Renters' Rights Bill (Fifth sitting)
Thursday 31st October 2024
(3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Renters' Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Renters' Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 31 October 2024 - (31 Oct 2024)
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 33 to 38 stand part.
Amendment 78, in clause 39, page 47, line 3, at end insert—
“(6A) On recovering a financial penalty imposed under this section, a local housing authority shall pay 20% of the recovered penalty to the person who was the subject of the discrimination.
(6B) Where the person who was the subject of the discrimination complains to the relevant landlord redress scheme about the same discriminatory behaviour, the scheme provider shall take into account any sum paid or payable to that person under subsection (6A) in assessing any further award of compensation which the relevant person is directed to pay to that person under the scheme.”
This amendment provides a mechanism for a complainant to receive a portion of the financial penalty imposed by a local housing authority as compensation for being discriminated against.
Clauses 39 to 41 stand part.
Amendment 79, in schedule 5, page 207, line 31, leave out—
“Where” and insert “Subject to section 39(6A), where”.
See Amendment 78.
Matthew Pennycook
It is an absolute pleasure, Mr Betts, to continue our consideration of the Bill with you in the Chair, not least because you will have extensive knowledge of what we are talking about as we proceed through the clauses.
Before we proceed to the substantive matter, I draw the Committee’s attention to the letter that I sent the Chair this morning, responding to the various technical questions put to me in the previous sitting. I hope that Members find my responses useful. I look forward to continuing this co-operative approach as we debate the remaining clauses.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I put on the record my thanks to the Minister for the prompt and detailed response to the points made. We had a brief discussion this morning about a small omission involving, for example, school caretakers or NHS staff who are provided with accommodation on site as part of their employment. I am grateful that the Minister has undertaken to respond to that, too, in due course.
Matthew Pennycook
I will indeed respond to that specific point in the extensive future correspondence that I expect to have with the shadow Minister, given his form in previous sittings.
Having considered assured tenancies and tenancies that cannot be assured tenancies in our third and fourth sittings on Tuesday, we now turn to chapter 3 of part 1 of the Bill, which concerns discrimination in the rental market in England. The Government are determined to make it unlawful for landlords and agents acting on their behalf to engage in discriminatory conduct against tenants with children or those in receipt of benefits. The case for prohibiting such conduct is indisputable.
Not only should all renters be treated fairly in their search for a place to call home as a point of principle, but the changing nature of the private rented sector, and the fact that it now contains increasing numbers of families and those in receipt of housing support, make it imperative that the Government act in this area. Individuals in receipt of benefits or who have children should have the opportunity to be considered for a tenancy on their own circumstances, rather than rejected straight away under a blanket policy.
The problem that this part of the Bill attempts to resolve is that a blanket ban of the kind we are considering is already contrary to the Property Ombudsman’s code of practice, and already almost certainly unlawful by virtue of the premises provisions in the Equality Act 2010, which provide for a prohibition against discrimination in the letting, managing or dispensing of premises. However, despite a number of court rulings confirming that rejecting a tenant’s application because of benefit status or family circumstances is a breach, proving discrimination is incredibly difficult. As a result, despite a growing body of case law, it remains fairly common for landlords to refuse to allow benefit claimants or those with children to view an affordable property, or to consider them as a potential tenant, and for properties to be advertised with restrictions such as “No DSS”, “No benefits” and “No kids”.
Discriminatory conduct of this kind is constantly evolving and is therefore difficult to adapt to. For example, following landmark rulings that a “No DSS” policy is unlawful as it indirectly discriminates, explicit “No DSS” adverts morphed into more subtle forms of messaging with the same intent, such as specifying “Working professionals only”. The question is, therefore, how we best ensure that the underlying discrimination in this area does not occur in practice.
During consideration of the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill, I challenged the then Minister, the former Member for Redcar, to specify through regulations behaviour that for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 should be considered unlawful discrimination unless the contrary is shown. In other words, my suggestion to the Minister at the time was that the onus should be placed on landlords to convince a court that a ban had no discriminatory impact. In developing the Renters’ Rights Bill I considered carefully whether that approach would be the most effective way to try to bear down on the problem of discriminatory conduct against tenants with children or who receive benefits. I ultimately concluded that it would not, both because it would have entailed a complex reform of the Equality Act, and because it would require tenants themselves to bring costly civil litigation to seek redress.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Minister identified other legislation that already make discrimination illegal, and went on to make the point that proving discrimination is very difficult, so my question is twofold. First, if we have already outlawed that kind of behaviour, why do we need further legislation to do exactly the same thing? Secondly, if we do require further legislation, how is the evidential burden going to be passed more easily under this clause than has been the experience under previous provisions?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his two reasonable questions; I will come on to answer them both in my remarks. If he feels that I have not sufficiently explained the matter, I am more than happy to give way to him again, but I will address both those points. The first I have already touched on: despite it almost certainly being unlawful under the Equality Act, discriminatory conduct of the kind that we are trying to bear down on happens fairly routinely, so it is evident to the Government that the existing legislation does not allow us to bear down on the problem effectively in practice. We think the Bill’s provisions will allow us to do so. I will pick up the hon. Gentleman’s point about the evidential burden and how local authorities make that judgment in due course.
In contrast to the approach on which I challenged the then Minister in the previous Parliament, the advantage of the approach taken in the Bill is that, first, responsibility for enforcement lies with local authorities and not tenants, and secondly, breaches can be addressed relatively easily, in the English context, via a civil offence with a lower burden of proof than a criminal one.
Clauses 32 and 33 directly and expressly prohibit discriminatory bans and restrictions on the letting of private rented sector properties on the basis that children would live with or visit a person at the property, or to persons in receipt of benefits. They also prohibit any conduct that might otherwise effectively constitute such bans or restrictions. In other words, the provisions are intended to deal with both direct and more subtle forms of discrimination. It is important to note that landlords and agents will continue to have the final say on who they let their property to, and they will be able to continue to carry out referencing checks to make sure that tenancies are sustainable for both parties.
It is also the case, as clause 40 makes clear, that nothing in this chapter will prevent landlords from making a final decision based on an objective and fair assessment of whether the prospective tenant can afford the rent, nor will it force landlords into entering into unsustainable tenancies. The majority of landlords—those who already act fairly and conscientiously and treat applicants equally, assessing their suitability on a case-by-case basis—have absolutely nothing to fear as a result of the introduction of the new rental discrimination framework.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister made reference to the burden of proof under the clause being the civil burden, and compared that to the Equality Act. I just had a quick look at that Act—I stand to be corrected because it was a very brief look—and the burden under that Act appears to be a civil burden and also one where the maxim res ipsa loquitur can be applied. If that is the case, what is the difference between the burden of proof in this clause and that of the Equality Act?
Matthew Pennycook
If I have understood correctly, the hon. Gentleman is challenging me on the burden of proof. I will say two things: first, who is the actor in charge of enforcement? It is for local authorities to make a judgment on whether the burden of proof has been met. That is a key difference. On the legal point, I am more than happy to come back to the hon. Gentleman in terms of how the burden applies in this case and whether it is any different from the provisions under the Equality Act, but we are talking about the provisions of the Bill and the most practical way to bear down on the problem. It is a difficult one to bear down on, as he will appreciate.
Landlords and related parties will be exempt from the prohibitions if the prohibition was necessary for the landlord to fulfil a restrictive term in an existing insurance contract that prohibits occupation by children or if a prohibition was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The example we chose in the explanatory notes was a landlord reasonably refusing to rent a small bedroom in a house in multiple occupation to a women with two teenage children, in order to adhere to overcrowding regulations. However, in general terms the clauses will bear down on rental discrimination by ensuring that prospective tenants are considered on an individual basis rather than on the basis of whether they have children or are in receipt of benefits. To reassure Opposition Members, the provisions broadly mirror those in the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill.
Clauses 34 to 37 merely nullify any discriminatory clauses relating to children and benefits in tenancy agreements, superior leases, mortgage deeds and insurance policies by rendering them unenforceable. As with clauses 32 and 33, exemptions apply for a prohibition if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
It should be noted that while the mortgage and lease provisions set out in clauses 35 and 36 are retrospective, the insurance provisions set out in clause 37 are not. We have taken this approach because insurance contracts are renewed with greater frequency than mortgages and leases, so will naturally be updated to reflect the new requirements without necessitating immediate action or impacting existing insurance rates.
The provisions in this chapter of the Bill make it clear that rental discrimination against families with children or people who receive benefits has no place in a fair and modern housing market. We recognise, however, that we may need to extend the new protections to additional cohorts, if required in future. Clause 38 allows us to do so by way of regulations, subject to the affirmative procedure and following a consultation, provided that any new protections remain consistent with the existing framework.
For example, I have received representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) to extend the rental discrimination provisions to care leavers. The Government feel strongly that the protections provided for by this chapter should be extended to additional cohorts only if there is sufficient evidence to suggest that is required. We do not yet have such evidence in the case of care leavers, but I intend to keep the matter closely under review. If we do need to look to extend discrimination protections to care leavers, we will. The powers in clause 38 will allow us to do so, as well as to respond promptly to any new acts of unlawful discrimination that may emerge in future.
Clause 39 gives local housing authorities the power to impose a financial penalty of £7,000 on a person if on the balance of probability—this directly addresses the question earlier from the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham—the local authority is satisfied that there has been a breach of a rental discrimination measure in this chapter. The penalties will be compounding for continuous or repeated breaches.
In summary, although we appreciate the inherent challenges in legislating to tackle rental discrimination, I believe that the measures in this chapter, set alongside strong communication and clear guidance, will see us make measurable progress towards ending discriminatory conduct against tenants with children or those in receipt of benefits. I commend them to the Committee.
Amendments 78 and 79, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Bristol Central, would ensure that prospective tenants who report rental discrimination could receive a share of any financial penalty imposed on the landlord or letting agent. My assumption—the hon. Lady may well correct me—is that the intent of the amendments is to create an incentive for prospective tenants to complain to the relevant local authority where they consider they may have been a victim of such discrimination. That is an entirely worthy objective, and we do want tenants who find themselves in such circumstances to make a complaint to the relevant local council. We have placed a duty on local authorities to enforce the provisions when they have sufficient evidence to act. However, I cannot accept the amendments, for the following reasons. First, the idea of giving prospective tenants a cut of the civil penalty is wrong in principle. They are penalties imposed by a public body for breaking the law, not a mechanism for compensation.
Secondly, I worry about the potential impact on local government. Allowing a proportion of any such penalty to be allocated as compensation would undermine the principle that all civil penalty income must be ringfenced for enforcement activity in the private rented sector. Moreover, we would expect local authorities, including the hon. Lady’s, to take issue with surrendering part of a receipt that may, in practice, already not be enough to cover the costs of pursuing enforcement action. The arrangements necessary to facilitate such compensation would also add to the administrative burden on local authorities. Financial incentives might also create the risk that prospective tenants complain when it is not warranted and press local councils to propose civil penalties when the evidence is lacking.
Thirdly, there are likely to be practical difficulties in identifying who has been the subject of discrimination— for example, in instances where more than one tenant is involved. There would also be an administrative burden if the compensation were to be paid in instalments.
David Simmonds
The Opposition broadly support the clauses. I have some questions for the Minister, which are matters not of amendment but of clarification.
Clause 35 deals with tenancies where there may be restrictions on children either visiting or living in a property. There has been a significant increase in the number of retirement communities across the UK, and it is quite common for them to set out a condition— for example, that occupiers must be aged over 55. That housing supply is important, especially to encourage people who are under-occupying family homes to choose to move later in life to a retirement property that is designed and built specifically for that purpose. I seek assurance from the Government that while the clause effectively nullifies any restrictions on the ability for children to live in a property, bespoke retirement communities, constructed specifically with the needs of older people in mind, will not find it a problematic provision.
We support the Government’s position in clause 40, on taking income into account. It is clear that the purpose behind the previous voluntary codes, introduced under previous Conservative Governments, and under Labour Governments with the support of the Conservative Opposition, was to bear down on the practice of restricting benefit tenants from accessing private rented property. However, as the Minister clearly said, there is a requirement for referencing checks to be undertaken. Clause 40 specifically says that there will be no prohibition on taking income into account. There is clearly a risk of a loophole in the clause, given that the Bill does not clearly specify what is meant by referencing checks.
Landlords can use insurance to cover the risk of a loss of income where a tenant defaults on a rental payment. If the insurer says, “We consider the risk of anybody on benefits to be too high,” the landlord may say, “We do not directly discriminate, but our referencing check will always decline to provide insurance for an individual in those circumstances.” There is potentially the risk that benefit claimants will fall between two stools. Universal credit is flexible and provides a top-up on a person’s rental income, so they may eligible to receive the benefit but fall outside it for a period of time. We need to ensure that that is fully taken into account. I ask the Minister to clarify the position, perhaps in writing.
Finally, I have some points relating to the interaction of all the clauses. I previously raised the issue of people who have no recourse to public funds. They are not eligible to receive benefits but may be the beneficiary of an obligation on a local authority to provide support—for example, under the Children Act 1989 or previous housing legislation. It would be helpful to understand how the clauses will apply to that group of individuals. They are likely to be creditworthy and to apply for private rental on the basis that they have a job and an income. They are not eligible for the state benefits listed in the examples of benefits that are included. We therefore need to ensure that, so far as the Government intend, they fall within the ambit of the Bill.
There is a similar issue for care leavers, about which the Minister said he has received representations. The Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 creates a set of obligations on local authorities to secure appropriate accommodation for care leavers as they enter adulthood. Although I understand the Government’s decision not to bring a specific category of care leavers within the scope of the legislation, those who are the beneficiaries of that obligation on behalf of somebody else will find themselves discriminated against not because of rights arising from their personal circumstances but because of the obligation to somebody else—in this case, that a statutory authority has to provide support for them.
Finally, we support the Government’s position on the amendments. Although I have complete sympathy with the point being raised, as the Minister does, there is clearly a risk that what is intended to be a matter of criminal law—discrimination against an individual, whereby a court can make an order for compensation—is mixed up with a civil penalty that is designed to ensure that landlords pay appropriately.
The Minister is correct, but he may need to provide total clarity for the sake of parliamentary proceedings that a local authority will use that civil penalty in the same way as would apply if it were dealing with an issue of fly-tipping, littering or environmental nuisance, as opposed to having to prove to a criminal standard that discrimination is taking place. As those two things are different, they need to be handled differently in the way that the legislation addresses them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham alluded to.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me address that group of questions, which are well understood and well made. I will respond to each in turn.
I think the shadow Minister may have got the clause wrong, because clause 35 deals specifically with superior leases and ensuring they are not enforceable. However, I take his point about what is usually older people’s bespoke accommodation. I am sure that we would all welcome children visiting those sorts of accommodation. I will provide a specific written answer to confirm this position, but I would expect a provider to argue that refusing tenants living with children in such a block would be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim and would therefore be appropriately accommodated within the legislation.
On clause 40, the Bill will allow landlords to check if a tenant has sufficient income to ensure that they can afford to pay for a tenancy and it is sustainable. The shadow Minister made the point again, as he did in the evidence sessions, about insurance and referencing checks. I will give him a specific answer as to whether particular referencing checks or insurance products will, as a matter of course—I think this was his point—rule out universal credit applicants as tenants who can afford to pay. I do not necessarily think that that should be the case, but if it is, I will give it due consideration.
David Simmonds
It is helpful to have this conversation with regard to insurance that covers the loss of rent and insurance that specifically requires the prohibition of a child living with tenants, as referred to by clause 35. Our concern is that although the Bill’s intention is to create a clear situation where there is no discrimination against a tenant with children who would be living with them or visiting them at the property, there is a risk of ambiguity if a landlord finds, for example, that they cannot gain any insurance or that the cost of insurance is prohibitive. They would then argue that they simply could not meet their obligations as a landlord if they were to allow tenants with children who live at or visit the property. We need to therefore bring clarity so that we do not leave a loophole through the insurance market that effectively nullifies the intended impact of the legislation.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate and understand that point, and the shadow Minister is right to say that we need to bring the requisite level of clarity in this area. He has asked a series of questions in Committee on insurance products more generally and I will attempt to give him a more comprehensive answer in writing so that we can draw a line under some of his concerns.
