Live Debate: Lords Chamber

Short debate: Steps being taken by the government, as a member of the Media Freedom Coalition, to ensure the safety and security of journalists and media workers worldwide

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Questions Questions for Questions for short Questions for short debate.

13:51

Baroness Mobarik (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Questions for short debate. Questions for short debate, the security of journalists and media

**** Possible New Speaker ****

workers. I beg leave to adjourn question standing in my name on the Order standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to raise the important and pressing issue of the safety and security of journalists and media workers worldwide. Of course, the UK is a member of the Media Freedom Coalition and has a sincere commitment in this regard. But around the world, there are more and more examples illustrating that we are collectively falling short.

We live in a world where anyone can potentially be a target for those with political views that are different. Politicians can be section by hostile actors and many colleagues in this House and the other place would testify to that. Charities debunked, individuals intimidated, and silenced by autocratic regimes and even by so- called democratic allies. Often little between them in way of tactics. That is the chilling reality of today's world. So, one can imagine, the strength of character and courage required to be a journalist or media person in a conflict zone.

Striving to discover the real facts of the situation on the ground. My Lords, brave men and women risking their lives for the truth should be both honoured and protected. Full freedom of the press is not merely a democratic ideal, but a cornerstone of democracy. It is a guardian of accountability and check on power and often the only way for communities in conflict and crisis that might otherwise go unheard. Yet, around the world, that voice is under threat. The 2024 World Press Freedom Index paints a stark picture.

Journalists are being silenced at an alarming rate. They are harassed, intimidated, detained and even killed, simply for doing their job. The United Kingdom, a founding member of the Media Freedom Coalition, has both a moral obligate free and an interest in defending freedom. We must not only continue to champion media freedom globally but redouble our efforts, especially as autocratic regimes and armed actors increasingly view the press as an enemy rather than a custodian. Here, I offer just a few of the many examples shared with me by interviews.

An international NGO that I support. In Afghanistan, that I support. In Afghanistan, since the fall of Kabul, has been a wave of oppression for dozens of journalists have been arrested, tortured or forced into hiding by the Taliban. In 2021 alone, interviews evacuated and helped to resettle journalists and media workers facing risk. In Sudan, since civil war erupted in 2023, Sudanese journalists have faced harassment and Excel. Yet, they offer the most vital of lifelines for times of conflict, access to accurate information can mean the difference between life and death.

Helping people avoid danger, and find safe passages. In Myanmar, local journalist have been enterprising, committed and resilient in the effort to bring information to the people. Yet there were 35 imprisoned in 24. According to the committee. With international media and internet shutdown, these individuals internet shutdown, these individuals continue to do brave, risky work. Such as reporting on the recent earthquake. The UK can make a meaningful impact in four key areas. First and foremost, diplomatic pressure where we have some influence.

The global media freedom initiative launched in Canada is commendable, but diplomacy must matched with consequences. When governments and journalists are shut down, they must know it comes at a price. Targeted sanctions and coordinated international condemnation must be used more frequently. This leads me to ask the Minister, what specific actions has the UK taken in the last 12 months against governments known to be suppressing the media? Second, given direct action needed, the noble Lord will be aware that intimidation is one of the most pervasive threats to media freedom.

Journalist are being buried under lawsuits intended to drain their resources and silenced their investigations. These strategic lawsuits against public participation affect all of society, but especially journalists. Anti SLAPPs containers want a change in legislation to stop such actions. A change in the law had received backing from the last government but failed to make it through Parliament before the election last July. Online harassment, especially against women journalists, is another growing front. Can the Minister explain what they are doing to expand support for legal defence, cyber protection and emergency negotiations with the defence fund? And what plans there are for revisiting legislation that would have been introduced had they not been an election.

Third, there must be a long-term investment. For access to high-quality information for all citizens underpins our own and international development success. For organisations such as the BBC World Service, adequate, long-term, sustainable funding at the forthcoming spending review is critical to enable it to continue its crucial work. Fourth, the issue of accountability. More than 80% of journalists murders go unpunished. It is a statistic that should shake as to our core. It seems, these days, to me merely a footnote.

80% of journalists murders go unpunished. This impunity emboldens the perpetrators and corrodes international norms. It must end. We must strengthen international mechanisms for investigating and prosecuting these crimes and ensure that those who seek to silence the press are brought to justice. In accordance with recommendations from the study, we should support the creation of an international investigative standing body to combat impunity for crimes against journalism and journalists. We cannot afford to be passive.

The organisation found that over half of the journalists murdered in 2024 were targeted. In conflict zones. Additionally, 550 journalists are currently in prison globally, a seven% increase from 2023. This trend is a clear and chilling signal of escalating repression. In Gaza, the Israel Hamas war is also a war on journalists. According to the Guardian media group, since October 2023, at least 170, up to 232 journalists and media workers have been killed in Gaza. The vast majority of them Palestinian.

Over 380 have been wounded and at least 84 have been arrested. In an unprecedented attack on journalists ability to do their jobs. 18 months on from the start of the war, almost all international journalists remained blocked from independently reporting on the conflict from inside Gaza. Leaving local reporters as the only source of underground as the only source of underground As has been said before, when journalists are silenced, so too is the voice of the people.

A free and independent press is not only a fundamental human right, but a necessary condition for peace, stability and prosperity. In a world increasingly defined by crises and conflict, or the Noble Lord the Minister assure me that his Majesty's government authorised to meet this moment by investing in the safety and resilience of journalists who risk everything to keep the truth alive? I look forward to hearing from the Noble Lord and to working with colleagues in this House to ensure that our commitment to the safety and security of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

journalists remains unwavering. In the interest of brevity, I

14:01

Lord Browne of Ladyton (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the interest of brevity, I will keep myself to asking the noble will keep myself to asking the noble minister if we plan on taking action on four specific recommendations made by the media coalition's high- level panel. In 2019, published for reports. Each of which concluded with a specific recommendation. Other member states have counteract upon these, but the UK despite its status as a founding member of the coalition, has not. Firstly it recommended the establishment of an emergency visa for journalists at risk.

Secondly, it called for the creation of an independent investigator task force that can be deployed contemporaneously with the condition of the crimes to help tackle impunity for them. Thirdly it advocated the use of targeted sanctions to provide accountability for such crimes and the ability to utilise sanctions in cases of arbitrary detention of journalists. And lastly it suggested the enactment of a legal duty upon states to provide consular assistance to journalists when arbitrarily detained abroad. I know some progress has been made on the latter with the government plan to introduce a legal right to consular assistance for those affected by human rights violations, but real challenges remain.

When will this be implement it, and how can it better protect journalists arbitrarily detained abroad, such as British citizens Jimmy Lai detained in Hong Kong and allow Fatah detained in Egypt? With this in mind, can my noble friend the Minister tell your Lordship's House if consideration is being given to following the example of other MFC members in adopting the high level panels recommendations? We know that the opposite of free We know that the opposite of free speech is not silence. But an uninterrupted monologue.

And the uninterrupted monologue. And the work of journalists in oppressive states is vital in protecting freedom and exposing governmental oppression.

14:03

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (Liberal Democrat)

- -

We need assurance that this government understands the vital role of journalists play bearing witness and the crisis developing journalism across the world. Journalists are increasingly harassed imprisoned and killed with impunity. In Gaza as the Noble Lord mentioned in the West Bank alone, over 75 have been killed since the start of the conflict. A conflict where they are Hibbert it, unless accompanied by designated officials. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the work of the recall Finn journalists network in supporting female journalists in the Middle East? I declare an interest being on the advisory board.

It was established in the memory of my brave friend murdered by the Assad regime. And of course the MFC, advocates for press freedom and journalists under threat. So can I ask the Noble Lord the Minister by the government will not support the call from the International Federation of journalism, journalists and the NUJ for a UN convention for the protection of journalists? I have just returned from the US where the effect of trump is chilling. Associated press excluded from attending press briefings because it insists on calling the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of Mexico.

CBS News sued for the way they edited their own interview with Carr Mill Harris, the gutting of voice of America which only makes support for our BBC World Service more important, a beacon of non- partisan factual reporting which reaches a global audience of 320

14:06

Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)

- -

million. 80% of the World Service budget is currently classed as ODA. Can I ask the Noble Lord the Can I ask the Noble Lord the Minister to confirm that this funding will be protected? When our Arabic radio surface was withdrawn from the non- because of lack of funds, the frequency was taken over by Russia. Does he not believe in by Russia. Does he not believe in sustainable investment in the World Service and that ultimately it Service and that ultimately it should be financed through general taxation via the FCO rather than the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

licence fee? Article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights guarantees the right to freedom of opinion and expression, including the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek receive and impart information and ideas through any media, regardless of frontiers. In exercising article 19, too many journalists face harassment, prosecution, asset freezing, disinformation, kidnapping, even death. Unesco suggest that in 2024 at least 68 journalists were killed, all at a time when media outlets are being closed through hostility or funding cuts.

