Bills
Live Bills
Government Bills
Private Members' Bills
Acts of Parliament Created
Departments
Department for Business and Trade
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Department for Education
Department for Energy Security & Net Zero
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Department of Health and Social Care
Department for Transport
Department for Science, Innovation & Technology
Department for Work and Pensions
Cabinet Office
Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Home Office
Leader of the House
Ministry of Defence
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Ministry of Justice
Northern Ireland Office
Scotland Office
HM Treasury
Wales Office
Department for International Development (Defunct)
Department for Exiting the European Union (Defunct)
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Defunct)
Department for International Trade (Defunct)
Reference
User Guide
Stakeholder Targeting
Dataset Downloads
APPGs
Upcoming Events
The Glossary
2024 General Election
Learn the faces of Parliament
Petitions
Tweets
Publications
Written Questions
Parliamentary Debates
Parliamentary Research
Non-Departmental Publications
Secondary Legislation
MPs / Lords
Members of Parliament
Lords
Pricing
About
Login
Home
Live Debate
Lords Chamber
Lords Chamber
Monday 12th May 2025
(began 2 months ago)
Share Debate
Copy Link
Watch Live
Print Debate (Subscribers only)
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:39
Introduction(s): Baroness Spielman and Lord Jack of Courance
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Charles Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the grace Charles III, by the grace of Charles III, by the grace of God
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of
our other realms and territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to all Lords
Spiritual and Temporal and all other our subjects whatsoever to whom
these present shall come, greeting. Know ye that we of our especial
grace, certain knowledge and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958 and of all other
powers in that behalf us enabling, do by these presence advance, create
and prefer our trusty and well
beloved, Amanda Mary Victoria spill
To the state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of
Baroness Spielman.
And for us, our heirs and successors, do appoint, give and grant unto her the said
name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness
Spielman. To have and to hold unto
her for her life. Willing and by
these presence granting, for us, our heirs and successors that she may have, hold and possess a seat, place
and voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils of
us, our heirs and successors, within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons.
And also that she may enjoy
and use all the rights, privileges, preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron,
duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed or as
they do at present use and enjoy. In witness whereof we have caused these
our letters to be made patent, witness ourself at Westminster in the Forenoon of the ninth day of
May, in the third year of are in. By warrant under the King's sign-
manual.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
On, Amanda Baroness Spielman, who
swear by almighty that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Charles Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the grace Charles III, by the grace of Charles III, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland and of our other realms and territories
King, Head of the Commonwealth,
King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to all Lords Spiritual and Temporal and all other our subjects whatsoever to whom
these present shall come, greeting.
Know ye that we of our especial grace, certain knowledge and mere
motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958 and of all other powers in that behalf us enabling do, by these presence advance,
do, by these presence advance, create and prefer our trusty and
create and prefer our trusty and well beloved, Councillor, Sir
well beloved, Councillor, Sir Alistair William, a Knight Commander
of our most excellent order of the British Empire. To the state, degree, style, dignity, title and
degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Jack of in our
honour of Baron Jack of in our
county of Dumfriesshire.
And for us, our heirs and successors, do appoint, give and grant unto him the said name, state, degree, style,
dignity, title and honour of Of
. To have and to hold unto him for
his life. Willing and by these presence granting, for us, our heirs and successors that he may have, hold and possess a seat, place and
voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils of us, our heirs and successors, within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons.
And also that he may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron,
duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed or as
they do at present use and enjoy.
In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent, witness ourself at Westminster in
the Afternoon of the ninth day of
May, in the third year of our reign.
By warrant under the King's sign-
By warrant under the King's sign-
Do Do swear Do swear by Do swear by Almighty Do swear by Almighty God Do swear by Almighty God that Do swear by Almighty God that I Do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his
heirs and successors, according to
14:49
Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order
standing in my name on the Order Paper. I declare an interest as the President of the National Autistic
Society, a friend of Baroness Browning, on the opposition benches,
Browning, on the opposition benches, with with this who is working on the Autism Act.
14:50
Lord Touhig (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Autism Act. The independently led Buckland Review reported the previous government of the recommendations
government of the recommendations primarily aimed at employers. This government is committed to raising a diversity and has launched an
independent panel of academics, with expertise and experience of neurodiversity, to advise on
boosting a neurodiversity awareness and inclusion work. The panel will
consider the reasons why Nero diversion and the recommendation in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the summer. When asked, in the other place
**** Possible New Speaker ****
When asked, in the other place about progress in implementing the Butland review of autism employment, my honourable friend, Alison
my honourable friend, Alison McGovern said she preferred it to neurodiversity as it was more
14:51
Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
neurodiversity as it was more inclusive. Neurodiversity is very
Is a very specific addition. Can I ask my noble friend to think again, perhaps and reassure the House that
this umbrella term will not be used when responding to the review. There is a danger that the needs of autistic people will be overlooked and with the Baroness's permission
to tell the House that she shares that view. What the Butland review
**** Possible New Speaker ****
is specifically about people with autism.. A friend for that question. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A friend for that question. I
commend him for work in this area. The review reported to the last government and the last government, most of those were to employers. Several recommendations relating to
Several recommendations relating to government are being progress
including working to reform confidence. Boarding figures to
confidence. Boarding figures to address all neurodivergent people,
address all neurodivergent people, specifically those with autism. You have more than one condition. Our
have more than one condition.
Our academic panel reviewing the evidence recommendations and the insight with the Buckland Review so
insight with the Buckland Review so they do not get lost. It might reassure him to know that the panel specifically includes expertise on
specifically includes expertise on autism. And although this government won't be responding specifically on
14:52
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
won't be responding specifically on the report of the last government, Alistair McGovern and the Minister for Social Security and disability have met with the Robert Buckland to discuss his work. Amanda Kirby,
discuss his work. Amanda Kirby,
chair of the academic panel recently met to discuss their scope and plans. He was supportive of the way the panel will be building on the
work initiated. I hope that reassures men a friend.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I first of all have to say that I have an autistic son, grandson
have an autistic son, grandson rather and it has been a very
difficult period. I know, from the noble Minister, she has a deep, deep
noble Minister, she has a deep, deep feeling and understanding for the problems of it. But as Lord Touhig
14:53
Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
problems of it. But as Lord Touhig and I, who worked together for many years, two things I wanted to make
quite clear. Autism is not a neuro
quite clear. Autism is not a neuro
disease. Autism is autism. I have to say, in actual fact, when I take it from my own experience, they have
the most brilliant, brilliant minds, when they have the opportunity of
being cared for correctly. I wanted
to ask the Minister if she would throw, as usual, everything behind what is needed to be able to help
**** Possible New Speaker ****
autistic cases. I am grateful to the noble Lord and I think his grandson has a good champion in him and I hope you will
champion in him and I hope you will understand that. He makes a very important point. The fact is that the employment rate that people with autism, with a 31%. If you compare that to disabled people across the
that to disabled people across the border 55%, it is still not good. It
border 55%, it is still not good. It shows that the extent of the problem.
We do recognise that this is extremely serious and do nothing, in the way this government is going
14:54
Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
in the way this government is going about this trying to minimise the challenges faced by people with autism. I did this point, autism is
not a disease, but it is a different way of learning, a different way of looking. That is true also of many and either known or neurodivergent
conditions. We need a different kind of expertise, not to create a
somewhat generalised view on what it feels like not to think in the way that some other people think. Which
will enable us to look at all of the evidence and to work with employers to try to make them a better place,
for everybody to go out there work.
I hope you will be reassure by that. I hope you will be reassure by that.
14:55
Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Can the Minister give us a further assurance at the when we use the word neurodivergent it is a broad spectrum and you cannot help
somebody with neurodivergent's, you might be able to help someone with
dyslexia, I remind. They have to be specific health pathways for those
conditions. If we start trying to be too general we will end up helping
**** Possible New Speaker ****
no one. Grateful for the noble Lord for highlighting some of the conditions.
highlighting some of the conditions. It might reassure him to know that the academic panel we pull together
14:55
Baroness Uddin (Non-affiliated)
-
Copy Link
-
the academic panel we pull together a specifically looking at a number of neurodivergent conditions, ADHD, autism spectrum condition, with
acknowledgements made, dyslexia, dyscalculia, but also developmental
coordination, dyspraxia and
developmental language disorder. The job of the panel is to review what is known and to look at what can
help. There will be some steps that may be beneficial to people with some more than one condition. We
need to understand before we can
make recommendations. make recommendations.
14:56
Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I agree with Lord to Hick, how important it is for autism and neurodivergent issues. I have a son
who is a 44 years old. I came back
from a meeting, chaired by Samantha Niblett, MP, on this very specific
subject of underemployment and
employment of people with autism. And I agree with the noble Lady, that the gap is unacceptable, but
what is the government doing to ensure that job coaches, in particular, by the DWP are attuned
to their knees and directing them properly.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There are a number of different forms of support available to people
forms of support available to people with a range of disabilities or other conditions, if they come forward. Our job coaches have
forward. Our job coaches have extensive training to work with people who need help. There are all
people who need help. There are all kinds of schemes available. We can refer to people to different kinds
14:57
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
refer to people to different kinds of help, programs where they can get voluntary support, work with whatever their particular needs are. What we are trying to do with our service out there is to make it
increasingly more tailored. We do not, there are not a range of generic areas to employment was up
people have quite a specific understanding the hope that in time,
if her son ever comes to a job centre, I hope you will find the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
help that he needs, if indeed he needed. I must declare I have a great
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I must declare I have a great nephew, Ollie who is autistic and in a special school, we love him to
a special school, we love him to
14:58
Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
a special school, we love him to bits. I would like to ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, or say this. Every grandparent, every parent, every great aunt worry about how
they're going to get a job. I recently met the project search by
the charitable foundation and all I
can say to all noble Lords is they have a 70% success rate of forgetting autistic young people into work. 60% of them are in a
full-time job. And, I would just
like to ask, the noble Baroness the Minister, is his Majesty's government going to set ambitious targets like that? So that we get as
many people into work as possible and they can lead productive lives
and if you would like a day out from the office, I will take you to the project yourself, to see it in action.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I can't refuse. Obviously, we work with families with children,
work with families with children, every child deserves to have one adult, and reasonably committed to
adult, and reasonably committed to their flourishing. I think those adults are particularly ever present
adults are particularly ever present in this House. I can imagine he is a
14:59
Lord Spellar (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
in this House. I can imagine he is a lot of it for being supported. One of the challenges of supporting people who have a disability
barriers to work is we have to have confidence that people can be supported and helped to get work. If we do not believe they can why
should anybody else? Why should employers take a chance on people? Should individuals have confidence in themselves? We have seen a great
results with supported employment. Look at the barriers, think about what might they be able to do, so
put them into it.
Supported employment, either someone at risk of falling out of a job, getting them in, can you help them to stay
there? I would be delighted to visit this, which can talk about this and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
more. I realise that the danger pointed
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I realise that the danger pointed out by a number of if you move from the specific to the general, you can often lose focus. Don't we have a
often lose focus. Don't we have a broader problem. We have millions of
15:00
Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
our fellow citizens, unemployed, or underemployed and we have a load of
artificial barriers, in not just private-sector but local and national government departments, as well. Whether it be about people's
conditions, whether it be about previous criminal records, often
from decades past. Whether it be about irrelevant qualifications and boxes are to be ticked, without employers, therefore looking at people's potential. Isn't that the
broader issue? Is that one that the government needs to take on, not just in terms of individuals, but actually the wider economy and wider
**** Possible New Speaker ****
society? Excellent points. What we want to
15:00
Oral questions: Protecting and increasing trade between the UK and the USA
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Excellent points. What we want to do, in the work we do is to help
do, in the work we do is to help individuals to see their own potential, help employers to see the potential in everyone who comes in. In answering questions today, but
I'm also the Minister in DWP with responsible for people working with
X business, ex-offenders, people have had experience of homelessness.
Similar patterns happen. Some of the
programs will address people's challenges they have disabilities, or health conditions are also available to people and other barriers, such as ex-offenders, or having been homeless.
The first
started to try to help people to overcome those. We do a lot of work in this place already, I have visited some fantastic programs with great success rates. That'll have
great success rates. That'll have confidence, people can achieve anything if someone gets behind anything if someone gets behind
15:01
Baroness Gustafsson, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Second or question.
standing in my name on the Order Paper.
15:01
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, la Thursday eighth of May, we were delighted to announce the agreement of the landmark economic deal between the United Kingdom and the United States.
Making UK the first country to get
an agreement with President Trump. It was the second major trade announcement of the week, following the India free trade agreement on
Tuesday sixth of May. What we have agreed by the foundation for new
reciprocal partnership between the US and the UK as well as secure actions that will protect jobs
across the country and protect British businesses.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the Minister for her
reply. After all the self- congratulation that has faded away, is it not clear that this agreement is very far from being a
is very far from being a comprehensive trade agreement of the type that ought to be possible in this post-Brexit world? Which firms
15:02
Baroness Gustafsson, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
are now worse off than they were before April 2 -- British firms.
Because of the 10% tariff. And although it is welcome that the
worst Draconian tariffs have been
reduced on motocross, as I say, British firms are worse off than they were before. If the government regard this as just a transition to a more effective, more comprehensive
deal, isn't it then important that they give that priority, and do away
with thinking about dynamic
**** Possible New Speaker ****
alignment with the EU market? I think the noble Lord is right
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think the noble Lord is right in that there is still a lot of work to be done but having spent time
to be done but having spent time with the many very capable and hard-working officials that have
been part of this deal, I do think it is worth acknowledging the hard work that has gone into this and one
work that has gone into this and one that we are very a -- appreciative of. The situation has lifted some of
of.
The situation has lifted some of the barriers to trade for many of our industries and some of the key sectors we really value, for example
sectors we really value, for example the automotive and steel and pharmaceutical industries. But you are right, there are lots of
industries that have not been covered by the scope of this agreement and really we are just
15:03
Lord Watts (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
starting on our journey, making sure we can really build on the strong trading relationship between the US and the UK and continue with this
approach of removing the owners tariffs and supporting the people
tariffs and supporting the people and industries and sectors that are supported by this. The areas that
supported by this. The areas that have been covered by this agreement, they employ over 320,000 people
they employ over 320,000 people within the UK, with further 260,000 jobs within the UK, supporting these sectors.
So yes, it is just the
sectors. So yes, it is just the first step in negotiating with the
full economic situation with the US but I think you will agree it is a very powerful one indeed. very powerful one indeed.
15:04
Baroness Gustafsson, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Isn't the case that... The most important trading part in Europe is the one that concentrate on and get
the most out of?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I agree with my noble friend, there are trading relationships with the EU that is incredibly important.
the EU that is incredibly important. And I do not believe in the premise of four decisions between picking between one or the other. And I
15:05
Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
between one or the other. And I think this is about a continuing relationship and dialogue, and I
note there is a very important EU summit coming up in May, that should be really endorsing that relationship and building on our
relationships with the EU as well.
15:05
Baroness Gustafsson, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Does or is she not as confused as I was to hear the ambassador to the US yesterday say that this was a
finalised agreement and that has no impact assessment we have been presented within Parliament. When is
that going to be laid before
Parliament, the impact assessment? Film technology were included but there is no reference to that within the text that was announced of the
framework to start the negotiations last week. And is it the government's intent that this will
not be laid as a treaty which will then be ratified by Parliament, and if it is not, and it is not a
preferential trading agreement, does she agree that we will have to apply all of the terms in this framework
to all other countries under the rules?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To clarify, there are a lot of key sectors that are covered in this
key sectors that are covered in this framework. And this framework is a final decision on how those key sectors will be treated with comes
sectors will be treated with comes to trading between the UK and the US
and those sectors are things like automotive, steel, pharmaceuticals
automotive, steel, pharmaceuticals but also beef and ethanol that we have heard so much about. They are not all of the sectors where trade
not all of the sectors where trade is a part of the UK and the US, and it could be area such as to the G and how we are thing about the relationship with that.
So yes, this is a final agreement for the sectors
is a final agreement for the sectors that have been covered, but it doesn't necessarily cover all the sectors and there is still work to
sectors and there is still work to be done to understand what those future trading relationships look like with respect to those other sectors. With regard to how this
sectors. With regard to how this will be treated in parliament and whether it will be ratified at
whether it will be ratified at Street, I couldn't comment on that.
I quickly run shallow of my Parliamentary journey of knowledge
which is still at its early stages but I will be sure to write up to you on the specifics.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I refer to my declaration of interest, does noble Lord the
Minister believe that British agriculture was four dignity will be increased or diminished by this arrangement?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
arrangement? What we are seeing in this relationship is thinking about the
relationship is thinking about the US opportunity to presents to all of
US opportunity to presents to all of our British industries and how we can open that up to best effect. I think when we think about farming,
think when we think about farming, the key area, the trading beef, is a real opportunity here and for the first time what we have seen is the
15:07
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
first time what we have seen is the US ban on importing British beef, has been lifted. And allowing 13,000
tons of British beef are now able to be exported to the US. This is a be exported to the US. This is a first time and I think that's a real advantage for UK farming.
15:07
Baroness Gustafsson, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Delightful to hear the Minister
extolling the real opportunity which comes from a future deal with the
comes from a future deal with the United States. Last week, I asked the frontbench to confirm that none
the frontbench to confirm that none of this would be possible if we were still in the European Union. I was told that was a matter of opinion. Could she confirm that this is a
fact?
I would speculate, I would offer up that I would agree that that would be a matter of opinion.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is the Minister fed up with the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is the Minister fed up with the moaning coming from opposite... Will
moaning coming from opposite... Will she agree with me that they had 14 years and didn't negotiate any trade deal with the United States, so they are the last people that should be
15:08
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
are the last people that should be I would be very delicate about
suggesting such a thing but one of the things that we do really well within the nation is all of us,
whichever side of the House we are Saturn, we want to see the opportunity to trade with the UK and
opportunity to trade with the UK and we understand the value it contributes to the UK economy and I think we can all agree that this is a really powerful first step that supports the great nation.
supports the great nation.
15:09
Baroness Gustafsson, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
One of the reasons she will be aware that we were unable to negotiate a trade deal with the EU was we did not wish to introduce
hormone produced. If the animal is
fed with hormones, it does not show up. How can she reassure the British
consumer that we will not import any beef produced with any hormone
whatsoever?
15:09
Lord Londesborough (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank her for this question, this is an important point. We have
been able to open up such trading opportunities but protect our incredibly powerful and well-
incredibly powerful and well- respected standards around food standards. With regard to the
standards. With regard to the specifics of how could we detect whether they have been complied with, this is something I'm not with, this is something I'm not necessarily familiar with and will endeavour to write to her to follow-up.
15:10
Baroness Gustafsson, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I do give some credit to the
government for signing a damage limitation deal with the US, that is
what is. But this five page agreement does not actually constitute a legally binding
document, so can the Minister confirm that currently, it can be
terminated at will by either side and if so, what longer-term
assurances can the Minister offer to UK exporters given the erratic
**** Possible New Speaker ****
nature of US trade policy? We are operating an incredibly
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We are operating an incredibly fast moving times. And what this agreement does, it lays down those
anchor points and principles to allow our great industries to be able to continue to trade. But there
able to continue to trade. But there is more work to be done in terms of flushing it out, and the specifics
of make sure that this is enacted and people something can use day- to-day in the trade. And the brilliant team of officials we have
brilliant team of officials we have a working very hard on ensuring that
15:11
Oral questions: Impact of the conditions at Doncaster Royal Infirmary on patient care
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
gets done within the coming weeks. Perhaps you could say what steps the government intends to take to
the government intends to take to address the continued imposition of
the 10% baseline reciprocal tariffs on most UK goods entering the US.
15:11
Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
For the remaining areas of trade that aren't covered by this agreement, where there are reciprocal tariffs, there is a number of industries really identify
as key and there is an ongoing dialogue and conversation. I think it's important to note that this
agreement is not an end. It's not a conclusion of all of the conversations and those negotiations
are happening all of the time, and we should anticipate seeing more
**** Possible New Speaker ****
agreements of this nature. Third Oral Question. Tag I beg leave to ask the question standing
in my name on the Order Paper.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in my name on the Order Paper. My Lords, Doncaster Royal Infirmary has a backlog maintenance
15:12
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield (Bishops)
-
Copy Link
-
bill of approximately £140 million. -- £114 million. Serious infrastructure issues are presenting challenges to delivering high
quality patient care. Repairing and rebuilding our healthcare estate is vital to creating an NHS fit for the
future. South Yorkshire ICB has been
provisionally allocated over £150 million in capital investment for 25/26 to begin to tackle a state challenges including the condition
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of DRI. I thank the Minister for her answer. She may be aware that one recent estimate of the cost involved in bringing the infrastructure of
in bringing the infrastructure of the DRI into good repair came to an
the DRI into good repair came to an I watering £478 million, in 2021, a water ingress into the electrical circuits in the maternity ward
15:13
Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
circuits in the maternity ward because the evacuation of premature babies in incubators and women in
labour. In 2023 the collapse of a significant portion of plasterwork
in a hospital corridor ceiling, only resulted in no human injury by the
providence of God. Can I ask the noble Lord the Minister how she
intends to monitor the conditions at the DRI, to ensure that any future deterioration does not put the
safety of patients and staff at risk?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm very aware of the situation, the acceptable situation that the
the acceptable situation that the Right Reverend Prelate describes.