The shadow Minister asked specifically about no recourse to public funds and care leavers, which again is a specific subset of issues that he is right to raise. I will come back to him on those as well.
On civil penalties and whether they can be proved, we have taken a different approach in the Bill from Scotland and Wales where the situation is different. While they seek to enforce discriminatory provisions through a criminal offence, we have deliberately taken the civil route because of the lower burden of proof required for local authorities, and the ease with which they will therefore be able to take enforcement action against cases of discrimination where they have sufficient evidence.
Matthew Pennycook
If I have answered the shadow Minister’s point, the hon. Gentleman can come in.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister will be aware that, although there is a civil burden of proof under English and Welsh law, the level to which the courts hold that burden of proof varies substantially, depending on the nature of the tariff or the consequence of that finding. Given that councillors will be seeking to impose what looks quite like a criminal fine under clause 39—a fine of many thousands of pounds—is it the Minister’s understanding that, although the burden of proof required is civil, it will be a high hurdle when applied by the courts?
Matthew Pennycook
I do not think I would make that particular point. To expand further, we have taken this particular approach because we think there is a benefit provided by the burden of proof that local authorities are required to meet. It is also the case that making breaches of rental discrimination provisions a single civil matter in England is in line with our wider discrimination legislation, in the way that it is not in Scotland and Wales—we will come on to discuss those points.
It is worth noting that, where there is evidence, local authorities can take enforcement action against either the landlord or the letting agent, or indeed both, if the letting agent has been party to the breach, and they can face multiple fines. They are civil fines at the £7,000 level rather than the criminal fines found elsewhere in the Bill, which have a much higher threshold of £40,000. I hope that answers the point made by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham. Again, if he writes to me, I am happy to give him a more detailed answer.
I hope that I have reassured the shadow Minister as to why we have taken this approach and that we have considered its impact on different cohorts. It is important that the power provided for in clause 38 is there. We will take it forward only very specifically, as I have said, after consultation and through the affirmative procedure, but we want to have it so that the system can to adapt to any new instances of discrimination that arise. To go back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central has put to me fairly frequently, if sufficient evidence is brought to us that shows that certain cohorts, be it care leavers or anyone else, are facing the type of discrimination we want to bear down on through the Bill, we can more easily add them and cover them with that power.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I will quickly clarify the comments made about my amendment 78 by the shadow Minister, and then I will discuss my amendment and answer some of the Minister’s points. If I heard correctly, the shadow Minister said that he did not support the amendment because it mixes up compensation with criminal penalties, but my understanding of the conversation that we have just had is that the clause uses civil law rather than criminal law, so that point does not stand—or have I misunderstood something?
David Simmonds
I raised the question to bring some clarity to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, who has a lot more legal experience than I do, highlighted that different standards are applied to the burden of proof, and that the way in which those standards are applied also varies because of the tariff. It is important to fully understand what we are dealing with. As the Minister’s response showed, the Government’s approach is correct in that the bringer of the enforcement action would be the recipient of the penalty.
Carla Denyer
In that case, I am pleased to confirm that I have anticipated those questions and concerns, and I can answer them now. Amendments 78 and 79 provide a mechanism for the complainant—the tenant, or the prospective tenant in this case—to receive a portion of the financial penalty imposed by a local housing authority as compensation for being discriminated against.
First, let me give a little context. As the Committee has heard in oral and written evidence, discrimination is rife in our private rented sector, and the Bill has the potential to deliver real change for those who find themselves wrongly and consistently locked out of housing. A YouGov survey from last year shows that 52% of landlords harbour a preference against tenants who are in receipt of benefits, and the English housing survey 2021 to 2022 found that one in 10 private renters said they had been refused a tenancy in the past 12 months because they received benefits. That shows the scale of the problem.
Families with children also face serious discrimination. There are 1.4 million families in the private rented sector with dependent children, and we have already discussed the harmful effect that it can have on them.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Lady think that the ombudsman could play a greater role in determining outcomes? Her point on the damage that discrimination can do was well made, but the Bill may be able to address that discrimination in other ways.
Carla Denyer
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, which I will come to in a moment. I have considered the role of the ombudsman, but the point of amendment 78 is predominantly to incentivise tenants to engage with the enforcement of the local housing authority.
Given the seriousness and scale of discrimination, bold measures are required. Though I welcome the Bill’s intention to stamp out discrimination, the reforms will only be as effective as the enforcement that underpins them. Under the legislation, local authorities will remain dependent on prospective tenants reporting a breach in the first instance. Let us bear in mind that we are discussing discrimination before somebody becomes a tenant—it is discrimination in the advertising of a property—so the prospective tenant may well not have an incentive for pursuing it. Local authorities will be dependent on tenants reporting the breach in the first instance, maintaining a potentially lengthy co-operation with the local authority and assisting the inquiry all the way to its conclusion.
That is a real burden. A tenant who has been refused a tenancy will likely still be contending with the extremely pressing issue of where they are going to live—they may have just been served an eviction notice or they may have had to move out of their accommodation quickly for another reason. They are unlikely to have the time or energy to volunteer their services for free to the local authority in exchange for no benefit.
I want to address a point that the Minister made against the amendment. In the circumstances I mentioned, the chance of tenants falsely or speculatively submitting a complaint is pretty slim, because they will have pressures on their time. If the prospective tenant were to get a cut of the amount received by the local housing authority, that would be a good incentive for them to report discrimination to the local authority, and discriminatory landlords would begin to be rooted out.
Carla Denyer
Can I get to my next point? I suspect that I am about to answer the Minister’s question.
Matthew Pennycook
If the hon. Lady answers it, I apologise. I want to make two points. First, I understand her concern about tenants not having an incentive to take a complaint to the local authority. We want tenants to make legitimate complaints about rental discrimination, and I think that can be encouraged through Government messaging and guidance.
Secondly, one of the four concerns I expressed was about the impact on local authorities. Has the hon. Lady spoken to her own local authority to determine how comfortable it feels about losing £1,400 out of every £7,000 fine for a breach under this provision?
Carla Denyer
I will plough on, because I was indeed going to come to that issue.
First, however, I will address one of the Minister’s other points on the convergence of penalty and compensation principles. I understand his purpose in pointing out that these are not normally combined, but there is a precedent. Sharing the proceeds of a civil penalty between public bodies and the person on the end of the wrongdoing is a departure from the norm but, as I understand it, under section 214 of the Housing Act 2004, if a landlord has failed to comply with the tenancy deposit protection regulations, a court can award a tenant a sum of between one and three times the deposit they paid.
While there is no question in that legislation of sharing an award with the local authority, it is nevertheless an example of the convergence of penalty and compensation principles in a single move. Although deposit protection rules do not give us a blueprint for the proposal I put forward in amendments 78 and 79, they demonstrate that an acknowledgment elsewhere in housing law of the importance, proportionality and justification of restitution for tenants, which also serves as a form of deterrent and admonition for rule breaking, all in one go.
The Minister may be aware that I tabled an amendment to increase civil penalties for exactly the reason that he has highlighted: if the local authority is to share the proceeds with the tenant, the total amount should be higher to ensure that it covers the cost of the local authority taking on the enforcement. That amendment was not selected for debate, so I will not shoehorn in my comments on the subject, but since the Minister specifically asked me about it, I will make the case for increasing the total civil penalty. I proposed that it be increased to £15,000 so as to not harm the local authority’s ability to undertake enforcement activity, as well as to properly reflect the time and expertise involved in the local authority pursuing such cases. I think that addresses the concerns the Minister raised.
In conclusion, the tenant is the linchpin upon which a discrimination case such as this depends. On that basis, I believe that some form of financial compensation for the person on the end of the illegal treatment is fair and proportionate. They can pursue a case with the housing ombudsman case as well, and there is an argument for taking into account whether the tenant has received something through the housing ombudsman in determining what they receive in my proposed scheme, or vice versa, but the function of the two tools is different.
Carla Denyer
I am seconds away from finishing my point, so I will give way shortly. My amendments 78 and 79 are designed to ensure that the ambition to eradicate discrimination in the private rented sector is realised, by giving tenants incentives to take the step of reporting and aiding investigations. I ask the Minister to consider that because, to put it bluntly, I am not sure that a public information campaign from councils will incentivise tenants as he suggested.
Rachel Blake
Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that her description of some kind of arrangement between the ombudsman and her proposed scheme would be incredibly burdensome, complicated and opaque for tenants? It would not necessarily deliver the type of justice she described.
Carla Denyer
A number of the organisations that gave evidence suggested something along those lines, and they had looked into the viability of both mechanisms existing in parallel. I do not have the exact chapter and verse of what they said in my head; we can look at that in Hansard.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
On the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Bristol Central, the civil penalty income is imposed by a public body as a punishment for breaking the law. There is a point of principle about whether it is right—whether there is a precedent—to give a contribution back to the tenant from that. It feels very unusual to me.
I have a brief question for the Minister; it may be that as a new Member of Parliament I am not used to this yet. Is it normal to specify the amount of the fine in primary legislation? Can that cause problems later in respect of needing to uprate it with inflation or anything like that?
Matthew Pennycook
On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire, it is conventional to put the amount of the fine on the face of the Bill. There are provisions in the Bill that allow the Government to increase the fine to reflect the increase in inflation over time, so it is not a static, once-and-for-all £7,000 or £40,000 in the case of criminal offences.
On the point from the hon. Member for Bristol Central, I sympathise very much with the intent. We have to ensure that prospective tenants who face direct or more subtle forms of discrimination take a complaint to the local authority, but I have confidence that tenants will, and I have concerns about the approach she specifies. First, on a point of principle, the penalties are imposed by a public body for breaking the law. They are not a mechanism for compensation. It would be a departure from the norm, as she rightly appreciates.
My primary concern—I think the hon. Lady underestimates it even with the increased fee she proposes —is that there would be a significant impact on local authorities. They will take issue with losing 20% of the fine they can levy. I will check with her local authority after I leave the Committee as to whether they would be happy to lose that.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me develop this point; then the hon. Lady is more than welcome to come back on it. Even if the loss of 20% of the £7,000 were covered by an increased fine, there are good reasons why we do not think that the fine should be higher in the Bill. Setting that aside, we think there would be significant administrative burdens to overseeing a system that redistributes part of a fine issued and secured via the specified means through the local authority. Different arrangements would need to be put in place to facilitate that. Financial incentives might create the risk of tenants taking cases where there is not sufficient evidence to press local authorities to investigate.
We have already had extensive discussion on whether, through this Bill, local authorities will be able to effectively enforce, because of the resource pressures on them. We are committed to new burdens funding to ensure that they can. I think that putting additional administrative burdens on them in the way specified is the wrong approach. The hon. Lady did not address this point, but there are real practical difficulties in identifying who has been the subject of discrimination. In her example it is simple, with a single tenant, but in cases of multiple tenants, what is the proportion of the compensation to be paid?
I think the hon. Lady’s amendment references instalments and a subdivision of the amount compensated for. This would be an over-complication of the Bill’s provisions. I am confident that the provisions will work in the way intended and that tenants will take their cases to local authorities. There is a duty on local authorities to enforce the provisions. The approach I put to the previous Minister was to put the onus on tenants and to enforce through the Equality Act. We are taking that burden off tenants and placing it on local authorities, imposing on them a duty to investigate and take action in cases of such increases. For those reasons, I am afraid I cannot accept the hon. Lady’s amendments.
Carla Denyer
I have a few follow-up questions for the Minister based on what he just said. First, does he recognise that 20% of double the amount still leaves a significant increase for the local authority? He was talking about the local authority receiving a reduced amount, but losing 20% of double the amount still means a larger amount than previously.
Matthew Pennycook
If the hon. Lady will give way, I can address that point.
Carla Denyer
My next point relates, so the Minister can probably address them together.
Secondly, the Minister said there were good reasons why he had selected £7,000 specifically and not a few thousand above or below that. Will he expand on why £7,000 is the magic number?
Thirdly, I would like to understand the Minister’s view on how tenants will be incentivised to have the prolonged engagement with a local authority that would be necessary to see the process through to conclusion—with only a public information campaign?
Matthew Pennycook
First, what research has the hon. Lady done on the administrative burden on local authorities of subdividing the amounts of money they take in through breaches to give that 20%? It is easy to say, “Increase the amount and the 20% is covered,” but, as I have put to her, there would be significant additional administrative burdens from setting up the type of arrangements she wants to see.
Secondly, why does the hon. Lady think that under the arrangements in the Bill tenants will have to spend an inordinate amount of time co-operating with the local authority to enforce breaches? As I have said, the onus is on the local authority duty, under the legislation, to investigate. Tenants have to co-operate, but I do not see any circumstances where a huge amount of their time is spent on investigation and enforcement. That is for the local authority. Does the hon. Lady have any more insight on those two points?
Carla Denyer
I have not myself done the calculations and consultations on what that might take a local authority. However, the amendment is based on evidence provided by experts in the evidence gathering part of the Committee’s work. I am trying to get the written evidence up on my parliamentary laptop, which is not co-operating. Off the top of my head, I believe it was from Shelter—I will try to look in a moment, when I have sat down. I am sure Shelter has done the work, so I would be pleased to get back to the Minister on the details when I can lay my hands on them.
Apologies, but I have forgotten the second thing the Minister said.
Matthew Pennycook
I simply asked why the hon. Lady thinks the process set out in the Bill will require huge amounts of tenant energy and time to see the enforcement process through. As I said, there is a statutory duty on local authorities in the Bill to take the process through. We have put the onus on them, not tenants. I wonder why the hon. Lady assumes it will take lots of effort on the part of the tenants themselves to seek redress through the provisions that the Bill sets out.
Carla Denyer
Yes, I remember now that the Minister asked whether I expected the tenants to investigate. I do not expect the tenants themselves to investigate, but I expect that a level of ongoing engagement will be required, which would be onerous if they are trying to flat or house-hunt and move house at the same time. My experience as a councillor for nine years, and as an active citizen, is that it often requires several successive engagements with a local authority to get the desired outcome.
Matthew Pennycook
I will respond briefly because I have set out in some detail the Government’s view on the matter. If I can say so politely, there were a huge number of assumptions in there. There is an assumption that the tenant will have to spend inordinate amounts of time working with the local authority to enforce the provision. We do not want that to be the case. Tenants will have to engage, but the onus and duty is very much on local authorities to do the work.
The hon. Lady underestimates the amount of cost, time and resource that would fall on local authorities in terms of having to set up and administer a more complicated scheme to redistribute money. The ombudsman has powers in this area to investigate complaints. The provisions in the Bill are specifically targeted at ensuring that local authorities, through that civil offence procedure and that lower burden of proof, can take action to enforce. It is right that the fees set out in the Bill are ringfenced to local authorities to be able to enforce.
I sympathise with the objective that the hon. Lady is trying to achieve, and we want tenants to take cases to their local authorities, but her amendments are flawed. I do not think they are thought through, and they rest on a series of assumptions that I do not expect to see occur in practice. For that reason, we will resist them.
David Simmonds
Not that they need it, but the Government have our support in their stance on this issue.
The hon. Member for Bristol Central raises an important point. From my experience in local authorities, I know it is often extremely complicated when they seek to allocate or judge issues of compensation on civil penalties. For example, similar legislation applies in respect of environmental nuisance, and we know it is incredibly difficult to identify who has been a victim, how to quantify the level of harm they have suffered and then how to allocate an appropriate level of compensation.
Given the good will the Minister has shown on the issue, I hope there is scope for some further discussion to ensure that if there is a pattern of egregious behaviour by a specific landlord who is clearly discriminating against particular groups of people—we recognise that particularly in London there is often a high level of demand, and a tenant may visit a dozen or more properties to secure a tenancy—there is a means of providing some form of restitution for the waste of that person’s time as a result of that discrimination.