Does the Minister agree that when crimes against journalists are left unpunished, a lack of accountability and impunity merely emboldens the perpetrators? Some of these crimes involve transnational repression, the subject of a current enquiry by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We Joint Committee on Human Rights. We received We received 1,000 401,244 pages of written submissions and/or testimonies including evidence of systematic targeting of BBC staff and their families in countries like Russia and Iran. Over 300 BBC World Service journalists, around 50% now operate in Excel.

We've heard from Jimmy Lai and his lawyers about his imprisonment in Hong Kong, jailed by the Chinese Communist Party for the crime of journalism and for promoting free media. We heard of the shocking attempted murder in London of an Iranian journalist left bleeding on the pavement outside a studio as three assailants headed for Heathrow and out of the country. The JCHR have been told, " There has been a serious escalation of harassment and security threats directed at journalists reporting on Iran from abroad.

Including credible death and kidnap threats." The committee will this week be publishing some of the evidence. Will the Minister urgently look at the evidence, engage with the JCHR and respond to the BBC's call the, " Better coordination across government departments in providing support to journalists and their families antennas how we intend to use international fora to make the case more effectively for article 19

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and challenge impunity? I begin by thanking my Noble Friend for initiating this debate Friend for initiating this debate and by referring to my interest as a member of the media law bar. In the brief time available, I've only one

14:08

Lord Garnier (Conservative)

- -

brief time available, I've only one subject action, Jimmy Lai. He is a journalist and newspaper owner. He is 77. He is a British citizen. He is a prisoner of conscience. His been unjustly imprisoned in Hong Kong for over four years. His 12 month trial for national security offences and sedition is now adjourned until 14 August. The rest of the hot Hong Kong summer, he will be incarcerated in a small hot cell. He is on trial because he's a journalist and a pro-democracy activist.

This is an affront to the rule of law, an affront to his and our internationally recognised human rights. It shows that the authorities in Hong Kong and China as weak, afraid and foolish. I urge the Noble Lord the Minister and the government as a whole not to forget Jimmy Lai. I urge all Noble Lords in every part of this House not to forget Jimmy Lai. At a time when at least one democratically elected Western leader is appeasing a murderous thug, the very type of person he and we should be confronting, this House, this Parliament, this government, this country, this democracy must stand up for Jimmy Lai and let China note that he is not forgotten.

14:09

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

I thank the noble Lady Baroness's Mobarik. This debate and for an introduction that didn't fall into outdated 20th-century tropes of the idea of us over here with media freedom and them over there without media freedom. The varieties of democracy Institute report on the defiance in the face of autocracies Asian concluding that democracy around the world has proceeded to the level it was in 1985 -- receded, and that censorship and intimidation of the media is a key factor in that.

Brazil as a key country it sees as crossing over to autocracy and as the noble Baroness said, we are seeing in the United States the noble Lady set out lots of cases of media suppression, but we're also seeing a huge suppression of academics stop the academics who are often the commentators and the analysts in the media, crucial voices that are now being silenced by the Trump presidency. The focus has to be truly on journalistic freedom as a good in itself, not using it as a stick to beat people we want to be with.

And quietly ignoring what our friends are doing instead. And I particularly want to focus on semi journalists and indeed activists who have campaigned on environment issues around the world. Noting the British journalist Don Phillips who was murdered in the Amazon while investigating illegal fishing lobbying, protecting Indigenous reserves. A lot of this repression is not just about states, it's about the actions of corporate actors, and the question I'd put the Noble Lord the Minister is what are we going to do to strengthen UK law to exclude from our supply chain actors who are involved in this repression of free speech, in this murdering of journalists and of activists who supply with information, associate a particular with extractive industries that are damaging particularly the rights and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

lives of Indigenous people. I know the Minister is already

14:12

Baroness Coussins (Crossbench)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know the Minister is already well aware of the recent escalation in the Iranians authorities in the Iranians authorities harassment and intimidation of BBC Persian journalists and their family members in Iran. The aim is to intimidate the journalists into stopping their work for the BBC World Service and to silence independent reporting on events in Iran. Reports to the BBC security team and a counterterrorism police haven't produced any relief or decline in the levels of intimidation. Targeting includes criminal convictions in absentia, freezing of assets, kidnap of -- and death, and family numbers inside Iran being questioned, harassed and having their passports confiscated.

The London-based journalist of Easter can't travel to see their families in Iran so travel the other way round is essential. However, there are significant problems with patchy advice from the Home Office and long delays in securing responses and the necessary documentation. The BBC has established good engagement on this with the FCDO for which I'm grateful to the Noble Lord the Minister and his predecessor the Noble Lord Ahmed. But what is urgently needed now and on which I seek explicit assurances from the Minister is a whole government approach to supporting the Persian surface journalists and holding Iran to account, both internationally and in the UK.

What would help immediately would be some effective leverage from the FCDO on the Home Office to get them to support and speed up their processing of visa applications for family members wishing to travel to the UK. To visit the Persian surface journalists based here. So what the Noble Lord the Minister please agree to take this up with his Home Office

**** Possible New Speaker ****

colleagues urgently? May begin by extending I'd

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May begin by extending I'd Mobarik to Baroness Mobarik for convening this debate and declare my interest as a non-executive director interest as a non-executive director of the Peugeot media group. It was in 2019 by the then Foreign in 2019 by the then Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt and I launched the Media Freedom Coalition and the Noble Lord the Minster will recall the UN together with our then media the UN together with our then media envoy and also Ahmed Hancock who I know the Noble Lord Purvis knows all too well how things have changed in Sudan since then.

But at that time there were 22 members, and since then and moving forward, by the time when we left government, there were 51 members of the media freedom

14:15

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Conservative)

- -

coalition. That I might have -- the time I have, I have three specific questions for the Minister. Whilst associating myself with the call made by the Noble Lord Lord Browne on the recommendations, I would further ask on the active use of further ask on the active use of human rights sanctions, which were mentioned by Noble Friend Baroness mentioned by Noble Friend Baroness Mobarik, whilst I note that Mr Khan answer specifically whether these are actively being considered, a key pillar of human rights and the pillar of human rights and the sanctions are there for the government to use.

Since last year, how many more countries have now joined the Media Freedom Coalition? Certainly from my experience the wider breadth and depth of membership was important to seek collective action. In terms of funding, how much funding is being allocated to Unesco, the UN body administrating support for journalists, particular from the United Kingdom and collectively? I'd appreciate an update specifically on that. And then UNESCO's role was about directly supporting journalists. Hammy journalists were supported in 2024 in terms of support for their legal fees and indeed in advocacy and replication

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I grew I grew up I grew up on I grew up on Fleet I grew up on Fleet Street I grew up on Fleet Street where

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I grew up on Fleet Street where my father was the rector, in the

14:16

Lord Oates (Liberal Democrat)

- -

my father was the rector, in the days when the newspapers still clustered around the street. I learnt a lot about the courage of journalists in bringing us news from around the world and holding the powerful to account. In Saint brides, those who have given their lives reporting the news continue to be remembered every day. Today, journalists are under greater threat around the world than ever, in Sudan, at least seven have been killed since the war broke out and in Gaza, over 176 journalists and media workers have been killed.

In Zimbabwe, a country close to my heart, media freedom has been under siege for decades. Journalists are regularly intimidated, detained and murdered. Printing presses have been blown up and public dissent is silent. One journalist, has been detained for 59 days, denied the right to bail. His crime, having the temerity to conduct an interview with a former war veteran who opposes the desire to extend the term in office and who has highlighted the criminal corruption of the regime and the family.

The President's wife is due to speak at a summit in June and I hope the members of our Parliament, who are choosing to take part, will challenge Zimbabwe's First Lady on the detention of him and the overall brutality of the regime that she represents. I hope the government will continue to make clear that there will be no resumption of normal relationships with Zimbabwe normal relationships with Zimbabwe whilst the regime continues to detain journalists, denying media freedom and defy democratic norms, as the noble Baroness said, in her as the noble Baroness said, in her excellent speech, there must be consequences for such actions.

14:18

Baroness Sugg (Conservative)

- -

As a founding member of the Media Freedom Coalition, the UK has a clear role to play in defending journalist and safeguarding the freedom of press. As we heard, threat to media workers continue often with impunity. Our commitment must be principled and practical and the UK should take action in three areas. First, continue to use diplomatic influence to hold those who suppress media freedom to account, we must stand firm against regimes that targets journalists through speaking at.

Second, we must help lead efforts to strengthen legal protections for journalists. Working with international partners to promote laws that defend freedom. Supporting independent judiciary is and challenging the misuse of this information. Finally, we must lead by example at home, by ensuring transparency, upholding the independence of the press and protecting journalists from threats. The UK can model the values we advocate for globally. After all, credibility abroad begins with integrity at home. Media freedom is not just a democratic ideal, it protecting it corruption, gives a voice to the venerable and built piece.

We are at risk of weakening democracy. The UK must not only speak up about step up for the safety of journalists. And for the future of free expression. I thank my noble friend for tabling this debate and I look forward to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister's response. I declare my interest as deputy the Telegraph media group. Any

14:20

Lord Black of Brentwood (Conservative)

- -

the Telegraph media group. Any charity that does exceptional work in helping freelance journalists. Last year, supporting more than 500 from 30 different countries. This subject is more important than ever as the world is increasingly unsafe for journalists and photographers, as the United States advocated for media freedom and withdraws from its mission to defend free speech, the new champions in Europe are needed. It is time to put in place emergency visa schemes for journalists, most reporters do not want to leave their home countries but some have no choice.