Right Reverend Prelate describes. And I can confirm that in terms of capital commitments, the Right
capital commitments, the Right Reverend Prelate may be aware that
Reverend Prelate may be aware that in 25/26 the government is backing
NHS systems with over £4 billion in operational capital, £750 million of targeted estate safety funding which
targeted estate safety funding which will be crucial to the DRI, as well as £440 million to tackle crumbling
15:14
Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
as £440 million to tackle crumbling rack concrete. Why is this also
important? It is all about keeping staff patients and their families
safe and it is also about providing the best care that is possible. I
should say that the teaching
hospitals NHS which the DRI comes under this discussing and should be
discussing options with the ICB to allocate the program allocations towards the DRI.
15:14
Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The guidelines of January this year state that systems will receive
year state that systems will receive
at least 80% of their 25 /6 core operational capital, in each year of this Parliament, relative to their 24/25 allocation. With many hospital buildings in serious financial
capital backlog, why have the government put in a system that
could see some areas day-to-day
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Let me say, we have inherited an under capitalisation, over the past
under capitalisation, over the past few years. It is absolutely essential, including to cutting
essential, including to cutting waiting lists and providing the proper care, that we provide the
15:15
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
resources. However, the noble Lord will be very aware of the extent of the backlog. The latest NHSE
figures, 2022, 2023 stand at 20.8.
The critical infrastructure risk, which are a number of hospitals are wrestling with, those in the highest
wrestling with, those in the highest
tier, 7.6 billion. We have had to find the best route forward in order to be fair, but also to be efficient. Is it a major mountain to
climb, yes it is, are there various options of doing it, yes there are.
We believe we have a bin as a
transparent and fair as we have been can be. I know Secretary of State
Wes Streeting is determined to increase NHS productivity. And the DRI is a bit for urgent work, to the
tower block, do just that. / Services, having a same-day emergency care centre link to the
emergency care centre link to the in-person ward, with a knock-on effect of vascular services, all impossible in the current state of
impossible in the current state of the hospital.
Would my noble friend the Minister ensure that Ministers,
the Minister ensure that Ministers, officials and the Treasury, crucially, are not only aware of the patient safety concerns, raised by the right reverend Prelate, but also
the right reverend Prelate, but also know that the DRI will increase productivity, increase efficiency, productivity, increase efficiency, as well as improving patient care.
15:17
Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
My noble friend is right about
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My noble friend is right about
the effects of a poor state. And in addition to productivity, I would
addition to productivity, I would also say that it's very much affect safety, it affects working conditions, other staff it also
affects capacity. The benefits are very considerable, as she identifies. Indeed as a Lord Darzi
15:17
Lord Kamall (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
identifies. Indeed as a Lord Darzi identified. I can certainly ensure my noble friend that we are working across government. That does include
working with the Treasury, but also to the right reverend Prelate point, the local ICB and trust, in order to tackle this. And my noble friend
will be aware that the hospitals NHS foundation has had committed from this government and nearly £20
million other critical
infrastructure risk fund, to move a section to the ground floor. That is not the bit that my noble friend is
But I think it shows the seriousness But I think it shows the seriousness with which we are taking this.
15:18
Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The injection of capital to Doncaster Royal Infirmary Azov Sea welcome. When the CQC inspected DRI in 2024, it found that the hospital,
"Did not have enough maternity staff, with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep women safe from
vulnerable harm. Was what action is
of the government taking to address safety concerns, from a lack of adequate staffing? Maternity services? While we're on the subject, given that they recently
announced crackdowns on an immigration and the fact that many people who work in our healthcare system are in fact immigrants, how does the government intend to
encourage all British social care?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I do feel that this government is taking very seriously of the backlog, against a background of
backlog, against a background of what we have inherited. That will make conditions are far better for
make conditions are far better for staff and make it a far more attractive place to work. That will be reflected, when we report on the
be reflected, when we report on the
workforce plan. To the point about maternity, we are recruiting and we
maternity, we are recruiting and we are looking extremely closely how we can better support best practice, as
can better support best practice, as I saw just last week, how we extend
15:19
Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
that, but also how we bring into the
system better patient safety measures. It is another area, I am afraid that we have inherited, in
the difficult position, but noble Lords can be assured that we are working on it. I do look forward to updating your Lordships' House. updating your Lordships' House.
15:20
Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Come back to the lady the Minister. I accept that the backlog
is there. The new government have put in a scheme that will reduce day-to-day capital expenditure,
day-to-day capital expenditure,
potentially to 20%, for some areas. That is this government's new plan. And also she said at the dispatch
box that the ICB in South Yorkshire had been allocated 150 million this year. It was allocated 161 million
last year. How does this help Doncaster, Sheffield, Barnsley with
their back backlog.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I do realise that the novel is keen to resolve this situation. The DRI is in a extremely difficult
DRI is in a extremely difficult
15:20
Oral questions: Steps to ensure mobile phones are kept out of schools
-
Copy Link
DRI is in a extremely difficult place. To pursue the particular point that he makes, I should be very pleased to come back to him, but I do want to emphasise we saw
the Autumn Budget making exceptional
the Autumn Budget making exceptional support for capitalisation. Which by
support for capitalisation. Which by the way isn't just for the physical estate, but also for the digital
estate. The DRI has been operating all records on paper. That is not the way forward and they now will be
the way forward and they now will be digitally be brought up to date.
I would be pleased to look into it further and come back to him.
15:21
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Fourth Oral Questions.
Paper.
15:21
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Mobile phones have no place in our schools, the government's mobile
phones in a school's guidance is clear. That schools should prohibit
the use of devices with smart technology, throughout the school day, including during lessons,
transitions and breaks. We expect all schools to take steps, in line with this guidance, to ensure mobile
phones do not disrupt people's learning. If the pupils failed to follow those rules, schools have the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
power to confiscate devices. I thank the Minister for her
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the Minister for her optimistic answer to my question. I
wonder how many of your noble Lord ships are at this very moment distracted by a smartphone that they
distracted by a smartphone that they have with them. I look around and I
have with them. I look around and I see quite a few. Imagine then what it must be like to be the teacher of a class of 11-year-olds and tried to
a class of 11-year-olds and tried to hold their attention, when they had
hold their attention, when they had their smartphones beside them? The Minister has given an optimistic answer and I had hoped for
15:22
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
unanimity, in this matter. Because all of the evidence, and all of the
experts agree, as I think the Minister has just agreed that having
a smartphone, with them at all times, causes harm both educationally and socially, to
Children and Young Persons Act to
bring about the change that is a necessary, will the Minister show
some leadership and agree to the amendments, which my colleagues, my
noble friend has submitted to the
Education Bill that is about to come
into Parliament.
15:23
Baroness Berger (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Well, my optimism is not just based on vague hope, but of course
based on vague hope, but of course
on the most recent report from the Children's Commissioner, that shows that the overwhelming majority of schools, that is over 99, 99.8% of
primary schools and 90% of secondary schools already have policies in place that limit or restrict the use of mobile phones, during the school
day. There is ample opportunity,
from both the guidance and the
autonomy and wisdom of head teachers, to ensure that we make considerable progress on this issue, as we are already seeing.
15:24
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
School leaders, public health, Dan Tomlinson MP and the smartphone
free childhood campaign have come together to be the first borough to
ban smartphones in 103 primary schools and secondary schools are
working to remove them entirely from the school day. 63,000 students will enjoy a seven hour window to learn,
socialise and grow, without a mobile phone. What assessment has a friend, the Minister made of local
**** Possible New Speaker ****
initiatives, like this one in Barnet. We also find in areas like Ealing and St Albans. I think my noble friend
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think my noble friend identifies a really important development, actually, which is a whilst schools can and do control
the availability of mobile phones, for children, of course a children's access to phones is a much broader,
15:25
Lord Hampton (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
access to phones is a much broader, than that. The support for children
to be able to operate, without their phones, also means a broader range
of people that simply teachers and head teachers. That type of initiative demonstrates what is already happening, under the current
I think, when people come together, in that sort of way to support each other it is something that is to be other it is something that is to be recognised and for which they should be congratulated.
15:25
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
As a teacher, I have never taught in a school that actually allows mobile phones. The noble Minister
said that mobile phones have no place in schools, whilst giving head teachers autonomy to make decisions. The Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill is taking away autonomy the
head teachers. Is it time we just had a blanket ban on mobile phones?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The noble Lord of course raises an interesting point, which is those who argue that autonomy for head
who argue that autonomy for head teachers is important, which this
15:26
Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
teachers is important, which this government supports and by the way I would dispute his interpretation of the children's wellbeing's and
Schools Bill, we will have plenty to discuss in the coming week. It is precisely those who met that charge,
who now want to remove that autonomy, through saying that legislation is the only way to make progress.
15:26
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
First of all I agree with what the Minister has said. One of the problems with mobile phones of
course is to do with the children's mental health and well being. And of
mental health and well being. And of
course a bullying, mobile phones are often used to bully pupils. I wonder whether the Minister would agree that it is important however that governing bodies of schools, where
parents are represented, understand the issues and are able to discuss them and come to some conclusions.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes, I think the noble Lord makes
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes, I think the noble Lord makes a really important point. I am sure that both in the policies that schools are developing have developed with relation to mobile
15:27
Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
phone use and also policies which they are required to have in place,
around bullying, for example. Will benefit from a well informed
governors and input from parents and others, on governing bodies, to making sure that they are effective and that they respond to some of the
challenges that the use of mobile phone technology has sought and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
abroad. The noble Baroness at the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The noble Baroness at the Minister rightly cites some of the evidence, in this area. But I do
think it is becoming overwhelming. The Children's Commissioner is right about the number of schools who have policies in this area, but the
15:27
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
policies in this area, but the question is are they being affected. The evidence from Parentkind policy exchange is only 10 to 15% of the
schools have a really effective ban
on phones. The department's own evidence shows a 50% of GCSE classes
are disrupted, by the use of phones. And we are hearing increasing evidence, from healthcare professionals, about the impact on
our children. The noble Lady rightly says that on this side of the house,
we uphold or autonomy in our schools
and in our Academy trusts, this is about a cautionary principle and protecting our children, what is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
stopping the noble Lady from moving on this. The noble Lady, identifies the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The noble Lady, identifies the need for all of us to continue thinking about the best practice for
thinking about the best practice for ensuring that schools are making
sure that there classroom is a mobile phone free and are working on the very best evidence. There are a
whole range of ways that schools are responding to this end it is fair to say that it would be good for schools to look at the very best
15:29
Lord Sikka (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
schools to look at the very best practice, across, across the schools that are taking action. But I'm
afraid that her point was this is a difficult and nuanced and people are
doing it in a different way and other needs to be detailed consideration about how to do best.
None of those things that would be delivered by a, I mean, I hate in this place to call legislation
accrued, but none of them will be delivered simply by legislating for something, which the noble Lady has identified as a more complex than
that.
that.
15:29
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Sometimes technology can help to
deal with social problems. Blocking phone signals, it would be appropriate to install those cages,
into all classrooms and prevent pupils from being distracted by mobile phones. Can I ask the
Minister to experiment with this technology?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think I'm right in saying that there are already some schools that are using that technology.
are using that technology. Including, also a range of other uses of technology, to help to keep
uses of technology, to help to keep Special bags, to prevent them from
Special bags, to prevent them from being used. A whole range of ways that schools are making progress on this. The noble Lord is right. Sometimes technology can be the answer to the problems caused by
**** Possible New Speaker ****
answer to the problems caused by other forms of technology. Would the Minister recognise,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Would the Minister recognise, Yes, and that is one of the
15:31
Baroness Meyer (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes, and that is one of the reasons why there needs to be more flexible of the. He might be
flexible of the. He might be referring to some children who might, for particular reasons, perhaps related to the distance they have to travel to school or perhaps related to a particular need,
special needs they have, which they may well need to have the adjustment
may well need to have the adjustment that could be provided for them by a mobile phone, those are circumstances in which schools
circumstances in which schools should be, and are thinking about the particular ways in which they think about the band, to ensure that
think about the band, to ensure that all children are able to receive the support they need.
support they need.
15:31
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
France has seen an improvement at schools results, and less bullying at schools, since they introduced a
national ban in 2018, seven years
ago, isn't it time we followed that example and have a national ban as
**** Possible New Speaker ****
opposed to guidances? I think we can say that what both
the previous government and this government has done is rather more than simply guidance. There have
than simply guidance. There have been very clear direction. But I'm
been very clear direction. But I'm sure the noble Lady will understand, the French education system is
the French education system is somewhat more directive than the
British education system, if she wants, and her party want us to go down that route, that is an
**** Possible New Speaker ****
interesting development but I don't think that is what her and her party want to happen. That concludes Oral Questions for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
today. Opportunity for noble Lords who
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Opportunity for noble Lords who wish to leave the chamber to do so
15:33
Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Third reading of the... Third reading of the Armed Forces
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Commissioner Bill, Lord Coaker. I beg to move that this bill be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
narrowed a time. -- Be read. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not
"Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
content". The contents have it. I beg to move the bill do now pass. I send my thanks to all noble Lords who have contributed to a
detailed and meaningful scrutiny of this bill, everyone who has
this bill, everyone who has contributed individually, I hope members will understand, there are a
members will understand, there are a few specific cues. Could I thank Baroness Goldie and almond toe for
Baroness Goldie and almond toe for their cooperation and efforts to improve the bill.
-- Almond toe. I
improve the bill. -- Almond toe. I appreciate the productive way that they have contributed and I thank
they have contributed and I thank them very much for that. If you could pass that onto the tile I would be great. And Baroness Smith,
for the Democrats, to say thank you for the discussions and
contributions, that is very much appreciated as well. Our private
office and officials, the public office and various other officials of the House, the current ombudsman,
and the German commissioner who was
not his example we have used.
--
Whose example we have used. Finally, as a number of you will know first hand, serving in our Armed Forces is
both challenging and rewarding for our serving personnel and their families. On all sides of the House
we thank those men and women for their service, and for working tirelessly to keep us safe. We are
our serving personnel and their
families commissioner with a single mission, aiming to improve the service life. And with that I beg to move stopped
15:35
Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
The question is that this bill do
**** Possible New Speaker ****
now pass. From these benches are would like
**** Possible New Speaker ****
From these benches are would like to extend our gratitude to the Minister and his team for the courtesy and time they have extended to discuss some of the issues that
to discuss some of the issues that we raised at various stages of the
bill. And in particular I think it's appropriate at this time, obviously to welcome the Commissioner, the role of the Commissioner, but also
role of the Commissioner, but also to note that one of the aims is to
to note that one of the aims is to move on from the ombudsperson, but also add various stages of the bill
also add various stages of the bill be talked about different categories of service personnel who might have issues the Commissioner will look
issues the Commissioner will look into.
One said would be LGBT+ service personnel and I would like
service personnel and I would like to pay tribute to the late noble
to pay tribute to the late noble Lord Overton for the work he put
into the reviewing the situation of LGBT service personnel in the past. We very much hope that the incoming
Armed Forces Commissioner once this legislation does pass will not having to look at such difficult
situations in the future. Again I would like to thank the Minister,
would like to thank the Minister, the Liberal Democrat with soft, --
whips office, and I wish the bill well.
well.
15:37
Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I would like to add 60 seconds which I can pick winnable from the Minister for the way he has conducted himself throughout the bill, from the beginning it was
clear that members interested were invited to understand the nature of
this bill, this is a good bill, I think it will make a difference but
it is a good bill and the fact that I have a personal interest is
neither here nor there, this is a very good step forward and I wish him well.
15:37
Baroness Goldie (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
May I first of all thank the Minister for his very kind remarks
and I shall ensure they get to the
Earl of Minto. The passage of the bill, His Majesty Official
Opposition has welcomed the bill from beginning, and it's been a privilege to participate in its
passage through this House. The creation of the Commissioner is not only going to strengthen the service complaints system by facilitating
the investigation of wider welfare
issues but I hope it will also the confidence of our Armed Forces personnel that this is a real voice
of independence for them, and any steps we can take to improve the offerings for our servicemen and women, we should vigourously pursue.
In that regard I have introduced a
new duty on the Commissioner to investigate whistleblowing complaints. I want to thank all
noble Lords who supported my amendment at report, particularly
appreciative the contributions of noble Baronesses Lady Kramer, Lady Smith of Newnham, noble Lord Lord Adonis, Lord Wrottesley and the
Right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for their words of support and encouragement for delivering
that support in the divisional B. The resounding message, especially servicewomen who feel the voices have not been heard, is that we are
on your side.
As this bill now goes back to the other place I entreat
the government to reflect carefully
on how the address my amendment. This is not the time for ambivalence
and uncertainty. This is a time for an unambiguous and positive message to our Armed Forces, and I hope the government will accept, as this
House overwhelmingly did, that the amendment enhances the bill. Finally, I think the noble Lord the
Minister and all his officials for taking time to meet with myself and
my noble friend the Earl of Minto.
I think the noble Lord Lord Coaker has been exemplary throughout the
been exemplary throughout the passage of the bill. And I hope over the government appoints as the new commissioner will live up to the task that has been set. It's a high
task that has been set. It's a high
task that has been set. It's a high bar and much works still to be done but look forward to continuing his goodness the government efforts to improve the welfare and the lives of our armed forces personnel and I was
our armed forces personnel and I was the government will in the creation of this new office.
of this new office.
15:40
Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Can I thank everyone for their short contributions here. I have made one catastrophic error, forgot
to thank the whips office. I hastily
put that on the record. Can I add a serious note, Baroness Smith in her
tribute to Lord Uffington, I'm sure there will be another time for all to us reflecting that more broadly
but she is right to point out about
the sad loss of Lord Etherton and the contribution he made to LGBT but more generally a range of different
things.
Can I also congratulate Viscount Stansgate again on the
forthcoming wedding that is happening, not his hastened to add.
I look forward to that. Can I say to Baroness Goldie that she is right to point out that the whole point of
the Commissioner is that the success of that will be on how much we can generate trust and confidence of
people to come forward should they be subject to inappropriate behaviour. And of course, to
reassure the noble Baroness, the government will consider carefully how it responds to the amendment
how it responds to the amendment that was passed in your Lordship's House.
With those few brief comments I would like to thank everybody again and move.
15:41
Legislation: Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill - Consideration of Commons Amendments
-
Copy Link
The question is that this will do now pass. As many are of that
opinion say, "Content", and of the
contrary, "Not content". -- This bill. The contents have it. Consideration of amendments to the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill.
15:41
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I beg to move that the Commons
Amendments be now considered.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question... The question is that the Commons Amendments be now
that the Commons Amendments be now considered. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The
contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment one, Lord Livermore.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to move that house agree with the comments in the amendment one. With the leave of house I will
one. With the leave of house I will also speak to amendment two. I would like to thank noble Lords for their
like to thank noble Lords for their continued interest and engagement in this important legislation. Some noble Lords will be disappointed to see the other place overturn the amendment inserted biologics house
amendment inserted biologics house relating to the scope of the new mechanism.
I hope I can offer some
mechanism. I hope I can offer some reassurance today on this matter. As noble Lords will know, this bill is
noble Lords will know, this bill is intended to enhance the toolkit to the government has to manage the
the government has to manage the failure of a banking institution. In particular it seeks to provide a new
particular it seeks to provide a new source of funding to cover certain costs associated with resolution, and in doing so strengthen the protections for the taxpayer given the importance of protecting public
funds in the event of bank fails.
That said, I'd understand the concerns noble Lords have about any
potential costs that will be placed
in the banking sector, if the bills mechanism were used to support the resolution of some of the largest banks. Here I would reiterate that
is the government strong expectation that this mechanism would not be used to support the failure of the
largest firms. Noble Lords will recall the government published
draft updates to its code of practice in October last year which contained important language
clarifying this expectation.
I also met with many noble Lords in person during the passage of the bill to listen carefully to concerns and to seek explain the government's views
on this matter. Ultimately the other place has taken the view, the scope of the mechanism should not be
limited. The government continues to believe is important to retain some proximity for the Bank of England
and I would like to make three further points to help explain that position. Firstly as I have
mentioned the government published draft updates to the code of practice to clarify our expectation
in the Bank of England bailing all readily available that a bank holds
on top of regulatory capital that must be bailed in before using this
mechanism.
The government envisages that mechanism would only be used on
larger banks as a backstop and any funds required would only be a top up to these other sources of recapitalisation. Secondly, land
bank of again the option of using the recapitalisation mechanism on larger banks means it will be more
able to respond to unexpected factors when resolving a bank. One
of course the Bank of England works hard to ensure they are fully prepared for a failure scenario, the
manner in which banks fail is because -- always highly uncertain.
It is important to ensure the bill is not overly restrictive in
containing the bank's ability to use the mechanism flexibly. As we have
discussed in previous debates, there are some circumstances where retaining this proximity could help to protect public funds. Although
unlikely, there are circumstances in which large banks not be
sufficiently capitalised to self- insure against their own failure, even if the banking question has
been directed to maintain in-state requirements. An example of this might be if the firm was subject to
a large dress claim resulting in larger recapitalisation requirements than envisaged.
Changes in the market value of the firms assets
over time could also result in higher losses than expected at the point of failure stock and resulting
in high recapitalisation requirements to manage the failure of the firm in question. While
unlikely these demonstrate a clear benefit of having the Flex ability to source additional resources from
the mechanism having already written
Restricting the scope of the bill
would prevent the mechanism being available in such scenarios, leaving public funds and the taxpayer exposed instead.
The government
therefore considers the theoretical consideration that using the recapitalisation mechanism would prove a prudent step public
prove a prudent step public
Levying compensation scheme to
recover funds, provided to the Bank of England will be subject to an affordability cap set by the regulation authority, which is currently £1.5 million, per year. In line with its safety and sales
objective, they consider the affordability of the Financial
Services Compensation Scheme a levy for firms, providing an important safeguard against the sector being hit by unaffordable levies to prop
I do hope these points will go some
I do hope these points will go some way to reassure noble Lords, that they will be able to support the bill, as it now stands.
