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 landlords using the instrument to remove from the property let's eight members of his family or other members of his family or other persons as specified in ground 1A of the 1988 act.

And the 12 month the Minister described as a deterrent against this abuse. A means for the rogue landlord to raise the rent, as Both the genuine situation of a landlord getting the accommodation to accommodate grandparents? And one of the grandparents has a severe stroke which prevents both of them taking up the accommodation. Why should the landlord then be left with the property when he genuinely was seeking to accommodate his own family for 12 months? The question is, is this fair or right that landlord is prevented for one whole year from letting out his property? Again, I address this to my Noble Friend, the Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare my direct interest in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare my direct interest in the private rent sector, with lettings, cottage lettings in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire, together with direct farming and agricultural lettings. I also am a agricultural lettings. I also am a member of the shofar is union and the country landowners Association which have a direct interest in which have a direct interest in amendment 63. On which I have been speaking and for which I am grateful speaking and for which I am grateful for the support of Lord Lester and Lord Roborough who sadly is unable to be here today.

Just before I turn to amendment 63, I am also very

16:02

Lord Carrington (Crossbench)

- -

pleased to be able to support the amendment of Lord Carter and also amendment of Lord Carter and also amendment of Lord Carter and also Lord Hacking in amendment number 60. I certainly will not be repeating everything that has just been said, but I would just make one further but I would just make one further point. It is very relevant to note that a bank that specialises in the that a bank that specialises in the PRS sector commissioned a survey of landlords on the proposals of this bill.

And the result was that 71% of landlords pussy extended time from two months to three months as their top concern. Turning back to amendment 63, in its current form the bill does not have the provisions to allow the repossession of a residential property. If there will be a change of usage. For example, if a landlord wants to use the land for office space, commercial or retail usage. This amendment would allow landlords to seek possession of the dwelling house where it is intended that the use of the property, or that land, on which it is situated, will be changed to non-residential.

And there is permission from the relevant authorities to do so. There are a number of ills and reports in motion which covered the whole issue of farm diversity which the Government is keen to encourage in the light of falling profitability in farming as subsidies are withdrawn or concentrated on environmental activities. Farmers are therefore looking carefully at their assets to see whether they can be put to more profitable usage. Obviously, this can involve the Bumstead house and buildings rather than just stand alone farm buildings.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is relevant in this context, together with the rural England prosperity fund, which specifically targets facilities and building commercials that help rural businesses to diversified. In addition, we have the land-use framework and the farming roadmap to forward to. It has also been announced that the noble Baroness, Baroness Batters, will be on board for profitability and farming and this will include diversification. This amendment assists in enabling this to versification, if the necessary planning permission has been granted.

I am thoroughly aware that the noble Baroness the Minister is keen not to reduce the housing stock, however although it is possible that the proposed versification will only affect agricultural buildings, there may be able comprehensive development involving a farmhouse or other residential building, particularly if they are closely located to the diversification site. I therefore hope that the Noble Lady the Minister will include this amendment as a sensible ground for possession which would assist in the development of the rural.

16:06

Lord Pannick (Crossbench)

- -

I speak in support of my Noble Friend Lord Cromwell is amendment one Lord Cromwell is amendment 1.42, I declare an interest. My wife owns rental properties. I agree with what Lord Cromwell says about the mischief of clause 15. It is very easy to imagine circumstances in which the owner of a property decides in good faith to sell it. And the tenants, therefore, has to leave. The landlord then places the property on the market for sale, but finds that for whatever reason after four or six months they cannot sell the property.

Clause 15 would prevent the landlord for 12 months, from again leasing out the property. And it would do so however well- intentioned the conduct of the owner of this property, however reasonable the new tenancy agreement. And indeed even if the new lease is to the same tenant as the old one, on the same terms, including as to rent. I entirely understand the Governments wish to prevent landlords from abusing their rights. But the breadth of this restriction is, to my mind, plainly disproportionate to the feared mischief.

This is not just unfair on the landlord. It will, inevitably, have an adverse effect on the housing stock available for rental purposes. I appreciate that Ministers have stated that this bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, but it does seem, to me, very doubtful indeed that this clause complies with article 1 of the first protocol to the Convention on the right to property. The European Court of human right and our domestic courts have explained that the right to property requires a fair balance between the interests of property owners and the interests of the community in general.

I cannot see how a blanket provision which penalises a landlord by preventing them from renting out their property for a period of 12 months, however bonus their conduct, however fair the terms of the lease, could possibly be said to respect a fair balance. The mischief which the Government is seeking to prevent, requires a more tailored response. I hope the list will be able to say in response to the concerns that have expressed by my Noble Friend Lord Cromwell and by myself that she will Cromwell and by myself that she will be prepared to meet with us to discuss ways of making this clause discuss ways of making this clause more proportionate by recognising an more proportionate by recognising an exception for landlords who have acted in good faith and responsibly.

16:09

Lord de Clifford (Crossbench)

- -

I speak on amendment 64 in my name. This is an amendment with regards to family and I thank Baroness Bowles can head and Baroness Royall for their support on this amendment. This bill allows the landlord to take possession of the property for family reasons. This is a small extension to the number of reasons that the landlord can take possession of a property. That reason is the property is to be used by a carer for family members who require full-time care.

The amendment clearly sets out that the amendment clearly sets out that the property needs, the family home can be used by the carer. The reason for the close proximity is so that the carer can attend not only on a daily basis and be available to attend on emergencies quickly and efficiently. And these can be on a regular occurrence in some cases. The type of properties that I have in mind our annexes on homes, a flat in a block of flats where the landlords primary residence is located.

Properties in less urban areas such as rural villages, hamlets, and remote farms and property clusters, where properties are in short supply. I appreciate the tenants would be forced to leave their property, but this amendment does not seem to shorten the four month notice period. This bill does allow some landlords the opportunity to gain possession for an employer or worker, for agricultural purposes under ground five point a schedule one. I understand that the reason had this exemption been included is agricultural workers need to work, need a property close to the place of work and at all times of day.

The need of the carer is similar to that of the agricultural worker. They need to be close to the patient and be on call and work on social hours. Most landlords and tenants relationships are generally good and most likely the landlord would make the tenant aware that the tenancy could be terminated if the property needs to be for a carer, so to leave a property is unsettling of people for a tenant and their family but the would be given four months notice.

If there is good communication between parties, everybody lives in the knowledge that this could be a possible outcome and can plan accordingly. Financially, if you own an appropriate property, this is a much more practical with the landlord or their family can provide the most cost-effective accommodation for a long-term carer and when the family are facing a high demand on their are facing a high demand on their finances. Only a limited number will have the ability to use this position right but if needed it would be welcomed by the family because it would give the fix ability in times of sadness and one-time requires the need for it.

I think the noble Baroness the Minister for her engagement on the bill and our short discussion on this amendment. I noticed that Ministers suggestions that alternatives can be found to housing care, but my response is to find a property that is in the correct location, suitable care would be extremely difficult in this marketplace. The other side of that debate is would it not be a reasonable case that a landlord has the right to gain possession in their own assets for the benefit of their well-being or a family member's own caring needs? Properties are owned for many cases, some cases for financial reasons like investment to provide a regular income on pension funds.

Maybe income on pension funds. Maybe available to rent during a job relegation or a future resident in a desired location. All these landlords that on such properties can gain possession of this bill when needed, but if the property owner who may wish to use the property for a different family reason, to care for a family member, they cannot gain access to the property at the time they need and this is what this amendment seeks to do. The noble Baroness the Minister with amendment 10 in Committee stage said that those amendments did not, and I quote, meet the part of the overall general principle that private renters should have a secure home.

I believe that a long-term carer suddenly does cross that bar

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to enable possession for a family. I was unfortunately unable to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was unfortunately unable to speak at second reading, but I saw that Lord Clifford raised an issue that Lord Clifford raised an issue that I wanted to concerning the matter of carers and I have been matter of carers and I have been pleased to cooperate with him to produce amendment 64. At first I must declare my interests as a must declare my interests as a private landlord for over 25 years both in a personal capacity with lettings in Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire and also as an experienced, though unpaid, trustee time director for lettings in Buckinghamshire.

Being a landlord started accidentally when I rented a property I intended to sell to a friend in need. Then, like many self-employed people without an employment linked pension, I saw its value as pension provision, so instead of selling it, I kept the asset available, if needed, for a business loan security. So, I have had those conversations about what are the extra risks and costs should

16:15

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (Liberal Democrat)

- -

we sell and what does it mean for rent. I have, as the Minister said we should on Tuesday, examined our we should on Tuesday, examined our business models. And even without business models. And even without exposure, the effect is that rents will rise. And we will track market will rise. And we will track market rates sooner rather than risk larger, less frequent adjustments larger, less frequent adjustments that are more likely to attract the challenge. And that, of course, would exert an inflationary feedback loop.

In a nutshell, it has made it riskier to be a benign landlord. Now, against the downside for landlords of not having guaranteed periodic possession of their property, the bill provides more grounds for repossession. That is the bargain, the balance. But it has to be workable. The courts or any alternative mechanism that might be invented must be procedurally fast and sufficiently streamlined. It would be both unsound and unreasonable if the balance through cost or the hurdles to regaining the possession of property were, as a generality, further loaded against That's not to say that I make against -- I am against vacating the premises in special circumstances, but it must be done right.

There must be ability to realise the best value of assets to provide for family health, financial or care provision. Although, as I've also mentioned, it is a self-employed and small businesses -- small business. It has certainly been in my business model, as the Minister likes to call it to consider the property suitable for ageing parents, family returning from overseas, to finance retirement and residential care. Measure against those lifetime considerations, it stands out as the missing criteria were a landlord or member of their family needs the property for a carer.

I have a personal interest to declare here and that a member of my wider family purchased the flat above there is in a converted house with a downstairs and upstairs flat specifically with that in mind, that when they're disabling condition deteriorated to the point of needing an on-call carer, it would be possible to situate them in the adjacent fact. And since investigating the issue, I have been made aware of others in similar positions. Not all properties are large enough for or adaptable for a live-in carer.

Not everyone, either carer or cared for, once that. Be that for privacy reasons or because they have family. Thus I hope that the Minister can see the good reasons and good sense in amendment 64 or something similar, and recognise that it does not disturb the general tenant landlord balance of the bill. And it would be perfectly possible to be able to provide evidence of the need for a carer. There are also various other amendments in this sector -- section that I believe have value without disturbing the balance and I would particularly note Lord Cromwell's amendment and the comments about human rights, with which I concur.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support amendment 64

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support amendment 64 and the names of Lord Crawford -- Lord Clifford and Lady borrows. -- Lord Clifford and Lady borrows. -- Lady borrows. -- Burroughs. It is essential that the bill allows the essential that the bill allows the landlord to seek possession of a property where it is needed to house property where it is needed to house a carer for the landlord or his or her family. Illustrate the problem

16:20

Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)

- -

with a case study of my own and in so doing declare my interest. My so doing declare my interest. My husband and I own a house close to our own in a small Wiltshire village our own in a small Wiltshire village which we bought for the use by a carer as and when we reach that stage. We usually let it out in the meantime to local people. It appears on my register of interests to which on my register of interests to which I refer the house.

With the demise of short-term tenancies, we face the of short-term tenancies, we face the prospect of not been able to get it back once led again. More over, even as and when we offer it to a carer, if the appointment doesn't work out, we lose the property. We've discussed the importance of carers and the problems of supply of beds in old people's homes and support for the elderly. This is a particular problem in rural areas like ours. This makes it more the more -- all the more important to provide independent provision.

I'm glad that the government were generally is increasingly realising the bad effects of too much regulation on growth and competitiveness. And that is well documented now in academic literature. Coming to this bill and literature. Coming to this bill and indeed this group of, I felt a chill down my spine. Most landlords, in my experience, are reasonable. There are several well-intentioned amendments before us today seeking to tighten regulation and add further detail and impractical conditions. These could have a profoundly perverse effect and put more pressure on the overworked courts, for example the amendment on discretion would certainly increase the workload.

In practice, these would further reduce supply of rented property. We heard this had collapsed as a result of this bill, an overheated market in the words of Baroness Lady Jones. We need to work together to reverse this and keep good landlords in the sector. As Lord Carter explained, saying that several think landlords would need 1 million more rental homes by 2031 -- sackfuls. -- Savils. I hope the government will think again. Sensible lightening of the body needs to be considered.

Another example would be that of Lord Carter and amendment 60, and Lord Cromwell

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in amendment 142. I refer my Lords to my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I refer my Lords to my declaration of interest with respect to this bill. A large portfolio of residential property in North residential property in North Norfolk, 93% of which is let out to local people and key workers and local people and key workers and cultural workers with only seven

16:23

The Earl of Leicester (Conservative)

- -

cultural workers with only seven holiday let's let to family members. This amendment is on grounds for possession and there are some excellent amendments being put forward. Just a generality. Talking about grounds for possession. As a landlord, I don't want to those tenants. I hate voids. As an example, I have got 47 tenants who have been my tenants for 21 to 40 years, 45 who have been with me for many years. I know these people, they are my friends, they are part of the community and they contribute to the community and live in it.

Many noble Lords have spoken about the importance of not losing good the importance of not losing good landlords. This bill is very much in danger of creating that reality now, I turn to amendment 63 in the name of Lord Carrington committee which I have put a name to. It's really essential that we allow a property owner to manage his or her own property without -- be that retail, officer industry. Let's assume a farmyard with a cottage in it and a sitting tenant.

The land owner gets planning permission for a block of offices or retail. Now, those offices and retail are going to produce a large amount of a kick to the economy, jobs for the builders and ground workers, and once they are occupied, jobs for the people working in them. So it wouldn't be right that a single person, a family living in a cottage, could stymie that development. But the reality is, as a sensible landlord, I would have open communication with that in, explain what would happen and offer them, try to offer them a different property.

If the tenant refused to move, then that's going to have a real effect on the economy. This government talks about growth and really needs to understand that by not allowing this amendment, it will be very much 's timing growth. I have given another example. This is an example of planning permission, albeit for residential, which does not relate to this amendment. We are building 23 houses at the moment. Eight offer private sale. For or for affordable rent and two for shared ownership with a housing association.

Four Are for intermediate rent and five will be retained by us for private rent. If this bill goes through as its proposed by the government, then why bother? It's really important the government listens to all these sensible amendments which are being proposed and I really do hope the noble Baroness the Minister will do so.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare an interest as the private landlord of residential properties in Hampshire. I support properties in Hampshire. I support amendment 60 the private landlord of residential properties in Hampshire. I support amendment 62 keep the rent arrears limited to two months rather arrears limited to two months rather than four. As Lord Carter of Haslemere said, landlords are not charities and the noble Lord hacking agreed with this. I also support agreed with this. I also support amendment 63 in the name of Lord Carrington which also seems very sensible.

Local authorities are reluctant to sanction the change from residential to commercial so they exercise careful control over this. As the noble Lord the Earl of Leicester said, money for permission to convert residential property to commercial can be used to pay for and improve properties. It hasn't been mentioned but so far but the EPC problem that a lot of these cottages have on the extra money that needs to be found to pay for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this. OK, first of all, I'd like to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK, first of all, I'd like to publicly thank all the parties in the Renter's Coalition further work the Renter's Coalition further work on many aspects of this bill but

16:28

Lord Northbrook (Conservative)

- -

on many aspects of this bill but particularly this one. They patiently answered every query of mine as I attempted to familiarise myself with all the grounds for possessions and implications of that. Before I move into the detail

16:29

Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)

- -

of my amendments 26 and 27, I would like to offer support to Baroness like to offer support to Baroness Warwick's amendments. This was, if one recalls, because she was at the beginning of the debate, ground 6B. beginning of the debate, ground 6B. And this is when the house requires works to be done to it. Given that works to be done to it. Given that the landlord is not obliged to provide alternative accommodation while the works are then, we believe it might justify consideration of it might justify consideration of compensation, but, and this is an interesting one, mainly because 6B has already been described in property websites as a loophole.

Because it currently lacks clear definitions and proper oversight and so runs the risk of being misused or even ignored. Any moves to reduce court use given our concerns in this regard is also to be clearly welcomed. Now, turning to my amendments 26 and 27, let's call them the two no-fault grounds for eviction, namely ground one, moving in a family member, and ground 1A, selling the property. Firstly, with the increase in notice periods from two to four months, eviction from these grounds as most welcome and giving tenants more time to find a new home.

And Baroness Jones's amendment 71 strengthens this further by the discussion of compensation as she outlined and we feel this complements our amendments. Turning to Lord Cromwell's amendment, it's really irritating because he's always so reasoned and reasonable and even mildly persuasive, but I'm instinctively against it. Because I am reminded of something that a very reputable estate agent once said to me. Dorothy, every property is a sellable. It all depends on the price. So, please don't tell me that somebody couldn't put their house up for several months at a much higher price than might be expected in order to try and meet that.

But because it was mildly persuasive, I'm really interested in listening to what the noble Baroness has to Turning to the amendments, the whole point of these amendments which work together, one free victory evidence and one post-election evidence is because there is a genuine feeling that these are the two areas on the one ground if you want to look at it that way that there is clearly some potential for abuse. Both open to abuse unless the evidential threshold is high, clear, upfront, and in the bill to act as a deterrent.

I am aware in the debate from The Other Place that the Government believes that Kurt is the best place to interpret the available evidence, rather than writing this into the legislation. However, the guidance of the bill also suggests that the kind of evidence that landlords now provide, so I have one question for the Minister, why can this not be provided in the bill? What we are seeking with the proposed amendment is commitment from the Government on exactly the sort of evidence which would be acceptable.

It is the departments opportunity to set the height of the evidential bar. The hope is that this will thence act as a deterrent to the very small number of unscrupulous landlords that should not, in anyway, deter a legitimate sale or legitimate move of a family member into the House. I am well aware that the proposed amendments are highly likely to make their way onto the face of the bill, but my aim is to try and secure from the Noble Lady the Minister what sorts of evidence they might consider acceptable.

Amendment 27 refers to pre-election evidence. Round one is deemed to be available to be used in much the same way a section 21, unless there is a high evidential threshold. Without this, any of the issues connected to section 21 will persist, for example landlords should not be able to use ground one as a pretence to evict a tenant who has complained about the need for repairs and the knowledge that they are likely to face sanctions for having lied so of course I will move somebody in.

If landlords still feel they are able to undertake evictions than any ambition to provide security of tenure for these private renters will have failed, however if the landlord or the family member is required to provide a statement of truth to the court, as in this amendment, this will act as a significant disincentive to live to the court as it will expose the landlord or family members to litigation. With regards to ground 18 requiring landlords using this ground to sell, if they need to provide evidence that they have taken the initial steps to begin to sell the property with evidence of a record of engagement from a reputable agent, again this will be a useful disincentive for abuse.

No, Scottish law already requires the landlord to provide evidence of the intention to sell, and interestingly despite this higher threshold than this bill for use in this ground in Scotland, recent research indicated that significant minorities, in a significant minority of cases, around one in five, the feeling is that this ground may have been misused because it was found that these properties were still registered on the landlord registration base after the sales ground had been used.

It is clear that a higher white we feel both pre-and post-eviction use of the sales ground will be required to provide firm proof that the ground has been used as intended and to prevent abuse. Amendment 26 would require a landlord to submit verified evidence of the progress towards the occupational sale of the property under these grants, no less than 16 weeks after the date of the order and to verify this by a statement of truth, that statement of truth would need to be provided to court, to the tenant, and to the local housing authority.

This should have several positive effects, dis- incentivise in abuse is clearly the most important. There needs to be a clear high and evidentiary threshold for using both grounds to prevent abuse. I am aware I am beginning to sound like a broken record. The landlord, knowing that they have to provide that statement of truth post eviction notice will be less likely to fortunately evict a tenant in the first place and if the landlord lies to the court there will be open to litigation and may be liable to pay damages to the tenant under section 12 of the Housing Act of 1988, and a good, honest landlord would be able to do this relatively easily.

And it will also assist enforcement. The landlord statement of truth being served on the tenant out of the housing authority will significantly improve the ability of both the tenant and the local housing authority to pursue justice, where a landlord has clearly abused the grounds. To conclude, we believe that asking landlords for robust evidence to evict a tenant should not prove onerous if landlords are planning to use the eviction ground as intended. The fiction can cause significant disruption and hardship for tenants, so there should be a high threshold for evidence to ensure that evictions are only served where there is legitimate grounds.

A high evidentiary threshold provides a deterrent for misuse, giving some protection of renters, even if in reality it is highly unlikely that they are going to change the eviction in the courts. It is about incentivising landlords to do the right thing, which most of them will do, but deterring the small majority of unscrupulous ones, and perhaps the Minister could give at least some consideration to the legitimate concerns we have had behind these amendments. amendments.

16:38

Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)

- -

Me I allowed very briefly to comment upon this. I was always grateful for any compliments I received, no matter how backhanded, about my persuasiveness, so I thank her for those. And just the, that the idea that you put your house or your flatter your property on at a silly price is immediately contested by my own amendment and beefed up by her amendment as having to produce evidence to that effect. Do not think that holds water and I do encourage her to be defensive and not, as she said, to give in to her instincts were to look at the economics, the logic, and the mass.

We simply demonstrated that six months is more than adequate, 12 months is more than adequate, 12 months is excessive. Very persuasive.

16:39

Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)

- -

The amendments in this group represent yet another incidents where the rights of renters intersect with those of landlords. This group of amendments is indicative of the product bill and rather than increasing the availability of homes, we believe risk reducing the supply of rental properties. This could drive up costs for renters at a time when the cost of renting has already risen significantly. It is, of course, important to make sure that the legal framework which governs this relationship protects those who are renting, but we cannot forget the landlords also they should have their rights upheld.

Landlords should have their rights over their properties respected and retain the ability to recover possession of their homes when they need to. I wish to start by speaking to amendments 24 and 30 tabled by the noble Baroness Warwick of under Cliff. They assume that the landlord, in some way, is liable to pay compensation for using exercising rights which surely are theirs by virtue of the fact that they actually own the property. Determining when in specific cases compensation is required is, surely, the responsibility of a court.