In such extreme cases, the safety to exit their home is narrow, sometimes a matter of hours, we should join Canada, Germany and others in putting in place safe mechanisms to help those in danger to find refuge, continue their important work and return home when it is safe. The numbers are small, perhaps 100 per year, but the signal it sends that the UK is a safe haven for those risking their lives to bring us the news is huge. Will the Minister look at this issue? Number two, we must understand that in the UK, there has been intimidation of journalists, even on local newspapers, it is intense and growing.

I was told of a young journalist working for a national title whose subject to email abuse and threats in which she was told she would be sexually assaulted and killed. Fake pornographic images depicting her circulated. Such examples are tragically commonplace. Online safety laws must be permitted with rigour not weakened. Finally, one of the most important things is to bring in a compliance of anti SLAPP law. They are used to bully journalists who are seeking to encourage the truth. They are totally unacceptable and are deployed to coerce reporters and if deployed to coerce reporters and if we value journalists safety they must go.

must go.

14:22

Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)

- -

We all thank the noble Lady for bringing this debate and allowing us to have a short but powerful debate in the House. I pay tribute to the noble Lord and the work of the previous government. The restriction of an demeaning and the defunding of free press and media is well understood approach of autocrats. Free media, more often, the first victim of war. As we have heard. Too many times, journalists themselves have been personal victims, paid with their life in order to spread truth.

As my noble friends said in his powerful contribution. The refusal by Israel to allow the free media to operate in Gaza or persecuting the press by Russia must persecuting the press by Russia must prove the case that if we believe in the rule of law, if we believe in transparency and democracy, we must do more. We used to have a partner in the United States with this. We can no longer rely on this to be the case. Therefore it is necessary for our government to step up.

Simply a cursory glance online, you can see that UK global partnership is being cut, not increased. Therefore, the alarming news that there can be reductions in funding for the Westminster foundation for democracy and concerns over future funding for the World Service means that we need to plan do more or do it ourselves.

14:24

Lord Callanan (Conservative)

- -

25 years ago, a charity was founded because it saw a need to defend because it saw a need to defend production -- democracy. The very core of national security. The need is even greater now, it is up to the is even greater now, it is up to the government to increase not cut and it is a major strategic error to cut all of those areas when so much is at stake.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Journalists and media workers play a fundamental role, not only in the particle systems put in safeguarding our democracies. Reporters hold government to account, they hold powerful people to account, they work to make sure that no matter someone's position, any wrongdoing, abuse or misdemeanour is brought to light. The greatest enemy of autocracy is the free press. As my noble friend reminded us, in 2019, the UK cocreated the Media Freedom Coalition. Through this, we raised violations of media freedom across the world and the UK, has issued several statements condemning attacks on media freedom.

Of course, we can't control the rules in other countries, but standing alongside our allies in support of journalistic freedom sends a strong message to world leaders who would rather see this freedom repressed. Isolating those countries who do not respect the free media marks them in stark contrast those who do. It is important government continues this work with global partners as a means of holding those countries and leaders to account. Given this, I want to ask the Minister, in his reply, if he could outline the steps that the government is taking, alongside global allies to try and influence countries in which media freedom and the security of journalists is under threat? I have mentioned countries like China and Myanmar and my noble friend was right to remind us to maintain the pressure on them but these attacks on the press can occur closer to home.

Only last month, the arrest and deportation of a BBC journalist who had been covering protests in Turkey. This was described as sending a message to the rest of the international media that we will not

14:26

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

tolerate you covering stories we do not want the world to see. The deportation comes alongside the detention of other journalists in Turkey, including from the French news agency and several Turkish news agency and several Turkish reporters. These actions have a chilling effect and are designed not only to remove reporters but prevent them coming in the first place. When them coming in the first place. When countries and leaders act in this way, the role of the media becomes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

even more important. I thank the noble Lady for her excellent introduction to this debate and securing it. I also thank all noble Lords for their contributions and I will try to respond to the points and questions raised. As the Prime Minister said, this government is clear that journalism is the lifeblood of democracy and journalists are guardians of democratic values. Across the world, media freedom is in decline, newsrooms over the world are closing and there are fewer people who have access to trusted, public interest media.

Journalists are still fearlessly holding the powerful to account. Take, for example, the conflict in Gaza, which the noble Lady highlighted. Which has become the deadliest conflict for journalists and media workers ever recorded. Or Ukraine or Sudan, where reporters are taking significant risks to uncover the truth. The government has consistently advocated for the protection of journalists along with other civilians, yet the number of threats that journalists face today from disinformation campaigns to the toxic, online environment, especially for women, highlights the urgent need to protect our media.

I am grateful for the noble Lady, Baroness Bonham Carter, for raising this point, it plays an excellent role in highlighting that risk. I think the noble Lord for highlighting that it is really important that we emphasise the case and the Foreign Secretary and promised to have raised this case at highest levels with Chinese counterparts and we will continue to do so and we are monitoring his trial. Diplomat intended the proceedings on a regular basis and we will press for consular access.

This is why the government is challenging the protection of media freedom internationally, it is an important part and as the noble Lord said, the UK co-founded the coalition with Canada in 2019. To answer Lord Ahmed, 51 countries and their members, I am determined to ensure that increases and we are in constant dialogue with allies about this. I am proud to build on the work of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, the previous government's work in establishing the coalition.

I attended the fifth anniversary event last September. To answer the noble Lady, we are absolutely committed to use automatic tools -- all diplomatic tools. The government has released statements on various cases. As well as statements on specific countries such as Georgia and Burkina Faso. And issues such as journalists in conflict. The high- level panel of experts on media freedom, ably chaired by my noble friend, provides expert legal advice to coalition members on legislative reforms.

My noble friend asked specific questions about their reports. Certainly, we welcome the contribution to the coalition. And their reports have covered sanctions, state refuge and investigation. On sanctions, we are happy to follow up on individual And the reports on investigations into the attacks on journalists we share the concern of value of this work that went into this report and the evidence it provides to answer the other question on impunity for crimes against journalists, and we will pursue this as a matter of urgency.

Also, the UK is actively working through existing OSCE and UN mechanism to call for greater media freedom. We support the Council of Europe's journalism matters campaign and the past five years we have funded as the Noble Lord Ahmed raised UNESCO's global media defence fund, which works to bolster journalists, and we will continue to consider how best we can do that. And we have, as Noble Lords have been pointing out, reviewing how to strengthen and support British nationals overseas to our consular service, including support for journalists and the writer consular assistance.

On safe place and visas, the Home Office have advised that the Home Secretary's existing discretion to grant leave for example in exceptional humanitarian circumstances is sufficient to cover the point that the Noble Lord Lord Black raised. And can also say in relation to Dennistoun, when I was in -- Afghanistan, when I was in the coalition, dialogue with Minister Melanie Jolley presented the UK Canada media freedom award on behalf of independent journalists in Afghanistan first it was amazing to hear the contribution from them and the work that they were continuing to do.

Their courageous reporting on human rights and women's rights under the Taliban regime, and will continue to highlight that. At the time when media freedom is under threat, across the world, I am pleased that the BBC World Service provides impartial accurate news to global audiences of 320 million. Its language services reach audiences living in authoritarian and conflict affected states were accurate information is restricted. In October, we launched a new global media development program with BBC media action and Sierra Leone, Zambia, Ethiopia, Indonesia and Bangladesh and Peru.

And again to answer the noble Lady Baroness, it is our policy to ensure a long-term sustainable funding future for the World Service. And we've committed to do this through the charter review. The other media action program is also supporting and strengthening local media in the countries I've mentioned. More broadly, we are committed to promoting and protecting human rights and the rule of law, and I think it's important that we see media freedom through that prism. They are all interconnected.

We will work and do work with our allies to encourage all states to uphold the international human rights obligations and hold those who violate or abuse human rights to account. And of course, I think as noble Lady Baroness Sugg said, we don't just champion media freedom abroad, we also advocate for media safety at home too. The UK convenes the National committee for the safety of journalists, which is responsible for the delivery of the national action plan, for the safety of journalists.

And this year we will work with members to draw up next iteration of the plan. And I hope I can reassure the noble Lady Baroness too that tackling abusive legal threats against journalists will also be a key domestic focus this year. We have, as Noble Lords pointed out, seen as the Noble Lord Black raised, we've seen how journalists and others are targeted through legal action in UK courts for their role in exposing economic crime, including corruption.

I would say that we understand the need for legislation, but we cannot legislate in haste. We have to understand and be clear that the balance between access to justice and free speech, but we are committed to review it. I do hope that today's debate is only the start of our consideration of this important issue, and I want to again reassure the Noble Lord Lord Ahmad that this government is committed to continue the work that he started, which I'm incredibly proud of, and we will continue to do it at all levels of our multilateral and bilateral relationships.

