A Labour peer has spoken out strongly against the government’s approach to the Renters’ Rights Bill, criticising ministers for agreeing to just three amendments out of roughly 300 proposed.
During the report stage debate in the House of Lords, Lord Hacking expressed disappointment, saying the government was failing to take on board the concerns raised by peers.
He argued that this showed a reluctance “for not listening to the House,” highlighting the frustration felt by some members over the limited concessions made.
The debate brought to light a number of contentious points, with peers offering amendments that they believed would make the legislation fairer and more balanced.
Among the debated proposals were calls to retain fixed-term tenancies, which some see as offering tenants and landlords alike greater security and predictability.
Another significant point of contention was around the grounds for student evictions, an area where peers felt the Bill did not go far enough to protect landlords who specialise in student lets.
Some Lords argued that student housing operates under unique conditions, and that flexibility is needed to ensure accommodation is available for new intakes each academic year.
Despite these arguments, the government maintained its position, stating that the Bill’s current form was intended to increase tenant protections across the private rental sector.
Ministers insisted that while they were open to constructive dialogue, the scale of the suggested changes was too extensive and risked undermining the Bill’s core purpose.
The debate exposed a clear divide between those seeking to safeguard landlords’ operational needs and those prioritising stronger tenant rights.
Lord Hacking’s remarks underscored the feeling among several peers that the government had already made up its mind before the report stage discussions.
Observers noted that while some amendments were technical or clarifying in nature, others sought to address practical challenges raised by landlords and property professionals.
The rejection of most amendments left some peers questioning the effectiveness of the House of Lords in influencing key pieces of legislation.
With the Bill still progressing through Parliament, it remains to be seen whether further concessions might yet emerge during subsequent stages.
As it stands, the government appears determined to stick to its original vision for the Renters’ Rights Bill, despite mounting criticism from within the Lords.
Not listening to the House
Lord Hacking delivered a strong rebuke to the government, accusing ministers of failing to take heed of the concerns raised by Peers during discussions on the Renters’ Rights Bill.
Speaking in the House of Lords, he pointed out that while the government had accepted three amendments outlined in the Minister’s letter dated 24 June, this was a minimal concession in comparison to the rejection of around 300 others.
He remarked: “It is true that, in the Minister’s letter of 24 June, the government, through the Minister, have accepted three amendments. I am very grateful for that, but that is a very small number against the rejection of 300 amendments.”
Lord Hacking went on to question the idea that the government could always be correct in its stance while all other voices were consistently wrong. “By applying normal averages, it cannot be right that the Government were always right in Committee on all these amendments and that the rest of us were always wrong,” he argued.
“To put it bluntly, the rejection of over 300 amendments shows that they are not listening to this House,” he added, reflecting a sense of deep frustration shared by several Peers.
Lord Hacking, who is himself a landlord, expressed particular concern over the plan to abolish fixed-term tenancies entirely.
He emphasised that as someone directly involved in the sector, he understood the real-world implications and potential unintended consequences of removing the option of fixed-term agreements.
To address this, he tabled an amendment that would still allow landlords and tenants to mutually agree on a fixed-term tenancy, if they so wished.
His proposal, he explained, was about preserving choice and flexibility for both sides, rather than forcing all agreements into a single format.
Other Peers voiced their support for Lord Hacking’s call to retain fixed-term tenancies, underlining the practical benefits for tenants and landlords alike.
Lord Truscott was among those who echoed this view, highlighting that surveys and polls had shown that a majority of both tenants and landlords favoured having fixed terms as an option.
He criticised the government’s stance, stating: “Polls have shown that a majority of tenants and landlords want to have fixed terms, and His Majesty’s Government have given no reason why they think they know best.”
Describing the government’s arguments against allowing mutually agreed fixed-term contracts as “unconvincing and threadbare,” Lord Truscott argued that fixed terms could actually provide more security for tenants rather than less.
He also noted that allowing fixed-term tenancies could reduce the chance of families facing sudden upheaval and disruption in their living arrangements.
The exchange in the Lords revealed a clear divide between those advocating for more tenant flexibility and those worried that removing fixed terms entirely could cause greater uncertainty.
As the debate continues, the future shape of the Renters’ Rights Bill remains closely watched by both landlords and tenants across the country.
Fixed terms have some benefits
Lord Hacking delivered a strong rebuke to the government, accusing ministers of failing to take heed of the concerns raised by Peers during discussions on the Renters’ Rights Bill.
Speaking in the House of Lords, he pointed out that while the government had accepted three amendments outlined in the Minister’s letter dated 24 June, this was a minimal concession in comparison to the rejection of around 300 others.
He remarked: “It is true that, in the Minister’s letter of 24 June, the government, through the Minister, have accepted three amendments. I am very grateful for that, but that is a very small number against the rejection of 300 amendments.”
Lord Hacking went on to question the idea that the government could always be correct in its stance while all other voices were consistently wrong. “By applying normal averages, it cannot be right that the Government were always right in Committee on all these amendments and that the rest of us were always wrong,” he argued.
“To put it bluntly, the rejection of over 300 amendments shows that they are not listening to this House,” he added, reflecting a sense of deep frustration shared by several Peers.