Matthew Pennycook
Can I make a further point, which I have made before but is clearly not registering? This is where we need to take a step back and look at which different parts of the Bill do what. The ombudsman can review each complaint on a case-by-case basis. Complaints can be about discrimination and the ombudsman has the powers to put things right, including by ordering the landlord to pay compensation or correct the behaviour in question. It is not that we do not think there is a case for the suggestion—we will come to the significantly strengthened rent repayment orders that we have included in the Bill—but that this is not the place for it. Clause 39 is a quite simple provision to allow local authorities to issue fines for breaches and to be able to keep that money to fund further enforcement activity. For that reason, we cannot support the amendments.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 33 to 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I should explain to the Committee why we have not considered amendment 79 for a decision at this stage. Although it was been debated as part of the group, it relates to a later part of the Bill. If it does require a vote, that will be done at a later stage. The way we do things can sometimes be a bit confusing, but that is the explanation as to why that particular amendment was not considered.
Clause 42
Discrimination relating to children or benefits status: Welsh language
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
I will be brief on this group of clauses, which simply provide for rental discrimination powers and prohibitions in Wales that mirror those in England, with minor adjustments made in order to fit them into existing housing offence enforcement procedures. The measures are broadly equivalent to chapter 3 of the Bill for England, which we have just discussed at length, with adjustments made to align with the existing Welsh enforcement framework.
As I have already mentioned, Wales is taking a criminal enforcement approach, while the same conduct is a civil breach in England. That reflects the private rented sector enforcement regime in Wales, where criminal offences are in line with other housing legislation. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
David Simmonds
As the Minister has outlined, this is a fairly straightforward translation. First, I presume the measures will require a legislative consent motion on the part of the Welsh Government, and ask the Minister to clarify that.
Secondly, in respect of the proceeds of the fines, it is clearly envisaged in England that it will be the local authority that carries out enforcement and that the revenue from the fines will finance that. If it is a criminal matter in Wales—a criminal enforcement regime—will the same rules apply? We briefly debated the issue of whether fines in a criminal matter would go into the consolidated fund, as is currently the case with criminal penalties, or directly to the local authority, in order to finance the enforcement regime; will the Minister clarify how the matter will be dealt with in Wales?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for those questions. There is a simple answer to the first: yes, it requires a legislative consent motion on the part of the Senedd to bring the measures into effect.
On the approach in Wales more broadly, as I said, it reflects the established private rented sector enforcement regime in Wales. There are a number of differences. The Welsh Government, and the Scottish Government, take the criminal offence path, rather than the civil one. What that means—this is one of the reasons why we determined to go with the civil offence approach in England—is that fines are capped at £1,000 in the Welsh and Scottish contexts, whereas under the approach in the Bill we can levy £7,000, and do so repeatedly if breaches are continuous and ongoing. That is why that is reflected.
On the consolidated fund point, as it applies to the Welsh Government, I am afraid I do not have the answer. I will more than happily get an answer to the hon. Gentleman in writing.
David Simmonds
What the Minister said in respect of the consolidated fund is very helpful. I posed the question because, under the Bill, we will create responsibilities for the local authority to be the enforcement body, which as I understand it will apply in Wales as well, but the decision to take the criminal route is a matter for the Senedd, which is not the local authority. Indeed, there is some tension in the relationship between the Senedd and local authorities. Clearly, if the income is going into a consolidated fund or to the Senedd, the risk is that the enforcement body given the duty under this legislation will not receive any of the financial income raised through enforcement action. I ask so that we are completely clear about where the legislation will stand in Wales once passed.
Matthew Pennycook
I understand that point and will get the shadow Minister a precise answer in writing. It is important for the Committee and the public to have clarity on precisely all the ways in which the enforcement is, and in some cases is not, aligned in the Welsh and English contexts. I will come back to him on that point.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 43 to 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 49
Discrimination relating to children or benefits status
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
I might pre-empt the shadow Minister by saying that in the written correspondence to which I have just committed, I will give him the same set of answers on the consolidated fund and the role of local authorities in the Scottish context.
Clauses 49 to 54 provide similar protections and prohibitions in Scotland regarding rental discrimination, albeit with different processes around the power to add protection to additional cohorts. That is different from the situation as it applies to Wales. Again, the measures are broadly equivalent to those for England in chapter 3, with adjustments made to align with the existing Scottish enforcement framework. In Scottish housing law, rental discrimination enforcement is in line with other criminal penalties, as it is in Wales. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 50 to 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)
Renters' Rights Bill (Sixth sitting)
Thursday 31st October 2024
(3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Renters' Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Renters' Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 31 October 2024 - (31 Oct 2024)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is an absolute pleasure—I genuinely mean that—to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris.
The clause will end the unfair practice of pitting renters against each other in bidding wars. Many members of the Committee will have come across that as councillors and as Members, and they do not need me to tell them about the severe impact on renters. Those of us who represent constituencies with particularly hot rental markets are all too familiar with the common story: a prospective tenant arranges a viewing and turns up in person, only to find themselves being asked to compete with other tenants on the spot. Their experience is not that of a viewing, but of a kerbside auction. The impact on renters of the practice is clear.
In other cases, the growth of social media and other platforms allows this practice to occur without prospective tenants even being in the same place. Renters who have applied for a property may find themselves being added to a WhatsApp group and asked to submit offers in front of each other. Again, the detrimental impact of that practice on renters cannot be overstated.
Rental bidding restricts tenants’ ability to make an informed choice about one of the most financially significant decisions they face. It is clearly an unfair practice, and one that, thankfully, only a minority of landlords make use of. The clause will end the practice for good. It will require landlords and letting agents to state a proposed rent in any written advertisement or offer. Landlords and letting agents will then be prohibited from asking for, encouraging or accepting bids above that price. That will improve the experience of prospective tenants across England and provide clarity to all involved in the lettings process.
I turn to clause 56, which sets the enforcement framework for breaches of the rental bidding measures set out in the previous clause. Once enacted, clause 56 will give local housing authorities the power to impose a financial penalty of up to £7,000 on persons who are in breach of the prohibitions. In addition, local authorities will be able to issue multiple civil penalties to any landlord or letting agent who repeatedly breaches the requirements set out in clause 55. In line with the new burdens doctrine, we will fully fund the cost of all additional duties on local government from enforcing the rental bidding prohibition. With that, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I echo the Minister’s comments about it being a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris.
I will not take too long on this point. The measure has been the subject of some controversy. Clearly, there is a philosophical question about the ability of the owner of an asset to gain the best possible market return, but the Government are determined on the matter. I will, however, make some practical points.
The first is about how to address the situation where the property in question is the asset of an organisation whose directors have a fiduciary duty to maximise the return on it, as is common in the case of pension funds, investment trusts or other bodies that may invest in property. Clearly, there is an obligation in law on the directors to seek the maximum possible return, but this legislation will prohibit them from undertaking any form of bidding process.
The second is about a situation where an intermediary sits between the tenant and the owner of the property. Clauses 55 and 56 set out what is meant by a prospective landlord but, in pursuit of their fiduciary duty, the ultimate owners of an asset might seek bids from a prospective managing agent or other intermediary party. They might bid to secure the maximum possible rent on that group of properties, in turn letting them out individually to tenants at a higher level of rent. Both those situations potentially create a degree of conflict.
I agree entirely with the point about the egregious practices of some landlords. It seems to me, however, that we must consider the situations that I have highlighted so that the legislation does not inadvertently lead to trustees and directors of pension funds that invest in property being in breach of their duties, or to the establishment of a get-out by means of a managing agent who sits between the property owner and the tenant.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for those well-made questions. This is a specific problem that we are trying to target, and the majority of landlords do not engage in rental bidding. We are trying to stamp out the egregious practice of a minority of landlords who exploit the fact that, particularly in hot rental markets, there is a lack of supply vis-à-vis demand. Tenants can be pitted against each other in ways that ensure the rent of a tenancy escalates to a point beyond which many of them can afford, or which, if they can afford it, puts incredible financial strain on them.
Once these provisions are in force, we think landlords will—in much the same way as the tribunal might—determine what the market rent is in a given area and what they can expect to receive from their property, and then advertise the rent at that price. I have been asked how that would work. Will landlords not advertise a price below what they could otherwise expect? We cannot have it both ways. If a landlord can expect a certain price through a competition, that suggests that tenants can pay a slightly higher price and bid up. We expect landlords to look at the market price in a given area and advertise the property at that rent, and these provisions will ensure that they cannot encourage or invite bids over that amount.
On the specific cases that the shadow Minister raises, I would not expect organisations of the type he lists to be in breach of their fiduciary duties as a result of these provisions. I understand his point about intermediary agents, particularly in groups of property where they might look to get the best deal on any of those things. I will come back to him on that specific point in writing, because I understand the need to work through those hard edge cases, but we think that only a very small minority of landlords will be affected. This is not the usual practice across every part of the country. His points were well made, and I will come back to them.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 55 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 57
Penalties for unlawful eviction or harassment of occupier
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 57, page 79, line 31, after “section 1” insert—
“—
in subsection (4)(a), omit ‘the prescribed sum’ and insert ‘£60,000’;
(b)”.
This amendment increases the maximum fine for illegal evictions under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 to £60,000.
Carla Denyer
I am sure we are all aware of the risk that the abolition of section 21 may lead to a rise in illegal evictions. The Renters’ Rights Bill needs measures to protect against that, and that is the purpose of amendment 44. Across the country, a segment of private landlords evade the courts and attempt to evict tenants themselves by taking actions that include changing locks, disposing of belongings, and even cutting off electricity and water supply and harassing tenants. Many illegal evictions take place in the shadow market, where landlords and letting agents deliberately breach the law to maximise rental profits. Many renters in the shadow market are on lower incomes in marginal employment, and they are unfamiliar with their rights.
In 2019, there were just 30 prosecutions of offences under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 in the whole of England and Wales. Such a low prosecution rate allows criminal landlords to act with impunity. When sentencing, magistrates are also very lenient; fines of less than £1,000, community service and conditional discharge are common penalties for such behaviour. If the maximum fine is £40,000—as it currently is in the Bill—because of the nature of civil penalty notices, it is unlikely that the fine will ever reach that maximum unless the offence is particularly violent. So—and here is the rub—landlords may still take a calculated risk that they can save money by unlawfully evicting tenants, given the abolition of section 21. Even where illegal eviction is not violent, it is still a horrific crime, so it is appropriate that fines reflect that. I therefore propose a maximum fine of £60,000, to give space for appropriate fines to reflect the criminality and harm caused within that range.
The change would help to ensure that, for rogue landlords, illegal eviction is not the path of least resistance, as I fear it could otherwise be. Increasing the maximum will also give a strong indication to the courts that this is not just a technical breach, and that will hopefully therefore have a knock-on effect on sentences issued upon conviction.
These cases are particularly complicated and expensive for councils to pursue, and that brings us back to the point about the cost to councils that we discussed earlier, especially where landlords refer a case to the first-tier tribunal. If local authorities are bound to lose money even when they win the case, they will be hesitant to begin proceedings. Increasing the maximum fine will help them to have more confidence that they will not lose a substantial amount of money. That is particularly important in the context of 14 years of council funding cuts, as we all know, which mean that if councils stand to lose a lot, they are disincentivised to act.
Matthew Pennycook
As we move to the final set of clauses in part 1, we cover several miscellaneous issues. As we have heard, clause 57 concerns unlawful eviction and harassment of an occupier.
The Bill clarifies and expands grounds for possession so that landlords can take their property back when there is good reason for them to do so. Landlords must always follow correct court procedures to legally evict a tenant. There is no excuse for those who seek to gain possession in an unlawful way.
The Government are clear that illegal eviction, which can include harassing individuals to leave their home, is a criminal offence, and those who flout the rules and deprive tenants of a home in this way must be punished accordingly. Clause 57 amends the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 to strengthen local authorities’ powers to do so if they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a person has committed such an offence.
At present, local authorities can only prosecute offenders. That can be a lengthy process, and the fines imposed can be low. Although local authorities will still be able to prosecute after these provisions come into force, for the first time they will be able to issue a financial penalty on landlords who evict their tenants illegally in lieu of such a prosecution. That fine will be up to £40,000. It will be an alternative route to criminal prosecution, and it may often be simpler and more cost-efficient for local authorities.
The schedule that accompanies this clause sets out the procedure that authorities must follow regarding financial penalties. That includes information on handling the imposition of financial penalties, appeals and enforcement, and how to use the proceeds of the penalties.
The provisions will ensure that local councils consistently punish the most egregious offences, while allowing them to take the context of individual cases into account. By strengthening the enforcement framework, we will deter unscrupulous landlords from flouting the rules, drive out bad actors from the sector and improve protections for tenants.
I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central for tabling amendment 44. The Government accept that any attempt to force a tenant from their home unlawfully is unacceptable, and those who do so must be met with enforcement. However, in our view, the amendment is not required. It seeks to increase the fine for illegal eviction in the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 from £5,000 to £60,000, as the hon. Lady has just set out. However, the cap on magistrates’ court fines for these offences has already been removed by section 85 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, and the offences are punishable by a fine of any amount.
Through the Bill as a whole, we are taking strong action on illegal eviction. We are extending civil penalties and rent repayment orders, placing a new duty on councils to take enforcement action and enhancing their powers of investigation to make that easier. We consider that our approach to enforcement is a fair and proportionate one. We are taking a clear, escalatory approach to civil penalties with first time, less serious non-compliance subject to much lower maximum penalties than serious or repeat non-compliance. The Government believe that the £40,000 maximum penalty for illegal eviction will act as an effective deterrent and is consistent with other serious offences across the Bill. I point out that that is higher than under the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill, in which the amount was set at £30,000. As such, in our view it will act as a greater deterrent.
As I have said, criminal prosecution of course remains available for illegal eviction, and local authorities may decide that is the right course of action for the most serious cases. In such cases, landlords can be sentenced to imprisonment or to an unlimited fine. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Carla Denyer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Abandoned premises under assured shorthold tenancies
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
One of the key objectives of the Bill is to give tenants greater security in their homes. It is imperative that landlords cannot evict their tenants without a valid ground for possession, and we want to ensure that none can circumvent the requirements of the Bill in respect of seeking possession. Part 3 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 permits the landlord to recover abandoned properties let under an assured shorthold tenancy without a court order, provided that the tenant or tenants in question are in rent arrears and three warning notices have been served without receiving a response.
Although the Government recognise that genuine abandonment can cause problems not just for landlords but for the wider community, we do not believe that these historic provisions should remain on the statute book. They were criticised at the time of their introduction —I recall this, Mrs Harris; it was one of the first Bill Committees I sat on as a relatively new Member back in the 2015 to 2017 Parliament—for being a rogue landlords’ charter. It is not surprising that, as with a number of provisions of the 2016 Act, they were never brought into force.
Clause 58 repeals part 3 of the 2016 Act. As a result, where tenants abandon properties, landlords will need to demonstrate that they have a valid ground for possession under schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988, as amended by this Bill. In unequivocal cases, implied surrender may also apply, such as when keys have been returned that the landlord has accepted, even if no notice has been provided. It is likely that when properties are abandoned, tenants are not paying rent, so the rent arrears grounds are available. Landlords may also be able to seek possession for breach of the tenancy agreement, if the agreement prohibits the property from being left unoccupied for long periods, or even the deterioration of property grounds. It is right that tenants have access to justice when they are at risk of losing their homes. Clause 58 ensures that provisions are removed from the statute book to make it coherent.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 58 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 59
Remedying of hazards occurring in dwelling-houses in England
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 59, page 84, line 23, leave out from “in” to end of line 25 and insert “section 13(1A), (1AA) or (1AB);”.
This adds a reference to the new subsection (1AA) which will be inserted into section 13 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 by clause 30(3)(b)(ii).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 60 stand part.
Matthew Pennycook
The death of two-year-old Awaab Ishak, as many Members will know, was caused by prolonged exposure to mould in his social rented home in Greater Manchester. It was an avoidable tragedy that shames us as a nation, and it should never be repeated. I had the privilege of meeting Awaab’s family. Following a campaign by them, the Manchester Evening News and Shelter, the previous Government legislated to introduce Awaab’s law for social housing tenancies. I must credit the previous Government and the former Secretary of State, the then right hon. Member for Surrey Heath, for introducing that legislation. It was absolutely the right thing to do. We supported it in opposition, but it was only a welcome first step. This Government are clear that we need to go further and ensure that no tenant is forced to live in a home that places their health and safety at risk. That is why, in our manifesto, we committed to extending and applying Awaab’s law to the private rented sector.