I will also very briefly address Amendment two. very briefly address Amendment two. The noble Lords will note this is a straightforward amendment, to remove the Financial Privilege amendment inserted at third reading, but to move.
15:47
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
The question is that this House
**** Possible New Speaker ****
do agree with the Commons in their amendment one? Very briefly to ask the noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Very briefly to ask the noble Lord a question that arises from
Lord a question that arises from this change. First of all, it is over six months, since we debated these amendments. That does seem
these amendments. That does seem like an awfully long time for the bill to disappear into limber and combat, particularly when bills are
combat, particularly when bills are being rushed through the cells. I was going to ask the noble Lord to explain more about what
explain more about what circumstances might be, resolution process could be used for larger banks.
I think he has answered that question. I'm not sure it gives me a
question. I'm not sure it gives me a lot of confidence and confidence in
15:48
Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
lot of confidence and confidence in his question. In the last six months, there have been various comments that have come from the
Bank of England about the fact that this act, as it will be may allow
them to take some banks out of the process. I just wonder if the noble Lord might wish to comment on that
and whether there are any
**** Possible New Speaker ****
consequences the other way round? I have to say to the Minister I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I have to say to the Minister I appreciate the explanation we just had, but I think I and others remain very disturbed by the government's
very disturbed by the government's decision not to accept, what was it
decision not to accept, what was it not just irrational but very well crafted amendment that was introduced, by your Lordships, into
introduced, by your Lordships, into this House. The underlying bill was initially presented to the House as providing a mechanism to save
providing a mechanism to save significant small banks, by recapitalising them from the
Financial Services Compensation Scheme, rather than having to turn
Scheme, rather than having to turn to the taxpayer.
Regulated banks, as
to the taxpayer. Regulated banks, as of this House will know are then required to replenish the FC FC,
when it is depleted for any reason. But because the thrust of the language was around small banks, that was the intent. That is the
that was the intent. That is the discussion that is in all the notes. This House I think very much agreed with just a few points of probing
engaged. But thank goodness, we have a lot of very good brains in this House, I have to say that that combination of the Baroneseses, Lord
notes, Lord Vere.
There was a significant loophole in the
language. We did not realise in the beginning any of this could be applied to the larger banks, it was
only as they were pursuing the
legislation, became more aware of the locations of its content. Now we have a bill that permits the regulator to use the FSCS as it's a mechanism to rescue large banks.
Let's be frank, it completely changes the whole profile of both
the risk and consequences. The amendment, so effectively would have
closed that loophole.
The larger banks, the Minister have said already have their own dedicated
process to re- calculating failure. A processor that was introduced after the 2008 crisis. The Bank of
England requires each large bank to hold charge, or if we speak in plain
English, ailing bonds, which can be converted to capital, by the
regulator, in the case of a situation where the consequences of the bank are there by rescued, by
those bailing bonds. we need to understand why that is not considered to be an adequate
system, by the government? The Minister has just said that actually
the regulator will, if I understood it, require that bailing bonds are
used first and the FC FC is a resource of last resort.
That is not
in the legislation. The legislation allows the regulator to turn 1st to
allows the regulator to turn 1st to
the FS... Sorry, FS CS, to ignore
bailing altogether. He will be conscious, the Swiss regulator the failure of credit Suisse, completely
avoid the bailing capability and chose other routes to manage the
risk of credit Suisse. Those who hold bailing bonds, the investors
who buy them are extremely well remunerated. In order to carry the risk that is associated with a
bailing bond.
I am trying to work
out why they can now look at this legislation and begin to assume that they will have the benefit of
receiving a risk premium for holding those bonds, but never actually find
that those bonds are first into use, in case of a failure. How can we
rely on just a code, to continue to determine that bailing will be the
determine that bailing will be the
first result and not a resort at all. If the government are now saying that there are many
circumstances identified which bailing is neither usable or adequate.
I refer to the Swiss
example. What are the consequences of that for financial stability? If
we are sailing that bailing is a slightly busting system. Have there been blandishments of the various
investments that have purchased bailing bonds. Trying to create an
ultimate route. In the end, what are the consequences of our small and medium-sized banks, if the FSCS is
depleted by big bank failure, the Minister says of course the
, will not ask an unaffordable contribution, from the various banks to replenish the FSCS, but it is a mechanism that ensures small depositors accounts, who is going to
do the replenishment, if the number is too great, to ask the banks to
commit to that replenishment.
I am
In responsibility where risk lies, is embedded in this bill. If the Minister is so so sure that the ideas should be giving us
reassurance, why have they not been introduced, onto this bill as part of the legislation.
15:53
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
This is an important bill, providing the Bank of England with extra flexibility to manage bank
failures, particularly that of smaller banks, in a way that strengthens protections for taxpayers. And it of course reflects
proposals by the last government in the light of experience, with the devise of -- demise of Silicon
It started in the Lords. It was a good example of expert scrutiny, across the House. Special thanks go to my noble friend, and predecessor
Baroness Vere, to my noble friend, Baroneseses and Oakes and Baroness Penn, to the noble Lord Lord Vaux of
Harrowden, to Lady Kramer and Lady Bowles and to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell.
And to officials on all sides, not forgetting the Whips. And above all to the Financial Secretary
to the Treasury, Lord Livermore. I
thank him, both the government amendments, notably that that was made to clause 3, on the Treasury
Committee and the House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee and for the timely publication of the draft code of
practice, which I believe helped us to overcome some substantial
difficulties, as he is already Banking financial services are very important to the success of the British economy.
In 2022, the UK
financial system held assets of over £27 trillion. And in 2023, the financial services sector contributed 208 billion to the UK
economy. So legal regimes which govern how our banking and financial sectors operate need to promote
growth and competitiveness. The need to be easy to navigate and use and they must balance ambition, with
prudence. And understandable driver
of this particular bill. Noble Lord will recall the amendment we successfully added, championed by my
noble friend, Baroness Vere.
This sought to prohibit the use of the financial services compensation
scheme to recapitalise large
financial institutions. It reached an end state inquiry. The object was
to reflect, in law, the government's stated objective of using the resolution framework, in the event of a smaller bank requiring
intervention. Thus preventing the
associated risk of contagion. The truth is that the banking act, 2009, provides a robust framework for dealing with the large banks. That
have achieved MREL status. They and the Bank of England should not be
taking comfort from the fact that they could fall back on an exposed
levy of the banking sector, through the FCF sea in times of trouble.
Resources should be focused on SME
banking sector, as the noble
Baroness Kramer has reiterated. In view of this I'm joined by noble Lords across at the House and expressing disappointment that
members in the other place voted to
remove this amendment from the bill. We are confident that this would have improved the bill in meeting its objectives, and how to embed the
balance at that I spoke about at the beginning. However, I think we must accept that Treasury Ministers, with their battalions of support, in the
other place, which is to maintain flexibility, for example as the Minister has just explained, to deal with a large unexpected redress claim, left, left the taxpayer
exposed.
Albeit, very much a
backstop arrangement, with 1.5 billion cap as in the Minister has
just confirmed. I do not propose to test the opinion of the House again. It was also disappointing to see the
rejection of other prudent proposals put forward by colleagues, in the other place, in good faith. I hope
the Government will, regardless consider these proposals seriously, as we try together to create a system that is balanced and simple,
promotes growth and an objective
We support the thrust of the bill,
which continues the work that we did in government, in supporting our banking sector, in protecting consumers and safeguarding public finances.
However there are still outstanding questions, which I hope
the Government can correct today, or in writing. They are even more important now that the fear amendment has been rejected. The
financial conduct authority and the prudent potential regulation
authority have proposed an SCS operating budget for the year, 2025
to 26 of £109 million. This budget covers the FCS's administrative expenses and does not represent the
total funds available for compensation. Financial years and
2021 to 2024. The SCS paid just £10
million in compensation, relating to deposit claims.
Primarily due to 11
credit unions and one small bank. And the level of the Minister outlined the steps the government is taking to minimise the operating
cross of the FSCS. It is a quango,
in conjunction with another quango. The fact that it uses industry funding models doesn't change that
fact. The money and the operating
budget is a money that is not being utilised at the banking sector, which employs the needs of people and contributes billions to our
economy and growth.
So does the noble Lord the Minister agree FSCS should focus on efficiency in
keeping as much money as possible available to banks for their use and
not tied up unnecessarily in their own operating budgets. And indeed
like other gators they should have regard to the government's overall
objectives. I end by saying this is
objectives. I end by saying this is a broadly a sensible proposal designed to safeguard public finances and ensure the security of the financial sector and limit public risk.
We will support the
public risk. We will support the government in their ambition to achieve the objectives of this bill.
achieve the objectives of this bill. But I hope the level of the Minister will seriously consider the points that have been raised today and take the opportunity to clear up some of
the opportunity to clear up some of the questions that have been asked.
16:00
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I would again like to thank all
noble Lords for their efforts, on this bill, since July, last year and all noble Lords who have spoken in
this brief debate today. I'm also grateful to all three noble Lords for agreeing they were not oppose
this bill further. I will briefly attempt to respond to the questions and points made, in this brief
debate. Firstly, I would like to reiterate what Baroness Kramer and Baroness Neville-Rolfe said about
the expertise in this House.
I was on the receiving end of much of that expertise and it certainly tested
me. I do think to a large extent
this bill was improved by the debates that we had, in this House. I'm grateful to all noble Lords for
that. Lord Faulks spoke about the
gap for us returning to this ping- pong session. That is somewhat out of my hands. I do agree with him,
did feel like rather a long time before we debated these issues will
he asked about the circumstances with which this power will be used.
I hope it did cover that my opening speech. He also wrote some of the
The Bank of England sets requirements independently of government, but within a framework
set out in legislation. The government has consulted on proposals to seek to ensure the
regime remains proportionate and involves over time. The government is engaging closely with the Bank of
England as it considers its responses to that consultation and this engagement includes consideration of the impact on
economic growth. Baroness Kramer
talked about Enbrel being used as the first result.
There, believes there are sufficient safeguards in
place to ensure that shareholders creditors are exposed to losses
before the new mechanism is used, including the principal and
legislation requiring the government to ensure shareholders and creditors balances on a banking institution
fails. A set out in the draft updates to the code of practice the Bank of England would look to write down are otherwise exposed loss
already available resources, before requiring recanalisation payment
from the FACS. Noting these points the government believes specifying the extent of losses that must be
posed before it is used would be an unnecessary restriction on the Bank of England's ability.
Baroness
Neville-Rolfe asked about the budget
and minimising operation costs is in fact a legal duty on them to minimise those costs, and I would expect them to adhere to that legal
duty of course. She also spoke about the importance of financial services
to growth of the UK economy, something I very much agree with her
on. This bill plays a vital role in upgrading the UK's toolkit to
manage... Which are in turn key to the government's number one priority
of economic growth.
I look forward to the bill's enactment and I hope to the bill's enactment and I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting the amendments made in the other place. I beg to move.
16:03
Legislation: Data (Use and Access) Bill - Consideration of Commons amendments
-
Copy Link
The question is that this House
do agree with the comments in the agreement. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The content
habit. The management to moved formally. The question is that this House do agree with the Commons and
the amendment two. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The
the contrary, "Not content". The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Consideration of amendments to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I I beg I beg to I beg to move I beg to move the I beg to move the Commons
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendments be now considered. The question is the Commons Amendments be now considered. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not
"Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.
content". The contents have it. Amendment one, Baroness Jones of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Whitchurch. You may notice I'm not Baroness
Jones of Whitchurch. I would like to begin by speaking to some of the
16:06
Lord Vallance of Balham, Minister of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
amendments made in the other place, starting with amendments 1 to 31. These will ensure that smart data
These will ensure that smart data schemes can function optimally and that part one is as clear as
that part one is as clear as possible. Similarly amendments 35 to 42 from the other place reflect discussions on the national register
with the devolved governments. Finally, amendments 70 to 79 make
Finally, amendments 70 to 79 make necessary consequential updates to the final provisions of the bill and
some updates to schedules 11 and 15.
I will now speak to the amendments tabled by noble Lords starting with
tabled by noble Lords starting with those relating to sex data. Starting with amendment 30 2A, which is
with amendment 30 2A, which is agrees with the motion to agree
subsection 3 and four in clause 28, and instead proposes changes to the initial drafting of these subsections. These would require the
subsections. These would require the Secretary of State when preparing the trust framework to assess
whether the 15 specified public authorities are able to reliably ascertain the data they collect,
record and share.
Amendment 32, B,
limits this assessment to sex data as defined through amendment 32, C. By definition limits sex to biological sex only and provides a
definition of acquired gender. I
think it also relevant to speak at the same time to amendment 52, A, which disagrees with the motion to remove clause 140 from the bill and
instead suggest changes to the drafting. Clause 140 as amended by amendment 52, B, seeks to through a regulating, recreation making power
give the Secretary of State the ready to define sex as the only
biological sex as, in certain areas, or across public sector data
processing more widely.
Let me start by making clear that this government accepts the recent Supreme Court
judgement on the definition of sex. We need to work through the effects
of this ruling holistically and with care, sensitivity, and dare I say
it, kindness. In line with the law, taking care not to inappropriately
extend its reach. This is not best done by giving the Secretary of State the power to define sex as
biological in all cases to
secondary. Without appropriate scrutiny, given the potential impact on people's human rights, privacy and dignity, and with the potential
to create legal uncertainty.
Likewise giving the Secretary of State a role in reviewing how other
public authorities process sex data in all circumstances based on that definition, would be inappropriate
and disproportionate. Noting that
the Supreme Court's ruling is specifically in relation to the meaning of sex inequalities
legislation. The driver behind this amendment has been the importance of sex data being accurate when processed by public authorities. I
strongly agree with that aim, accurate data is essential. This
government takes data accuracy, including existing legislation, which requires personal data to be
accurate, and data standards, seriously.
That is why we are addressing the question of sex
information in public-sector data. First, the EHRC has updated its
statutory code of practice support service providers in light of the
Supreme Court judgement. Second, the Data Standards Authority is developing data standards and the
monitoring of diversity information including sex and gender data, and the effect of the Supreme Court
judgement will be considered as part of that. Third, the Office for
Statistics Regulation published updated guidance on collecting and reporting data and statistics about
sex and gender identity data last year, and fourth, the Office for National Statistics published a work plan in December 2010 before developing harmonised standards on
data generally.
Finally, the department's currently considering
the imitation of the Sullivan review published this year, which I welcome. When it comes to digital
verification services, I can reassure noble Lords that these measures do not change the evidence
that individuals rely on to prove things about themselves. The measures simply enable that to be
done digitally. This government is clear that data must be accurate for the purpose for which it is being
used and must not be fleeting. It should be clear the digital
verification services what the information public authorities are sharing with them means.
For
example, and this is an important one, if an organisation needs to know person's biological sex, this
government is clear that a cheque
cannot be made against passport data because it does not capture biological sex. Devious only verify
logical sex using data which records
that attribute specifically and not one that records sex and gender more
widely. This is a concern of the noble Lord Lord Arbuthnot and I hope this provides reassurance. Data
accuracy principle of GDPR is part of existing law.
That includes where data is misleading, a point I will
return to. I hope noble Lords find this commitment reassuring and as such agree with Commons Amendment
32. I now turn to amendment 34, A,
34, B, and C, regarding the asset register. Security has always been
at the heart of the national underground asset register. We have
therefore listened to the well thought through concerns which
fronted the amendment previously tabled by the noble Viscount Lord Camoys regarding cybersecurity.
Following consideration the government is proposing instead and amendment we have drafted with the support of colleagues in the security services.
We believe this
addresses the intention of ensuring the security of the national underground asset register data, with three key improvements. First, it broadens the scope from
cybersecurity only to the general security of information kept in
order obtained from the national underground asset register. This will ensure that front end users
have guidance on range of measures for security good practice. For
example personal vetting which should be considered for implementation. While avoiding the
need to publish specific cyber security features that should not be
in the public domain.
Secondly it specifies the audience for this guidance is, namely users accessing
it. Finally it broadens the scope of the amendment to include Northern Ireland alongside England and Wales,
consistent with the measures. Clearly, it remains the case that
access to data can only be approved for purposes by eligible users with
access controlled and auditable. I
hope such noble Lords will be content to support government
amendments 34, ABC. Turning to amendments 43 on scientific research, this removes the public
interest test inserted into the definition of scientific research by
the noble Viscount.
Whilst recognising the concern that the
noble Viscount raises, I want to be clear that anything that does not count as scientific research now
would not do so under this bill. We have tightened the requirement and
added a test. The bill contains strong safeguards. Adding precise
definitions on the face of the bill will not strengthen these
productions but will impose significant new legal obligation on our research community. This is a
time when in line with the good work of the previous government we are trying to reduce bureaucracy for
researchers, not increase it with new processes.
The test proposed will lead to burgeoning bureaucracy and will damage our world leading
research. Chilling basic and curiosity driven research,
disproportionate step is not one that we can support. My Lords, I beg
that we can support. My Lords, I beg to move that house to agree with the Commons and the amendment one with the leave of the House I have spoken
the leave of the House I have spoken to the author amendments. -- Other amendments were stopped at the question is that the House to agree
question is that the House to agree with the Commons in the amendment one.
16:14
Viscount Camrose (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I will start first by thanking the noble Lord the Minister for his as ever clear and compelling
remarks. I should also thank all noble Lords who have been working in
the collegiate, collaboratively to
find a way forward on the few but important remaining points of disagreement the government. Before
I come to the issue of accurate recording of personal data, let me
also thank the noble Baroness the Minister for tabling the government
amendments on the national underground asset register and not least for her constructive
engagement throughout the progress of the bill.
As noble Lords will
recall, I set out our case for stronger statutory measures to require the Secretary of State to provide guidance to relevant
stakeholders on the cyber security measures which should be in place
before they receive information from the national underground asset register. I'm delighted of course that the government have responded
to the arguments we and others made
and have now tabled the own versions of my amendment which require the Secretary of State to provide guidance on the security of this data.
And we are happy to support
them in that. Turning to the
amendments 32, A, and 52, A, standing in mining, which seek to ensure data is recorded accurately,
these motions amend the original amendment which my noble friends
Lord Lucas and Lord Arbuthnot took three Lordship's House. My noble friends Lord Lucas is sadly unable
to attend today but I'm delighted to bring these amendments forward from
The conservative Frontbench table new clause 31 which would have
delivered a conclusive solution to the problem.
We are now limited by
the set of amendments, so we were not able to read table that, in my view, excellent amendment, in your
Lordships' House macro. As several noble Lords said when we discussed
this issue at report stage, we absolutely must have clarity on the
recording of sex and gender. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord the Minister attest to this position, as
well. The amendments I have tabled builds on Lord Lucas's amendment, in
light of the recent judgement of the Supreme Court.
It is now very clear that we need accurate sex data
recorder for a whole host of reasons, including medical research and for the protection of same-sex
basis. There is no reason why gender may not also be recorded in a separate field. It is important that
gender data is accurate too. The
level of the Minister was kind enough to meet me this morning to set out his case. The bill, as it stands addresses our concerns. Even
if it does so going forward, the Sullivan report notes that the data,
is currently held by public bodies
and may not be reliable.
In fact it is almost certainly not reliable, in many cases. Whatever the rules
They were passing on inaccuracies, already present, in the sex and
gender data. As was observed in a earlier debate, when it comes to
databases, garbage in, garbage out. I know noble Lords on the benches that I left were satisfied by the noble Lord the Minister's previous assurances that workers already
ongoing, in this area. Today I think we have the opportunity to take a
step forward on this. I hope all noble Lords can take their
opportunity to deliver the accurate data according to need, not least to protect the same-sex basis.
Finally,
turning to the noble Lord Kobel's amendment. He has worked tirelessly
on this issue. We understand the argument he is making unsupported as an amendment at report stage -- Lord
Coe voile. The amendment is an element that is intended to tighten
up this definition. I have course appreciate and recognise the government's concerns to avoid burdening researchers with
unnecessary and. I am not yet satisfied that we have the right
balance here, between regulatory burden and public good. I still feel
burden and public good.
I still feel it is crucial to resolve this, we will therefore support Lord Colville
will therefore support Lord Colville in the lobbies if he chooses to test the opinion of the House. Meanwhile I intend to test the opinion of the House when merged motion 32 a or
motion 52 a are called.
16:18
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
The noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, I think going first would be
appropriate. It is essential that
the data that is collected needs to
be accurate. That applies to data on sex, as well is to data on gender.
He is also right that the passport does not contain reliable data on
sex. I am grateful to him for making
that clear. I'm also grateful to him for the discussions that he has had with me and for the discussion that
the Secretary of State had with Sex Matters and with me.
But what is the
solution to this? Because in the absence of any reliable document,
how is a care home to ensure that a person who is to provide intimate care for an elderly woman, who is understandably demanded that such
care be provided by a woman, is actually going to be provided by a
woman? In the absence of anything else, a care home will, I suspect
have to fall back on the passport, which as we have all agreed is unreliable. My noble friends
amendment goes some way towards answering this and I shall support
it.
It may have flaws. The noble
Lord of the Minister has said, in one of our meetings are that it would invalidate our existing
passports. I am not sure about that, but if it is a right, could I ask
but if it is a right, could I ask the noble Lord the Minister to propose a minor amendment, to my
propose a minor amendment, to my noble friends amendment, so that we can sort out that particular problem? problem?