I think it's important, and I understand the points the Noble Lord has raised. And I'm not going to go through a point by point in our spending plans. But I do want to assure people and Noble Lords that this government is committed to ensuring that we use all the tools available to us to defend media freedom, which includes all of our diplomatic evidence. So I would conclude that we are continuing to support and protect media freedom, both domestically and internationally, through the Media Freedom Coalition, which we are committed to build and extend.

And other development and other initiatives. We are taking big strides towards a safer and more transparent environment for all the journalists and to ensure that independent media can thrive and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hold power to account. Before the Noble Lord sits down,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the Noble Lord sits down, may I ask him if you would comment on one of the questions I asked on one of the questions I asked about his willingness to speak to Home Office colleagues about being quicker off the mark in processing quicker off the mark in processing visa applications for the relatives of BBC Persian journalists who need of BBC Persian journalists who need to come here to visit their family because the journalists who are based in London clearly can't go there?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there? Understand the nobility's point, and I will undertake to do that.

14:37

Statement: Update on British Steel

We should just have a couple of minutes break to allow Noble Lords We We now We now come We now come to We now come to questions We now come to questions on We now come to questions on a statement made in the House of Commons on Tuesday 22nd of April on British Steel, and we shall start with the opposition front benches.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome this opportunity to return to the subject of Scunthorpe. return to the subject of Scunthorpe. British Steel. And may I start by saying once again as I've said on the last occasion, that our thoughts today must be with the steelworkers, today must be with the steelworkers, their families, the suppliers, and the communities whose future hangs the communities whose future hangs in the balance in what is a very difficult and challenging situation. difficult and challenging situation.

We welcome the news that British

14:39

Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)

- -

Steel's redundancy plans have been Steel's redundancy plans have been halted. This will be a relief to the workers and their families who have endured months of uncertainty because when one looks at the background to this whole situation, the government has just had no plan the government has just had no plan at all for British Steel. As was at all for British Steel. As was said when we met on Saturday 12 said when we met on Saturday 12 April during the recess, this situation should never have been allowed to reach this point.

The closure of the still and to supplant in Luton, as long ago as 29th of November last year was a stark warning, and yet still the government failed to act in time, so while today's statement brings some short-term reassurance, it is by no means a resolution. This is only the beginning. So I do say to the noble Baroness the Minister that we now need urgent clarity. We need to understand how the government plans to secure the future of the British Steel industry.

That includes a clear strategy to boost domestic steel production. A credible plan to attract and sustain private sector investment. And an assurance that the broad powers that the government has taken for genuinely be temporary. Although we are told that these powers will not be held, and I quote, " A minute more than necessary", the government's recent approach with delegated powers and Henry VIII clauses is precisely why this House called for a Sunset clause. Parliament was just not given sufficient time to scrutinise the bill properly, and the government should have taken that opportunity to come back to Parliament with improved proposals that had not been rushed through.

Sadly the proposal was rejected. We now have a commitment that the Secretary of State will provide updates every four weeks, and we are going to have a debate in this House in September, October on the future of British Steel, and this is very much what the Noble Lords Lord Fox and many others called for on the last occasion. But we really now need to know, can the noble Baroness the Minister provide the House with a commitment that this will be a substantive debate? The noble Lady the Minister in the last occasion said, " I confirm that my Noble Friend the Chief Whip will facilitate a fuller debate on the floor of the House on the operation of what will then be the act." Now I don't know whether the noble Baroness the Minister has had an opportunity of talking to her colleague, but we really would like some further detail because this House must be given the opportunity to scrutinise and influence the direction of policy in a substantive debate.

Can we please have that assurance? We must of course also address the cost to the taxpayer. Has the government provided any form of estimated assessment of the public cost so far? And looking ahead, where will the ongoing costs of land? Especially if the government intervention continues or escalates. On that point, the Business Secretary has now said repeatedly that nationalisation is likely. Can the noble Lady the Minister confirm that any move towards nationalisation will not be rushed through at the last minute via emergency legislation? If it is indeed the government's intention to nationalise, they should make that clear today.

And bring forward legislation without delay. This House must be given the opportunity properly to debate and scrutinise such a significant move. What happened during the recess is not unacceptable, and should not be repeated because it was an appalling way for ministers to treat Parliament. The government must act in a way to prevent necessary uncertainty and strain on our steelworkers and their families. Then to the matter of the government's long promised steel strategy, we are told this will be laid before us very soon.

Can the Minister just give us an idea of what it will contain and specifically, will the government consider or reconsider opening coking coal mines in the UK? I think it was Lord Young of Norwood Green who on the last occasion we debated this, did say to the noble Lady the Minister, will the government, " From column 517 on that what of April, will the government reconsider the decision not to support the Cumbrian mines, which can produce high quality coking coal?" There has been no indication in that debate of an answer to our Noble Friends question.

And we'd love to hear from the noble Baroness the Minister on what is the answer to that. I realise that there is a sulphur problem, but that is long- standing and can be overcome. So can we please just reconsider opening coking coal mines in the UK because it's potently absurd to reject domestic coking coal on environmental grounds, only to import it from thousands of miles away at a greater environmental and financial cost. And secondly, the government has committed 2.5 billion in investment into steel.

All the noble Baroness the Minister clarify for which this funding is intended? Is it going to cover running costs? If not, who will? And are we expecting the taxpayer to carry that expecting the taxpayer to carry that Will the government reconsider elements of the environmental policy and regulatory framework that have, at times, actively harms UK industry. Of course, we must stay committed to our environmental obligations but surely that must be balanced with industrial viability energy security and economic growth.

14:46

Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, confirm whether such a review is under active consideration? The British Steel industry is a strategic national industry is a strategic national asset. It surely deserves better asset. It surely deserves better than piecemeal intervention and opaque announcements. I ask again, opaque announcements. I ask again, could we please be provided with clarity, detail and honesty that clarity, detail and honesty that this House, the other place, and the thousands of workers that communities are relying on us, rightly demand now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, when we debated the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, when we debated the fate of British Steel on the 12th of this month, the sense of urgency this month, the sense of urgency from the government was palpable. As subsequent events played out, that sense of urgency was fully sense of urgency was fully justified. Unlike Lord Hunt to come I would say that it is timely legislation, Parliament moved effectively to deliver it. That is why I think the context of the statement, as far as it goes, which sets out how both have been secured and the redundancy prices has been ended, our good news.

Everyone involved should be congratulating for pulling together and working effectively to do that. Of course, the haste of the legislation and the need for quick action leaves a lot of open questions and I am going to try and ask if you more nitty-gritty questions. The first of that, what about Port Talbot? The Welsh will be looking eastward and wondering where they fit in to this program. Has the government had discussions with Tata steel? How does the government see the whole of the United Kingdom and how will it set the picture to your Lordships? The second, what is the current status? That is with respect to British Steel but also other steel -related businesses holds it in the UK.

Given the fractious nature of the past attendees, how is the government relating to the Chinese business... Relating to the Chinese business that still owns the site? What is the point of contact? Is it operational, departmental, is it government or is there no contact it government or is there no contact at all? Can the Minister confirm whether there have been government to government discussions about this between the UK and the People's Republic of China. Third, following some discussion during the debate last week, I subsequently have written to the noble Baroness and Lord Hammond, who was present on the frontbench, asking them to clarify the basis of international law that the government is using to justify the subsidising and operational functions of the business it does not own.

That is the both WTO and the EU level. Perhaps the Minister could alert the officials to the existence of this letter and duly along the response. In the statement, in answer to the rhetorical question, what next, the Secretary of State said that all options were on the table. It would help your Lordships House if the Minister could explain what it means by all options. More than this, I would suggest that properly decide what should happen, the government should have a clear sense of industrial strategy.

We should not delude ourselves, the UK steel industry has been a tough place for a very long time and Saturday the 12th did not change that. For UK steel to flourish, it needs to be within an industrial strategy and within a defence industrial strategy. We are waiting for these. I would say, the need for these anchoring strategies is ever more present. I asked the Minister, when will the industrial strategy be published? The noble Lord hand raised the closure that was announced on 29 November, which was surprising, I would ask who was in government at the time that the announcement was made.

He did say, that steel is fundamental to Britain's industrial strength and we agree. To make that statement... In that case, withdraw the point. To make the statement true, the industrial strategy should explain how it is going to build the steel industry. It should explain what steel is needed and what processes could deliver the steel and I have an outstanding question on a different sort of steel that could be delivered by blast furnace. That question has not been answered question has not been answered because it is my contention that many of steel's, the specialist skills we require, particularly for defence, cannot be produced by the current electric technology.

I would like an answer to those questions. It should explain how the demand for UK made steels will be stimulated and grown and it should devise an ownership structure that actually fits in with the strategy. At the moment, we are looking at ownership before we are looking at what we want the industry to do. I suggest should be looking at this the other

14:53

Baroness Gustafsson, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)

- -

way around. Finally, unless the government deals with the high cost of energy, that they did inherit of energy, that they did inherit from the Conservative government, it is hard to see how any of this works. Can the Minister at least acknowledge the problems faced by the whole manufacturing sector by the whole manufacturing sector by disproportionately high energy costs and can the Minister suggest how the and can the Minister suggest how the government is going to address that absolutely key issue.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to thank Lord Fox for his statement and acknowledging the pace of action that many of us in this of action that many of us in this House have responded to. It was significant, for a number of people, I want to extend my thanks to that I want to extend my thanks to that regard. Steel is vital to the UK. regard. Steel is vital to the UK. This government was elected with a clear mandate to rebuild the industry after a decade of neglect and support steel workers, their families, and communities for families, and communities for generations to come.

We have committed £2.5 billion doing so, in addition to 500 million for Port Talbot. Resolving years of uncertainty surrounding the future of the Scunthorpe steelworks has been a priority since our first days in office. We have worked tirelessly with the trade unions defined in resolution for British Steel which protects jobs and ensures ongoing steel production. This included making a generous, conditional offer of financial support and offering to pay for all of the companies raw materials. Offers which the owners did not accept.

On 12 April, the government took the decision to recall Parliament so that we could take urgent action on British Steel. As the noble Lord will be aware, this was the first time this House has sat on a Saturday in over 40 years, attendance was testament to the significance of the issue at hand, which was to stop the immediate closure of the blast furnaces. Lord Hunt asked about the specific steps that we have taken since the steel industry special measures act passed on 12 April.

As the noble Lord are aware, the legislation gives government the power to direct British Steel's board and workforce. Ensuring that they get paid and ordered the raw materials to keep the blast furnaces running. It also permits the government to do these things themselves if the circumstances demanded. We have wasted no time in enacting these powers and taking the urgent action required to keep the furnaces lit. Officials are on site to help British steel within hours of the special measures act becoming law and we are already seeing the real-world impact of our intervention.

As a result, we have secured the raw materials needed to keep them operating in the coming weeks and we continue to work at pace to secure a steady pipeline of materials. I am delighted to say that British Steel confirmed on Tuesday they can keep operating both of the U.K.'s last remaining blast furnaces in the contrast to the plans to shut when them down. This matters greatly in this country and there are enormous supporters thousands of steelworkers and their families.

I am pleased that British Steel confirmed it has cancelled redundancy consolidation that was started. Now that the immediate emergency at Scunthorpe has been resolved, it is right that noble Lords ask questions about what is next. Officials met on 16 April, it was a respectful conversation, that dialogue will continue as we continue to find a way forward in the national interest. The Minister for industry stated on Tuesday, in the other place, British Steel has suffered years of underinvestment, to secure the long-term future, we need a modernisation program with a private sector partner.

Furthermore, need to look beyond any individual company and ensure a secure and thriving future for the whole steel sector. That is why we are continuing the work to publish the steel strategy this spring. I understand the points about the financial applications of our intervention in British Steel. In the interest of transparency, the Department for Business and Trade accounts for 25/26 will reflect the financial support the Department has given to British Steel. It is important to recognise that allowing British Steel to collapse was not a no cost or low-cost option.

It would have far-reaching economic consequences, including the loss of thousands of jobs in an economically vulnerable area. The intervention to prolong the furnace operations at Scunthorpe was a necessary intervention and investment in the future of our economy and national security. Whilst the situation has developed rapidly, we have been working tirelessly to address the long-term sustainability and competitiveness of the steel sector, the robust industrial strategy will become permitted by the steel strategy, due to be published in the spring.

Which will address the complex issues, many of which Lord Fox acknowledged, and encourages facing the industry, including ageing infrastructure, high energy costs, and intense global competition. We have assured the House steel remains a priority under this government, it is fundamental to the industrial strength and British Steel has a central place. As we move forward, we will keep both houses informed with regular, Britain update as the policy develops and the long-term strategy takes place. I will make the commitment about talking to the Chief Whip about making a commitment that it will be debated here.

In conclusion, I reiterate the words, steel has a bright future under this government and this week is not the end. It is not the end of the work and it is not the end of the negotiations but thanks to the actions we have taken, it is not the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

end of British Steel. The increased National Insurance

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The increased National Insurance Contribution is on employers. That is threatening the viability of is threatening the viability of British manufacturing. Especially steelmaking. What does the government propose to do about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

institutional costs? Energy costs are high within the UK. I see that and I hear this conversation regularly, not just conversation regularly, not just within this sector but within many industries around manufacturing. The government is taking action on the high industrial engine costs in particular, which are the highest in Europe, four times the cost within the United States. It has doubled in recent years. The British industry supercharger package will bring electricity costs down significantly once fully unfermented from 2025.

This will ensure that energy- intensive industries like steel are shielded from future policy costs that would have a significant impact on electricity. Typically, this is not things like the net-zero

15:00

transition that is causing the challenge, the challenge is securing the clean energy that we need to end the reliance on overseas oil and gas. Indeed, UK steel, the trade gas. Indeed, UK steel, the trade body for the steel industry, has said it is the U.K.'s reliance on natural gas power generation that

15:00

The Lord Bishop of Lincoln (Bishops)

- -

leaves us with higher prices than international allies. It is not too much clean energy that too little.

15:00

Baroness Gustafsson, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am sorry... We will write to you on that matter.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Following intermissions, in the other House, when the statement was other House, when the statement was received, the Minister did speak specifically about the possibilities specifically about the possibilities of hydrogen and further research into the use of hydrogen. Could the

15:00

Lord Bellingham (Conservative)

- -

into the use of hydrogen. Could the Minister comment on that? What scale research will be undertaken to enable that part of the strategy in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A significant part of the ongoing strategy will be thinking about how the provisioning of energy will be the provisioning of energy will be created for the long-term in that has a reliable and sustainable has a reliable and sustainable source. And that will form part of that sort of long-term steel strategy plan that will be coming out and that will include the out and that will include the provisions about whether it would be appropriate to use hydrogen in the restoration.

15:01

Baroness Gustafsson, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

restoration. Will the Minister time today to look at the comments by one of the U.K.'s foremost energy experts, Simon French? Who recently pointed out that when the UK imports oil and gas and coal, rather than relying on domestic sources, the resulting carbon emissions are staggeringly four times as high. Will she commit now to ensure the Governments looks very urgently at opening minds in this country and indeed oilfields and gas fields in the North sea?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There is an immediate and a long-term challenge here, and I think the immediate term is working think the immediate term is working to make sure the British steel have to make sure the British steel have the materials that they need to be able to keep those blast furnaces running. The UK does not have any running. The UK does not have any operational call coverts, so we are unable to produce a mystically mined coal that is required for blast

15:02

The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)

- -

coal that is required for blast furnaces, which means we are required to import it. There have been questions about whether we can be thinking about a Cumbria development to be able to source some of that, and that has been something that has been explored and the current assessment is that coal from Whitehaven mine, for example, has too high a sofa content for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

British Steel's needs. The noble Baroness the Minister has talked about transparency and

15:02

Baroness Gustafsson, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)

- -

has talked about transparency and updates, so can I please ask her, I do not expect her to have this information to hand now, but there are many noble Lords who would greatly appreciate seeing a very simple spreadsheet showing us the inputs and why it is apparently costing £700,000 per day to run this operation, so can she commit to providing us with that number so we can see where the costs are coming from and why. Can we have a viable ongoing concern that we might break even? even?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Creating ongoing viable concern is absolutely the aspiration for that sector. Not necessarily with

15:03

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

that sector. Not necessarily with regard to British Steel specifically but much broader sector. And I think as I referred to earlier you have the immediate term of how do we make

15:04

Baroness Gustafsson, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)

- -

sure that the day-to-day operations of British Steel are ongoing and of

15:04

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

of British Steel are ongoing and of running and that second longer term pieces how do we make it a financially sustainable industry? And one that is able to wash its own face economically. Enter that part that is where the steel strategy is that is where the steel strategy is a really core part. With regard to the specifics of what are we spending in the here and now, that is absolutely information that will is absolutely information that will be made available within part of the departments accounts when Bill is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

published. The annual volume of steel scrap exported from the UK at 7.2 million tonnes in 2023, a £20 million in 2022, 7.4 million tonnes in 2021.