Clause 59 will extend Awaab’s law to tenancies in the private rented sector. It will allow us to set legal requirements about how private landlords must tackle hazards in their properties, including setting clear timescales for repairs. It will ensure that those living in privately rented homes are empowered to challenge dangerous conditions, and that landlords cannot ignore their complaints. We recognise that there are important differences between private and social landlords, such as the average size of property portfolios, so we plan to consult on the detail of how we will apply Awaab’s law to the private rented sector. That will allow us to ensure that our approach works effectively for the sector, and that it is fair and proportionate for both tenants and landlords.
Clause 60 allows Awaab’s law to be applied to accommodation occupied under licence. A licence to occupy is used rather than a tenancy in certain circumstances, mainly for short-term arrangements or where there is no exclusive right of occupation. In general, it would be disproportionate to apply Awaab’s law to accommodation occupied under licence, such as when homeowners have a lodger staying in a spare room. However, there are cases where it may be appropriate to do so. For example, some temporary homelessness accommodation and supported housing is occupied under licence. We should explore whether vulnerable tenants of such accommodation should be subject to the protections provided by Awaab’s law as part of the consultation to which I have referred. Clause 60 will therefore allow us, as part of that wider consultation, to consider and consult on what types of accommodation occupied under licence should be in scope. It will then allow regulations to be made to bring such accommodation within scope.
Government amendment 22 is a minor and technical amendment that will ensure that Awaab’s law continues to apply to social rented properties let by private registered providers under tenancies of more than seven years. It is simple and straightforward.
David Simmonds
This measure was introduced by the previous Government. We supported it then, and we support it in opposition. Will the Minister reassure me that, as part of the consultation, he will include large public sector landlords, particularly the Ministry of Defence and the NHS? They have significant numbers of people in employment-related accommodation, and we are all aware that there has been a history of issues such as those that this legislation is specifically designed to tackle.
Matthew Pennycook
I hope I can give the shadow Minister some reassurance in that regard, taking Ministry of Defence accommodation as an example. Colleagues in the Ministry of Defence are clear that they want to mirror the same level of standards as we intend to apply across the sector, but the approach that we are taking through this Bill is not necessarily appropriate for the unique circumstances that surround Ministry of Defence accommodation. That is a good example of where a Department is taking forward its own work on standards separate from this Bill. I will get the shadow Minister a full written response that sets out exactly how such accommodation, which is not necessarily within the scope of this clause, aligns with not only Awaab’s law but the decent homes standard more generally.
Amendment 22 agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61
Meaning of “residential landlord”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
We move on to part 2 of the Bill, which concerns landlord redress schemes and the private rented sector database. Clause 61 sets out the meaning of “residential landlord”, “relevant tenancy” and “dwelling” for the purpose of defining which tenancies fall within the scope of that database and ombudsman service.
Most private rented sector tenants have assured or regulated tenancies, and those arrangements are covered under this clause. Certain other tenures and dwellings are excluded by clause 61. That is because some tenures, such as licences, provide tenants with very different rights from assured tenancies, while some dwellings, such as non-permanent structures, are subject to different standards requirements from typical PRS properties. Landlords of social housing will also be excluded from the requirements.
We are aware that the private rented sector is dynamic and continues to evolve, and that is why we have included a power in this clause to amend the definition of “residential landlord”, “relevant tenancy” and “dwelling”. That power is required so that the legislation can keep pace with changes in the sector. It will give us the flexibility to extend landlord redress and the database to further tenures or dwellings, if that proves necessary. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 61 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 62
Landlord redress schemes
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 65, in clause 62, page 89, line 25, after “residential landlord” insert—
“, whose property is not managed by an agent who is a member of an independent redress scheme approved by the Secretary of State,”.
This amendment would only require a residential landlord to be a member of the landlord redress scheme introduced by Clause 62 if their tenant does not already have access to one by virtue of the landlord using an agent who is a member of another approved independent redress scheme.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 23.
Clause stand part.
Clauses 63 to 71 stand part.
Schedule 3.
Clause 72 stand part.
David Simmonds
We move on to the chapter on landlord redress schemes. The Opposition agree on the need for effective measures, but we need to make sure that those measures are functional in practice.
Matthew Pennycook
The private rented sector has lagged behind other housing tenures when it comes to access to redress. For example, tenants in social housing have long been able to escalate complaints through the housing ombudsman’s social landlord redress scheme. Private tenants have had, in comparison, severely limited options for resolving issues, in spite of the fact that they suffer from poorer housing standards on average. I believe that once tenants no longer have the threat of section 21 evictions hanging over them, they will finally feel able to challenge poor practice from landlords at the disreputable end of the market without the fear of retaliatory evictions.
The Bill introduces a new mandatory landlord ombudsman service, which will give tenants free access to redress if their landlord fails to resolve a legitimate complaint. The landlord ombudsman scheme will be a non-adversarial route for escalating complaints, and it will empower tenants to challenge landlords who provide a poor level of service or who behave inappropriately. The ombudsman will benefit landlords who are committed to providing a decent home and a good service. It will give them access to an impartial decision maker to resolve complaints in the quickest and most cost-effective way. This will help to maintain landlord-tenant relationships and therefore, we hope, sustain tenancies for longer.
Clause 62 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to require landlords, as defined under clause 61, to be members of the private rented sector landlord ombudsman. The provisions in clause 62 will allow prospective, current and former tenants to raise complaints to the ombudsman. This is because things can go wrong for tenants at any point in the rental process, so tenants should be able to seek redress for issues that occur during the pre-letting period or at the end of a tenancy.
Clause 62 will allow the ombudsman to provide voluntary services as well as mandatory redress, which could include mediation services. As I think I said in the evidence sessions last week and on Second Reading, we are exploring options for introducing landlord-initiated mediation to complement the landlord ombudsman service. That is another example of how we are trying to take pressure off the courts and tribunals system.
Government amendment 23 to clause 62 will enable us to require landlords to register all their properties with the landlord ombudsman and keep that information up to date. That was always the intention, and the amendment clarifies that in the legislation. If a landlord chooses not to provide the correct information, they will be liable for enforcement as set out in clauses 64 and 65. That will ensure that landlords pay the correct fee, where fees are based on the size of their property portfolio.
Clause 63 allows the Secretary of State to set out in regulations the conditions that a private rented sector redress scheme must meet before it is approved or designated by Government. By putting conditions in regulations, we will set the framework for a high-quality redress service that can adapt to an ever-changing housing market. For example, to be approved, the scheme must include provision about accepting tenant complaints and requiring landlords to put things right. That could be achieved by making a repair or paying compensation. We will ensure that the ombudsman’s decisions are enforceable by requiring the scheme to set out a route of expulsion. That means that if a landlord does not comply with a redress order, they could be expelled from the scheme and liable for local authority enforcement.
The clause allows the Secretary of State to set out in regulations how a scheme will be approved or designated. In pursuit of a simple and effective user journey, we will set out in regulations in due course that only one scheme will be operational at any one time. It is crucial that the ombudsman is supported by a robust enforcement regime, so that all landlords understand the importance of abiding by the requirements to join the scheme and tenants can get the resolution that they deserve.
David Simmonds
It has been helpful to hear from the Minister in detail on those points. The intention of amendment 65 was to avoid a risk of double jeopardy for a landlord if they had a managing agent who was a member of the redress scheme, but if they were also required separately to be a member of the redress scheme by virtue of the fact that they were a landlord. The Minister has set out how he intends to deal with that in regulation.
I ask the Minister to clarify something—perhaps not today, but in due course. He mentioned examples of where damp and mould would be considered a landlord issue as opposed to a managing agent issue. We are all aware that certain blocks, which may be owned by an absentee landlord or someone who works abroad, are let and managed entirely by an agent who handles the day-to-day responsibility in return for payment and under a contract. We do not wish to exclude completely the possibility of redress through the agent, where the agent has been explicitly given responsibility for dealing with such things, by saying that that will always be a matter for the landlord. Will the Minister write to me to explain how that issue—most of us have seen it from time to time in our constituencies—will be dealt with, should it arise in practice?
Matthew Pennycook
I am more than happy to write to the shadow Minister to clarify that. If I have understood him properly, there are certain issues that we think are the landlord’s responsibility, and that is why our approach is the right one. To address his point directly, I will happily set out in some detail in written correspondence how that will operate when landlords are completely absent for the process, and the managing agent’s role in that situation vis-à-vis the new redress scheme.
Mr Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. The shadow Minister’s amendment refers to agents, such as managing agents, and their redress schemes. Managing agents are often also letting agents—they are the same kinds of companies. Can the Minister comment on the case for regulating those agents, for which this Bill provides an excellent opportunity? Members of the other place who are experts in housing have spoken to me about the need to do that. The Liberal Democrats would certainly support such a move, and I would be grateful if the Minister commented on it.
Matthew Pennycook
I suspect I know the noble Lord that the hon. Gentleman refers to. I have had many extensive conversations with the noble Lord about the matter, and I will continue to engage with him. We supported the implementation of the Lord Best review in opposition. We took the view that the Bill was not the appropriate place to consider those measures, but we intend to set out our approach to the regulation of managing agents, letting agents and estate agents in due course. If the hon. Gentleman wants a specific comment from me, I refer him to the answer I gave in oral questions a few a days ago on this point in response to one of his colleagues. We understand the necessity for regulation in this area, and I hope to have further discussions with him and others in due course.
David Simmonds
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 23, in clause 62, page 90, line 16, at end insert—
“(4A) Regulations under subsection (1) may require a person—
(a) to provide relevant property information to the administrator of a landlord redress scheme, on applying to become a member of the scheme;
(b) at any time after becoming a member of a landlord redress scheme, to notify the administrator of the scheme of any change to relevant property information previously provided by the person as soon as reasonably practicable, or within a period, as specified in the regulations.
(4B) For the purposes of subsection (4A), ‘relevant property information’ means such information as may be specified in the regulations relating to—
(a) any residential tenancy under which the person is the residential landlord;
(b) any dwelling which is proposed to be marketed for the purpose of creating a residential tenancy under which the person will be the residential landlord.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This enables regulations made under clause 62 (landlord redress schemes) to require a person on applying to join a landlord redress scheme to provide certain information about residential tenancies of which they are the landlord, or dwellings that will be marketed for the purpose of becoming residential tenancies of which they will be the landlord. There is also a separate duty to notify the scheme administrator of any changes to such information.
Clause 62, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 63 to 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 73
The database
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 74 to 83 stand part.
Clause 87 stand part.
Matthew Pennycook
I turn to the private rented sector database provisions. Clauses 73 to 83 and clause 87 set the framework for establishing a database and the functions required for its operation and maintenance. The database has the potential to be transformative in the regulation of the sector, and I know there is a huge amount of interest across the Committee in that regard. The database will record the details of private landlords and their properties that are currently, or will be, let as a residential tenancy.
Clause 73 introduces the legal basis for the database to be created and maintained. The database will allow local authorities to build up a detailed picture of the private rented sector in their areas. It will support improvements in health and safety standards by increasing the intelligence available to local authorities. Landlords will be required to register on the database. The registration process will ensure that landlords are aware of their legal obligations and allow them to demonstrate their compliance.
Renters will be able to use the publicly available information to understand more about a landlord or a rental property. That information will increase renters’ confidence when deciding whether to rent a property. The information on the private rented sector database will support the Government in developing a richer understanding of the sector to inform future policy. The database will be key to the successful implementation and enforcement of the wider reforms legislated for in the Bill.
David Simmonds
I have a few questions and would be grateful for the Minister’s response. In this chapter of the Bill, the regulations will clearly do a lot of the heavy lifting on what the database is like and what the tenant and landlord experience will be. First, how will the proposed database interact with the existing selective licensing schemes that a number of local authorities have in place? In the regulations, will the Government draw on the learning from the existing schemes to inform the database’s operation? It is not entirely clear how it will interact, given the different regimes in Wales and Scotland that the Minister has announced. Again, I do not necessarily expect him to answer those questions straightaway, but it would be helpful to know, particularly given that a different enforcement regime will apply in Wales.
It is also not entirely clear what the Government’s thinking is about the geographical extent of the database and the way in which it will be designed. Given that designated local authorities will be enforcement bodies, will it operate in the same way as, for example, existing children’s social care databases? Will it be maintained by individual local authorities, but in a connected way so that we can extract data from it? Will there be a single national database or an England-wide database? I appreciate that the answers to some of those questions will result from the process of engaging with the market on who the provider will be. We know, from examples where such policies have been successful or gone badly wrong, that there are significant risks to the effectiveness of the Bill if we do not get this right. It would be helpful if the Minister could address those points, either now or later in writing.
Matthew Pennycook
I am grateful for the opportunity to provide some clarification, particularly on selective licensing, because I know that is a source of interest to many Members.
The Government are clear that selective licensing and the private rented sector database have different purposes. The database is not designed to replace selective licensing. Unlike the database, selective licensing schemes aim to target specific local issues in specific local geographies by enabling more intensive practical enforcement strategies. We believe that selective licensing is a valuable tool when used appropriately and combined with other measures. It enables local authorities to drive better outcomes for local residents, tenants and responsible landlords.
What is important, and what we are committed to doing, is ensuring that the use of selective licensing complements and is aligned with the new private rented sector database. There is some important work to do, which we are already engaged in, to refine the way the two systems will work together once they are both in force.
The shadow Minister asked me a reasonable question about the geographical extent of the database. I will come back to him on that specific point, particularly in respect of how it interacts with the rental discrimination provisions in the Bill, given our previous discussions on their application in Wales and Scotland.
Mr Amos
Clause 75 deals with the making of the database, and I want to raise the importance of its content. Had I been quicker off the mark and more used to the procedures, there would be an amendment before the Committee that I would speak in favour of, but it is absent—time ran away.
Will the Minister comment on the importance and potential real value of the database, depending on the information that it carries? The Liberal Democrats want to see the Bill include: the accessibility of the property for disabled people; whether enforcement action has been taken against the landlord; the energy performance certificate rating of the property, so that people have some idea of how expensive it will be to heat and live in; and, crucially, the rent that was paid in the first tenancy.
As I said the other day, we firmly believe that market rents are often inaccurately described and arrived at, by virtue of looking at advertisements. I appreciated the points the Minister made the other day in response, but none the less it remains the case. As I also said the other day, we believe that the cost of interest is the bigger driver of landlords’ costs, rather than inflation, and it should be a better proxy for limiting rent increases. Even without that, a database with the actual rents paid could be an enormously powerful tool for both renters and landlords, as well as the market generally. More information makes for a better marketplace and will hopefully improve the lot of landlords and tenants. We particularly wish to see all those features in the register and believe that would enhance the market.
The other day, in relation to whether the Bank of England rate was a relevant proxy for landlords’ costs, the shadow Minister said that the commercial interest paid by landlords was more important, but there is a relationship between the Bank of England base rate and the commercial rates of interest paid. It is the key driver of commercial rates of interest.
My main point is that having on the register the rent, including the level of the last increase in rent, would be a really important and powerful indicator. We wish to press for the details I have outlined to be on the register. If I had been quicker off the mark, there would be an amendment before the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
I will say two quick things. I remember probing the previous Minister about this issue during the debate on the previous Government’s Bill, because I thought it was worth teasing out. In general, we did not want to be too prescriptive with what is on the face on the Bill in terms of the frameworks, because we need to strike a balance between the primary legislation and the flexibility for the details of the database to be developed in secondary legislation, so that we can respond to any evolutions in the sector and technology. We do not want to be too prescriptive on the face of the Bill.
In response to the call from the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for particular data to be included on the database, I draw his attention to my previous comments, which I think I made in the third or fourth sitting, about the potential for rents to be included. I am extremely sympathetic to that. Other information could potentially go on the database that might show patterns of behaviour on the part of landlords that would inform tenants’ choices. At a minimum, we want the database to include information about private landlords, the homes they rent out and how those homes are managed. I want debate with hon. Members about what goes on the database, but all the detail, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, will come forward in secondary legislation. At that point, the hon. Gentleman or his colleagues will be able to have a further debate and discussion on those matters.
