generally depend on the features of an individual property. These fundamental challenges to defining minor adaptations will inevitably lead to ambiguity and confusion that could risk making things worse for both tenants and landlords.

The amendment would also add an extra layer of complexity by creating a new right in addition to the existing Equality Act 2010 obligations on landlords not to refuse consent for disability-related improvements. I therefore do not consider the amendment to be the right way to address the barriers preventing disabled renters from getting the home adaptations they need.

As I outlined in Committee, the Government have promised already to take action that will improve matters for disabled tenants. We intend to use the new written statement of terms to set out the duty on landlords not to unreasonably refuse disability adaptation requests from tenants. We have pledged to work with the disability sector to raise awareness of disabled tenants’ rights and to explore the updating of guidance. I feel that these combined measures will be a simpler and more practical solution to the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, raises.

The noble Baroness’s Amendment 86 would extend the rental discrimination measures to those who require home adaptations. Although we recognise the important issue she raises and believe that disabled people should absolutely not face discrimination when accessing the PRS, we still consider that the amendment is not the right way to meet its aim, although we understand the aim that she intends. Disabled people are already afforded full protections from discrimination by the Equality Act 2010, under which landlords are forbidden from discriminating against a person based on disability. Adding this cohort to our measures in the Bill would unnecessarily increase complexity and cause confusion, for little benefit, and would muddle the responsibilities of local authorities, which are responsible for enforcing the rental discrimination protections, and the courts, which have jurisdiction for Equality Act measures. For that reason, I kindly ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments.