Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, there is expected to be a Division shortly. When it happens, I will let your Lordships know; we will have a 10-minute break, gallop back here quickly and just keep on going.
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Amendment, etc.) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Amendment, etc.) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 29th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, in heading off the ever-growing tide of waste which blights our planet, we must prioritise both responsibility and fairness. Those who create waste must rightly take responsibility for its safe treatment at the end of its life, and those costs should be shared fairly and borne by those who also make the profit.
As your Lordships know, we are facing a mounting waste crisis and electrical waste is no exception; in fact, it is the fastest-growing waste stream globally, and the UK is the second-biggest generator of electrical waste in the world. Many electricals, including those sold from the online retail and vaping industries, are ending up in our bins, littering our streets and, too often, harming our natural environment. This is not sustainable economically, environmentally or socially. We must reduce the amount of waste that goes to landfill and, in doing so, we must ensure that those who benefit from selling electrical items pay fully and fairly for their treatment at end of life.
This legislation will address two key areas. I will start by addressing the issue of sales of electricals placed on the market via online marketplaces and overseas sellers who are not meeting their obligations. The sales of electricals from sellers based overseas via online marketplaces, such as eBay and Amazon, are skyrocketing, with over 0.5 million electricals being sold every year via these platforms. I am sure that many Members of this House have recently made just such a purchase. However, when UK businesses sell an electrical item, they incur an obligation to pay for its recycling at the end of its life, and most overseas sellers using these platforms are not meeting their financial obligations to do the same. This is wrong, not least because compliant UK-based businesses are picking up the costs for those free-riding under the existing regulations. We believe that this must stop.
I now turn my attention to the issue of vapes, e-cigarettes, heated tobacco and other similar products, which for convenience I will refer to simply as “vapes” for the rest of this debate. The Government have already banned the sale of single-use vapes—a vital first step in taking an environmentally harmful product off the market—but our work does not end here. Other types of rechargeable and refillable vapes continue to be sold, and we need to ensure that their collection and treatment is properly and fairly funded. Producers of electricals, including vapes, are already required to finance the cost of their treatment when they become waste. However, existing regulations mean that producers of other types of goods—toys and leisure equipment, for example—risk cross-subsidising the waste management costs of vapes. This cannot go on. Vapes are difficult and expensive to recycle, as they contain hazardous substances and can cause serious fires if not treated correctly.
Unfortunately, a friend of mine suffered from such a fire in a recent incident. He has a haulage company, and he was called in the early hours of the morning to be told that one of his lorries had caught fire. By the time that the fire service was able to put the fires out, he had lost nearly all his lorries. It was absolutely appalling, and it was all down to a consignment of vapes in one of the lorries. So this is a serious issue, for health and for business purposes, which we really need to address.
We believe that the responsibility for dealing with vapes when they become waste must fall squarely on the shoulders of those who produce them. This is why I am pleased and proud to introduce these regulations, which will hold those producers directly accountable for the environmental impact of the vapes and other similar products that they place on the UK market. This instrument is about fairness for UK businesses. It is about supporting them to do the right thing and ensuring that the right people are paying their fair share of the waste management costs associated with their products. In doing so, we send the clear message that environmental responsibility is not optional; it is part of doing business in a modern, circular economy.
Transitioning to a zero-waste economy is one of five priorities that Defra will deliver as part of a mission-led approach to government. Our circular economy strategy later this year will set out further plans to stem the rising tide of electronic waste. This Government are committed to putting the “polluter pays” principle into action. We are on the side of those businesses that behave responsibly to protect our planet, and we are rooting out those that are not doing their fair share. For those reasons, I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations, which I warmly welcome and support. In the case of her road haulier friend, I hope that he had good insurance and was able to recover the costs and get back on the road again. I have a couple of questions in order to understand more of the detail of how the regulations will work.
The Minister mentioned Amazon and eBay, but one that keeps bobbing up, although I have never actually used it, is Temu, which seems to be everywhere for everybody. I welcome what the Minister is proposing in respect of online marketplace operators, but my question is how it will work in connection with the electrical goods to which the regulations refer. When one makes a purchase—obviously, I have used one of the companies to which the Minister referred, which I do not want to advertise, as there are others available—at what stage will the regulations kick into effect? How will her department police the operations as smoothly as the regulations envisage?
Paragraph 5.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum clearly states:
“There are difficulties with enforcement of the 2013 Regulations against non-UK based suppliers”.
Obviously, one of the reasons that electrical goods are cheaper online is because the suppliers have not been paying for the costs of disposal. One question, therefore, is: will they now be more expensive as a result of the regulations, although people will be competing more fairly? It is no secret that the rise in online shopping has been one of the greatest challenges to traditional retailers up and down the country, including out-of-town shopping centres and market towns. I personally want to see market towns recover, although I know that there are a number of other issues, including parking. Paragraph 5.5 goes on to say:
“The intention of this SI is to ensure that OMP operators who facilitate these sales into the UK are responsible for those costs, ensuring the costs are distributed more fairly”.
Presumably, the reporting that the statutory instrument is making a requirement will ensure that such operators are in the system, so to speak.
The Minister has identified how flammable and how dangerous some of these items can be. My other question is: what is the normal disposal mechanism for, in particular, e-cigarettes, vapes, heated tobacco products and other similar items? In previous debates on statutory instruments in this very Room, we have discussed how important vaping is in getting people to switch from smoking and in the prevention of smoking in future, although there are obvious dangers where young people are vaping for the first time, which I know the Government are seeking to address.
It seems odd that, originally and currently, e-cigarettes, vapes and heated tobacco products fall within category 7 under the WEEE directive, which category also covers toys and leisure equipment. Will they be recategorised, so that vapes are taken out of that category? The Minister will not remember, but there was a toy safety directive when I was a Member of the European Parliament, and I was even a Member of the European Parliament when the WEEE directive appeared in its first incarnation. The toy safety directive covered such things as teddy bears’ eyes—if a child could eat them, they had to be carefully disposed of—and it impacted charity shops on the high street, which had to deal with them separately.
I should like to understand how these e-cigarettes, vapes and heated tobacco products will be disposed of and what the financial costs of the collection, treatment and recovery are estimated to be. Will the onus be on the user of these products to dispose of them safely and in a responsible manner?
With those few remarks, I wish the Minister well with the regulations, and I hope that they go on to make a positive impact.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I thank the Minister for her introduction. I have a few specific questions, particularly relating to online marketplaces.
We can probably all come up with a list of half a dozen large websites that we would expect to be selling these products, but I have a little awareness—possibly more than most Members of your Lordships House, but still not that great—of things such as Discord servers, which are not very visible or open to the public but require membership. A lot of selling, particularly to young people, may take place through these layers of the internet, which be at the top layer of the TikToks and eBays and so on. How will the Government ensure that we are not going to see the cheapest products ending up further and further down the chain of legibility to government and regulators. I would be interested in understanding a bit more about how the Government will enforce these regulations. How they will find the sellers and work out who owns them and who owns the websites? What level of enforcement is going to happen?
I take this opportunity to pay testimony to the work of Action on Smoking and Health. At an ASH event that I attended downstairs a week or so back, they had a disposable vape and a reusable vape, and the trick question was: which was which? They were indistinguishable. I also note recent reports that many shops that used to sell disposable vapes are now selling reusable ones, but the same shops do not sell refills. Such shops are just taking things called reusable vapes and still treating them as disposable vapes. If the Minister is unable to answer that now, I will understand if she wants to write to me. When we are talking about managing the waste problem, although there is a sense that we have dealt with the problem of single-use vapes because we have passed a law, I would question that. From what I have seen and has been said to me, how much have we changed the reality on the ground?
My other question comes from practical experience. Last week, I happened to be in the middle of Dudley town centre where I saw what is perhaps a measure of the socioeconomic usage of vaping. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, referred to the fact that vaping was supposed to be for people giving up cigarettes; the last statistic that I saw suggests that there are 1 million people in the UK who vape who have never smoked tobacco. In the middle of Dudley town centre, the borough council had provided a specific bin for the disposal of vapes.
My question to the Minister, therefore, follows on from the probably fairly modest extra revenue that these regulations will raise. How will we ensure that the funds raised actually go to the people incurring the costs? I am thinking of the financial impact on councils in particular—I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association—but also any other bodies that may be forced to deal with the disposal of what may or may not be single-use or reusable vapes.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we are very supportive of these measures and I very much welcome the Government bringing them forward as part of addressing an ever-growing problem. As the Minister rightly highlighted, e-waste is the fastest-growing waste stream in the world, with the 50 million tonnes currently generated globally predicted to grow to 75 million tonnes by 2035. The United Kingdom is the second-biggest generator of this waste per person in the world, so it is absolutely right that the Government are bringing forward measures to address it. I welcome the fact that this will be part of Defra’s wider circular economy strategy.
As has been said, we all buy and consume these things and try to recycle them, which can often be difficult to do. Many of these items are designed to be used once and then thrown away, and they are designed in such a way that it is almost impossible to take the batteries out of them. I call for further work to make sure that items are available on the marketplace from which it is actually possible to remove the batteries. I would really like to see a universal standard for that, particularly for vapes.
This statutory instrument applies to vapes and secondary online marketplaces, but the thread running through both of those is that the polluter should pay. We agree with that principle and it is welcome that it is here.
We agree with the Government’s plans for vapes to be put under the new categorisation 7.1. It was not correct that the toy and board-game industry was in part subsidising the recycling of vapes, which are far more dangerous and complicated to recycle.
I have tabled an amendment to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill to set minimum pricing for vape products. Picking up on what the noble Baroness said, I welcome the fact that Defra has brought forward measures to ban single-use vapes, but the truth is that manufacturers are finding ways around that by putting in a rechargeable point and a reusable coil. I have seen vapes selling online for as little as £2.99 which the manufacturers say pass the ban. To me, the answer is putting in minimum pricing and making sure that we have proper vaping products with long battery cycles that are designed to be reused, and keeping these products away from pocket-money prices and our children. I encourage the Minister to go further on those measures as part of the work of the Circular Economy Taskforce. That is an issue, but we welcome the measures in these regulations.
I turn to the second part, on the online marketplace and overseas sales. On the issue of dealing with the freeloading problem of online marketplaces that have been exempt from the regulations and have not been meeting the costs of the e-waste that they generate, whereas our bricks-and-mortar sellers have been, it is right that that will change and we welcome it. We also welcome the reclassification, which is good. Just for context, it is estimated that over 1 million tonnes of electronic waste are added to the UK marketplace each year via these platforms. That is a lot of stuff, which they need to be responsible for. Some have worried that this could impact online suppliers and that some might withdraw from the UK market. We do not share those concerns. We think these measures are properly set out and see no reason why they cannot be absorbed.
I conclude by asking the Minister a couple of questions. While we welcome the measures, they are quite complex and are being introduced quite quickly, and they will involve a lot of reporting, monitoring and verification and compliance mechanisms, which are required under the regulations. My questions to the Minister are as follows. Are there enough resources available within Defra? Is there enough time for doing this stuff? Does it have the appropriate staff available? Does it have the right procedures in place to monitor the impacts to make sure that enforcement is properly done?
With that, we welcome the regulations, and we look forward to this Government going further in these areas.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I also thank the Minister for introducing the statutory instrument and outlining its objectives. The ambition to ensure that all producers contribute fairly to the costs of collecting and treating waste electrical and electronic equipment is one that few would dispute. Indeed, His Majesty’s Official Opposition are in full support of these regulations.
This instrument makes two key changes. First, it makes online marketplace operators responsible for the WEEE obligations linked to electrical goods sold into the UK by non-UK sellers using their platforms. Secondly, it creates a new, separate category for e-cigarettes, vapes and heated tobacco products, removing them from the broader toys and leisure equipment category. Both are necessary steps to address long-standing imbalances.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I shall pose a number of questions that I hope the Government will consider as implementation progresses. First, on making online marketplace operators responsible for waste costs, what analysis has been conducted to assess likely compliance rates among these operators? Ensuring that the law translates into meaningful change is essential, and enforcement should be at the heart of that.
Secondly, how confident are the Government that enforcement will be sufficiently resourced, especially given past difficulties with online sellers who fall outside UK jurisdiction, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering? While it is logical to shift responsibility to platforms with a physical or legal UK presence, is there a risk that some operators may still find routes to avoid liability, either by reclassifying their service or by restructuring seller arrangements?
Thirdly, on the methodology for calculating the volume of electrical and electronic equipment sold through online platforms, how prescriptive is the guidance expected to be? Will methodologies be subject to review or audit by regulators to ensure transparency and comparability?
I turn to the creation of a dedicated vape category— I should declare an interest as a 15-year vaper myself—which we are told will allow for more targeted collection targets and financial obligations. How clearly defined will this new category be in practice, given the rapid evolution of vaping and nicotine delivery technologies? Will the Government commit to regularly reviewing the scope of this category to ensure it remains fit for purpose?
I would also welcome the Minister’s views on the transitional provisions. Are the timelines, particularly 15 November and 31 January, realistic for smaller operators, especially those newly brought into scope? What communication plans are in place to ensure these businesses are fully informed? Effective communication here will be important to the success of the instrument. I note that smaller producers that place less than 5 tonnes of electrical and electronic equipment on the market remain exempt from full financial obligations. Does this de minimis threshold continue to strike the right balance between supporting small business and ensuring environmental responsibility? I was hoping the Minister could help explain how the Government reached this threshold, which seems rather large.
In conclusion, we welcome the intent behind these regulations to create a fairer, more enforceable system, but, in doing so, we must ensure that compliance is not only a legal requirement but a level playing field. That requires clarity, transparency and, above all, careful oversight. I look forward to hearing how the Government will monitor these reforms and respond to the questions they inevitably raise.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Looking at the annunciator, I am wondering whether it is worth starting, but let us give it a go; I think we are going to be interrupted.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for their contributions. We are very grateful for the broad support for the regulations and the recognition that they are important. I will turn to the comments and try to answer as many questions as I can. If there are any outstanding—I think particularly on the specific questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett— I am happy to come back in writing, as usual, to ensure we have covered everything.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about online marketplaces, as did other noble Lords. Just to make clear, after the regulations come into force, online marketplaces that are not already registered with a producer compliance scheme must do so by the deadline of 15 November 2025. All online marketplaces will be required to submit the methodology they will use to determine the amount of electricals placed on the market via their platform by their overseas sellers by 15 November.
This data submission is a new requirement. The reason for it is that we need to better understand the volume of products being sold into the UK by overseas sellers through online marketplaces. A lot of the compliance and enforcement around this will be dependent on the data and information we have. Online marketplaces will then be required to report this data on a quarterly basis in line with existing reporting obligations. This is subject to transitional provisions, which have been made to reflect that the regulations enter into force part way through the year. Online marketplaces will be required to report this data only for the period after the regulation enters force through to December 2025. They must do so by 31 January 2026.
The Secretary of State will then set a national collection target for 2026 for each of the categories of electrical equipment. The regulators will then issue producer compliance schemes with a share of this target on a market share basis. The fees will then be apportioned among the producers within a particular producer compliance scheme based on their market share within a particular category in the previous year. For online marketplaces, this will be based on the data they report from the date the regulations enter into force until December 2025. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, it is quite complicated, but it is important we get this right. That seems like a good place to stop.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the Bells are ringing for us. We will adjourn the Committee for 10 minutes.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I shall continue to try to cover noble Lords’ questions and comments.
The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked about compliance and guidance. New guidance will be published to help online marketplaces understand the new obligations; it will, I hope, help with compliance if there is clear guidance on what the expectations are. This will include guidance on the transitional arrangements so that online marketplaces understand their obligations in respect of the data that they submit after the regulations come into force in 2026. We are looking at doing this to make sure that people are clear on what their responsibilities are and to increase compliance with the regulations.
Costs were asked about. The impact of the policy means that online marketplaces—the producers—will be liable for end-of-life costs, as I explained in my introduction. Currently, that obligation is supposed to be met by overseas sellers, but there is a high level of non-compliance. This again comes back to compliance. The new obligations on online market producers therefore represent either a cost transfer from their overseas sellers or a fairer reallocation of costs that currently fall disproportionately on UK businesses. We think that these costs are likely to be passported back to overseas sellers via their contractual arrangements with their online marketplaces. The new costs are, therefore, related primarily to familiarisation costs; we estimate that they will be between £1,014 and £3,926, which is quite precise, depending on the size of the business.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the circular economy strategy and how this measure will fit into that. The strategy and the road maps are designed to create a future where we keep our resources in use for longer; where waste is reduced; where we accelerate the path to net zero; and where we see more investment in critical infrastructure. Within the scope of the circular economy strategy that we are developing, we will also develop a long-term road map for reforming all the different key sectors. Electricals is one of the sectors for which we are going to develop a road map; that will set out a number of short-term, medium-term and long-term interventions to make the sector more circular. We are planning to publish that circular economy strategy in the autumn, after which it will go out for consultation. The noble Earl may be interested in looking at that when it is out.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, mentioned enforcement in the first place. The WEEE regulations are enforced by the Environment Agency and by its equivalents in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales because, obviously, this matter is devolved. They will need to ensure both that online marketplaces are registering with the producer compliance scheme, as I explained, and that they are submitting the data. Again, that data will enable us to ensure that compliance is being met and, where it is not, to enforce. Similarly, the producers of vapes and other similar products will also need to submit data to the Environment Agency on the amount of products that they are placing on the market in the new category, which has been discussed.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, talked about timing and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, talked about timescales. Following the consultation by the previous Government, which took place in the first half of last year, both measures were supported: 87% supported our measures on online marketplaces and 91% were in favour of the proposal on the new category for vapes, which is pretty conclusive. Because of that, we are bringing the legislation forward now so that the changes can be made ahead of the compliance year next year; we thought that, because there was so much support and it is such a problem, it was important to move forward quickly.
Resources were also mentioned—and here is my brief, as if by magic. We are working very closely with our regulators to ensure they have all the necessary resources they need. I believe strongly that there is no point in bringing in legislation if you cannot enforce it, and you cannot enforce it if you do not have the resources. An example of this is that we have already provided £10 million to trading standards for vape and tobacco enforcement. We are taking that very seriously.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked when the obligations are going to come into force. They would come into force 21 days after they are made, which, if approved by both Houses, we would expect to be later on this summer, or potentially in the autumn, but we are hoping to do this quite quickly. That would mean that they would pick up the financial obligation in the 2026 compliance period. They would be required to pay the registration fee to the producer compliance scheme when they join on 15 November, as I mentioned earlier. We think that most of the schemes would look to spread the costs throughout the year, and many would also likely invoice their producer members on a quarterly basis.
The new obligations for producers were mentioned, particularly the new category 7. As we have heard, for vapes and similar products, we are creating this new electronic and electrical equipment category in Schedule 3 to the regulations. We took that decision because it is not right for vapes to be currently categorised as toys, leisure and sports equipment. We thank noble Lords for their support for that decision. The creation of the new category is to ensure that producers of vapes and other similar products pay fairly for the treatment, recovery and environmentally sound disposal of the goods they place on the market. Again, the reporting of the data under the new category will kick in as soon as the regulations have come into force. This new category, of course, is particularly aimed at:
“Any device … intended to be used for the consumption of tobacco products, nicotine or any substance containing nicotine, non-nicotine liquids, herbal smoking products, vaping substances, nicotine-containing vapour or any other such products”
or electricals. It covers the whole broad spectrum. The examples of the devices will be in Schedule 4 to the regulations, which I stress is non-exhaustive.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about the single-use vapes ban and its effectiveness. It came into force, as noble Lords know, on 1 June. Obligations for review are set out in the legislation and include a review of enforcement and civil sanctions as soon as practicable after three years and a post-implementation review at least every five years. We are currently collecting the baseline data on the wholesalers and retailers of single-use vapes in England to support future assessments. Also, the Department of Health and Social Care monitors the current rates of smoking and vaping through various surveys, including the periodic survey on smoking, drinking and drug use among young people and the Action on Smoking and Health annual surveys. We will continue to monitor the effects of this legislation within that.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the Minister for giving way. Three years is a long time if the effective ban on single-use vapes is not stopping them and the electronic waste and plastic waste associated with them. Is there some mechanism—after six months, say—for the Government to see if this really is not working and, if so, are the Government prepared to take some rapid action? Three years seems an age in this context.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As the noble Baroness knows, most legislation is reviewed after five years, so three years is a fair time. It would become fairly obvious if the legislation were completely failing and not working. Presumably, any legislation that is not working needs to be reviewed and looked at in that context. I think three years is probably a fair point to start from and to have within the legislation.
On the question of whether the manufacturers could circumvent the ban, the way in which the ban and the legislation was drafted was to address many of those concerns. For example, there were suggestions that manufacturers could simply add a USB port to the end of a single-use device then call it reusable. To be legal for sale, a vape must be refillable, rechargeable and have a replaceable coil. It has to meet all three criteria. When that ban came in, those considerations were looked at—and, of course, local authorities act as the regulator for the ban and are responsible for enforcing the regulations.
Online Safety Super-Complaints (Eligibility and Procedural Matters) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That the Grand Committee do consider the Online Safety Super-Complaints (Eligibility and Procedural Matters) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 29th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Special attention drawn to the instrument
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, as the Online Safety Act sets out, the Secretary of State must make these regulations under Sections 169(3) and 170(1) of the Act. They enable the super-complaints regime to operate by establishing the eligibility criteria that entities must meet to submit a super-complaint, as well as the procedural matters relating to Ofcom’s assessment of super-complaints.
Super-complaints are an integral part of the Act’s complaints handling, reporting, and redress mechanisms. They provide a means for eligible entities, including civil society groups with expertise in online safety matters, to raise systemic issues about the features or conduct of one or more regulated services with Ofcom, the Act’s independent regulator.
Super-complaints cannot be made by individuals, nor can they be made about individual pieces of content. The Act establishes, under Section 169, the scope of issues that super-complaints can address. This includes where the features and/or conduct of regulated services may be causing significant harm to, significantly adversely affecting the freedom of expression of, or otherwise adversely impacting users, particular groups or the public. We expect super-complaints to typically be about cross-platform, systemic issues. However, a complaint may cover a single service if the complaint is particularly important or impacts a large number of users or members of the public.
The SI sets out several eligibility criteria that an entity must meet to be able to submit a complaint to Ofcom. Entities must: represent the interests of users of regulated services, particular groups, or members of the public; have a composition, governance and accountability arrangements that mean it can be relied on to act independently from regulated services, although funding, or representation in the entity’s governance from platforms, is allowed; contribute to public discussions on online safety matters as an expert; and be capable of being relied upon to have due regard to any guidance published by Ofcom. These criteria aim to ensure a wide range of entities are eligible while safeguarding the integrity of the process and reducing the risk of vexatious complaints.
In addition to the eligibility criteria, this SI also sets out the process and timeline for assessing super-complaints. Ofcom must assess the would-be complainant’s evidence against the eligibility criteria and determine whether an entity is eligible within 30 days. Ofcom must then inform an entity whether they are eligible or not and explain why. The time for assessing eligibility reduces to 15 days where entities have been found to be eligible within the past five years. In such circumstances, an entity must submit information to show that it is still an expert contributing significantly to public discussion on online safety. Eligible entities must also present current, objective and relevant evidence to support their view that one of the grounds for a complaint under the Act is met.
When assessing the admissibility of the complaint and the substance of the complaint itself, Ofcom must typically respond 90 days following the eligibility determination. This means that, as standard, the entire super-complaints process will conclude within 120 days, or 105 days where there is retained eligibility status. Ofcom may however stop the clock in certain circumstances, such as if additional information is required from the entity and the complaint cannot be progressed without it. But Ofcom may only stop the clock by the amount of time it takes to receive the requested information. Where Ofcom has determined that an entity is eligible, it must consider the complaint and evaluate the evidence presented to it. At the end of the process it must publish a response, including its determination on the matter. This may include what further action, if any, it anticipates.
In developing these regulations, the Government have consulted Ofcom and there has been a public consultation. We have listened closely to the views of stakeholders and, where possible, made changes to the policy consulted on. These changes are set out in further detail in the Government’s policy response published in June this year. In tandem with this SI being laid, a round table was also held with key civil society groups to set out the changes and our response to the concerns raised during the consultation process. These changes include lowering the bar for eligibility to enable new expert organisations to make complaints and removing the requirement to pre-notify Ofcom ahead of submitting a complaint.
The online world is complicated and ever-changing. As the Government, our aim is to remain agile and keep pace with emerging online harms. These regulations have been drafted to do just that, by ensuring Ofcom is made aware of emerging technologies, market operators and subsequent harms. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend’s comments, which set the context for this interesting statutory instrument.
In the process of consultation that led to the final decisions, was there time for the department to begin to implement the Parkinson rule? When my noble friend and I last met some time ago, we discussed how and under what conditions one might be able to allow Select Committees in the Commons and here with expertise in these matters to look at SIs before they are laid. I notice that this was laid on 9 June, which is well after that meeting. Was there time to let the Select Committees see this and were there useful results from that? If not, can she give us some indication of when the department will be in a position to begin to process the Parkinson rule in relation to this?
I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its very full 29th report, which went through this SI in somewhat surprising detail—we do not normally get four or five pages on an instrument each time, but that tells the story behind some of my concerns about the department’s approach to this. The committee’s first conclusion is that:
“The draft Regulations are drawn to the special attention of the House on the ground that they are politically or legally important or give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House”.
We are grateful to it for doing that. These are interesting and important issues.
The committee’s first point for consideration is that it worries whether the regulator, Ofcom, will have the resources to carry out the sort of work envisaged in this SI and the much larger scheme of work that it is involved in. I would be grateful if my noble friend could give some thought to that in her response. I do not think she mentioned it. We understand the basis on which Ofcom makes its funding needs available—there has been notification of that recently around the level of fees to be exercised on the companies in scope of the regulator—but that is not the narrow point raised here. It is more about the question of capacity and scale, and the ability to think more widely about the system it is trying to regulate, than it is just about the money. I would be grateful if my noble friend would say a few things about how the department judges that and how it thinks Ofcom will be able to scale up its current work, which is immense. It is very important to include this activity, which in the Bill was originally intended to be of assistance to Ofcom, although some of the way it has come out does not seem to have delivered on that.
Secondly, I recollect that we spent quite a long time on the Bill working out why the Government of the day did not think it necessary to have some form of ombudsman system in place for internet matters. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will make some points about this. This was well argued and well thought through in our debates, and we had many meetings offline to try to find a way forward. We did not get what we wanted, but it was a very big Bill and other things perhaps took priority. However, we did get agreement from Ministers, in the Bill, that there would be a review shortly after its implementation— I think within two years—of how the complaints processes for users of IT systems in this country, particularly in new media, were being dealt with by individual companies. Clearly, the expectation is that each company will have its own structure but that, on occasion, issues would be raised across more than one provider. The question was how an ordinary citizen would cope with that if there was not some form of ombudsman system. I strongly believe that there needs to be an ombudsman system for this whole area, and I hope that the review to be carried out by Ofcom within two years will recommend that. This is not referred to in this SI. Will the Minister say a few words about the department’s current thinking on that?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome these regulations and congratulate the Minister on introducing them. I have a couple of questions and will also support some of the comments made by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
Can the Minister tell us when the department will undertake the guidance that it has committed to produce before the regulations come into effect? Will the House have sight of that before they come into effect?
Paragraph 5.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“The whole super-complaints process must … typically be completed within 120 days, which reduces to 105 days in the event that an entity has retained eligibility status”.
Is that feasible? Can that actually be delivered within the procedure? I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that this is meant to be a streamlined procedure, but it is important that, if someone is limited to one complaint in a six-month period, they have the time to develop that complaint to the full, and 120 days might be quite a tight timetable.
Paragraph 5.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:
“Entities must not submit more than one complaint in a six-month period”.
Again, this may mean that a genuine complaint that is completely different from the complaint already before Ofcom will be delayed, so it is not streamlining the procedure at all. It also says, “except in specific circumstances”—I wonder what those circumstances might be—and goes on to say:
“Super-complaints should not merely repeat the substance of another complaint that has been made publicly available by Ofcom within the last two years and Ofcom will reject a complaint on this basis”.
On the two points from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, I share the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that there is neither an appeals mechanism nor the intervention of an ombudsman. For what reason was an ombudsman not considered appropriate in these circumstances? Given the pressure on Ofcom and the restrictions placed on it, particularly following on from the Online Safety Act, does the Minister feel absolutely convinced that Ofcom has all the resources that it needs at its disposal to deal with the super-complainants? Paragraph 49 of the committee’s report says:
“We note the Department’s explanation but remain concerned about the adequacy of the resources available to Ofcom, given its already extensive online safety responsibilities would be expanded further by this instrument”.
I have one final question, as I was not as closely involved in this Bill as others were. What happens to those individual complainants who do not fall within the super-complaint? Do they have a separate procedure under separate regulations? With those fair words, I welcome the opportunity to scrutinise these regulations.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive introduction. These regulations aim to establish a formal mechanism for super-complaints to be made to Ofcom under Section 169 of the 2023 Act, as we have heard. Potentially, this represents a significant step forward in implementing the Act’s vision for civil society oversight of our online landscape. The underlying purpose is clear: to enable eligible entities to raise systemic online safety issues, alerting Ofcom to significant risks or harms that might not otherwise come to its attention. These super-complaints are indeed a vital mechanism.
I welcome the clear intent behind these regulations and acknowledge the responsiveness of the Government and Ofcom to the consultation process—not always the case. Several positive changes have been made in response to stakeholder feedback, strengthening the regime’s accessibility and effectiveness. The removal of a statutory pre-notification period is a crucial improvement, enabling more timely responses to urgent online safety issues. There is the reduced administrative burden for organisations that have previously been deemed eligible. The reduction in assessment periods from 30 to 15 days demonstrates a certain sensitivity to concerns about administrative burden and procedural delays. Then there are restrictions on Ofcom’s ability to pause timelines; placing limits on Ofcom’s ability to stop the clock when seeking further information from complainants is a welcome development, addressing fears about unnecessary delays in addressing urgent harms and improving transparency.