16:20
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Amendment 32 a, I would like to
thank my noble friend, the Minister for his confirmation, again, the government is welcome in the Supreme Court ruling and he is welcome in
the Sullivan report. I very much welcome the words he has used today.
I would just like to and again thank you for the discussions we have been
able to have. I would just like to ask him if he could confirm that where the Equality Act allows for a
woman's only space, that any digital
ID system that was used, for that purpose would refer to a biological sex, as the relevant information.
With regard to public authorities, organisations such as Sport England,
organisations such as Sport England,
or the GMC, I assume are counted as public authorities, because they are
statutory. GMC at the moment does not record the biological sex of the doctors, only the gender. When that
also goes digital, will that be
confined to biological sex? So that again patients can no the sex of
their physician, assuming that that
their physician, assuming that that will be digital.
I think he understands the questions I am
understands the questions I am posing and I think his wording does give reassurance that.
16:22
Viscount Colville of Culross (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
Sandy supporter 43 a. I welcome
so much of this bill. I want this to be a champion of technology and I
too hope that becomes and attracts hundreds of millions pounds of
investment in the development of AI. I understand the concerns expressed
I am still pressing ahead with this amendment. This country to have control of their data and how it is
used. This amendment is a pushback about the way that the AI companies
have been abusing the data in training their AI models.
I only have to mention the way that last year, Meta reused data from Instagram users without their
consent, to train up their AI model. Once that this was discovered that there was a huge outcry from the owners of the data and appeal to the
ICO. Meta stopped the process and the ICO said it is crucial that the
public can trust the privacy rights will be respected. I want to make sure that this bill becomes, when it becomes law, it will reassure the
people of this country, it can trust the new technology.
The battle to stop the abuse of data is a concern,
which is essential to my noble and
indomitable friend, Baroness Kidron. Sitting beside me. Who's amendment is in the next group. In response to vector copyright, belonging to millions of creatives, including
authors and artists by AI companies. As it stands, clause 67 gives a very
powerful exemption, allowing AI companies to reuse data, without
consent. If they can show that their work aligns with the definition of scientific research is set out in
scientific research is set out in
the bill.
I feel this definition is so widely drawn, it will allow AI models to reuse data, without consent, claiming that they are carrying out scientific research
when in fact they are using it for product development and their own
profit. I want to thank the Ada Lovelace Institute, for their constant support, throughout the lengthy progress in this bill. I
expressed my concern that both the committee and report stages of the bill, in this House and she and very
respected check the size technology
innovation in the other place to put forward a similar amendment.
Despite meetings of Ministers they have offered nothing to assuage concerns.
Which is a force me to push this amendment to the stage. Two a will tighten the definition of what
counts as scientific research. Taken
for the manual, developed by the OECD, in order to compare R&D efforts, made by different companies
and identify what key features. The government supports the definition.
The Minister of the committee stage said at the researcher test set out in this bill, that it will not
operate alone any said it will be in
the guidance.
The guidance are merely guidance and the codification
would bring aboard and burdens. The codification of the existing
standard set by the ICO. A central feature of this part of the amendment is that scientific research should increase the stock
of human knowledge. The Minister has told your Lordships that not all scientific research will be new
knowledge. Scientific research is
often refuted, or confirmed as previous findings or some scientific research will fail. My Lords, if there is refutation or confirmation,
that is an extension of human knowledge.
Even if the research
fails, research will know that the
experiment doesn't work. That My Lords is a new knowledge. The requirement for scientific research to increase the stock of knowledge is a sensible precaution, preserve
data from abuse. Redirect that tech companies were piggybacking for
their own profit. For the purpose of
this amendment it is not just that definition, it is also to make sure that researchers have to consider it, when they start to deploy the
exemption for the use of data.
May the noble of the Minister say it will lead to undue burden on scientists and stop research on
going ahead. This definition is already being used by the ICO. The problem for whose data is being
abuse. If they want to appeal against its use, without consent,
have to go to the ICO and they have to apply the definition. The ICO's
latest addition shows a data
protection claims and not meeting the target. Surely that means it is too late for an appeal against the
reuse of data, without consent.
The data will already have been absorbed into the AI training model and as we have been continually told it is harder AI researchers to identify
data once it is included in the model. Two a of this amendment will stop this happening, by having a
definition on the face of the bill that the AI researchers will have to do so before reusing the model for
the data. It will stop them having to appeal to the ICO if they are
concerned. The second part of this amendment to be response to the
government's claim that the reasonably described tests, in this clause is a tightening of the
definition of scientific research.
Over 14 of our leading law companies have looked at the governments test
as set out in the bill and described it as, "Loosening, expanding, or
broadening the definition. " Clause 67 asks the question whether
research can be scientific. The ICO or the courts will have to consider is it irrational to call this a
scientific research? It is a very hard to prove irrationality. It is a
high bar. As we hope nibblers will
agree, would a reasonable person conducting from scientific research perform this activity, in this
matter.
This conduct actual conduct
against an objective standard with what constitutes proper scientific
research. The amendments realises what is already in requirement. Such research be conducted, in line with standards based in the UK research
practice, research. It will ensure transparency the use of scientific
research. I am sure during the course of the debate we will hear from scientists who say this debate
will stifle research and stop work. This requirement is minimal and the information required is that which researcher should already have to
hand.
I ask your Lordships to bear in mind, when you vote, that this
amendment would give transparency into how people's data is being reuse. The new test laid out in my amendment will be a powerful weapon
in the abuse of people data. I want
the new technologies to be successful, but it will only be successful if we have the trust of
the people of the country people think of the government caved into tech companies and allow them to
pillage our data, for their own financial gain, rather than for the progress of human knowledge, most
people will be outraged.
I ask the noble Lord the Minister to assuage
these fears and to help that the bill provides data in the people's interest. Meanwhile I consider that
interest. Meanwhile I consider that I will ask the opinion of the House? I will ask the opinion of the House?
16:30
Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I'm late, to this debate. I haven't participated here before and
I would only have done so, because of conversations I had over the
weekend and it really relates to a
point by my noble friend. I'm not going to oppose my noble friends amendment, it may well be right. I
didn't express my anxiety, because there were exciting so expressed by my honourable friend he came to see
me. On the question of the judgement
of the Supreme Court, I'm very much in favour of it.
I think it was wholly right and am very glad that
the government has found finality. It does raise problems, which I do not think have yet been fully
considered. That is what makes me reluctant to support my noble
reluctant to support my noble
Now, the friend who came to see me as a friend I have known for a number of years. In fact, she
married and had a child. And she has then transitioned and transitioned fully to the female gender. And she
is fully certificated.
And we
discuss together the implications of the judgement for her. And although I strongly support the judgement of
the Supreme Court, a number of points that she made were very
troubling. Most particularly as regards people who have not fully transitioned and how they are going
Lordships which is as regards passports. This is a woman who I have known for 10 or so years. In
every material respect, she passes as a woman. That is what I have
always treated her as being.
Her
passport, at the moment, shows female. But where there is the
requirement for sex she is deeply concerned that the passport may have
to be altered to state mail because
that is her natal gender. And she made if it is unclear what happens
and if you go through immigration control or passport control either in this country or somewhere else where there would be a manifest
divergence of appearance, on the one hand the passport says that she is
male.
On the other hand, what she appears for all purposes. And the point that I took away from that is
that there are still lots of things
we are going to have to address. And my particular suggestion to your Lordships house is that we should
set up a Select Committee in due time when this House is well first
and able to do that. Set up a Select Committee to consider what the implications of a Supreme Court
judgement are across a broad-
spectrum of consideration.
If I come back, forgive me, I will not
supported. Not because I think he is wrong, but because I think it is
premature to come to statutory interventions when there is still a lot to be considered. And I would
fearful that if this has accepted my Noble Friends amendments, and they
may be right, they would be treated as unprecedented, which, it is at least conceivable, they would come
to regret.
16:33
Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
If we go back to the wording of
the amendment 52 a, that the whole
purpose of it was actually limited. And from a very practical and basic
point of view, once the Supreme Court has told us that biological
sex is to rule, the points of the
Noble Lord, which I entirely understand and sympathise with, really do not arise with this
particular issue. If we are to have data, the data must be accurate. The
only point that I am asking for your Lordships house is this is what the
Noble Lord Viscount is asking.
But
for the purposes of the section 6 data should be collected in relation to the following categories and
terms. That seems to be evidently sensible, and if we do not have it, I see real problems of a different sort for those.
16:35
Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
I would speak to amendment 32 and
52, and as the Noble Lady has said,
these appear to be eminently sensible. The Noble Lord the
Minister, and I also grateful to him for the meetings he was able to
join, has assured us that we can trust the digital verification service because it will be based on
the data accuracy of the GDPR. But that principle has been in place for
a decade, during which, as Professor Alex Sullivan recounted in her important report which the Noble
Lord the Minister welcomed earlier,
statistics have become utterly confused.
Particularly in this area. Because sex and gender identity have
been collected and conflated in a single data field. Such that the
meaning of sex has been obscured. And, as he said, and I welcome his
support for the supreme judgement, that judgement confirmed that sex
and the Equality Act can only, has only ever meant biological sex. But
that has been the case for 15 years. During which all of this has taken
place. So, the Minister tells us that we can trust the Government to respect the judgement, and to ingest
the amendments.
Before sort of
considering that, can he just answer
a few questions. Why is it not appropriate to ensure in this bill,
which is a data use and access bill, specifically talking about a digital verification failure, why is it not
appropriate in this bill to ensure that unreliable datasets are not
used for digital verification? I mean, if not in this timely digital
legislation, then when? He backs to
the forthcoming ecology and human rights commission guidance, but I
would suggest that in this particular area we do not have to
wait for that guidance.
We have this bill and it is surely appropriate to
enshrine everything the Minister has
said in this legislation. And could I also secondly ask how the Government considers how the digital
verification system will work? With what is estimated to be 100,000 people who have a different record
for their sets across different public bodies, for example the birth
register, the passport office,
driving licence authority and the NHS. How is that going to pan out? How is the Government going to ensure that the mixed data such as
the passport sets are not relied on
as an authoritative source of answering the question in the DVS system? While respecting the
concerns that the Noble Lord and
Viscount have, rightly, raised.
So, the point is how are we going to ensure that the data verified for the sex field in irrespective any
other field in the DVS is accurate and responds to biological sex? Will
the Government publish clear guidance for data users so they know
which sources of sex data can be
trusted? And others which remain conflated. And how are they going to put technical measures in place to ensure that unreliable sources do not come through the information
gateway. Is it impossible that a person who expresses themselves as
gender fluid or non-binary could
have two different digital verification services? Perhaps one that is female and one the other is
male, both digital verification
trust, I mean that may seem not going to be terribly common, but it
is a possibility.
I think that we need an answer about. And, finally,
the Government has argued it is very unlikely that digital verification services would be used for applications such as single sex
services, and the points have been well-made about people, a woman who
wants a woman healthcare provider at
health screening. And, by the way, this is important for trans people
as well to make sure that they are appropriately treated in services
like health. If the aim of the DVS system is to provide trusted, interoperable digital identities
which people can use to prove facts about themselves, isn't it likely
that this will, in fact, be used in the services that the Supreme Court
judgement spoke about? And advised
with perfectly legitimate need to be kept as single sex based on biological sex.
If the Government does not like these amendments from
the Noble Lord Camrose but agrees with their aim, I cannot honestly
see why he should object to
enshrining them in more than the data accuracy principle which, as I have said in the last decade, has
been respected in the breach, than in the reality. I have not really
had been reassured that his
assurance, as much as I respect his sincerity, and his personal sincerity and integrity, are enough
sincerity and integrity, are enough for us to rely on as opposed to having something actually on the statute.
16:40
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
Copy Link
-
I rise also to speak on amendment
32 a and 52 a, and just to follow on
from the noble Baroness, I really appreciate if the Noble Lord the
Minister understood the concerns of these amendments, but as the noble
Baroness pointed out there have been
reassurances given in this House over many debates, in fact, that there was nothing to worry about in terms of confusion in relation to
sex and gender, and actually we now have ascertained via the Supreme
Court that they needed some clarity and we have now got it, but I do not
want us to make the same mistake again.
I did want to ask the Noble
Lord the Minister to clarify one thing he said in his opening remarks. Which was that it would be
overreached to ask the Secretary of State to declare biological sex as a material reality in all instances. I
think that is what he said. But I would like to point out that
biological sex is a material reality in all instances. And despite the comments of the Noble Lord in
relation to his friend, I just
wanted to clarify that it is not about passing or appearances.
It is
about biological material reality. And, actually, in that instance, it is also the Noble Lord the Minister
starting having called on us to have kindness. And, of course, we should
all have kind as all of the time in every instance. But nobody here is
trying to be unkind. But, to clarify, and something that the
noble Minister said when he stated
we must have a simple version of the truth on this. There needs to be a way to verify, consistently, and there needs to be rules, and I agree.
It is not about kindness or
unkindness. It is about clarification. I also think that just in addition to what has already been argued that this surely has to
be about trust. And I can tell the House that quite a lot of people
that I have spoken to are actually rather distrustful of digital ID of
any sort. They are already cynical and anxious about what is going on
with the data collection. I am not raising that point other than to say
that the one thing that we would want is that this particular measure
is trustworthy in order to counter such worries.
And yet what we are talking about here is an officially
talking about here is an officially
sanctioned app that will allow the falsification of sex. Even if that is not its intent. And that is to
quote an article from Joan Smith. It can be a form of self ID that
appears to be endorsed by a Government trust mark based on Governments that could be based on
gender identity rather than sex. A Government trust mark old to be
trustworthy.
It is supposed to guarantee that the data it contains
is accurate. And that includes sex. I think that something important
happened with the Supreme Court clarification, but of course this is an ongoing discussion in terms of
how it has implications on a wider range of public policy, and I understand that, but I do think there are times when people suggest
that we should leave the Supreme Court on some sort of relativistic
mishmash, I mean what is your reading of it? I do not think it is
about the reading.
It is a clarification of the law, and I do think that if this is the bill inadvertently adding to that
relative eyes tomorrow in excuse for
dismissing the Supreme Court that would be an unintended consequence
of what the Government is doing and it could be simply sorted out by the Government itself.
16:45
Baroness Kidron (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
Milos, I just want to briefly add
my voice to that of my Noble Friend to say that during committee I asked
a number of times whether the science of conditioning, that is the
science of persuasive design that would extend the use of children
could be considered science under the current definition, and I never
actually got an answer, so while I am very sympathetic to the idea that science must be possible with
whatever we do with the bill, I just
would like to make sure that it is not, as the noble viscount says, and excuse for any kind of commercial
activity that could be perpetrated
activity that could be perpetrated
16:46
Lord Winston (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, I sat through the
Committee stage of this bill and did not speak then because I was so
clear that the noble Lord Lord Colville's Amendment was
inappropriate. Indeed, it was the speech of the noble Lord my
honourable friend Lord Vallance that
made you feel that speaking was unnecessary. I regret that because I
should have pointed out something very important. The first thing to say is to just come back to what the noble Lady has just said.
The definitions in this bill are flawed
to start with. The idea to devise new applications of available
knowledge is not the work of scientists, it is the work of technologists. There is a big difference between technology and
science. Technology has all sorts of
downsides that we don't expect. Science does not have an ethical dimension. That has been stated by many very distinguished philosophers
in the past. I want to suggest that
every single invention that we make, every single innovation has a downside that we do not expect.
I would challenge the noble Lord, and
would challenge the noble Lord, and
I have set on a scientific committee with him and we have enjoyed each other's company, but I would argue there is not a single case where he
can argue where there has not been an unexpected downside to every
scientific invention. That is potentially why this is a flawed problem. Let me go through one thing. There are three problems I think that are facing humanity and the world at the moment. One clearly
is nuclear war.
One clearly is climate change and perhaps the most important one would be risk of
antibiotic resistance. It turns out that actually, all these risks were completely unseen when these
technologies were started. Indeed,
Marie Curie had no idea that the X- rays she was producing would be dangerous to her and would result in
her death unfortunately at the end of cancer. She did not recognise there might be such a thing as
nuclear explosions. When it comes to climate change, it's obvious the Industrial Revolution and all the
things we have now, we would not want to avoid having, just as we
would not want to avoid having X- rays, but we have to understand the control has come later.
And lastly,
the most important thing, the
possibility is that infection at the moment is one of the greatest problems that humanity faces on earth. The invention of antibiotics
has made it worse because we have arising out of infections which are due to resistance. Therefore I
begged the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I believe it is well-meaning and I understand what
he is trying to say, but I hope the opposition, when they listen to this, will consider at least
abstaining from voting.
Risky as it might bring the House of Lords into
disrepute as it stands.
16:49
Lord Tarassenko (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
I rise to speak on amendment 40 3A. As someone with regular day-to-
day experience of scientific research. Since I started my PhD in 1981 I have had the privilege of
spending more than half of my
working life doing scientific research in the UK. The last 20 years working with very sensitive
data. Most of that research has been carried out in an academic setting, but some of it has been in
collaboration with Meditech, AI and pharmaceutical companies. This has
required me to become familiar with many three letter and four letter acronyms.
DBS you will know about,
but you may not know about RSO, and
many others. I have spent hundreds of hours working with clinical
colleagues to fill in integrated research application systems forms.
research application systems forms.
The system is used to apply for HRA approval for research projects involving the NHS, social care or the criminal justice system. I have
appeared before not only medical
research ethics committees, which test if scientific research is
ethical and valid, but also other committees which consider the suitability of individual
researchers and local issues.
I was involved in a research project which
reuse data acquired from patients on a COVID isolation ward during the
first two waves of the pandemic. Research projects ought to
understand how nurses interpreted continuous data from the clinical
grade variables we used to monitor these high-risk patients during
COVID. It took our research team more than 18 months to obtain the
relevant permissions to reuse the data for our proposed analysis. Our application was reviewed by the
confidentiality advisory group, which provides independent expert to vice in the use of confidential
patient information without consent
for research a research purposes.
They already consider whether accessing the confidential data is
justified by public interest. Its advice is then used by the HRA and
the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to make decisions about whether or not to grant access
to the confidential data. My Lords, the existing provisions to allow access to data for research purposes
are stringent in this country and it
is entirely right that they should be. The UK is respected the world over for the checks and balances of
its research governance.
Relevant safeguards already exist within the current legislation. Adding a
further public interest test will only increase the amount of
bureaucracy which will inevitably be reintroduced by the RSO's and the translational research offices of
our universities, who are very good
at doing this. The extra burden will fall on the researchers themselves.
Some researchers may decide to concentrate their available time and energy elsewhere. This amendment I
am afraid will have the unintended consequences of having a negative
consequences of having a negative impact on research in this country and so I cannot support it.
and so I cannot support it.
16:53
Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
I think an onlooker might be forgiven for not perceiving a common theme in this particular group of
amendments, but I do thank the Minister for his introduction and to
the other noble lords and Viscount Falkland to their amendments so
clearly. First of all, starting with
the noble Viscount's amendments, I
do acknowledge that these amendments are considerably less prescriptive
than the Spencer amendment in the House of Commons in C 21 which seem
to require public authorities to
comb through every record to rectify data which went further than the Supreme Court judgement and potentially fail to account for the
privacy afforded to GRC holders
under the gender act.
However, the Liberal Democrats on these benches
will be abstaining from votes on the
proposed amendments were -- for
several reasons. The EHRC is
updating its Code of Practice to reflect the implications of the Supreme Court judgement on the
meaning of set and the equality act. This guidance as I understand it
will be specifically intended to support service providers, public
bodies and others in understanding their duties under the Equality Act and putting them into practice in
light of the judgement.
Therefore undertaking a public consultation to
understand how the practical implications can best be reflected. These amendments in our view are an attempt to jump the gun, second-
guess and or at the least pre-empt the EHCR's Code of Practice. In
these benches we believe that any changes or clarifications regarding
data standards should be informed by the official guidance and
implemented consistently in a coherent and workable manner. We
should allow time for the EHRC's guidance to be finalised, ensuring any changes or clarifications regarding data standards are
informed by their advice and implemented consistently across
public authorities in a inherent and
workable manner.
-- In a coherent and workable manner. When we have concerns about clarity, although the
Viscount's amendments are less prescriptive, we have concerns about the practical implementation. Questions arise about how public
authorities would reliably ascertain biological set if somebody has a gender recognition certificate and
has updated their birth certificate.
I have long supported same-sex wards in the NHS, but I do not believe that these amendments are helpful in
pursuing clarity following the Supreme Court judgement and, my Lords, we have heard what the
Minister had to say about passports.
I welcome the clarity provided by the Supreme Court judgement, but
there are clearly implications, both tactical and legal, to be worked
out. I trust, such as those
mentioned by the noble Viscount Hailsham, and I think he put his finger on many of those issues. I trust that the EHRC will deliver the
right result. I agree that dating is
to be accurate and I welcome the Sullivan report, as did my noble friend, but in summary, we will be
abstaining.
We believe that the EHRC process needs to conclude and provide comprehensive guidance,
while also reflecting concerns about the workability and appropriateness of specific legislative interventions on data standards at
this time. I want to move on to the
amendments put forward by the noble
Viscount Colville. This amendment might not reinstate the precise
wording conducted in the public interest, but it introduces
safeguards that seek to address the very same fundamental concerns
articulated during our debate at report stage.
It does two important things. First, it provides a
definition of scientific research, clarifying it as creative and systematic work undertaken in order
to increase the stock of knowledge and this directly addresses the
concerns raised at report stage that the line between development and scientific research is often
blurred, with developers positing efforts to increase model
capabilities or study risks as scientific research. Having a clear definition helps to distinguish
genuine research from commercial
activity. Secondly and critically, amendment 40 3B is required to meet
reasonable test.
The activity is described as scientific research and
must be conducted along the frameworks, legal obligations and
standards. This requirement sinks to
embed within the reasonable test principles that underpinned our arguments for the public interest requirement at report stage. Is the
same as the amendment put forward by
the chair of the science in select committee, which ties the definition
to the definition in the OECD's manual of research and experimental development and as creative and
systematic work undertaken in order
to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of humankind, culture and society, and to devise new applications of available
knowledge.
The Frascati framework is used worldwide by governments,
universities and research institutions to report R&D, to inform science policy and underpin
R&D tax credit schemes. It serves as
a common language and reference point for policy decisions related to scientific research and
innovation. These frameworks, obligations and standards are important because they serve the
very purposes we previously
identified in the public interest test. Ensuring societal benefit, building public trust, preventing misuse for commercial ends,
addressing harmful applications and
aligning standards.
Amendment 40 3B
is a for counterproposal. It is Parliament's opportunity to insist that the principles of public benefit, trust the responsible
conduct rooted in established frameworks must remain central to
the definition of scientific research that benefits from data
reuse exceptions. I heard what the noble Lord Winston had to say in his
very powerful speech, but I cannot see how the noble Viscount's amendment cuts across everything that he wants to see in the outcomes
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of research. He might recall the situation only 45 years ago when there was
only 45 years ago when there was massive public outcry about in vitro
massive public outcry about in vitro fertilisation. When there were overwhelming votes against in vitro
overwhelming votes against in vitro fertilisation in both houses on two occasions and finally a Private
occasions and finally a Private Members' Bill was brought that would have abolished IVF in this country.
have abolished IVF in this country.
If that had happened, this would have been, an amendment such as this would have prevented the research happening in England and would have
happening in England and would have made a colossal difference to not only our knowledge of embryo growth,
only our knowledge of embryo growth, but of ageing, cancer, all sorts of things that we did not expect from
things that we did not expect from human embryology. I begged the noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
human embryology. I begged the noble I have a misspent youth over the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I have a misspent youth over the last 15 years and when I read the wording in the amendment I cannot
see, as a lawyer, I cannot see the outcome that he suggested. This wording does not come across
anything that he has had to say and
I genuinely believe that and I understand how genuine he is in his belief that this is a threat. And I
do not believe that wording is and I would say I understand entirely what
the Lord has to say, but this was about the frustration and some of
the controls over health data, and that does not apply in other areas
of scientific set research.
And this formula is universal and well
accepted and I think the viscount made an extremely good case that we
should be supporting it.
17:03
Lord Vallance of Balham, Minister of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
That -- might I thank the noble
That -- might I thank the noble viscount for his amendments. I would reiterate that this Government has been clear and accepts the Supreme Court judgement on the meaning of sex for equality legislation. However, as the noble viscount says,
However, as the noble viscount says, it is critically important that the Government works to the effect of
Government works to the effect of this with care, sensitivity, and minding the law. When it comes to public sector data, we work through
public sector data, we work through these impacts properly.
This would involve considering the scope of the
judgement and the upcoming guidance. Critically, the Equality and Human
Critically, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has the statutory code of practice for the purposes of this in light of the ruling and this
this in light of the ruling and this would include some of the examples
would include some of the examples used including the raised by my novel from the Baroness Hayter. Ministers will consider the proposals once the EHRC has updated
proposals once the EHRC has updated the draft.
It is right that the
Government and the Parliament fully considers this before amending the with the public authorities collect, hold, and otherwise processed data,
a point that the Noble Lord has made about the EHRC. I set out in my
opening speech this Government takes this issue seriously and that is why there were numerous existing work
streams addressing the way in which the sex and gender data are collected and otherwise processed
across the sector. The digital verification services amendments we
have discussed today are misplaced because the bill does not alter the evidence and does not seek to alter the content used by verification
services, in stead this requires them to do digitally what they can do physically and it is through
organisations to consider what specific information they need to verify their particular
circumstances and how they go about doing that.
Any inconsistency between what they can do digitally and what they can do physically what
calls further confusion. What the Government understands and the primary imminence the consent about
the way in which the process sex and gender data should be considered
holistically, taking into account the effects of the Supreme Court ruling, the upcoming guidance and the equalities regulator, and the
specific requirements of public authorities. It is very unlikely that the digital verification
services would be used for many of the cases used by many noble Lords and we expect EVs to be primarily
used for the right to work, age, address, or professional education
and qualification.
The noble
viscount Lord rightly highlights that the proposals have the potential to interfere with the
right to respect with human for private and family life under the
Human Rights Act. In effect, indiscriminately, indirectly pushing public authorities to record sex as
biological sex in cases where it is not necessary or proportionate in that particular circumstance. And I
raised the example that has been up several times by the noble Baroness
Lady Fox. It is not relevant for the
French passport officer to know your biological sex.
That is not the purpose of the passport. However, we
do acknowledge that there are safeguards that address the concerns raised by noble Lords, including
those by Viscount Camrose and regarding information under clause 45, but without presenting issues
that cut across that and guidance. I would remind the House that the data
accuracy principle is already included in law and the principle requires that only data accurate for
the purpose for which it is held can be used. And there are, again, work
streams looking at data use to answer the points raised by the
Noble Lord.
And, indeed, by the Baroness Butler-Sloss. Baroness
Ludford asked the question about why it was not accurate for 15 years,
and what that means about our reliance on this accuracy. I am
afraid the fact is that it sort of was accurate for 15 years because there is a model on what was being collected. There was no requirement
to push for biological sex. That is the case now. And in response to the
question of could you end up with
**** Possible New Speaker ****
different sources of verification showing two different biological sexes, the answer is no. I thank the House is indulgence
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the House is indulgence in the Ministers interruption here, but the fact is the Supreme Court
but the fact is the Supreme Court has confirmed what was always the law. That 16 Equality Act movement
law. That 16 Equality Act movement biological sex, so it is not true
that the data accuracy principle has reassured that the law has been followed for the last 15 years. And
followed for the last 15 years. And
I am sorry, I find that answer a little dismissive and I do not think
little dismissive and I do not think we can kind of rely on that sort of assurance.
I apologise for saying that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that. I apologise to the noble Baroness if she found that dismissive. My point was to say that actually there
point was to say that actually there is a very clear imperative under the
new situation to have biological sex
verified as biological sex. As a result of that, not in all cases, have given an example where it would be inappropriate to have that information, but where you need that, it would not be possible to
answer her second question. To have two different sources of verification that they gave two
different biological sexes.
When information is shared through the
gateway, it will be very clear what information, what that information represents, including a relation to
sex and gender. In light of the
Supreme Court judgement, I want to further reassure members by clarifying that before the information gateway provision commenced, the Government will
carefully consider how and when the biological sex may be relevant in
the context of digital verification checks and will take that into account when preparing the DBS code
of practice. I hope that these commitments and the assurance about
the EHRC will provide noble Lords with reassurances that their concerns will indeed be taken into account.
The amendments proposed do
not fully take into account the fact
that gender recognition act gives those with gender recognition certificate level of privacy and control over who has access to their
gender history. It is essential the Government has the chance to fully
assess the supreme court judgement and update guidance accordingly. Given the need to consider this area
holistically to ensure that it will align with existing legislation in the guidance, the breadth of work
already being carried out in data harmonisation and statistics and the
specific reassurance on the accuracy principle, I hope the honourable member feels comfortable withdrawing
his amendments.
Turning to amendment
43 a from the noble viscount Lord the scientific research is one of the U.K.'s great strengths. We are
home to one of the four largest universities in the bill, one of the top three in terms of scientific outputs. Today's researchers depend
on data, the UK data protection
framework contains certain accommodations for those processing certain accommodations for those that meet the definition of
scientific research in clause 67. I understand that noble Lords intention to avoid the misuse of these provisions, but the Royal
Society has said the reason for this test in this bill provides accurate
protection against this and the bill tightens this with the ICO able to
use the reasonable test.
Reasonable does not mean this objective of an
uninformed person, it means that objective, fair observer of good
judgement and relevant facts. Such tests are well known to UK courts.
The bill does not extend and expand the definition. If something is not considered scientific research now
but will not be under the bill. Similarly, the bill does not provide
any new information for reusing data for other research purposes. Moreover, further safeguards provided in clause 86 and the wider
UK GDPR including the requirement
that this be in effect.
This requires that they must have a lawful basis, putting an end to previous confusion on the matter.
Adding further specific conditions to the definition of law would be unnecessary and impose a disproportionate burden on
researchers that already said there has been too much time on redtape. The previous Government started to
tackle the pernicious research. And
bureaucracy. Should not add more. If nothing was, this could exclude
genuine researchers. The manual provides useful guidance. It is not, however, a legal definition. Requiring researchers to start
complying with any legal standard upon one that my change would undoubtedly create more committees,
more bureaucracy.
The very thing that Mac spirits argued against in
his guidelines on research. My Noble
Friend Lord Winston has given powerful examples. Let me give two examples of where the proposals
might cause problems. Does requiring research to be creative under the
essential task, the really essential task of reducing or reproducing
findings? Does the manual definition of systematic which means budgeted
exclude unfunded very early research trying to get a foothold? Let's not
dampen the U.K.'s world leading research active for production that was already included in the bill.
I
was already included in the bill. I
do sympathise with and let me say the bill contains a power to add to
the existing sake of the narrow the search provisions if necessary full so the Government would not hesitate to use that power if it became necessary to tackle the issues. I
beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the House to agree with the comments in amendment one. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary,
"Not content", The contents have it. Amendment to the Baroness Jones of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Whitchurch. With the leave of the House I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
With the leave of the House I wish to move formally that the House do agree with the comments in their amendment to 231. The question is that the House to
agree with the comments in amendments to 231 en bloc. As many as are of that opinion, say,
as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it.
17:13
Viscount Camrose (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Amendment 32, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, moved formally.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg to move the House to not agree with the comment in their amendment 32. The question is that the House do
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the House do not agree with the Commons in their amendment 32. Motion 32 a, Viscount Camrose. I thank the Noble Lord the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the Noble Lord the Minister for his very able summing
Minister for his very able summing up of his position, but I am afraid I cannot get past the question in my mind of how existing data, the
mind of how existing data, the legacy data that exists today, even
legacy data that exists today, even if it is managed by a DBS system going forward, is going to suddenly be data of high quality when it is
17:14
Division
-
Copy Link
be data of high quality when it is currently today, as we know from the Sullivan report, as a result of all
of his eloquence I beg to test the opinion of the House.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that motion 32 a, as an amendment to the Minister's
as an amendment to the Minister's motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The
the contrary, "Not content", The contents decided by a division. I
contents decided by a division. I will advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now open. Clear the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. The question is that motion 32 AB agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The
contrary, "Not content". The contents will go to the right by the throne. Not contents to the left by
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. Order, order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that motion three
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that motion three
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, My Lords, they My Lords, they have My Lords, they have voted.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, they have voted. Contents, 200. Not contents 183. So
My My Lords, My Lords, amendment My Lords, amendment 33,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, amendment 33, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch. I beg to move formally that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to move formally that the House do agree with the comments in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
their amendment 33. The question is that the House do agree with the comments in their
agree with the comments in their amendment 33. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 34,
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Big to move amendment 34 a formally and that this has to do agree with the comments and to
propose amendments 34 amendments 30
**** Possible New Speaker ****
propose amendments 34 amendments 30 4B and 30 4C. The question is that motion 34 AB agreed to. As many as are of that
agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 35,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
With the leave of the House I beg to move formally that the House do agree with the comments in their
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendments 35-42 en bloc. The question is that the House do agree with the Commons in their amendments 32-45 en bloc. As many as
amendments 32-45 en bloc. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content".
Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 43,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to move formally that the House do agree with the comments in their amendment 43. The question is that the House do
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the House do agree with the Commons in their
amendment 43.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am not convinced that my amendment. The research as
amendment. The research as suggested. However it will detect user data as the technological
user data as the technological revolution unfolds. So I moved formally and asked to test the opinion of the House.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
opinion of the House. The question is that motion 43 as
an amendment to the Ministers motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the
opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The
Of the contrary, "Not content". The question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House
division. I will advise the House
division. I will advise the House when voting is open.
Voting is now
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The question The question is The question is that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that motion The question is that motion 43 The question is that motion 43 AB agree to. As many as are of that
opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", the
contrary, "Not content", the contents will go to the right by the throne, the not content to the left
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The question The question is The question is that The question is that motion The question is that motion 43
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lords, My Lords, they My Lords, they have My Lords, they have voted My Lords, they have voted content
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, they have voted content to hundred and 89, not content 168,
Amendment Amendment 44, Amendment 44, Baroness Amendment 44, Baroness Jones Amendment 44, Baroness Jones of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Whitchurch. My Lords, I big to move the House to agree with Commons in their
17:40
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
to agree with Commons in their amendment 44. I believe the House will also speak to amendment 45 to
amendment 178. My Lords, there has, quite reasonably, been significant interest in the topic of AI and
copyright. This is a hugely important issue, and a complex one.
I hope noble Lords will agree with me as I set out the government's
position which has been the subject of some misrepresentation in recent reporting. So, can I make it clear
this bill does not introduce any changes to copyright law or wider
intellectual regulation.
It does not introduce a tax system, nor does it
contain any powers that would allow such a system to be implemented. All
existing copyright rules continue to apply to the use of material for AI
training in exactly the way it did before this was introduced. This
Government recognises the enormous economic and social value of our
creative industries. We saw that just last week as the nation came together to commemorate the
anniversary of VE day. Our creative
sector entertains and informs us.
It
is the best of us as a nation. In our manifesto, quite rightly, pledged to work at the collective industries to unlock their potential after years of neglect. As noble
Lords will know, the creative industries are worth 124 billion GBA
and support to .4 lean jobs. Since 2010 they have grown 1.5 times the
rate of the rest of the economy. And the creative industries are one of
our eight priority strands within our industrial strategy. The January January 2025 as the first step to
developing that strategy we
announced that the British loan will enhance its support for businesses to help access the finances they
need to grow.
That UKRI will strengthen support for the sector to
drive R&D led growth. That shorter duration apprenticeships as a first step towards growing flexible skills
step towards growing flexible skills
levy that meets the industry and employers needs will be introduced. A commitment to devolved funding to seek priority mayoral authorities to
drive the growth created. And a £19
million package of funding for programs, including the UK games
fund, a global screen fund, using exports for growth schemes, and the programs.
The Government will build
on the support from the upcoming industry sector plan which we will
publish very soon. Our manifesto also recognises both the
opportunities and the risks of AI. We pledge to take only action and
one part of this was the launch of a detailed consultation on the future
of copyright reform. To ensure that they are fit for purpose as technology evolves and its use
becomes more widespread. That consultation closed earlier this year, and we are now analysing a
very large volume of responses, something in the region of 11,000 and 5,000 and assessing the evidence
we have received.
Our proposals will be based on that evidence, and what
works and rather than any preferred option. This will take time to do
properly, and as such the Government did not and does not believe that this bill is the right vehicle to
take any substantial changes to the law on this issue. Yes, we must act
quickly. But we must also continue our thinking and engagement to ensure that policy outcome is the
one that best valances the potential of AI and the need to support rights
of AI and the need to support rights
holders.
Although we do not believe that this bill is the right vehicle for wholesale change to copyright law, we do understand the need to demonstrate that this Government,
unlike others, once to follow best practice, engage them on all sides
and come to the right conclusions. This is why the elected House took the decision to remove the relevant
amendments passed the stages and insert new provisions to demonstrate our commitment to legislate on AI in
a fair evidence-based way. Of
course, we agree there should be greater transparency about the use of protective material to train AI
models.
We agreed that there should be more work done to identify the technical solutions that would empower rights holders to decide
whether and how their material is used. We must continue to talk to
all sides and ensure a reformed copyright regime is carefully
thought through, carefully and effectively supported by the ends.
And as our amendment set out, we will report on full substantive areas within 12 months. These will
clearly signpost what we want to
deliver and how we propose to deliver.
We will also carry out an economic impact assessment of the proposed changes once we have come to a settled view. I applaud the
to a settled view. I applaud the
strong support, the dedicated advocacy, for the creative industries and your Lordships house, and I welcome the tireless
campaigning from the Noble Lady Baroness Kidron and thank her for her engagement that we have had
I also thank noble Viscount for his engagement. To do with the
amendments in order, the text would add extra elements to the government's report including a plan
regarding barriers for AI providers.
Extraterritorial uses of work and technological standards for machine-readable watermarks. The
Should AI system may be considered in scope. These amendments are designed to be constructive and I
thank the noble Lord for the 40 has put into them. I would however suggest that in the main they are already covered by government amendments. The noble Lord is a passionate advocate for a global
digital watermarking scheme and as my noble friend has said on previous occasions there is merit in those
discussions taking place. However as the noble Lord would readily admit,
this would need to be a global effort and therefore would not be for the UK government to take
unilateral action.
The amendments
tabled by Baroness Kidron, 49 a and
40 9B on the Marshalled List, whilst well-intentioned are limited in their focus and would lead straight to implementing an outcome without affording time to properly develop
the Wallace. They would require substantial policy change in one of the areas identified in the government's amendments to be implemented in the form of secondary
legislation. Noble Lords may find it refreshing for a minister to say this from the dispatch box, but in
our view it would not be an appropriate delegation of power.
We consulted for a reason and whilst we
will act as quickly as possible, we must legislate properly. Arbitrary statutory deadlines will not create better policy outcomes. The
government recognises the strength of feeling across your Lordships House and we agree wholeheartedly
that there needs to be greater transparency and control over the use of creative works to train AI.
We also share the wish of the noble Lady Baroness Kidron to see more
licensing of content so our creative in share in the value created by
those new technologies.
We must also
ensure that AI companies are able to access the data they need to build leading models in a legal and efficient way. The British public
and economy should be able to adopt and benefit from the most capable models available. We cannot pull up
the shutters around our island, leaving AI development to take place
overseas, outside of the influence of British right holders and
legislators. So this is not an easy problem to solve. This is why we must use the best economic data and
evidence that we can gather and follow a proper policy process to
determine the best way forward.
We will get to the right outcomes and
we will get those outcomes as
quickly as we can. We want to work with noble Lords across the chamber to get there. However, despite the good intentions on display in these amendments, the government cannot
**** Possible New Speaker ****
support them. I therefore beg to move our amendments. The question is that the House do
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the House do agree with the Commons in their
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment 44. I thank the noble Lady the
Minister for setting out the government's case so clearly. I rise
17:50
Viscount Camrose (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
government's case so clearly. I rise to speak to my amendment, 40 6A, which seeks to improve the report which the government brought forward
in the other place. This is needless to say an issue that is causing real
concern for copyright owners and so many others in the creative in. Let
us remind noble Lords that the
creative in contributed £124 billion in gross value-added to the UK
economy in 2023. The creative into outperformed the UK economy during the period between 2010-2023 in
terms of growth.
The government is
wisely and write prioritising growth over other concerns in the creative into going to have to be an
essential part of this, but they will only be to the extent that they have a trusted and efficient marketplace for intellectual
property. Our amendment improves the government's proposed report by adding consideration of
extraterritorial use of creators
copyright works by operators of web crawlers and AI systems, as well as considerations of establishing a digital watermark for identifying
licensed content.
I take on board the point that this has to be
international to work, but I suggest that few countries if any would have better or greater convening power to
better or greater convening power to
initiate the process of creating such digital standards. I urge the government to pursue that avenue. I
should pay tribute to all noble Lords who have raised and continue to raise the issue of copyright in
the passage of this bill. My thanks, of course, as I am sure I will be
adding to the others, but thank you to Baroness Kidron in particular he
has led such a powerful campaign on
this issue.
Throughout the passage of the bill we recognise the serious concerns raised by the creative sector and at report stage tabled an amendment to bring forward a digital
watermark to identify content and to
protect copyright owners. I am very pleased that the government has
taken the first step by amending the bill in the other place to put a report on the face of the bill. That
said, we continue to feel the report needs to go further and if the government are unwilling to accept
our changes, I will seek to test the opinion of the House when my motion
is called.
Turning briefly to motion
49A, in the name of Lady Kidron, I again paid tribute to the work she
has done to make progress on this. Whilst we have concerns about the drafting of her amendment in report
stage, I am very pleased that she has tabled this motion today. With
the additional parts of the motion specifically targeted at supporting small businesses and micro-entities,
we are delighted to be able to support it today. It is increasingly clear that the government must do the right thing for our creative into and we are delighted to offer
our support to motion for 9A.
I
intend to test the opinion of the House amendment for 6A it is called. House amendment for 6A it is called.
17:53
Baroness Kidron (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
I rise to speak to amendment for nine a in my name and I wish to
offer my support to amendment for 6A
in the name of the Noble Viscount Camrose. It's a sensible amendment and I hope the government will find a way to accept it without
challenge. Let me start by rebutting three assertions that have been
circling over the past few weeks. First, I wish to reject the notion
that those of us who have raised our voices against government plans are
against technology.
And here I quote the secretary of state, who I am
dilated to see is below bar this
afternoon who said to the FT, just as in every other time, there is change in society, there will be some people who will either resist
change, or try to make change to
difficult to deliver. Well, my Lords, creative people are early
adopters of technology. Their minds are curious and their practices are innovative, and speaking personally
in my former career as a film director, I watched the UK film
industry transform from working on
celluloid to the UK being a world leading centre of digital production.
And for the last five
years at the Institute of ethics of AI in Oxford, where I am an adviser, I have been delighted to watch the
leaps and bounds of AI development.
Those at the frontier of AI development are creative thinkers and creative people are natural
innovators. The government's attempt to divide us is wrong. The transformational impact of
technology is something that all the signatories of this weekend's letter
to the Prime Minister understand.
Creators do not deny the economic value and creative value of AI, but
we do deny the assertion that we should have to build AI for free with our work.
Then rent it back
with our work. Then rent it back
from those who stole it. Ours is not an argument about progress, it is an argument about value. The AI
companies fiercely defend their own IP, but denied the value of our
work. My Lords, not everything new is progress, not everything that already exists is without value, but
we, creative into embodied by change
we, creative into embodied by change
The notion that we are standing in the way of change.
We are setting our right to continue to exist and play our part in the UK's future growth. Secondly, there is no
confusion about copyright law in relation to AI, nor does the phenomenal number of submissions to
the consultation prove anything other than the widespread outrage of
the creative industry that the government sought to redefine theft rather than uphold their property
rights. In our last debate my noble
and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss made an unequivocal statement to that effect, which has been widely supported by other legal opinion.
So
the government's spokesman who has
greeted every press enquiry of the last few weeks by saying government is consulting to sort out the confusion in copyright in relation
to AI is at best misinformed. Let me be clear, the amendment does not change copyright, we do not need to change copyright law, we need
transparency so that we can enforce copyright law because what you
cannot see, you cannot enforce. Thirdly and finally I want to rebut
the idea of this is the wrong bill and the wrong time.
AI did not exist in the public realm until the early
2020s and the speed and scale of
which copyright works are being stolen is eye watering. Property that people have invested in, creative, traded and that they rely
on for their livelihood is being stolen at all parts of the value
stolen at all parts of the value
chain. My Lords, it is an assault on the British economy and it is happening at scale to a sector worth
120 billion to the UK and an industry that is central to the
industrial strategy and of enormous cultural import.
My Lords, it is
happening now and we have not even begun to catch up with the
devastating consequences. The government have taken our amendments out of the bill and replace them
with a couple of toothless reports. My Lords, whatever these reports bring forward, whatever the
consultation offers, we need the amendment in front of us today now because if this bill does not
protect copyright, by the time they work out their policy, there will be
little to save. The language of AI, scraping, training, LAM's, data
modules, does not evoke the full picture of what is being done.
They
are corporations, many of which are seeking to entrench their information seeking monopolies are
not stealing nameless data. They are stealing some of the UK's most valuable cultural and economic
assets. It is Harry Potter, it is the entire back catalogue of every
single music publisher in the UK, it is the voice of Hugh Grant, the
design of an iconic handbag, the IP of our universities, museums and
library collections. Even the news
is stolen in real time, or without payment, with economic benefits being taken offshore.
It costs UK
corporations and individuals their hard earned wealth and the Treasury
hard earned wealth and the Treasury
much-needed revenue. And it did
nudes the opportunities of the next generation because if work is stolen at every turn, then whether you are a corporation or individual, you cannot survive. The time is now in
the bill in front of us is the
vehicle. Amendment 49A superseded the previous package of amendments
and I wish to pay tribute to Lord Stevenson's who wishes he could be with us, Lord Clement-Jones and his
colleagues who have been uncompromising in their support and
my noble friend Lord Freyberg.
Amendment 49 simply provides that a
copyright holder be able to see who,
what, when and why there work has been taken, allowing them a reasonable route to assert their moral right to determine if they wish to have their work used and if
so, on what terms. It is a slimmer
version of the previous package of amendments, but it covers the same ground and importantly, it puts a
timeline of 12 months and bringing forward these provisions and it makes specific provision for SME and
micro-entities and for UK headquartered AI companies.
My
Lords, there are two terrible
The first is that Government is undermining one of our greatest industrial sector is also the second
as Government may be on a support to court for all 10 the U.K.'s opportunity to take its rightful
lease in the world of AI as a global leader in the AI supplied.
Generative AI depends on skill, energy for computers, and high
quality data. We punch above our weight on skills, but are no match for the US and China without
lowering our energy costs fivefold,
the natural choice will be for AI firms to train elsewhere, but the UK
has a disproportionate amount of quality data.
A huge proportion of which is the Intellectual Property
Office by our powerhouse creative industries. We should be creating
market conditions that ensure our creators can continue to contribute to the culture of soft power and the
to the culture of soft power and the
long-term sustainable growth of our four nations. The economic argument is overwhelming. It is a crucial part of our nations assets, and the
foundation of its future in the AI economy. That cannot be replaced by
a handful of data centres.
And the moral argument is unassailable.
Creators work as the result of their
Creators work as the result of their
labour. It is their property and it is for them to determine what they do with it, so I do ask the Noble Lady the Minister how does the
Government justify turning their back while offshore companies steal
UK property and how can you stand, how can the Government stand tall in that light of pre-election promises
to put creativity back in the DNA of the country? When their best offer is a review on an infinite timeline?
And why is the Government not protecting UK growth? When we know
the monopoly power of the US and Chinese tech giants means that the benefits will accrue
disproportionately off-line.
Finally, my Lords, I have been inundated by people who are materially affected of this issue.
Many of whom are watching our proceedings. Let me just finish with
some thanks to the hundreds of creators of the emails Britain's
spoken campaigns in support of this amendment, to the UK AI trade group who have shown that the grassroots
UK tech industry and broader AI
ecosystem, unlike the proxies of big
tech, want to work with, not steal from creatives. To the UK businesses who put billions into building iconic brands who want that this
policy puts their investments at risk.
To the security community,
incredulous that this may carelessly legitimised where in a community where cyber security is of vital
importance and the sector both here and in the US have made clear to me that diminishing copyright does not,
as Ministers suggest, open the US market to the UK, but, instead,
opens the UK market to anyone who
wants to take our data offshore. To the news media who put aside their differences in the interest of protecting the future of news with their make it fair campaign, to the
creative rights KPI coalition.
As demonstrating the complete uniformity of the movement across
the sector from the biggest record labels to freelance photographers
just starting out to those on both houses on all sides of the political
spectrum who have chosen to stand with the creative industries
sometimes against the wish of their whip. And, finally, to the young
people who have contacted me furious
that the Government Ministers who so recently have been given the privilege of fulfilling their own
ambitions are carelessly throwing away the possibility that the next
generation of creators fulfil
theirs.
Whatever your party allegiance is, I ask you to make clear to the 2.4 million people who make up the creative industries to
their dependents, to the would-be creatives of the future, and to the
citizens of the UK that enjoy and benefit from their creativity, that
their property, their labour is worthy of your protection. Because apart from anything else, it is not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
ours to give away. The deputy chairman of the
18:06
Lord Black of Brentwood (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The deputy chairman of the Telegraph media group. It is a great pleasure to follow the Noble Lady. I
pleasure to follow the Noble Lady. I strongly support Amendment 49 in her name. All who value the creative
life of our country or her an
enormous debt of gratitude for her campaigning and I agree with everything she said about thanking
all those who have taken part. At the heart of this debate there are two complex policy issues and the
Noble Lady the Minister made that point.
These are complex issues. The rapid development and regulation of AI and the operational copyright
law. Both can seem a bit daunting to
those not directly involved. And
this is scary and complex and many would be forgiven simply for wanting to steer clear, but not one of us
can turn our back today with impunity on this issue. All of us have a responsibility today because
if you strip this debate back to its basics, there are three very simple principles at stake that affect all
our lives and our central to everything that this House stands for.
The first is the defence of
property. A century since the Copyright act of own nine since an
individual has crated something, a film, April, they have retained ownership of it. It is their property and the law protects them. That is centuries old and under
threat for the first time because the Government refuses to properly apply the law to Artificial
Intelligence, allowing simply that plugging of someone else's work and profiting from it. It is putting AI
beyond the scope of the law by failing to give great is the transparency they need to inform it.
At heart, this is dead simple. Unless this bill is amended, it is the equivalent of saying to a home
owner, once you have bought a house and filled it with your possessions, the Government once you to leave the
front door wide-open, invite anonymous passers-by to come in and
take anything they want for free, allow them to go away and sell it for their own profit, and you have no protection at all in law. It is
legalising theft. This amendment simply allows those who create
content in an age of rapacious AI to put a lock on their door and protect their property by letting them know
when theft is taking place and giving them a form of redress.
If
this House stands for anything, it must stand for protection of
property. Second is the nurturing of
human creativity. It was, I think my Beethoven, the Noble Lord Berkeley will correct me if I got this wrong, who once said there is a divine
spark of creative genius in all of us. Whether we paint a picture, taking photograph, write a piece of
music, we all have something in us that allows us to express ourselves
and enrich the lives of others in doing so.
It is copyright that protects our ability to do that.
That is why the creative right of the UK has always been so vibrant, colourful, entertaining, colourful.
It is why our creative industries flourish and play such a vital role in economic growth. But if you take
away copyright protection, you snuff out that divine spark and endanger the livelihoods of those who depend
on their creative ability. If this
House stands for anything, it must stand for creativity for the divine
spark.
Finally, and most importantly, the defence of
democracy itself. It has been said
once in this House, it has been said 1,000 times, democracy depends on the existence of a free independent press empowering the electorate with reliable information and
scrutinising those in power. That
role is even more important in the age of disinformation and unverified unregulated AI generated content
with editorial judgement oversight overtaken buyout rhythms and the tyranny of recycled distorted
circular information, but the provision of independent verified
regulated news will be among the very first victims of AI if this
amendment is not passed and we act very soon.
I do not say this
lightly, and having spent almost my whole career in the media, I am
choosing mime words very carefully,
but I have to give the House this morning. AI has the capacity to utterly destroy organisations because it feasts on the millions of
articles written by journalist without any attribution or payment, destroying the business model that
makes the free pass possible.
Without action this day, news will die in the cold darkness of
cyberspace were no legal framework exists.
The advertising that supports taking platforms is content
stolen by AI. There will only be a
husk left. The answer is this amendment which will turbocharge an embryonic licensing market to ensure
fair payment for creators and access to high-quality information and AI
models. If the AI developers are forced to declare whose content they are taking, then they will know they
will end up in the courts if they do not negotiate a license. The term
existential threat is bandied around too much.
But this is not crying
wolf. Unless we introduce transparency, control over content and fair renumeration within make
licensing market, the threat to free
media is generally existential, and as a consequence, the threat to
democracy itself is also, genuinely existential. If this House stands for anything it must stand for
democracy. We have to act now. The bills laissez-faire approach to
copyright protection and craven obeisance to the platforms means that we will not get any action on
transparency until well neither the end of the parliament, but for many
public publications, for that point,
the end will have already come.
And once lost, there will be no way of recreating the plural competitive media that has sustained parliamentary democracy for
centuries. It is game over. That may sound alarming, but it is absolutely
At stake here. Any Noble Lord considering voting against this
amendment, I say it is already 11:55 for our free press and our democracy, and unless we back this today, this will damned the House
with its most deadly words. Too late. late.
18:13
Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, my noble Lords, friends, and those of a creative
disposition. Lend me your ears. Even
though I have come late to this bill, yes, I wonder what Shakespeare would have had to say about AI. Last
night I presented the special BAFTA
award for ITV4 commissioning that landmark drama, the debates versus the post office, which is British television at its best. And I wondered if AI would have had the
intuitive instinct to create such an
important drama which brought about societal change.
That is why I rise
to strongly support my Noble Friend,
the intrepid Baroness Kidron on
amendment 49. And I declare an
interest as per register. As this
Span a fascinating and perhaps unsettling crossroads in the world of creativity. And the rise of Artificial Intelligence is no longer
a futuristic fantasy. It is a tangible force reshaping the very fabric of our creative industry.
And, potentially, stealing livelihoods. And, most of all, our
children's future.
Does the Government really want that to be
part of their legacy? My Lords, for centuries, the essence of acting and
singing has been a unique connection between a human performer and an
audience. We pour our emotions, experiences, and understanding of the human condition into convincing
characters. Telling stories that emotionally connect. Now, AI is
stepping onto our stage. Offering
digital doubles, synthesised voices, and the potential of entirely AI
generated programs, including animation, children's programs. The
immediate impacts already being
felt, AI tools can now replicate an actor's likeness, and act as voice, raising concerns about the
unauthorised use of identities, both living and deceased.
The ability to create digital doubles or stunts or
even entire scenes would reduce the
Some argue that AI will be a tall to
enhance our craft, aiding and adding
to voice training, accent, or even music and script writing. The
underlying anxiety about job displacement is real and valid. My
Lords, our ability to connect with
an audience on an emotional level, to bring authenticity and vulnerability to a role remains a
uniquely human attribute.
Thousands and thousands of people tell me I
did just that when they watched me
almost 50 years ago on Playschool. It had a lasting emotional effect on
them, right through to the .org because as I always say, childhood
lasts a lifetime. My Lords, it terrifies me to think that future generations of children may never
experience a human being connection
with them, with their souls, either on-screen or onstage, or inspired them to pursue a career in the
creative in.
No government should have that on their conscience. It
requires us to legislate for ethical guidelines, for regulations and
transparency that protect our copyrights and intellectual property, our professions, our
creativity for the sake of our children. This is our responsibility
to do just that. Without doubt we must collaborate with these new technologies in ways that enhance
rather than replace the human
element of creativity. My Lords, let us not shy away from this challenge, no. It may in vertically affect our
children's future.
We need to confront it with open eyes and
United voices, ensuring that the art of creativity in all its human richness can continue to thrive in
this evolving world. My Lords, for
these reasons I wholeheartedly support Baroness Kidron's amendment
and urge others to do just the same.
18:18
Lord Rooker (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
This is my first contribution on this bill, although I have sat in
every debate on this issue going back to Committee stage. I do not
have a creative nerve in my body. I
have nothing to declare, but my life and hundreds of millions of others
has been enhanced by writers, actors, music makers across the
world. And it is sad in a way, and
this is not a criticism of anybody personally who is around at the
present time, but the nature of labour in Parliament has changed.
When I arrived in the Commons 51
years ago, on the Labour benches was Morris Edelmann, a writer of fiction
and non-fiction of note. My near
near neighbour was Andrew Foulds. Jet Morgan in Journey into Space. I
have been thinking how the little
people, the little helpers for the Prime Minister in the other place
would cope with Andrew today. He was a formidable character who could scare the life out of his friends. 30 years after that I joined this
place.
Ruthven Dell on the benches.
David Putnam joined some years later, a world-renowned producer. My noble friend, Lord Cashman. I make
this personal. I don't speak for any
of them. I haven't spoken to anybody
about what I would say, although I
indicated I was going to speak to Baroness Kidron at the weekend. I am being asked to deliver wholesale the
work of these people to Big Tech.
Well, I am not doing it. I have not got the slightest intention of doing
**** Possible New Speaker ****
it and that is why I shall vote for this amendment. As I said at the previous stage
18:20
The Earl of Dundee (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As I said at the previous stage of this bill, it surely goes without
of this bill, it surely goes without saying that our United Kingdom copyright law has to counter the
increasing theft of intellectual property from Artificial Intelligence companies. As the noble
Baroness is present -- as the noble
Baroness's amendment shows we should allow copyright holders to identify
when and from where their work has been taken. I am sure all your
Lordships would agree with that aim.
As well as being well aware of the strong human rights backup support
to ask with the 46 state affiliation of the Council of Europe of which
the United Kingdom is a prominent
member. As many of your Lordships no first and foremost article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
protects the right to privacy, including of personal data. Article
1 of its initial protocol protects property rights, including intellectual property rights in
intellectual property rights in
copyright.
Article 5 on cybercrime prohibits system interference by, for example, the transmission of computer data whilst article 10
stipulates offences relating to infringements of copyright and
related rights. Thirdly, article 11 of the 2024 Council of Europe
framework safeguards privacy and
personal data. Regarding copyright
also and it emphasised at the earliest stage of our discussions
that we can be justly proud of our
own United Kingdom records which granted legal protection to the
publishers of books.
We must uphold the high standards of that
the high standards of that tradition. The United Kingdom should guide the good practice and I am here today supporting the noble
here today supporting the noble Baroness's amendment. It is the
Baroness's amendment. It is the clear example of it being a liability not to.
18:23
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
I speak because it's a simple amendment. It's putting the
principle of transparency of these models on the face of this bill. We need to know what goes into these models and we need to know for two
reasons. One, so that any form of copyright can be prosecuted. So at
the moment, even our current copyright laws, how can we know
whether they have been broken if we do not know what goes into these models? It does not matter if the
government is thinking about changing the copyright rules, whatever copyright rules we have, we
need to know what is being used in the models.
And the other reason is because of the outputs of these
models. We need to know what these models were trained on in order to know their strengths and weaknesses.
The noble Lord said it himself in
order to answer an Oral Question from Baroness Cousins. If the data that has gone into the model is not
transparent, we cannot ascertain its strengths and weaknesses without
extensive Roxy measures and probing. On these two principles it's important that this simple amendment
goes through today, and the fact that it has got some added benefits in terms of being able to legislate
separately for smaller need enterprises, micro industries and UK
businesses as to the fact that this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment has been carefully crafted to give us exactly what we need in this bill today. Baroness Benjamin posed a very
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness Benjamin posed a very appropriate question. What would Shakespeare make of AI? I think the
Shakespeare make of AI? I think the answer so far is rather like the proverbial million monkeys on their typewriters. So far it has failed to
18:25
Lord Brennan of Canton (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
typewriters. So far it has failed to reduce a credible version of
Shakespeare, but it has provided several improved versions of The Art
of the Deal. I rise also to speak to Baroness Kidron's amendments and the government's amendments that have come back from the other place, the House of Commons. I thank the
Minister for her engagement on this
in the briefing she gave to noble friends and colleagues across the House. And also to my good friend
Minister Chris Bryant, whose
charismatic presence I've felt around us, almost as if he was observing our proceedings earlier on.
And also to the Secretary of
State for confirming fire 1/3 party in last weekend's press that the
government has changed its position in relation to having the opt out in the consultation as the preferred
position. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that on the
Minister could confirm that on the
House of the -- on the floor of the House today. It was delivered by a spokesperson rather than the
Secretary of State. It is a helpful change and I welcome the fact that the government has made some
movement in the amendments it has put forward.
I hope it is now part
put forward. I hope it is now part
I am I am a I am a member I am a member of I am a member of the I am a member of the musicians I am a member of the musicians union and I draw attention to my entry in the register. Just to say that creative remuneration has been, for me, one of the central issues that I
have worked on as a parliamentarian in the 23 years I was in the House
of commons.
Certainly on the front
benches in opposition, and also as the sponsor of the Private Members' Bill in the Commons, which although it did not get into law I think had
it did not get into law I think had
quite a significant influence. The
copyright remuneration bill which is sitting within the offices of the intellectual property office. There
has been strong ministerial engagement from Minister Chris
Bryant, trying to hold to account everyone concerned in the music
industry to improve remuneration for musicians.
I have never understood,
and this is not just about rights holders, I've never actually understood why anybody in the
creative into started of, for example, with a love of music and
got involved in being an Executive in the creative industry, could
start off with a level of music and creativity and some thinking they
are worthy of being paid more than the people who actually create the wonderful content that Lord Rooker was speaking about earlier on. How
can somebody reward themselves with
greater remuneration than the entire remuneration of every songwriter in this country as a music industry
Executive.
There is only one explanation and I think it is by the personal attrition of their soul, but that is another matter
altogether. But in this instance it is an opportunity that we have, I
think, within this bill. The key point is this, yes, obviously the
elected House should have its way. I believe that very strongly as a former member, but it is important
that this House has its say along the way, if you like, and that
transparency is absolutely key. We cannot enforce copyright, rights holders cannot enforce their rights
unless there is transparency.
This particular bill, this particular bus, the government should be getting on it, rather than waiting
for a bus several years down the road in the form of future legislation. There is an opportunity
for compromise and should be sent
the amendments back to the other place, the government should look for a way to give commitment to ensuring it can through this bill
take powers in order to regulate in relation to transparency in the near future. I was fortunate enough last
week, and this is an absolutely blatant namedrop, but I was
fortunate enough last week to
accompany a member of ABBA.
I note
that Lord Vaizey objects, he would never do such a thing. He introduced
me to the founder of Motown records
on one occasion in these corridors, but he would never do something similar himself. When I showed him the role gallery, he took particular
interest in one of the murals and asked who is that in that mural.
Sorry, it is not a mural, it is a fresco. He asked who is in the
fresco. He asked who is in the
fresco.
I told him. I said somebody should write a song about that and
he said, yes, that is a great idea. It could be a metaphor for a love
affair. I said, I'm surprised you have not thought of that before. We never mentioned the word Waterloo once.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords... I think it is the crossbenches
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think it is the crossbenches turn. Noble Lord law black
mentioned, and in declaring my interest as a composer I should also
mention that I have acted as an expert with this in cases of musical
18:31
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
copyright. While doing that I was asked by one of my learned friends
what constitutes something is worthy
Because that in terms of the law is
a substantial idea. So the whole
notion of copyright comes down to something which is valuable and it doesn't matter how long it is or how
short it is. Creativity in the UK is
already, I'm afraid and somewhat hollow state, and any erosion of
copyright will be adding yet another cut to noisy wounded body.
The noble
Lady the Minister mentioned
technology, and of course we all use technology. We all want to use
technology. The famous composers, the songwriters who have headed the letter to the Prime Minister, Paul
McCartney, Elton John, Sting, wonderful songwriters, have used
technology to great effect. And with the greatest respect, I think it
slightly insulting to say to them they are pulling the shutters, we are pulling the shutters down,
because we want to know who is using our music.
That cannot be something intellectually which holds water.
People need to know how the music is being used, they have the right to
know. Why also is an important
factor. Let me give you an example which I mentioned once before, of
what happened with screaming. In other words we have been bitten once
already. -- With streaming. In a way I welcome opening music and the arts
to the whole world through the Internet and streaming certainly
does that.
But what did it do? Very well musician said to me other day,
a top-10 artist, word us -- would at
all this money go? It doesn't go to us. If you ask or Elton John hosting
how their royalties have changed over the years, they will say
they've gone down massively. This is
not just about famous musicians. McCartney, Elton Jean, Sting, will be the first to say, this is also about the little-known songwriters
who at the moment make a pittance but who are hoping to make
something.
It's also, we are led to believe, obviously those famous names attract attention and it's
quite right they do and I'm really grateful for their support. But there's also a whole other section,
the contemporary classical music sector, and I know they support the
local four lead at the Baroness, and this is a very dangerous bill if we
cannot curtail, and I'm glad the lady is listening and wants to help and wants to find a way through
because I believe that if we don't make improvements to this, we really could be shortchanging something
that brings an absolute fortune into
the Treasury.
But not just a fortune in terms of money. The fortune in terms of joy. I've mentioned Paul
McCartney, Elton John, Sting. Think what they brought into people's
lives. And although my section, the contemporary classical section may
be less famous and less well-known, they, too, have a right to be heard
and therefore is that if you allow, for example training, it suggested
that maybe it would be OK to allow people to use our products in
training. But we know that that is the thin end of the wedge.
When
streaming came in the record industry virtually disappeared. I know, the manager of a classical
record company, who said to me, why would we want to record this piece? It's already out there on the
Internet. You have to think about what follows on from opening this World Cup and I think the government
is listening. And I think many noble
Lords have pointed out exactly what the dangers are. So I certainly will
support the noble Baroness, my noble
friend Baroness Kidron.
She has done
sterling work. I don't think we are making a fuss about nothing. I think this is the thin end of the wedge and we have got to try and curtail
it now, for the future of music in this country, and indeed all the other arts. other arts.
18:36
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I welcome the government additions to the bill, and I endorse
my noble friend Viscount Camrose's amendments today, especially that relating to removing barriers to
entry. Because it is vital that AI does not end up controlled by the
same tech firms who dominate cloud search and social media. And this in
my view, this important nature resents opportunity for challenge
fans and new markets to emerge. And
much of what I will say in the moment is very much with them in
mind.
As to the noble Baroness Lady Kidron's amendment on transparency,
in the context of copyright, she is right to prioritise transparency. As I've argued before, whatever kind of
solution is eventually adopted, opt out or opt in, transparency will be
necessary for that solution to work. I also think the noble Baroness is
right to press the urgency of this, content creators really cannot
afford to wait, so she has my support and my vote. And indeed,
with the support of both the Conservative and LibDem benches
today, the government could well be defeated and in my view that would
be most welcome.
I'm sure the noble Baroness the Minister doesn't like
me to say, but that is my view.
However, that said, I do think there are some aspects of the noble
Baroness Lady Kidron's amendment which may be at this juncture a
little bit too prescriptive for primary legislation ahead of a
policy decision on the solution for how to copyright, so what I want to focus on briefly is what happens
next, if the government is defeated
tonight. And what I would strongly urge the government not to do is what it can, which is just to remove
the clause that the noble Baroness Lady Kidron would add to the, once
Lady Kidron would add to the, once
it got back down the other end.
I would as the government to bring back an amendment in you. -- In
Leigh. We all want a future for a eyewear the creative industries and
the tech sectors, ' can be confident that the playing field for
competition is fair, and when it comes to the use of copyrighted
content, that they can strike
mutually beneficial deals. We may be a little way off from achieving that way forward, as is reflected in the
government's additions to the bill and the work that it has promised over the next 12 months.
But that
work should not preclude the government taking power in this bill
to bring back secondary to address transparency as soon as it's
finished work client in the
amendment 46. -- The work outlined in amendment 46. Transparency is
needed now and as I have said, it will be relevant to whatever solution the government decides. So a requirement contact in this area
is not unreasonable. And from the perspective of content creators, who
it has to be said may well be immensely powerful in ensuring that
they get publicity and coverage of the cause, the future looks highly
uncertain.
A binding commitment with a deadline to bring forward
transparency regulations, at this juncture, as in whilst this bill is
going through Parliament, is
reasonable if such a new clause is not overly prescriptive. And so that is what I would advise the
government to do next, assuming they are defeated tonight.
I rise to speak as the friend of
18:41
Lord Tarassenko (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
two nice burnouts and I draw the house's attention to the founder of
house's attention to the founder of
the University of Oxford uses IIF healthcare application. And the author of three copyrighted books.
author of three copyrighted books. Since these amendments were last debated in the House of Lords, there has been a lot of high-profile
has been a lot of high-profile comment, but very few attempts, if any, to bring AI developers and
any, to bring AI developers and creators together in the same room.
creators together in the same room. During the same period however, more businesses from the creative industries and the publishing sector have actually agreed content
have actually agreed content licensing deals. That's because access to curated, high-quality
access to curated, high-quality content to fine tune large language models, the step after the
models, the step after the pretraining which then provides higher greasy responses, is increasingly being monetised. Even
increasingly being monetised. Even the Guardian Media Group, a strong supporter of the creative industries, announced in February
the strategic partnership with OpenAI to ensure compensation for
the use of its high quality journalism.
That shows it is
possible, without any change in the law, for the creative industries and
Big Tech companies to come to licensing agreements. The main technological development since our
last debate is the demonstration that training LLMs no longer
requires a massive computer facilities and huge data centres of the Big Tech companies in the US.
Since the beginning of the year, Chinese company deep sea because
least open source LLMs hundreds of
times smaller than the models like
GPT-4.
These models, typically with 10 billion rates, have been developed through the process of distillation, and they achieve
almost the same level of performance
as the hyper- scale models. So why is that important? It means users of LLM no longer have to send queries
to the hyper- scale models which are then processed by OpenAI, Google or
anthropic, using the huge computer facilities, with thousands of GP using the data centres. Instead, any AI developer can now train and run
versions of this LLMs, locally on
their laptops.
Deep sea because the first AI company to show how
powerful the process of distillation
is in the context of LLM. Other companies are jumping on the
bandwagon. A new LLM was created, a model that can be run anywhere from
smartphones to laptops and has the ability to handle text, images and
short videos. The point is that these open source LLMs are now being
used by thousands of AI developers in the UK and elsewhere, who are
training and fine tuning them using content, some of which may be copyrighted, publicly available on
the web.
Training and LLM on the laptop using data from the open web
will become as commonplace as
searching the web. This is already happening, both in our computer science department UK universities
but also within the rich ecosystem of AI start-ups and University spin
out in the UK. A survey of 500 developers in the UKAR ecosystem
carried out by jail partners last month had 94% of them, reporting
that there work relied on AI models built using publicly available data
from the web.
If the data laws in the UK were more restrictive than
elsewhere, 66% of them reported their projects would move to other countries. So we need to consider
the impact on the U.K.'s AI industry
of these transparency provisions. The requirement to provide copyright
owners with information regarding the text and data use in the pretraining, training and fine
tuning of general-purpose AI. The use of content from behind pay walls
or from pirated databases such as
books 3 or Lib Jan is clearly
illegal.
However for data publicly available on the open web would like
to do a simple thought experiment to show that the transparency requirements in amendment 49, A, R
unworkable. In the UK, unlike the
US, there is no copyright database. Usually a copyright rests with the
author of the work there are exceptions. Such as when the work is created by an employee in the course of the job, and copyright may also
be assigned or transferred to a third-party. I'm going to assume it
might take only one second, just one second on average, to ascertain the
copyright status of an article, book, image or video recording on
the web.
Just one second. If it only takes one second, it would require
31 years and eight months to check the copyright status of the 1 billion data points in typical LLM
training. No mind setting up licensing deals with the millions of
rights holders. For the distilled models now being trained or fine- tuned by UK developers, is
excellent, these are 100 times smaller but the copyright status
check would still require 1/3 of the year, still an entirely unworkable
The DCMS task force which the government committed in last week's
debate in the other place, to set up, should work with international bodies, such as the internet engineering task force to
Information in a machine-readable way, using formats such as the creative Commons right expression
language, for example.
That is one suggestion on how copyright, protection may actually be
implemented in the age of AI. There are also bound to be any other helpful suggestions, amongst the 11.5 thousand submissions to the copyright and AI consultation which
closed at the end of February. Entrepreneurs, within the U.K.'s AI industry do not understand why this
amendment has been tabled. Some of them are amongst those who put in a submission to the consultation was
not as one of the signatories related to the DSIT Secretary of State, which was published today
said to me, why have a consultation if restrictive legislation is going to be introduced, before we know about the response to the
consultation? This amendment, Amendment 40 9A, will not prevent UK content creators having their
content creators having their
content scraped, or operating in other jurisdictions.
However, it will harm the development and use of
AI, in the UK. It will make a very difficult, if not impossible, for a UK AI start-up, developer software product, for example for optimising
cancer treatment. Using LMMs,
trained in fine tuned on a combination of our sovereign NHS dataset and the last two seconds of
oncology exports and research. Most of which are copyrighted material. I
agree Amendment 49, applying the
Companies and differently to UK registered companies is attractive.
But there are difficulties, for example what would have happened when a deep mind, a UK company was acquired by Google.
I do not believe
that amendment 40 9A will have much other impact on the big tech
companies. They continue to train their models, outside of the UK. It
is very likely to inflict serious damage to the U.K.'s AI start-up and spin out ecosystem. We should wait for the outcome of the copyright and
AI consultation, engage with the task forces and, with more
appropriate ways of helping both our AI and our creative industries to thrive.
I was IP Minister for nearly 3
18:50
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
years and I been a long-standing
years and I been a long-standing member of the IPP. I was hoping to speak to support the noble Lady,
speak to support the noble Lady, Baroness Kidron and her amendment and my noble friend Lord Camrose and
and my noble friend Lord Camrose and his. What concerns me is we are
witnessing an assault on a sector worth £160 billion to the UK, as we
worth £160 billion to the UK, as we have heard.
Actually, I suspect that is an underestimate, because IP and
is an underestimate, because IP and copyright are to be found in the nooks and crannies of so much of our
nooks and crannies of so much of our life and our industry. There is been
life and our industry. There is been a lot of mention of music and media,
a lot of mention of music and media, nobody has mentioned racehorses, or information on art and antiques, or close to my heart, the design by
close to my heart, the design by young graduates of gorgeous new clothing and fancy footwear, that I
wear.
It is the small, small
operators who are most at risk. That is why I am speaking today. I think
we are going to too slowly. I think amendments have been knocked back, Baroness Kidron has been trying her
hardest, with a great deal of support, right across Britain. And
as time goes by, the AI models are
stealing more of our creativity, hitting UK businesses. I believe
that the government must get on. It
is not easy, but it is a challenge they have got to rise to and rise to very quickly.
very quickly.
18:51
Lord Freyberg (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
I rise to support Baroness Kidron in her amendment, Amendment 49 and I
also want to address the claims that we've heard repeatedly in this debate, the transparency of AI data
is technically unfeasible. This claim forcibly pushed by technology giants, like Google is not only unsupported by evidence, but
deliberately misleading. Someone with a long standing background in
the visual arts and is a member of DACs, the copyright Society have
witnessed how it can be exploited without consent or compensation.
I've listened very carefully to the
concerns, both emails to colleagues today and the letter from entrepreneurs, to the Secretary of
State. Well I deeply respect their expertise, and commitment to
innovation, I must firmly reject their assessment, which echoes the talking points of trillion dollars
to corporations. The claims by tech companies that transparency requirements are technically unfeasible has been thoroughly
debunked. The dataset already meticulously documents over 5 billion images, with granular
detail. Companies operate crawler
services on this dataset, to identify images belonging to specific rights holders.
This irrefutably demonstrates the
transparency and scale is not only possible, but already practised,
when it suits corporate interests. Let's be clear about what is
happening. Seo companies ingesting billions of copyrighted works, without permission or payment.
Claiming it would be too difficult to tell, creators which works have
been taken. This is a theft on an industrial scale, dressed up as the
inevitable technological progress. The claim that these amendments would damage UK AI start-ups are
sparing US technology giants is
entirely backwards.
Transparency would actually level the playing
field, benefiting innovative British companies, while preventing larger firms from exploiting creative
works, without permission. I must respectfully suggest the concerns
about potential harms to AI start- ups should be balanced against the devastating impact on our creative
industries. Thousands of small businesses and individual creators, whose livelihoods depend on proper recognition and compensation for
their work. Their continued viability depends, fundamentally on
protecting intellectual property rights. Without transparency, how can creators even begin to enforce
these rights.
The question answers itself. This isn't about choosing
itself. This isn't about choosing
technology and creativity, it is about ensuring both sectors can thrive, through fair collaboration, based on consent and compensation.
Transparency isn't an obstacle to innovation, it is the foundation upon which responsible, sustainable
innovation is built. Google's preferred approach would reverse the
fundamental basis of UK copyright law. Placing an unreasonable burden on the rights holders to opt out of
on the rights holders to opt out of
having their work stolen.
This approach is unworkable. And would effectively legalise a mass copyright theft, to benefit primarily American technology corporations. Rather than waiting
for a consultation outcome that may
take years, while creative works continue to be misappropriated, this amendment offers a practical step
forward, that benefits both the tears, while upholding existing law.
tears, while upholding existing law. I urge that this House to support amendment 49 I urge that this House
amendment 49 I urge that this House to support amendment 40 -- 49
18:55
Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
Than a Baroness Kidron has open
the floodgates to expressions will of creativity today. I think of taking her amendment. I also thank
the Minister for setting out the government's position and their support for the creative industries.
I suppose I straddle the world of AI and creativity as much as anybody in this House. I co-founded the All-
Party group on AI and I have been a
member of the All-Party intellectual property group is not that is
reflected in my interest both as an adviser on AI policy and regulation
and as chair newly appointed of the
office licensing collecting society.
I do declare those interest My Lords
which are more than merely formal. So, the subject matter of the amendments, in this group, My Lords
are of profound importance for the importance of our creative
industries and the development of AI, in the UK, in terms of the critical intersection of AI training
Law and specifically, the urgent need for transparency. As the number Baroness Kidron has described, the rapid development of AI,
particularly large language models relies heavily on vast volumes of data for training and this is brought into sharp focus the way
copyright law applies to such activity.
Until My Lords it was
impossible to miss the letter, over the weekend, from 400, really
important creatives, media and creative business leaders, urging
creative business leaders, urging
support for her amendment, 49A, in the marshalled List, My Lords. Rights holders from musicians,
authors, and visual artists are
rightly concerned about the use of their copyrighted material, to train AI models, often without permission or renumeration, as we have heard
today, My Lords. They seek greater control over their content and renumeration, when it is used for this purpose, alongside greater
this purpose, alongside greater
I beg to Baroness Kidron, who throughout the passage of this bill has brilliantly championed the cause of creators and the creative industries, in her tabling of a
series of crucial amendments.
Her original report stage amendments passed in this House, but deleted by
passed in this House, but deleted by
the Government in the Commons, then re-tabled in the Commons at report stage, by my honourable friends, aims to make existing UK copyright law enforceable in the age of
generative AI. Core argument behind
those amendments, which, encapsulates the essence of the previous amendments, today, is there innovation in the AI field should
not come at the expense of the individuals and industry creating
original content.
The central plank of the noble Baroness's proposals, today, and one we strongly support, on these benches, is the requirement
for transparency from AI developers, regarding copyrighted material, used in their training data. Remember 49A
specifically requires that the Secretary of State to make regulations, setting out strict
transparency requirements for web trawlers and general-purpose AI
Disclosing the identity and purpose of crawlers used to identify the owners and crucially keeping records
of where and when the copyrighted material is gathered. This transparency is vital for ensuring accountability and enabling copyright holders to identify potential infringements and enforce their rights.
The Minister described
the consultation process, in the
consultation on AI and copyright published last December, that
consultation proposed text and data mining exception which would allow
AI developers to train material, and less the rights holder expressly reserved their rights, or opted out.
The argument against this proposed opt out mechanism are compelling and have been made by many noble Lords
have been made by many noble Lords
today. And have been voiced by many outside as we've seen.
It shifts the burden onto creators to police the use of their work and to actively opt out, placing undue
responsibility on them. This approach undermines the fundamental principles of copyright, effectively
rewarding the widespread harvesting, or scraping of copyrighted material.
It has occurred without permission
or fair remuneration. The proposed text and data mining exception, which it appears that the government is no longer proposing, as the
number Lord Brennan asked, perhaps the Minister can clarify, the
government's position and confirm
that that is indeed the case.
Risks
harming creators of a small group of tech companies. It could erode trust in the AI sector. As the noble
Baroness has observed, this approach is selling the creative industries
down the river. Voluntary measures for transparency, proposed by the government or insufficient, clear
government or insufficient, clear
It is already some point out that
innovative AI developers already demonstrate business models based on licensing datasets from creators,
and indeed the noble Lord pointed that out. Those licenses are
available but I'm afraid the noble
Lord actually misunderstands the way in which collecting societies operate.
Those models are available and collecting societies could
administer them perfectly well and can testify to that. This proves that opt out is not the only viable path and it's notable that
organisations such as UKAR do not support the government's opt out
position -- UK AI. Tom Flagg, CEO said UK AI concludes that existing copyright law is adequate and should
not be changed to an opt out model.
The proposed opt out model would significantly harm the creative sectors to achieve minimal gain for
a small group of gold changing the copyright law will erode public
trust and create unnecessary conflict.
This will undermine
economic growth more than any benefits the opt out could deliver. And that is UK AI which represent a
very large group of AI developers. We have however seen some positive
developments and I do welcome the amendments that the government have
tabled which require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on the use of copyright works
in AI development and an economic assessment. The should have been offered at the very beginning of the AI and copyright consultation but they don't go far enough.
Commitments along with lines do not provide the necessary legal
framework for the immediate transparency needed to protect creators. We have heard from noble
Viscount Camrose in opposing his
amendments which seeks to ensure the
report considers aspects like the -- impact on UK copyright holders and identify barriers to market entry
for developers. We welcome these and indeed the change of position by the Conservative frontbench Germany on
the absolute need for transparency which I'm sure is very welcome on
the benches behind him.
His amendments were strengthen the government proposed reporting but
they remain additions to the reporting requirement, not the substantive legal change that is required. What is needed is
substantive provision in the bill itself that mandates transparency
and this is precisely what Baroness Kidron's amendment supported strongly on these benches throughout
the passage of this bill aim to achieve. They seek to inject
transparency in what has been described as a clandestine lab box, making it technically feasible and
easy for rights holders to understand when and how their work
is being used.
So I would say to the government, and I do very much like the phraseology used by the noble Lord Lord Brennan, get on the bus,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords. I did stand up when Lord Clement-Jones stood up but unfortunately as is so often in my life he completely ignored me. I'm
life he completely ignored me. I'm going to sleep in after him and before our frontbench and I declare
before our frontbench and I declare my measure of interest is adviser to a company that seeks to pay royalty
19:05
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
a company that seeks to pay royalty is to creators for the use of the content in AI models. It was good to
see not only the Secretary of State being cast standing at the bar but also the creative industries minister, Chris Bryant, shows that
something is up and they were very clearly wanting to be seen by the
400 also creatives that roach the newspapers over the weekend expressing concerns about the government AI legislation. And also
government AI legislation. And also
to see as we all did carry favour with Baroness Kidron who has led so
well on so many of these issues.
As she was speaking, and making the point that creatives and technologists are not a part of but
not a part at all but are together,
it reminds me that I was the creative industries minister and the reason I became a technology sister
is that I was the only minister meeting the technology companies and the reason I was meeting the technology companies was because the
technology companies were busily ripping off the intellectual of the creative industries. At that time in
2010, you would sit down with Google and say, anyone can search for any
material on your website and come up with it illegally and stream it and download it without paying the
creators of that material.
They said
that they would not do anything. The Labour government had passed
legislation which was included in the wash up in 2010 which
effectively criminalised, to coin a phrase, the teenager in their bedroom downloading the music just as perhaps some of us who were teenagers might have taped music
from the radio the past. I knew when I became minister that legislation was completely unworkable, it was
pointless to be prosecuting teenagers and you should be taking on Big Tech. But actually the music
industry found a solution by using the fraud act, and began to take
action in the courts against websites that were completely ripping off IP which allowed courts to order those websites to be
blocked.
I also knew that there would be no solution until there was
a commercial solution. And in fact that commercial solution has come about. In 2010 people were
predicting the entire death of intellectual property, the death of the music industry, the death of the
film industry, the death of television. They have never been healthier because there are commercial models because more
people are prepared to pay a subscription to Spotify or Netflix
or Amazon Prime to get great content for a reasonable price.
So a
commercial solution is possible when people work together. And it was interesting hearing Lord Clement- Jones talking about the opt out
model because the opt out model implies that you can have a
conversation between Big Tech and the creators, the creators can either opt out or opt in. We have
referred earlier to licensing deals. It is, if anyone reads the FT
weekend, in fact everybody in this chamber does, it is the Bible of the
chattering classes. Sam Walker is of course lunch with the FT and an honour he shares with Baroness
Kidron, I texted her when she had lunch with the empty, and I said that is better than a period.