Matthew Pennycook
I am making no specific commitment, but such is the significance of the regulations—they will provide all the detail for how the service will work in future—it would not be a cursory debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 73 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 74 to 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 31st October 2024
(3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 View all Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 31 October 2024 - (31 Oct 2024)
The Chair
Good morning, everybody. I begin with a few preliminary reminders. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drinks are permitted during sittings of the Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk or, alternatively, passed them to Hansard colleagues in the room.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and shows how the selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. The selection list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which that amendment relates. Decisions on new clauses will be taken once we have completed consideration of the existing clauses of the Bill.
Clause 1
Overview
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. It is good to see the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge, in his place. He and I have known each other for a very long time, and as this may be our final exchange—
Dan Jarvis
Well, as it sounds as though it will be our final exchange, I take this opportunity to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his service and wish him well for the future.
The purpose of clause 1 is to aid the reader of the Bill to understand its content and structure, which I am sure will be a great relief to members of the Committee as we debate the Bill. As the clause provides an overview of the Bill, this seems an appropriate moment to set out a reminder of why we have sought to legislate.
The first responsibility of any Government is to keep the public safe; that is, and will always be, our No. 1 priority. Since the start of 2017, agencies and law enforcement have disrupted 43 late-stage plots, and there have been 15 domestic terror attacks. As the MI5 director general, Ken McCallum, set out last month, this country is today subject to
“the most complex and interconnected threat environment we’ve ever seen.”
As can sadly be seen from recent terrorism incidents, the public may be targeted at a wide range of public venues and spaces. We know, too, that the terror threat has become less predictable and potential attacks harder to detect and investigate. That is why those who run premises and events need to know what they can do, and what they should be doing, to keep the public safe. That view is supported by inquests and inquiries into terror attacks, which have recommended the introduction of legislation to improve the safety and security of public venues. That includes, but is not limited to, monitored recommendation 4 in volume 1 of the Manchester Arena inquiry.
The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that appropriate procedures are in place, or appropriate measures taken, to keep us safe. Wherever people are and whatever they are doing, they deserve to both be and feel safe, ensuring protection of life and of our way of life.
While we recognise that the risks posed by terrorism are already proactively considered for some premises and events, there is a lack of consistency, which needs addressing. The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill—Martyn’s law—will remedy that inconsistency. The Bill’s proposals have been subject to extensive development, and a draft version of this legislation was subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny under the previous Government. Indeed, the shadow Minister gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on that matter.
The Bill that we have brought forward has been adjusted to strike an appropriate balance between protecting the public and avoiding an undue burden on premises. We recognise that a one-size-fits-all approach would not be suitable for all premises and events, which is why, for example, we have adapted the Bill’s requirements to include the “reasonably practicable” test. That will enable those responsible for qualifying premises or events to take into consideration what is within their control and the resources they have available to them, as well as what is suitable and appropriate for their venue.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute once again to Figen Murray, from whom we heard so movingly on Tuesday. She has without doubt been the driving force behind this Bill. I am sure that all Committee members will agree that Figen is an inspiration to us all. With that, I look forward to the exchanges to come in the course of proceedings in this Committee.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I would like to start with something that Figen Murray said this week in her evidence to us, which, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, was incredibly powerful:
“Martyn’s law will save lives.”––[Official Report, Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Public Bill Committee, 29 October 2024; c. 7, Q1.]
That is what she said, and that is what will happen.
As the Minister has pointed out and as Ken McCallum of MI5 has put so powerfully, the number of foiled plots shows that, sadly, the terror threat is not going away but getting more intense. That puts even more of an onus on all of us to keep the public as safe as possible, especially when they are at their most vulnerable —simply going on a night out to enjoy themselves. I think I speak for all members of the Committee when I say how moving it was to hear Figen read out the names of all the individuals who lost their lives in the Manchester Arena bombing.
Like many Greater Manchester MPs, I know that many of my constituents in Rochdale will welcome the Bill, not least because many of them regularly go to the Manchester Arena—indeed, many were present on that awful night in 2017. Brendan Cox put it perfectly when he said that
“nobody wants to have a law named after their child.” ––[Official Report, Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Public Bill Committee, 29 October 2024; c. 8, Q1.]
It is a tribute to both him and Figen that they have turned their own losses into campaigning to make sure that no other families suffer at the hands of terrorists.
We as a Government are also bringing in Awaab’s law, named after two-year-old Awaab Ishak, who died when he was exposed to mould at his family’s home in Rochdale. We are creating new duties on private landlords to make sure that no other child dies in the same way. And, of course, there is the Hillsborough law: a duty of candour on all public bodies to ensure that the state can never again fail to comply with public inquiries or deny bereaved families the right to fair legal funding. What links each of those pieces of legislation is that they have been driven by the sheer determination of individuals—of those who have suffered a loss but are determined to turn that into something positive for others.
As the inquiry into the Manchester Arena bombing found, both the state and the private sector have more to do to make our public venues safer. This Bill at least makes a real start on delivering that change. Andy Burnham was right when he said that Manchester and Greater Manchester have shown resilience since the 2017 bombing. I would add that the city showed similar resilience after the 1996 IRA bombing, turning that awful event into a catalyst for the regeneration that we have all seen since.
With Martyn’s law, we can make our public spaces across the country more resilient. We expect public premises to have a fire safety plan, so it seems obvious to expect them to have plans in place to mitigate the threat of a terror attack. This version of the Bill recognises the need to balance safety with proportionality, while retaining flexibility to amend that proportionality at a later stage if that is needed.
Manchester’s experience of a voluntary version of this Bill has shown that if smaller venues are engaged with and supported in the right way, these changes can help our thriving night-time economy and do not hinder it. But it is simply unacceptable that, for bigger venues in particular, there has been inconsistency on whether they have strong enough security checks. The terrorists will win if they restrict our freedoms to do simple things such as going out to enjoy a concert or show. We can reduce that fear—the fear that all those terrorists feed off—if we make our public venues safer in the way the Bill intends.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I really welcome the bipartisan work that the Minister has done on this legislation and also welcome the Conservative party support. I would like to add the Liberal Democrats’ wholehearted support for this important legislation. However, I would like to flag with the Minister my concerns about training, or the lack thereof, under the Bill at the moment. I would like to work with him to explore that area in a bit more detail. That issue has certainly been raised a lot by constituents when it comes to smaller venues just over the 200-people threshold. I would like to clarify that in more detail before we reach Report. The hon. Member for Rochdale rightly raised the comparison with other safety procedures, such as fire. That is a powerful point, but I add that often those fire safety procedures come with training programmes for the staff responsible. I sound that note of caution.
I pay tribute to Figen Murray, Brendan Cox and everyone the Committee has heard from. I again give my wholehearted support for the legislation.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Clause 1 offers a comprehensive overview of the Bill’s structure, laying the foundations for essential protections across public venues. The Bill introduces a two-tier system, distinguishing between “standard duty” and “enhanced duty” premises, based on venue size. That tiered approach ensures that venues expecting 200 to 799 attendees may face manageable requirements, if needed, focusing on basic but effective protective measures that respect available resources. Meanwhile, venues expecting more than 800 attendees are subject to higher standards, proportionate to the risk.
Witnesses such as Matt Jukes, assistant commissioner for specialist operations in the Metropolitan police, said that
“the proposed measures in the Bill…are proportionate, and highly likely to be effective.” ––[Official Report, Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Public Bill Committee, 29 October 2024; c. 29.]
Another witness, Keith Stevens, the chair of the National Association of Local Councils, talked about the village halls where many parish and town councils meet, and was pleased that the threshold has now been lifted to 200 because that is proportionate. Those and other witness statements demonstrate that the balance of measures in the Bill will help prevent small venues from becoming overburdened, aligned with the Government’s commitment to proportionality and public safety.
By providing clear and adaptable guidelines, clause 1 provides an overview to the Bill that enables venues to enhance security in ways that suit their unique operational needs, promoting safer and more resilient public services across the UK.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I think I am right in saying that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge is withdrawing his amendment.
Tim Roca
Fair enough. But I will speak to clause 1 of the Bill. I will focus on small businesses, because we heard a lot in the evidence session about the impact on them. They are the lifeblood of our economy and key contributors to keeping our high streets vital and thriving.
It is important to reflect on the evidence we heard about the impact that the Bill will have on small businesses, particularly what Mayor Andy Burnham said about the experience they have had in Greater Manchester already. The city council in Manchester held partnership sessions with large and small businesses alike—over 2,000 people across 10 sessions representing 700 businesses. They then held the tabletop discussions that Figen Murray talked about, including with large spaces such as the Printworks, all the way down to small independent restaurants. The response of those businesses was clear. They believe that there is a need for the legislation, and they do not believe that the provisions are prohibitively onerous. They believe that, at most, it would cost them two hours of staff time.
I will quote from Gareth Worthington, the night time economy officer at CityCo and Manchester business improvement district, which I am happy to place in the Library:
“If a venue operator does not know how to evacuate their venue they should not be running that venue and if training can be provided to help make that evacuation safer then venues should grasp it with both hands.”
Businesses recognise that their first duty is to keep their patrons safe, and that sensible practical measures can be taken to reduce the chance of harm. Businesses are aware of the threats out there. The Minister alluded to those when he spoke: 43 late-stage terrorist plots foiled, and in the last year the number of state-threat investigations launched by the security services increased by 48%. The practical measures in the Bill are necessary, reasonable and proportionate.
Finally, I want to talk about Figen Murray, as she is one of my constituents. I cannot put it better than the way Mayor Andy Burnham phrased it:
“Figen responded to an awful, evil act of hate, with love…Everything she has done since losing her son has been about making the world a better place in his memory.”
He also said:
“Through her work with young people and her campaign for Martyn’s Law, she is helping to prevent future tragedies and give every parent peace of mind. She is a real icon of Greater Manchester.”
I am proud that she is one of my constituents.
Tom Tugendhat
Given that this is the last time I will speak on this Bill Committee, I want to pay tribute to Figen and Brendan for the work they have done.
There is always a danger with such Bills that we put the blame not on the perpetrator but on those who are actually victims. I say that because the businesses that must make provision, pay the cost and bear the burden are also victims of the perpetrators. Let us be absolutely clear: for all that this law lays out the responsibilities on businesses, the true responsibility falls on those perpetrating these attacks.
Today, as Ken McCallum would tell us, the Iranian state is a prime originator, and the Muslim Brotherhood is a feeder, of the evil we see perpetrated. It is the various jihadi extremist organisations that make this country less safe, and different aspects of other political parties also make it more dangerous. We must be absolutely clear that responsibility for the actions we are talking about actually falls not on the businesses but on those who encourage, tolerate and perpetrate terrorism. Let us be absolutely clear today that one of the principal vectors for this violence comes straight out of Tehran and through various organisations that are still operating in this country despite many attempts to close them down.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful for the contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Rochdale, for Dudley and for Macclesfield. I am also grateful for the contribution made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall; the Government appreciate the Liberal Democrat party’s support, and I am happy to work, and have further conversations, with him before Report on the important point that he raised about training.
Finally, I thank the shadow Minister for his comments. I completely agree with his point about responsibility, and he is right. He will know that this new Government take these matters incredibly seriously, and I can give him and the rest of the Committee an absolute assurance that we will not rest in seeking to address the points he made and the concerns he dealt with admirably when he was the Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Qualifying premises
Tom Tugendhat
I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 2, page 2, line 11, leave out “200” and insert “300”.
This amendment sets the threshold for qualifying premises at 300 individuals.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 20, in clause 32, page 22, line 9, leave out “100” insert “200”.
This amendment sets the floor for standard duty at 200 individuals.
Amendment 21, in clause 32, page 22, line 12, leave out “500” and insert “799”.
This amendment sets the floor for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events at 799 individuals.
Clause stand part.
Tom Tugendhat
I tabled the amendments for the simple reason that a burden will fall on businesses and on individuals; we can belittle it and say that complying will take only an hour or two, but for many small businesses that is a significant burden. As was made clear in the evidence session only the other day, the burden on local authorities, including at parish level for parish halls, can change the way in which trustees approach this issue, which is why we looked to make the changes that I recognise the Minister has indeed made.
It is important to ensure that the burdens do not grow. That is why I have tabled some of the amendments before us, which change some of the fines and request a change from simply issuing an instruction to introducing a statutory instrument—a very specific moment when the Minister actually has to make a decision and bring the issue back to Parliament. We can belittle the hours, but trustees and volunteers at village halls make their own time available—I speak from personal experience, and others will have seen this as well—so if the burden is too great, plenty of village halls will simply close because we are asking people to take on more than they are willing to give.
That is why we have tabled the amendments, but as they all speak to the same point, which is not overburdening people, my remarks can be taken to apply to them as a whole.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for tabling his amendments. Before I turn to them, I will briefly explain why clause 2, which sets out the criteria by which premises are determined to be qualifying premises that fall within scope, is so fundamental.
I recognise that the scope of the Bill—particularly the qualifying thresholds—is an important issue to discuss. Once more, I assure Committee members that the scope of the Bill, including the thresholds, has been developed following detailed discussion with those responsible for premises and with security experts within Government. That has involved hundreds of stakeholder engagement meetings, two public consultations and the important pre-legislative scrutiny process. As a result, the Government’s firm view is that the Bill strikes an appropriate balance between protecting the public and avoiding an undue burden on premises.
Let me turn to the detail of amendments 20 and 21, which were tabled by the right hon. Member. He will be well aware that the Government have increased the qualifying threshold in the Bill from 100 to 200. As he correctly set out, clause 32 provides for the Secretary of State to be able to increase or decrease that figure and the threshold for the enhanced tier. As a result, the number of premises in scope of the Bill, and therefore required to comply, may be increased or decreased.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that that power is narrow, and regulations made under it will be subject to the affirmative procedure before they are made, to ensure the appropriate level of scrutiny by parliamentarians. The power is also limited in that the Secretary of State may not amend the figure to less than 100 in respect of the standard tier or to less than 500 in respect of the enhanced tier. That provides a floor, or absolute minimum number, below which the qualifying threshold cannot go.
The Government’s intention, in having the power in clause 32, is to be equipped to respond to changes in the nature or level of the threat from terrorism. We envisage that the qualifying thresholds would be reduced to either floor in only very limited circumstances, such as the nature of the threat changing significantly. The power therefore provides a necessary lever that can be used, if needed, to ensure that the legislation remains fit for purpose and continues to strike an appropriate balance between protecting the public and avoiding placing an undue burden on premises. The Government do not therefore support the amendments.
Finally, I turn to amendment 22. As I set out during oral evidence, setting a threshold inevitably raises discussion as to whether it is the right figure, and what falls on either side of the threshold will inevitably be questioned. Indeed, the Committee heard a range of views from witnesses giving evidence on Tuesday, many of whom spoke to what they believe the appropriate threshold to be. The discussion included arguments for setting it higher or lower than 200.
Ultimately, the Government have to take a view about what the most appropriate threshold is. After careful consideration of the pre-legislative scrutiny findings and consultation responses, and after taking into account the views of stakeholders and security experts, the Government have decided that 200 is the right judgment.
The amendment changing the figure to 300 would significantly impact the outcomes of the Bill, and particularly what the standard tier seeks to achieve. Furthermore, as we will discuss when we debate clause 5, the standard tier requirements have been redesigned to be relatively simple and low-cost for responsible persons to take forward. They do not require premises to make physical changes.
The Government’s firm view is therefore that 200 represents the right threshold to bring premises into the scope of the Bill. That figure strikes an appropriate balance between protecting the public and imposing a burden on premises. The Government therefore do not support the right hon. Gentleman’s amendment.
Tim Roca
I want to speak briefly to the point about thresholds, which has just been discussed. The consultations prior to the Bill were based on a threshold of 100 at the standard tier, and I welcome the ability the Bill gives the Secretary of State to reduce the threshold back to that, should the evidence warrant that. I think Members will be reassured by some of the safeguards the Minister has just talked about, which would have to be in place before any such change happened.
In the protect duty public consultation, half of respondents thought that the threshold should be 100. Moving it to 200 has already taken 100,000 premises out of the scope of the legislation, leaving 180,000 within it. Raising the threshold to 300 would in effect remove the standard tier altogether. Figen has been very clear on this point:
“Raising the threshold of 200 even higher would mean that proportionality would no longer exist”.