The regulations have expanded the eligibility criteria to include newer expert organisations, which directly addresses concerns about barriers facing emerging voices in what is a rapidly evolving field, in our view allowing for greater inclusivity. This approach seeks to provide a future-proofed way of enabling a range of organisations to access the super-complaints mechanism in a fast-changing online environment. Then there is the flexibility in complaints submission. The ability for an eligible entity to withdraw an initial complaint and submit a replacement, effectively prioritising a different issue, is a helpful measure to ensure that the most important concerns are addressed.
Lord Wrottesley (Con)
My Lords, I want to add a few comments to the discussions on these regulations. I am sorry; I was a little slow off the mark.
I want to say from the outset that I believe we are going to need much more oversight to protect everyone —in particular our children and other vulnerable groups —from tech, particularly relating to online risks. I will say more on this during the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which is currently before the House. The situation is always evolving and, unfortunately, predators always seem to be one step ahead.
I have always felt that internet and tech companies could do, but choose not to do, more to make their products safer. I know this from personal experience; as I said, I will say more about this in our proceedings on the other Bill before the House. I strongly feel that such companies are complicit in this. It is regrettable that we have to regulate this area in the way we do, but here we are. Having this draft online safety super-complaints regulation is a welcome piece of the jigsaw. If implemented robustly, it has the potential to contribute meaningfully to a safer and more accountable online environment. I worry, though, and want this to work. I have a few questions for the Minister.
Following on from a concern that other noble Lords have raised, I would appreciate hearing from the Minister whether there is going to be a new ombudsman and how this might be funded. I know that there is funding ring-fenced, but we really need to involve appropriate leadership and expertise. How much is enforcement likely to cost?
As currently worded, the regulations do not seem to allow smaller groups, such as victim support groups or small NGOs, to feed information and complaints into the regulator. I feel that allowing for smaller groups would be beneficial to the online safety of the vulnerable.
Appeals were again raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and others. We know that, in these regulations, a group needs to apply to have their case approved to be heard. If it is rejected, is there a mechanism for appealing? Is it correct that summary decisions are the only material published after investigations? If so, I believe that we should offer more transparency than this for the public and for case law.
Finally, what powers would a regulator have against the largest companies with their related resources and well-funded legal departments? I am thinking of Instagram, Facebook, various other social media and internet companies, gaming companies and other tech organisations. Will the regulator really have the powers to enforce punishments and change? I sincerely hope it will. A lot is at stake here; we need to get this right not only for today’s users but for future ones.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, the purpose of the super-complaints mechanism is to allow eligible entities with expertise in online safety matters, such as civil society groups, to raise systemic issues with Ofcom. Such issues may include instances where the features or conduct of regulated services may be causing significant harm, adversely affecting freedom of expression or otherwise adversely impacting users, members of the public or particular groups.
We welcome the Government’s decision to bring forward these regulations, which will help Ofcom to understand the kinds of risks, issues and threats to users identified by the specified groups. We continue to believe that the regulations strike an effective balance between the need to learn from the experience of users and the need to prioritise the testimony of those with experience, expertise and knowledge when considering complaints. It is important that we construct a feedback mechanism, but it is also important that this mechanism can be wielded by Ofcom in a way that is genuinely helpful and can lead to targeted and effective action. The point about concrete outcomes from the process was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson; I look forward to hearing the Minister’s remarks on that.
The regulations make it clear that eligible groups must meet a required standard before their complaints will be considered. To be eligible to submit complaints under the regulations, an entity must: represent the interests of users, the public or specific user groups; be independent of regulated services; show expertise in online safety, such as regular expert contributions to public or media discussions; and be expected to consider Ofcom’s guidance in its work. In other words, this feed- back mechanism is designed to facilitate communication between Ofcom and independent expert groups. This is right and we very much hope that it will ensure that the case load for Ofcom—I take on board the points and concerns about this—will be such that genuine and proper consideration is given to each complaint raised.
That being said, I hope the Minister can give us some information on how this will be reported back to Parliament. Will we have sight of the volume of cases taken on by Ofcom and will we be able to see how many complaints have been upheld and how many rejected? I appreciate that, as part of the process, while any super-complaint is live, it must be subject to protection from outside interference, but having this information after the fact would make an important metric that noble Lords and Members in the other place will be able to use to assess how well the machinery and Ofcom overall are working. As has been discussed, the regulations are in the public interest and our collective ability to monitor their effectiveness would be greatly aided by this information—particularly in the context of the Minister’s welcome remark about the need for agility in this fast-moving space.
Further to this point, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, the regulations relate to complaints about systemic issues that could negatively affect freedom of expression, pose a risk of harm to the public or cause other adverse effects for users. Can the Minister, when she rises, please share some more information about how users and members of the wider public will be informed about such harms? It seems to me that it is possible to foresee circumstances where, if a complaint is made by an authoritative body to Ofcom under the regulations, it would be wise to warn users and members of the public of this even before Ofcom concludes its investigations, which, as the regulations make clear, could be completed after a period of as many as 105 days. I think that that is the total day count; I may disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, but the point stands in any case.
Does the Minister agree that, if there is a chance of a serious risk being posed to users, the public should know about it as soon as possible? Can she tell us whether there are circumstances in which the Government will issue warnings once complaints are raised, or will they rely on the relevant complainant group to do so? Once Ofcom has concluded its investigations, if it finds that there are risks posed to users, will the Government or Ofcom undertake to inform users at that stage?
Finally—this is, I am afraid, a slightly more trivial question about the mechanics of the eligibility criteria—the fourth criterion for a complainant group
“is that the entity can be relied upon to have due regard to any guidance published by Ofcom”.
Clearly, this is testable in the negative, but can the Minister comment on how entities that have not actively demonstrated unsuitability will be assessed and monitored against this important criterion? Clarity on these points would be much appreciated and would provide us with valuable further information on how the Government envisage using these regulations to keep people safe.
In conclusion, we support the intent behind these regulations and the way in which they have been constructed; I look forward to the Minister’s remarks. We feel that, on the whole, these regulations offer a clear framework for expert, independent entities—
Viscount Camrose (Con)
To pick up exactly where I left off, as with any regulatory mechanism, transparency is key to ensuring public trust and parliamentary accountability. We therefore urge the Government to clarify how the outcomes of this process will be communicated to Parliament and the public, particularly where serious harms are identified. Only then can we be confident that this mechanism will not only protect users but uphold the openness and scrutiny that must underpin all aspects of the Online Safety Act.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate, including those who have rightly identified that we have taken the comments from the stakeholder engagement to heart and made changes to the eventual proposals. I will go through the very many questions that noble Lords have asked. I pay tribute to the work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee; we welcome its report and the scrutiny it has given to our proposals.
In no particular order, I will first pick up the question of scrutiny. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about Parkinson’s law—if I can put it that way. We have spoken about this and there have been a number of different discussions about it. We recognise that the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and the Lords Communications and Digital Committee play a vital role in scrutinising the regime. The SI was shared with those committees in advance. He will know that Parkinson’s law is not as emphatic as it might be—it is a caveated law—but we nevertheless take on board the concerns raised about it and have met the chairs of those committees to talk about how we can take these issues forward. We have had a very good dialogue with them, on the understanding that we do not want to delay what can sometimes be very important and game-changing regulations by having a long extra scrutiny process. Nevertheless, we are trying to find a way to resolve this issue and discussions are continuing with officials.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but she said 2028. When will the actual review begin? That sounds an impossible end date for anybody to be satisfied with progress on an ombudsman being considered, let alone appointed. Does the review start in 2028, or in 2026? When does it start taking input?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The only information that I have is that we are anticipating that the report would be published and available in early 2028—so, obviously, it would need to start well before then. The noble Lord will know that setting up ombudsman schemes is not a simple process. However, we look forward to the outcome of that report, because we recognise some of the issues being raised.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
But if the report will be available only then and the regulations need to be made, the prospect of having an ombudsman is not there until 2029—something like that—or maybe 2030. Does not the Minister find that rather unsatisfactory, especially given her knowledge of the benefits of ombudsman services?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I can only repeat what I said. Ofcom is going to produce a report on this; it will look at the pros and cons of the issue and it may decide that there are other ways in which to deal with individual complaints that would not necessarily be an ombudsman service. We have to give it the space to do that thinking and develop that work; it will also need to look at how the tech companies themselves respond to complaints and what gaps need to be filled by that process. So it is not a simple process—but I understand the noble Lord’s frustration with this. If we have any more information about the timescale for this, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt again, but it partly depends on how much confidence we have in the tech companies in terms of how they deal with complaints.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
We will know the outcome of that much sooner than 2028, because I am sure that we will all have experience of complaints that go forward and whether they are responded to efficiently in the coming months, because there will be the opportunity to do that. In the regulations, as the noble Lord knows, all the regulated companies are required to have a named individual and a process for people to raise complaints.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about appeals. I reassure noble Lords that Ofcom’s response will be informed by its regulatory experience, as well as the information presented as part of the complaint and any additional information that has been requested, before arriving at an appropriate determination. I also remind the Committee that the objective of a super-complaint is, ultimately, to bring to the attention of Ofcom an issue, a risk or a harm that it might otherwise have been unaware of. It is not to adjudicate an individual decision or necessarily to trigger enforcement action. Ofcom has the flexibility to use any of its online safety regulatory powers to address issues raised by the super-complaint. This may include a formal enforcement action, a change in guidance or codes of practice or, indeed, no action at all.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
I may not have made the point as clearly as I should have. It is not the fact that Ofcom will be unaware of an issue that is being raised as much as that the need to get a super-complaint going may frustrate Ofcom finding out about small but high-risk activity that is remote from its main activity. We went through this in some detail towards the end of the Bill and in recent SIs that have stemmed from it. Size is never the only issue that will affect how individuals are being attacked or treated by these companies. I feel very uncomfortable about a situation where a super-complaint cannot be mounted because of lack of experience or a lack of quality in its processes, when the issue itself will then get ignored. I ask the Minister to perhaps reflect on that later.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
As I have said, small organisations can get involved in the super-complaint process. The wording is designed as it is to allow new campaigning organisations, if you like, to come through, because this is a new territory that we are operating in, and we do not want to consult with or hear messages from just the usual, established organisations. I think that Ofcom will be sensitive about all this, but it will also, as we know, be able to enforce against small but risky services.
Ofcom is looking at what is happening in the smaller sphere, if I can put it like that. Ofcom has already started enforcement action against some of the non-compliant small but risky services. For example, it is investigating whether small services such as 4chan are complying with the illegal safety duties. There are other small services that Ofcom is now taking action against as well. I hear what the noble Lord has said, and I am confident that Ofcom will want to hear from all voices, not just the large players in this sector. I should also say that Ofcom is subject to standard regulatory redress mechanisms, such as judicial review.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked when the guidance will be in place. The Government expect Ofcom to have finalised the guidance by quarter 1 of 2026. This instrument comes into force on 31 December 2025. The guidance does not need to be finalised before the regime can come into effect. The guidance will contain important and useful information, so complainants may wish to wait until the final guidance is published before submitting a complaint, and Ofcom will consult on that guidance. But those organisations who know exactly what consumer complaints they wish to pursue do not have to wait for the guidance.
The noble Lord, Lord Wrottesley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, asked about Ofcom’s transparency and whether it will produce statistics on the evidence that it is acquiring. Ofcom recognises the importance of transparency around the work that it does and is considering how best to publish that information about super-complaints as it implements the new regime. Ofcom will publish responses to accepted super-complaints, including if they are rejected on admissibility grounds, and summaries of these complaints as required under the regulations.
Again, Ofcom and the Government will continue to communicate and develop those risks and make sure that the codes are kept under review. It is about not just producing the reports but communicating to the wider public if new risks are identified. We all accept that one purpose of the super-complaints is to bring things to Ofcom’s attention of which it might not otherwise be aware to enable it to move quite quickly to address those issues.
Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker
That the Grand Committee do consider the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, the purpose of this order is to continue into force, for another year, the legislation that governs the Armed Forces—the Armed Forces Act 2006. By way of background, Parliament renews the Armed Forces Act every five years through primary legislation. This first happened in 2011, then in 2016 and most recently in 2021. It will next be renewed in 2026. However, in the intervening years, an annual Order in Council, such as the one before us today, must be approved by both Houses. This will keep the Act in force for a further year, but for no later than 14 December 2026, when the present Act is due to expire. A new Armed Forces Act will therefore be required to be in place by December 2026 to renew the 2006 Act for a further five years, and then we will resume the practice of yearly renewals.
Having detailed the legislative framework for the draft order, I wish to turn to some of what lies at the heart of our Armed Forces. After announcing the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War, we recently unveiled our comprehensive strategic defence review, which declares clearly this Government’s intent to meet the threats we are facing and return the UK’s Armed Forces to a state of war- fighting readiness. This is why we are putting people at the heart of our defence plans. As set out in the strategic defence review, there will need to be a whole-of-society approach—wider participation in national resilience and renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve. In support of that approach, it is therefore essential that we improve the recruitment and retention of our personnel. This is why the Government have made the largest pay increase for serving personnel in more than two decades.
We will expand opportunities for young people to experience more of what the Armed Forces have to offer, delivering a 30% increase in cadets and introducing a voluntary gap year scheme. Further to this, we have brought back 36,000 military homes from the private sector as part of plans to transform Armed Forces accommodation, while we will also deliver a generational renewal of military accommodation with at least £7 billion of funding this Parliament, including over £1.5 billion of new investment for rapid work to fix the poor state of forces family housing. We are intensifying efforts to root out bullying and harassment, which have, as we all know, no place in our Armed Forces.
Against the backdrop of improving support for veterans, as exemplified by the new VALOUR programme, which will see VALOUR regional field officers working closely with local services and local government bodies on the application of the principles of the Armed Forces covenant for the betterment of our veterans. We will be updating kit and equipment across all three services to ensure that our nation and those who serve and will be serving in the future are ready to fight the war of tomorrow. That will mean harnessing artificial intelligence, drones, cyber technologies and other innovations alongside more traditional approaches to land, sea and air warfare to make us stronger and safer, because tomorrow’s conflicts will belong to the smartest and most innovative, as the war in Ukraine has shown and is showing.
The defence review sets out a path for the next decade to transform defence and help make it an engine for growth, boosting prosperity and jobs across the whole of the UK while continuing to lead within NATO, ensuring our security is protected through collective power and capabilities. To achieve this, we need to ensure that we maintain a strong and effective discipline framework for our Armed Forces, which the Armed Forces Act 2006 provides and which this order maintains for a further year. The 2006 Act contains nearly all the required provisions for command, discipline, justice, enlistment, pay and redress of complaints. It provides the legal basis and associated powers for offices such as the Judge Advocate-General and the Director of Service Prosecutions, as well as the various service courts. Further, it establishes the Service Police Complaints Commissioner and the tri-service Defence Serious Crime Unit, and contains the legislation for the Armed Forces covenant. In short, the 2006 Act is a vital piece of legislation that our Armed Forces cannot function without.
Those in service protect the nation, our allies and partners and global stability wherever in the world they serve. It is only right, as I know all Members of the Committee will agree, that in this debate we honour their bravery, courage and unflinching duty through the small token of providing consent today. To that end, all of us here pay tribute to their public service. I beg to move.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I support this continuation order. As has been explained, it keeps His Majesty’s Armed Forces legal until after the Armed Forces Bill in 2026 is enacted. The Minister has given a good trailer for the debate that we will have on Friday on the strategic defence review, so I will not respond on that.
I would like to make just one point. When the 2021 Act was being debated, I, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and other noble Lords pressed for the obligation to have “due regard” to the Armed Forces covenant to be extended from local authorities to include central government departments. We quoted, as examples in need of central government consideration, Gulf War syndrome and the right of abode in the UK for Hong Kong Military Service Corps veterans who had served full time in the Armed Forces. A compromise was reached, and the issue was set aside for further examination.
The present Government have made it clear from the outset that they would extend the responsibility for supporting the covenant to central government. This is most welcome—it will, I assume, be legally formalised when the 2026 Bill is being considered—but the importance and reach of the Armed Forces covenant has had a very long incubation. I was one of the first to raise an amendment to the covenant legislation, which I tabled to the 2011 Bill nearly 15 years ago.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I support this continuation order. I start by declaring my interests as a director of the Army Reserve and the chairman of the Reserve Forces review in 2030. I will ask a couple of questions but, in looking forward to next year’s Armed Forces Act, I also want to make a couple of suggestions.
Historically, we have always focused on our obligations under Article 5 of the NATO treaty. This is why we have a relatively small regular Army but one that is at high readiness and is expeditionary in nature: we always plan to fight a relatively short war in continental Europe. Equally, it is why we have a relatively small reserve. However, our planning assumptions have been called into question as a result of the war in Ukraine, which has been an extended campaign, meaning that we have to look carefully at both regeneration and reconstitution. It is also, in effect, a war between two reserve armies.
I absolutely welcome the SDR because it has, for the first time, forced us to look seriously at Article 3 and homeland defence—something where, in the past, we have perhaps not paid attention to the detail in the way we should have done. It is clear that, with the focus now on both Article 5 and Article 3, the demand on the workforce is going to increase significantly. That is recognised in the SDR. I was pleased to see that one of the recommendations was that the size of the reserves should increase by 20%—albeit with the caveat of “when we can afford it”—but, looking forward, I have some concerns.
First, we have the most wonderful department in the Ministry of Defence, as well as wonderful civil servants, but it is not a department that is set up for legislation. I wish to share my own experiences, having been the Minister responsible for two of the previous Armed Forces Acts. When the time came, we sometimes struggled to make some of the provisions we wanted to make, because we simply ran out of time. So my first plea to the Minister is this: can we get ahead of this and make sure that the work is done? The last principal muscle move was in 2006, when the single services used to have three different sets of service law. We combined those into a single Armed Forces Act in 2006 and I am sensing, from where we are today, that the next Armed Forces Act will also have to be a significant piece of work. As your Lordships are probably aware, the regular Army and the Army Reserve are dealt with through two separate pieces of legislation, and delivering a whole-force solution adds complication. I fear that what we will have to do in the next Armed Forces Act is combine those two pieces of legislation into a single Act, which will be a lot of work.
If the department does not necessarily like legislation, one thing it absolutely loves is policy. Every time we face a challenge, we seem to wrap around yet another piece of policy. We now have something of a Gordian knot of policy and I rather hope that, come the next Act, the Minister will adopt the role of Alexander and slice through much of it, because it prevents us having the flexibility to access society through the reserve and the regular force to deliver all the skill sets that we need. We have great aspirations to deliver zig-zag careers, enticing people to come into the Armed Forces, leave, go into civilian life and potentially come back. We have great aspirations from a regular reserve perspective for people to dial up or dial down their military service, but our policy makes that quite complicated, particularly our terms and conditions of service.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I am acutely aware that I am likely to be interrupted by the Bells.
The statutory instrument in front of us is one that we are very used to. I was listening to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, and thinking that I am obviously very new to these annual events because I have been here only since 2014; you feel that you are getting older, as they seem to speed up every year. In many ways, there is little to be said on this Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order because, by definition, we all want our Armed Forces to continue. If Parliament did not approve the SI, we would still have Armed Forces, but they would not be subject to enforcement and so on. Inevitably, I wish this statutory instrument well; I also pay tribute to His Majesty’s Armed Forces and everything that they do for us.
As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, pointed out, the Minister seemed in his opening to be trialling his speech for the SDR on Friday; perhaps he is aware that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, will probably steal any thunder that any of us may feel we have. I think that it is a good thing to rehearse some of the SDR issues.
In the light of that and the Minister’s comments about forces accommodation, he has bandied around some figures but is he sure that the money will be wisely spent and that, at the end of this Parliament, he and any other defence Minister will be able to say that forces accommodation is now up to standard? We are about to have a Division, I believe, on decent home standards for His Majesty’s Armed Forces. We are told that the standard of forces accommodation meets decent home standards, yet the feedback is so often that there is black mould and there are all sorts of questions about the accommodation. What security and confidence can the Minister give us on that?
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, also reminded us that the last time we had an Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order, we discussed— I was part of the discussion, and I have raised this matter on several occasions—bringing the Armed Forces covenant under the purview of central government and making central government accountable. Like the noble and gallant Lord, I welcome the Government’s commitments on this and wonder when we can expect to find out more about them. As promised, here is the Division.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, as all noble Lords are back, we may as well resume.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, in finishing, I want to reinforce the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, and ask not for more money for His Majesty’s Armed Forces—not least because this statutory instrument does not allow us to do that—but for the Minister and the MoD to think about making sure that our Armed Forces personnel are fully covered. A lot of the wording around numbers in the SDR says “when the financial circumstances arise”, but our Armed Forces are the bedrock of our security and defence. We should put them first in everything we do.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her impeccable judgment on timing, which worked very neatly. As she said, it seems that, every year, this comes round sooner than the year before; it is a bit like how policemen are getting younger. Anyway, here we are to approve the continuation of the Armed Forces Act 2006 for another year.
Apart from the necessary attention to legal process, this is a welcome opportunity to pay tribute to and thank our Armed Forces personnel for the incredible work that they do on our behalf. Some of those to whom we perhaps do not pay sufficient tribute are the ranks of talented civil servants over there—they were of enormous support to me when I was a Minister—so we should extend our thanks for the support that the MoD gives to both the political process and our Armed Forces personnel. I thank the Minister for opening the debate on the order and echo his praise for our men and women in uniform.
This debate provides an important opportunity to reflect on the previous year in defence. Over the past year, we have seen the international security environment deteriorate further. Russia is continuing its illegal invasion of Ukraine. Iran has become emboldened to lash out. Iranian-backed Houthis from Yemen sank two ships in the Red Sea just this month, and the conflict in Israel and Gaza is showing few signs of abating.
Currently, the carrier strike group, led by the fleet flagship HMS “Prince of Wales”, is in the South China Sea, reinforcing our global reach and maintaining freedom of navigation. As a country, we can take pride in the professionalism of our Royal Navy sailors doing so much to stand up for our country globally.
We have seen ever more harrowing attacks on Ukraine by Russia. Increased use of drones has meant that, as of 31 May 2025, 13,341 Ukrainians have been killed and 32,744 have been injured in Putin’s illegal war. The Government are to be commended for their continued, resolute commitment to aid Ukraine in repelling Russian aggression. With the recent announcements of the coalition of the willing, which has the best wishes of these Benches, we hope that further progress can be made on ending the war.
As my noble friend Lord Minto and I have said, we welcome the broad direction of the strategic defence review. I know that we will have a fuller debate on that matter on Friday, so I shall not delay the Grand Committee by dwelling on it. Suffice to say that, while I genuinely welcome the Government’s acknowledgement that much more must be done to bolster our defence capabilities, I shall have a number of questions arising out of the SDR, but the Minister will have to contain his excitement as to what those questions are until Friday.
I was very struck by what my noble friend Lord Lancaster said about the reserves, given his profound knowledge of them and his own military experience. He raised a number of interesting points, which I confess had not previously occurred to me, but I think are substantive. As we live in a new threat environment, with increasing need for resilience and swiftness of response, they are very well-made points, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments on them.
What I would like to stress at the moment applies to the Northern Ireland veterans. The Minister was helpful last week when he said that there would be a Statement soon on this matter, which is a welcome development; we might finally know what the Government are planning with regard to the legacy Act. I might point out that I did not get an answer to the question that I asked last Monday: does the Minister think that recruitment and retention in the Armed Forces will be aided by constantly relitigating cases where veterans were simply doing their jobs? The recent case of Soldier C—who has already faced multiple investigations and been cleared each time but has now been told as a very elderly man that he may face another investigation and possible prosecution—is more than egregious. I do not expect the Minister to comment on media commentary that the Minister for Veterans and People, the honourable Mr Al Carns, is allegedly deeply unhappy about possible changes to the legacy Act, but it underlines the need for urgent clarity by the Government as to their position.
On the issue of retention and recruitment, we all know how much service accommodation requires improvement. My right honourable friend in the other place, James Cartlidge, when a Minister in the MoD, began the process of buying back the estate from Addington Homes, to which the Minister referred. This was the first step in resuming control by the MoD over living conditions. But that work is not yet complete, and the next step requires further structural innovation and change and further investment. That is why my right honourable friend has launched his policy of instituting an Armed Forces housing association, where our service personnel would be part of the association governance, to better meet the needs and listen to the voices of our service men and women. I hope that the Government consider that a constructive proposal.
Finally, it would be remiss of me if I did not continue to push the Minister on the money. We know that the Government have decided to shift spending on intelligence to the definition of defence spending but, so far, it is not quite clear exactly how much of that intelligence spending will be redefined as defence expenditure. Could the Minister enlighten the Grand Committee on that point? Does the Minister have full confidence that the Government will be able to reach the new NATO defence spending targets?
I look forward to the Minister’s response but, of course, confirm that these Benches support the statutory instrument to keep the Armed Forces Act current in law.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all the noble Lords who participated in the debate, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Goldie. They expressed their support—I know it is true for every single Member of the Committee and across the whole Chamber—for our Armed Forces and the recognition of their work, both seen and unseen. It is quite right for all of us to remember that. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, in recognition of the work that he does, we know that many Members are either still active or have been active as former military, and we continue to pay tribute to them. I thank the noble Lord for the work that he does, and I want to make sure that when we thank the Armed Forces we also include the reserves. I know that we would all wish that he conveys that message to them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, paid tribute to the civil servants as well. I like to think that, by and large, we are served well by the Civil Service in this country. They get some stick sometimes but in my experience, they are they are pretty good. I have one word, that I will not use—sometimes, I think that perhaps they could do a little better at understanding, but I shall leave that to my private secretary who is here and knows exactly what word I mean. But overall, they are a tremendous and great credit to our country. They deserve more support and recognition than they often get. I thank the noble Baroness to pointing that out; it was well made.
I shall go through a few of the points in no particular order. The noble Baroness talks about spending. She will know that the way in which this is now going to be included goes to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, about homeland resilience and Article 3. That is what has taken us down—the fact that for too long we have talked about Article 5 but not Article 3 in terms of civil defence, homeland resilience and homeland defence. That is why 1.5% is being talked about. What is included in the 1.5% will obviously be a matter for discussion and debate, but it will not include some of the silly suggestions that we have heard. There will be a debate about what it should include, because it will be part of building up to a significant homeland defence, civil resilience and all those sorts of things. So you will get whatever is spent on defence, plus that 1.5%. The noble Baroness, as well as other members of the Committee, will have seen the Government laying out that target of 2.6% by 2027. You can add 1.5% on it then, if you want, depending on how you get to 4.1%, the 3% in terms of defence spending in the next Parliament, and 3.5% by 2035.
In same way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said that I will have to wait for her questions on Friday and contain my excitement, she will have to contain her own excitement about when the Government lay out exactly how we will reach those figures. But that is the aim and policy of the Government—to reach that target in terms of defence spending. I know that this sentiment is shared across the House in the last Government, this Government, and all of us: I thank her for the general support for Ukraine and what we are doing with respect to that country. It is an important statement of this country regarding standing up for our principles and providing leadership not only in Europe but beyond. I thank her for that and for her reminder. It is an important statement. Our debates and discussions are read by others, so it is important that we continually reiterate those points.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for her comments about the carrier strike group, which is currently just off the coast in Australia for Operation Talisman Sabre. She will know, because I have mentioned it in the Chamber, that I was with the carrier in Singapore recently and with the other support ships, including the Spanish frigate. The air power that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, mentioned and will be pleased about is all over the carrier, with the F-35Bs on the deck projecting that hard power. There is also the soft power, the defence diplomacy and receptions that have taken place. It is easy to mock that, but the diplomats, friends and the military from other countries came on board the carrier as well as the other ship.
I will digress slightly if the Committee allows me. I visited HMS “Richmond” and the Spanish frigate in Jakarta, which as everyone will know is in Indonesia, to show the fact that the Indonesian Government were welcoming British warships into Jakarta, which I think is very significant, as well as allowing exercises to take place, which some of their senior military would go on, off the coast of Indonesia. It shows the importance of that carrier strike group and the importance of the fact that our military, with our friends, allies and partners from the region, are out there in that part of the world, emphasising the importance of what we do. I thank the noble Baroness for raising that and giving me the opportunity to talk about that and about Ukraine.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. I suppose I bring good news: I do not think we have a problem with recruitment. The one thing we do not have is a shortage of people wishing to join the Armed Forces. The problem we have is the self-imposed challenge through conversion. As ever, that is down to policy.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is something to look at and to try and deal with. Certainly, some of the things I see suggest that there is a need for the process to be improved. One of the things we are doing is to try to improve the process as well.
Before I come to my final comments, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, would have seen the debate in the other place yesterday about veterans and Northern Ireland. As it stands at the moment, this is as much as I can say: the Government are discussing this very seriously with the Northern Ireland Office, veterans’ organisations and victims’ associations in Northern Ireland to try to ensure that we move to a situation that is acceptable and respects those veterans who have served us so proudly in the past. That is what we are seeking to do. When we are in a situation where there is agreement and we have a policy that makes sense and is acceptable, then we will be able to come forward and make a statement with respect to that. The noble Baroness is right to raise it, and it is an important issue. The office of my honourable friend Minister Carns is just next door to mine, as the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, know. I spend all my time talking to him, and he is working very hard on veterans affairs, bringing his particular experience, which I think is a great benefit to the Government—it would be of great benefit to any Government, but we are very proud and pleased that he is a member of our Government and is helping us with that, because of the obvious credibility he has.
Those are most of the points and questions that people raised in this short debate. Obviously, we will have a longer debate or discussion on Friday, with the whole day on the defence review, which the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, will lead and I will conclude. With that, I beg to move.
United Kingdom: Soft Power
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dubs
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the United Kingdom’s soft power, having regard in particular to the BBC World Service, the British Council and universities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, we recognise the opportunity and potential that the UK’s soft power presents. The Soft Power Council is advising government on how best to shape a new strategy on soft power. The British Council reaches around 600 million people globally, promoting UK values and interests. The BBC is the world’s most trusted global broadcaster. The United Kingdom is the top destination for study and research, with four universities in the world’s top 10 and 17 in the top 100.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend’s commitment to the importance of soft power. As a humanist, perhaps I may quote something from the 1940s, when a question was asked of Stalin about the power of the church. Stalin’s answer was, “How many divisions has the Pope?” We are in a fantastically privileged position, but we are going to lose it all if we do not put our full effort into improving our soft power. The BBC is losing out to Russia and China. I beg the Government to do more for soft power.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I must declare an interest as well, as a humanist. My noble friend is absolutely right, but one reason why the Soft Power Council is essential is that it is not restricted to UK government. Our soft power is not only about UK government action, although that is important; it is about how we mobilise all elements of soft power. By the way, in all the countries I have visited in Africa, every leader speaks to me about one thing—and, on many occasions, they share my pride in Arsenal. They talk about the Premier League. Its reach is massive. We should understand that soft power is not limited to the number of things that we talk about; it is about economic development and growth, education and research.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I declare my interest as being in receipt of a British Council grant to enable me to study at a Danish university. Does the Minister share my concern at the poor ability of British people to speak a foreign language? Is that something his department will look at, to ensure that there is more foreign language teaching in schools?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness. Spreading the English language has been the most important element of the British Council’s commercial activity. I also agree that how we support the teaching of foreign languages here is important. I was in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee this morning making that exact point: how we communicate is really important. When I have visited countries, I have seen that those that want economic growth and development see English as a tool for business. They do not see it as a cultural issue; they see having English taught in their schools as a way of growing their economy. Even in the francophone countries, that is what they tell me.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the risk of further World Service closures, which might result in Russia or China immediately occupying those frequencies? Would not more robust, long-term government funding for the World Service be a sensible protective measure against disinformation?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right: we should not underestimate the importance of the World Service and its reach. It has exceeded the target we set for it, to reach 306 million people, so we know how important it is. The noble Baroness makes a really important point. We need a fully funded World Service and a long-term, sustainable solution, and we think the upcoming BBC charter review is the right place to do that. I hear what the noble Baroness says about radio frequencies. Certainly, any change to broadcasting radio facilities is subject to dialogue with the FCDO.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, while soft power is of course a vital instrument for advancing the UK’s values and global influence, there is another side to it. Therefore, I want to ask the Minister what assessment the Government have made of the ways in which soft power can be used also by hostile states, such as Russia, Iran and China, to undermine democratic societies, including our own, and what steps the Government are taking to mitigate these risks.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
We have had many debates in the House about this, certainly about malign influence and misinformation, particularly in the use of social media and other forms of communication that have not been mediated through journalists and fact-checking. The noble Lord is absolutely right. We obviously need to take proper countermeasures in terms of security. That is what the national security review is doing, and I know the noble Lord had questions about that. However, the context of the debate—and it is why my noble friend’s Question is so important—is about being positive about our soft power, not seeing it as being particularly about defence and security but seeing it as being about how we can spread our values about how we work, particularly supporting economic growth.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, notwithstanding English football, one reason why we are among the top for soft power reputation around the world has been the very partnerships to which the Minister has referred. We have invested official development assistance strategically to build those partnerships, especially through the BBC World Service and the British Council and through development research from our universities. However, is the Minister not as concerned as I am to read the Independent Commission for Aid Impact report today, which says that UK ODA will now be at 0.24%, the lowest ever since statistics have been compiled about UK development assistance? If we are to maintain our position in the world, will the Minister listen to those who are saying that we need to continue to invest in those very bodies which have developed the partnerships that have been so successful over the years?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think my noble friend Lady Chapman has answered these points. There is part of a spending review and lots of decisions have not yet been made. We will get more detail in the next few weeks and certainly by November. However, I shall repeat what I said before on our soft power and our focus on economic development: ODA is not the only tool in our toolkit. When African leaders speak to me, and certainly those in the global South, they do not say they want aid; they say they want economic diversification, inward investment and value addition. Our City of London is one of the biggest providers of capital to African companies—it is those sorts of areas of soft power that we need to focus on. The partnership approach we are now taking is that we are listening to the continent and responding to it.
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the vice-chair of the British Council. As has been acknowledged, the British Council is a vital soft power interest for the United Kingdom. I ask my noble friend the Minister to confirm that his department is now actively engaged in how to alleviate the Covid-era loan burden which was provided by the previous Government. Alleviating that Covid-era loan is vital to securing the financial sustainability of the council and its role in supporting British interests and soft power globally in these troubled times.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I reassure my noble friend that we are working with the British Council on a plan to return it to financial sustainability. We are committed to a successful British Council that is financially stable, and our funding is over £160 million in 2025-26. FCDO officials are working closely with the British Council on a financial turnaround plan to ensure that its finances are returned to a stable footing and that the council can continue delivering for the UK for years to come.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is entirely right to emphasise the importance of soft power. I just add a note of regret that Joe Nye of Harvard, who is a strong friend of this country and the inventor of much of the thinking behind the whole soft power concept, died very suddenly recently. The world needs a man like that now, and we will miss him.
The Foreign Secretary deserves some credit too, because he has brought forward the Soft Power Council, to which he kindly invited me. The only snag was that when we discussed it and an emissary came to discuss it with me, they were full of new ideas but they seemed to have overlooked one vital idea: that by far the biggest soft bed and fertilising area for soft power in this world is the enormous and growing Commonwealth. There was no mention of that in the initial Soft Power Council report. I know that the Minister thinks quite differently, so could he take a message back to his office and remind them that soft power and the Commonwealth are two massive supports for the prosperity and security of this country as well?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I am tempted to say I agree with the noble Lord, but then I am in danger of suggesting that I am not in agreement with the Foreign Secretary. Let me be very clear: we are at one, because the Commonwealth is very important. We have a new secretary-general, who is working through it, and we are giving support to her in the development of a clear strategy focusing on the best bits of it. However, as the noble Lord knows, I see the Commonwealth as more than simply an association of Governments. It is about people and how we bring them together, whether civil society, businesses or other organisations. The simple fact is that the Commonwealth adds value to business and economic development, and we are absolutely focused on delivering that in the future.
Rutland Lieutenancy
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berridge
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect the ceremonial status of Rutland’s lieutenancy in the forthcoming local government reorganisation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, how wonderful to go from the outer reaches of the world to Rutland and the lieutenancy. That is the benefit of our House. I thank the noble Baroness for her Question. I understand that she has close personal connections with Rutland.
Our Government believe that the historic identity, rights and privileges of counties in England are extremely important and should be safeguarded and celebrated. There is no intention that reorganisation will impact on ceremonial rights and privileges, and we will ensure that they are maintained. Where specific provision is needed in legislation, this will be considered as necessary to reflect the local circumstances in each area. On Rutland, Minister McMahon has met and provided written assurances to Alicia Kearns MP. I have met the leader of Rutland County Council, who also raised this issue with me.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I thank the Minister for the clarification that if legislation is needed to protect the county status, it will be given. I am sure the Answer will be welcomed by the more than 7,000 people in Rutland who signed the petition about the ceremonial status that was presented in the other place by Alicia Kearns recently. But will the Minister please confirm the timing of that legislation? That is the issue that people from Rutland have raised with me. Bizarrely, when the unitary authority is abolished, the ceremonial status will be abolished. Can the Minister confirm that that will not happen until primary legislation has preserved that status? Which legislation is it envisaged that that issue would be within the scope of?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We are still in the process of working with that local area on its proposals for unitary local government. We invited its proposals, and councils in the area sent us their interim plans in March and received detailed written feedback on those submissions in June. At this stage, no decisions have been taken on those interim proposals, so decisions will be taken on that in due course. The legislation to enact the devolution proposals has just been introduced in the other place. So, as that proceeds, we will be considering carefully the sequencing of any further legislation that is needed in respect of these ceremonial boundaries, which we all want to protect and safeguard.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
The Minister is absolutely right that it is a great tribute to the House of Lords that we can look after the interests of the 41,000 people of Rutland, the lord-lieutenant and the 12 deputy lieutenants. Does she also agree that if President Putin and President Trump did the same in their own countries, the world would be a better place?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think that is probably a question for my noble friend Lord Collins to answer, rather than me. But the point is that this issue of devolution will provide greater power and decision-making, and greater funding, for all our local areas. That is a benefit to all of us in the country, and I look forward to working with all areas, including Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland, as we move these proposals forward. It is a great project we are working on, and the community empowerment part of the Bill is as important as the English devolution part.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, it is over 50 years since one of the most unloved reforms of local government in our history. Given the changes that are now taking place, has the time not now come to drop altogether the word “county” from local government administrative units and to restore, for ceremonial purposes, including by realigning lieutenancies, all our historic counties with their traditional boundaries, including of course the Ridings of God’s own county of Yorkshire?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We all want to see all power and strength to Yorkshire. None of us would be without our Yorkshire Tea, would we? It is very important. At the moment, local government is engaged not only in local government reorganisation but in the devolution project. We will consider whether any further realignment of ceremonial boundaries is necessary, and there will be some areas where further legislation is needed on this. For the moment, we will work with local government to do the reorganisation. If the noble Lord wants to talk to me further about the West Riding or anywhere else, I am happy to have that discussion with him.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, 50 years ago, as we have heard, there was a reorganisation of some of the great counties of our country. In some instances, communities that had no previous relationship were forced together. What assessment have the Government made of the success or otherwise of creating a coherent whole from an artificial amalgam?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As the noble Baroness will know, I grew up in a new town in Hertfordshire, which, when it was first announced, was not the most popular decision. That was back in 1946. We have all worked together on this, and now we have a very coherent picture in Hertfordshire. People work with us, and we are working on our unitary proposals. There are always memories of historical areas that people want to retain, and I think the Answer to the noble Baroness’s Question set out that the Government recognise how important these ceremonial areas are. Some of them go way back in history, and we have a lot to do to undertake the local government reorganisation. So, if there is any further reorganisation to be done, we can certainly consider it. But I think there is enough going on for the moment. These historical memories are really important to people, and we should value and treasure them. That history and heritage are part of our country.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Rutland County Council is one of England’s highest-performing local authorities, not least in the area of adult social care. Rutland residents have always felt very close to their council and their elected members, and all decisions have been made locally. With that in mind, will the Minister outline the tangible benefits for Rutlanders of forcing this small but perfectly formed council to become part of a larger unitary authority, and what data has the Minister based her views on?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
First, no forcing is involved here. We put out an offer to submit proposals and have had proposals back. I have met all the councils in Leicestershire and Rutland and, separately, the Mayor of Leicester. There is a very strong will in the county to work together—they have been working very well together—and we look forward to taking these proposals forward with them. I hope it is of reassurance, not only to Leicestershire, Rutland and Leicester but to other counties in our country, that administratively they will be working under different boundaries but that will not affect some of the historical links that they have between them.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We need to have the Lib Dems go next on this one, please.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I have just been reading the newly published English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill; I have not yet got through the full 300 pages but I am puzzled by the term “community empowerment”. The Bill empowers mayors and strategic authorities and gives mayors the power to appoint up to seven commissioners, who will be responsible only to them; it cuts down the role of individual councillors; and the strategic authorities will be a very long way above local communities. Should we not cut “community empowerment” from that Bill?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sorry but I strongly disagree with the noble Lord’s view on that. We want to improve engagement, and this will create a fantastic role for community councillors to work with their local areas. We are very clear on the importance of engagement and of developing proposals for strong, stable unitary councils fit for the future, including engagement with local residents and stakeholders, Members of Parliament, businesses and public service providers.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister please clarify the anticipated timescale for local government reorganisation in England, and indicate what elections for which authorities are expected to take place in the next year?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The Government’s starting point on elections is for all elections to go ahead unless there is a strong justification. So we anticipate that for areas except Surrey—which, as the noble Baroness will be aware, is moving on a much faster timescale, being on the most ambitious timeline—there could be elections to new unitary councils in May 2027, ahead of the go-live of new councils on 1 April 2028.
Taxes
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Booth
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to raise taxes this year.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, the OBR will produce a new forecast in the autumn for the annual Budget, and the Chancellor will take decisions based on that forecast. We will set out our fiscal plans at the Budget in the usual way.
Lord Booth (Con)
I thank the Minister for his Answer, which is much as I expected. The Government recently had their first anniversary, which was marked by a series of U-turns. Will the noble Lord use his persuasive powers to ask his Treasury colleagues to get rid of the jobs tax, making one further U-turn?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am not quite sure what tax the noble Lord is referring to, but absolutely not, because it is essential to stabilising the public finances and to funding our public services. The party opposite welcomed all the spending we announced in the spending review a few weeks ago, so if it wants the spending, it has to have the taxes to pay for it.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, when the Treasury is considering how it is going to increase its revenue, will it give careful consideration to the fact that UK graduates repaying student loans are already disadvantaged, in that they are paying 9% additional tax above just over £20,000 to pay off their loans? Here is an example. A student spoke to me recently who is a young teacher with an old-fashioned loan that now stands at only £9,000, through very careful repayment, but who is paying £64.51 a month in interest on the loan. As we consider tax, I ask the Minister to encourage the Treasury to make student loan repayments, or at very least the interest on them, tax-deductible.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. It was premised on a hypothetical, and I am not going to speculate on the next Budget now. I absolutely understand the issues that she is raising, and I am very happy to take those points back to my colleagues in the Treasury.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has said several times in this Chamber that the Government have no present plans to introduce a tourism levy. Will he repeat the same pledge about a wealth tax?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question, and I should start by wishing him a very happy birthday. I have said what I have said on tax. I am not going to give a running commentary on the fiscal forecast, nor am I going to speculate on tax rises now. As I said, we will do things in the usual way. The Chancellor will ask the OBR to produce a new forecast in the autumn for the annual Budget and will take decisions on that based on that forecast.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, we understand that today at the Mansion House, the Chancellor will avoid the word “tax” and instead focus on pumping risk-taking into financial services as the mechanism for growth. The financial crash of 2008 was entirely generated by risk-taking, all of it legal, allowed by the regulation of the time, widely admired and never called to account. I can understand some streamlining of regulation, but since on every front, safeguards are being taken away slice by slice, will the Government now issue a summary of all the safeguards that both the Government and the regulators have discarded, so that we can assess whether or not we are repeating the past?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness is speculating on a speech that has not been delivered yet, so perhaps we should wait for the Mansion House speech this evening to see what my right honourable friend the Chancellor of Exchequer says in it. Absolutely, though, the Chancellor wants to see a greater rebalancing from risk to growth. I think that is absolutely right, but of course, we must make sure that we continue to regulate to avoid risk while we also maintain growth.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the Opposition seem to be suggesting that we can cut taxes without finding a way of bridging that gap in the Budget. Does my noble friend agree that it looks as though the Truss fantasy politics and economics that we saw nearly bring the country to its knees are still there with the Opposition?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I completely agree with my noble friend on that point. Every time we hear from the party opposite, it opposes every single measure we have taken to stabilise the public finances, yet at no point has it opposed the spending that that has gone to fund. That is exactly the mistake Liz Truss made in her mini-Budget, which saw mortgage payments rocket for working people. They are still paying the price of those higher mortgages, and that is something we absolutely will not do.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I understand why the Minister refuses to give hypotheticals on forthcoming tax. However, this Government made a clear commitment not to introduce taxes on working people. They have looked very much like a fish on the end of a hook over the last 12 months when trying to define what a working person is. Perhaps they should have thought about that before they made such a clear, binding commitment. Without being hypothetical, does the Minister agree with the Chancellor, who, during that election campaign, defined working people as
“people who go out to work and work for their incomes … There are people who do have savings, who have been able to save up, and those are working people as well”?
Does the Minister stand by that commitment?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
A working person is someone who goes out to work. The Government have pledged not to increase taxes on working people. We stand by that, which is why we are not increasing their income tax, national insurance contributions or VAT.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, the concentration during this Question has been on national finance and national taxation, but the real crisis is in the finance of local authorities of all descriptions in all parts of the country, and under all political control. Do the Government intend to look at the basis of financing local authorities so that we can introduce a robust scheme before the end of this Parliament?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his question. A council tax cap of 5% was introduced by the previous Government. Councils do not have to increase council tax by 5%, but under the rules they cannot increase it by more than 5% without a local referendum. That remains the position.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, when the Treasury team are preparing the Budget, will they have a look at the precedent of Sir Geoffrey Howe’s Budget of 1981, which was delivered in very similar economic circumstances to those of today? It was the most unpopular Budget of my political lifetime but also one of the most successful, because it paved the way for recovery with growth, lower inflation and rising living standards. Does the Minister think that the present Chancellor has the courage to concentrate on the public interest and the medium-term health of the economy, or will there be an obsession with rather reckless promises in the manifesto or short-term reactions in the newspapers and opinion polls?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question and for his expertise. That Budget created the deepest recession in British history, so I do not know that we necessarily want to follow it in its entirety.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I think that history is on my side here. On whether the Chancellor has the courage to do long-term reform and what is right for the British economy, she has shown that, absolutely she has.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, the Labour First Minister of Wales last week called for a wealth tax. Have the Government heard that, and will they take good notice of the Labour First Minister of Wales?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
We listen carefully to all Budget representations, but as I say, I will not speculate on the next Budget now.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the fact is that we are all too close to a fiscal and economic crisis, much of which this Government have created. Debt interest is now a substantial proportion of departmental expenditure, productivity is flatlining and by 2028-29 the tax burden will be at its highest level in the country’s peacetime history. Does the Minister recognise that further tax rises are not the path to sustainable recovery? Will he affirm that he recognises that taxing people and taxing businesses ever more heavily will only undermine our productive capacity and further reduce the growth we all want?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness has a rather selective memory: she seems to have forgotten about the last 14 years. But she is quite right that the most sustainable way to repair the public finances is through growing the economy. At the last fiscal event, the OBR scored our planning reforms as the biggest increase in growth of any non-fiscal measure, and we hope very much that it will continue to score our growth measures. As she says, that is the most sustainable way of repairing the public finances.
Housebuilders: Information Sharing
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornhill
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications for housing policy of the Competition and Markets Authority’s investigation of seven major housebuilders regarding information sharing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, the housing market can thrive only if there is fair, open competition, and it is right that the CMA acts where this is not the case. The CMA housebuilding study was right to highlight the areas for improvement in the market, and that is why we have responded to its findings about delivering a system that works in the public interest. The £100 million additional funding proposed for affordable housing will mean more families can benefit from a safe and secure home.
To answer the noble Baroness’s point about information, the seven companies highlighted in the CMA report have agreed to work with the Home Builders Federation and Homes for Scotland to develop industry-wide guidance on information sharing and not to share certain types of information with other housebuilders, including the prices houses are sold for, except in very limited circumstances.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. There could be an alternative version to this: major housebuilders pay £100 million to halt the CMA’s investigation into potential illegal collusion through the sharing of competitively sensitive information that could have inflated house prices. While this settlement might appear a pragmatic, cost-effective solution, would it not be more useful to have some evidence-led answers about whether the business models of the major developers are a significant factor in the slow delivery of housing? Therefore, should not the Government insist that the CMA actually completes its investigation, rather than allowing a financial settlement that obscures the fact and definitely looks dodgy?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The CMA is continuing its work on this, and on 9 July it announced that it is consulting on its intention to accept commitments offered by the housebuilders in relation to the investigation. That consultation closes on 25 July, and I have already set out some of the commitments that the seven companies have made. The £100 million payment, the largest secured through commitments from companies under investigation, will be split between affordable housing programmes across all our four nations. I hope that will make a significant contribution to delivering the affordable housing we all want to see.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, if the Competition and Markets Authority confirms this £100 million payment for anti-competitive activity, can the Minister give an assurance that none of the affordable homes to be built with that money will be built by the volume housebuilders responsible for this activity, otherwise they will simply get their money back?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. I am sure that the Competition and Markets Authority, as part of its consultation, will be looking at the best way of distributing that money, so it is not just recycled to the people who caused the problem in the first place.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, irrespective of the merits of the £100 million deal done between the CMA and the seven volume housebuilders, does the Minister agree that we should be reducing and indeed eliminating our dependency as a nation on a small oligopoly of major housebuilders? We need more variety; we need SME builders doing more; and we need the new development corporations set up at arm’s length to local authorities by mayors and combined authorities to replace our dependency on a very small handful of large-scale housebuilders which, I am afraid, will always let us down.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have much sympathy with what the noble Lord says. He has great expertise in this area, and I recognise that. Our focus is on creating a more balanced and competitive market overall by addressing the systemic barriers that prevent SMEs and others delivering more homes. We are taking action to support SMEs across the three main challenges that we know they face: access to finance, access to land, and an uncertain and complex planning system. We have announced two immediate packages of measures to support buildout and SMEs via £100 million in SME accelerator loans and measures to support faster decisions on smaller sites, which I hope will help.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, the one-off payment of £100 million towards affordable housing is only about 3% of the operating profit of the five biggest housebuilders this year. Is this a relatively small penalty for them to pay for anti-competitive practices over many years?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As I already commented, this is the biggest settlement ever achieved by the CMA. Of course, we can always do with more money for housing. We have to consider what is appropriate in these circumstances. I am sure the CMA has done that. This will undoubtedly make a significant contribution to delivering the affordable housing we all want to see. I am sure that the CMA will continue to watch the market very carefully to see that the changes that are introduced as a result of its report make the difference that we know we need.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, UK GDP fell by 0.1% in May, with declines in industrial output and construction dragging down the overall performance. What communication has the Minister had with the construction industry to ensure that not just major housebuilders, which we have heard about, but the important SME housebuilding sector are supported? What support is she giving them to grow rather than stall or regress, as they are at the moment, particularly in the context of the Government’s housing ambitions?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
I thank the noble Baroness, although I have set out already the action that we are taking to support SMEs, including the £100 million in SME accelerator loans. We are working collaboratively with all stakeholders, including large developers. That includes setting up the major sites accelerator, which is helping to unblock some of the sites that we know have been held up in the process. A lot of work is being done with the Home Builders Federation, the industry and development companies to make sure that, alongside our reforms to planning and infrastructure delivery, we are moving this on as quickly as possible. As my noble friend Lord Livermore has just said on the previous Question, this will make the biggest contribution to growth, and we know that that is what will get our country going again.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said about support for SMEs and construction. Are the Government also looking at other issues bedevilling SMEs in the construction sector, such as poor payment practices and cash retentions?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand that slow payments and retentions are long and ongoing issues. We have to continue to look at all the barriers to SMEs as we go through the process of trying to speed up housing delivery in this country. Without removing some of those barriers we will not meet the ambitious total of 1.5 million homes that we want to deliver. We need to make sure we are unblocking all the areas that are causing problems in the system.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has rightly talked about the barriers faced by SMEs and smaller developers entering the market. One of the issues identified is planning departments. What conversations have the Minister or the department had with some of the smaller housebuilders, as a facilitator to conversations with planning departments, to ensure that they are able to understand some of the complexities of getting their developments through planning?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The issue of skills and capacity in planning departments has been a real focus of this Government since last July when we were elected. We know that that is one of the areas in which we need to support local authorities. We have put large sums of money into creating 300 new skilled planning roles in local government and improving the pipeline of planners coming through, as well as addressing some of the other skills issues in the sector, which we know are critical to delivering this. Lots of developers have mentioned the building safety regulator, which is another aspect to this, and the noble Lord may know that we have made rapid changes there. That is moving on very quickly now.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, what are the Government doing to encourage more skills and expertise, which I gather are lacking?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble and learned Baroness is quite right. The age profile of some of the skilled workers in the construction sector is higher than we would want it to be. We have put £600 million into improving skills, setting up 10 new technical colleges so that we can encourage young people to take up trades in the construction industry. It is an exciting industry to be in, so I hope that they will follow that through. We are trying to encourage some of those people in the construction sector who are getting closer to retirement age to take on roles as trainers of young people, so that we pass on the skills of the current generation to the next generation.
Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill
Tuesday 15th July 2025
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Lords ChamberDeprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill 2024-26 View all Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 14 July 2025 - (14 Jul 2025)
Business of the House
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 22 July to allow the Universal Credit Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.
Renters’ Rights Bill
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:12 - Division on Amendment 87 - Ayes: 237 / Noes: 223 - Amendment 87 agreed.
17:16 - Division on Amendment 98 - Ayes: 215 / Noes: 240 - Amendment 98 disagreed.
18:08 - Division on Amendment 106 - Ayes: 282 / Noes: 158 - Amendment 106 agreed.
18:37 - Division on Amendment 110 - Ayes: 98 / Noes: 148 - Amendment 110 disagreed.
18:59 - Division on Amendment 111 - Ayes: 214 / Noes: 153 - Amendment 111 agreed.
19:43 - Division on Amendment 118 - Ayes: 106 / Noes: 148 - Amendment 118 disagreed.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, before we start the debate on the first group, I want to repeat earlier reminders on declaring interests for, I hope, the final time. As we set out previously, noble Lords should declare relevant interests at each stage of proceedings on a Bill. That means that in their first contribution on Report, noble Lords must declare any relevant financial interests in a specific but brief way. Declarations do not need to be repeated in subsequent speeches, so if a declaration has been made on Report, it does not need to be made again.
While I have the attention of the House, I remind noble Lords that when pressing or withdrawing an amendment, speeches should be short. As set out in paragraph 8.79B of the Companion:
“Members … pressing or withdrawing an amendment should … be brief and need not respond to all the points made during the debate, nor revisit points made when moving the amendment”.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, due to an error, Amendment 86, which has already been debated, does not appear on the Marshalled List and has not been disposed of. I therefore begin by calling Amendment 86.
Lord Keen of Elie
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, in conjunction with another amendment in the name of Lord Keen of Elie to clause 58, imposes a uniform standard of proof – beyond reasonable doubt – where the local housing authority imposes a financial penalty.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I begin by referring to my interests as recorded in the register. I add that I am the proprietor of properties in London that are the subject of tenancy agreements and are managed by an agent.
In this group we have Amendments 87 and 88 in similar terms. Amendment 87 deals with an issue in Clause 41. It concerns the right of a local authority association to impose financial penalties and the burden of proof on that authority in respect of those penalties. I seek your Lordships’ leave to put this into context. Clause 41, on page 58 of the Bill, provides that:
“A local housing authority may impose a financial penalty under this subsection on a person if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the person has breached a requirement imposed by … regulations made under section 40”.
Clause 58, on page 90, refers to a local housing authority being able to
“impose a financial penalty under this subsection on a person if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the person has breached the prohibition imposed by section 57”.
But in Clause 67, which can be found on page 109, we have the provision that:
“A local housing authority may impose a financial penalty on a person if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person has … breached regulations”.
It is again a regulatory offence, but with a significantly different burden of proof placed on the same local housing authority.
Clause 92, on page 126, provides that:
“A local housing authority may impose a financial penalty on a person if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person has … breached a requirement imposed by section 83(1), (2) or (3)”.
That, in turn, refers to certain regulatory requirements that may be imposed on landlords.
So where do we find ourselves? We find ourselves in a situation in which a local authority is to be empowered to impose financial sanctions on landlords for breaches of regulations and yet, depending on which regulation is referred to, the burden of proof shifts between “balance of probabilities” and “beyond reasonable doubt”. The first point I make is that there is clearly a need for some kind of uniform standard in this legislation. What on earth will a local authority do when faced with the prospect that there may be multiple breaches of regulations, but different standards of proof applied in respect of whether they can find a breach? It produces a nonsense result.
Indeed, in circumstances where a local housing authority is entitled to impose very serious financial penalties running into thousands of pounds for breaches of regulations, I suggest that it is only appropriate that the relevant standard of proof should be that in any criminal proceedings—namely, “beyond reasonable doubt”. Otherwise, there is not only the risk of confusion, because of the different standards applied between different regulations in the legislation, but the very real risk of wrongful penalties being imposed in circumstances where a local housing authority thinks, “There may have been a breach of regulations—it’s in the balance, but we think there probably is—so we’ll fine them £7,000”. On the next alleged breach of regulation, they would say, “It’s in the balance, so we can’t possibly impose any kind of financial penalty”. It really is a nonsense.
It also, I respectfully suggest, raises a question of fairness and proportionality. Is it truly fair that we should have one set of regulations that can be met by way of a breach “on balance” and another that requires a proper standard of proof—namely, “beyond reasonable doubt”? It will also place pressure on local housing associations and their resources. Are they really equipped to distinguish between those two standards of proof for different sets of regulations?
Amendment 87 would amend the reference in Clause 41 to a housing association proceeding on the “balance of probabilities” and substitute the requirement for the standard to be “beyond reasonable doubt”. In Amendment 88 I seek to make the same amendment in order that Clauses 41 and 58, about the powers of a housing association and breaches of regulation, are simply brought into line with the provisions of Clauses 67 and 92 of the same Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 104 in my name in this group and, in doing so, I declare my interest as a trustee of the Nationwide Foundation. First, I thank my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage for the excellent meeting we had, together with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and renter groups Safer Renting, ACORN and the Renters’ Reform Coalition. I also thank my noble friend for the subsequent letter she sent, responding to the points raised at the meeting and for the additional conversations that I understand have taken place between Safer Renting and her officials.
Amendment 104 seeks to change the standard of proof required for rent repayment orders, based on offences under the Protection from Eviction Act. Currently, tenants must prove their case to a criminal standard, beyond reasonable doubt, even though these are civil proceedings in a civil tribunal. This change would make rent repayment orders a realistic option for renters who are victims of illegal eviction and harassment—serious offences that cause immense harm. As we know, most illegal evictions and harassment occur behind closed doors, without witnesses, and I appreciate that my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage recognises that these offences are harder to prove than other rent repayment order offences. The available evidence rarely meets the criminal standard, but may clearly satisfy the civil standard of balance of probabilities.
Civil claims for illegal eviction and harassment already use the civil standard and can carry far higher penalties. The definition of the civil wrongs of illegal eviction and harassment in the Housing Act 1988 uses the same definition as in the Protection from Eviction Act. For all intents and purposes, there is no distinction between the conduct targeted by both laws. Aligning the standard in rent repayment cases would bring consistency, fairness and a real access to redress.
The problem is clear. Research shows that at least 16,000 illegal evictions occurred in 2021-22, yet there were only 31 successful rent repayment orders made for those offences. This shows that the current system deters valid claims and does not provide a realistic route to redress for renters. It is vital that tenants can enforce their rights against criminal landlords. Yes, it is a small minority of landlords, but they are criminal landlords whose impact on renters’ lives, health and well-being is immense. As we heard in Committee, because the rent repayment mechanism is ineffective, these criminals gamble on breaking the law, knowing how hard it is for tenants to prove their case. Amendment 104 would make justice more attainable for renters and allow them to take a leading role in holding landlords to account.
I note from my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage’s letter on this issue—copied to me and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell—that the Government are minded not to change their view on the standard of proof at this point. Of course, this is disappointing. However, I very much appreciate my noble friend’s acknowledgement that rent repayment orders are not currently working as well as they should for illegal eviction and harassment offences. As well as my noble friend’s commitment to monitor the impact of changes to rent repayment orders, this is very welcome. Collecting the right data will be required to assess whether rent repayment orders are working as intended in cases of illegal eviction and harassment after this Bill becomes law.
Moreover, I very much welcome my noble friend’s commitment to continue to work with noble Lords and stakeholders to assess whether rent repayment orders are working for illegal eviction and harassment offences, with a view for potential changes down the line. I ask my noble friend: can we now start gathering the evidence needed to assess the scale and impact of the problem? In addition to the report as set out by the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Best—I very much support Amendment 113—will my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage consider publishing PRS enforcement data, provided by local authorities, to include a record of the number of reports of suspected illegal eviction or harassment received by the authority, so we can get a better understanding of the scale of the problem? Will she consider mandating local authorities to provide the department with PRS enforcement data, instead of data reporting being voluntary, so again we can get a more complete dataset? Will she work with the Ministry of Justice to collect and publish regular data on rent repayment orders to facilitate monitoring of the system in respect of the volume and success of applications alleging illegal eviction and harassment?
Finally, as well as the issues renters face accessing redress through rent repayment orders, since 2012 there has been an 80% reduction in legal aid applications for bringing cases of illegal eviction and harassment in the civil courts. Therefore, if at all possible, could my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage assist me, Safer Renting and other noble Lords in getting a meeting with a Minister or an official at the MoJ to discuss the availability of legal aid for civil cases involving illegal eviction and harassment?
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. I have also enjoyed my encounters with the Minister, with her, to discuss these issues. I rise to speak to Amendment 110 in my name. I am very grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Best, who have added their names. Between them, they bring unsurpassed knowledge of both policing and housing matters, which are both very relevant to this amendment. I am also grateful to the organisations Safer Renting and ACORN for their assistance in highlighting the need for this amendment, and of course to the Bill Office for its clear and effective drafting.
This amendment is distinct from others in this group, as it does not deal with standards of proof. Rather, as I outlined at Second Reading and in Committee, it addresses the difficulties faced by those at the bottom end of the rental market and most at risk from abusive landlords. It is these people, the economically and socially vulnerable, who are the most likely to face illegal and sometimes forcible evictions. They are often also the least equipped to resist such behaviours.
A core problem that emerged in discussions with tenant organisations at the sharp end is insufficient clarity of understanding about what the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 requires of the police. There is a widespread and incorrect belief among police officers that illegal evictions are civil matters. This has resulted in a tiny number of prosecutions for illegal evictions. Indeed, statistics show that the police have not acted in 91% of cases.
I do not want to stretch the House’s patience with detailed case studies, but three quick examples will give colour to the types of incidents we are concerned about. A tenant returned to their flat to find that the landlord had changed the locks. When the police were contacted, they threatened to arrest the tenant for obstruction of the landlord and assisted in the removal of the tenant’s belongings. In other cases, landlords used tactics such as intimidation and turning off the water supply, as well as threatening and actually using force. When tenants called the police, they were told that it was a civil matter and to call back when an actual crime was being committed. In other cases, tenants went to the police station, but were turned away repeatedly on the basis that such evictions are a civil matter.
In Committee, I put down an amendment to clear up this misunderstanding of the law and improve co-ordination between the police and local authorities. It did not gain government support, which I find very disappointing, not least given the Bill’s avowed focus on those most in need of help. The Government’s response did address the co-ordination point, citing extra work for the authorities and police, and the instance of Liverpool, where the Minister has personal experience of such co-ordination working well.
Tenant bodies involved in the issues reflected in my amendment met with the Minister, and afterwards I received a copy of a letter from the Minister to them. I am, of course, very grateful for the Minister’s considerable engagement, but that letter does not address the role of the police in preventing or stopping illegal evictions before or as they happen. Where it does refer to the substance of today’s amendment, it says that the abolition of Section 21 will
“strengthen the tenants’ ability to argue that they were unlawfully forced out of their homes”.
With the greatest respect, that is very wide of the issue. It is a point for legal argument that may come up if the evicted tenant ever manages, or indeed dares, or can afford, to bring a legal claim against the landlord who put them out on the street. I remind noble Lords that we are dealing here with landlords who care little for the niceties of the law—people whom the Minister’s letter refers to as a
“small minority of unscrupulous landlords”.
But we have repeatedly been told that the purpose of the Bill is exactly to tackle these unscrupulous landlords.
This amendment has dropped reference to local authorities and focuses fully on the core legal issue. It requires a report to establish the level of understanding among tenants, landlords and the police of the criminal nature of illegal evictions and clarification of the correct legal situation, and the incorporation of that legal position and how it should be dealt with in the training of the police.
This is a modest amendment, but it is critical for those facing or experiencing illegal evictions or who feel powerless in the face of the violent actions of their landlords and find that the police seem to be against them when they should be protecting them. Not least, it is critical for police officers themselves, who are trying to follow and apply the law and do the right thing.
In Committee, I asked the Government to bring forward their own amendment to address this issue. They have chosen not to do so, instead writing to say that they are
“working towards updating the department’s guidance”.
That is simply not sufficient when we have one of the few opportunities in the Bill to address a real and terrible day-to-day experience of vulnerable renters. On this modest amendment, I believe we should stand firm. Its requirements are clear, deliverable and highly impactful on those most in need of our help through the Bill. I will, of course, listen to what the Minister says in response, but I anticipate seeking the view of the House on this amendment.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 87, 88 and 103, which I have signed. I add my thanks to the Minister, who has engaged with me on these amendments, among others in the Bill. She has always been courteous and has had good points of view.
These amendments were originally drafted by the late noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. To double-shot Lord Etherton’s efforts in this area, I signed them in Committee. The amendments have been taken over and very ably introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie.
Lord Etherton viewed this selection of amendments as being his effort to try to manage a quasi-judicial process. He was looking at it, of course, with a very practised eye, having been the Master of the Rolls. He was fully knowledgeable on the various large civil penalties that are in the Housing and Planning Act 2016, for which the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government issued a 20-page memorandum to help local authorities through this particular maze of quasi-judicial process.
The problem, as Lord Etherton saw it, was that this was not a level playing field for local authorities. The best local authorities would have plenty of highly trained resources to look into a quasi-judicial matter with great fairness, and promptly—promptness being important for both sides of any argument. However, the local authorities whose resources were most stretched or at the bottom end of the quality scale would produce problems. Lord Etherton felt that it was important to set the law in this area so that it would be not for the best or the average local authority but at a reasonably modest rate, so that every local authority could execute, with fairness, whatever quasi-judicial issues they were dealing with. Therefore, with Amendments 87 and 88, he was keen that the standard of proof should move from the balance of probabilities to beyond reasonable doubt. He felt that was more in keeping with how the Housing and Planning Act 2016 had turned out.
Moving on to Amendment 103, Lord Etherton noted that there were some large penalties in that Act, the highest penalty being £30,000. The £40,000 penalties we see in this Bill are, I suppose, simply £30,000 grossed up for inflation. He was not worried necessarily about £40,000 as an amount—it was consistent with the £30,000, as he saw it—but he was worried that, under the Housing and Planning Act 2016, the £30,000 penalties were available only where the mental element was intention and not for offences where the mental element was recklessness.
Of course, there is a great difficulty in the law for deciding what the difference is between negligence, recklessness and intention. It is very much something on which, in the judicial process, a great deal of training is given to try to allow courts and judges to be utterly consistent up and down the land so that one has clarity for negligence, recklessness and intention. Lord Etherton’s feeling was that recklessness is very difficult. The 20-page memo for the Housing and Planning Act 2016 will be considerably longer if one is going to try to educate local authorities on what “recklessness” truly means. So he was very keen to remove recklessness from Clause 93. I would be very grateful if I could hear where the Minister feels Lord Etherton was wrong in his analysis on that point.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, to which I added my name. Sadly, he is right: the police do not have sufficient knowledge about the law changes, which are now quite old. I suspect the reason is that the complaints tend to be infrequent, but of course it can be a Catch-22 because, if people do not think that their complaints will be listened to, they do not tend to make them. But, in the process, that means that the police have probably not kept pace with the law as it has changed, and with the needs of complainants.
Traditionally, the police did get involved, even in civil disputes, usually to prevent a breach of the peace, because people were worried there would be violence. Sometimes, a tenant might have access to a firearm, so there would be pre-work to make sure that that was removed from the scene so things could not get more serious.
This seems a reasonable step. I could not necessarily give the amendment that level of support in Committee because I thought there was a danger that it was directing the police to do certain things. All this tries to do is establish the level of the problem and what can be done about it so that the police perform their duty. The risk is that, at the moment, they are not.
Obviously, the amendment may or may not be accepted, but there are some fairly straightforward ways in which it could be helped. The Chief Inspector of Constabulary goes around and inspects every force every year and, if it were put on the list of things to look at, that would certainly make the police think about it. Tenants having a single point of contact within a force would mean that at least one person—or two or three people, or a department—could provide this knowledge and expertise for the officers on the street. That would be helpful. Carrying on as we are is not fair on the tenants, and it is not proper if Parliament has decided that this is a criminal act and the police have a role to play. So I support this amendment; it is a reasonable step. If the Government do not accept it, they might want to make it clear how they will address the gap.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly support Amendment 110 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Hogan-Howe. I am grateful to Safer Renting, ACORN and the Renters’ Reform Coalition for bringing this matter to our attention. My noble friends have noted that this is a milder and more focused version of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, debated in Committee, calling only for a review of the legislation that covers the duties of the police in respect of illegal evictions.
Although the amendment places a very modest obligation on the Government—namely, simply to publish a report on the position—this would be a good first step toward addressing a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs. It is clear that the laws against illegal and sometimes violent evictions are not being enforced. I see from the statistics that there were over 16,000 illegal evictions in 2022-23, and the police did not act in over 90% of cases. The underlying problem is surely not because of any malice on the part of the police officers but because of ignorance of what should be done and of the priority this should receive. The report that this amendment would elicit would clarify matters and make the recommendations that are needed to end wrongful and criminal practices by the very worst landlords. I am delighted to support the amendment.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 87, 88 and 104, as we have heard, seek to raise the burden of proof to that of the criminal standard, “beyond reasonable doubt”, from the civil standard, “on the balance of probabilities”, consistently across the Bill. All the amendments in the next group, on financial penalties, seek to lower the amount of money an enforcing council can fine a landlord. This group and the next are, to me, heads and tails of the same coin. Seen together, both sets of amendments seek to considerably help landlords by raising the standard of proof for an offence and lowering the fine if they are in breach of it. We believe that it is a naked attempt to tilt the balance massively in favour of landlords in a dispute, when the power balance is already heavily in their favour, and to deter tenants from complaining and taking action.
We do not agree with anything that undermines two of the core principles of the Bill. The first is to act as a deterrent to bad landlords. We on these Benches keep saying, as does the Minister, that good landlords have nothing to fear from the Bill, and certainly not from this aspect, but the fines have to be tough enough and the burden of proof appropriate to a civil offence. The second is to increase penalties to bring them in line with similar penalties that can be issued already by enforcement authorities against landlords who breach legislation.
I want to look specifically at the amendments. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, with their forensic legal eyes, are looking at them in a particular way. I look at the unintended consequences for tenants. Amendment 87, on raising the burden of proof, relates to families claiming benefits. Refusing to rent to someone due to their claiming benefits is unlawful. However, with high demand, this form of discrimination is really hard to prove. It is often based on verbal rather than written evidence. This amendment would therefore make it significantly more difficult for recipients of benefits to hold their landlord to account for this discriminatory practice.
Similarly, Amendment 88 relates to bidding wars. It is absolutely right that the Bill will ban bidding wars. Too often, renters are pitted against each other for a home, driving up the cost of renting in the process. It is already very hard to prove, without making it even harder by raising the burden of proof. Raising that standard of proof would make it significantly more difficult for a local authority to enforce the ban on bidding wars, especially due to the nature of the evidence in such cases.
Amendment 103 relates to the database that the Bill will set up. Noble Lords will know from Committee that I am a database believer. However, without the right data and information, such a database risks losing its utility for all tenants, prospective tenants and local authorities. This amendment would provide landlords with a lovely loophole that they could potentially exploit. It would be very difficult to prove that the landlord had knowledge of the breach they committed, and the amendment would therefore allow landlords to contravene the new regulations without fear of enforcement. I acknowledge the complexity of this amendment and look forward to the Minister’s response. To us, all these amendments seek to undermine the protections for tenants, thus we are very much against them.
Let us now be positive, by turning to Amendment 104, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. She has explained the situation very clearly and we support her fully. This is a really positive move. Amendment 104 would reduce the burden of proof for a rent repayment order where an illegal eviction has taken place on the balance of probabilities—hence the connection to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. This is important, as “beyond reasonable doubt” is the criminal standard. It is just too hard at the moment for tenants to successfully get justice. Cases involving illegal evictions and harassment are typically really hard to prove to this standard; in far too many cases, where evidence is based on the word of the applicant, it is practically impossible.
A rent repayment order is not a criminal prosecution. Cases are settled in the First-tier Tribunal; there is no jury and it does not follow criminal procedural rules. There is no criminal sentence or criminal record for the respondent. There is no legal aid available for rent repayment order claims and thus applicants are often self-represented, with little help and no legal expertise. This is again why the higher criminal burden of proof is so inappropriate for this kind of action. It is virtually a non-action, as evidenced by the low numbers of rent repayment orders that are brought.
We need to consider the very serious possibility that, with the abolition of Section 21, there will be more illegal evictions. It is therefore important that a bigger deterrent is in place. This needs to be changed to “on the balance of probabilities”. It is really important not to confuse criminal and civil offences and their parallel burdens of proof.
This takes us neatly to Amendment 110, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Best—a formidable trio. I can tell the Minister that it will take a lot of political will to withstand their arguments. Amendment 110 clearly gets our support, should the noble Lords wish to test the opinion of the House.
We know from all the arguments in Committee that less than 1% of illegal evictions are successfully prosecuted and that a major part of the problem is exactly as has been enunciated: the police view these things as a civil matter or, even worse, assist the landlord, even though it is a criminal matter under the Protection from Eviction Act, or they refuse to get involved at all. I cannot think of anything worse than being illegally evicted from what I believe to be my home, with my goods and my family. There has to be a greater awareness and more training, which is the aim of the amendment. As this view seems to be shared by many important bodies, it has real credibility.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley for their amendments. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for his comments. We all miss the late Lord Etherton very much and I am very grateful to him for all the work he did on this. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and all the tenant groups that have taken time to speak to me about the amendments in this group.
Amendments 87 and 88 would require local authorities to meet the criminal rather than civil standard of proof when imposing civil penalties for rental discrimination and rental bidding breaches. The standard of proof we have chosen for these breaches is lower than that which applies to the imposition of financial penalties for breaches of other measures brought in by the Bill. This is because, unlike those other breaches, rental discrimination and rental bidding breaches cannot lead to a criminal offence if the conduct persists. Breaches of the rental bidding and rental discrimination requirements cannot result in the landlord being prosecuted or given a civil penalty of up to £40,000, and are subject only to the lower £7,000 maximum penalty. This means the jeopardy for landlords in relation to those breaches is significantly lower than for others in the Bill.
I point out—I hope the noble Lord finds this reassuring—that local authorities already impose civil penalties based on the civil standard of proof in other legislation; for example, in their enforcement of agent redress requirements. My view since Committee has therefore not changed. I consider it appropriate that local authorities need to prove these breaches to the civil standard, “on the balance of probabilities”, rather than the criminal standard, “beyond reasonable doubt”.
On Amendment 103, the PRS database depends on landlords providing accurate information to raise standards, protect tenants and support local authority enforcement. Retaining the reference to recklessness in the current wording of Clause 93 is essential to achieve this, by preventing dishonest landlords submitting false or misleading information. I reiterate the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that good landlords have nothing to fear from this legislation.
Recklessness is not a simple mistake; it involves taking an unjustified risk, and this wording is consistent with other, similar offences, including offences under the Housing Act 2004, under which local authorities already make prosecutions.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
I am obliged to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I make a number of observations. First, I sympathise with the observations made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, about the conduct of those she identifies as criminal landlords. But before someone should be stigmatised and identified as a criminal, they should be guilty of an offence that leads to them being stigmatised as a criminal. That should not be done on a balance of probabilities.
The relevant standard of proof in regard to criminality is “beyond reasonable doubt”. Indeed, where there is uncertainty about whether conduct is civil or criminal—a point brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell—it is important to ensure either that you can make that clear distinction, or that you understand that the relevant standard of proof must be that which is fair to both parties.
I have to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, when she suggests that, where it is difficult to prove a case, you should reduce the burden of proof. The consequences of that, if developed, are very wide-ranging indeed. We know that there are many areas of criminal prosecution where it is extremely difficult to secure a conviction, but no one would suggest that it is appropriate in these circumstances simply to reduce the burden of proof.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
Given that we are not talking about criminal offences—we are talking about civil offences—and given the power imbalance between a landlord and a tenant, will the noble and learned Lord at least accept that by lowering the burden of proof we would allow the tenant to feel that they might have a voice and could possibly bring something? Otherwise, his amendment is, in effect, saying, “Well, just don’t bother. The burden of proof is too high, so please carry on with your poor behaviour”. This is civil conduct and behaviour.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
I do not accept the proposition advanced by the noble Baroness at all. In circumstances where you are going to stigmatise somebody’s conduct as criminal, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, pointed out, it is appropriate that there should be a relevant standard of proof. You are not taking away anyone’s voice in that context.
I come on briefly to deal with the helpful contributions from the Minister and in particular welcome her observation that inconsistency in legislation undermines a regime’s credibility. That is very much in point here, because I cannot accept as accurate her suggestion that you can distinguish the provisions in Clauses 41 and 58 from later provisions of the Bill on the basis that the latter lead to greater jeopardy and, as she put it, could result in a criminal offence. I merely remind noble Lords of what Clauses 67 and 92 actually say. Clause 67 says:
“A local housing authority may impose a financial penalty on a person if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person has … breached regulations under section 65(1)”—
that is not a criminal offence; it is a breach of civil regulations. Clause 92 says:
“A local housing authority may impose a financial penalty on a person if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person has … breached a requirement imposed by section 83(1), (2) or (3)”.
That is not a criminal offence. Again, what is being underlined here is the very point that the Minister wanted to avoid: the inconsistency in the legislation which is liable to undermine the regime’s credibility. It appears to me that there is a need, if nothing else, for consistency with regard to the obligations imposed by this series of provisions and regulations. I would therefore move to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 87.
Lord Keen of Elie
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, in conjunction with another amendment in the name of Lord Keen of Elie name to clause 41, imposes a uniform standard of proof – beyond reasonable doubt – where the local housing authority imposes a financial penalty.
Lord Keen of Elie
Member’s explanatory statement
This limits the local housing authority’s power to impose a financial penalty to £7,000.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 89 is to Clause 59 and addresses the question of the penalty proposed in that provision, which is £40,000. Under the amendment, that would revert to the same level of penalty for other provisions in the Bill of £7,000, on the basis that £40,000 is simply excessive.
If we are to have enforcement regarding the various provisions in the Bill, consistency and uniformity are to be welcomed. In the context of a regulatory obligation as contained in Clause 59, it is appropriate that the level of penalty should be £7,000. I beg to move.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments on the financial penalties raises the very important point of how local authorities are informed of the landlord’s breaches and hence are in a position to impose financial penalties. Without that, there can be no imposition of financial penalties. This issue was raised in our last debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, relating to police failures.
A major thrust throughout this Bill is to curb—or, rather optimistically, to stop—rogue landlords acting illegally. Therefore, we need to realistically identify the rogue landlords. It may sound trite, but they are rogues who have every intention to exploit the law to their benefit or ignore it altogether. It is no good legislating for financial penalties unless the rogue landlord’s breaches are identified and brought to the notice of local authorities so that financial penalties can be applied.
Under this Bill, commendable new schemes are being set up. First, there is the private rental sector ombudsman scheme. Secondly, there is the private rental sector database scheme. Thirdly, there are the private sector rent payment orders, otherwise known as RPOs. However, each of these schemes relies on the landlord’s breaches being reported. Moreover, if these breaches are reported to the ombudsman, it is doubtful that the ombudsman, in this entirely civil procedure, has any right to report on the landlord’s breaches to the local authorities. The major potential reporter is the wronged tenant, but history shows that wronged tenants are very reluctant, for obvious reasons, to report their landlords. The answer must therefore be to legislate sensibly and to go for measures that will be most effective against rogue landlords but do not penalise ordinary, lawful and honest landlords.
I have to say, politely and respectfully, that this is where this Bill fails. Take the example of the 12-month ban on putting properties back on the market after a failed sale or failed family occupation following evictions on grounds 1 or 1A. The rogue landlord will simply exploit this procedure, fudging dates and taking other steps. This will not provide any effective deterrent to the rogue landlord. Focusing on the wrong that is to be put right—namely, landlords raising the rent after failure of sales or failure of family occupation—my noble friend will remember that I suggested that the much better, more sensible and more directed focus is to ban all rent increases across the market after abortive sales or abortive family occupation.
Since that is a simple, across-the-board provision, rogue landlords would find it much more difficult to act in breach. Noble Lords may remember my example of a landlord having sought and obtained eviction of a tenant in order to put his parents into the property and then one of his parents has a stroke and is unable to enter it. That landlord is then left with the penal result of being unable to put the property on the market for 12 months and to collect much-needed rent. Also, it would mean property unnecessarily being unavailable on the rental market, also for a period of 12 months.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, fines must be proportionate, yet, as the Bill stands, the threshold for imposing fines on landlords is worryingly low, and the scale of those fines is notably high. This combination is troubling. Setting fines at such significant levels, in some cases representing a substantial portion of a landlord’s rental income, or even exceeding it, risks driving honest, well-meaning landlords out of the market, not because of any wilful negligence but out of fear.
I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie for leading this group from the Back Benches today and bringing two considered amendments to the attention of the House. The group continues the discussions we had in Committee, as we remain unclear on how the scale of the fines has been determined. Frankly, they appear to be arbitrary, with no transparent methodology or rationale behind them, and we would welcome clarification from the Minister on how these amounts were determined and why those particular values were chosen. Without a clear explanation, it is difficult to support their inclusion in the Bill.
Amendments 98 and 99 seek to clarify that fines should be issued only for persistent breaches. Including this in the Bill would provide much-needed reassurance. It would make it clear that significant penalties will not be levied for the first offence. That is especially important when many landlords may not be immediately aware of their new obligations, either those set out in the legislation or those introduced later through regulations. Imagine a landlord renting out a cottage for many years in their village in rural Wales. They are entirely unaware of this Bill and the proceedings of this House. They do not register on any new database, not out of malice but because they simply do not know what is required. Is it right that they should face a steep fine for this? Surely not. That is why “persistently” must be in the Bill—to protect landlords like them and ensure that the legislation is proportionate, fair and enforceable.
Ministers may say that, in practice, individuals such as in the example I have given will not be fined, and that discretion will be used and enforcement will be reasonable, but warm assurances are not enough. We need to ensure that this protection is guaranteed in law, not simply assumed in guidance or left to future interpretation. We need this clarity in the Bill, and without it, the risk remains that well-intentioned landlords—those who may simply be unaware of new requirements—could still find themselves facing disproportionate penalties.
If the Minister cannot accept the premise that we must embed this protection clearly within the legislation, I regret to say that we will be minded to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness was so quick to leap up—
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
No, I was listening to the debate and trying to get my thoughts in order. I will be very brief because, as I said on the previous group, it is clear that we will oppose anything that lowers the fines.
I am a little bit concerned about some of the attitudes towards local government that are coming out, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, from her own experiences. Local authorities have experience and expertise; they employ lawyers and solicitors, and they make sure they apply fair and proportionate responses to enforcement across a range of things and do it with consistency and uniformity. There is almost an infantilisation of local authorities, as if they want to grab lots of money from lovely, well-meaning landlords with one cottage in a little village. I say to the noble Baroness that I do not see that happening.
I see that approach to enforcement across a range of things. Even if we are changing parking rules, for example, we put a little notice on windscreens, saying, “Next week, you will get fined if you park here”. Local authorities have guidance and standards that they like to adhere to. I guess there is the odd rogue local authority, like there is the odd rogue landlord, but I do not like the way we want to have things absolutely pinned down so that local authorities can have no discretion about what they do.
The Bill is bold and radical and has new things in it that have to succeed—the database, for example, has to succeed. If the fine is not enough to deter landlords, it will be ineffective, and one of the tools that makes this transformative will have been taken away from local authorities. We have to trust local authorities. I doubt that many £40,000 fines will happen, and I guess that is why we are also calling for reviews—such things will be part of looking at that.
We certainly need to give local authorities higher financial penalties. I am quietly confident that they will not take them out on the uninformed landlord. There is also something faintly patronising about the idea of uninformed landlords. There is so much information out there and so many landlord lobbying groups that it would be surprising if they were not aware that there had been some changes. If they are astute enough to be a landlord, and a good landlord, they will be astute enough to notice that this big Renters’ Rights Bill might just have some impact on them. We will not vote for any amendment that reduces the ability of councils to impose higher fines.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment, but I want to concentrate on a slightly different aspect, which came up in the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. The noble Lord referred to the fact that rogue landlords will ignore whatever we put in the Bill, and that may well be the case, although I hope he is not accurate on that. The noble Baroness mentioned that there are people in Wales who will never have heard of the Bill but are expected to conform to the provisions in it. My question for the Minister covers both aspects. Can she at some point, whether now or later, tell us about the implementation of the Bill, so that everybody understands how it works and avoids going to court and all the other matters?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for their amendments. Amendments 89, 92 and 101 would reduce the maximum civil penalties for offences in relation to illegal evictions—
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I thank the Minister for thanking me, but I have not spoken to this amendment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think somebody must have assumed that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, was going to speak. I apologise for that.
For these reforms to be effective, they must be enforced robustly and fairly. Our approach to civil penalties is fundamental to this. Landlords who commit first-time and minor non-compliance will be subject to civil penalties of up to £7,000. However, for serious and repeat non-compliance, landlords will be subject to civil penalties of up to £40,000. The principle that local authorities can impose civil penalties for housing offences is well established. Since they were introduced in 2017, civil penalties have proved an effective enforcement tool. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. I do not think we have any need to question the professionalism of local authorities in dealing with these matters. They are more than well versed in exercising legal duties and have legal professionals to support them.
It is important to emphasise that £40,000 will be the maximum, not the norm. Local authorities will need to have a clear rationale for why they have set a civil penalty at a certain level and apply aggravating and mitigating factors. Penalties of up to £40,000 will be available only in respect of landlords who have committed serious or repeat non-compliance. Initial failure to sign up to the database, for example, will carry a penalty of only up to £7,000. However, local authorities will be able to impose a penalty of up to £40,000 if the landlord continues or repeats this conduct after being given an initial, lower penalty.
When considering whether to issue a civil penalty, local authorities are required to issue a notice of intent—a bit like the notice about parking that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, mentioned—allowing time for landlords to make representations. The local authority will need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the landlord has committed an offence. If the landlord disagrees with the imposition or amount of the penalty, they will be able to appeal to the First- tier Tribunal. This approach to civil penalties ensures efficiency for local authorities, protection for tenants, and fairness for landlords. As noted in Committee, we will also publish new guidance to help local authorities pursue civil penalties with greater consistency and effectiveness.
Amendments 98 and 99 are in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. She spoke about the scale of fines. We have increased the maximum civil penalties to take account of inflation since the £30,000 and £5,000 maximums were introduced for the similar housing offences that I referred to earlier. We want to ensure that the deterrent value of civil penalties is maintained. As I have stressed before, they are maximum penalty amounts. Local authorities will need to take into account a number of factors, such as the culpability of the landlord and the harm caused to tenants in determining the appropriate level of the civil penalty.
On the point about the single landlord in the depths of the Welsh countryside, and to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, housing is devolved in Wales, so it is a different matter altogether in Wales.
Amendments 98 and 99 would require there to be persistent breaches of certain provisions in Clause 83 or persistent offences committed under Clause 93 before the local authority could fine an individual. I appreciate that the noble Baroness is acting in good faith by laying these amendments, but they would have significant negative consequences for the effectiveness of the database. Under these amendments, individuals could avoid penalties for failing to register or knowingly or recklessly providing false information to the database operator, to name two of the relevant provisions, unless they did so persistently over a protracted period. For the database to be useful to users, it is important that as many landlords as possible register with the service. Indeed, as the noble Baroness commented in Committee:
“It is essential that the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the data be maintained if it is to be a useful resource for both tenants and for landlords”.—[Official Report, 14/5/25; col. 2219.]
I would add local authorities.
I fear that these amendments could discourage registration and reduce the quality of the data recorded by watering down the threshold at which financial penalties will be imposed. Furthermore, it would be unfair to those good landlords—the vast majority—who comply with the legislative requirements from the outset. It may create an environment where negligent landlords could escape sanction for significant periods of time, and disadvantage the compliant landlords the Bill intends to support.
I recognise that the noble Baroness is trying to protect landlords from being unduly punished. Therefore, I hope she is reassured that the level of fines is the maximum level rather than the standard. Local authorities must also be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a requirement under Clause 83 has been breached or an offence under Clause 93 has been committed before they can impose a fine. Moreover, new guidance will be published in due course to help local authorities with consistency and effectiveness.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I am obliged to all who have contributed to this aspect of the debate, and to the Minister for her explanation. On the financial provisions and our pursuant Amendments 89, 92 and 101, I will not insist on those amendments. I comment merely that, in my noble friend’s Amendments 98 and 99, it appears to be conceded that what is being addressed is persistent offences by particular rogue landlords. Therefore, it appears to me that the use of that term in the context of Clause 92 would be appropriate. I withdraw Amendment 89.
Lord Jamieson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would only require a residential landlord to be a member of the landlord redress scheme 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 to avoid duplication.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 91 would require a residential landlord to be a member of the landlord redress scheme only if their tenant does not already have access to redress through a letting agent who is a member of another approved independent scheme. The purpose of this amendment is to avoid duplication, prevent unnecessary regulatory burden, and ensure that the system remains proportionate and clear. Clarity and efficiency in regulation are not just desirable, they are essential for both compliance and effective enforcement.
In Committee, the Minister said:
“We take seriously the noble Baroness’s concerns about duplication. Careful consideration will be given, during the implementation process, as to how the PRS landlord ombudsman service will interact with the agent redress provision”.—[Official Report, 14/5/25; col. 2211.]
We fully agree that tenants should have a clear and accessible route to redress, but that route must be simple, coherent and proportionate. A system that is overly complicated by parallel and potentially overlapping redress obligations could hinder rather than help. For example, if a landlord were a member of two redress schemes, which one should the tenant apply to—or both? How would liability be determined and does this not risk delay and confusion as lawyers from both redress schemes seek to argue it out?
This amendment seeks not to water down tenants’ rights but to ensure that those rights are delivered through a streamlined, efficient system that works in practice for tenants, landlords and agents alike. Clarity here is important. I hope that the Minister agrees. I beg to move.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I will comment on Amendment 91 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. Their amendment would exempt a landlord from joining the new redress/ombudsman scheme if that landlord’s property is managed by an agent who is already a member of one of the existing redress/ombudsman schemes. I declare a past interest as chair for eight years of the Property Ombudsman, which handles complaints about agents. This amendment’s intention of avoiding duplication of membership of redress/ombudsman schemes is entirely right, otherwise the tenant is left puzzling over which ombudsman—their landlord’s or the agent’s—they should address their complaint to.
However, this amendment would not achieve the desired result. I know, from having had some responsibilities for redress in respect of managing/lettings agents, that the response from the agent to a complaint by a renter is often, “I was only doing what the landlord told me to do”. The agent may be justified in this: a renter may have requested an urgent repair and the agent did nothing, but the problem has been the landlord telling the agent that the cost is too high or the work is not needed. The intolerable delay is not the result of the agent’s negligence; it is the landlord who has held things up. These cases cannot be resolved because the landlord is not a member of any redress scheme, and that problem would persist if the landlord was exempted from having to join the new redress/ombudsman scheme.
To avoid duplication of having one redress/ombudsman scheme for landlords and one for property agents, I suggest the solution is for a single redress/ombudsman service for both. This would avoid complaints resolution being stymied and tenants being sent from pillar to post where two different ombudsman services are involved with one issue. I know the Government are still considering how best to introduce the new redress scheme for landlords in this Bill, and I recommend one port of call for tenants with a complaint. The position is already confusing, with the Housing Ombudsman providing a redress service for a few private landlords— as well as for all social landlords—and the Property Ombudsman and the separate Property Redress Scheme both providing redress schemes for property agents. Bringing in the new mandatory redress scheme for complaints about private landlords will add to the confusion for the consumer and the renter. This is a good moment to rationalise and consolidate the arrangements, but not by excluding the landlords who use an agent, which would not solve the problem.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Best. In fact, one of my lines says that there should be only one port of call. If one of the main planks of the Bill is to drive up standards, it is critical that landlords are mandated to be part of the ombudsman scheme. It should be a catch-all. Unfortunately, this amendment would allow landlords to opt out of the government redress scheme and, as has been explained, deny tenants access to redress via the national private sector ombudsman that the Bill intends to set up.
To make this advantageous move, all landlords would need to do is use a letting agent that is signed up to one of these alternative schemes. This would create a significant loophole in the legislation and deny such tenants access to redress for issues that lie solely with the landlord and not the managing agent, such as damp and mould caused by structural issues. Generation Rent’s polling found that one in three tenants has had maintenance issues in their home that they have reported but the landlord has not dealt with. This is quite a widespread problem. If we want to drive up standards, we want to make it easier for tenants to complain and landlords to comply.
In addition, if this amendment were to pass it would create more confusion, as there are currently multiple independent letting agent schemes that compete with each other, arguably creating a race to the bottom on standards. This phenomenon arguably exists to some extent with deposit protection schemes—which, incidentally, are also chosen by landlords or agents, not by renters, so the landlord will choose the one that thinks like they do or favours the way they work.
The system as proposed in the Bill seems to be the correct way forward, as making membership of an ombudsman scheme mandatory for landlords who use managing agents will mitigate a situation where a good agent—and there are good agents—tries to remedy a complaint but is reliant on an overseas landlord who refuses to engage. As well as these advantages, one ombudsman can tackle the root cause of problems, address systemic issues, provide feedback and education to all interested parties, and offer support to vulnerable consumers. Amendment 91 would dilute all these potential good impacts of the new ombudsman, reducing tenants’ ability to hold bad landlord practice and behaviour to account. I cannot think why anybody would want to do that.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for her amendment on the landlord redress scheme, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their comments.
Our new private rented sector landlord ombudsman will ensure that tenants are able to seek redress against their landlord when they have a legitimate complaint about the landlord’s action, inaction or behaviour. We are clear that landlords who use letting agents cannot delegate responsibility for their own actions or behaviours. Landlords almost always retain some responsibility for their property that cannot be passed on to agents—for example, making structural repairs in buildings. Tenants should be able to access redress if they experience issues such as this, regardless of whether their landlord uses an agent. That is why we think it is essential that both landlords and agents can be held to account for their individual responsibilities.
For landlords who have already voluntarily joined a redress scheme, once a mandatory private landlord ombudsman service is in place it will be tailored to the specific needs of the private rented sector, and those landlords will have to move to it. This will work better for the private rented sector, rather than having it mixed up with social housing. Landlords will be required to sign up to the new landlord database, and we are exploring how to align the sign-up process for this with the landlord ombudsman. That will help make it simple for landlords who are already members of an existing redress system to join the new landlord ombudsman service.
We are committed to ensuring that private residential tenants know where to complain and enjoy consistent standards of service and outcomes. Having private residential landlords as members of the same service will support this aim. We also want to ensure that, where it is not clear which scheme a tenant should complain to, there is no wrong access point for tenants. The schemes will be expected to work together to ensure that, regardless of where a tenant raises a complaint, it is effectively triaged and referred on to the right body with minimal input from the complainant.
I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns about duplication, but we will work closely with the new ombudsman and the property agent redress schemes, support them to work effectively together and ensure that the process works smoothly for both tenants and landlords. For the reasons I have set out, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw the noble Baroness’s amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for speaking on this important topic. I think we all agree that we want a system that works and is clear and easy to understand, although we seem to have some slight disagreements on how that might be best achieved. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his agreement that the current system is confusing. I am also grateful to the Minister for her response and for engaging seriously with the concerns that have been raised.
Baroness Thornhill
“(d) in respect of a landlord entry, details of any banning orders or rent repayment orders that have been made against the landlord.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Private Rented Sector database to include information on any banning orders or rent repayment orders made against a landlord, improving transparency and supporting tenant decision-making.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
Noble Lords will realise by now that I am a bit messianic about the database. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said at the end of Committee about the database, which is that much of it will be given to us in guidance and by statutory instrument. I look forward to the opportunity to contribute to that, but the reason for continuing to press this case is to put on the record just how important this is as a plank of this Bill—and how transformative it could be. So I will speak to my Amendments 94, 95 and 96 and speak against Amendment 97.
The private rented sector database presents a major opportunity to drive up standards through empowering tenants to make informed decisions before entering into a new tenancy, while giving local authorities the information they need to proactively enforce the new regulations. Those are two really important prongs.
The database will only be as useful as the information it stores. My amendments seek to ensure that it is as useful as possible. It is probably my shopping list of things that I would like to see, but I am sure that interested bodies and people other than myself will be putting into that further guidance and further information.
Renters will not be reading it in bed at night, or on holiday; they will look for it when searching for a new home. If it has useful information that helps them make informed choices—such as, past enforcement actions taken against the landlord in question, accessibility features of the home or rent levels for similar properties in the area—they will be able to choose a home that is right for them. For example, a recent Generation Rent survey found that more than three-quarters of renters would support including any prior prosecutions of a landlord on the database, as per my Amendment 94. Having this information will help foster more of the long, stable tenancies that both renters and landlords alike want, while discouraging landlords from attempting to sidestep the Bill or exploit tenants. Furthermore, renters who have used the database will tell their family and friends about it. In my experience, this kind of word-of-mouth marketing is the most effective.
My Amendment 96 would ensure that actual rents are recorded on the database. The Government have put much trust in the First-tier Tribunal, protecting renters from unaffordable rent hikes. At the moment, however, the tribunal uses advertised rents to see whether a rent increase is fair. Often, these are inflated and could become even more so with the end of bidding wars. So, recording actual rents will allow the tribunal and tenants to have a better understanding of the local market.
The issue of local authority finances has been debated many times as the Bill has progressed. We are right to be concerned about their capacity to proactively enforce the Bill. Having key information in one place, such as Section 8 eviction notices, as per my Amendment 95, would be a massive help to enforcement when the Bill comes into action—cutting out much of the proactive fact-finding work that local authorities often lack the capacity to do.
Outside the renting process, the database could also be of use to both national and local policy-making. Recording rents, for example, would help inform national decisions on housebuilding and crack down on landlords’ tax avoidance, which the think tank TaxWatch estimates to be as high as £1.7 billion a year.
We oppose Amendment 97, to limit costs related to the database, given that some areas of the Act inevitably may turn out to need more enforcement than others. It makes sense for the Government to have some wriggle room to set some costs at a later date. The legislation’s success relies heavily on enforcement, and therefore having the ability to raise funds through the database feed written into primary legislation is an important mechanism in case it is needed in future to cover costs, such as an awareness campaign or guidance and training to tenants and landlords.
Finally, I will end on a positive note. Much of this debate often pits landlords against renters, seeing the issue like a see-saw. But findings from Generation Rent’s survey of its supporters in April this year found that the more information about a landlord that renters have, the better their relationship with them. Nearly a quarter of renters who had a direct contact line to their landlord rated them five out of five, compared with fewer than one in 10 of those who did not. With the right information, the database will help foster more of these relationships. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her expansive and constructive thinking on what more the database could do to support a rental market that works fairly and effectively for both landlords and tenants alike. During Committee, we had a thoughtful and wide-ranging discussion about the purpose, function and future potential of this database, and many noble Lords suggested that it could, and perhaps should, do more. I agree: in time, that may well be prudent. But, from my experience as a Minister, I have learned the value of taking one step at a time. Let us focus first on getting this system up and running and getting it right.
I am very much reminded of the Second Reading of the pensions Bill in the other place. When the Minister, Torsten Bell, began to explain its provisions, he was met with laughter from both sides of the House. The joke was all in very good faith and the Minister joined in at the moment, but it speaks to a deeper truth. We cannot allow this database to become the next pensions dashboard—a project weighed down by scope creep and plagued by delay. So, although I welcome the noble Baroness’s ambitious vision and her efforts to think beyond the immediate text of the Bill, we must begin with the basics, especially if additional functionality comes at the cost of higher system complexity and, crucially, higher financial burdens on those who provide rental homes to millions across this country.
That brings me to Amendment 97, which concerns limited relevant costs. This cannot become a system that imposes unlimited and never-ending costs on landlords. They need certainty—clear and reliable reassurance from the Government—that relevant costs will not spiral every time a new Minister has a bright idea.
It is that word again—balance—and I know that noble Lords are probably sick of hearing it by now, but it remains the guiding principle. We must strike the right balance between the cost of this system and the functions that it is expected to perform. Only then can we ensure that the database succeeds, not just in theory but in practice, for those who depend on it. Despite this, I will not seek to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 97.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott, for their amendments concerning the database. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for all the thought and work she has put in and the assistance she has given us to aid our thinking around what may or may not be in the database. I appreciate that the intention behind Amendment 94 is to empower tenants with more information and to support their decision-making before they decide to rent a property. As the noble Baroness helpfully outlined in Committee, that forms part of a broader and more ambitious vision for the database. We need to ensure that the database is helpful to both landlords and tenants.
I hope that the noble Baroness is pleased that Clause 84 mandates that we will indeed record banning orders on the database. This clause specifies that we will record relevant banning order offences and related financial penalties on the database. We intend to make this offence information available to the public, using the regulations set out in Clause 87. Furthermore, the Bill includes the regulation-making power at Clause 84(6) for the database to record other housing-related offences committed by landlords. We will specify which offences will be recorded through secondary legislation, but I hope the noble Baroness is encouraged to hear that rent repayment orders are among those we are actively considering for inclusion.
Our approach to recording offences will consider the necessity and proportionality of recording this information, alongside making sure, of course, that it complies with data protection and human rights legislation. We need to give that careful consideration as well. As we discussed in Committee, we intend to retain flexibility regarding the information the database records and makes public, so that it can evolve in response to the changing needs of the sector, including those of tenants and landlords—enough information to be helpful but not so much that only Torsten Bell can understand what is on it.
Amendment 95 seeks to record historical Section 8 notices on the database to enhance tenant awareness and promote responsible landlord practices. I recognise that this would be a positive addition to improve the database and help it be a driver of higher standards and tenant protection, built on comprehensive and reliable foundations, so I thank the noble Baroness for the thoughtful amendment. The Government are currently considering recording possession information on the database and whether that information should be made available to the public. Any decision on what information will be recorded on the database has to take into account both the benefits and the burdens for different users, and we will ensure that the information collected remains necessary and proportionate.
As the noble Baroness will be aware from our previous conversations about what information the database will record, we place significant importance on the flexibility of the database for future circumstances. We therefore believe that the information collected on the database should be set out in secondary legislation, as stated in Clause 78.
Amendment 96 aims to make the commencement of rent and historical rent increase information visible on the database, to improve transparency for prospective tenants and support informed decisions in the private rented market. The Government are still considering whether to collect rent data on the database. However, we recognise the potential value the information could provide to tenants, by allowing a more informed rental experience. We are also aware that other government departments and bodies, such as HMRC and the NAO, may find this data useful. We believe, however, that for the database to remain flexible, the information it collects should be specified through regulations.
Amendment 97 would restrict the calculation of PRS database fees to be set with reference to costs associated with the operation and enforcement of the database only, not by reference to the costs of wider PRS enforcement activity. I appreciate the need to keep the fee at a manageable level and to justify any new costs to landlords. However, I draw the noble Baroness’s attention to what we have heard in previous debates regarding the challenges that local authorities face in resourcing their enforcement actions.
We believe it is appropriate that, as far as possible, costs of enforcement should be met by those individuals who break the rules. However, a well-regulated and well-enforced PRS benefits all good landlords, as well as tenants, and clearly local authorities must be properly resourced to achieve this. This clause provides Ministers with the option of using a proportion of fee income to provide revenue to fund private rented sector enforcement activities beyond those relating to the database.
As I have set out previously, database fees will be determined and fixed at a later point, via secondary legislation. I assure noble Lords that fee calculations will be reasonable and will bear in mind the cost to landlords, among other factors. Given what we have heard about the importance of local authority resourcing, I do not think it would be prudent to limit the calculation and use of database fees in this way.
I thank the noble Baroness for saying that she will not press her amendment, and ask the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I am nothing if not a realist, but I am glad to have pursued this to this stage, because the Minister has just given me some very serious reassurances about what will be included in the database. I am particularly pleased to hear about the consideration of rent repayment orders. I urge the Government to think again about rent collection—because rent is the big issue—and perhaps about how the database can help.
However, I am under no illusion that all these proposals, processes and functions will need further discussion, particularly with regard to human rights and legal matters. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that we need to get this right and to begin with the basics. I look forward to the Minister giving us some sort of timeline, perhaps, and working with the secondary legislation. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow a financial penalty to be imposed only for persistent breaches.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I have no confidence in the response I had from the Minister on my Amendment 98 that landlords would be protected in law against unfair fines. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make the Decent homes standard apply to all homeless temporary accommodation provided under the Housing Act 1996.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. My wife and I own one apartment; it is in the West Midlands, and it is let out. Nothing in this amendment or any others in this group would provide me with any advantage that I can foresee.
Amendment 105 seeks to extend the decent homes standard to temporary accommodation. As I said in Committee—and hence I can be extremely brief today—those in temporary accommodation are among the most vulnerable in our society. They are already battling against major disadvantages, and being placed in properties that fail the standard simply adds to their burden.
There are now over 150,000 children living in temporary accommodation, a number that continues to rise remorselessly. Often, these young people may be many miles from their school and are struggling in inadequate space to study for exams whose results will affect the rest of their lives. The very word “temporary” is something of a misnomer. It is not uncommon for such residence to last beyond a year. If any households need the protection of decent housing, it is these.
Baroness Grender (LD)
There are three amendments in my name in this group, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, for putting their names to Amendment 106. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his wisdom and support, as ever, and the Minister for the many meetings she has held on this and other matters. We on these Benches are supportive of the other two amendments in this group and look forward to hearing the government response to both.
Amendment 106 is a crucial and necessary addition to the Bill that speaks to our fundamental duty to those who sacrifice so much for our nation’s security: the application of the decent homes standard to Ministry of Defence accommodation. We on these Benches have pushed votes on amendments sparingly because we support the Government bringing forward this long-awaited and much-needed legislation to reform the private rented sector. But it is imperative that we do not leave any group behind, especially dedicated military personnel and their families.
This Government have already taken welcome first steps: the landmark deal in January to bring 36,000 military homes back into public ownership; the launch of a new defence housing review in February; and the April announcement of a new consumer charter for forces family housing. These are all positive developments but they are not enshrined in law, and this Bill is the opportunity to do just that. They are policy pledges, subject to the whim of goodness knows what future Governments, changes in ministerial priorities or economic pressures. The housing and morale of our Armed Forces should not remain dependent on policy changes alone.
The current state of service accommodation is in many cases unacceptable. There have been persistent reports of damp, mould, rats, inadequate maintenance and poor communication. Satisfaction levels with service family accommodation fell to their lowest reported levels in 2023. The Defence Select Committee has reported that one-third of single living accommodation and two-thirds of service family accommodation is essentially no longer fit for purpose. Reports have shown that service families were badly let down for many years under past housing contracts. This deplorable situation impacts recruitment and retention within our Armed Forces, undermining our national security in a time of global uncertainty.
Applying the decent homes standard through the Renters’ Rights Bill would provide a clear, legally binding benchmark for acceptable housing quality for service family accommodation. It would ensure accountability and establish a right to a decent home for those who serve our nation. They deserve homes fit for heroes, and Amendment 106 would be a vital step towards making that a reality.
This continues the work of Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson Helen Maguire MP in the House of Commons. She is a former captain of the Royal Military Police who served in both Bosnia and Iraq, and she has tirelessly campaigned to ensure that MoD housing is included under the decent homes standard. Her experience, first-hand understanding of military life and dedication to our service personnel is invaluable. The Kerslake Commission report—we miss Lord Kerslake so much—Homes Unfit for Heroes, commissioned by John Healey MP, has laid bare how poor the standards in military housing are.
Amendment 106 would directly build upon and reinforce the work of both Helen Maguire MP and the recommendations of the Kerslake Commission. It moves beyond mere acknowledgement of the problem and the setting of targets, seeking to legally enforce the standards our service families deserve. The Minister has previously argued that this amendment is unnecessary because this approach is not right for service family accommodation, due to unique challenges such as access to secure sites. We have therefore set out in Amendment 109 some of the detail that could be added to the Bill to reflect these obstacles and considerations.
Amendment 119 is consequential on Amendment 109. I will not test the House on either of those, but they do provide some of the detail on how this could be done. However, if the Government do not accept Amendment 106 or some other tangible and strong process, I do intend to test the opinion of the House. Pride in our Armed Forces must mean pride in how we house them. We owe it to them to guarantee in the strongest possible terms that their homes meet a basic, dignified standard. This change would be a powerful and lasting declaration of our commitment to our service personnel and their families, and they deserve nothing less.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 106, to which I have attached my name. For decades now, I have seen at close hand the deficiencies in service families’ accommodation. They range from an inability to get things fixed to serious problems with damp and mould. They are always irritating, and too often disgraceful. For years, I have listened to successive Governments undertake to get to grips with the issue. For decades, I have seen them fail to do so, not because they do not care—of course they care—but because of budgetary constraints, institutional inefficiencies, bureaucracy and other organisational issues.
I served in the military for 43 years and I have been out of it for nearly 15; and yet, the problems persist. So why should I, or anybody who comes after me, put any faith in any Government’s promises that are not backed up by enforceable measures? We have been told that we should not worry too much, because 90% of service families’ accommodation meets or exceeds the decent homes standard already. Well, even if that is so, does the Minister think that one in 10 service families living in substandard accommodation is acceptable? I do not. Perhaps she could clarify that point later.
In the debate in another place, the Government maintained, as we have heard, that this amendment is impracticable because there would be problems with local authorities gaining access to service families’ accommodation behind the wire on military sites. We debated this very issue during the passage of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, when the Government saw no difficulties with civilian officials gaining access to sites behind the wire that are much more sensitive than service families’ accommodation. Frankly, this kind of bureaucratic brush-off is not worthy of such a serious debate on such a serious issue.
I refer the Minister to the recent strategic defence review, the conclusions of which have been accepted by the Government. It says that the
“transformation of UK Defence must ultimately be delivered by its people … Targeted intervention is needed to tackle Defence’s workforce crisis”,
including
“prioritised investment … in accommodation that falls well short of the standards required”.
In the context of the future security of this country, can the Minister explain to the long-suffering families of service personnel why they are not entitled to the same formal protection being accorded to renters in the civilian sector? I think she will find that extraordinarily difficult to do. If we are forced to divide on this issue, I trust that the House will send a message loud and clear to those people that they are entitled to that protection and much more besides.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. I put my name to Amendment 106 because of my experience in representing the Armed Forces in a previous role in the other place. Also, to be candid, I am sure that several of us have had family members in the Armed Forces over the years. It has always struck me that if it is good enough for social housing, and good enough for private rented housing, as is being put in through the Bill, why on earth is it not good enough for the homes of our brave men and women who put their lives on the line every time they don that Armed Forces uniform?
Furthermore, in my experience, undoubtedly the quality of housing—I will not pretend it is homogenous; right across the country, some fantastic new accommodation is being built—is unfortunately a key factor in why people leave the Armed Forces. I will use the example of Rock Barracks, home to 23 Parachute Engineers, just outside Woodbridge. That is the kind of base where people are not there for lifetime basing. The strategy going ahead is that once people are part of a lifetime base, they might be able to buy their own home rather than be necessarily in Armed Forces accommodation. That does not happen with some of these specialist regiments. Actually, the base commander was one of the people who invited me in when I was getting letters from constituents who were really irritated about what was going on in their homes and how it was taking time to be fixed.
Of course, that can be fixed with a better company, but the key point here is that putting this into legislation not only gives reassurance to our soldiers and officers who are thinking about their families—they should not even have to think about what is going on with their families while they are abroad—but gives the families the assurance that they can have a very clear legal expectation about the state of their homes and what should be done if they are not in that state.
Going further, welfare is of course an element in the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, and I think the Government have talked about housing. But the legislation specifically refers to matters where the Secretary of State can specify, and if it is believed that these matters might go against the safety of somebody or against national security, the commissioner can be stopped from investigating. Frankly, we all know how long it takes to get a commissioner to do anything. It is better to have the high standard in the first place. I am very conscious that the Government may try to say, “Things will be better in the future”. I am in a position now to say that enough is enough. We will be very happy if the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, pushes this to a Division; I will certainly be in the voting Lobbies with her this afternoon.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 106A in this group. I also echo fully the support for Amendments 106, 109 and 119, which is consequential, from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. I thank the right reverend Prelate for his support as well.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, first, I support Amendment 105, from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I am very glad to support him; he and I have worked together quite a lot on homelessness in York, where some noble Lords assisted us to make sure that those who were homeless could get a house where they would have a bed and a little kitchen, so that they had a bit of independence. The standard that we expect for others ought to be given to the homeless as well.
I also support Amendment 106, movingly spoken to by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. When we had a debate in your Lordships’ House on the duty of having regard to the covenant, I told your Lordships a story; I think some of you were not here, and if you have forgotten, I can remind you—I will be very brief. A gentleman who had survived in Afghanistan in the Parachute Regiment returned to Yorkshire. He had been injured, and therefore could not go back to service. He visited four widows who had already been rehoused out of service accommodation because their husbands had died in the line of duty. Their accommodation, they said, was not any better than it had been in the service, so he said, “We should make the point very clearly by having a parachute jump”. At my age, people were advising me not to do it, but we did it, and we landed. When I got home, there was a retired soldier who had just sold his business. He was the first to give to this fundraising for four houses for widows. He gave £50,000 pounds. Of course, the amount went up, and I am very grateful to all those people who supported us.
If there is a duty in the covenant, it should apply to all our service personnel, and their accommodation ought to be as good as the instruments they use when they go to war. There is a similar story of the Yorkshire Regiment, where widows were put into accommodation that was not suitable. It breaks your heart. We signed a covenant, if your Lordships remember, to all the people who are in the service—Army, Air Force and others—that we have a duty to support them. This amendment is a challenge to all of us: we passed that covenant and we had better show up.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I speak to this group on the decent homes standard, a commitment to ensure that all tenancies, regardless of tenure or circumstance, have access to safe, healthy and secure housing. In particular, I turn to Amendments 106 and 119, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. She, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and my noble friend Lady Coffey highlighted the persistent and ongoing issues that military and service accommodation faces.
We are in no doubt that those who serve our country and whose families bear the burdens of that service deserve decent homes. It is regrettable that, despite the application of the decent homes standard to military housing on a non-statutory basis since 2017, serious concerns persist about the condition and upkeep of military accommodation. These amendments offer Parliament an opportunity to reaffirm that military and service families should not be left behind.
We therefore welcome the commitments made in the strategic defence review on 2 June 2025, in which the Government announced an additional £1.5 billion in funding for our service family accommodation, bringing a total investment of £7 billion. Alongside this, the development of a new defence housing strategy and consumer charter, including timelines for repairs, named housing officers and a strengthened complaints process, is a step in the right direction. But such undertakings must be matched by effective and timely delivery. We would be grateful for greater clarity from the Minister on when the additional investment will begin to make a difference on the ground; what time- frame the Ministry of Defence has set for the implementation of these reforms; and how progress will be assessed, monitored and reported back to Parliament. Commitments of this scale demand not only ambition but accountability. Our Armed Forces and their families deserve more than expressions of appreciation; they deserve action and results. These amendments speak to that imperative, and that is why we are pleased to support them.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Altmann, for their amendments regarding the decent homes standard. I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, for his experience and knowledge, which he showed in his contribution. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson.
Amendment 105 would take away the power of Ministers to set out in regulations the types of temporary homelessness accommodation that the decent homes standard would apply to. I completely understand the sentiment and intent behind these amendments. The Government intend to apply the decent homes standard to as much temporary accommodation as possible. Indeed, the consultation that we launched on the decent homes standard, which was published on 2 July and closes on 10 September, makes this very clear and asks for further information on it.
As I said in Committee, we have to strike the right balance between improving standards and avoiding risk to supply. Given the pressure on local authorities, which we all understand, there is sometimes no choice but to use forms of temporary accommodation, such as commercial hotels. It may not be possible for this to meet all decent homes standard requirements—for example, where there are no kitchen facilities. We want to avoid a situation where applying the decent homes standard could mean that such accommodation can no longer be used, even where there is no alternative, as this could make things worse for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, not better. Of course, the long-term solution is to provide a much greater quantity of affordable housing. In the meantime, we have to make sure we do not shut off vital resources to local authorities.
I hope that the right reverend Prelate is reassured by the Government’s intention to apply the decent homes standard to as much temporary accommodation as possible and to deliver the affordable housing that we know we need to solve the problem in the longer term, and that he recognises that the most practical way to make this change to the decent homes standards is through a regulation-making power. I therefore ask that he withdraw his amendment.
Amendment 106 would bring Ministry of Defence service family accommodation within the scope of the decent homes standards measures in the Bill, including enforcement of this standard by local authorities. No one, especially me, is going to disagree that those who defend our country deserve to live in decent homes. As I said in Committee, the Government absolutely recognise that action is required to tackle the poor state of forces’ housing. That is why we are already taking decisive steps to remedy the situation that we have inherited— I gently remind the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, that their party was in government just over a year ago, and we inherited this situation from them.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Ministry of Defence has concluded a landmark deal to bring military housing back into public ownership. It is also developing a defence housing strategy, which will be published later this year, that will set out further steps to bring about a renewal of military housing to restore it to the quality housing that we all want to see for our armed services.
As my right honourable friend John Healey, the Secretary of State for Defence—and a great expert on housing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, acknowledges—said in his Statement to the other place on the strategic defence review,
“we will invest £7 billion of funding during this Parliament for military accommodation, including £1.5 billion of new money for rapid work to deal with the scandal of military family homes”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/6/25; col. 53.]
He has also announced a consumer charter that will introduce new consumer rights for families in military homes. The Defence Secretary is instructing the MoD to immediately plan improvements to enhance service family homes after the years of neglect from which they have suffered. Improvements set out in the charter will be in place by the one-year anniversary of the announcement to buy back military homes, made last December, with the final detail to be shared in the defence housing strategy later this year.
In relation to standards, the MoD already uses the decent homes standard as a benchmark and applies its own decent homes-plus standard as the target standard for service family accommodation. The MoD is reviewing this standard in line with recommendations from the Kerslake review and the House of Commons Defence Committee.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I thank my former boss, my noble and right reverend friend Lord Sentamu, for his support. His passion on all matters that concern those in the greatest need in our society is well known in your Lordships’ House. I thank him for demonstrating it once again today.
I thank the Minister for her response to my amendment. I think that we are not very far apart. With those reassurances, I will not press the matter any further. I will leave it for the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, to say whether she too is satisfied with the response to her amendments. The case for our military families remains compelling. If the House divides on Amendment 106, I shall be voting with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. But, with that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Grender
“(iii) that is provided by the Ministry of Defence for use as service family accommodation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would extend the Decent Homes Standard to service family accommodation.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated. There is no doubt on these Benches about the sincerity of the intentions of Minister John Healey. However, we believe that enshrined in law is the right way to proceed. We heard some eloquent arguments from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, about behind the wire inspections and what is feasible. Therefore, I would like to press this matter. We have pressed very few matters from these Benches, because we are behind the Bill a great deal, but on this occasion we wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Shipley
“Use of licence conditions to improve housing conditionsIn section 90(1) of the Housing Act 2004 (licence conditions), for “the management, use or occupation of the house concerned” substitute “all or any of the following—(a) the management, use and occupation of the house concerned, and (b) the condition and contents of the house concerned.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable local authorities operating selective licensing schemes to use licence conditions to improve housing conditions.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 107, I will also speak to Amendment 108. These amendments would remove unnecessary barriers to the use of licensing schemes to improve housing standards. Licensing raises housing standards: it can help to regenerate areas that are blighted by poor housing and other social problems. Licensing provides a means for local authorities to inspect privately rented housing using enforceable conditions, and to identify and resolve problems without the need for tenants to have complained.
Licensing schemes pay for themselves through the fees that are charged and enable local authorities to target regulation where it is most needed: in other words, at tackling the worst landlords and supporting the most vulnerable tenants. My amendments would remove unnecessary barriers to the effectiveness of licensing schemes and increase the maximum duration of schemes from five years to 10 years.
Amendment 107 would permit local authorities operating selective licensing schemes to use licence conditions to improve the physical state of the licensed properties. It would remove a peculiar disconnect in current legislation, highlighted by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, whereby local authorities are permitted to introduce selective licensing schemes to address poor housing but are not permitted to include in the licences themselves conditions requiring the physical state of the licensed properties to be improved. The amendment would give local authorities the same discretion in relation to the licence conditions used in selective licensing schemes as they already have in relation to licence conditions used in additional HMO licensing schemes.
In Committee, the Government implied that the introduction of a decent homes standard and Awaab’s law to the private rented sector will make this amendment unnecessary. However, I do not accept that view. Neither the decent homes standard nor Awaab’s law will remove the need for local authorities to be able to use licence conditions to deal proactively with general disrepair in areas with poor housing conditions.
There are four reasons why the decent homes standard will not remove the need for local authorities to be able to use licence conditions in this way. First, when licence conditions are in place, if a breach of these conditions is proved, local authorities can serve a civil penalty notice on the landlord without first having to issue an improvement notice and/or take other action that involves unnecessary delay. However, they will be able to do this for breaches of the proposed decent homes standard only in more serious cases—possibly only where there is a serious and immediate risk to a person’s health and safety—and only where they can prove that the landlord has failed to take reasonably practicable steps to address the issue. Licence conditions would therefore give landlords a much stronger incentive than the decent homes standard to address general disrepair.
Secondly, the enforcement of licence conditions can be funded by licence fees. The cost of enforcing the decent homes standard will fall on council tax payers. In practice, therefore, the use of licence conditions would lead to local authorities undertaking a much higher level of enforcement.
Thirdly, licence conditions give local authorities a clear justification as well as sufficient funding for entering properties to carry out inspections without the tenant having complained. It seems likely that, outside of licensing schemes, the vast majority of inspections under the decent homes standard will be in response to complaints. Fourthly, licence conditions could deal with items of disrepair that would be difficult to address using the decent homes standard.
With regard to Awaab’s law, it will not remove the need for local authorities to be able to use licence conditions to deal proactively with general disrepair in areas with poor housing conditions. The enforcement of Awaab’s law will depend on the ability and willingness of tenants themselves to seek redress and ultimately to take legal action through the courts. It is often difficult for tenants to use legal remedies themselves; areas with poor housing conditions contain many poor and vulnerable tenants, who are particularly badly placed to do so. Licensing would clearly be a much better way of targeting support at them.
Amendment 108 would permit local authorities to implement longer additional HMO licensing schemes and selective licensing schemes without repeating the time-consuming and expensive designation process. Local authorities introduced these schemes to bring about large-scale improvements, but those are unlikely to be fully achieved within five years. This amendment would allow them to advertise longer-term posts for staff and to include training of new staff in these schemes. It would also provide more time for local partnerships formed through such schemes—for example, to resolve anti-social behaviour—to become embedded and effective.
The Government suggested in Committee that a maximum duration for licensing schemes of five years strikes the right balance between the needs of local authorities and the needs of landlords. But that does not take proper account of the time and money wasted through councils being unnecessarily required to repeat the designation process.
In conclusion, the removal of these unnecessary barriers to the effectiveness of licensing schemes would make a major contribution to the regeneration of some of the most deprived areas of the country. A new general approval to establish selective licensing areas came into effect last December, and local authorities are no longer required to obtain confirmation from the Secretary of State before implementing a selective licensing scheme of any size. That is most welcome, but it needs to be accompanied with the powers identified in my amendments, and I hope the Government will now understand the importance of them. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for bringing these two amendments once again to the attention of the House. However, we on these Benches do not consider them to be necessary. We recognise and wholeheartedly share the noble Lord’s ambition to see housing conditions improved. When I was in government, I was proud to support the decent homes standard and helped to lay the groundwork for what has now become Awaab’s law. The Government’s approach should be focused on delivering tangible improvements to living conditions. This includes tackling poor-quality housing wherever it exists, not slowly within selective licensing areas.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his amendments on licensing schemes. On Amendment 107, we share the noble Lord’s desire to improve housing conditions, and we have always been clear that all renters deserve safe, secure and good-quality homes. That is why we are introducing a decent homes standard and Awaab’s law to drive reform and improve conditions across the sector. I acknowledge the work that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, did on Awaab’s law when we were on different sides of the House. As discussed in Committee, we think this is the right approach so that all renters and local authorities are able to challenge and address poor-quality homes, not just those in selective licensing areas.
On Amendment 108, we believe that licensing schemes are crucial in helping local authorities tackle specific issues and improve standards. We also think that local authorities are best placed to make decisions regarding the use of these enforcement tools in their local areas. That is why, at the end of last year, we removed the requirement to obtain Secretary of State approval to introduce larger selective licensing schemes. However, we know that licensing schemes also place additional responsibilities on landlords. Local authorities must therefore keep schemes under review so that they remain proportionate and targeted at delivering the intended outcomes.
As discussed in Committee, a maximum duration of five years for schemes achieves the right balance. It gives local authorities time to assess the effectiveness of schemes while providing landlords with assurance that they will not be subject to increased regulation for extended periods. Where issues in the private rented sector persist after a scheme has ended, a local authority may introduce a new scheme to take further action, provided that the statutory criteria are still met. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for their comments. We clearly have a difference of opinion about the importance of selective licensing and the future operation of the decent homes standard. The Government have accepted the importance of selective licensing schemes because, in December, they removed the requirement for Secretary of State approval, as the Minister just said.
I am reluctant to press Amendments 107 and 108 to a Division because, clearly, the House will vote against them, and I think that would not be helpful in the current situation. Both Front Benches of the two largest parties in this Chamber have indicated their opposition to them, so any Division that I moved would be lost.
It is important for me to withdraw the amendment because two pieces of work are going on in the House of Commons on this matter. One is the consultation on the decent homes standard that the Government are undertaking, which the Minister referred to a moment ago. Also, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee is taking evidence on housing conditions generally in England. It will be important for the government consultation and the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee to take the evidence from our debate on these amendments to see the concerns that I and professional bodies have been expressing about the importance of selective licensing in driving up housing standards in the private rented sector, as well as in the public sector more generally.
In the hope that there will be sufficient good will around the Chamber to allow this debate to be referred to the bodies now undertaking consultation, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 107.
Lord Cromwell
“Offences under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977: report(1) The Secretary of State must publish a report about the application of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, including—(a) an assessment of the level of understanding among tenants, landlords, and the police about the criminal nature of offences under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977,(b) a plan to increase awareness about the nature of offences under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 among groups in paragraph (a),(c) a clarificatory statement about the nature of offences under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 which tenants, landlords and the police can use as a reference, (d) the reasonable steps which the police should take to prevent such offences being committed, and(e) the training and relevant reference materials which must be made available to all police officers to support the discharge of their duties under this section and the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.(2) The report under subsection (1) must be published within six months of the day on which this Act is passed and must be laid before Parliament.”
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I thank all those who spoke in support of this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, was very candid in his acknowledgement—he is on his way here, I believe—of the issue with the police’s application of the 1997 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Best, underlined the need for clarification and the achievable nature of this amendment. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her kind support for the amendment and what she rather charmingly called the “formidable trio” who were putting it forward.
Finally, I thank the Minister for her comments, which I listened to with care. I have to say that her assurance that, if I may quote, she or her department is “actively working” to “explore” with a number of various bodies what to do is, I am afraid, not good enough. It is clear what needs to be and what should be done within the next six months, which would solve the core issue here: the correct understanding and application of the 1997 Act to do right by vulnerable tenants, target rogue landlords and support the police in the correct performance of their duties. For that reason, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name which would add the new subsection (3A) to this clause.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, government Amendments 111, 112 and 113 to Section 239 of the Housing Act 2004 and Clause 126 of the Renters’ Rights Bill amend the requirements for entering premises without a warrant for the purposes of certain enforcement action. Notice to the property owner or landlord will now be provided after the entry has taken place, within a reasonable amount of time, rather than at least 24 hours before. The 24-hours prior notice requirement for tenants and occupiers will remain, so residents will always be aware that a power of entry is going to be exercised, whether that is under Section 239 of the Housing Act 2004 or Clause 126 of the Bill.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for raising this issue in Committee. We have given considerable thought to his proposal, as well as to feedback from local authorities. Local authorities have told us that providing notice can result in unscrupulous landlords hiding evidence of breaches, intimidating tenants, and temporarily fixing issues before reverting to non-compliance. We recognise that landlords will want to be aware of any inspection, and indeed the outcome of the inspection. The local authority will therefore need to provide notice after the inspection has taken place and engage with the landlord about any issues raised as a result.
We have heard, throughout the passage of this Bill, about the importance of local housing authorities having the right resources and tools to enforce. Making this change will make a real difference in their ability to address unsafe or hazardous living conditions more promptly and tackle unscrupulous landlords. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments. I declare my interest: I own, with my wife, one apartment in the West Midlands. It will not help me in any way if this amendment is passed, but I still think it is the right thing to do, for exactly the reasons that the Minister has given—ones that I myself pressed in Committee. I am very grateful to her and her colleagues for meeting with me in the meantime, and for taking up the amendment at this stage. I urge noble Lords, if these matters are put to a Division of the House, to support the government amendments.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, we supported the right reverend Prelate in Committee and will support the Government now. In my experience, a local authority takes very seriously whether it decides to enforce an entry and go into a property. Again, we are not talking about the nice little cottage or the cottage belonging to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking; we are talking about properties where bad stuff goes on, where modern slavery can be happening, where people are refugees and people are living in appalling conditions.
There is no way we would support saying, “Cooee, rogue landlord, we’re just letting you know that we’re coming in 24 hours”. There has to be an opportunity at this extreme end of enforcement to be able to make a surprise snap inspection. I am glad that the Government have listened to that. Of course there need to be safeguards, but I think this is another of those instances where the good landlords need not fear. The right reverend Prelate need not worry about his flat in the Midlands, because I cannot imagine that they are going to be dashing in at six in the morning. Because of some of the extreme things that happen in our country, sadly, the power needs to exist and therefore we will support the Government.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments concerns powers of entry, particularly in relation to notices served to landlords and occupiers under Clauses 126 and 135. The amendments in the name of the Minister seek to make targeted changes to when and how notice must be given before entry is exercised by local authorities under their enforcement powers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, makes the case via the “extreme end” of the spectrum. The extreme end of modern slavery and other criminal activities, I do believe, might just be a police matter. This is dealing, rightly, with things that may need enforcement. The notice would be given to the tenant, but owners have rights such as also being given notice, not retrospective written notice after entry has taken place.
On these Benches we have consistently supported effective enforcement, but it needs to be proportionate, accountable and clearly justified. The balance between enforcement and individual rights is delicate, and changes to that balance demand close scrutiny. Government Amendment 111 may appear a consequential provision linked to wider changes proposed in other amendments in this group, but together they are not technical amendments. These amendments, brought to this House so late in the process, underpin a significant shift in approach, one that removes long-standing procedural protections for landlords and residents without adequate explanation or assurance.
These changes introduce ambiguity into what should be a tightly regulated area of enforcement. They risk undermining trust in local authority investigations and could lead to a greater number of legal challenges, confusion and even misuse. We cannot and will not support provision that weakens accountability without offering clear safeguards in return. Powers of entry are intrusive by their nature. If they are to be exercised without prior warning, there must be rigorous justification, robust checks and balances and explicit limits to prevent overreach. That bar has not been met.
We also have deep reservations about government Amendment 113, which proposes similar changes in relation to Section 239 of the Housing Act 2004. Again, the proposed move from prior notification to retrospective notice raises serious concerns, particularly in the absence of a defined threshold for when such unannounced entry would be deemed necessary or proportionate.
This Bill is an opportunity to rebuild confidence across the housing system, but confidence rests on fairness. These amendments risk tipping the balance too far, undermining transparency and weakening the very safeguards that protect landlords and tenants alike. For those reasons, we will vote against this package of amendments and urge the Government to reconsider their approach in this area.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
Can I just ask the noble Lord a question? I absolutely understand that the extreme end is criminal, but will he concede that local authority officers are very often the ones to uncover the criminal practices in their proportionate response to local concerns that have built up over time? They will go in and then find that there is more there than they originally thought, and then it is time to hand over to the authorities. In my experience, that prevents overreach. You have to be able to build your case and be quite confident before you would ever assert these powers, because they are quite strong.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I refer to my comments. If they are to be exercised without prior warning, there must be rigorous justification, robust checks and balances and explicit limits to prevent overreach. That bar has not been reached, and it is not in the Bill. It needs to be in the Bill.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank those who have contributed to this debate. We believe this is a well-balanced approach that enhances enforcement while respecting the rights of both landlords and tenants. Allowing local authorities—which have been very keen that we support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester’s proposal—to enter premises without giving advanced notice to owners and residential landlords will help them better target unscrupulous landlords, ensuring that properties are compliant with PRS legislation and meet safety standards.
On the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, local authorities are able to use these powers of entry only if they consider them necessary to determine whether enforcement action is needed. Officers will need the correct authorisation and will need to state the purpose of the inspection and ensure lawful use of the power of entry. Compliant landlords will not face any detriment as a result of this change, which is not intended to impact on good landlords. They will benefit from streamlined enforcement, with transparency through timely post-inspection notices.
As I set out in my opening speech, this change will make a real difference to the ability to address unsafe or hazardous living conditions more promptly and will assist our local authorities to promptly tackle unscrupulous landlords.
“(3A) A notice need not be given in accordance with subsection (1)(c)(ii) to a person who is a residential landlord within the meaning of Part 2 (see section 64).(3B) If—(a) premises are entered in exercise of the power conferred by subsection (1), and(b) notice is not given to any person because of subsection (3A),an officer of the local housing authority must give that person notice in writing of the exercise of that power within a reasonable period after its exercise.(3C) The notice must—(a) identify the premises that were entered,(b) state when the premises were entered, and(c) state the purpose for which the premises were entered.”Member's explanatory statement
This removes the requirement to give prior notice of entry under this clause to certain landlords and instead requires notice to be given after entry has taken place.
“(5A) In relation to any qualifying residential premises within the meaning given by section 2B, notice need not be given—(a) to any owner;(b) to any occupier who has waived the requirement to give notice.(5B) If—(a) premises are entered in exercise of the power conferred by subsection (3), and(b) notice is not given to any person because of subsection (5A)(a),the authorised person or proper officer must give that person notice of the exercise of that power within a reasonable period after its exercise.(5C) The notice must—(a) identify the premises that were entered,(b) state when the premises were entered, and(c) state the purpose for which the premises were entered.”Member's explanatory statement
This removes the requirement to give prior notice of entry under section 239(5) of the Housing Act 2004 to owners of “qualifying residential premises” (see clause 101(5) of this Bill) and instead requires notice to be given after entry has taken place.
Baroness Thornhill
“Repeal of right to rent(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.(2) Omit Sections 20 (residential tenancy agreement) to 37 (interpretation).(3) Omit Schedule 3 (excluded residential tenancy agreements).”Member's explanatory statement
The new clause would abolish the right to rent provision introduced by the Immigration Act 2014.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, in Amendment 115 I am asking that the Government seriously consider repealing the right-to-rent policy. If any Bill is appropriate to repeal it, it is the Renters’ Rights Bill. I am picking up the baton from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who tabled this amendment on Report. The noble Baroness clearly listened to the words of her colleague, the Minister, and has decided not to pursue her amendment—but I bet her commitment is just as strong, as is mine.
I was surprised at the strength of the Minister’s response in Committee, so firmly closing the door on repeal. This is pernicious legislation that is designed to sound tough on immigration and is therefore for public consumption and political soundbites, rather than effective policy. The right to rent was introduced as a mechanism to make it harder for those without legal status to live and work in the UK—part of the so-called hostile environment. It placed a legal obligation on private landlords to carry out immigration checks before renting out their property, turning them into de facto border officials. Landlords and letting agents are ordinary citizens who are neither trained nor equipped to make complex legal determinations. When even the National Residential Landlords Association is saying loudly and clearly that this is not working, you know it is not a good thing. You have to question its ability do what it says on the tin.
This is not about being soft on immigration; it is about being fair, proportionate and practical, and on all three counts the right to rent fails. The evidence is clear: the right-to-rent scheme fuels racial and xenophobic discrimination. With landlords fearing the consequences of getting it wrong, including fines and even prison, they are more likely to play it safe and reject any tenant who does not hold a UK passport. Both the NRLA and Shelter say that one in four landlords believe they can rent only to British passport-holders.
The Minister in her previous response also asserted that it is possible to carry out the checks proportionately and without unlawful discrimination, but the reality is that it is not happening. Landlords and letting agents often end up resorting to proxies like names, accents and skin colour to rule out prospective tenants they assume will not pass the right to rent. We are seeing the chilling effects of this policy. Vulnerable groups are being pushed further into the shadows and forced into unsafe housing; unable to assert their rights, they are greater risk of exploitation by rogue landlords. Across the House, we have all been saying that we hope this Bill will eventually flush out rogue landlords and make it more difficult for them to exist, but this legislation delivers vulnerable people right into their hands.
The fact is that the Government have turned ordinary landlords into immigration officers—no training or guidance, just threats of fines and prison sentences if they get it wrong. The resulting discrimination is plainly evident. Let us be clear: this is not just a policy failure; it is a moral failure. It is pushing people into the shadows and into dodgy housing, and they are unable to complain or seek help; and all the while—this is the killer—there is no evidence that this policy even works. None at all.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for taking over this amendment, to which I was pleased to add my name. I assure her that I am as committed as ever to opposing this policy. Given the widespread support for the repeal of this discriminatory legislation, including among landlords’ organisations, I had hoped the Government might consider accepting the amendment in Committee. I made then what I believed was a strong case for repeal. I will not repeat that now, especially as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has made it so powerfully, but I will make just two points.
First, since Committee, a new research report into race, ethnicity and homelessness has been published which underlines the racism all too often faced in the housing market by racially minoritised tenants, especially refugees and other migrants. I am indebted to the lead researcher, Professor Suzanne Fitzpatrick of Heriot-Watt University, for sharing some of the findings with me. Although the research was not specifically into the right-to-rent scheme, a substantial number of participants have faced private landlords who clearly did not want to let to racially minoritised tenants. Practitioners repeatedly flagged up a reluctance to enforce housing rights among this group, even when they were aware of them. Professor Fitzpatrick suggests that confidence in exercising housing rights might well have been eroded by “hostile environment” policies, including the right-to-rent policy. In its recommendations the report thus argues that ending the right-to-rent policy, which has been shown to drive racial discrimination, would demonstrate the Bill’s commitment to addressing anti-discrimination practices.
Secondly, I was left somewhat bemused in Committee. Speaking for the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, who is not in his place, stated that I had raised a very valid issue regarding the right to rent and the fact that introducing what may seem quite a sensible rule leads to complications and places landlords in an awkward situation when they do not fully understand the legislation in front of them. When I pointed out that many people, including my noble friends Lady Smith of Basildon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, highlighted the potential problems at the time the legislation went through Parliament, I was grateful for his acknowledgement of the problems now and his observation that:
“Where the law is complex we need to make it simple and easy to comply with”.
He then went on to say:
“This is one of our major concerns with this legislation”,—[Official Report, 12/5/25; col. 1987.]
apparently forgetting that it was his party that introduced it.
I would say that it is never too late for a sinner to repent, but I am sat behind the right reverend Prelate. However, we are now saddled with this unfair legislation, which all too easily leads to the kind of discrimination uncovered by the Heriot-Watt research. My party, which was so critical of it at the time, now defends it, despite the evidence of its damaging impact on migrants and members of racially minoritised communities.
It was described by Wendy Williams in her Windrush Lessons Learned Review as one of the “most contentious aspects” of the hostile environment. It saddens me that, despite the evidence to the contrary, my noble friend the Minister, for whom I have the greatest respect, rejected the amendment in Committee on the grounds that, as we have heard:
“The right-to-rent scheme is capable of being operated proportionally by landlords and letting agents in all cases”.—[Official Report, 12/5/25; col. 1989.]
I disagree and therefore believe that it really is not compatible with the aims of the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment. I am grateful for the powerful speeches from the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Lister of Burtersett. They have left me with little to say, except that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has given me a cue with her words about the repentant sinner. I will take us even further back in history to the book of Genesis and the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham argues with God against the destruction of the cities, and God agrees that he will not destroy the cities if only 10 people can be found who are righteous. The principle that established, which passes down into our present law, is that it is better to let the guilty off than for the innocent to be punished.
That is what this particular amendment is about, because the people who are suffering are not the guilty few who may be here illegally and should not be here; they are the many people from minority ethnic backgrounds who just do not get a look-in because landlords play it safe. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to that when she introduced the debate. That is the problem. If we do not get rid of this pernicious bit of legislation, we will continue to see innocent people who, just because they have a different skin colour to my own, suffer because landlords will not let them properties just on the off-chance that there might be something not quite right in their paperwork. So I do not believe that the right-to-rent Act can be reformed, and I support this amendment.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I hesitate to follow when Sodom and Gomorrah have both been mentioned. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has made a powerful case for her amendment, and I associate myself with everything she has said and with the passionate defence of this amendment by my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett.
As has been said, the amendment seeks to repeal the right-to-rent provisions introduced by the Immigration Act 2014. I remember being a newbie here in 2014 and sitting on the Benches opposite, hearing those speeches against the clauses and provisions in the Immigration Act that we now seek to repeal. At its core, as we know, this scheme turns landlords and letting agents into immigration officers. It was part of the hostile environment created at that time, and I am sad to say to the Minister on the Front Bench that this is a continuation of that hostile environment. There is no excuse for this provision. It is a policy that has enabled and indeed legitimised discrimination, and I believe that it has no place in a housing system that should be fair and should treat everyone equally and with dignity.
Landlords and letting agents are making judgments based on what they think will fall within protecting themselves. They are immigration officers. It has been shown—I thank Shelter for its briefing—that a prospective white tenant is 36% more likely to get a positive response than a black tenant. Renters with south Asian names get 25% fewer replies than those with white-sounding names—evidence of the consequences of this pernicious piece of legislation.
The courts recognised this reality. In 2019, the High Court found that the policy causes discrimination. That ruling was later overturned on appeal, not because the discrimination was not happening but because it was deemed justifiable. That, I believe, is not acceptable. I could go on, but the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has pointed out that the Home Office has never produced evidence on which we should legislate that the scheme reduces irregular immigration or improves enforcement.
Discrimination, particularly when sanctioned by the state, is never justifiable. There are many reasons to accept this amendment, but I urge the Front Bench to accept the decent, just and fair case. I see the realities of the discrimination in the housing sector in my own borough, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. Now is the time to do the decent thing. I urge the Government to listen, reply and do the decent thing and repeal the right-to-rent provisions introduced by the Immigration Act 2014.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief. On these Benches, we find the argument for full repeal unconvincing. The right-to-rent scheme was designed to serve a clear and important public interest, ensuring that access to the private rented sector is not used as a back door to unlawful residence in the United Kingdom. That principle remains relevant. The Bill is not the right vehicle to reopen immigration law. Any reform of the right-to-rent scheme must be considered in the round and as part of a wider conversation about enforcement, fairness and social cohesion in our immigration system. For those reasons, we cannot, and I will not, support this amendment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for Amendment 115, which would abolish the right-to-rent scheme that applies in England. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Scott, the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for their contributions.
The scheme was introduced to ensure that only those lawfully in the United Kingdom can access the private rented sector and, importantly, to tackle unscrupulous landlords who exploit vulnerable migrants, sometimes in very poor living conditions. Some landlords who rent to those who are here illegally are criminal operators. We all have a shared objective to drive them from the rental market and to deter unscrupulous landlords from entering into exploitative practices.
We have always been absolutely clear that discriminatory treatment on the part of anyone carrying out right-to-rent checks is unlawful. The checks apply equally to everyone seeking private rental accommodation, including British citizens. The scheme has been independently evaluated twice. Although some examples of discriminatory attitudes were found, there was insufficient evidence to claim that there was any systematic, unlawful discrimination as a result of the right-to-rent scheme. There are therefore no current plans to end the scheme.
It is our view that it is wrong to seek to abolish right-to-rent legislation in its entirety by simple notice of amendment. This immigration legislation was designed to address those who are disqualified from living in the UK by virtue of their immigration status, and that remains an important priority for this Government. The Government will continue to support legitimate landlords and letting agents who continue to act properly by carrying out the prescribed checks in legislation and published guidance. We have made big strides to improve the digital capability of the systems involved.
I emphasise that the Home Office has listened to and taken on board concerns expressed about right to rent during the progress of the Renters’ Rights Bill and from wider stakeholder engagement. As a result, officials will actively engage further with tenants and their representative groups to ensure that the right-to-rent scheme works fairly and inclusively for all. Early engagement has helped the Home Office identify individuals who may struggle to prove their identity and, in consequence, face barriers to accessing housing and other services. The Home Office has begun to work with local authorities to understand how individuals can overcome these barriers, with the aim of extending successful approaches across the UK.
As we move forward, we remain committed to working with stakeholders, including community-based initiatives and the third sector, to strengthen the inclusivity and accessibility of the right-to-rent scheme. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her interest in the scheme and would be happy to facilitate a meeting with the appropriate Home Office officials to discuss how to ensure that the scheme can operate inclusively and fairly for all tenants, landlords and letting agents. In the light of these reassurances, I ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, withdraws the amendment.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I thank the Minister for her answer. It seems to me that the Government want to make the scheme work, whereas on our Benches we are fundamentally opposed, as a matter of principle, to making ordinary citizen landlords immigration officers.
Noble Lords know that we do not fight injustice by staying quiet; we fight it by shining a light, telling the truth—the truth is that this is not working—and demanding better. That is what those of us who have spoken have tried to do, in some small way, by supporting this amendment.
I am disappointed that this Labour Government have not taken an opportunity to repeal this, and I feel so strongly about it that I did want to push it to a vote, but I am not silly and I do not want to waste noble Lords’ time, knowing that it will come to nothing. So I will not push it to a vote, but I will explore every avenue to bring it up again and again in any legislation. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thornhill
“Review of the impact of this Act on the judicial system(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the impact of this Act on the judicial system.(2) The review must, in particular, assess the impact of the Act on—(a) the volume of cases brought before the courts;(b) the efficiency and timeliness of judicial proceedings;(c) the resource and administrative burden on the courts;(d) individuals’ ability to access justice.(3) In conducting the review, the Secretary of State must consult—(a) legal practitioners and their representative bodies,(b) court administration officials, and(c) any other persons or bodies the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(4) The Secretary of State must lay a report setting out the findings of the review before Parliament no later than two years after the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review and report on the impact of the Act on the judicial system — specifically in relation to case volumes, court efficiency, resource implications, and access to justice — within two years of the Act being passed.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I have been pleasantly surprised by the support for this amendment from a range of bodies, including the Law Society and the National Residential Landlords Association, plus many and various housing legal practices. Thus I can say with confidence that the reassurances we have had thus far about the capacity and capability of the courts to deal with the impact of the Bill when it becomes an Act are clearly challenged by those who actually have to deal with the courts regularly and currently, and I have listened to them. It seems we are still recovering from the backlog of Covid; they are not convinced that it is sorted, and neither are we yet, but we hope that this amendment provides an opportunity for the Minister to do that.
Put very simply, this amendment asks for a review of the impact of the Bill, when passed, on the judicial system, with the findings set out no later than two years after the day on which it is passed. It asks the Government to consider the effects on case volumes, court efficiency, resource demands and access to justice—all key areas to measure the effectiveness of the court process for both landlords and tenants and to ensure confidence in the whole system. Does the Minister have access to the measures on current case loads from which we can measure progress?
This amendment also reflects concerns raised across this House about the capacity of the courts to deal with the additional case loads that the Bill might generate. I seek reassurance that the Government will give a clear commitment today to provide the necessary resources that the courts might need going forward. Of course, that begs the question of how the Government will know this if they do not carry out some sort of fundamental review. If reviews or something similar are promised by the Minister, given the widespread concerns there still are about the courts, can the Minister give a reason why this cannot be included in the Bill?
I know we have all received emails from around the country from landlords giving their own instances of the length of time it takes for an application for a possession order to get to an actual hearing. It has gone from weeks to months and varies depending on where you live in the country, and that is now. I hope the Minister can give us all some assurance of what the current situation is so that we can have a benchmark before the Bill becomes an Act. In Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, stated:
“Backlogs are rising, court rooms lie unused for lack of staff and overburdened judges are stretched too thin”.—[Official Report, 28/4/25; col. 997.]
Can the Minister please give us a progress report?
Amendments 120 and 121 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, seem to be asking for a delay, setting the unrealistic measure of cases being processed as quickly as they were before the first lockdown. To achieve this some might say desirable benchmark would, we believe, inevitably delay the implementation of the very important rental reforms in the Bill, so we cannot support them, but we would like to hear that the Government and the courts are now in tandem and have an agreed commencement date. I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, for their amendments. Starting with Amendment 116, we fully recognise the importance of the justice system, both courts and tribunals, needing to be ready for our reforms, and for individuals to access timely justice. We are therefore, as I have commented in previous sittings on the Bill, working closely with the Ministry of Justice to assess the impacts of our reforms on the courts and tribunals, and to lessen these wherever possible. This work has been ongoing for years and in great detail. The digital service for possession claims is well advanced and will make it more efficient and easier to understand for landlords and tenants.
The amendment we have tabled to our rent increase measures shows that we are listening to the concerns of the sector and this House about tribunal workloads. It puts in place a sensible and proportionate safeguard in case it is needed. The Ministry of Justice already publishes quarterly statistics on the operation of the county court possession process, including the volume of cases going through the system and average timelines. This data is widely available and regularly reported on in the press. As set out in the impact assessment for the Bill, and in debate, we are already committed to monitoring and evaluating the private rented sector reform programme.
I have spoken at length about the ambition of this programme, so I will simply reiterate that we will use a wide range of sources to support this monitoring and evaluation work. Existing datasets will be used, and new data will be collected. The department is fully committed to publishing our evaluation findings at the two-year and five-year points after the Bill’s implementation. I can therefore assure the House that we will already be collecting extensive data. In this context, it is not necessary to commit to undertake any further review. I welcome the wish of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, to give our reforms a regular MOT, but I hope she accepts that we have ambitious evaluation plans and do not want to duplicate them unnecessarily. Therefore, I respectfully ask her to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 121 would require the Secretary of State to certify that landlord possession actions in respect of residential property are processed by the courts in no greater time, on average, than they were in the year before the first Covid lockdown before most of the Bill could be capable of coming into effect. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has also tabled Amendment 120, which would confirm that commencement of these important reforms would be delayed until this proposed certification had been carried out. I fully appreciate the need for the justice system to be ready for our reforms, and for landlords and tenants to access justice in a timely way, and that landlords need a smooth and efficient process in the county court for the minority of cases where court action for possession becomes necessary.
I want to be clear that we will not link the implementation of most of the provisions in this Bill to an arbitrary target of court timeliness. The sector has already waited too long for these urgently needed reforms. Court rules already specify that possession cases requiring a hearing should be listed between four and eight weeks from the issue of the claim. The MoJ quarterly landlord possession action statistics for the period January to March 2025 indicate that claim to order median timeliness is 8.3 weeks. I understand that there will be cases outside that, but they often have different circumstances. Setting a target for other parts of the possession process is not sensible, as it is dependent on the actions of the parties to the proceedings.
For example, an important stage of the process is the application for a warrant of possession, and this is dependent on the actions of a landlord and is outside the control of the court service. Where a tenant stays in a property beyond the date in the possession order, a landlord can choose if and when to apply for a warrant to enforce the possession order granted by the court. They can also decide whether to apply to transfer the case to the High Court.
Instead of agreeing to these unnecessary commitments, we are working in partnership with the Ministry of Justice to assess the impact of the reforms on the county court and lessen these wherever possible. This close collaboration has been done in a great deal of detail. It includes the development of a new digital service for possession claims, which is well advanced, that will make the possession process more efficient and easier to understand for landlords and tenants. As set out in the impact assessment for the Bill, and in debate, we are committed to monitoring and evaluating it.
I welcome the wish expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, for a more efficient possession action process, but I hope he accepts that we are making good progress on bringing these processes online and will not press his amendments.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I am pleased that the Minister sounded assured in what she told us, and I accept what she says. However, that view is not shared by everyone. The Minister said that everyone should know, it is in the press, et cetera, but that does not appear to be the case. I think the Minister is confident in the good news and she is in tandem with the courts, and therefore there is a message to get out. Without meaningful court reform, the ambitions of the Renters’ Rights Bill could be seriously undermined, and we all know and understand that. I will cut to the chase: I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Report of the impact of this Act on the housing market(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report outlining the impact of the provisions of this Act on the housing market in England, Wales and Scotland.(2) A report made under this section must include the impact of this Act on—(a) the availability of homes in the private rental sector,(b) rents charged under tenancies,(c) house prices, and(d) requests for social housing.(3) A report made under this section must be laid before Parliament.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a report of the impact of the Act on the housing market, particularly in relation to availability of rented homes, rents charged, house prices and requests for social housing.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this amendment was spoken to earlier on Report. In our view, it is a very important amendment because it asks that there be an annual report on the Bill laid before Parliament. The reason for this is that we are beginning to see problems within this sector; we would want to see published the availability of homes, the rents charged as a result of a lack of available homes, house prices in and around the same sector, and, very importantly, requests for social housing, because as the rented sector starts to cool down, the social housing sector hots up.
We think that the Government should accept this type of annual report so that if anything goes badly wrong in this sector, something can be done about it very quickly. The Government are offering some sort of review with figures that will come out, but that is not what is wanted by this side of the House. We want an annual report—not a review—to be laid before Parliament so that it can be debated properly and, if needed, amendments can be proposed to change things and bring the sector back up to what it is at the moment. I know it is late, but I intend to test the opinion of the House on what we consider a very important amendment.
Lord Carrington
“(9) Different days may be appointed for different purposes in relation to Chapter 1 of Part 1 so that—(a) one day (not sooner than three months after this Act is passed) is appointed for the purposes of new tenancies, and(b) one day (not sooner than six months after this Act is passed) is appointed for the purposes of existing tenancies.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that at least three months’ notice is given prior to new tenancies becoming section 4A assured tenancies and that at least a further three months’ notice is given before existing tenancies become section 4A assured tenancies.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 122 and welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. The amendment aims to introduce a transition period of three months for new assured tenancies and six months for existing tenancies before the Bill’s provisions take effect.
Much of the debate surrounding this legislation focuses quite rightly on the need to tackle rogue or criminal landlords, while ensuring that the new responsibilities applied to PRS landlords are fair, equitable and sustainable. However, there is another important consideration which has received considerably less attention but which is equally critical if we are to maintain a vibrant PRS.
The implementation of the Bill’s measures must avoid any disruption in the flow of mortgage finance that underpins most of our country’s privately rented homes. Careful consideration must be given to the implementation of the legislation to ensure a smooth transition to the new tenancy system. A great many landlords have no knowledge of the Bill and what it entails. Landlords, lenders and others in the PRS will need time and support to adjust to the significant changes that the new tenancy system requires.
I would like to explain why this, or a very similar amendment, was not tabled in Committee. Lenders rightly wanted further engagement with government to discuss how the legislation can be implemented successfully, to share insights on the impact on the lenders and to consider how the sector can be supported to ensure the best outcome for tenants. In order to achieve a smooth transition to the tenancy system, following Second Reading in February the mortgage lenders, led by UK Finance, wrote to the Minister at MHCLG in early March requesting a meeting. The Minister’s officials at MHCLG responded in mid-April, offering that meeting. Ongoing discussions then started regarding the concerns of the lenders. I thought it best to wait till the outcome of those discussions was known before muddying the waters with an amendment. Unfortunately, these discussions, which also involved HM Treasury, have not so far satisfied the mortgage lenders. In fact, no follow-up has been received from the Treasury. Current meetings continue to take place with the Bank of England.
As noble Lords have been made aware, the PRS currently houses one in five households, including workers, students and those unable to buy homes or access social housing. Some 60% of landlords rely on buy-to-let mortgages. To maintain the supply of PRS homes needed to meet sustained demand, a continuing flow of buy-to-let mortgage finance is therefore essential. As such, the Government should welcome this amendment to introduce a transition period for the introduction of reforms before the Bill’s provisions take effect, so that the buy-to-let mortgage lenders have sufficient time to implement the necessary system changes.
I believe the Government have committed to implementing the new tenancy system in one stage, avoiding unnecessary cliff edges and working with all parts of the sector to ensure a smooth transition. To achieve this, sufficient time will be needed for the sector to prepare. The changes will include drafting new tenancy agreements, developing training materials to support property professionals, helping agents understand the new procedures, and enabling insurance and mortgage providers to adjust their policies, among other issues.
It would make enormous sense to provide a transition period to support the industry to implement the required changes. These lenders will need at least three to six months, depending on whether the tenancies underpinned by their mortgages are new or existing, to implement the changes required by the legislation. To give some examples, lenders will need to review new mortgage application terms and conditions, mortgage offers and lending policies. Additionally, lenders with forward flow or warehouse agreements for funding may need approval from their funders and forward flow partners.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. There is nothing political about the stand that he is, and I am now, taking; it is a purely practical amendment. Indeed, in Committee, I tabled a great number of amendments to do with the start date of the provisions in the Bill. They were also not in any way political; they were purely administrative or practical.
As your Lordships know, in the Bill there are absolutely fundamental changes to the law of landlord and tenant. The short-term tenancy has gone, and it is being replaced by a periodic tenancy. There are a number of other features which we have gone through in detail, both in Committee and on Report, which are new and represent some massive change. The consequence of that is that everybody involved in the lettings of property —estate agents and the landlords—needs time to draw up entirely new tenancy agreements.
As it happens, I personally write all my tenancy agreements with each of my tenants, and I have to get down to this task of completely rewriting these tenancy agreements. Of course, I have the advantage of having participated in the Bill at Second Reading, in Committee and now on Report. I do not need the full three months for either new or existing tenancies, but I am sympathetic to others who are going to need more time. I ask my noble friend the Minister—not for any political reasons, but for purely practical reasons—would she consider giving more time, because there is a lot of work to be done? I think I can do it within the requisite time, but others may find it very difficult.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
To the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Hacking, I have to say that we do not want to do anything that would delay the Bill. We want its key statutes to be on the books as soon as possible. Being blunt, the key players who are talking about to buy-to-let mortgages have known that this is coming for a long time. They really should have been on it for months. If they have not, I am not quite sure what planet they have been on.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
Would the noble Baroness kindly help me when I have to write all these tenancy agreements? It takes time.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I am hoping that some of the larger players will have ones that are off the shelf for the noble Lord to use. I am sure the Minister will be able to help out with that. Basically, we do not want to delay things any more. We genuinely believe that the trailing of the key planks of the Bill has been so public and so out there. But I say to the Minister that some definite timescales would be helpful.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we think that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is sensible and measured. The amendment provides for a minimum of three months’ notice before new tenancies are treated as Section 4A assured tenancies and a further three months before existing tenancies are reclassified in the same way. This introduces a clear and reasonable transitional period, giving landlords and tenants time to prepare for the significant legal and practical implications of these changes.
Crucially, it gives banks time too. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, noted, Amendment 122 is supported by UK Finance, including lenders such as Nationwide and Paragon. Banks need time to adjust. Any change to how a landlord can evict a tenant makes lenders more cautious about the security of their investments. These lenders will want to have seen it in writing before they start to make too many changes.
Additionally, lenders will need to reassess their understanding of rental income flows. Lenders will have to adjust their risk models, and potentially their loan terms, to accommodate the risks under the new regime, not only in relation to individual properties but with regard to the broader market stability. It is vital to understand how the regime affects overall demand in the rental market.
I take this opportunity to raise the specifics of buy-to-let mortgages. Flexibility in increasing rents in these cases is especially important and an area where sufficient time for adjustment will be needed. Lenders must evaluate the continued attractiveness of buy-to-let properties as collateral for loans.
Operational readiness matters too. Quite simply, new systems and processes will need to be adapted to the framework. Earlier today, we discussed systems such as the database and the pensions dashboard. Of course, many private companies are often more agile when responding to challenge and change, but even they need time.
This is a complex Bill, and I have said several times that its implementation will require careful communication and a phased approach. I see this amendment as a practical way of helping the Government ensure that no stakeholder is caught off guard by the shift to the assured tenancy regime.
I would welcome clarity from the Minister on the Government’s plans for commencement—so, I am sure, would landlords and tenants—and all stakeholders will need time.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his amendment and for his engagement generally on the Bill. Subsequent to our meeting earlier this week, I had a detailed response prepared for the noble Lord on Clause 145. Unfortunately, it arrived in my inbox just as I was coming into the Chamber this afternoon. It probably has not reached him yet, but that is on its way to him.
On Amendment 122, the Government are committed to introducing the new tenancy system for the private rented sector in one stage to bring to an end Section 21 no-fault evictions as soon as possible. These evictions cause utter misery for the tenants on the other end of them and a huge amount of cost to local government in picking up the pieces when people get evicted at very short notice. A single implementation date for both new and existing tenancies will enable all tenants to benefit from the reforms as soon as possible and prevent a confusing two-tier system during transition.
We are continuing to work very closely with stakeholders. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred to meetings between my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and financial institutions. He has also met with many landlords’ associations and other stakeholders to ensure that the sector is prepared for the reforms in the Bill. I want to be very clear that we are committed to providing sufficient notice to ensure that all parts of the private rented sector have time to prepare. Implementation will not be immediate, as we have secondary legislation to pass. We are making good progress on drafting that and the necessary guidance that goes alongside it. All this will help us to implement in a timely manner.
In addition, the Bill makes specific provision to ensure a smooth transition to the new system and avoid unnecessary cliff edges. For example, the Bill will ensure that notices served by landlords before the commencement date remain valid after that date. Based on our ongoing work to ensure a smooth transition to the new system, we consider that there will be no benefit to requiring arbitrary minimum time periods after Royal Assent before the tenancy reform measures in the Bill can come into force.
With these reassurances that we are committed to a smooth and responsible approach to implementing the Bill, I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for her engagement with me, although the letter has not arrived yet. I am in a position of enormous power now, in the sense that this is the very last amendment and I am keeping noble Lords from their drinks and everything else. I am very pleased that the Minister has now reassured me that the cliff edge will not happen just like that as far as financial institutions are concerned, and that there will be time for preparation.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for his support and his emphasis on the fact that this was not a political amendment but a practical one. I wish him great success in the work he does with his tenants. Happily, I have someone to help me.
Having thanked everybody for their kind engagement and sometime support, I have pleasure in withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I am entitled to intervene here. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his words and the Minister for reassuring me that more time will be given, and more time for me to rewrite these tenancy agreements.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name which inserts new sub-paragraphs (2) to (6) into paragraph 13 of Schedule 6.
Member’s explanatory statement
This corrects a cross-reference.
“(2) In relation to an existing tenancy which is a qualifying student tenancy, ground 4A in Schedule 2 to the 1988 Act has effect—(a) subject to the modifications in sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, and(b) additionally as if, in the first paragraph of ground 4A, paragraphs (a) and (e) were omitted.(3) For the purposes of this paragraph, an existing tenancy is a “qualifying student tenancy” if any of the following is a member of a specified housing management code of practice—(a) the landlord;(b) a person appointed to act on the landlord’s behalf in respect of the tenancy;(c) a person appointed to discharge management functions in respect of the building which comprises the dwelling-house or in which the dwelling-house is situated.(4) In sub-paragraph (3)—“housing management code of practice” means a code of practice approved by the Secretary of State under section 233 of the Housing Act 2004 (codes relating to the management of HMOs or excepted accommodation);“management functions” in respect of a building includes functions relating to—(a) the provision of services, or(b) the repair, maintenance, improvement or insurance of the building;“specified” means specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”Member’s explanatory statement
This ensures that ground 4A in Schedule 2 to the 1988 Act (inserted by paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 to this Bill) is available in relation to certain existing tenancies of purpose built student accommodation.
Football Governance Bill [HL]
Tuesday 15th July 2025
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Lords ChamberFootball Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Football Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 8 July 2025 - large print - (8 Jul 2025)
Baroness Twycross
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving this Motion I will also speak to Amendments 2 to 62.
I tried very hard to avoid the overuse of football metaphors or puns at the earlier stages of the Bill but, despite the Bill having left your Lordships’ House previously, I think we can say that we did think it was all over, and I sincerely hope, with your Lordships’ agreement, it almost is now.
Over the course of the passage of the Bill, we have heard concerns about the risk posed by the distributions mechanism outlined in the Bill. I thought that the original model had its merits. However, as I committed to do on Report and at Third Reading in your Lordships’ House, the Government have taken another look at the mechanism and in response have made a series of important amendments in the other place.
The Government are grateful for the careful and considered scrutiny from noble Lords across this House, which was invaluable in the development of this new model. I take this opportunity to again put on record my particular thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Birt, for his extensive and thoughtful work in providing such scrutiny. I know that he was sorry not to be able to be here in person today, but I also know that he will be well represented by his Cross-Bench colleagues. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for the expertise they have provided over the last few weeks.
The amendments we have made alter the distributions model through changes to Part 6, alongside supporting amendments to other clauses. These are primarily designed to change the mechanism from the previous binary choice mechanism to a new “staged regulator determination” model. This new model is designed to give more certainty to parties while ensuring that the backstop is designed to reach the best solution possible for all of football.
I will briefly explain how the amendments achieve this goal. First, the amendments introduce two new clauses. Clause 61 has been replaced with a completely redesigned proposal process. We have been clear that our strong preference is for the leagues to reach an independent distributions solution without the need for the backstop to be triggered.
Since the Bill was last before this House, the Government have announced David Kogan as our preferred candidate to chair the regulator. I know that David Kogan shares this view that the backstop should be triggered only as an absolute last resort, and our new proposal stage has been designed to incentivise that. If the backstop process is ever triggered, the regulator would invite the leagues to submit proposals detailing their solutions to the questions for resolution. The leagues would then submit their proposals to both the regulator and to each other. This will allow for more constructive negotiations, as the leagues will be more informed regarding each other’s position on core issues.
The leagues would also be able to submit revised proposals, ensuring both sides have the best chance possible to outline their position to the regulator, and, in turn, allowing the regulator the opportunity to request additional relevant information. This structure will ensure that the regulator is in the position to make the best possible evidence-based decision, while incentivising the leagues to make their own agreement.
We have replaced Clause 62 to introduce more flexibility for the regulator. Our new clause removes the binary choice for the regulator. Instead, it sets out how the regulator can create its own distribution order if, after all previous stages have concluded, the leagues still cannot strike a deal.
In the creation of this order, it can choose all of a league’s proposal or part of either or both proposals, or can propose unique solutions based on the evidence. The regulator would first have 60 days to create a provisional order. The regulator would share this provisional order with the leagues and invite representations, which it must consider before finalising the order. Any finalised order that it produces would have to take into account any relevant issues raised by the “state of the game” report, the evidence the regulator has gathered throughout the process, its engagement with the leagues and any proposals that they have submitted. Finally, under the new model, the regulator would be required to consult the FA before setting the questions for resolution, ensuring that the national governing body can now raise any views about the scope of the backstop process.
We are confident that the regulator, with its clear objective to promote sustainability and its duties to avoid adverse effects on growth and sporting competitiveness, would come to a balanced solution. I know that there is probably a slight variance with models that noble Lords view as ideal. However, I am confident that this new model is the right one, and I hope that noble Lords will support it as being substantially better than the original model that we debated earlier in the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House.
In addition to the changes to the backstop, we have also made some minor and technical changes to other parts of the Bill to aid the implementation and effectiveness of the regulatory regime and reduce the burden on the industry. I am happy to answer any questions noble Lords have on these changes. I hope that noble Lords understand and can support the changes that we have made in the other place. They have been arrived at after much careful consideration and conversation with noble Lords and the industry, and will ensure that the regulator can best deliver for fans. We believe the changes strengthen the Bill and will strengthen the regulatory model.
This Government promised in our manifesto to safeguard the future of our national game. In fact, as all noble Lords will be aware, the commitment to establish an independent football regulator was in the manifestos of all three main parties at the election a year ago. I hope that noble Lords will support this much- needed piece of legislation, which delivers on that commitment by protecting and promoting the sustainability of English football in the interests of fans and the local communities that football clubs serve. I beg to move.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for introducing these amendments and for setting out the reasons behind them. On Report in March, the noble Lord, Lord Birt, introduced a series of amendments. These were aimed at addressing what he regarded as some weaknesses in the role of the independent football regulator in the distribution of funds between the various football bodies. I supported the amendments, along with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
Unfortunately, neither the noble Lord, Lord Birt, nor the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, can be here this evening, and I have been asked to respond jointly for our little group, in place of the noble Lord, Lord Birt. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is in his place, I am pleased to say, and I hope that we will hear from him in due course.
Throughout debate on this Bill, we have emphasised the uniqueness of this situation. Under the proposed legislation, a regulator could potentially make decisions to transfer income from one regulated body to another. Moreover, both bodies are part of the same football family and they must coexist. Many clubs could find themselves moving between the Premier League and the English Football League. We argued that the arrangements should take these factors into account, including the objective of the overall success of the football pyramid.
We are very grateful to the Minister for the time that she has spent on this since then. Subsequently, the Government have brought forward their own amendments, which were agreed by the Commons and now come to this House today. I think I can say that as a group we support these amendments. While they are not entirely as we hoped, they address many of the concerns we had with the original Bill and go some way towards meeting the tests that are involved.
The most significant change is the fundamental re-engineering of the backstop process. This removes the Russian roulette binary mechanism, where an expert panel would have chosen between the final offers of the two parties, without the option of finding middle ground. Instead, the regulator now has the driving seat in both the negotiation and the determination process. The amendments strengthen the role of the “state of the game” report and modify the principles and criteria to explicitly refer to the regulator’s duties as well as its objectives. While it does not go as far as we hoped, it is an improvement and it means that, if the regulator is called on to decide, it will consider domestic and international competitiveness, growth and investment in the industry. I think that is a significant step forward.
We are confident that David Kogan, the preferred candidate to be chair of the IFR, will be able to make these arrangements work. He has exceptional football knowledge and expertise. Following the publication of the “state of the game” report, we hope that the regulator will set out its views about the most significant challenges that are faced by the leagues covered by this process. At the same time, we hope that the regulator will set out the criteria that it will apply in determining the appropriate funds flow down the pyramid. Overall, I am satisfied that this leaves us in a much better position than when we last discussed the Bill, and we support the amendments.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I declare my football interests: I remain a season ticket holder at Arsenal Football Club and counsel to Manchester City Football Club in the continuing disciplinary and regulatory proceedings involving the Premier League. In respect of both those interests, I very much look forward to next season.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for setting out with such clarity why the team captained by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, of which I am proud to be a member, welcomes the Commons amendments, in particular to remove the binary mechanism which would have fettered the power of the regulator. I welcome these government amendments because they seem to further what I hope that the Minister will confirm are the three key goals of this Bill.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I will say a few words in support of what the Minister said this evening. It is right that we talk a little about the new arrangements for mediation and the backstop. The original amendment was overcomplex, but many of us were concerned about the binary nature of the choice that was to be made. For many of us, the important factor in finding a way forward was that we maintained a backstop, because we are not talking about negotiations between equal partners. That is why we needed the retention there; that is very important. I congratulate Ministers on finding a way through this which is satisfactory to everybody who expressed concerns and wanted to move forward.
I welcome what the two previous speakers said about the new independent regulator. He is intent on making this job work and moving things forward very quickly, which is exactly what football needs.
On behalf of my noble friend Lord Bassam, who cannot be here this evening, we are very impressed by and very much welcomed the engagement of the Minister in this House, my noble friend Lady Twycross. It is a model of how Ministers, Back-Benchers, civil servants and external parties can react. I am very glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, nodding, because we have not agreed on every aspect of this Bill. That has been important.
I should declare my interest: I am looking forward to the new season, with Bolton Wanderers playing Stockport on that first Saturday—I think I am looking forward to it anyway. Bolton Wanderers went through all the problems that are very well known. I was struck, in the final stages of the debate in the other place, by how many individual MPs had to get up to say that their individual clubs had just gone through difficulties or were facing similar difficulties in the very near future; Sheffield Wednesday is the most obvious example.
The need for this Bill is well and truly proven. It is now in extremely good shape, and I congratulate those who have been involved. We should mention Tracey Crouch, who started this process with her review. I will also say that I am very pleased that three talented women Ministers have been the ones to see this through.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I will be reasonably brief. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, covered most of what I was going to say on the technical stuff. We sent the Bill back, and I think everybody agreed it was not perfect. Then we got this list of amendments back, and my heart sank at the thought of another 12 hours’ debate on each and every one of them. The only person whose eyes lit up was the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who obviously gets paid by the hour by Manchester City. We are nine months into waiting for the 115 charges result; we are still playing a lot of extra time on that one, but let us park it. I am not sure who is the underdog in the game between Bolton Wanderers and Stockport County, but it will be an interesting encounter.
We went over these amendments to try to find fault with them, to pick something out, and to see whether the Government were trying to slide something through. Honestly, they have improved the Bill tremendously, and that is partly because of the slight input from the regulator designate, who has clarified the situation. We were a little bit in the dark before about what we thought the role should be and what it was morphing from and to, but just talking to David and understanding his love of what he is going to do, and hearing the passion with which he speaks about being the regulator, tells me it is in safe hands.
I had a number of chairmen, not so much from Championship but from League One and League Two clubs, emailing me, and I said that it is going to be good for the game. That is really where I have always been: at the bottom of the pyramid. The Premier League is fantastic—it will flourish and it will carry on delivering—but League One and League Two clubs, and some of those in non-league clubs, will take a deep breath now and say, “Let’s see this happen”. It will give them that certainty and hope that there will always be something there for them when times are difficult. I have known football clubs that have had to come to local authorities and beg and borrow for assistance. That is a difficult thing to do with public funds, but we did it, and the benefits for the economy, for local councils and for shopkeepers are there now for all to see. The community is all football, and if you had any doubt about that, you would look at this.
I have no complaints about Chelsea becoming the world champions, but that was the most ridiculous competition in the most ridiculous place. Any regular football fan seeing two o’clock in the morning kick-offs was the Armageddon that was said would happen to us. It has not happened because we have got our Bill through; we have got our ducks in a line, and we will be able to protect the league that we love and cherish. I wish the Bill well on its way now. We can move forward. If the noble Baroness has nothing to do, she might want to help me out with the employment Bill tomorrow if she is free, because that is another challenging Bill.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my register of interests, in particular my position as vice-chair of West Ham United, who play in the Premier League.
One of the privileges of speaking in this House is that we can talk not only to the present moment but for the historical record. When the story of the Football Governance Bill is told, I hope it will reflect that this House asked the right questions, foresaw and understood the risks, and ultimately helped improve the legislation. I acknowledge that the Bill we return to today is better than the one we began with. That has not always been an easy journey, but Ministers have listened, for which I am very grateful, and some important safeguards have been added. For that, they really do deserve genuine credit.
We are now entering a new phase, moving from the politics of the Bill to the reality of the regulator. In doing so, I suggest that the new regulator will be judged against three simple but vital tests. First, will it protect growth? The Premier League is not just a domestic competition; it is one of the UK’s most globally admired exports, an economic powerhouse, a cultural asset, a voluntary supporter of the entire football pyramid and a £4.2 billion annual contributor to the public finances.
Future success is not inevitable. It is under pressure from a range of sources. FIFA and UEFA are expanding club competitions and business models that compete directly with the Premier League and put huge pressure on the domestic football calendar. Broadcast markets are changing very fast and in a number of competitive European leagues domestic revenues from broadcasting are falling, as we have seen in the example of Ligue 1 in France. Agent fees are rising, taking money out of the game. State-backed competitors, such as the Saudi Pro League, are changing the football economy. The EFL’s leadership appears to have chosen stasis over innovation.
In that challenging context, protecting growth must be front and centre for the regulator, not just because it is good for the Premier League but because that growth underwrites the very system that the regulator is charged with supporting. That system today includes record redistribution, rising solidarity payments, and the ongoing voluntary support for clubs up and down the pyramid. If we do not protect growth, we risk weakening the whole system. It must therefore be uppermost in everything the regulator does.
The second test is whether the regulator will truly be light-touch. This is a commitment that Ministers have repeatedly made. The proof will be in the pudding. The new independent regulator will have extraordinary powers that are unprecedented in global sport. That requires not just legal and policy constraint but cultural restraint. It must show grit, independence and judgment. It must be evidence-led and not driven by others’ grievances or agendas. Above all, it must demonstrate a proper understanding of football’s competitive dynamics, with a regulatory approach that offers clarity and certainty for clubs. Critically, that means protecting the competitive balance that is so central to the magic, appeal and value of the Premier League.