15:05

Baroness Gustafsson, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)

- -

The figure is not going down, it is wobbling around which is a product of both the supply and scrub steel

15:05

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

15:05

Baroness Gustafsson, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)

- -

of both the supply and scrub steel from within the UK and what is happening in markets to which it is being exported, particularly the Indian subcontinent. My question is

15:05

Baroness Hazarika (Labour)

- -

Indian subcontinent. My question is about the government's long-term vision. That amount of steel could actually ensure that if we were to be recycling that ourselves under the best possible environmental conditions, we would obviously be creating jobs and opportunities and creating jobs and opportunities and a secure supply of steel for the transition that we need. Is the government's long-term vision for a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

circular economy in steel so we are not exporting scrap steel. I can confirm absolutely, thinking about how we create that

15:05

Baroness Gustafsson, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)

- -

thinking about how we create that circulate within steel and how we think about scrap will be a key

**** Possible New Speaker ****

aspect of the steel strategy. Can the Minister give us any indication of when we look at the amount of defence equipment that we may be having to produce and manufacture in this country now because of our changing defence situation, when you look at the amount of housebuilding that we are planning to do, how much of the

15:05

Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)

- -

steel that we hope will still be produced in Scunthorpe will be used

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for those purposes? With regards to the specifics of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With regards to the specifics of Scunthorpe, I not in a position yet to be able to confirm how much that is domestically, but currently only is domestically, but currently only 40% of the U.K.'s demand is provided domestically, so I think there is a domestically, so I think there is a significant domestic market that we can look to serve in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can look to serve in. Steel is a strategic national asset, which is of course why our frontbenchers work together on that frontbenchers work together on that long Saturday, 12 April in a very

15:06

Baroness Gustafsson, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)

- -

enlightening debate so informed obviously by the background of US obviously by the background of US tariffs, my question is this : are there other strategic national assets whose future in Government is assets whose future in Government is worried about perhaps as a result of the skyhigh electricity price, or inappropriate Chinese involvement. Some intimate be one area, I Some intimate be one area, I suppose, but I am sure the noble Baroness will be able to tell us what the Government is looking at in this area and if there are causes for concern and how we are dealing with it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do think you are right and today as well as where it feels like it is changing from a Monday to a Tuesday. We must not forget that in Tuesday. We must not forget that in all of this we should have that North Star which is about one of those assets that we have within the UK and those industries that we see encouraging more of our future growth and how could we support

15:07

Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)

- -

growth and how could we support those? Purpose of the government's industrial strategy is exactly that. I do we identify those key sectors and what are the facets that we need to intervene in and be able to support growth? I think a key aspect of that is the energy costs, which is why things like the supercharger scheme is so important. And they needed to be targeted at those sectors that we see is really essential to the UK. essential to the UK.

15:07

Baroness Gustafsson, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)

- -

My Lords, would it be appropriate, I think, to ask the Minister to reaffirm that the steel strategy is not mutually exclusive from the net zero strategy, it is absolutely central to the net zero strategy going forward. Because I think there is an unfortunate tendency to think you can have one and not the other. Can the Minister confirmed that the aim is to deliver

**** Possible New Speaker ****

one through the other. I confirm exactly that. Energy is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I confirm exactly that. Energy is going to be such an important growth driver across all of our sectors, and a key point here are talking

15:08

Lord Bellingham (Conservative)

- -

and a key point here are talking about today is the steel strategy. And, for us to grow a sustainable and powerful industry within this UK, we need a sustainable and powerful source of energy that is generated here. And that we can rely on. That is why the two go hand-in- hand.

15:08

Baroness Gustafsson, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)

- -

Further on the impact of the national insurance and employer contributions increased, what is the government's assessment of the impact of those increases on steelmaking?

15:08

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

I would be more than happy to follow-up specifically in that regard. and the last part of my question, she answered my point about coal production in the UK but not oil and gas and feels in the North Sea. Yes another government's intention to pursue vigorously the production of those fields in the North Sea?

15:09

Baroness Gustafsson, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)

- -

I would be more than happy to follow-up as well, specifically on that separately.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Noble Lady the Minister spoke

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Noble Lady the Minister spoke about speaking or seeking new private sector involvement in Scunthorpe steelworks. We have seen so much private sector involvement in sectors like the water in where we have seen, essentially, the privatisation of cash and the

15:09

Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)

- -

privatisation of cash and the socialisation of cash and debts. In the Noble Lady issue ME that is not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what is going to happen here? I think we have been clear that the best way forward is that we the best way forward is that we would like this to be a commercially run business with private investment run business with private investment and Government acting in support. We will do whatever it takes to give the UK the best chance to safeguard the UK the best chance to safeguard the future of steelmaking. And that is why we would talk about the most is why we would talk about the most likely outcome that the Secretary of State has mentioned in

15:10

Baroness Gustafsson, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nationalisation. If there are no further backbenchers, I just ask the noble Baroness the Minister, again, very briefly, we are impressed with her enthusiasm. Indeed, if I may say, there is a spring in her step. She has referred several times to the steel strategy being published in the spring. Well, I detect that some of them, although we may not believe it, summer is just around the corner. So, when is the steel strategy going to be shared with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this house? Thank you very much and I proud

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much and I proud that I have a spring in my step. I am just back from a holiday weekend where I spent it in the garden and where I spent it in the garden and it indeed felt very spring like. Until I take those covers from my Until I take those covers from my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ferns, it is not yet summer. As we were not due to return to the renters rights bill until 3:19 the renters rights bill until 3:19 PM, I beg to move that the House do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now adjourn during pleasure until that point. The question is that the House do now adjourn until 3:19 PM, As many now adjourn until 3:19 PM, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it.

15:12

House Adjourned During Pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I beg I beg to I beg to move I beg to move that I beg to move that the I beg to move that the house I beg to move that the house do now again resolve itself into a committee upon the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

committee upon the bill. The noble Baroness pre-empted me. The question is that the house now again resolve itself into a again resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. All of

15:21

those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it. In content". The contents have it. In

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 24, the noble Baroness. I declare an interest as Chair of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare an interest as Chair of the PTO for the private rented sector. I have to amend and is in sector. I have to amend and is in this group. Both relate to repossession and their intention is repossession and their intention is to make possession on the ground contingent on compensation being paid, rather than being dependent on court proceedings. I'm grateful for the very helpful briefing on this matter to the Renters Alliance and specifically to a renter advocacy service operated by Cambridge House.

The aim is to provide landlords with a route to repossession to give the landlord possibility of avoiding a range of sanctions could be imposed or taken by local authorities when breaches have occurred. As I understand it, the purpose is to protect renters from poor landlord practice, for example, poor housing conditions. However, it gives the non-compliant landlord grounds for possession of property in cases where rent or wrongdoing may not have occurred -- rental wrongdoing may not have occurred, resulting in a difficult situation for the a difficult situation for the renter.

There is the option to pay to the tenant such as some to compensate the loss sustained. This is a welcome addition to the bill. The intention of that amendment is to compensate the renter appropriately for the damages of possession. However, some believe that the mechanism of doing so has significant complications via court order. Under the current proposal, any compensation ordered by the court may not be paid to the renter before their eviction. Of compensation is not paid before the eviction, renters may be left to foot the bill for any relocation or legal expenses out of their own pockets.

This seems to me to be inappropriate and leaves the renter in an extremely perilous position. It's contrary to natural justice.

15:24

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Labour)

- -

The amendment would mean that the The amendment would mean that the renter is evicted from their home, forced into finding alternative accommodation, potentially at a accommodation, potentially at a higher rate, or face homelessness. higher rate, or face homelessness. The renter is burdened by a highly stressful situation in having to stressful situation in having to find a new private tendency. The renter is likely to be forced to pay for a new deposit for an intermediary period before the intermediary period before the possession of a compensation payment, which they might be able to afford.

The renter is at the mercy of the housing system. System which is under extreme pressure. This is likely to cause a prolonged period of uncertainty and stress. The renter must find legal representation, potentially at prohibitively high cost, and is expected to take on the additional burden of pursuing an unscrupulous landlord for unpaid compensation. By making the possession contingent on compensation paid upfront, the renter doesn't suffer these consequences and is fairly compensated for any stress and burden experience. There are further considerations if a renter is evicted.

Renters in priority need must be placed in temporary accommodation and rehoused by the council at substantial cost to individual authorities and the public purse. This is further complicated by the fact that this could potentially financially dis- incentivise councils. This contradicts the local authority's enforcement strategies as the cost of housing are passed on to the local authority. This is during a period when local authorities are spending too £0.3 billion in temporary accommodation. Housing consisting of more than 20,000 households.

-- 2.3 billion. In addition, deposits are now very high. The cost of a new deposit is potentially a major perimeter to finding new accommodation quickly. Should the landlord failed to return their deposit, the renter will be expected to find an additional cash some -- cash some, likely to be over some -- cash some, likely to be over £1000. -- cash sum. A recent survey showed that out of 1000 renters surveyed, nearly have, 48 %, had to borrow money for a deposit -- nealy half.

Thanks to this amendment, renters would be able to move more seamlessly and not face financial barriers. Further, as the bill is currently presented, for the renter to access compensation, they must alarm the landlord who has already broken the law. They have to rely on him to comply with the court order to pay compensation. There is no guarantee that any compensation ordered by the court will be paid to the renter. In the seven, the renter must take the landlord to court. The courts are under record backlogs, with most recent data suggesting that the wait time for a small claims hearing is 54 weeks, more than one year.

This is an egregious amount of time to wait to receive the necessary and appropriate compensation through landlord non- compliance. Finally, legal representation is also a financial barrier which may prevent renters from attempting to claim compensation. Vacant possession is typically ordered on top quality -- low quality housing were the quality is lower and therefore the income of the renter is also likely to be lower. It's fair to assume that renters who receive the possession order will not have the means to pursue the landlord for the compensation they are due.

This would be a significant injustice. I hope we can be prevented. While some renters will be able to access legal aid funding, the majority and an increasing proportion would not. Legal aid cuts have resulted in Legal aid cuts have resulted in fewer legal aid positions. Furthermore, compensation is not always paid by criminal lenders, even following a court order. As witnessed in a number of cases, data reveals that in instances where award for a rental order has been given against a landlord, only 40% of landlords complied with the order to pay the renter.