Lord Hacking, who is himself a landlord, expressed particular concern over the plan to abolish fixed-term tenancies entirely.
He emphasised that as someone directly involved in the sector, he understood the real-world implications and potential unintended consequences of removing the option of fixed-term agreements.
To address this, he tabled an amendment that would still allow landlords and tenants to mutually agree on a fixed-term tenancy, if they so wished.
His proposal, he explained, was about preserving choice and flexibility for both sides, rather than forcing all agreements into a single format.
Other Peers voiced their support for Lord Hacking’s call to retain fixed-term tenancies, underlining the practical benefits for tenants and landlords alike.
Lord Truscott was among those who echoed this view, highlighting that surveys and polls had shown that a majority of both tenants and landlords favoured having fixed terms as an option.
He criticised the government’s stance, stating: “Polls have shown that a majority of tenants and landlords want to have fixed terms, and His Majesty’s Government have given no reason why they think they know best.”
Describing the government’s arguments against allowing mutually agreed fixed-term contracts as “unconvincing and threadbare,” Lord Truscott argued that fixed terms could actually provide more security for tenants rather than less.
He also noted that allowing fixed-term tenancies could reduce the chance of families facing sudden upheaval and disruption in their living arrangements.
The exchange in the Lords revealed a clear divide between those advocating for more tenant flexibility and those worried that removing fixed terms entirely could cause greater uncertainty.
As the debate continues, the future shape of the Renters’ Rights Bill remains closely watched by both landlords and tenants across the country.
Here’s a rewritten, longer, and naturally paragraphed version in British English so it sounds more original and less like it was copied directly:
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, who serves as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, acknowledged during the debate that fixed-term tenancies can indeed bring certain benefits for tenants under the current system.
However, despite recognising these potential positives, she ultimately rejected Lord Hacking’s proposed amendment to keep fixed-term tenancies as an option.
In her remarks, Baroness Taylor explained: “I accept that fixed terms have some benefit for tenants under the current system because they offer some respite from the awful threat of Section 21, which hangs like the sword of Damocles over tenants’ heads.”
She elaborated that once Section 21 evictions are removed, tenants would no longer face this constant uncertainty, effectively eliminating the main reason why a fixed-term agreement might appear appealing to them in the first place.
“With Section 21 gone, that advantage will be extinguished, so there is even less reason why a tenant would agree voluntarily to a fixed term,” she argued.
Baroness Taylor went further, questioning the fairness of fixed-term contracts in practice. “Even if freely agreed, there is nothing equal about a fixed term,” she said, suggesting that the balance of power still tends to favour landlords.
She highlighted that, under current rules, landlords retain the right to seek possession during a fixed term if tenants breach the terms of their agreement.
Examples she cited included situations where a tenant might miss rent payments, cause damage to the property, engage in anti-social behaviour, or otherwise violate the tenancy terms.
Yet, she pointed out that tenants do not enjoy the same level of protection or flexibility in return.
“Noble Lords would then imagine that, in a fair contract, a tenant could also terminate the tenancy if the landlord failed to fulfil their
Students can confidently plan their lives
Members of the House of Lords recently voted by 221 to 196 in favour of keeping Amendment 5, a proposal designed to expand ground 4A.
This particular ground currently allows landlords to evict students living in Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) at the end of the academic year, helping to match tenancies with university calendars.
Under the amendment, this rule would be extended beyond just HMOs, so that students living in self-contained accommodation, such as one-bedroom or two-bedroom flats, could also be asked to leave each year.
The aim, supporters argue, is to create consistency and predictability in the student rental market, especially where demand is tightly linked to term dates.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook, speaking on behalf of the Conservatives, insisted that the amendment should not be seen as a move to “throw out students” without cause.
She explained that its true purpose is to keep certainty for both landlords and students, allowing everyone involved to plan ahead.
Baroness Scott described the current rule, which restricts ground 4A only to HMOs with three or more bedrooms, as “both arbitrary and unfair.”
She pointed out that the rental needs of today’s student population have become more diverse, with many choosing smaller flats or living arrangements outside traditional large shared houses.
“In particular,” she noted, “postgraduates, international students and mature students often live in one-bedroom or two-bedroom properties.”
This change, she argued, would ensure they too are covered by the same practical tenancy structure as their peers living in larger HMOs.
Reflecting on earlier discussions, Baroness Scott recalled the Minister’s comment in Committee that “limiting it to HMOs captures the bulk of typical students.”
While she agreed with this observation, she highlighted that the bulk is not the entirety, and when housing availability is already stretched, every option matters.
She stressed that excluding these smaller properties from ground 4A could leave gaps that worsen housing scarcity or complicate the annual cycle of student tenancies.
“When choices are limited, we must protect every viable home,” she said, underlining the importance of flexibility in the sector.
Baroness Scott made clear that the intention behind ground 4A was never to displace students unfairly, but rather to ensure landlords can confidently prepare for the next academic intake.
Equally, this certainty allows students themselves to plan their accommodation well in advance, knowing the rental cycle aligns with their academic needs.
In closing, she framed the amendment as a practical response to the realities of the modern student housing market rather than a harsh measure, aiming to bring fairness and predictability for all.
Download NOW
4 Simple Steps To Becoming Wealthy Through Property