In other words, clubs in the same division must know how to comply with the financial regime and trust that they will not face opaque financial constraints that place them at an unfair disadvantage on and off the pitch. In football, a fair and level playing field is not a “nice to have”; it is a precondition for compliance. A disproportionate approach, where clubs do not know if they fall the right side of the line, or even which line rival clubs are aiming for, simply cannot work in football. It will be the fastest route to regulatory failure.
Whatever one’s views of party politics, the appointment of David Kogan as the inaugural chair is encouraging. He brings serious knowledge of the game and credibility across football. The regulator will have an early opportunity to set the tone through the approach taken in the “state of the game” review, the appointment of the board and the CEO, and the proportionality and clarity of the regulatory approach it instils in the first place.
The third test whether the backstop will truly be a backstop. This House has done important work to constrain and de-risk this power. I thank noble Lords including the noble Lords, Lord Birt, Lord Pannick and Lord Burns, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for their diligence, thoughtfulness and pragmatism. The legal, evidential and procedural safeguards now in place are appropriately strong. Under this model, the IFR board will need to consider incredibly carefully whether it could ever be in the best interests of English football to use this mechanism, which Dame Tracey Crouch described as “nuclear coding”. Thanks to an important government amendment, the IFR board must now exhaust all other regulatory tools before ever using the backstop. As the Sport Minister confirmed in the other place, that means using those tools and failing, not just imagining that they may not work.
However, the EFL’s current situation appears to rest solely on the promise of this lever, betting its future not on innovation but on a perceived regulatory shortcut. There is no doubt that the backstop has made the conventional, consensual approach to agreeing the distribution of Premier League revenue far harder. I can report to the House that the Premier League has very recently made a credible and generous proposal to the EFL, but this has been rejected by the EFL board. We must hope that common sense will soon return and that a new approach can develop in the best interests of the whole game.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I simply want to thank the Minister for her perseverance, for staying with the task until it is done, for her humour and for appearing truly human. She had quite a lot of stuff coming in her direction but she did not get distracted. For that, I thank her very much.
I am going to limit my comments to the amendments. The Minister moved the Motion on Commons Amendment 1, but I want to go up to Amendment 9 and tell the House why I think these amendments are wonderful. We all learn Americanisms, where nouns and pronouns of all kinds become verbs—which we should not really want. The word “levy” we know, but in our draft we used the word “leviable”—however you might pronounce it. We all know that you can levy but I do not know whether people in the football team will know what we called the leviable function. It is not a perfect English word, but I prefer what the Commons have done. They want us to insert “functions under this Act”. This goes through Clauses 53 and 54 and I think it is more readily understood than the word “leviable”. Sometimes it is better to use quite simple English, so that everybody can understand it. I hope that, when it comes to those nine amendments, we will not quibble but will say that they have put the English in a way that the man and woman on the Clapham omnibus can understand.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and right reverend Lord.
As the new football season approaches, those of us who are season ticket holders at these debates relish the prospect of further discussion on this important issue. I pay tribute to the Minister for the care she has taken with this. All of us will be conscious that she has many other responsibilities, and I know she has listened very attentively, along with her colleagues in the department, to consider genuine concerns that were raised in these debates in your Lordships’ House at earlier stages.
This is a better Bill than it was. I think the fact that, as the Minister said, a commitment to such a Bill appeared in the manifestos of the three major parties is a dire warning of the dangers of consensus, because there are many of us for whom this Bill is definitely in the not proven category. The case for having it is not proven, in that what it is intended to rectify is not obviously a proven defect. The current system has not been perfect, for sure, in allowing wealth created at the top end to cascade down through the pyramid, but it has been pretty effective at doing that.
Sometimes, in these debates, it has been assumed that the bottom of pyramid is the bottom of the EFL and, of course, that is not the case. It is significant that the leadership of the National League, several tiers below the EFL, has been very sceptical about the need for regulation. I speak with a particular interest as Horsham Football Club has just won promotion to National League South. My interests in football are in the Premier League, where I admit that my—our—football club did well in Europe, but not quite so well in the domestic competition. But in the National League, the clubs are much closer to the grass roots—in many cases they are the grass roots—and they are much closer than even League Two in the EFL. There is a scepticism there about whether improving the mechanism —creating a wholly new mechanism for cascading wealth down through the pyramid—is really necessary at all.
We have to remind ourselves, as my noble friend Lady Brady has done, that the Premier League is the most successful sporting league of any kind anywhere in the world. There are competitive winds: side winds and head winds. There is state-sponsored money being put into creating alternatives. Competition is healthy, but we should not assume that the golden goose that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, referred to will continue to lay golden eggs for ever. It is incredibly precious, as various noble Lords have commented. This is a sport that is much more than just a sport or a competition; it is a passion that attracts enormous depths of loyalty. The Premier League attracts a deep commitment, not just from British citizens but from fans right across the world. We should be very chary indeed of taking steps that jeopardise that.
So, while this definitely a better Bill and there are clear improvements to the backstop arrangements which reduce the risk of permanent damage being created, I hope the chair designate of the new regulator—about whom I hear nothing but good things—will bear in mind the need for the regulatory hand to be used with great lightness of touch. There is something very precious here. It looks like it is solid and indestructible, but that success—what the Premier League earns every year, from which the whole of the pyramid of football benefits—is a right and that wealth has to be earned. It has to be earned every week of every month of every football season that there is. So I urge the Government to bear in mind the need to tread lightly on this success, and for the new regulator to bear very much in mind the concerns that have been raised on many occasions in this House. I am grateful to the Minister and her colleagues for listening to some of them and responding, but the concerns remain.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I have two football interests I should declare: one is historical and the other current. The historical one is that I served as vice-chair of the Football Task Force 25 years ago and in one of the four reports that we produced, the case for a football regulator was argued very carefully. We thought we had won the argument, but we were not able to persuade the Government of the day—not a Conservative Government, but a new Labour one—of the merits of football regulation.
The fact that we now have all-party support for a football regulator is an indication of how far that debate has progressed. I would like to add my congratulations, first, to my noble friend Lady Twycross for the brilliant way she steered the Bill through this House, where it suffered no defeats whatever in any Divisions; and to the Ministers in the House of Commons who, with support and willingness to listen, were able to change the Bill and, I readily accept, improve it.
This takes me to my current interest. I am vice-president of the National Football League, to which the noble Lord, Lord Maude, just referred. Its scepticism was there in the beginning but as far as I understand it, that has now gone, and it is satisfied with the form of regulator in the Bill and looking forward to playing its part. As he said, it is a very important part of the football family and the element closest to fans at local level.
There are two groups of people I want particularly to refer to, and I will be very brief. One is the Football Supporters’ Association, without whose support this Bill would never have come to light. It was, as noble Lords will recall, the product of the fan-based review and the interests of fans have been very strongly taken into account and represented in the outcome. It deserves a great deal of congratulation for the part it played in the debate. The second group are the supporters of Wimbledon Football Club—the club I was proud to support in the 1970s and the 1980s—who found that their club was being taken away from them and moved to another part of the country against the wishes of the fans, the local community and everybody concerned with it. That was the sort of dictatorial decision which will be impossible as a result of this Bill going through, as it will prevent the removal of a club to a new location against the wishes of its supporters. Wimbledon supporters’ ability to start a new club—which has been extraordinarily successful and, indeed, was promoted from the Second Division of the Football League to the First Division at the end of last season—is a testament to their resilience and skill in making the case.
Above all, I congratulate the Minister in this House and the Ministers in the other place on producing a Bill that even the Premier League is now willing to accept and work with, and that is very commendable.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, while I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, on many aspects of sports policy, I have to say that, in character, I am afraid I disagree with him again on what he opened up with this evening. It would be remiss of this House not to seriously congratulate Chelsea on winning the FIFA World Club Cup. To put three goals in the back of PSG’s net in the first half of a final—an often impenetrable net this season—was remarkable. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that it is one of the great football occasions in memory. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, an avid supporter of that club, on the extraordinary and magnificent performance of Chelsea only a few days ago. It matched the success of England’s cricketers in the Third Test.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, just for clarity, I am staying this week in the Chelsea Football Club hotel, and it is a fantastic set-up and a fantastic ground.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I am glad the noble Lord added that because otherwise, I would have kicked his name off the register, if I had been him.
The key amendments before us this evening are undoubtedly improvements, and I thank all the noble Lords who worked so hard, not least the noble Lords, Lord Birt and Pannick, to bring those amendments to us this evening and worked so hard with the Government to gain those improvements. But, as my noble friend Lady Brady, has said, for many of us they do little more than remove some broken eggshell from the omelette, which many in the other place joined with us in describing as unpalatable to both the fans and professional football clubs.
One constant theme throughout my consideration of the Bill’s details has been the layering of regulation that exists within football and the dangers of adding an additional regulator to what is already quite a complex and competitive structure of football regulation. In respect of Clause 61, can the Minister say whether the changes have been approved by UEFA and FIFA, and whether they now see no conflict with the position that they stated very clearly only a matter of months ago?
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister and commend the excellent work of her officials in her department’s Bill team on the amendments returned from the Commons that clarify and tidy provisions in the Bill. I congratulate them especially on where the Bill has been strengthened; this version is much improved from the previous Government’s drafting. I declare an interest from my past experiences, involvement, responsibilities and connections with Everton Football Club.
While transparency has been improved by these amendments, I am grateful that the exaggerated perils claimed from the Opposition Benches have continued to be resisted. These proposals will bring a more amicable resolution of the backstop. I am confident that the Bill will prove effective in including parachute payments within the remit of the regulator, as, without their inclusion, the regulator’s ability to view the financial stability and resilience of the whole football pyramid would be substantially impaired.
These amendments will reduce the risk and uncertainty in the backstop mechanism. A light touch does not signify a lack of application in maintaining vigilance across the pyramid, especially down through the leagues, where the predominance of more maverick owners has tended to congregate. However, there are other features that must be mentioned. That the regulator is fully independent of government should reassure all fans, especially now that the regulator is no longer required to consider government policies on trade and international markets. Fans will expect a rigid level playing field between clubs to be scrupulously maintained and will be encouraged that fan representatives will be democratically endorsed independently from their clubs. Meaningful engagement of fans will ensure that the heritage provisions of the Bill will not be undermined.
I too welcome the appointment of David Kogan as the first football regulator. Although he is yet to take up his post officially, it is imperative that the work begins and that swift progress is made on the state of the game report—the next milestone in this legislation’s effectiveness. May I tempt my noble friend the Minister to confirm that David Kogan has already been able to identify his team and is already drawing up proposals to begin the necessary processes to start immediately on Royal Assent?
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, despite the very kind words of my noble friend the senior Lord Moynihan, and indeed of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, I understand that we have to be careful in declaring our interests. I declare myself a season ticket holder of the Club World Cup champions of the world, whose games I have been attending since 1958—a time when many noble Lords were not even alive.
As we enter what we might call the final minutes of extra time on this Bill, it would certainly be churlish of me not to repeat the words of my noble friend Lord Maude about the Minister’s very careful and kind attention throughout this Bill, and the improvements that have been made as this Bill has come back from the Commons. But somebody must stand up and say that there is an opinion that can be heard in this House that a regulator is a really bad idea for this sector.
In saying that, I accept that it was our side, scoring, as you might say, an own goal, who started all of this. I hope that, if ever we come to power again, we have leaders who do not say, “There go the people, I must follow them”, but who think rather longer-term, not about how football fans respond to artfully constructed opinion polls but how football fans will react to the depredations of this regulator, however well-intended and good—and everybody on all sides has applauded the selection of the regulator—that will make this sector worse, and possibly very bad.
Why do we have this regulator? Because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, mentioned, Bolton football club took some risks, went bust and got relegated. Is Bolton football club no longer? Has it now vanished? Oh, no, it is still around. For those who are not massively enamoured of or conversant with the world of business—it appears that most of the Cabinet is comprised of those who have never been involved in business—it may come as a surprise to know that this is how business works. You take risks and sometimes you go bust, then you get re-formed, as Bolton football club did, and you carry on, with the same fans and the same ground. They are in a lower division but can fight back and get re-elected to higher divisions.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
Time is late, so I do not want to go through the whole history of Bolton Wanderers, but the noble Lord’s facts are not quite correct. What we are concentrating on here is that all clubs should have a better business approach to football and not just rely on wealthy local individuals or people who come along and buy up a club. We need a fit and proper persons test. That is the kind of progress we will be making. We need to make sure that, all through the pyramid, there is a better business approach to football. That is what the new regulator will help create.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. It is a pity we are discussing football and not chess, where maybe the clock would have been stopped to give me the time I would need in view of that lengthy interruption. The noble Baroness has made my point. In life, one takes risks. The fact that we have in this country the best football in the world is because enormous risks were taken in setting up the Premier League, and it has been enormously successful.
The noble Baroness was basically saying, “We know best and, to impose our view of how it should be—the non-commercial view—we will have a regulator. By the way, when we have the regulator, we will impose all sorts of little baubles on the Christmas tree”, as we discussed earlier in these debates. One example was EDI. She was basically saying, “We will impose EDI on all football clubs. Just as that pernicious doctrine is fading away, we’re going to impose it”. The Labour Party—God bless—won an election and has the right to impose these Bills. I am merely warning about what will happen.
I wrote to the Minister, who very kindly responded at length. The Labour Government often pray in aid the McKinsey studies on how EDI is a jolly good thing and leads to better organisations. I wrote to her pointing out that the McKinsey work has been completely discredited. She kindly wrote back to me saying, “Yes, I agree that the McKinsey work has been discredited, but many other studies have not been discredited and show that EDI is a jolly good thing”. So I called one of the most senior people at McKinsey and said, “Your studies have all been discredited, haven’t they?”. He said yes. I said, “Well, people are saying that there are many other studies that support the EDI idea”. He said, “There aren’t any. We’ve looked for them. They aren’t there”. The Minister did not give me examples—she may have examples, but she did not give me any in the letter—of anything but the utterly discredited McKinsey idea of EDI. That is just one example of the kind of baubles that have been put on this Christmas tree and that will make things worse in our industry.
It is indeed late, as noble Baroness said, and I will try to wrap up. We do not know best; the market knows best. The market has produced one of the most extraordinarily successful industries that we have in this country. We are going to try to take the market away and impose on it all sorts of rules. I am here just to put down a marker—
Lord Pannick (CB)
I point out to the noble Lord, who lauds the market, that an important part of the impetus for the Bill was that a number of Premier League clubs were going to exercise market forces to break away and destroy the Premier League.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is absolutely correct—and what happened? Within a few days, all that went away. They had a look and it went away. As I mentioned, I wrote an article on the very day the idea came out, as did many other people, saying that it would not work. The clubs involved looked at that and said, “Yes, this is true. It’s not going to work”.
The noble Lord talked about Wimbledon. We are now saying, in the Bill, that clubs cannot move and there can be no dynamism. Yet I quoted a study in the debate last night that said that, when we restrict, clamp down and prevent things happening, that is when societies disintegrate. We cannot expect to have success if we say, “We know best and we’re going to stop this, that and the other, and impose this, that and the other”. I am just putting a warning down: one of these days, somebody will be in a position to say that this was an extraordinarily bad idea.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I will say a couple of words to wrap up from these Benches. When we did the Bill, my first comment was, “I am not of your tribe when it comes to being a football fan”. I encourage everybody to watch a decent sport on Saturday morning, when the Lions have their first Test, but we have got that out of the way now. The thing about this is that football clearly touches people’s lives because it is their local team. What the Bill does is get better management and better structures in there. It means that somebody is overseeing them.
It may be that the market will ultimately do something or run away, or we will all end up playing ice hockey on artificial pitches or something when people get fed up with it. Who knows? But at the moment, football speaks to many communities, and the fact that we will have these clubs, which are a part of the fabric of their local society and its interaction together, surviving better, or at least standing a chance of so doing, is something for which we should actually be very grateful.
In the end, the argument about these amendments is probably over how we divide up the loot. Let us face it, we did this because bits of football were fighting with each other about money; that is where we got to at the end. The Cross Benches came up with a solution that was, I felt, a little too elegant—that congratulation is really what I felt the whole time—as opposed to a rather brutal solution by the Government. We went brutal. But we have something here that looks like it will work and have general agreement.
Lord Markham (Con)
I too start by declaring my interest as a Chelsea season ticket holder, and while I will not speak too long about Chelsea’s Club World Cup success, I will note that three of the four big European and world tournaments were won by English clubs—I can even say that half of them were won by Chelsea. We can see that we currently have a very successful game. Also, four of the starting 11 were English players and one, Cole Palmer, was the player of the tournament and even had President Trump celebrating alongside him. If only we could teach him to do the Palmer rub, we would really be there.
So we start off in a good position, and I have to add my thanks to the Minister. I think she took some political risk in bringing back amendments to the Lords when everything had obviously passed here already, and opening this up to possible further challenges and ping-pongs. She did that because she thought it would make this a better Bill, and I support everything she was trying to do and the intentions behind that, because I think it has made it a better Bill. While I agree with both my noble friends, the two Lords Moynihan, that there are dangers in the introduction of a regulator, and with my noble friends Lady Brady and Lord Maude that we need to ensure that it is a light-touch regulator, this is an improvement—but there are dangers still out there. I think we all remember the long conversations we had about the risk of UEFA, and we need only to look at the last few days, with the demotion of Crystal Palace, to see that we have to be sure that we are not doing anything here that falls foul of UEFA.
The Minister was at pains to confirm that UEFA was on board with the last version of the Bill. What we see now is, of course, quite a different version in terms of the backstop. It is a better version, particularly with the removal of what we all thought was a fairly crazy pendulum mechanism. However, it allowed the Government to say at the time, keeping to one of the UEFA golden rules or red lines, that a decision has to be a football decision. In the past, it can be said of the pendulum that it was either an FAPL or an English Football League solution. Now that the regulator is able to negotiate to find its own solution, which is very sensible measure that I support, UEFA could argue that we are now imposing a potential government solution. It is the right approach to take, but has the Minister sought similar assurances from UEFA that this new backstop does not fall foul of some of its red lines, and that it is as comfortable with this new version as it was with the old version?
That said, this is a better version, and I thank the fab four Cross-Benchers for bringing together this solution. I am sorry that both the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, are not in their usual places to take their laps of honour. It is a sensible amendment which tries to lead to a negotiated outcome with compromise, rather than the arbitrary pendulum mechanism.
At the same time, it is very sensible—and I know David Kogan was very involved in this—that the regulated board are now responsible for the decision, with the removal of the expert panel, and they are willing to be accountable for that decision. I have known David Kogan for some 15 years and, like others, I truly believe that we have a real expert with deep knowledge of the game and sports rights; he is a valuable addition. As so many of these issues are judgment calls, I feel much better knowing that we have David Kogan’s judgment. We all have to accept that the appointment process was perhaps a bit unfortunate. Can the Minister say where we are with the investigation, and when can we expect an outcome? Obviously, we would all like to get him on board as quickly as possible.
I conclude by thanking the ministerial team, the Bill team and all noble Lords for their work during what has been a long, thoughtful, informative and good process, which has ultimately improved the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords for a constructive and good-natured debate on the amendments made in the other place and for their very kind comments, not least from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, recognising why I took the risk to bring the Bill back, which was to ensure that we get a better Bill. I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Pannick, and noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House, including the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, for their support for changing the backstop mechanism. I am grateful too for the support for, and confidence across your Lordships’ House in, the Government’s preferred candidate.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is right that we need to see the regulator as taking a light-touch approach, and I am grateful to all those involved in helping us get this over the line in a much more match-fit state than it left us. I note the concerns of the noble Lords, Lord Maude of Horsham, Lord Moynihan and Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brady. I will send a transcript of the debate to the chair designate, although I am confident that he is following the debate and is already aware of the need—and their call—to tread lightly.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, asked how we would incorporate evidence from the “state of the game” report. Under the amended model, it would be explicit that the regulator must use the “state of the game” as the basis for its decision. The regulator must explain in its notice how its solution addresses the evidence from the “state of the game” report. Leagues must also submit supporting evidence alongside their proposals, which the regulator must take into account. The regulator can request additional evidence as well as gathering its own information to ensure it has a wide evidence base for making a decision. This is a more evidence-based and data-driven process than before. We are also proposing an extension of the final proposal stage to allow for more time for the regulator to come to a considered solution based on evidence.
The noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Markham, asked whether UEFA is content with the Bill as it stands. As noble Lords will know and as I have stated previously, UEFA has written to confirm that it is content with the Bill and the FA has confirmed it. Its issues were with the previous Government’s version of the Bill and requiring the regulator to have regard to the Government’s foreign policy, something we have removed and something your Lordships’ House clearly debated at some length.
Past examples of Italy and Spain legislating in relation to football broadcasting without facing repercussions from UEFA should offer reassurance. Italy in 2008 and Spain in 2015 legislated setting out how TV rights are to be sold and how the revenues are to be distributed. Neither association has faced consequences from UEFA. I will return to exactly where we are with the process a bit later.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I do not want to prolong this at all except to just place on the record that both the examples the Minister has given us are totally different and in fact reflected the model that the Premier League had in place, which was effectively a non-legislative agreement. Just for the record, we need to be clear that the very short legislation introduced in both those countries did not bear any resemblance whatever to the substantive Bill before us.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Appreciating the noble Lord’s point, I can confirm that UEFA is content with the Bill as it stands.
I am going to return to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, on where exactly we are with the chair’s appointment. The lines I have in my pack do not entirely reflect his question, so I will try to answer it rather than just use the line in the pack.
In closing, I thank several noble Lords who have been involved throughout the passage of the Bill. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, who was not able to be here today, and my noble friends Lady Taylor of Bolton, Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Grantchester. I also thank a number of Labour Back-Benchers who have been really restrained at various points in what has been a very long process, by rationing their contributions to try to get the Bill to move forward. As noble Lords are aware, most noble Lords—probably with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Addington—are absolutely passionate about the game, so to not contribute as much as they wanted was quite painful for a number of them.
I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Blake of Leeds for the excellent job she has done in supporting me, which continues now, and officials whose patience has been outstanding, and I was pleased that this was noted by noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House. They have worked with me, the Minister for Sport, the Secretary of State, stakeholders and many noble Lords to redesign the backstop over the past few months.
I also thank the noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench, the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Markham. It is always a pleasure to face them across the Dispatch Box—occasionally, I might have wished it was slightly less late into the night. I particularly thank noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Goddard of Stockport, not least for their good humour and constructive approach to raising and resolving their concerns, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who took the time in his contribution today to focus on the fact that this is about how football speaks to local communities—that is at the heart of why the Government have pursued this.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords on the Cross Benches, particularly the A-team of the noble Lords, Lord Birt, Lord Pannick and Lord Burns, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. They raised issues that made us pause to consider. I was sorry we were not able to bring back amendments before we got to Third Reading, and I hope noble Lords understand why this was. We are keen now to make sure that the football regulator can get on with the job.
Baroness Twycross
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 2 to 62.
“(za) set out details of the question or questions for resolution mentioned in section 57(1) to which it is intended the application will relate,”
“(za) set out details of the question or questions for resolution mentioned in section 57(1) to which the application relates,”
“(4A) Where the IFR is minded that the resolution process should be triggered, the IFR must consult the Football Association on the question or questions for resolution in relation to which it is minded to trigger the process.”
“(zi) the question or questions for resolution in relation to which the IFR is triggering the resolution process,”
“(iia) how the IFR has taken account of any representations, copies of which accompanied the application under section 57 by virtue of section 58(5)(d), in setting out that question or those questions, and”
“(5A) Where any of the questions for resolution set out in the notice differ from those to which the application made under section 57 relates, the notice must set out the extent of, and reasons for, those differences.”
“Proposal stage
(1) This section applies where mediation under section 60 comes to an end by virtue of the occurrence of an event within section 60(6)(b), (c) or (d).
(2) As soon as reasonably practicable after the occurrence of the event, the IFR must give notice to the two specified competition organisers.
(3) A notice under subsection (2) must—
(a) set out the question or questions for resolution,
(b) specify the qualifying football season or seasons to which that question relates or those questions relate,
(c) set out any findings in the IFR’s most recent state of the game report that the IFR considers relevant to that question or those questions,
(d) invite each of the two specified competition organisers to submit to the IFR and to each other a proposal as to how that question or those questions should be resolved,
(e) require any proposal to be accompanied by supporting evidence (including evidence as to how the proposal addresses the findings set out under paragraph (c)),
(f) specify the day on or before which proposals are to be submitted.
(4) A question for resolution may be set out in a notice under subsection (2) only if it is the question, or one of the questions, for resolution remaining unresolved when the mediation mentioned in subsection (1) came to an end.
(5) Where a notice under subsection (2) sets out a question for resolution that relates to relegation revenue (within the meaning given by section (Distribution orders)(9)), the notice must require the specified competition organisers to explain in a proposal how the proposal will promote the financial sustainability of clubs which operate teams relegated from a competition organised by the specified competition organiser distributing the relegation revenue.
(6) Subsection (7) applies if, on or before the day specified by virtue of subsection (3)(f), a specified competition organiser submits to the IFR a proposal which the IFR considers is not a qualifying proposal.
(7) The IFR may give both specified competition organisers a notice specifying a later day (falling not more than seven days after the end of the day specified by virtue of subsection (3)(f)) on or before which proposals are to be submitted.
(8) As soon as reasonably practicable after—
(a) the initial proposal deadline, or
(b) (if earlier) the day on which the IFR considers that both specified competition organisers have submitted qualifying proposals,
the IFR must give a notice under subsection (9) to the two specified competition organisers.
(9) A notice under this subsection must—
(a) state which of the two specified competition organisers (if any) has submitted a qualifying proposal before the initial proposal deadline,
(b) invite each such specified competition organiser to—
(i) confirm their proposal, or
(ii) make any permitted modifications to their proposal,
and submit the confirmed or modified proposal to the IFR and the other specified competition organiser, and
(c) specify the day on or before which the confirmed or modified proposal is to be submitted.
(10) The IFR may specify in a notice under subsection (2) or (9) the form and manner in which proposals and supporting evidence must be submitted.
(11) In this section—
(a) “the initial proposal deadline” means—
(i) the day referred to in subsection (3)(f), or
(ii) where the IFR gives a notice under subsection (7), the day specified in the notice;
(b) a “qualifying proposal” means a proposal which—
(i) explains how the question or questions for resolution should be resolved, and
(ii) complies with the requirements imposed by virtue of subsection (3)(e) and (5) (if applicable);
(c) a modification to a proposal is “permitted” unless it results in the proposal no longer being a qualifying proposal.”
“Distribution orders
(1) This section applies where the IFR has given a notice under section (Proposal stage)(9).
(2) Before the end of the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the notice under section (Proposal stage)(9) was given, the IFR must give the two specified competition organisers a notice of the distribution order it proposes to make.
(3) The IFR may extend the period in subsection (2) by up to a further 14 days if it considers it appropriate to do so.
(4) A notice under subsection (2) must—
(a) give reasons for the proposed distribution order,
(b) explain how the proposed order applies the principles mentioned in subsection (8),
(c) explain how the proposed order addresses the findings set out under section (Proposal stage)(3)(c),
(d) invite each of the two specified competition organisers to make representations about the proposed distribution order,
(e) specify the period within which such representations may be made, and
(f) specify the means by which they may be made,
and the IFR must have regard to any representations which are duly made.
(5) The period specified under subsection (4)(d) must be a period of not less than 14 days beginning with the day on which the notice is given.
(6) As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the period specified under subsection (4)(d), the IFR must make an order requiring relevant revenue to be distributed in a way that the IFR considers appropriate for the purpose of resolving the question or questions for resolution set out under section (Proposal stage)(3)(a) (a “distribution order”).
(7) In making a distribution order the IFR must—
(a) apply the principles mentioned in subsection (8), and
(b) have regard to any proposal submitted under section (Proposal stage)(9)(b). See also section 7 (in particular the IFR’s general duty to exercise its functions in a way that advances one or more of its objectives and to have regard to various matters).
(8) The principles referred to in subsection (7)(a) are that—
(a) the distribution order should not place an undue burden on the commercial interests of either specified competition organiser, and
(b) the distribution order should not result in a lower amount of relegation revenue being distributed to a club during the relevant period than would have been distributed to the club during that period had the order not been made.
(9) For the purposes of subsection (8)—
“relegation revenue” means revenue distributed by a specified competition organiser to a club in consequence of a team operated by the club being relegated from a specified competition organised by the specified competition organiser;
“relevant period”, in relation to a distribution order, means the period of one year beginning with the final day of the first football season in respect of which relegation revenue would be distributed in pursuance of the order.
(10) A distribution order—
(a) must impose on the specified competition organisers such obligations as the IFR considers appropriate for the purpose of securing compliance with the requirements set out in the order, and
(b) may, where a distribution agreement is in force between the specified competition organisers in relation to the same qualifying football season or seasons to which the order relates, provide for that agreement to have effect subject to provision contained in the order.
(11) At the same time as making a distribution order, the IFR must give the two specified competition organisers a notice—
(a) including a copy of the order,
(b) giving reasons for the order,
(c) explaining how the order applies the principles mentioned in subsection (8),
(d) explaining how the order addresses the findings set out under section (Proposal stage)(3)(c), and
(e) including information about the possible consequences under Part 8 of not complying with the order.
(12) The IFR must, as soon as reasonably practicable after making a distribution order, publish the order or a summary of the order.”
(a) a provision of this Act which requires the IFR to consult another person;
(b) the provision made by section 10(5)(a) and (b).”
“(da) the function of deciding whether the resolution process should be triggered under section 59;
(db) the function of making a distribution order under section (Distribution orders);”