She has also pointed out that in her small town of Poynton, in my constituency, a threshold of 200 would already mean that not a single venue is covered by this legislation. A move to 300 would therefore be a mistake and fatal to the purpose of the Bill.
Tom Tugendhat
Given the very obvious numbers on the Committee, there is no point in pushing the amendment to a vote, but I still believe that the burden on small businesses is too great. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Specified uses of premises
Dan Jarvis
I beg to move amendment 10, schedule 1, page 26, line 15, leave out paragraphs 3 and 4 and insert—
“Entertainment and leisure activities
3 Use (other than a use mentioned elsewhere in this Schedule) for the provision of entertainment, leisure or recreation activities of any description, where the activity is principally for the benefit of visiting members of the public.”
This amendment makes general provision about premises used by the public for entertainment, leisure or recreation activities and replaces references to specific types of such activities.
Dan Jarvis
The amendments in this and the following group seek to ensure that the Bill will work as effectively as intended, including by clarifying and simplifying the definitions of certain uses of premises and certain terms. They are not intended to bring any new premises into scope or to inadvertently bring unintended premises within scope.
Government amendments 10 and 11 simplify schedule 1 by creating a new category of “Entertainment and leisure activities”, which brings together the premises previously captured by paragraphs 3, 4 and 6. That will help to ensure that the legislation and accompanying guidance are simpler to understand for persons potentially within scope of the Bill.
Amendment 10 agreed to.
Amendment made: 11, in schedule 1, page 27, line 10, leave out paragraph 6.—(Dan Jarvis.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 10.
Dan Jarvis
I beg to move amendment 12, in schedule 1, page 29, line 29, at end insert—
“(but see paragraph 4(a) of Schedule 2)”.
This amendment makes clear that paragraph 14 of Schedule 1 (aerodromes) is subject to the exception in paragraph 4(a) of Schedule 2 for premises covered by an aerodrome security plan under the Aviation Security Act 1982.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 13, 14 and 15.
Dan Jarvis
Government amendment 12 simply highlights that the term “aerodromes” does not include those covered by the exception in schedule 2 with an aerodrome security plan under the Aviation Security Act 1982.
Government amendment 13 is a technical amendment to ensure that Scottish further education establishments are more appropriately described and to reflect any future changes to relevant Scottish legislation.
Government amendment 14 is a change to clarify that agricultural colleges in Northern Ireland are captured, and Government amendment 15 is a technical change to improve the accuracy of the definition of higher education institutions as applied in Scotland.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Amendments made: 13, in schedule 1, page 32, line 4, leave out from “listed” to “in” in line 6.
This is a drafting change.
Amendment 14, in schedule 1, page 32, line 13, at end insert—
“or established under section 5 of the Agriculture Act (Northern Ireland) 1949 (c. 2 (N.I.)).”
This amendment provides that paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 covers use of premises for the provision of further education at Northern Ireland agriculture colleges.
Amendment 15, in schedule 1, page 34, line 19, leave out from beginning to “the” in line 22 and insert—
“in Scotland, a higher education institution within the meaning of section 35(1) of”.—(Dan Jarvis.)
This is a drafting change.
Dan Jarvis
I beg to move amendment 16, in schedule 1, page 34, line 37, after “to” insert “visiting”.
This amendment clarifies that the use of premises for the provision by a public authority of facilities or services is only relevant for the purposes of Part 1 of the Bill if members of the public visit the premises in connection with those facilities or services.
Dan Jarvis
Government amendment 16 clarifies that premises used by public authorities for the provision of facilities or services are only in scope if the public visit the premises to use the facilities or receive those services.
Government amendment 17 clarifies that
“visiting members of the public”
includes members of the public who have paid to access, have invitations or passes allowing access to, or are members or guests of a club, association or other body. That more accurately captures the differing arrangements for public access that may be in place at premises in scope, such as private members’ clubs.
Amendment 16 agreed to.
Amendment made: 17, in schedule 1, page 34, line 42, at end insert—
“References to “visiting members of the public”
20 In determining for the purposes of this Schedule whether premises are used by “visiting members of the public”, it is irrelevant that access to the premises may be limited (at all times or particular times) to members of the public who—
(a) have paid to access the premises,
(b) have invitations or passes allowing access, or
(c) are members (or guests of members) of a club, association or other body.”—(Dan Jarvis.)
This amendment contains provision about the meaning of references in Schedule 1 to “visiting members of the public”.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the First schedule to the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
We have previously spoken at length about the purpose of schedule 1, so I trust that the Committee are suitably satisfied as to why it should stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Schedule 2
Excluded premises and events
Question proposed, That the schedule be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
Schedule 2 specifies certain types of premises that are excluded from the Bill’s scope, which is necessary where there are already similar legislative requirements or protective frameworks in place. This covers, in particular, certain transport premises and premises occupied by Parliament and the devolved legislatures.
Schedule 2 also defines a category of open-air premises that might fall in scope, but where it would be impractical or disproportionately difficult to deliver the requirements given the nature and operation of those premises. The category includes parks and premises used for grassroots sports, which generally do not have controlled access or defined physical boundaries. These premises are therefore excluded, except where they employ individuals to ensure that members of the public have paid to access the premises, or where they have invitations or passes to do so; in cases where entry and exit to the premises are controlled and payment is taken, it is considered that there is a greater capacity and capability to consider reasonably practical procedures and/or measures as required.
Schedule 2 also maintains the provisions in schedule 1 that places of worship and premises used for childcare or primary, secondary or further education fall within the standard tier, meaning that qualifying events cannot occur on those sites.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 2 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 3
Qualifying events
Amendments made: 1, in clause 3, page 2, line 38, leave out “all or part of”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 4.
Amendment 2, in clause 3, page 2, line 41, after “time” insert
“in connection with their use for the event”.
This amendment clarifies that, for the purposes of determining whether Part 1 of the Bill applies to an event, the number of individuals present on premises in connection with the event must be considered.
Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 3, line 2, leave out “all or part of”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 4.
Amendment 4, in clause 3, page 3, line 7, at end insert—
“(2) Where the condition in subsection (1)(e) applies only in relation to one or more parts of the premises at which an event is to be held, for the purposes of this Part treat what is to be held at each such part of the premises as a separate event (to be held at that part).”.—(Dan Jarvis.)
This amendment caters for cases where parts of the premises at which an event is to be held are open to the public generally and other parts are areas for which members of the public will need permission to enter.
Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Persons responsible for qualifying premises or events
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
Clause 4 defines who is responsible for qualifying premises or a qualifying event, and therefore who is responsible for meeting the relevant requirements. With regard to premises, paragraph (a) of subsection (1) provides that:
“a person is responsible for qualifying premises if the person has control of the premises in connection with their relevant Schedule 1 use”,
such as the operator of a hotel.
Subsection (2) sets out what is meant by “relevant Schedule 1 use”. If premises are used for one of the uses specified in schedule 1, that is the relevant use. That is the case even if premises are also used for other purposes not listed in schedule 1. Some premises will be used for more than one of the uses specified in schedule 1. In such cases, it is the person with control over the premises in connection with that principal use who will have to meet the relevant requirements.
Subsection (3) provides a regulation-making power that enables the Secretary of State to provide specific rules as to how the principal use is to be determined. We expect that the principal use will be readily apparent in the vast majority of cases, but the power will ensure that clarity can be provided if and when needed. Principal use is to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Guidance will set out the relevant factors that should be considered when making a determination—for example, taking account of the amount of time for which the premises are used for each type of activity. The regulation-making power can be used if further specific provision is necessary.
On qualifying events, subsection (1)(b) provides that the person responsible is the person who has
“control of the premises at which the event is to be held in connection with their use for the event”—
for example, the organiser of a music festival. The relevant circumstances of the event will need to be considered to determine who the responsible person is. For example, if a concert is to be held in a park, and a company putting on the event has control of an area of the park for the purposes of delivering the concert, that company will be the responsible person. Conversely, if the local authority that operates the park puts on the concert, it will be the responsible person. Where the local authority is not the responsible person, it will still have a duty under clause 8(5) to co-operate with that person to enable them to comply with their requirements.
Subsection (4) specifies that if there is more than one person responsible for qualifying premises, or a qualifying event, they are jointly responsible for ensuring compliance with the Bill’s requirements, and may act jointly in meeting their requirements. In addition, clause 8(2), which we will debate shortly, imposes obligations on the responsible persons to co-ordinate with each other in meeting the requirements. Such a situation will arise when each of the parties has control over parts of the premises in connection with the relevant schedule 1 use. It does not mean, for example, that the multiple tenants of a shopping centre are jointly responsible for the shopping centre as a whole; rather, each will be responsible for their respective premises.
Finally, schedule 1 includes some specific provisions to identify the responsible person for particular types of premises. For example, in the case of a primary or secondary school, paragraph 16 provides that the responsible person will either be the local authority or the governing body of the school. Clause 4(5) provides that those specific provisions apply instead of the general provisions of the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Public protection procedures
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
Clause 5 places a requirement on those responsible for all qualifying premises and events to put public protection procedures in place, so far as is reasonably practical. This applies to both standard and enhanced duty premises and events. The intention of having such procedures in place is to reduce the risk of physical harm that could be caused to individuals present at qualifying premises and events if an act of terrorism were to occur.
The procedures will help to prepare people working at premises and events to take steps to reduce the risk of harm and move people away from danger. All qualifying premises and events will have to consider how to evacuate, move people to safety, lock down and communicate information. In practice, these procedures focus on simple, low-cost activities such as identifying safe exit routes and lockable doors. The Bill does not require standard duty premises to make physical changes to their sites. Premises must consider the procedures that are appropriate for them.
The procedures that the Bill requires are simple steps to reduce the physical risk to the public from acts of terrorism. They are similar to, but often with key differences from, other legislative procedures. For example, in developing evacuation procedures, those responsible may want to consider safe exit routes for full, partial or phased evacuations, and where they differ from evacuation procedures required by fire safety, such as how they are communicated and where people should congregate. With a focus on ensuring preparedness, security experts advise that these types of procedures are best placed to reduce the risk of physical harm. Qualifying premises will all be different. Further information on how the procedures would apply in practice is provided in the factsheets. Statutory guidance will support the development and implementation of appropriate procedures to allow premises and events to introduce procedures that are right for them, taking into account their circumstances and resources.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I wanted to speak on this clause because it is arguably the most important component of this legislation and could have the biggest impact. Obviously we all hope that terrorist events do not happen, but we must be alert to the possibility that they can, and to what we collectively need to do to prepare for that situation.
Enhanced-tier organisations, particularly those at the upper end such as stadiums, will already have many operations in place to prepare for that. They will do table-top exercises; they will do war games; they will designate staff; they will have protocols. But for the standard tier, in particular, will not automatically be doing that. As we see the terror threat evolving to target those smaller standard-tier institutions, it is important that we prompt them, through this legislation, to do that thinking.
The former US Under-Secretary of State for Homeland Security, Juliette Kayyem, talks about the distinction between “pre-boom” and “boom” with terrorist events. Pre-boom, we can do a lot of work to stop terrorists—put in checks and do things—but we have to think about what we do in the moment when the terrorist attack has already begun. That is not the time for institutions, particularly small institutions, to be thinking, “What is the exit route? What do we need to do? Who’s in charge here?” In reference to American school shootings, Juliette Kayyem says that the least useful person, once a school shooting has started, is the person who says, “We should have banned guns.” It is too late to be having that conversation, and the gun is already in the school. People need to be prepared for that situation.
The four requirements under subsection (3) are small, and quite intuitive, prompts that we are asking of standard-tier institutions; but in giving those prompts we could be encouraging them to take the small steps that will, when the terrorist event happens, affect the outcome and could really save lives. This is a really important clause.
The Opposition have made the point that the clause presents a burden on business, and it is true that it is bringing into scope organisations that probably have not had this burden placed upon them before. Admittedly, there is a component of burden being placed here—but actually it is not the legislation that is doing that; it is the evolving terror threat, which we are responding to. That is why it is important to note that the proposals made here—those four requirements—are straightforward. As I say, they are almost intuitive and commonsensical. They are not onerous and they are low-cost.
My constituency, the city centre of Edinburgh, is event central. We have hundreds of events there every week, and in August we host the third-biggest ticketed event in the world—double the number of people go to events in that month as go to the Olympics. But they are not all in one place. It is not one big stadium; they are spread throughout the city.
Some of those events, such as the Tattoo, would qualify for the enhanced tier, but many of them would be standard tier. If we can prompt them to make these changes, we really could make a huge impact. If we do not do that and there is a chilling effect because people feel insecure, the burden on organisations will significant; we need to take that seriously. That is why the distinction between standard and enhanced is appropriate, and I think the requirements being made of the standard tier are the right ones.
This very important clause codifies something that society should be doing anyway, given the evolving terror threat. The way we will know it has had an impact is that we will never hear about it again, because the prompts will mean that further action is not required and tragedies do not happen.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Public protection measures for enhanced duty premises and qualifying event
Tom Tugendhat
I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 6, page 5, line 1, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from creating further requirements for enhanced duty premises by regulations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 26, in clause 6, page 5, line 8, leave out subsection 6.
This amendment allows the Secretary of State to omit or amend the description of public protection measures for enhanced premises and qualifying events without regard to the considerations set out in Clause (6)6.
Clause stand part.
Tom Tugendhat
This very simple amendment is in line with the others that I have already spoken about. It would limit the Government’s power to exert extra burdens on small businesses.
Dan Jarvis
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for tabling this amendment. The Government consider that specifying further measures is an important power for the Secretary of State and must be available to ensure effective protection of the public through these measures.
Having the ability to specify further public protection measures through regulations means that the requirements of the enhanced duty can be amended to reflect changes in the terrorism threat, advances in technological solutions and our response to them. For example, there may be lessons learned from future incidents, further common types of attack may emerge, or best practice may evolve.
The right hon. Gentleman’s amendment would limit the Government’s ability to protect the public and safeguard them from harm. I understand that the intention behind it may relate to fears over the burden that future measures may create. However, the clause is drafted to constrain the power to be exercisable only where it is considered that the further measures will reduce vulnerability to, or the risk of physical harm from, an attack. It is intended to ensure that new requirements are limited to those necessary to protect the public, and remain in line with the overall objectives of the measures under the clause. Given the evolving nature of terrorism and the threat it poses, the Government consider it necessary to include this power, and therefore do not support the amendment.
On amendment 26, the Government consider it important to be able to remove or amend public protection measures from the list in subsection (3). For example, the Government might identify potential amendments to improve the measures through lessons learned and evolving best practice. This power is drafted so that the Secretary of State may remove or amend the types of measures only if they consider that doing so will not either increase the risk of physical harm to individuals or increase the vulnerability of the premises or event to the risk of acts of terrorism. That is in accordance with the overall objectives of the measures within this clause, as stated in subsection (2).
Were we to agree to the amendment, specified measures could be amended or removed without a requirement in the Bill for the Secretary of State to expressly consider how those public protection objectives would be effective in taking away or altering a measure in the list approved by Parliament. The Government do not consider that appropriate and therefore respectfully do not support the right hon. Gentleman’s amendments.
Tom Tugendhat
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Enhanced duty premises and qualifying events: documenting compliance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
Clause 7 places a legislative requirement on those responsible for enhanced duty premises and events to prepare and maintain a document that records their compliance in relation to putting in place procedures, under clause 5, and measures, under clause 6. This is necessary to ensure that premises are able to more easily demonstrate compliance, and the Security Industry Authority is able to assess that against the Bill’s requirements. Many premises will already be documenting similar mitigations in regard to existing security plans for non-legislative purposes—fire safety and health and safety legislation, for example.
Documents should contain statements that relate to the public protection procedures and measures that are implemented, or proposed to be implemented, at their premises or event. Documents should also contain assessments to provide a rationale as to how the proposed procedures and measures will reduce both physical harm to individuals present and vulnerabilities of the premises or event if an attack were to occur.
When complete, the document should contain the totality of the procedures and measures deployed and sufficient detail to enable the authority to assess whether those responsible for premises and events are compliant with the Bill’s requirements. In the first instance, those responsible for enhanced duty premises and events are required to provide the document as soon as reasonably practicable after it is prepared and within 30 days of any subsequent revision.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Requirements to co-ordinate and co-operate
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 24, in clause 9, page 6, line 19, leave out paragraph (a).—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from specifying further matters relating to qualifying premises or a qualifying event on which the responsible person would have to inform the Security Industry Authority.