To assume that compensation is always required tips the balance against the landlords and would likely discourage many responsible, principled landlords from entering the market. And meeting the high demand for rented properties we see across the country. In the same vein, an immense 26 and 27 tabled by the noble Baroness Thornhill Place an administrative burden on landlords which will have an end dampening effect, no doubt, on the housing market. Houses are important personal assets and piling on layers of regulation will further suffocate the market and limit the agency of landlords to use the assets that they own.

Conversely, amendments 60 and 61 tabled by the Noble Lord Carter of Haslemere strikes we believe the appropriate balance, recognising that landlords need to be protected from bad actors who could have a devastating financial effect on them. Landlords should not be punished for supplying rental properties to the market and maintaining the current existing position grounds means that they can operate in the market with confidence that they will not be left out of gut. Amendment 63 and 64, tabled by the noble Lords Carrington and Lord Clifford further speak to the fact that landlords should retain the right to make use of their own property as they see fit.

It is not the role, nor the place of Government, did dictate to homeowners how their personal property should be used. Turning to amendment 71 tabled by the Noble Lady Baroness Jones, I feel that this amendment seeks to conflate the rights of the landlords with their responsibility. The landlord, by a owning the property has the right to make it decision of how the property is used and the tenant, in renting from that landlord, is expected to respect the rights of the landlord as the property owner.

This relationship does not, in any way, suggest that the landlord should be liable to forego income while still providing the service. This clearly disadvantages landlords in their legal relationship with the tenant and would depress the market which is, already, under saturated. Finally turning to amendment 165, 166, tabled by the noble Lords Cromwell and Lord Hacking, I wonder that these/the appropriate balance between the rights of the renters and the rights of the landlord. We need to remember that what we are talking about is a market which requires flexibility and requires flexibility and adaptability.

So that it both for consumers and the providers, allowing landlords to make these decisions without being humbled by long-term obligations means they can act in the mutual interest. If flourishing market benefits renters as well as it does landlords, and this balance is imperative to achieve a flourishing market. And I urge the Government to further consider between now and report stage this balance, this crucial balance between landlords and tenants to protect most importantly the tenants in the sector.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank the noble Baroness Lady Warwick, Lady Thornhill, Lady Lady Warwick, Lady Thornhill, Lady Grender, Lady Jones, Lady Bowles, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Scott and noble Lords Carter, Lord and noble Lords Carter, Lord Carrington, Lord Clifford, Lord Cromwell, Lord Hacking, Lord Northbrook, and the Earl of Leicester, for their amendments and their comments during this debate. their comments during this debate. My apologies. I had written you at My apologies. I had written you at the end.

And can I just say to the Earl of Leicester it was great to hear about these long-term tenancies that he has I think we said 21 to 45

16:45

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

years. And I think that made my point that I made at second reading and on Tuesday about the symbiotic relationship that Canon should exist between landlords and tenants and our aim is to try and foster both our aim is to try and foster both that relationship and the balance that makes it work properly. As we go through the process of this bill. Turning to amendment 24 taken Turning to amendment 24 taken together with amendment 30 which seeks to make possession under round six be contingent on compensation being first heard by the landlord to the tenant.

Amendment 24 specifically prevents the court from making in order to possession unless compensation has been paid. Amendment 30 setup that landlords must pay compensation at a level set by the Secretary of State in regulation before they can take possession. 6B allows the landlord to the tenants what they are subject to enforcement action and eviction is the only way that they can comply. It is intended to prevent landlords ending up in the legal limbo of having broken the law but having no room to comply with it.

While I understand the intent behind these amendments, they should always be compensated when they are evicted due to the landlord breaking the laws, I believe that amendment already takes the right approach on this issue. The court is best placed to decide on a case-by-case basis where the compensation should be paid, as is currently provided in There can be circumstances where a landlord is subject to enforcement landlord is subject to enforcement action, for example in the cases of overcrowding.

As such, it would not be appropriate to dictate that compensation must be paid in all circumstances before possession can be granted, nor for those circumstances and the level to be set in the regulations which would be unable to account for nuances in each case. Baroness Warwick made a point about legal aid and I want to comment on that. Civil legal aid is available subject to a financial means test. For those at risk of possession proceedings, free non- means tested go advice is available through the housing loss prevention advice service.

Tenants can receive advice on housing, welfare, benefit and that as soon as they receive written notice that there landlord is seeking possession of their home. The Ministry of Justice has also recently consulted on increasing fees. This uplift would help to ensure vulnerable people forced into housing legal battles and at risk of losing their home have access to legal advice. MoJ are currently considering the consultation response -- responses. We expect the court would set out a timeframe and the noble Baroness Warwick referred to that, in the order, and that timeframe would determine the time at which the landlord would have to be.

Of the composition was not paid, the 10 could seek enforcement of the debt in the relevant county court system and the landlord could also be found to be in contempt of court, which carries extremely serious consequences. Turning now to amendment 26 and I would like to add my thanks to the Renters Coalition. They've done a huge amount of work on this bill and I'm grateful to the. Whilst I appreciate the sentiment behind the noble Lady's amendment which seeks to minimise abuse of the bill.

It requires landlords to submit further evidence demonstrating compliance with grounds when possession has been granted for 16 weeks. The second is to set what evidence the landlord would need to submit to the court. That includes occupancy status, the progressive sale and a statement of truth signed by the landlord. Current provisions in the bill mean that landlords will be required to present evidence that the ground is met before being granted possession. For ground one which relates to moving in, the landlord would need to provide evidence verified by a statement of truth, either signed by the landlord or family member if they intend to move into the property.

For 1A, The landlord would need to provide evidence verified by a statement of truth. To require a landlord to provide additional evidence afterwards would create greater and unnecessary burden on both landlords and courts. Additionally, the amendment does in detail what would happen if the landlord did not comply. Landlords would be unable to market or let the property for 12 months after using moving or selling grounds. This constraint was designed to be easy for tenants to identify when seeking rental payment orders or for local authorities wishing to prosecute abusive ground which does carry a fine of £40,000.

This also ensures that tenants who leave during the notice period, as we believe many do, are protected, not just those were possession are sought by the courts. The amendment also seeks to set evidential requirements for judges, judges are best placed to exercise discretion and make those decisions without a fixed evidential requirement. And further concerned that the proposal for landlords to supply evidence after the possession order has been granted would unduly burden the courts. -- I am further concerned. Evidence must be presented to the court when a lender takes possession using these grounds for a judge to be able to grant possession -- when a landlord takes possession.

Judges may therefore be less likely to consider wider evidence which could inadvertently lower the threshold for ordering possession. As I've said, judges are best placed to determine whether a ground is met based on the evidence provided on a case-by-case basis, and we should not seek to restrict judicial discretion. Although we will not stipulate what evidence the landlord must submit to the court, we will issue guidance to lenders about navigating the possession process, including the types of evidence a court might consider prior to commencement.

Secondly, I turn to the matter of requiring the landlord or the family member if moving on to provide evidence verified by a statement of truth. It is the landlord that will be held accountable for abiding by the rules of the possession grounds set out in the bill. Furthermore statement of truth must be signed on the possession claim form. Before makes clear that making a false statement could lead to prosecution for contempt of court. Tenants can, under section 12 of the Housing act 1988, also see compensation if it becomes clear that a landlord misled the court when possession was awarded.

In our view, therefore, adding further requirements will create additional hoops for landlords to jump through without offering greater guarantee that evidence provided was truthful. To be clear, misusing the grounds is unacceptable. To prevent abuse, lenders can be given a fine of up to £40,000 if they misuse the grounds or if they re-market or relight their properties within 12 months. Tenants can challenge the decision if they have seen evidence of misuse of the grounds. Amendment 31 seeks to make all grounds for possession discretionary.

I appreciate that the discretionary. I appreciate that the amendment was intended and I acknowledge her expertise in this area and I thank Shelter for all their work on the bill as well and for meeting with me. I had a very good meeting with Shelter recently on the bill. This amendment would mean that for all applications for possession made to the court, lenders will have to demonstrate that the ground has been met and that it is reasonable for a possession order to be made.

A judge would have to be satisfied that the ground is frozen and decide whether it is reasonable to make a possession order considering all the circumstances. This will significantly increase uncertainty for landlords about whether possession would be granted including in the circumstances where we have said the ground should be mandatory. This would also very likely increase the workload of the courts beyond what is reasonable. We want landlords to have grounds to take the property back. It is right they have more certainty in some they have more certainty in some circumstances, for example when a tenant owes more than three months rent or a serious criminal offence has been committed.

Having more certainty of outcome with mandatory grants were possession will give landlords greater confidence in the market. Without the certainty, we have to be realistic that many landlords would simply not wish to stay in the sector and we must get the balance right between giving tenants for security and ensuring the sector remains viable for landlords to remain in. We've had lots of discussion about that already. Amendment 35 seeks to prevent landlords using ground one a to evict the tenant -- 1A.

I welcome the support of the Green Party. It's always welcome. This is if they have used and government scheme to carry out energy efficiency improvements. I do take all of this very seriously. We have sought to ensure the grounds for possession are fair to both landlords and tenants with tenants having greater security in their homes and hundreds being able to take possession when this is necessary. I'm not of the view that this amendment represents the right approach. Landlords are already prevented from selling the property during the first year of a tendency and it would not be right to restrict this further.

Government grant schemes targeted at improving energy efficiency would still have effect even if the landlord sold the property due to a change of circumstances once they have carried out the works. Amendment 66 to reduce the rent arrears threshold from three months to two months rent. We are increasing the mandatory arrears threshold to give greater protection to tenants who temporarily fall into rent arrears. This is to allow more time for a tenant to repay their arrears and remain in their home.

We can all agree it is better for tenants and landlords to sustain tenancies where they can. Three months rent arrears with a threshold for mandatory eviction that was set when the assured tenancy system was introduced by the Housing act in 1988 before being reduced in the 1990s. We consider that the original threshold was the right balance. It's also worth noting that landlords will starve access to discretionary rent arrears ground for amounts below three months arrears such as when there is a frequent delay or a late payment of rent.

The noble Lord character referred to mediation processes to refer tenants to financial support services and we continue to consider how to facilitate pre-court negotiations between landlords and tenants. Court action should always be a last resort and we want to see what more we can do to help provide that mediation between landlords and tenants before we get to a court case. Noble Lords, amendment 61 will remove a key protection for vulnerable tenants which ensures that arrears accrued due to non- Towards the mandatory threshold.

Of this was accepted, in future, a tenant who is waiting to receive a payment of Universal Credit to which they were entitled would be open to mandatory eviction. That cannot be the right position for us to take. It's important tenancies which are otherwise financially sustainable should continue with tenants protected from financial shocks. Is feasible that the tenant who lost their job and had to apply for Universal Credit could breach the arrears threshold were waiting for the first payment. Evicting that tenant would potentially make them homeless and not help the situation whereas giving them chances to resolve the arrears would ensure the tenancy can continue, benefiting both them and the landlord in ensuring that the landlord is able to claim the arrears once the payments are made.

