“(1) A term of a relevant tenancy or regulated tenancy is of no effect so far as the term makes provision (however expressed) prohibiting the tenant from having a child live with or visit them at the dwelling or restricting the circumstances in which the tenant may have a child do so.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if—

(a) the provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, or

(b) the landlord or a superior landlord is insured under a contract of insurance—

(i) to which section (Terms in insurance contracts relating to children or benefits status) does not apply, and

(ii) which contains a term which makes provision (however expressed) requiring the insured to prohibit the tenant from having a child live with or visit them at the dwelling or to restrict the circumstances in which the tenant may have a child live with or visit them at the dwelling,

and the provision in the tenancy is a means of preventing the insured from breaching that term.

(3) A term of a relevant tenancy or regulated tenancy is of no effect so far as the term makes provision (however expressed) prohibiting the tenant from being a benefits claimant.

(4) Subsection (3) does not apply if the landlord or a superior landlord is insured under a contract of insurance—

(a) to which section (

(b) which contains a term which makes provision (however expressed) requiring the insured to prohibit the tenant from being a benefits claimant,

and the provision in the tenancy is a means of preventing the insured from breaching that term.”—

This new clause provides for terms of a relevant or regulated tenancy to be ineffective so far as they would prohibit a tenant from having a child live with or visit them or from being a benefits claimant.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.