My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Maddock, for moving Amendment 20E. She comes with a great wealth of knowledge of this sector, which is always much appreciated. In particular, her opening remarks welcomed some of the action that we are taking in this sector.
On the issue raised by my noble friend Lady Parminter, I should like to pick up the issue of the review at a later amendment.
I am glad to see that the Minister, my colleague Mr Gregory Barker, who will be taking this matter through the other place, has come to see how it is done properly here in the Upper Chamber. He will learn a lot from being here.
Amendments 20E to 20K all seek to amend Clause 35 by expanding the range of tenancy types and dwellings covered by the provisions in the Bill relating to the domestic private rented sector. Clause 35 lays the foundations for the provisions in the private rented sector by clearly defining what we mean by ““domestic private rented property”” and ““non-domestic private rented property”” in England and Wales for the purposes of this Bill. The domestic private rented sector is currently defined by the two most common types of tenancy arrangements in the sector: assured tenancies and regulated tenancies. We want to capture the largest range of private rented sector properties; we do not want to unintentionally exclude properties. I will now consider them in turn.
Amendments 20G and 20J would apply to accommodation provided for agricultural workers under either an assured agricultural occupancy, as defined in the Housing Act 1988, or a protected occupancy, as defined by the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976. Those will be included in the definition; they do not need to be referred to specifically. I hope that that deals with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock.
I can see the arguments for the Secretary of State having the power to add tenancy types to the definition of ““domestic private rented property””, but Amendment 20K refers to ““dwellings””—rather than forms of tenancy—which I feel runs contrary to the principle of the clause. However, I am happy to take this issue away and consider it in more detail before Report. We shall also look into the subject of mining tenancies, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. If, on consideration, such a government amendment were felt to be valid, it would offer a safety net. If, after further research, the Secretary of State considers that the forms of tenancy agreement in Amendment 20K should be covered by the regulations, those would be included at a later date. That would also be the case if the review proposed in the Bill revealed other relevant tenancy types that were inadvertently missed.
With these explanations—and on the basis that before Report I will look again at Amendments 20G, 20J and 20K—I ask that the amendments not be pressed.
Energy Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Marland
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 24 January 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Energy Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
724 c121-2GC 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 21:20:49 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_704881
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_704881
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_704881