Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for these amendments relating to agricultural tenancies, and thank him, the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their obvious farming expertise as they have taken us through the rationale for the amendments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for her comments about the long relationships that are often prevalent in rural tenancies. It is important to make the point that one of the aims of the Bill is to facilitate those longer tenancy relationships. I will make a few general comments, particularly that we appreciate that the agricultural sector has distinct requirements, and it is often vital for workers to live on-site to carry out their duties, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, very ably described to us. That is why we have included ground 5A. However, this must be balanced with the needs of the wider rural community. This ground balances both. It allows agricultural workers to be housed while protecting other tenants who may work in critical local jobs. Widening the ground—for example, to include contractors—could, we believe, open the ground to abuse and decrease rural security of tenure. For example, a landlord could contract someone to do a nominal amount of agricultural work for their business and, on that basis, use the expanded ground to evict a tenant in respect of whom no other grounds were available. The noble Earl, Lord Leicester, talked about the self-employed and contractors. We recognise that it is sometimes necessary for landlords to move tenants on where accommodation is intended for a particular purpose, and understand that employee accommodation plays a critical role for many employers, so we are strengthening the possession ground by making it mandatory. It would not be right to broaden the ground too much, and thereby reduce the security of tenure for more tenancies, as this would be contradictory to the purpose of the Bill. There are other arrangements that a landlord can use to help their contractors with accommodation when they are working away from their home, such as paying expenses for the contractor to make their own arrangements, using licences to occupy, or paying for them to be hosted in an Airbnb. As people working away from their home are often working on short-term projects—for example, in the construction industry—tenancy agreements are unlikely to be the right solution in these circumstances. Taken together, Amendments 48 to 53 would expand the types of agricultural worker that other rural tenants can be evicted in order to house. Amendment 48 replaces the word “person” in the ground with the term “agricultural worker”. As I have discussed, we do not support the overall intent of these amendments, which would reduce security of tenure for all rural tenants with a landlord engaged in agriculture. Amendment 49 removes the requirement for the incoming tenant to be employed by the landlord, replacing it with a broader definition of “working for a business operated” by the landlord. Amendment 50 specifically mentions service occupants, who are defined later. Amendment 51 changes the wording of the ground from “employee” to the broader “agricultural worker”. Amendment 52 adds a definition of “agricultural worker” for the purposes of the ground which is far broader than an employee. Amendment 53 defines “service occupier” for the purpose of the ground. The current drafting of ground 5A allows for tenants to be evicted only in order to house employees. Together, these amendments expand this group to include service occupants, contractors and self-employed persons. This definition is far too broad and would endanger security of tenure for existing rural tenants. It would give a landlord running an agricultural business a much freer hand to evict anyone living in their property by, for example, creating a contract with another person to do a nominal amount of work for them. It is just not the right balance. Rural tenants do not deserve less security than others, and the amendments proposed would open up tenants renting from a landlord involved in agriculture to being evicted in a much wider range of circumstances. For this reason, I ask for Amendment 48 to be withdrawn.