When the order has been made, the compliance drops even further to just 5%. This is contrary to national -- natural justice. I hope my noble friend the Minister will consider how without compensation paid prior to the possession of the home, how those on low or no income will find the funds necessary to pay a new deposit. What estimate the government needs to make for the additional costs that local authorities in England will incur in cases where priority need renters are evicted from their homes and placed into temporary accommodation.

Whether legal aid will be made available to renters to enforce orders made by the court under the existing provision for representation in relation to possession proceedings and if so, what is the government's calculation of how much extra this will cost? And finally, can she say whether there is an appropriate timeframe for a renter to receive compensation following their eviction. I hope that I have shown that my amendments will deliver more fair and just outcome for the renter. I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. Amendment proposed, Class 4, page

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, Class 4, page 5, Lane 22, insert the words printed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the Marshalled List. My Lords, we welcome the government's commitment to government's commitment to rebalancing relationships between landlords and tenants and the landlords and tenants and the abolition of section 21. We must ensure that the protections afforded to tenants are as robust as possible to tenants are as robust as possible if this bill is to truly deliver for the people who find themselves on the frontline of this housing the frontline of this housing

15:31

Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)

- -

While we understand the intention is to provide clear routes for landlords to regain property, making landlords to regain property, making grants mandatory removes the vulnerability to act as a backstop, consider the individual consider the individual circumstances of the tenant. It is important, we believe, to test this issue at Committee stage, and that is why we have tabled amendment 31. Whilst most repossessions under the new act will be able to proceed, we new act will be able to proceed, we believe, without pitch, ensuring that exceptional cases of discretionary element is critical.

A discretionary element that the Labour front bench argued for some figure in the last Parliament. Indeed, the renters reform coalition argued that the lack of discretion is one of the most significant shortcomings in this bill. The renters reform coalition comprises some of the leading charities who have worked tirelessly on the issues of tenancy and homelessness and housing, including shelter, who are used to work for. And I thank the coalition for their work on this amendment and their support on this issue.

It is not difficult to imagine situations where compelling reasons for refusing immediate possession should exist. For instance, a tenant or a member of their family may have a serious terminal such as cancer with a very limited life expectancy, or they may have a severe disability, or caring responsibilities for a disabled, meaning they will necessarily need a longer period to find more suitable accommodation. In the last Parliament, shadow minister for housing, Matthew Pennycook, provided us with a very useful hypothetical example, very terminally ill cancer patient could be evicted and at risk of homelessness because the landlord wishes to sell.

The landlord, perhaps, in this hypothetical scenario, with a portfolio of say eight households, houses, with no need to sell. In that scenario, he argued that the judge should have discretion. The new mandatory grants, so the mandatory grants to ZBA, 2ZC, which cover possession when a lease ends, prevent the court from taking these profoundly human factors into account, making more grants discretionary offers a vital layout of protection. It allows the courts the potential to act as a backstop and considers all factors and potentially the proposed alternative courses of action to avoid a damaging eviction.

Some will obviously argue that this cannot be done with backlogs in the courts. Reforms in Scotland were grounds for the recession remained discretionary in October 2022 have shown little evidence of significantly worsening court backlogs. Again, if backlogs in courts, or backlogs in any institution right now, were applied to every piece of legislation that comes before us as a rationale and reason for not proceeding or making a decision, we would be very happy as a legislative body indeed. We are another reality and likelihood includes taking up the cause of action, just like the First-tier Tribunal will be minimal, but the existence of the discretionary approach would ensure an all- important safety net is in place for the worst possible cases.

This amendment seeks to remove the word amendment seeks to remove the word most and insert may in relevant heading of part one of schedule one and omits the heading of part two. This would provide the court with the flexibility needed to consider the specific context of each case. I understand that the housing minister and the House of Commons recounted this is a step too far and would remove certainty for landlords, but we disagree, or rather we agree with his original arguments which are different from mine today.

Should the Government remain resistant to making all grants fully discretionary, can we please explore to the report stage robust mechanisms to prevent evictions that would fear hardship. As the position we would advocate strongly for the position of a mandatory hardship test that courts must apply for considering possession under any mandatory grounds. This test would require the court to explicitly wear potential severity of the hardship calls to the tenant, considering factors such as health, disability, how many children there are, access to alternative accommodation.

And the impact on ability to maintain employment or education. Against the landlord stated reason for stating possession. This hardship test would ensure that the most vulnerable tenant are not rendered homeless or forced into inadequate temporary accommodation which we have heard described by the Noble Lady Warren. Because simply because a mandatory ground is met without consideration of the dire circumstances in which the tenant finds themselves. It would provide a necessary safety net, ensuring that while good landlords can begin their property for legitimate reasons, the system does not blindly facilitate deeply unfair and harmful evictions.

We must listen to the voices of those who live with the constant fear of losing their home. We are wet to the future generations to get this bit right. This amendment will strengthen this bill to ensure that the security, fairness and compassion are at the heart by making grants discretionary, or, at the very least, when introducing the mandatory test.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to my two amendments, in mid 35 and amendment amendments, in mid 35 and amendment 71. And they are both aiming to help people who rent. And I have to declare an interest as someone who rents a two-bedroom flat. Now, the rents a two-bedroom flat. Now, the amendment 35 is because I am worried

15:37

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)

- -

that the government's policy will actually end penalising the very people it is aiming to help. And I do hope that the Minister goes away from here thinking that they had quite a good idea on that. And how nice it is to have them on our side for once. So, the Government is doing the right thing for the climate and for people inputting in higher energy efficiency standards. That is a given. And doing the right thing for landlords will help them meet those standards, the only people who do not get a guaranteed better life are the poor tenants who have to put up with the work with the dust, noise, and inconvenience of the energy improvements been of the energy improvements been done, but with the possibility that their rent will be going up as their energy costs go down.

And my amendment 35 is an attempt to give tenants a guarantee that they will also get some direct benefit from the drive to net zero with two years of lower energy bills without that saving been cancelled out by a landlord focusing on profiting from the Government grant. I think this is such a sensible amendment and I hope that we will find favour with it. On amendment 71, this amendment as well image to shift the debate firmly onto the news of the tenant and to discourage landlords from constantly changing their minds about letting out their properties.

It builds on the government's welcome attempt to get rid of no fault evictions by adding a new clause to the eviction process gives the tenant a one month financial head start, with all the costs involved with moving, the deposits and moving costs, it is quite a long drawnout process. And for many tenants who were self-employed or on zero hours contracts, their time is literally money and these are very time-consuming business. I do hope that passing this legislation actually creates a new era of stability for those in the private rental market.

A whole generation of young people who had to suffer from an overheated rental market which was firmly loaded in favour of investors and those to buy properties. Now, this legislation does not actually solve that problem because only the Government building hundreds and thousands of social homes can properly do that, but I welcome the staff this bill is making and I hope that minister will consider the needs of tenants even more in this way. more in this way.

15:39

Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords, I rather like the look of amendments 26 and 27 and I look forward to hearing her describe them. They also relate to my amendment with 142 which I will now speak to. The bill restricts the landlord to for instances where they can recover their property and require them to leave and one of them is if the landlord selling the property. The purpose is that where 11.6 to sell a property under the new grant fails to do so that the property is made available on the market without unnecessary delay.

The bill requires that the property is on the market for sale for at least 12 months before if no sale is forthcoming it can be read at. And the market statistics show that about typically 20% of rental properties taken off the rental market do not sell and come back to the rental market. They put the figure higher at 23%. And according to Hamptons on average properties come back as available to rent after about 90 days. Three months. Where properties do sell, supply figures indicate that in the period between first marketing completion is typically six months.

This amendment response to these facts and reduces to six months the period where the property is required to be unavailable to rent. Moving to the market facts and the government's approach I am very grateful to the Labour Minister for opportunity we had to discuss this and the understanding we have obtained of the government's thinking. I understand that the government's concern is that landlords seeking to increase the rent might claim the property on the market as a means for possession, apparently expecting a much higher rent thereafter.

Even standing empty for say six months without rental income and then relet, not just to a higher rent but at a rent that would both recover the rent lost in the six-month period and also attain a higher ongoing rent. The assertion is that making the required period 12 months they make it unworkable economically. I have struggled without success to find a period as long as 12 months prawn for this purpose. If a current rent on a property is for some reason set beyond the set rent, I asked the Minister would not be possible for the landlords and Pieter Seeger renting increase of the renting level in a normal way rather than going through the convoluted processes and expense involved in removing the tenant and putting the property on the market and then relet in it.

If this is close to the market rate then it is surely unrealistic to expect the landlord to be able to leave the property empty for six months with ongoing costs and then rent it out again at a rate well above the market rate in order as Government seems to be to recover six months losses and then settle what would be a repeat by definition an un-competitively high rent. I just do not see how that would have a chance of working. Given the American example, a landlord receiving £2500 per month in rent, puts the property on the market and receives no rent for just months, after leaving aside any of us costs incurred in the property lose at least £15,000.