Clauses 9 and 10 stand part.
Dan Jarvis
Clause 8 places a requirement upon certain duty holders to co-ordinate or co-operate with each other when complying with requirements. Subsections (1) and (2) deal with instances whereby there is more than one responsible person, requiring those persons to co-ordinate so far as is reasonably practicable with the requirements imposed upon them. An example of this may be a joint venture between two parties with equal control. The requirement applies to all premises and events within scope of the legislation. It will ensure organisation between mutually invested parties and encourage unified decision making in relation to the requirements placed upon them.
Subsections (3) and (4) concern where one qualifying premises forms part of another. The persons responsible for both premises must so far as is reasonably practicable co-ordinate with each other in complying with the relevant legislative requirements. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that responsible persons in such scenarios, such as a shopping centre, combine efforts or actions to reach mutually effective and compliant outcomes in relation to relevant requirements. That might, for example, entail the shopping centre operator liaising with different units in scope to ensure there is a co-ordinated and effective evacuation plan.
Subsections (5) and (6) concern where a person has some form of control of an enhanced duty premises or event, but is not the responsible person. Where that is the case, they must so far as is reasonably practicable co-operate with each other in complying with the relevant legislative requirements. Examples of persons in control but not the responsible person would be a building owner who has leased the premises to a separate operator, or a landowner who has given permission for a qualifying event to take place on their land. The purpose of this requirement is to assist the responsible person in ensuring that appropriate public protection measures are in place under clause 6. In instances where they require relevant permissions or support from other parties who have some control over the premises, there is a duty placed on such parties to co-operate so far as is reasonably practicable.
Subsection (7) specifies that a requirement under this section does not extend to a requirement imposed by a penalty notice. Those responsible may require co-ordination or co-operation from other duty holders in regards to meeting relevant requirements, including compliance and restriction notices, but this does not extend to penalty notices. If there is a dispute in relation to scenarios of co-ordination or co-operation, clause 11 enables interested persons to apply for certain determinations by a tribunal. The tribunal may be asked to determine whether a person is a responsible person, or the extent to which a person who is not a responsible person has control of the premises. In summary, placing a requirement upon relevant responsible persons and duty holders to co-ordinate or co-operate will further drive compliance with the Bill’s requirements and therefore better protect the public.
I turn briefly to clause 9, which requires those responsible for qualifying premises or events to notify the SIA when they become or cease to be responsible for premises or events. Those responsible for premises or an event must notify the SIA of that responsibility upon commencement of the legislation. If a person becomes responsible for premises or an event after the legislation has commenced, they too must notify the SIA of that. The requirements of the clause will assist the SIA in knowing which premises and events within scope of the legislation are actively demonstrating compliance and so identifying those who are not. The time limit within which notifications must be made will be specified by the Secretary of State in regulations. Clause 9 also sets out that the Secretary of State may, via regulations, specify the form and manner in which notifications must be sent and the information that is required to be included in a notification, such as information about the premises or event and contact details for the responsible person.
Clause 10 places a legislative requirement on those responsible for all enhanced duty premises and qualifying events to designate a senior individual where the responsible person is not an individual. Examples of responsible persons that are not individuals are bodies corporate, limited partnerships and unincorporated associations. The individual undertaking the role must be someone who is involved in the management of, or has some form of control within, the organisation—for example, a director or partner, rather than a lower-level employee. That will help ensure that the individual appointed has appropriate influence and seniority to drive forward compliance with the requirements. The senior individual may delegate actions that relate to the relevant legislative requirements to ensure they are complied with. However, they cannot delegate their overall responsibility for ensuring compliance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Keir Mather.)
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 31st October 2024
(3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 View all Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 31 October 2024 - (31 Oct 2024)
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. Clause 11 will enable an interested person to apply to the tribunal for an independent determination on matters where disagreements may arise. An “interested person” can mean either the Security Industry Authority or a person who has—or, for an event, will have at some point—control of the premises or event to any extent. Interested parties may apply to the tribunal where there are disagreements or a need for clarity on whether a premises or an event are in scope and in which tier they fall, who is responsible for them, and whether a person is required to co-operate with the person responsible for them. A determination by the tribunal will be legally binding.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Role of the Security Industry Authority
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Review of the role of the regulator in oversight of public protection requirements—
“(1) Within 18 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report reviewing the role of the Security Industry Authority as the regulator.
(2) The report must include a cost-benefit analysis comparing the respective situation for each of the matters listed in subsection (3) on how—
(a) these have been carried out by the Security Industry Authority, and
(b) they might be carried by local authority teams if the regulatory duties were transferred to them.
(3) The issues which must be included in the analysis contained in the report laid under subsection (1) are—
(a) effectiveness in performing investigation and enforcement functions;
(b) relationship and synergies with other locally-based enforcement regimes;
(c) relationship and interaction with existing statutory licensing regimes; and
(d) effectiveness of provision of guidance as part of oversight, adherence and awareness of the new public protection requirements.”
This new clause would require a report reviewing the role of the Security Industry Authority, including a comparative cost-benefit analysis of the regulatory functions being carried out by the Security Industry Authority with those functions being provided alternatively at a local authority level.
Schedule 3.
Dan Jarvis
Clause 12 will allow the SIA to effectively operate as the regulator for the Bill by setting out its responsibilities, powers and role. The primary role of the SIA will be to provide support and guidance. However, it is also important that it has the powers necessary to investigate and monitor compliance, so that the legislation can be enforced effectively. Schedule 3 therefore grants powers to authorised inspectors to investigate whether persons responsible for premises or events are contravening or have contravened requirements of the Bill. The schedule outlines their powers to gather information, the use of warrants, their ability to enter premises without a warrant, and supporting offences.
Under the schedule, inspectors will be able to serve information notices to gather relevant information for inspection purposes. The notice could require a person to provide written detail relating to an investigation or to attend an interview. Inspectors may enter premises without a warrant, subject to certain conditions in paragraph 4. However, schedule 3 also provides for inspectors to apply for warrants to enter premises, with paragraph 6 setting out the powers afforded to inspectors once a warrant is issued. The schedule also creates criminal offences for failing to comply with information notices, obstructing authorised inspectors and impersonating inspectors.
Under clause 12, the SIA must prepare guidance about how it will exercise its functions, which must be submitted to the Secretary of State for approval. Approved guidance must then be published and kept subject to review, and revised accordingly as needed. The SIA must also provide advice about the requirements of the Bill, as well as reviewing the effectiveness of the requirements in reducing the risk of harm and the vulnerability of premises and events in scope.
The clause also requires the SIA to comply with requests from the Secretary of State and provide an annual report, which is to be laid before Parliament. The SIA is the appropriate body to undertake this role, due to its years of experience in increasing security standards and ensuring public protection. I hope that the Committee will support clause 12 and schedule 3.
I turn now to new clause 2, tabled by the shadow Minister, the right Member for Tonbridge. Establishing the SIA as the new regulator for this legislation, which is the first of its kind, will take at least 24 months. That is in line with the timeframes taken to establish new regulatory functions in existing bodies over recent years. I am sure he will agree that it would not be possible or fair to judge a new regulator’s performance before the regime has been established. Once the SIA has taken on its new role, it will take time before there is robust data against which to evaluate its performance.
The legislation already establishes several checks and balances on the performance of the SIA, as is standard with arm’s length bodies. They include the production of an annual report on performance, enabling the Secretary of State to issue directions to the SIA, and ensuring that the Secretary of State has the power to appoint board members and approve statutory guidance for publication.
Further to this, I have confidence that the SIA is the right home for the regulator because it already plays an important role in safeguarding the public through its statutory and non-statutory work. With a wealth of experience in inspecting and enforcing legislation, it better protects the public. With the addition of its new function, the SIA will be able to raise security standards for both people and places.
The Home Office will maintain appropriate levels of oversight and accountability to ensure that the regulator is delivered as intended. Once operational, the Secretary of State will closely monitor the performance of the regulator to ensure that it carries out its functions under the Bill effectively. For the reasons that I have set out, the Government do not support the amendment.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I tabled the new clause on the SIA for the simple reason that its reputation goes before it. Work that was done in the Department under a previous regime demonstrated that there were alternatives, which we felt would offer not only better value for money but greater ministerial oversight and better accountability to those who are forced to use its services. But clearly, with the Government’s majority, it is for the Minister to decide.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 13
Compliance notices
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
A successful terrorist attack can have devastating consequences. It is vital to the effective operation of this legislation that the SIA can take action if it believes there is or has been a failure to fulfil the Bill’s requirements. Clauses 13 to 16 will enable it to do so. Clause 13 therefore gives the SIA the ability to issue a compliance notice.
A compliance notice requires the recipient to remedy non-compliance within a certain period and could require specific actions to be taken. For example, a notice could require the recipient to put in place an evacuation procedure within four weeks where no such procedure is already in place.
The SIA must allow a reasonable period for specified steps to be taken, and, before issuing the notice, must give an opportunity for representations to be made. Failure to comply with a compliance notice could lead to the SIA issuing a monetary penalty and, in relation to enhanced duty premises and qualifying events, would be a criminal offence. A person may appeal a compliance notice under clause 16. Due to the risk posed by terrorism, it is important that the SIA has the tools to address non- compliance where guidance and engagement fall short.
Clause 14 provides that the SIA may issue a restriction notice where it believes that appropriate public protection procedures or measures are not in place at an enhanced duty premises or event. The SIA may issue such a notice if it believes that the restrictions specified within it are necessary to protect people from the risk of harm if an attack occurred at or near a premises or event. To reiterate, a restriction notice cannot be issued for standard duty premises. For that reason, it is anticipated that it will be used in exceptional circumstances where immediate action is needed to mitigate the risk.
The notice can require the temporary closure of premises, prohibit an event from taking place, or impose certain restrictions on the premises or event. For example, it could limit the number of people who may attend an event at any one time. The restrictions would apply until appropriate measures are in place, or the notice expires or is withdrawn. A notice cannot last more than six months initially, but is subject to being extended for three months at a time.
I do not wish to pre-empt our debate on later clauses, but it is important to note that the SIA will be able to issue both non-compliance and daily penalties where a restriction notice has not been complied with. Where it is in the public interest, a person may ultimately be prosecuted for breach of a restriction notice, which is an offence under clause 24.
I turn now to clause 15. Once a compliance notice or restriction notice has been issued, it is important that the SIA has the flexibility to vary and withdraw it if needed to reflect positive steps taken by the recipients or to deal with their continuing non-compliance.
The clause also contains several safeguards. First, it specifies that a compliance notice or restriction notice cannot be made more onerous, in order to protect the recipient from changes that are more burdensome. It could therefore be used, for instance, to vary a notice to reduce the requirements in it or to extend the period for complying with it to allow the recipient more time to satisfy it.
The clause also includes the further safeguard that a restriction notice may be varied to extend the period for which it has effect by no more than three months at a time. That must happen before it expires, and only so long as there are reasonable grounds to believe that the reasons for the original notice still apply.
The SIA may also withdraw a compliance or restriction notice where it considers that the notice is no longer required. For example, a restriction notice may not be needed to protect the public from the risk of harm because non-compliance has been rectified or sufficiently reduced. That is what the clause seeks to achieve.
Finally, clause 16 provides a right of appeal against a compliance or restriction notice, or the variation of either notice. An appeal can be brought within 28 days of the notice being given, on the grounds that the decision to give or vary the notice was wholly or partly based on an error of fact, wrong in law, unfair or unreasonable, or for any other reason. Pending the outcome of an appeal, a compliance notice will have no effect unless the tribunal orders otherwise, but given the reasons for issuing a restriction notice, a restriction notice will ordinarily continue to apply.
The clause ensures that enforcement decisions of the SIA are subject to review by an independent judicial body. The tribunal may consider evidence that was not before the SIA at the time of its decision and, where it does not dismiss an appeal, the tribunal will vary or cancel a notice.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 14 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Penalty notices
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 5 to 7.
Amendment 28, in clause 18, page 13, line 17, leave out “18” and insert “10”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 30.
Amendment 29, in clause 18, page 13, line 18, leave out from after first “is” to “5%” in line 20.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 30.
Amendment 30, in clause 18, page 13, line 21, at end insert
“up to a maximum amount of £10 million”.
This amendment sets a maximum non-compliance penalty for enhanced duty premises at £10 million.
Government amendment 8.
Clause 18 stand part.
Amendment 27, in clause 19, page 14, line 24, leave out “different” and insert “lower”.
The amendment restricts the Secretary of State to lowering the daily penalties rate for non-compliance by regulation.
Clauses 19 to 23 stand part.
Dan Jarvis
This group of clauses sets out the means by which the SIA will be able to issue civil penalties for non-compliance. Although it is intended that the SIA will rely mainly on advice and guidance in the first instance, a credible sanctions regime with suitable monetary penalties is necessary to ensure that the regulator can secure compliance where it identifies serious or persistent non-compliance.
Where a person fails to fulfil a requirement, it is important that the SIA has the ability to issue financial penalties that can reduce the financial benefit of non-compliance. Where a person fails to comply with a compliance notice, restriction notice or information notice, they may be prosecuted for a criminal offence if it is in the public interest. In most cases, however, penalties will likely be the appropriate way of dealing with non-compliance.
Clause 17 enables the SIA to issue a penalty notice if it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that a person is contravening or has contravened a relevant requirement—for example, if the responsible person for an enhanced duty premises has failed to put in place appropriate public protection measures. A penalty notice will always specify a non-compliance penalty to be paid by the recipient.
The maximum amount of a non-compliance penalty to be imposed by way of a penalty notice is set out in clause 18, which sets the penalty amounts at a level to counter financial gain from non-compliance. The maximum penalty is higher for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events because of the potentially more impactful consequences of non-compliance in the event of an attack.
In most cases, it is anticipated that penalty notices will be used in the event of breach of a compliance or restriction notice, but the Bill allows for a penalty notice to be issued regardless of whether a compliance or restriction notice has been issued. That will provide a powerful deterrent to those who would seek to evade the requirements.
Clause 17 also includes particular provision to ensure that penalty notices are issued fairly. A penalty notice cannot be issued more than once for the same contravention, and payment cannot be required less than 28 days from the issue date.
Government amendments 5 to 8 update the clause in respect of the maximum penalty for failing to attend an interview. Paragraph 3(1)(b) of schedule 3 gives the SIA the power to issue notices to require a person to attend an interview. Notices can be issued to a broad range of individuals, including employees, who the SIA considers may hold relevant information.
Tom Tugendhat
Simply to say that, although there needs to be a maximum sum to levy as a penalty, £18 million strikes any reasonable person as extremely high. Although we completely agree with compliance, the fines strike me as a little out of proportion.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendments made: 5, in clause 18, page 13, line 10, at end insert—
“(za) in the case of a contravention of a requirement imposed by a notice under paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule 3 (requirement to attend and answer questions), £5,000; paragraph 3(1)(b)”
This amendment sets at £5,000 the maximum monetary penalty that an individual may be given for failure to comply with a requirement imposed under paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule 3.
Amendment 6, in clause 18, page 13, line 11, after “if” insert
“, in a case to which paragraph (za) does not apply,”
This amendment is consequential on amendment 5.
Amendment 7, in clause 18, page 13, line 13, after “if” insert
“, in a case to which paragraph (za) does not apply,”
This amendment is consequential on amendment 5.
Amendment 8, in clause 18, page 14, line 1, at end insert—
“(za) subsection (1)(za),”—(Dan Jarvis.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 5.
Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 19 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Offences of failing to comply with compliance notice or restriction notice
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
As I have already said, the Bill gives the SIA powers to take a range of enforcement action, including issuing monetary penalties, to enable it to deal with non-compliance. Such action is anticipated to be the primary method of enforcement, allowing swifter resolution without resorting to criminalisation. However, where civil enforcement is not enough, the public will expect criminal consequences for cases of non-compliance, such as persistent and egregious failures.