Noble Lords, amendment 63 seeks to create a new ground for possession to enable landlords to convert a residential property to non-residential use and can I thank Lord Carrington for a very helpful meeting yesterday. While I understand the intent behind it, I don't believe this is the right approach. This proposed new ground just doesn't strike the right balance. With so many pressures on housing supply, it would not be right to encourage residential let's to be converted to other uses. Where landlords wish to convert the property to a non-residential use, it's right they should do this is tenants move out, rather than by evicting a tenant through no fault of their own.

I was very grateful to Lord Carrington for raising the issues yesterday and for explaining to me and pointing out that farmers also put their land into residential land as the Earl of Leicester also mentioned. I thank the Earl of Leicester for his contribution towards the housing need that we are facing. Amendment 64 seeks to create a new ground to support those families who need a carer. It would allow the landlord to seek possession to accommodate for care of the landlord, the landlord spouse of the landlord, the landlord spouse or a member of the landlords family.

While I understand the motivation of While I understand the motivation of the amendment, is clearly set out by Baroness Clifford, the core principle was to increase the security of tenure that tenant enjoy. We have only created a ground of -- for possession when the circumstances are compelling. This amendment does not meet that high bar. There are very few landlords who require a carer who requires accommodation. Given the likely limited use of this ground and the risk of abuse, we do not think it is justified.

Where care is required, I would also like to highlight that should a vendor wish to accommodate a close family member to the landlord of their family -- or their family, possession of ground one might be available. Amendment 71 -- or their family, possession of ground one might be available. Amendment 70 162 allow landlords to forego if they have served notice... While I understand the aims are to compensate the tenant for being evicted through no fault of their own, I do not believe this to be the right approach.

We have put much thought into the design for grants To effectively pay the tenant compensation. The landlord who needs to move or sell or move into a property may be in financial difficulty themselves and requiring them to forego the last months rent from the tenant would be an undue burden. Amendment 142 Amendment 1426 to create a new exception to the letting and marketing prohibitions. This exception would allow me letting the property after six months instead of 12 months. If possession is gained using ground one is subject to conditions.

It is proposed as reduced restricted period should be permitted as well as the landlord can evidence they have tried to sell the property he fair market rate and they have not received a suitable purchase of that. The landlord must also offer the property back to the original tenant at the same price. The noble Lords concern Souter -related rent increases, and of course all landlords can increase rent via the section 13 notice once per yeah. The Noble Lord panic raised the issue about ECHR and the Government has set out its ECHR analysis.

It published the memorandum. The tenancy would form measures on the bill to engage the rights of landlords and they constitute a controlled use of the landlords property and I justified in their pursuit the important aim of improving the security of tenants and the restrictive period is an important element for protecting misuse by landlords and processional grounds. The current 12 month restriction on letting is being introduced to prevent abuse of these position grounds. This length of time make it in profitable for a ladder to evicted tenant with the intention of letting the property to another tenant at a higher rate.

The recession has the practical effect of the landlord going rent for that period and removing the financial incentive to misuse the grounds. I believe this amendment would undermine an essential protection stop in addition, the amendment would be extremely impractical and it seems unlikely the tenant would accept the offer, having already accepted the people in costs of removing the home once evicted and the tenant would also be mindful that the landlord may very well try to resell the property again. Noble Lords, amendment 165 seems to reduce the letting and marketing restriction with the selling and restriction with the selling and position grounds.

As well as has been clear by now, the will have zero tolerance for any attempts by an sleepless landlords to evade the new tenancy system. That is why the 12 month restrictive period is so important. We will give local councils the power to issue fines to those who do to deter landlords from this. I accept that good landlord circumstances may change, but it is vital that the decision to make a tenant evicted is done when there is a clear reason. Herself also, most landlords will continue their attempts to sell the property, rather than falling back on another tenancy.

They may even reduce the price, is another Baroness Thornhill that was of the original intent is overall losing high and that cannot be made without good reason, or on the basis of a fair decision to sell or test the market. As with other similar amendments, I believe in this time this would undermine our efforts to protect tenants. The noble Lords similar to amendment 165, amendment 1666 to reduce the letting and marketing restriction when moving and selling position grounds have been used from 12 months to six.

Specifically, the amendment focuses on a claim form has been used to evict without notice, for example if the court has waived the requirement for notice to be served on the tenant. As I have set out, the 12 month restrictive. As a key measure to prevent abuse of the moving and selling grounds. Any reduction in this period would seriously undermine this protection and could reduce security of tenure for tenants. Noble Lords, we have put much thought into the design of the grounds for possession for the reasons I have outlined, we are not convinced that these amendments are the right approach and we the right approach and we respectfully ask that they be withdrawn.

17:04

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Before the noble minister needed a minister sits down, with regard to the amendments concerning carers, the main reason for rejecting it seemed to be that it was because it would be not very required thing, would be not very required thing, only a small minority who might find themselves in that situation. But is it not the case that the majority of this bill is based upon the actions of a small minority of landlords? And therefore you should be looking at both sides of the minorities argument.

And I think the fact that you say that it could be exploited, if such an amendment was to come forward in a fuller way as report stage, then it could clearly layout the evidential requirements that would be necessary for the court to see, just the same as whether it is for sale or any other purpose. For the purpose of a probing amendment,

17:06

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

of course those were not there, so I do think that I would ask to have another meeting with the Minister. I another meeting with the Minister. I know the Noble Lord Clifford has had one, and maybe those of us who are one, and maybe those of us who are interested could have another, because I really do not see that there is any substance in saying there is any substance in saying because it is a minority it does not apply. The whole bill is about minority behaviour, and therefore it is very relevant that any minority

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should be considered. Thank the Noble Lady for those further comments. I am, of course, always happy to have a further meeting with herself and Lord Clifford on this subject. I would say equal principle of the bill is to increase the security of the tenants and we want to absolutely

17:07

Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)

- -

keep our focus on that, but I do understand that point she is making and the reason for putting forward and the reason for putting forward the amendment. That I think the words that I used were that it was words that I used were that it was likely to be a very limited use of this ground and at risk of abuse. this ground and at risk of abuse. And also that where it was a family member that was going to act as member that was going to act as carer then there is another position that can be used and of course I am happy to meet and discuss it with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

her. Before the Noble Lady minister sits down I think it is always hopeful to remember that you judge democracy and how it treats its minorities. And in addition to which, she referred in her remarks to my appearing to be interested in rent. The reason I was interested in discussing their rent was because that was the reason I was given why there was a 12 month barrier to reselling the House, because the rapacious landlord would seek to make a profit from doing so.

I hope that the example I have given the explanation and logic I have provided to demonstrate, fairly compellingly, the 12 months is simply excessive and I am sorry for having convinced her of that perhaps we can have a further discussion because I think the evidence will because I think the evidence will demonstrate that six months is more than adequate to put off a landlord for taking the risk of having no income at all for six months, income at all for six months, possibly the costs of the condition and then trying to recover that.

17:08

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Thank the Noble Lord for his further clarification. I have considered we had a very useful meeting earlier on this and I have thought about it very carefully. I just do not think I think the current 12 month restriction on letting is that right one to prevent abuse of those position grounds, but abuse of those position grounds, but of course we are happy to meet with him and discuss that.

17:08

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

17:15

Lord Carrington (Crossbench)

- -

the Minister for discussing them with my yesterday in great detail. And I have also forgotten to thank her for the discussion that we had on the previous amendments. These amendments that I tabled, are designed to ensure that the intermediate landlords who under the terms of the tenancy is obliged under a notice to quit to release his tenancy in less than three months can give notice to his own subtenant limited to two months rather than the bills for months.

So that he is not in contravention of It is proposed that these grounds be amendment to reduce the notice period to two months to avoid situations where an agricultural holdings tenant is forced to breaching the terms of their agreement through no fault of their own. The policy principle behind this ground, granting position due to the possession of a superior agricultural tenancy, is thereby made workable. Currently, were a superior landlord has served notice on an intermediate landlord, it's required to give the tenant is far too short.

It may exceed the notice period that the immediate landlord himself has been given. Under the agricultural Holdings act 1986 to which this ground would apply where a tenancy agreement allows a superior landlord, can serve notice to quit on a tenant acquiring vacant position within three months. -- position within three months. -- Vacant possession. If they are unable to give the proper notice, they will be in breach of the tenancy agreement. The intermediate landlord will be required to quit the holding at the end of the three-month notice period.

Further complications may arise where the tenant does not vacate after four months as the original breach of not delivering upholding will become exacerbated. I hope you are all following this. The discrepancy in notice period undermines the policy intention behind the creation of this new ground which is to avoid an intermediate landlord from breaching the terms of their tenancy. If the tenant farmer is given three months notice, the notice period required for their own tenant must be no longer than two months.

My apologies for the somewhat complicated explanation but this is a technical issue which can be resolved by a small amendment on the notice. There are no points of principle involved as far as I'm concerned. The noble Lady the Minister at our meeting yesterday, which I'm deeply grateful for, said the amendment was not necessary as the superior landlord in any event would still be able to obtain possession after four months come what may. Unfortunately, and many developments, which are what this is all about, there is a real need to regain the whole site with vacant possession on a timely basis.

Allowing the assured tenant to remain in the holding after the immediate landlord has left. This would slow down the process of regaining a vacant possession of the site and might delay or adversely affect the planned development. I beg to move.

17:19

Lord Jamieson (Conservative)

- -

Amendment proposed, close for,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, close for,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, close for, 2ZA insert 2ZZA. I 2ZA insert 2ZZA. I was 2ZA insert 2ZZA. I was expecting 2ZA insert 2ZZA. I was expecting a 2ZA insert 2ZZA. I was expecting a slightly longer debate. I would like slightly longer debate. I would like to thank Lord Carrington. Intermediate landlords make the market more accessible. Precisely the kind of benefits we should be seeking to expand and yet this bill now risks removing them. These landlords play a vital role in our housing system.

They unlock additional housing options by turning single let into shared accommodation. They offer more affordable arrangements and they provide flexibility that are so essential in urban and rural areas closely tied to the job market. It is therefore vital that any legislation we pass recognises the contribution and protects the value they bring to the sector. I think many noble Lords in the previous debate talked about the red-hot market and the lack of housing. I do genuinely worry about the risk of producing enough housing.

I wish to turn to the amendments before us in the screw. Can I thank Lord Carrington for giving us such an erudite summation of a rather technical area which I do not wish and could not replicate and and could not replicate and Protecting small-scale renter should be a priority for us all. I hope to work constructively across the house to ensure that we get this right. From housing associations to charities to small businesses providing accommodation, intermediate landlords are very important.

Amendments 3738 apply explicitly to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. These tenancies by their nature can be very long indeed and even multigenerational. Tenanted property can include farmhouses and cottages which could be occupied either by agricultural employees or -- ( tenants -- (tenants. -- open market. It is right these tenants -- these landlords should be able to terminate a tenancy in order to deliver the property back to the superior landlord in compliance with the superior tenancy agreement.

Otherwise, the risk is they may choose not to let out such properties. There are many such tenancies that are already in place that will not and could not have anticipated this Renters' Rights Bill. Intermediate tenants might well be put in a position of being in breach of their own tenancies with negative financial implications. implications.

17:23

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

I thank Lord Carrington for the amendments and for the meeting we had yesterday and I thank Jemison for his comments on this set of amendments. Amendment 28 works with amendments 37, 38 and 39. This proposed ground for possession is well-intentioned but in the government's view are necessary. It seeks to replicate ground 2ZA with a notice period of two months rather than four in instances where cultural agricultural landlords have been given less notice by their Amendment 28 specifically seeks to ensure the proposed grounds has two months notice.

This goes against the general principle of this bill that tenants should generally be given four months notice to uproot their lives and circumstances where they have not committed any wrongdoing. We do not believe a tenure should be undermined due to the actions of a superior landlord. We encourage communication between all parties were a superior landlord's notice to the intermediate landlord is shorter. By creating this ground with a shorter notice period, the circumstances where the intermediate agricultural landlord has themselves been given short notice by their superior landlord, the noble Lord Carrington is seeking to ensure that the superior landlord is not left managing the sub tenancy.

Amendment managing the sub tenancy. Amendment 29 ads 2ZZA to the list. And circumstances -- noble Lords, as superior landlords will already be able to evict tenants under a notice given by an intermediate landlord, we do not think that the proposed ground is required. Amendment 37 ground is required. Amendment 37 specifically as an amendment to 2ZA. This highlights further to what I've

17:25

Lord Carrington (Crossbench)

- -

already said the redundancy of the already said the redundancy of the proposed ground 2ZZA. Ground 2ZA proposed ground 2ZZA. Ground 2ZA would already apply. Sorry about that, I hope everyone is following that, I hope everyone is following this. Amendment 38 is the specific amendments which insert the proposed amendments which insert the proposed ground into the schedule of the bill. For the reasons I've highlighted, the amendment is not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

highlighted, the amendment is not required in our view and I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment as such. I thank the noble Baroness the Minister for her extremely clear description of this amendment and why it might not work. I also thank Sir Jemison for his contribution. -- Lord Jamieson. I won't take up any more of your time and I certainly will withdraw the amendment. I will say that we will be looking further at the legal implications of this.

17:26

Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)

- -

Is at your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 30. Not moved. The question is that Class 4 is amendment as part of the bill. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it. Schedule one, amendment 31,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Scott. I rise to move my amendment 32

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move my amendment 32 and speak to amendment 33 and 34 in this group. All three of these amendments are underpinned by the same principle and that is same principle and that is consistency. When anybody involved consistency. When anybody involved in a tenancy speaks about family members, there should be clarity on what the means but the bill is not what the means but the bill is not consistent in its definition of a consistent in its definition of a family.

This can -- this inconsistency will make it harder to achieve clarity for those who will have to work with this legislation in the real world. I will briefly outline the two definitions of the family that are currently in the text of the bill. Enclosed 21, which relates to guarantors, the government has defined family members in a Broadway, including members in a Broadway, including nieces, nephews, and, ankles -- aunts and uncles. In schedule one, the definition is much more narrow, limiting the definition in that part of the bill to parents, grandparents, siblings, children and grandchildren.

We have tabled these amendments to highlight this inconsistency which will create an imbalance between the definition of the family of a tenant and the definition for a landlord. While the inconsistency applies to nieces, nephews, uncles and aunts and cousins, I will use the example of cousins to illustrate the I want to make. Shirley, whether a person is a landlord or tenant, of family should be treated equally before the law. It cannot be right that attendance cousin who is a guarantor is defined as a family member but a landlords cousin is not defined as a family member for the purposes of ground one.

Therefore, can the noble Baroness the Minister please explain where she believes it acceptable for a cousin of a tenant who is the rent guarantor to be treated as a family member but not the cousin of a landlord, not to be treated as a family member for the purposes of ground one under this legislation. Does she agree that this is an inconsistent way of defining family members? We are also interested in the perverse outcome that would result in a circumstance where a cousin of a person acts as the rent guarantor but also has another cousin who is a landlord.

It would under clause 20 1B the landlords family member but under schedule one, they would not be the landlords family member. In the real world, their family members in both cases. It is unacceptable that an individual in this position will be treated in one way in respect of their relationship with their cousin who is a tenant and in a different way in respect of their relationship with their cousin who is a landlord. Additionally, I am not certain whether cousins of tenants and cousins of landlords are different classes of people.

If we are to treat cousins as a class of people for the purposes of this bill, it does seem like the bill will affect private interests of cousins of landlords in a different way to the interests of cousins of tenants. We feel this is unacceptable and it As I said previously, although we may disagree on much of the content of the bill, we support the government's desire to strengthen tenants rights. So we do not feel it would be appropriate to achieve consistency by narrowing the definition of the tenants family in clause 25 -- 21.

And I think the noble Baroness the Minister would agree with us on that. If we do agree on that point, the only option remains to achieve consistency by using the same definition of the family in clause 21 of schedule one. Amendments 32, 33 and 34 would achieve equality and consistency, and I recommend them to the government, and I hope the noble Baroness the Minister will take these arguments on board and see the merits of the case we are putting forward.

And I look forward to hearing from her and hope she will be able to accept these today, and if not today, then perhaps before

**** Possible New Speaker ****

report stage. Amendment proposed, schedule one, page 167, 917, after landlords, insert or the landlord's spouses or civil partners or cohabitees.

17:32

Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Arise very briefly to speak from these benches to say that there is these benches to say that there is some nervousness on our part with regard to these amendments. And the potential for loopholes to be created. I think if the discussion is that this is a meeting of equals between tenants and landlords, then I'm not sure that is entirely the case from the experience and data we have so far, but let me stress one of the reasons we are very excited about the data section that we will come too late in the bill is that we have quite a strong belief that there is limited knowledge about who is out there and who is a landlord right now.

All we know about other responsible ones that register themselves and provide information.

17:33

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

themselves and provide information. But a tenant by very definition is not an equal to someone who owns a property. And there may be property. And there may be exceptions to that case, there may be tenants who are in high-end properties, but on the whole, the properties, but on the whole, the tenants that we are talking about within this bill are the ones who struggle on a weekly basis to pay struggle on a weekly basis to pay their rent, and therefore it is not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a meeting of equals. I thank the noble Baroness Lady Scott for her amendments. Amendment 32, 33 and 34 seek to expand the definition of a family member for the purposes of possession ground one. This mandatory possession ground is available if the landlord or their close family member wishes or their close family member wishes to move into the property. These amendments would whiten the ground to allow a landlord to claim possession from existing tenant to move in relatives of their spouse, partner, cohabitees along with nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles and cousins.

In choosing which of the landlords family members can move an underground one we have reflect the diversity of modern families while drawing a line short of where some might wish, but we are of the view that to expand the ground any further would diminish tenant protection is too far. It would open tenants to evictions from a wide range of people, potentially very significant numbers indeed where families are large while providing more opportunity for ill intentioned landlords to abuse the system. The noble Baroness got asked why family members used in C1 used in C1R close family member is used in the moving inground.

The moving inground is designed for very specific circumstances where landlords family members in need of accommodation, so it's right this definition is narrower as tenants risk losing their home. New section 16 N of the For rate payable after the tenants death as inserted by clause 21 is specifically targeted to stop those grieving being held liable after a tenancy should have been ended, and it's right that this is a broader protection. The use of guarantors is wide-ranging and as such, a wide definition is needed to encompass all relevant persons.

However, that's not the case when we are faced... Asking a tenant to face eviction from a property. So for these reasons I would ask these amendments to be withdrawn.

17:35

Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)

- -

I thank the noble lady the Baroness. We believe that these amendments, they may appear complicated in their drafting, but they have one simple object, and that's to deliver consistent definition of the family across this bill. While I'm very disappointed that the government doesn't feel able to accept amendments today, I hope the noble Baroness the Minister is willing to discuss a way to resolve this inconsistency in future meetings as we make progress on the bill.

The law should be as simple as possible and crucially consistent so those who have to deal with this legislation in the real world can do so without necessary confusion. It's clear that two differing definitions of the family will create confusion. A consistent definition would prevent that confusion. And while preserving the right to bring this back to report stage, I beg to leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to withdraw my amendments. Is a geologic pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? It is by amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 33 and 34 Baroness Scott not moved? Amendment Baroness Scott not moved? Amendment 35? Not moved. Baroness Jones is not here. Amendment 36 Baroness Taylor here. Amendment 36 Baroness Taylor move formally? The question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as are -- As many as are of that as are -- As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content".

Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. Amendments 37 and contents have it. Amendments 37 and 38, Lord Carrington not moved. Amendment 39, Baroness Taylor move formally? The question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. Amendment 40, Lord Willetts. No? Not moved. Amendment Willetts. No? Not moved. Amendment 41, Baroness Scott? Move formally? Not moved. Lord Evans, amendment 42?

17:38

Lord Carrington (Crossbench)

- -

Not moved. Amendment 43, Lord Evans of Rainow not moved. Amendment 44, of Rainow not moved. Amendment 44, Baroness Scott of Bybrook? Not moved. Amendment 45 and 46, Baroness Scott? Not moved. Amendment 47, Scott? Not moved. Amendment 47, Baroness Taylor you formally? The question is that amendment 47 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. Amendment 48, Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Carrington. Ivory declared my interest

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ivory declared my interest earlier in the debate. I rise to speak on amendments 48, 49, 51, 52, speak on amendments 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58. These amendments have been kindly supported by the Noble Lord Lord Lester, Lord Colgrain, Lord Lester, Lord Colgrain, Lord Lester, Lord Colgrain, Lord Roborough. The idea is to broaden the definition of agricultural worker regardless of the workers employment status to cover not only a direct employee but also a self- employed person or contractor.

As this reflects modern farming employment practices. In my meeting with the noble Lady the Minister, for which many thanks, to whom I'm most grateful for her intention, I know she was worried that this could open up an exemption for a wider group of workers, and I hope that I have reassured her that this specifically covers only agricultural workers. Her suggestion that the same could be achieved by allowing self-employed workers to occupy a property and the licence would not be appropriate for longer term workers, which this amendment seeks to address.

We believe a ground for possession should be available background where there is a need to House a non-employed agricultural worker, for example a self-employed party to an arrangement on the farm or a self- employed shepherd or cattleman. It's quite common in the agricultural industry for workers to be self- employed. But given the nature of their work, especially if it's with livestock, they need to live on the site. Currently, ground 5.A provides a means of getting possession where the dwelling is required to House someone who will be employed by them as an agricultural worker.

However, it does not cover the situation where the worker is self-employed. Similarly, ground 5.C does not adequately provide for possession where a self-employed worker has been provided with a dwelling. But the work contract has ended. It only applies when the tenant has been employed directly by the landlord. We would like to see extensions to both ground 5.A and 5.C to cover situations where the worker/tenant is self-employed as well as employed. I hope the noble Lady the Minister will be able to accept this amendment, which purely reflects current employment practices in the farming industry, and is certainly not designed to cover nonagricultural workers.

I would also like to cover amendments 50 and 53 in this group. By way of background, the private rented sector from a rural background where the average length of a tenancy is over, around seven years. There is little chairman there in view of the -- chairman in view of the long-term nature of rural areas. Combined with the shortage of rural affordable housing, which hopefully will be addressed in the planning and infrastructure bill, the availability of housing to support rural growth and particularly that driven by the increasing need for farm diversification, due to lack of profitability in farming, is a clear and continuing problem.

This diversification is being encouraged by the government through schemes like the rural prosperity fund. However, this diversification would be held back if it involves the necessity to House an employee on site and there is no availability of housing. Rural landlords in the private rented sector have traditionally been the employer of their tenants. Historically, they have primarily housed agricultural workers, but with mechanisation, fewer mixed farms and employment costs, these cottages have been rented to others.

At the same time, legislation governing the private rented sector has evolved to give extra statutory protection to agricultural workers. However, as farms are modernised and have been encouraged to diversify, many farmers and landlords have businesses which employ staff to operate in nonfarming sectors. But still need to be housed by the landlord for the better performance of their duties. The system of assured short hold tenancy is has allowed farmers and landowners to recover cottages at the end of the fixed term.

And thereby House the employee for the new enterprise. In a situation of assured tenancies, this option will not exist, so the prudent owner may well take the view that he cannot risk an assured tenancy, and therefore keep the House unoccupied. This could affect supply in an already stretched private rented sector. While it remains very important that rural landlords are able to House incoming agricultural workers, new ground 5.A, is increasingly important they are able to gain possession the non-employee PRS, non-employee PRS tenant in order to House an employee of their diversified business.

This amendment would allow possession where the property is required for housing a person over the better performance of their duties is required to be horas by custom housed by their employer. In order to conform with an assured tenancy, this circumstance could be made a prior notice ground in an assured tenancy. If the fixed term tenancy is not allowed, the possibility of registering such properties would allow an incoming tenant to be aware that such properties can only be let on fixed terms.

Examples of such employees include security personnel, housekeepers, catering staff, wardens, and groundsmen. I urge the noble Lady the Minister to favourably consider this amendment in the light of the real needs of the rural economy. Warehousing is in very short supply and the need for rural diversification from farming paramount. This bill is currently geared towards the urban PRS and does not take sufficient account of the different challenges in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rural sector. I beg to move. Amendment proposed schedule one,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed schedule one, page 173 line 30, leave out a person and insert an agricultural worker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support the noble Lord Carrington on clauses, amendments Carrington on clauses, amendments 48, 49 and 51 and subsequent 50 and 53. So to concentrate on the first

17:45

The Earl of Leicester (Conservative)

- -

53. So to concentrate on the first ones, my noble friend is absolutely right that in the 21st-century the terms of employment have moved on in agriculture. It's not just the old Increasing numbers of self-employed people, my noble friend mentioned stockmen and women, many stockmen actually will be self-employed and work for two or three farmers, and there will be two or three herds. Obviously one gets an advantage if you can provide them with the House. you can provide them with the House.

Contract is to -- two, there is much talk about new mansions to farming and giving people tenancies, but actually the reality is that most new entrants into farming come via setting up their own contracting business and obviously that could be working for the farmer. I was pleased to hear my noble friend mention share farming is welcome a very popular in America and Australia but now increasingly beginning to show its face here in Britain. It's really important because areas of high rent where if you're a farmer in that say the Thames Valley, Home Counties, A1 corridor where rents are high, if you employ a new agricultural worker from out of the area really important that you are able to give them accommodation.

These amendments should be allowed. Then I would wholeheartedly agree the amendments 50 and 53 concerning better performance of their duties. My noble friend has mentioned people who might be working in a household or where security or caretakers, but also nature wardens, national nature reserves where people need to be close to their area of work because they are boarding an important habitat. I will leave it there but I think these are very sensible amendments and I would be very surprised and disappointed if the Minister didn't take them on.

17:48

Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)

- -

We thank Lord Carrington and the Earl of Leicester folk raising what is critical issue that is at crisis point, namely housing in rural communities. We on these benches understand the need to support those in the agricultural community who are on more unique tenancy of arrangements for a variety of historical reasons. These tenancies often include longer durations, intergenerational involvement and the close relationship between the land and the livelihood that is typical elsewhere in the rental sector as Lord Carrington described.

As such it is vital that any legislative change reflects the particular realities of cultural life and doesn't introduce any unintended uncertainty or disruption to that. Crucially it's important to ensure there is greater clarity for both landlords and tenants operating under agricultural tenancies in a sector where long-term planning and security of tenure are essential. Both parties require clear and consistent rules to navigate the rights and responsibilities with confidence, that said we are somewhat hesitant on these benches about the proposed amendment to this group to introduce new repossession ground for these tenancies.

We believe it's possible there may be more effective way to provide reassurance to those living under such arrangements but on that basis, I look forward to hearing the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister's response. Speaking as someone who actually

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaking as someone who actually does farm, albeit not on the same

17:50

Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)

- -

does farm, albeit not on the same scale as the noble Lords who have spoken thus far or indeed anywhere near it, I am someone who is very sensitive to the requirements for security of tenants but on the other hand I do know...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can you confirm to me that you were here at the start of the debate. You were earlier but for the debate. You were earlier but for the start of the debate? Sorry can't start of the debate? Sorry can't speak then. Thank you. -- Sorry you shouldn't speak then

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank Lord Carrington for bringing a debate on possession grounds this is an important issue as it ensures that important issue as it ensures that the landlord who is often also the employer can regain possession of a property when it is needed to house a new employee. I wish to add, to address amendment 48, 49, 51 and 52 tabled by Lord Carrington, these amendments raise an important and complex issue concerning complex issue concerning Particularly in the light of the proposed reforms to tenancy law including the abolition of fixed terms and the removal of section 1, 21 no fault elections.

At present agricultural landlords can avoid creating an agricultural assured occupancies by serving notice by -- before the tenancy agree that mate begins thereby establishing it as a short short hold tenancy, and AST. This provides act says to section 21 which allows landlords to regain possession without the need to demonstrate fault. It's a mechanism widely relied upon within the agricultural sector warehousing is often linked to employment or operational means. With the removal of section 21 this option will no longer be available.

As a result there will be significant shift in the way in which agricultural landlords recover their properties. We must ensure alternative grounds for possession are workable, fair, and can lead to the recovery of a property. I do not suggest that there are easy answers here, however I do believe this area requires careful scrutiny and targeted solutions. The noble Lords amendments offer a useful starting point I believe for this discussion and you has rightly brought this to the attention of the House.

I would urge the government to consider these issues closely and to engage further with the agricultural landlords to ensure that they have the means to house new farmers under the employment. I will finally talk to the remaining amendments in this group, 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 group, 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 63. Maintaining the availability of essential employment linked housing is something we must recognise the value of and consider how best to safeguard it in how best to safeguard it in practice.

This is of course must have thoughtful consideration of the applications of any decision made affect not only the landlord and the employer, but also the broader rental market. I hope the government will give serious consideration to Lord Carrington's amendments, as part of a broader much-needed discussion on how landlords can fairly regain possession of a property when a tenancy is tied to employment that has come to an end. I know a lot about this, I've milked many cows in my life and I've been at Easter lambing ewes so I know all about this.

Many roles in occupational housing and those time sensitive and hands-on. A new employee may require immediate access to the same accommodation as the previous employee in order to perform their duties. Herdsmen and women often are up at 330 in the morning to begin milking, shepherds may be lambing right the way through the night into the dawn. And for their own welfare as a family they need to be on site to fulfil this role. And animal welfare requires this.

Animal welfare requires staff to be immediately available at all times, whether it is for carving, lambing, Faro in or just sick animals, they need somebody that is on site. Where accommodation as I say on site is absolute critical. The same applies to those managing diversification of agriculture properties and businesses. Managing holiday accommodation or providing security to storage facilities on farm for example. Failure to ensure timely access to such housing can have significant operational impact. It can delay essential work and place considerable strain on the profit-making enterprises already operating within tight margins.

This debate therefore is not only about the protection of property rights, it is fundamental to supporting those agricultural businesses and the people that are employed in them and the welfare of the stock on those farms that relies so heavily those farms that relies so heavily on occupational housing is a practical necessity.

17:56

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

I thank Lord Carrington for these amendments relating to agricultural tenancies and Lord Carrington the Earl of Leicester and the Baroness Scott for their obvious farming expertise as they have taken us through the rationale for the amendments. Can I thank Baroness Grender for her comments about the long relationships that are necessary, that are prevalent even in rural tenancies. It's an important point to make that one of the aims of the bill is to facilitate those longer tenancy relationships.

I will make a few general comments, particularly that we appreciate the agricultural sector has distinct requirements and its often vital for workers to live on site to carry out their duties as Baroness Scott has very ably described to us. That is why we have included the round 5A, however this must be balanced with the needs of the wider rural community. This ground balances both it allows agricultural workers to be house while protecting other tenants who may work in critical local jobs.

Widening the ground to include for example contractors. Could we believe openly grounds for abuse and decreased security of tenure. The landlord could contractor want to do a nominal amount of agricultural work and on that basis is the expanding ground to evict a tenant for whom no other grants are available. The Earl of Leicester talked about self-employed and contractors, we recognise it is sometimes necessary for landlords to move tenants on where accommodation is intended for a particular purpose and understand employee accommodation plays a critical role for many employers so we are strengthening the possession ground by making it mandatory full stop it wouldn't be right to broaden the ground too much by reducing the security of tenancy, tenure for more tenancies as this would be contradictory to the purpose of the bill.

There are other arrangements that a landlord can use to help their contract with accommodation when working away from the home such as pain expenses with the contractor to make their own arrangements, using licences to occupy paying expenses for example where they are hosted in an Airbnb. As people working away from home are often working on short-term project for example in the construction industry, tenancy agreements are unlikely to be the right solution in these circumstances. Taken together, amendments 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 and 53 seek to expand the types of agricultural worker that other rural tenants can be evicted in order to On On the On the ground On the ground with On the ground with the On the ground with the term agricultural worker as I have discussed we do not support the overall intent of these amendments which would reduce reduce security of tenure for rural tenants with the landlord engaged in agriculture.

A member 49 removes the requirement of the incoming tenant to be employed by the landlord replacing it with a broader definition of working for a business operated by the landlord. 50 specifically mentioned service occupants which are defined later. 50 one changes the wording of the ground from employee to the broader agricultural worker. 52 adds a definition of agricultural worker for the purposes of the ground which is far broader than an employee. 53 defined service occupier for the serve -- ground. The current drafting of ground 5A only allows tenants to be evicted in order to house employees.

These are moments together expand this group to include service occupants, contractors and self-employed persons. This definition is party broad and would endanger security of tenure for existing rural tenants it would give a landlord running an agricultural business a much freer hand to evict anyone living in the property by for example creating a contract with another person to do a nominal amount of work for them. It's just not the right balance, rural tenants do not deserve less security than others and the amendments proposed would open up tenants renting from a landlord involved in agriculture being evicted in a much wider range of circumstances.

For this reason I ask that those amendments are with drawn. I now turn to amendments 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58 which proposed to expand possession ground 5C full expand possession ground 5C full stop taken together they would allow landlords of tenant workers contractors are self-employed to seek possession of a tenants home in the circumstances described within the ground that are currently only the ground that are currently only While we recognise the employee accommodation does play a critical role for many employers, and we have strengthened the possession ground by making it mandatory, we do not believe it would be right to include other forms of work arrangements.