To recover this over the subsequent six months and raise a base mental amount of £3000 compared to 2,500 which, for our landlords is a pretty drastic increase of £500 with mean seeking to rent out the property at £5500 per month, it wouldn't % rent increase over just a six month increase over just a six month period. If Mr wanted to recover his losses faster, say in one quarter i.e. Three months, then the rent would have to go up to £8000 per month 320% increase in rent over just six months.

I must therefore say to the nobility the Minister just six months of the market is easily more than enough to make a victim a tenant simply to achieve a rent increase in highly implausible strategy. Requiring it to be off the market for a full 12 months is not only unnecessary but also a distorted intervention that simply reduces the amendment of rental accommodation. Finally, I draw to noble Lords attention the two provisions including first that the property would have to have been available for purchase on the open market at a fair market price and no suitable offers received and, importantly, that the tenant and the courts could require evidence of these points and be able to decide if the landlord had made genuine attempts to sell, and amendment 26 and 27 coming up shortly I believe are also very helpful in this area.

Secondly, that the landlord wanted to relet and would have to offer the property back to the previous tenant on the same terms and at the same rent. I accept, of course, that a tenant might likely have found an alternative temporary accommodation in the meantime, but this requirement is nevertheless a further disincentive for any landlords to seek to play the system. And it would also make largely impossible the rent escalation tactics that the Government is anxious about. In conclusion, I understand and sympathise with the Government wish to reduce the ability of the landlord to ask the tenant to leave, but not only does the data suggest that 12 months is unnecessarily long for these properties to be held as unavailable for tenants to rent, but also the market economics indicate that a landlord would simply find that the property on rentable at the well above market rates necessary to achieve the possible growth And finally, if a property is being rented out below market rates, the landlord would be within their rights to seek a rent increase.

Requiring properties to stand empty for 12 months is a punitive and unnecessary intervention. It also incurs a number of risks including crime and will further contract the number of properties available. Making the period six months would easily achieve the government's objective and be less destructive to the market. I look forward to the Minister's response in a bid to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. I declare my interest as a

15:47

Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare my interest as a landlord of a residential property. I'm going to speak to amendment 60 and 61 in this group. I'm grateful to the National Residential Landlord Association for help. These amendments would benefit both tenants and landlords. The first amendment would keep the threshold for mandatory repossession by landlords at two months rent arrears rather than increasing it to three months as proposed in the bill. The second amendment would continue to permit rent arrears arising from non-payment to Universal Credit -- of Universal Credit to be taken into account as ground for repossession.

One might think my motivation behind this is purely to support landlords but as I said at second reading, I'm keen to support tenant as much as landlords in improving the current system since there are two sides to the same coin and one cannot exist without the other. This is a golden thread running through this entire bill. There must, as Barry Scott said on the first day of committee, there must be balance in this bill. Any weighting of the scales in favour of one while it might be well motivated risks being counter- productive and detrimental to both.

This is amply demonstrated by the bill proposing to increase threshold for rent arrears to three months before enforcement action can be taken. Tenants in arrears will struggle to recover financially, making it harder for them to access housing in the future. And the housing in the future. And the arrears are likely to bounce beyond the three month threshold. For example, if one adds on the one month notice period, plus the average seven months for a court to process an application, the tenant could end up having to leave the property with nearly 12 months arrears.

Is that a good outcome for tenants? In addition, responsible landlords will become more risk averse, prioritising tenants who can clearly prove their ability to sustain a tenancy in the long term. This will be particularly damaging for vulnerable tenants, including those in receipt of local housing allowance, especially when support for housing costs has been frozen from April this year. Moreover, allowing arrears to climb to three months before enforcement action can be taken, risks intimidating good landlords into leaving the sector. And landlord is not a charity and some depend entirely on the rent to pay mortgages or further daily living because.

Of good land goods -- landlords are intimidated into selling up, then tenants were very often have nowhere to live. According to Savile's, according -- more than 1 million new homes will more than 1 million new homes will be needed to meet growing demand. We must keep good landlords in the sector to avoid making tenants homeless. Again, these are two sides of the same coin and one cannot exist without the other. My first amendment would keep the threshold for enforcement action at two months rent arrears.

I accept if going to keep the existing threshold and landlords should be required to do more to help their tenants. For example, there could be a duty on landlords at the first sign of arrears to seek meaningful engagement with the tenant to prevent further debt and to share in any subsequent possession proceedings that they had done that or at least try to do that. During the pandemic, the National Residential Landlords Association produced some very highly regarded golden rules sharing how this and other types of landlord tenant engagement could work.

For example, by the landlord pointing the tenant to a relevant advisory service, such as citizens advice bureau. Such measures would improve the status quo while avoiding damaging effects of moving to the three months It makes no sense to disregard for enforcement purposes rent arrears arising from the fact the tenant has not received an award of Universal Credit under part one of welfare reform correct -- Welfare Reform Act. This is for two reasons. It is unjustifiable to penalise landlords. Why should the landlord suffer if the non-payment of Universal Credit is the fault of the tenant or if the Universal Credit system has broken down in some way? Secondly, unlike in the social sector, private landlords are not allowed to know if the tenant is in receipt of Universal Credit.

As such, they have no idea if interiors are due to non-payment of Universal Credit, especially if the tenant has multiple sources of income. Disregarding non-payment of Universal Credit is therefore wholly unworkable sense if the landlord doesn't know that the rent arrears are due to non-payment of Universal Credit, they might try to take enforcement action which proves to be pointless. It's the last thing the system needs. The upshot is that landlords will be more cautious about taking on tenants on Universal Credit, contrary to the commendable ethos of the bill as a whole.

I ask the Minister to consider very carefully these amendments, to bear in mind the need for balance and my suggested investigation -- mitigation is to keep in mind the regard for real evenness of handling on both side of the landlord and tenant coin. tenant coin.

15:53

Lord Hacking (Labour)

- -

I stand to support the amendment 60 of Lord Carter and also to speak 60 of Lord Carter and also to speak to my amendment 165 and 166. Before I speak of those two matters, I have two apologies to give to the house. First apology relates to my failure to speak at the Second Reading. Although I did speak at the second reading of the last government's will on the renters reform bill. The reason why I was unable to speak at the Second Reading was I was unfortunately in and out of Thomas's Hospital and I was unable to come to the house at the timing of the Second Reading of this bill.

My second apology is for my absence on Tuesday of this week, the first day of committee on this bill. My wife had booked a short holiday, short Easter holiday in the Isle of Wight, not expecting the house to be sitting immediately after Easter Monday. I took the favour of the family rather than the first day of committee and I think my noble friend the Minister has forgiven me for this. At least I hope she has. Very happily, however, my noble friend Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe who sits behind me agreed to be in the house for the first committee day and to move any of my amendments should they be called on the first committee day.

But even more happily, none of my amendments were called on Tuesday. I should also declare an interest which I have recorded in the register. My wife and I are the landlords of five sets of tenants in one-bedroom flats in the next door house to our own house. And while I have to say that we as landlords and our tenants will be subject to the new provisions contained in this bill, there is nothing contentious relating to our five tenants ourselves which I will be raising during the passage of this bill.

Amendment 60 moved by the noble Lord Lord Carter which I support has been grouped among a variety of amendments relating to orders of possession. I have to say most of possession. I have to say most of them have little contact with another -- with one another but we are grouped together in the same list of groupings. That certainly applies to my amendments 165 and 166. May I make a general ward before I go on to the specific argument concerning these amendments? This bill was rightly directed to redress balance between the landlord and the tenant in the private rental sector.

This is very right because the balance since the 1988 Housing Act has spun far too far towards the landlord, particularly rogue landlords, which has caused great distress to many innocent tenants. We are getting the balance right. Yes, there are rogue landlords but there are also rogue tenants. Originally, in Schedule one of the Housing Act of 1988, notices for possession of arrears of rent won't become effective until the rent was overdue for 13 weeks relating to weekly or fortnightly rentals or three month relating to monthly rentals.

This was altered in some subsequent legislation and this bill now seeks to back to the provisions of the 1988 act. What is the reason for this? I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could address this. What is the evidence that shorter periods of eight weeks and two months had been causing any problems? We need to look at the practical side. The maximum deposit which a landlord is not permitted to collect is calculated against five weeks of friend.

The effect of that is that the landlord does get covered by the first failure of rent but is not covered by the subsequent two months of unpaid rent. It will take more than that, it will take up to two more months before the landlord is able to get a hearing in the counting court for possession and unpaid rent. This will be the landlord will be without friend for at least four months and even if the landlord succeeds in getting an order for possession and an order for the unpaid rent, the chances are that he will never get back the unpaid rent.

This is what I put to the house and indeed to my noble friend the Minister. Is this a fair and balanced? Turning to amendments 165 and 166, these are directed to the time in which the landlord is permitted to put the property on the market when he has gained possession on the grounds of family need or other specific grounds on the ground -- underground of the 1988 Housing act. .com also did his argument that this period in which the landlord is not permitted to put the property on the market is quite excessive and quite wrong.

I need not repeat the arguments of the noble Lord Lord Cromwell. The Minister who has been very kind to see many of us in meetings before this committee stage, and I had the privilege of a meeting with her, she explained this because it is an abuse by some rogue

Feed Live - Click to view video

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page