Clause 24 makes it a criminal offence to fail to comply with a compliance or restriction notice that has been given in relation to enhanced duty premises or a qualifying event. It will be a defence for the accused in subsequent criminal proceedings to show that they took all reasonable steps to comply with the relevant compliance or restriction notice. The offences are triable either way and, if convicted on indictment, a person will be liable to a sentence of up to 2 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine.
Turning to clause 25, receipt of accurate information will be vital to the effective functioning of the SIA and to ensure that any public safety risks arising from non-compliance can be addressed. Although we expect information to be provided in good faith in the majority of cases, clause 25 makes it a criminal offence to provide false or misleading information where the person either knows that the information they are providing is false or misleading, or is reckless as to whether it is.
That might happen where the responsible person notifies the SIA that they are responsible for qualifying premises but knowingly misleads the SIA as to whether their premises are in the standard or enhanced tier. A person in receipt of an information notice might also give false information to the SIA in responding to that notice. The offence does not criminalise genuine or honest mistakes, such as where a person provides information that proves to be inaccurate but did so in good faith. The offence is triable either way and, if convicted, a person may be liable to a sentence of imprisonment for no more than 2 years and/or a fine. The offence will provide a deterrent and an appropriate punishment for those who purposely provide false or misleading information to the SIA to avoid complying with the requirements or to evade enforcement action.
Clause 26 provides that a person other than the body may also be liable in some cases for a criminal offence committed by the body. The person must be a relevant person in the body or a person purporting to act in that capacity for the body. A relevant person is involved in the management or control of the entity, such as a company director or partner. That ensures that those involved in senior management can be liable for offences committed by the body. Those offences relate to serious misconduct and persistent, egregious non-compliance by the body.
Specifically, a relevant person may be liable alongside the body for the offences of failing to comply with a compliance, restriction or information notice if the body committed the offence with their consent or connivance or as a result of their neglect. They may also be liable where they have consented to, or connived in, the body committing the offences of providing false or misleading information, obstructing an authorised inspector or pretending to be an inspector. The provision is necessary to deter serious non-compliance by ensuring managerial responsibility within bodies. Members of the Committee will no doubt have seen the importance of similar measures in other legislation.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I want to make a few points on offences, following our evidence sessions on Tuesday.
Obviously, the situation in the aftermath of a terrorist attack can be very febrile: emotions run high, and media attention can be high. It is human psychology, sadly, to look for someone to blame, and we might have imagined, before we scrutinised the Bill, someone guilty of this offence finding themselves in the eye of that storm. When we questioned Shropshire council representatives on Tuesday, they spoke about the obligations that would be on them if they were the people affected. I was reassured to hear them say that they already felt that burden of responsibility and that this legislation did not impose any further such burden on them.
The legislation refers to non-compliance in general, not non-compliance in the aftermath—that is really important. I thought it would be good to put on record the reassurances we heard on Tuesday on these measures.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Guidance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
Clause 27 will place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish dedicated guidance to assist those in scope of the Bill in understanding how best to fulfil the requirements placed on them. The guidance will be easy to follow, requiring no particular expertise. It will help in determining how many persons may be reasonably expected to be present on the premises, and whether premises or an event are in scope and, if so, in which tier. It will provide guidance around the requirements to be followed, such as what an appropriate evacuation procedure should include or understanding what public protection measures it might be reasonably practicable to have in place at enhanced duty premises.
The published guidance must be laid before Parliament. It must be kept under review and may be revised accordingly. The revised guidance must also be published and laid before Parliament. The guidance may be used by the SIA in providing advice to duty holders and, where the SIA has taken enforcement action, a person will, in proceedings such as an appeal, be able to rely on proof that they have acted in line with the guidance to show that they have not failed to comply with a requirement in the Bill. I should be crystal clear at this point that the Government do not endorse guidance or advice issued by third-party providers. We continue to refer people to the ProtectUK platform and we have factsheets on gov.uk for all guidance and Bill updates.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Disclosure of information
Dan Jarvis
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 28, page 20, line 1, at end insert—
“(A1) Any person may disclose information to the Security Industry Authority for the purposes of the exercise by the Security Industry Authority of any of its functions under this Part.
(A2) The Security Industry Authority may disclose information held in connection with the exercise of any of its functions under this Part to—
(a) any person for the purposes of the exercise by the Security Industry Authority of any of its functions under this Part;
(b) any person with functions of a public nature for the purposes of the exercise by that person of any of those functions.”
This amendment makes provision about the disclosure of information to, and by, the Security Industry Authority.
Dan Jarvis
Clause 28 provides that any necessary disclosure of information under the Bill will not constitute a breach of obligations of confidence owed by the individual or body making the disclosure. At the same time, the Bill ensures that the disclosure of information under the Bill is in accordance with the requirements of the data protection legislation and any relevant prohibitions in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The clause provides assurance that disclosures required by the Bill should not contravene data protection and other relevant obligations.
Government amendment 9 ensures that the clause achieves the aims of the Bill. For the SIA to effectively carry out investigation and enforcement, it is vital that it can receive and use relevant information, especially that held by other regulatory and public bodies. Government amendment 9 therefore seeks to ensure that there is a clear and express information-sharing gateway for both the SIA and those who propose to share relevant information with it. The gateway is appropriately limited to either the SIA exchanging information with any person so long as it is for the purposes of the SIA exercising its functions under the Bill, or the SIA sharing information with other public bodies to exercise that body’s existing public functions. In relation to the latter, many of those bodies will derive their relevant functions from statute, but in some limited cases, the public functions will not be statutory, such as for sharing with central Government.
As clause 28 already provides, disclosures required or permitted by the Bill must be in accordance with the data protection legislation and the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. That ensures that there will be compliance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR. I hope the Committee will support the amendment.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I intend to speak only briefly on the clause. I welcome the data protection assurances given by the Minister. This is an important clause because it allows the SIA to receive and share information by way of disclosures to facilitate the exercising of its functions. This morning the Minister spoke about our security agencies having thwarted 43 late-stage plots. Integral to that would have been the sharing of intelligence. Sadly, that is not always the case, as we saw in Manchester—terror plots do happen.
Time and time again in inquiries following tragic events, whether that is large-scale disasters or children being harmed in the family home, we hear people confirming that things could have been so different if only agencies had shared information and disclosures had been made. Clause 28, as amended, will allow important preventive work to be undertaken and information to be shared. It will only serve to strengthen the SIA’s ability to ensure our safety.
Dan Jarvis
I very much thank my hon. Friend for her helpful contribution. I trust that hon. Members agree that these measures should stand part of the Bill.
Amendment 9 agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29
Means of giving notices
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
We have already debated clauses 12 to 14 and clause 17, and the compliance restriction penalty and information notices that the SIA will be able to issue to fulfil its investigative and enforcement functions. Clause 29 sets out the valid methods of service by which the SIA can give these notices and to whom. The methods specified are post, email, delivery by hand and leaving a notice at the person’s proper address. That will ensure that the SIA can reach people effectively.
Clause 29 also provides that notices issued to a body corporate, limited partnership and unincorporated association can be validly served on specified persons within those entities. For example, where the notice is issued to a body corporate, it can be served on an officer or member of that body. Such a person could include, but is not limited to, the designated senior individual under clause 10. Issuing notices to such persons will ensure that they are made aware and will reduce opportunities for avoidance or non-compliance.
Clause 30 allows the Secretary of State to make further provision about notices issued under part 1 of the Bill. That includes, in particular, their form and content, and the variation and withdrawal of notices. The relevant notices are compliance notices, restriction notices, penalty notices and information notices. The main provisions for these notices, which we have debated, set out the information that must be included in a valid notice, and how they may be varied or withdrawn. The power for the Secretary of State to make further provisions under clause 30 is considered necessary for adjustments to be made once the legislation is implemented.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Civil liability
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
The clause prevents a person from bringing a claim in private law against a person responsible for qualifying premises or events for a breach of statutory duty where they have failed to comply with requirements in the Bill. The Government consider it appropriate that means of redress for non-compliance with the new regime should be limited to enforcement by the SIA.
The SIA will have a range of enforcement actions, which are underpinned by some criminal offences, as has already been debated. It is not considered necessary to allow persons to bring private claims for simple non-compliance, such as seeking compensation for the responsible person failing to put in place public protection procedures. However, the inclusion of the clause does not preclude or otherwise affect any right of action that a person may have independently of the bail.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Powers to amend this Part
Tom Tugendhat
I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 32, page 22, line 20, leave out from “for” to “in” in line 21 and insert
“enhanced duty premises to be standard duty premises.”
This amendment prevents standard duty premises from becoming enhanced duty premises at the discretion of the Secretary of State.
Tom Tugendhat
This is a simple repetition of the amendments we have made throughout the Bill to alleviate the burden on small businesses and ensure that the balance is appropriate.
Dan Jarvis
I again thank the right hon. Gentleman for tabling his amendment. He seeks to remove the provision in the clause that would allow the Secretary of State, via regulations, to make standard duty premises be treated as enhanced duty premises. It would have the effect of limiting the Secretary of State to only being able to provide that premises that would ordinarily be in the enhanced tier be treated as if standard duty premises. That is already the case in the Bill for certain premises, such as places of worship.
As I have explained, the nature and level of the threat from terrorism can evolve and change rapidly, with different behaviours, methods and tactics emerging. It is therefore important that the Government can respond quickly to protect the public if it becomes evident that there is a particular threat to certain types of premises and that the public protection measures in the enhanced tier should be in place there to reduce vulnerability and the risk of harm.
I again reassure the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that regulations to make amendments to schedule 1 under this power would be subject to the affirmative procedure, requiring the express approval of both Houses of Parliament. For those reasons, the Government cannot support the amendment.
Tom Tugendhat
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33
Interpretation of this Part
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
The clause is technical in nature, defining certain terms used throughout the Bill. For example, the clause provides that the meaning of “terrorism” in the Bill is the same as in the Terrorism Act 2000. The clause is necessary to provide the meaning of these terms for the purposes of the Bill.
Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Licensing: disclosure of plans of premises
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
Current licensing legislation in England, Wales and Scotland requires that detailed plans for all licensed premises are kept on a register and made available for inspection by the public. These plans include sensitive information, such as CCTV and emergency exit locations, and we know that this information could potentially be utilised for hostile reconnaissance.
To minimise the accessibility of such information to hostile actors, we are amending the Licensing Act 2003, which covers England and Wales, and the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 to enable the UK Government to make regulations on the form and content of plans that will be kept on a public licensing register. The regulations will restrict the public disclosure of sensitive information that is likely to be useful to persons committing or preparing acts of terrorism.
Specifically, the regulations will set out that new licence applicants will be required to supply—in addition to the standard detailed plan—a new high-level plan, which will be available for public inspection. This second plan will not include any sensitive information, but will still enable members of the public to see information about licensing applications that might affect them. The standard detailed plan will still be available to licensing authorities and other responsible authorities, including the police and fire authorities, to enable them to make informed licensing decisions.
Schedule 4 provides that plans compliant with clause 34 must accompany premises licence and club premises certificate applications, which will include any variations or amendments. In practice, once the regulations are in effect, this will mean that the two-plan approach will need to be adopted by businesses applying for these licences.
The schedule further sets out that businesses with pre-existing licences may, if they wish to, seek to replace the existing non-compliant plan with a compliant one. The compliant plan would then be placed on the register and thus be available to the public. For the avoidance of doubt, this will not be mandatory for businesses that already have a licence—we are clear that that would not be proportionate. Taken together, these provisions will better protect licensed premises across England, Wales and Scotland.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 35
Regulations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
Briefly, clauses 35 and 36 are general provisions required for the operation of the Bill. Clause 35 sets out the parliamentary procedure accompanying the regulations. Clause 36 details the territorial extent of the Bill: parts 1 and 3 of the Bill extend to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; part 2 of the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland, with part 1 of schedule 4 extending to England and Wales and part 2 of schedule 4 extending to Scotland.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
Commencement
Tom Tugendhat
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 37, page 25, line 5, after “force” insert “for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events requirements”.
See explanatory statement to NC1.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 19, in clause 37, page 25, line 10, at end insert—
“(2A) Parts 1 and 2 come into force for standard duty premises requirements on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint in line with section [Independent review of operation of enhanced duty premises and qualifying events requirements].”.
See explanatory statement to NC1.
New clause 1—Independent review of operation of enhanced duty premises and qualifying events requirements—
“(1) Within 18 months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the operation of the enhanced duty premises and qualifying events requirements, including any recommendations for the implementation of the standard duty.
(2) The review in subsection (1) must—
(a) assess the level of costs and liability transferred to businesses and individuals arising as a consequence of the statutory provisions in this Act;
(b) consider any wider implications for businesses and individuals in meeting the new public protection measures and any potential need for additional statutory safeguards, support or guidance for businesses and individuals as result of the passing of this Act; and
(c) be led by an independent chair and comprise a panel comprising representatives from the hospitality, live music, performing arts, cultural and retail sectors, grassroots sports venues, small businesses and local government.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out the Government’s formal response to the review specified in subsection (1).
(4) The Secretary of State may not make a regulation under section 37(2A) until—
(a) the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and
(b) the report specified in subsection (3) has been laid before both Houses of Parliament.”.
This new clause, together with Amendments 18 and 19, would require the Secretary of State to review the operation of the enhanced duty premises and qualifying events requirements before commencing the standard duty requirements.
Tom Tugendhat
I am afraid that amendment 18 is on the same point we have made throughout, which is about overburdening.
Dan Jarvis
Again, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for these amendments. While I completely understand the sentiment underpinning them, the Government do not support them. I would, however, like to assure the Committee that the Government are committed to learning the lessons from implementation, which is why a robust monitoring and evaluation plan to monitor the Bill’s effectiveness is in place. What is more, the Government have already committed to undertaking a thorough post-implementation review, which will assess whether the legislation is meeting its policy objectives, including analysing the costs and impacts on businesses and other premises in scope.
The Government have been clear that, following Royal Assent, we expect there to be an implementation period of at least 24 months, which will allow for the set-up of the regulator, while ensuring sufficient time for those responsible for premises and events in scope to understand their new obligations and to plan and prepare. Detailed guidance will be provided to assist those in scope to prepare for the requirements, as well as extensive communications and engagement with business and organisations.
Furthermore, as I have already set out, the Bill’s requirements in the standard tier are focused on straightforward procedures designed to increase preparedness and reduce the physical risk to the public from acts of terrorism. The procedures are intended to be simple and have no cost, other than staff time, to develop and implement, with no requirement to purchase or install any additional equipment beyond what they already have in place.
Tom Tugendhat
It’s your chairmanship! I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
I turn finally to clauses 37 and 38, which are further general provisions. Clause 37 provides that the Bill’s provisions will be commenced via regulations made by the Secretary of State, save for the provisions contained within part 3 and the regulation-making powers in parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, which come into force on the day that the Bill is passed. Clause 38 details how the Bill should be referred to once it has become an Act.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
New clause 1 has already been debated and is not being moved. New clause 2 has been debated already, but do you wish to comment on it, Mr Tugendhat?
Tom Tugendhat
On a point of order, Sir Edward. I will comment on it very happily, and merely repeat that the SIA is a regulator that has faced significant challenges over recent years and, again, I raise the question as to whether it is the appropriate regulator. As usual, however, the Minister would have the numbers in a vote.
The Chair
Thank you.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Dan Jarvis
With your leave, Sir Edward, I will take this opportunity to thank you for chairing this Committee and to thank all Members on both sides of the House for their contributions, not just today but in proceedings on Tuesday. I will also take the opportunity to say a particular thank you to all those members of my Department who have worked incredibly hard to draw this legislation together, in conjunction with the staff of this House. Their efforts have been very much appreciated. I am grateful for the cross-party nature of what we have achieved as we have progressed the Bill through the House.
Tom Tugendhat
It would be churlish of me not to thank you, Sir Edward, for the speed and efficiency with which you have guided us through this. This is also an opportunity to put on the record my thanks to the Minister, who has been a friend for many years—nearly 20 years, actually. It is a wonderful symmetry that, on my last day on the Front Bench for my party, I am doing what I did when we first met, which is scrutinising him.
The Chair
It has been a pleasure to serve you all, and it has been so easy—no controversy. Thank you very much.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.