As I said this could leave the ground open to abuse. By potentially enabling backdoor section 21 style addictions. Other types of addictions. Other types of arrangements may be available for those circumstances like licences to occupy -- evictions full stop we think the circumstances were landlord has provided accommodation for tenants on for example short- term contracts are likely to be limited. Turning to each of the eminence individually 55 would allow landlords seek possession from a worker tenant not an employee and the workers ended full stop as previously mentioned we don't want to broaden the ground and reduces to broaden the ground and reduces 56 was would enable a landlord to take possession of a property for a worker.

5.C allows for only employees affected. While we appreciate some employers want to help their employees to relocate or work in a different area for a period, we getting this grant should be expanded to include other types of workers. Workers on contracts like those proposed to be covered in the amendment are in our view less likely to require accommodation for a longer period of time. Employees are much more likely to have a long-term relationship for which housing will be required, and we therefore do not think it's necessary to widen the ground.

57 would allow a landlord to seek possession of a property provided to any tenant worker for an early stage of work which has ended to let the property to any other current or future workers, including those that are self-employed. This ground is intended for a narrow purpose to allow employer landlords to gain possession of the property when the purpose of the accommodation has been fulfilled to enable them to let it to another employee not to other it to another employee not to other types of workers.

Noble Lords, 58 point expand the definition of employer within Crown fibre C. This new definition would include a person with whom a contract a worker was entered into rather than an employer in a strict sense you endless into an employment contract

18:03

Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)

- -

with an employee. This would allow a landlord to contracting the services landlord to contracting the services of a worker tenant to use ground 5.C to seek possession of the property. We want as many tenants as possible to enjoy security and tenure in the homes. Broadening this ground in this way could mean that many more this way could mean that many more tenants would lose access to their security, and as previously stated, other arrangements exist that may be suitable in the circumstances, such as licence to occupy.

As such, I'd ask the Noble Lord to withdraw these amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. Before the nobility sits down, can you explain to me how then this scenario is going to work? Because this scenario happens quite a lot, particular on dairy farms I have to say from experience. An employer, employee who leaves from a herdsman at quite short notice, then living in the one herdsman's property on the farm, and then the only way you can get somebody in quickly is to

18:04

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

melt -- to make those cows because they have to the following day after an employer goes, they still have to be milked, it then has to get a contract of somebody on contract to milk them, which is an easy way of milk them, which is an easy way of getting somebody in quickly. Can you tell me how you are going to get tell me how you are going to get that person living close enough to be able to look after the welfare of be able to look after the welfare of that herd of cows and milk those cows twice or three times a day when

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you haven't got any property because you can't get rid of the employee who has left? Presumably there would be a timelag anyway because of the notice period that is required. So whatever arrangements are made in those circumstances, would need to be used in circumstances the noble Lady describes.

18:05

Lord Carrington (Crossbench)

- -

I would just add to that that there may not be a notice period if there has been an accident. However, I think first of all I would like to thank all the Noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, particularly Lord Lester and Baroness Scott, and Baroness Grender, and I look forward to hearing what Lord Berkeley has to say before report stage. I think what I just want to say is that there are two themes in these amendments.

One is the change in farming practices of employment. And these amendments are designed to cater for that. And the second theme is that of farm diversification. Which this government is very keen, quite rightly, to encourage. As we all know, diversification ought to lead to growth, and then of course growth or to lead to more housing as there would be more wealth. So I think the government should if possible broaden the way that it looks at these two amendments.

Now noble Baroness the Minister has mentioned that the proposals that have been put forward are open to abuse. I can only say that the abuse would be by a very very small number of people who one could probably deal with in a different way. A B&B is a solution make air B&B. Licensing is a solution to certain types of contractors or employees who are brought in for a very limited period of time, but is certainly not suitable for the certainly not suitable for the longer term aspect of things.

And it's not in any landowner's interest to get rid of a tenant who is paying a decent rent in order to put in an employee who is not paying a rent unless he really has to. So I don't think this abuse thing is really an issue. However, I do see that we need to look at the definitions very carefully, and I'm very happy to sit down again and try and come up with some definitions of who should qualify for this.

But with that said, I beg leave to withdraw the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Is a tumultuous pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? Amendment by amendment be withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendments 49 to 58 leave withdrawn. Amendments 49 to 58 not moved en bloc, Lord Carrington? Not moved en bloc. Amendment 59, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, move Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, move formally. The question is that amendment 59 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it.

content." The contents have it. Amendment 60 and 61, Lord Carter of Haslemere not moved en bloc? Amendment 62 The Lord Bishop of Manchester not moved. Amendment 63, Lord Carrington? Not moved. Amendment 64, Lord de Clifford not moved. We now come to amendment 65

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in schedule one, Lord Carrington. I repeat what I've said that I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I repeat what I've said that I have declared my interest earlier in the debates, so I won't bore you with them again. I am now talking with them again. I am now talking about amendment 65, and I'm pleased to have the support of Lord Lester to have the support of Lord Lester and Lord Roborough for this amendment. I'm afraid once again amendment. I'm afraid once again it's a fairly technical matter, and I will try not to send everyone to I will try not to send everyone to sleep.

Once again, I thank the noble Baroness the Minister for her engagement on this issue and have taken on board her concerns, which principally relate as we've heard throughout these debates, to making sure that the rights of assured tenants are not affected. Many former or current agricultural employees have protected tenancies under the rent Agriculture Act 1976. Or are assured agricultural occupants, also with lifetime security of tenure under the Housing Act of 1988. While landlords have a statutory duty to House these protected tenants for their lifetime, and for at least one succession to a spouse or other family member, they have the right under the above statute to offer such tenants suitable alternative accommodation, SAA.

Often the tenants of these houses are occupying housing required for a new agricultural worker or a property which is no longer suitable for them due to age or infirmity. In its current form, the Renter's Rights Bill does not address the fact that a property may be occupied by a protected tenant, and to offer that property to a new agricultural employee or rehouse an aged retiree to ensure housing needs are met appropriately. Another property is required to offer as suitable alternative accommodation to that protected tenant.

There is currently no ground within the bill to allow possession of a PRS property in order to rehouse a tenant, whom the landlord has a statutory lifetime duty to House. This amendment will enable landlords of rural properties to manage their properties when rehousing protected tenants. This amendment is vital because of the longer term nature of accommodation in rural areas. The average tenancy as I've said in a previous debate lasts for 7.5 years. And it's often not possible to rely on a natural chairman of tenancies -- chairman in order to offer a suitable accommodation when it's needed.

And nearby vacant rental property is often unavailable. Accordingly, our amendment deals only with the issue of suitable alternative accommodation under the terms of the rent act agriculture 1976, rather than the 1977 rent act covering nonagricultural workers. It aims to ensure that the existing Bright can be honoured, i.e. The properties will be provided for protected tenants when required. The amendment enables landlords to provide such accommodation when it's needed. This particularly important when it comes to form agricultural workers who have lifetime security of tenure under the rent act 1976.

It should be noted that it's very common that such workers are moved on retirement to now tentative property owned by the employer as the particular property they have occupied as part of their job is key to the nature of their work. The Derry man's House, things like that. -- Dairy. This amendment is in some ways similar to amendment 62 in the name of the Right Reverend Bishop of Manchester and the Noble Lord Lord Lester to facilitate housing of retired clergy.

In both cases, the properties required are usually used for employees, but they will be let on the open market the times when not required for employees or former employees. Employees need to know that they will not be able to regain possession as and when needed. Else they will not let them out. However, the big difference between this amendment and amendment 62 is that in the case of amendment 65, the landlord has a statutory duty to House the employee under existing legislation.

The bill already acknowledges new ground 5.A the fact that it is critical to certain jobs that an employer can housing coming agricultural workers. The point of this amendment is to ensure that when an incoming agricultural worker comes into a property, that property can be made available to the outgoing retired agricultural worker whom the landlord has this right statutory duty to House. Even after the job has ended. This amendment is a key part of the mechanism for making the way for an incoming agricultural worker to be different property can be freed up for the retired outgoing worker.

In short, this is like the incoming agricultural background but is in effect an incoming retired agricultural worker. Who the landlord has the duty to House. The circumstance could be made a prior notice in an assured tenancy if affixed tenancy is not allowed. This would mean PRS tenants would be on notice from the outset that this is the type of House to landlord usually uses to House employees, incoming or retired. And they may give notice in the future on this ground.

Finally, as the noble Baroness I'm sure will point out, there is the possibility under section 27 of the rent agricultural act 1976 after applying to the local authority to have retired agricultural workers housed. This is only in very limited circumstances where the following conditions are fulfilled. The houses occupied by qualifying worker, protected by the Housing act 1998 or the rent Agriculture Act 1976, and it is required for an incoming agricultural worker, and he cannot by any reasonable means provide alternative accommodation, and finally that the authority or to provide it in the interests of I've been in coral by the noble minister to look to the local authority or other landlords, but in reality -- encouraged, in reality...

Local housing authorities even if the above conditions were met, rarely have available social housing in order to offer retired farmworkers. This option is so unrealistic that the body, the agricultural dwelling house advisory committee that used to be convened to assess the agricultural efficiency centre in these cases, was disbanded in 2013. The committee has not been replaced. Even if there is housing available by the local authority, landlords where they have been the employer may feel responsible for the long-term protected tenants and do not wish to relinquish housing responsibility to the housing authority.

Other landlords who may according to a CNA survey are currently considering exiting the PRS sector, may have no or only unsuitable properties to offer. This new ground for possession is needed to ensure the farming economy can operate efficiently and duties of landowners and the rent act 1976 can be fulfilled. I hope the Minister will fulfilled. I hope the Minister will acknowledge this issue and agree to the solution proposed in this the solution proposed in this

18:17

The Earl of Leicester (Conservative)

- -

Amendment proposed. Schedule one page 187 line 4 at end inserts, new ground for possession for property which is needed to house a protected tenants.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support Lord Carrington on this amendment 65 and also take the opportunity to apologise the the opportunity to apologise the sadly I wasn't able to attend the sadly I wasn't able to attend the first day of committee on Tuesday, had I been able to I would have had I been able to I would have supported the Bishop of Manchester with his amendment 62 which is Lord with his amendment 62 which is Lord Carrington has noted is reasonably similar to this.

I embellish what Lord Carrington has said very clearly with two examples. An example of a house that has been lived in by a protected tenant family, 30 or 40 years on and that is the reality of protected housing. The House might need serious refurbishment which after 35 years may cost North of a hundred thousand pounds to comply with EPC and will take nine or more months to complete. The need to find the House to put said old and retired couple in more suitable accommodation whilst retaining that protected tenancy status and that accommodation might be arms house or accommodation might be arms house or bungalow.

A second example of a protected tenant family which may have been a large family with three or four children back in the day, occupying a four-bedroom house. The children have married or moved away, father is deceased and the widow is knocking around in a large four- bedroom house which is expensive to heat and manage. Perhaps has a dangerous old staircase, bathroom downstairs, the bedroom upstairs. Once got to think about this because that is denying a large house to a young growing family that they themselves might be in a two-bedroom flat or house.

A simple solution, which again would come through negotiation I'm sure would be a welcomed, would be a house with the widow retaining protected tenancy. But that would also be evicting the small growing family and offering them the opportunity to move into a larger house. There is quite a few examples in the rural tenancy sector I suspect in the urban sector where families who stayed in houses for many years but then the family having grown for 20 odd years then starts reducing in size, but they remain in the big house so it's important that protected tenancies, protected tenants can be housed in small houses and that the tenants of those smaller houses are moved out to allow this churn of housing as families grow and then reduce in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

size. First of all I apologise to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First of all I apologise to the House for speaking prematurely. I speak as someone I should declare speak as someone I should declare this interest as a small farmer said this earlier, very small in comparison with some of the noble

18:21

Lord Berkeley of Knighton (Crossbench)

- -

comparison with some of the noble Lords who spoke. However I have seen first hand some of the problems that have been described, in particular I remember one old lady who carried on in a house where she simply wasn't able to manage with the property and the upkeep surrounding it, and what I think Lord Carrington is suggesting and the noble Lord opposites, that would help to avoid very painful, costly legal cases where people have to try and get somebody out, and that causes enormous bad feeling and costs.

I am in favour of this amendment and actually would have been previous ones because I do think that in farming at the moment the difficulties that landlords are facing assignments, I won't go through them now, that the ability to keep from going which is in the interests of tenants and future tenants is prejudiced if they cannot get back suitable accommodation. I completely understand the desire which saw the government has to offer security to tenants, that is an extremely important part of the fabric of our society, but think we have moved on in some ways and what has happened in farming and what I have observed around mid-Wales is there is a need to be able to get back certain properties, to bring in younger people to farm, so I do broadly support these amendments and I would suggest to the government with great respect that if there is any way they can move to accommodate them, I would very much support it.

them, I would very much support it.

18:23

Lord Jamieson (Conservative)

- -

I am grateful to Lord Carrington for moving this amendment and again Lord Carrington has given an excellent technical explanation of the need for this amendment and I the need for this amendment and I shall not try and repeat it in the certain knowledge that I wouldn't give as good an explanation. It recognises the enduring statutory duties placed on certain landlords to house former employees. I also thank the noble Earl Leicester and Lord Knight and he further explained that emphasised the issues raised and why this amendment is necessary.

Many of these tenants are retired agricultural workers who have given years, sometimes decades of service and who now occupy homes with lifetime security of tenure. As such landlords often small family run farming businesses, continue to shoulder a statutory duty to provide housing, even after the employment relationship has finished. This is not merely a moral obligation, it's a legal one. It's one that increasingly runs into practical difficulty. The housing needs of retired employees can evolve over time, it won like a once necessary As us been mentioned due to age, health or changes in family circumstances or numbers.

At the same time the property may now be needed to house the current employees work is essential to the functioning of the farm. Yet undercurrent drafting of the Renters Reform Bill landlords cannot regain possession of alternative accommodation in order to fill that continuing statutory duty. This amendment 65 correct that oversight, it provides a narrow, targeted new ground for possession applicable only when the landlord is required to rehouse a protected tenant or their successor. And only when suitable alternative accommodation is required for that purpose.

This is not about weakening tenant protections or finding a loophole. Far from it. This is about balance, ensuring that landlords you remain bound by statutory obligations are able to meet them in practice. Without this amendment we risk trapping landlords in a legal Catch-22 where they are legally required to provide suitable housing but legally prevented from doing so. And importantly providing accommodation to retired employees whom they have given many years of service and deserve secure accommodation in their retirement.

Without the risk of breaking the law or leaving accommodation empty in expectation of its use later, this amendment does not open a backdoor to wider evictions it simply ensures the fair and functional operation of existing, long established housing duties. It is balanced, proportionate and essential to upholding the very laws that protect these tenants. these tenants.

18:26

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

Once again I would like to thank Lord Carrington for his amendment which would create a new ground for possession and the Earl of Leicester, Lord Berkeley and Lord Jamieson for their contributions to this debate. This round would enable To seek possession of a tenanted property to relet the property to a person to whom they have a lifetime duty under the rent Agriculture Act 1976 or the Housing Act 1988. Once again can I thank Lord Carrington for his collaborative engagement on this matter and for helping me through his reasoning for the amendment, both in our meeting and in his clear explanation in this chamber.

However our position towards this amendment remains the same, that it would go against the general principle of increasing security of tenure for short tenants that is consistent throughout the bill. We don't agree that there is a compelling reason that this particular group of agricultural tenants need to be housed in specific dwellings at the expense of Has that she duty to house an agricultural tenant or their successor, in many cases landlords will be able to move tenants as and when suitable properties become available. Landlords can also use the existing discretionary suitable terms of accommodation ground nine that Lord Carrington mentioned.

To move an assured tenant to -- another property needed. The Earl of Leicester referred to issues of under occupation which all landlord space, I certainly face them as a social landlord when I was a council leader, it's certainly not unique to farming. The idea that mandatory eviction is the answer to this rather than incentivising people to move on from under occupied properties would be a complete new area of legislation to be considered will stop I think that's out of the scope of this current bill.

The new ground would mean an existing assured tenant could be evicted through no fault of their own simply moving moving the problem around and creating insecurity for tenants. As Lord Carrington said this is a similar issue that we discussed on Tuesday in relation to retired clergy however I do understand the distinction that the noble Lord made in relation to the statutory duty in relation to the statutory duty but is not for a specific property on the issue of just moving the on the issue of just moving the problem around the same issue and as such I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

18:28

Lord Carrington (Crossbench)

- -

Thank you very much everyone particularly Lord Lester, Lord Berkeley and Lord Jamieson. I think we must agree to this agree. -- To disagree. The Minister quite rightly is trying to uphold the essence of the bill which is security of tenure for assured tenants. It does not appear to be able to consider the fact that some properties should have a sticker on them saying prior notice could be given for the occupation of this property.

I think that would be a sensible solution because there are two big things that this bill doesn't take account of, amongst no doubt others, the first is that the rural economy is very different to the urban economy. We don't have that housing that is available in the urban economy and we are going through a revolution in terms of farming. The other point is, and I keep on emphasising this, is, and I keep on emphasising this, is that the farmer that landowner whoever has got the statutory duty.

That was put firmly in the bill under a Labour government I think under the Agriculture Act 1976, rent act 1976. I would urge the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government to consider again, but in the meantime I withdraw the amendment. Is at your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure that the amendment is withdrawn?

18:30

Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)

- -

that the amendment is withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. The question is that schedule one as amended be the first schedule to this bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. Amendment 67, 66 and 67 Baroness Scott not moved en bloc. The question is that clause 5 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Scott. I will be brief. Amendment 68 six

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will be brief. Amendment 68 six to make a modest but sensible change to clause 6 by replacing, " May" to clause 6 by replacing, " May" With, " Must" Must first the intention is clear here to ensure intention is clear here to ensure that this active state is under a duty, not merely discretion to provide the prescribed form for provide the prescribed form for notice of possession and to ensure it is kept up-to-date. We simply don't understand why the government believes discretion is necessary in believes discretion is necessary in this case if form is to be relied upon by landlords and tenants alike and ultimately by the courts, it must be accessible and it must be current.

Anything less introduces the risk of confusion, inconsistency, or even procedural unfairness. So could the government kindly explain the rationale behind retaining this discretion. In what circumstances does the secretary of circumstances does the secretary of state envisage not using the form or ensure the former is the most ensure the former is the most recent. This is a matter of basic transparency and procedural clarity transparency and procedural clarity and I hope the Minister can provide some reassurance on this point.

18:32

Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Amendment proposed, clause 6, page 8, line 21, leave out may and insert mast.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I find myself in a strange position having argued earlier on position having argued earlier on discretionary powers to change from discretionary powers to change from must to May, and I now find myself in support of May to master. -- Must. And I agree with Baroness Must. And I agree with Baroness Scott that having this open Scott that having this open available and transparent would be a good thing, but I look forward to hearing the noble Lady the Minister's response.

18:33

Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)

- -

I would have thought that common sense alone would have encouraged the government to accept the amendment on the grounds that surely it is one way of avoiding potential legal arguments where people will get into a dispute over the actual process and will argue that form A must be in this form and form B in that. Charlie is relatively easy to ensure consistency, clarity and certainty. And having a position where forms are not published just doesn't seem to me to make any sense.

And I would appreciate it if

18:34

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

the Minister could explained the House why it would be in the House why it would be in the Secretary of State's interest even to have the burden of that responsibility, never mind the responsibility, never mind the difficulties that tenants and others might have. And surely anything that might have. And surely anything that could create certainty and remove grounds for a legal dispute would be in the interests of the Minister and the government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the government. I hope I can explain this very quickly and simply. Thank noble Baroness Lady Scott for her amendment regarding the form of notice for proceedings. Clause 6 allows the secretary of state to publish the prescribed form to be used when landlords serve notice of intention to begin possession proceedings. The format will continue to be published on Gov.UK. Amendment 68 by the noble Baroness Lady Scott would not affect whether the government is required to prescribe that form. This requirement is delayed out in section 8, subsection 3 of the Housing act 1998 and is not appeared in any bill.

This active state is in any bill. This active state is allowed to update the form without way of statutory instrument as is currently the case. It's crucial that the information landlords are required to provide reflects current law. This clause will allow regulations to be made so that we can update the forms at speed and respond to changing circumstances. As the notice of possession proceedings, remains a prescribed form under section 83, Housing act 1998, the requirement for the government to prescribe the former persists.

However clause 6 provides a simple mechanism in which the form a simple mechanism in which the form can be updated. It's the mechanism which changes. I therefore would ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

18:35

Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)

- -

I think the noble Baroness the Minister for that explanation. I'm afraid I'm still confused, and I think what it like to do is read her explanation in Hansard, and then reserve the right to bring this back if we don't think that it is clear because it didn't quite make sense to me, but I'm sure it might do if I read it. In the next couple of days. So with that in mind, at this point I'd like to withdraw my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. The question is leave withdrawn. The question is that clause 6 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. I beg to move that the House be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

resumed. The question is that the House be resumed. As many as are of that resumed. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary, "Not content." The I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.

18:42

Lord Grayling (Conservative)

- -

18:42

Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)

- -

18:42

Lord Grayling (Conservative)

- -

18:42

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)

- -

18:43

Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)

- -

18:43

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)

- -

18:43

Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)

- -

18:43

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)

- -

18:43

Lord Teverson (Liberal Democrat)

- -

18:43

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)

- -

18:44

Lord Moylan (Conservative)

- -

18:44

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)

- -

18:46

Lord Berkeley (Labour)

- -

18:46

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)

- -

18:47

The Earl of Erroll (Crossbench)

- -

18:47

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)

- -

18:48

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)

- -

18:48

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)

- -

18:49

Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)

- -

18:50

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)

- -

18:50

Oral questions: Adequacy of protections of ancient trees of national significance, following the recent felling of an oak tree in Enfield

18:51

Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)

- -

18:51

Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)

- -

18:52

Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)

- -

18:53

Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

- -

18:54

Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)

- -

18:55

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Labour)

- -

18:56

Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)

- -

18:57

Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)

- -

House House of House of Lords House of Lords - House of Lords - 24 House of Lords - 24 April House of Lords - 24 April 2025.

18:57

Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)

- -

18:58

Lord Kamall (Conservative)

- -

18:58

Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)

- -

18:59

Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)

- -

18:59

Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)

- -

19:00

Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)

- -

19:00

Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)

- -

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page