At the
beginning of the luncheon says the FT has a licensing deal with OpenAI. It is possible to have licensing deals. What I think none of us can
really stand as the other hypocrisy of people saying that we have two, for the national interest, have to
rip off intellectual property. It is completely hypocritical and nonsensical. You wouldn't find a single text you saying, I think it's
fine if people take our patterns because that is how you get economic
growth, just take my pattern.
In fact you will not find CEO saying
that, you will hear them saying in court I have been ripped off and I want my money back. That is
intellectual property that Big Tech is prepared to fight for yet it is still prepared to tell us that...
They can only grow by ripping off the IP of the creative industries.
And let's face it, there may be a start it's that need AI, it's
But we are still talking about Big
Tech, we are talking about Microsoft, OpenAI, ex-AI, and matter.
You talking about the role of the United States. Donald Trump wants to make Hollywood great again.
This is where he could start. This is where he could start.
19:09
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, firstly, of course I would like to thank all noble Lords from across the House for their many
adequate and well-made speeches. And of course, the government share with
a passion that has been displayed
About the creative sector, we all want to see them flourish. We want to find ways to make that a reality.
What we are talking about here is the practicalities of how we can do that in a proper way and that is what we are addressing delay.
Nobody
doubts the absolutely fantastic contribution the creative sector makes to the UK and I thought that I would set out some of that, some of
those issues in my opening speech but I'm very happy to confirm it
again. In terms of the practicalities of this, the amendments tabled by the noble Lady
Baroness Kidron sets out wide- ranging obligations on witnesses who
make AI models available in the UK and would require the Secretary of State to nominate a body to enforce
them.
Of course I agree with the
noble Lady that the creative sector have always been early adopters of technology and that the creative and AI sectors go hand-in-hand together,
and number of noble Lords made that point and it's a point very well
made. And I also completely recognise the value generated by the creators, again a point well made a number of noble Lords, and their
great cultural and economic contributions to society, as the
noble Lord Lord Black, Lord Berkeley, Lord Brennan and many other speakers spoke about.
It's the government a few, and moreover
morally right that creators can licence and be paid for the use of
the content. The government has always been clear we want to see
more licensing by the AI sector. The obligations in the noble Baroness kitchen's amendment they would affect a wide range of businesses
and would require detailed disclosure of information. This would include a mechanism to
identify individual works but it's
very uncertain whether it would be possible to meet this requirement when a significant proportion of the material on the Internet doesn't
have clear method data to facilitate this.
The scale of the impact on
those businesses is unknown. But without a proper impact assessment
is a real risk that it could lead to AI innovators including many home- grown British companies thinking
twice about whether they wish to develop and provide their services
in the UK. We agree that if transparent, transfers the obligations are to be created in
this way, they will need to be
provision for their oversight and enforcement. But that isn't something that can be dropped on the first brigade that comes to mind.
There is currently nobody with the skills and resources to perform this function. There needs to be a proper
discussion about funding, clarity over what enforcement powers are needed and a whole range of other
questions that need to be answered. It should also be noted that one of
the main issues that creative industries are struggling with at the moment is enforcement of their
rights under the current rules. And as has been said earlier, and I'm
happy to reiterate it, we are not saying that the copyright laws are broken, it's the question of
enforcing that's at the heart.
Whilst transparency would help with
knowing what is being used, it alone will not be a silver bullet for small creators and businesses
seeking redress through a legal system. There are as many noble Lords will know life court cases in
train at the moment both the UK and in other key jurisdictions. And of course I and the government
recognise the urgency of the problem, as fantastically put by the
noble Baroness Benjamin. This is why DCMS and the setback ministers are
parroting meetings with the creative and AI stakeholders to discuss potential solutions as a top
priority.
And indeed have already held meetings and discussions with
both sectors in September last year.
We have moved quickly to consult and hosted roundtables and bilateral
meetings with creatives and their representatives will stop these have been a great value and we will
continue to hold those meetings. However, all these moving parts mean that something needs to be developed
as a full working approach. The noble Lady Baroness Kidron's
amendment does not offer an instant solution either. Instead asking the government, with regulations in 12
months.
We cannot make such significant interventions without
properly understanding the impact. This is why our position is to report on force substantive issues
within 12 months and set out our proposals in that time. And as I said in my opening speech, our
proposals will be based on the evidence from the 11,500 responses,
evidence from the 11,500 responses,
and indeed will concentrate on what works rather than any preferred option. As noble Lord Lord Tarassenko said the solution must
indeed involve preachers and AI developers being in the same room and this is what we will endeavour
to do.
I agree with the noble Lord that AI shouldn't become a way to
whitewash copyright privacy, the government supports strong action against copyright piracy and we will continue to do so. I also agree it's
important to support transparency. I can't say this strongly enough.
Overlords seem to suggest that we were taken that seriously. Of course we are stop the government fully
supports and is encouraged by the work of the IETF and other fora who
are developing new standards to help identify meta data which will make
this easier.
I would also add that there has been some misinformation on the government's position. Let me
on the government's position. Let me
be clear, as I say, there has not been proposed any changes to the copyright in this bill, there has not been an opt out system put into
the bell and copyright continues to apply for the use of materials for AI training as it did before this bill was introduced. So what we're
looking at is as I say, an issue of enforcement. I would also like to
turn to amendments 46, A, and B, the
marshalled list, the Sudan extra elements to the government report including a plan to reduce barriers
to market entry for AI developers, the impact on UK copyright holders
of extraterritorial uses of their work and technological standards
They also They also define They also define what They also define what might They also define what might be They also define what might be in scope.
I recognise that these amendments are constructive and I thank the noble Lord for the 40 is
put into them. I would suggest that they are already covered by the government amendment. In the case of watermarking as I said earlier, that
may not be possible for the government to meet. Amendment 46 a will require the government to
publish a plan to reduce barriers relating to copyright and data
access. But that is already the main focus of subsection 3B. Any report
under that section, would naturally consider include consideration could
be done to improve the situation.
Looking at the impact of extraterritorial activity on copyright holders. This is already in report. If it is a useful I am
happy to state on the record that
the report should include these international effects. The other
element of amendment 40 6B is to require the government to report on technological standards for machine
readable watermarks, identifying licence content, including the publication of the proposed standard
-- 46, D. Technological standards
and measures support holders and their content including access to
that content and its licensing and is very important.
This is what the government has committed to reporting on the technological
measures and standards in a clause 46, subsection 8, this will include consideration of watermarks and
their use, to identify content and
relevant licensing information. As I've said before and I think the noble Lord acknowledged I feel that
the proposal for the government to publish a standard in this area may be unworkable. We are encouraged by
standards that are emerging in this
space. These are rightly been developed by industry.
The government may indeed want to
recommend the development of one or two industry standards and implement
measures to do this. A government standard may well not be the right
approach on this. Our reporting commitment will however allow us to consider this and other ways to achieve the objectives of this amendment. And will make recommendations on technological
recommendations on technological
standards. In light of this I would request the noble Lord withdrawals of those proposed amendments, but I would very much welcome a conversation with him about the
material he would like to see included in those reports, before officials are tasked to produce
them.
The finish I would like to reiterate that the government is not making any changes to copyright as
making any changes to copyright as
part of the law. We are committed,
instead, to a proper robust and transparent approach to determining the right policy, which will deliver the best outcome for all parties. Allow us to support both the AI and
Allow us to support both the AI and
And we won't be developing this policy in isolation. As a my noble friend, the Minister, stated in the other place, we have a task force of several departments working hard on
this.
And we will be engaging with experts from the relevant sectors through a working group that is being set up as well as talking to international parties. There are
lots of voices in this debate we want to make sure we have heard all
of them. To be clear this is not a case of picking a side or putting AI developers against creators. These sectors are already working together and have the potential to really
supercharge each other. We want to support them both in a way that is fair to everyone involved.
So my Lords, I hope the noble Lords will
consider withdrawing their amendments and give us the space and time to bring all those forces
together, to find a real proper workable solution to the challenges
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of the been debated this afternoon. Big to move. The question is that the House do agree with the comments
the House do agree with the comments on the amendment 44. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The
the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 45, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, moved
**** Possible New Speaker ****
formally. I beg to move formally that the
House do agree with the Commons in their amendments 45.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
their amendments 45. The question is that the laws do
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the laws do agree with the Commons. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content" Of the contrary, "Not content".
Of the contrary, "Not content". Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, moved formally? The question is that the
formally? The question is that the House and a group with the Commons and their amendments 46? Amendment
46 amendment 40 6A.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Having heard the turn of the debate, it is clear that the focus and energy of the House is more on the noble Lady, Baroness Kidron's amendment. I am very happy to take
amendment. I am very happy to take up the noble Lady the Ministers offer of a further meeting and I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
offer of a further meeting and I make leave to withdraw my amendment. Not moved. And then it is not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not moved. And then it is not move. Amendment 40 6B, Viscount
move. Amendment 40 6B, Viscount Camrose. Not move. The question is that amendment 46 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say,
many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.
content". The contents have it. Amendment 47 Baroness Jones of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Whitchurch? With the leave of the House appeared to me formally that the House do agree with comments in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
their amendments 47 and 48 en bloc. The question is that the House do
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the House do agree with the Commons on 4748 en bloc? As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The
contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 49,
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch? Speak the question is that the housed do
agree with Commons macro and amendment 49?
19:23
Baroness Kidron (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
I just want to thank everyone for their contributions, fantastic
contributions from all sides of the House. And then I want to say very
simply to the Government, I understand that you're trying to collect evidence but the evidence is
in front of your eyes. Whole sale stealing of UK copyright has gone
on, will go on, until we take action. I'm afraid a task force, consultation, review, listening is
not adequate, to the moment. And I will just push back on this one thing, the Government did pick
aside, it has forgotten it had a preferred option, but it did for many months have a preferred option,
but this House spoke.
I ask all noble Lords, would other side of the
House use it, please, please back,
19:25
Division
-
Copy Link
show the creative industries that
show the creative industries that this House has their back. A 49
this House has their back. A 49
The question is that motion The question is that motion 49A The question is that motion 49A 49
The question is that motion 49A 49 be agreed to. The question will be decided by division, I will advise
decided by division, I will advise
the House when the voting is open.
The The question
The question is The question is 49A The question is 49A that The question is 49A that be The question is 49A that be agreed
to.
As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary,
"Not content". The concerns will go to the right by the thrown the not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The question The question is The question is that The question is that motion The question is that motion 49, The question is that motion 49, A
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that motion 49, A
**** Possible New Speaker ****
They They have They have voted They have voted content, They have voted content, 272, They have voted content, 272, not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
They have voted content, 272, not content, 125, so the contents have
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment Amendment 50. Amendment 50. Amendment Amendment 50. Amendment 50,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 50. Amendment 50, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch. With the leave of the House I beg to move formally that has to agree with Commons in the amendments 50
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and 51 en bloc. The question is that the House
agree... As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.
Amendment 52, Baroness Jones of
Whitchurch moved formally. The questions that house to agree with the Commons in the amendment 52. Motion 42, A.
Motion 42, A.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It's a little time has a lapse but I beggarly to test the opinion of the House. The question is that motion 52, A
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that motion 52, A be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The
contrary, "Not content". The question will be decided by division and I will advise the House when
and I will advise the House when
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lords, My Lords, the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, the questions My Lords, the questions that motion 52, A, be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content",
are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The The contents will go to the
The The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not
The The question The question is The question is that The question is that motion
The question is that motion 52A The question is that motion 52A be
My My Lords, My Lords, they My Lords, they have My Lords, they have voted My Lords, they have voted content
164, not contents 152, so, the
164, not contents 152, so, the Amendment 53, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch.
19:48
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Big to me that the Holes do agree
with the comments in the amendment 54, with the leave of the House will also speak to amendment 54 to 74 and
amendment 79. We all agree that
tackling the abuse of intimate images and image deepfakes is
incredibly important. I'm delighted that these provisions are returning to this House having been strengthened in the other place and enabling us once again to discuss
key issues. First of all I would like to take this moment to extend my heart felt thanks to Baroness
Owen for her dedication on this issue.
I'm also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Pannick, who is unfortunately not in his place today, Lord Clement-Jones and
others, who have generously given much of their time to discussing
this issue, with me. Their engagement with me and my
ministerial colleagues has been instrumental, as we have refined our approach to this important topic and
I think it has been a fantastic example of parliamentarians working, across the House to get policy, in
the strongest possible position. During the third reading, in this
House, I committed that the government would bring forward further amendments, in the Commons,
including on the issue of solicitation and time limits.
We have delivered on those commitments.
Let me begin with the Commons
Amendment number 56, introducing the requested offence, which addresses the commitment made on solicitation.
This replaces and delivers the same intent as the amendment your
Lordships are made, to the bill. It is comprehensive, comprehensively criminalising asking someone to
create a deep fake intimate image,
for you, without the consent of the person, in the image, or your belief
in their consent. This is an offence regardless of where the person you are asking is based, or where the
image was in fact created.
Turning
to the commitment on time limits. Commons Amendment 63 was passed to
extend the statutory time limit, so that prosecutions can be brought at any date, that is both within six
months from when sufficient evidence comes to the prosecutor's knowledge and within three years, from when
the offence was committed. This
means that perpetrators will not get away with creating or requesting the creation of a deep fake, just because no one knew about it, at the
time. A further change, made in the
Commons was Commons Amendment 55, to add defence and reasonable excuse to
both the creating and requesting offences.
I know this is likely to be the subject of much debate today,
so I will spend some time setting out the government's position. First I want to reassure that the
government's priority is to create comprehensive, robust offences that
ensure perpetrators cannot evade
justice. It is not our intention that the defence provides them with
Is important to stress, for the creation of the section defects
which are so extraordinarily harmful. In our view, it is extremely unlikely that there will ever be a situation where someone creating a deep fake, that is a
sexually explicit, will be able to prove that they have a reasonable
excuse.
Indeed, we anticipate that
defences would apply, wholly in an extremely narrow set of circumstances, such as a fought
covert law enforcement operations, it is also our view that for a very
small minority of cases, such as the creation of genuinely satirical images that are not sexually
explicit, that relates to the
creation of this is needed for it to be compatible with the UN convention
of human rights. Without the reasonable excuse defence, we consider that the creating offence
will not be legally robust.
And that any legal challenge to its
compatibility with article 10 is likely to be successful. This will not provide the best protection for
the victims. Let me labour there is a very important point. Our
intention is to create a robust offences that will ensure that those
who request intimate deep fake images, without consent, particularly sexual deep fake images
particularly sexual deep fake images
face grave consequences. I also want to stress that abuses will not be able to evade justice, by using
spurious excuses.
The defendant must provide enough evidence to prove
that the creation, or that particular request, without consent
was reasonable. They cannot just say this is art, or satire without sufficient compelling evidence. It will be for the courts, not for the
defendant to decide whether some is
in fact art, or satire. From my many years as a magistrate, I can also reassure this House that it is
simply not the case that the defendant can offer up any excuse and assert that it is reasonable.
The CPS will challenge spurious
arguments and the court are extremely well equipped and used to
dealing with such arguments quickly. Government, the government shares in this House is a desire to ensure
that criminal law and these defences, in particular work as well as the government intends. I
therefore speak to support the noble
therefore speak to support the noble
, by putting it on the face of the bill. As part of this review, we
will carry out targeted engagement
with external stakeholders and subject matter experts, to ensure that we make a broad and informed
assessment of the defence.
I hope this addresses the concerns, about
these defences. The best way to protect victims is to ensure that Parliament passes legally sound
robust offences, that can bring perpetrators to justice. And I urge
this House to do that by supporting 55C 56D and.
19:56
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I declare my interest as a guest
of Google at AI policy conference. I would start by thanking the level of
the Minister and Minister Davies Jones for taking the time to engage on this issue and for their endless patience. I know they have worked
incredibly hard to secure progress on this. I'm grateful for the
efforts. We are down to the issue of where we believe a person can have a
reasonable excuse to create content that looks like a photograph or film of another person, without their consent.
Noble Lords will recall that this House overwhelmingly
indicated that they did not believe a reasonable excuse should be included as a defence and highlighted concern that it may be
misinterpreted, or viewed too widely. I have concerns over the
position of the government outlined in their letter from Minister Brian to the joint committee on human rights. Mr Bryant argues that the
inclusion of reasonable excuses are
necessary as without it, the offence would breach the UC HR, due to limiting the person's freedom to
create photorealistic, satirical art of scenarios such as the person on the toilet, or in boxer shorts.
Additionally they argued the need to
be able to ratify against this defence. I share the Government is a
strong desire that we do not want this bill to have a memorandum on
it, warning that it may breach the ECHR. However precarious the
arguments laid out maybe. Because I do not want those who abuse women in this way to claim that the prosecution may contravene a human
rights. With this in mind, I turned to my first amendments, 55 With this in mind, I turned to my first
amendments, 50 5C and 50 6B.
Offering the government of the implementation of reasonable excuse,
for both creation and requesting offences after two years. I'm grateful to the level of the
Minister for the compromise. He will know the conflicts I feel about this
issue and the great concern I have that without guardrails, reasonable excuse may be used to allow those
who abuse others in a similar way to escape justice. I know the noble
That the courts will be used to hearing precarious excuses. However my concern is the noble Lords no, the image based on sexual abuse has been consistently misunderstood,
with the Law Commission themselves only arguing three years ago the harmful creating a non- sexual content was not strong enough to
content was not strong enough to
criminalise.
They found a steady year-on-year increase in recorded offences for image-based abuse, only 4% of the offenders would charge.
Even when a conviction has been a achieved only 3% of cases result in the perpetrator being deprived of
the images used for the offence. We see consistent failure by prosecutors to understand and tackle
the issue. I therefore have a very real concern that by allowing
reasonable excuse to sit in this offence, we risk it being misunderstood and the offence being
undermined. Further whilst I'm grateful for the offer of a review,
I am worried that if after two years we find reasonable excuse is allowing perpetrators to evade justice, there will not be a
legislative vehicle in which to
correct the issue in the time it takes to correct may be lengthy.
I would be grateful if the noble of the Minister could offer reassurance
on this point. Additionally, I am concerned by the very premise of the argument that legislation, without reasonable excuse would breach the
ECHR. Having sought legal counsel, the noble Lord Pannick AC who
apologises for not being here this evening, he believes that the inclusion of reasonable excuse, in the defence is not necessary in
order to be compliant with the ECHR. The noble Lord Pannick advised, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights has already highlighted in their letter, the Government has previously stated that prosecutorial
discretion is sufficient to ensure that an offence that could violate a
qualified right under the ECHR is nevertheless compliant with it.
And additionally, all legislation must, so far as possible, be read and given effect to, in a manner which
is compliant with the ECHR, according to section 3 of the Human Rights Act. Even if the government,
even if there were to be a prosecution in the sort of circumstances contemplated by the government, the defendant could rely on article 10 rights. Thus meaning an all-encompassing reasonable
excuses not necessary. Additionally,
I would be grateful if the noble of the Minister, could outline to the House reasons why tech companies cannot rating by prompting with the
images who do consent.
Therefore not requiring a reasonable excuse should
the role fail and a knuckle creating the content it is trying to avoid. I
would go as far as to say that testing prompts on a model, using the image of a person who does not consent would be deeply unethical.
It is my view, it is my belief in the view of the NAB Lord Pannick and
the noble Baroness Lady Chakrabarti that such specific examples do not
justify general reasonable excuse. To quote my noble friend and human rights advocate, Baroness
Chakrabarti spurious ECHR arguments
for weakening cyber sex offences do not help the cause of those seeking to defend human rights from its many
We are talking about this with fortunately sexist forms of abuse and it is of huge concern that the government's view that satire may be
a reasonable excuse, legitimising
the continued abuse of women in the public eye, by allowing the possibility that photorealistic images and videos may be created of
them on the toilet, in their underwear, in order to not breach
the creative freedom of expression
under the ECHR.
Not a cartoon, a photorealistic image. However, given
the place we are in, I have tabled further compromise amendment to 50 5A the uses the examples laid out by
the government that seeks to limit the scope of that reasonable excuse only and how a narrow set of cases
stop reduces the definition of intimate state in the Sexual Offences Act to ensure that
reasonable excuse cannot be used as a Trojan horse. It means that under no circumstances would anyone be
allowed to use reasonable excuse if they had created content were person
was participating in an act which a reasonable person would consider to
be a sexual act.
Or the person doing the thing which a reasonable person
would consider to be sexual. However it would allow for the circumstances that the government suggests required to be compliant with the
ECHR, such as images of people toileting or inbox shorts. However
it puts cartwheels around it to ensure no content is created where a person has been given less coverage
in the same or greater extent than would typically be covered by underwear or to cover a person's
genitals, buttocks or rests as the case may be.
-- Rests. While I'm
unhappy that any reasonable excuse is included the 6 to put guardrails and prevent a Trojan horse at inside
the offence. My final amendment, 50
the offence. My final amendment, 50
Noble Lords will have heard me speak on multiple occasions about the sickeningly degrading nature of forums where this content is
created., Requested. I'm grateful
for the way the government is listened to get this amendment to the place it is however I cannot
envisage any reasonable excuse for a person to request this content of another without their consent.
Jodie
the survivor who inspired this offence had to endure degrading content of her being requested on online forums and said, the
inclusion of reasonable excuse defence undermines the very purpose of this offence, survivors should
not be forced to navigate yet
another legal loophole that allows perpetrators to justify abuse. Prosecutorial discretion would exist to protect legitimate cases, this
clause risks giving abuses cover and eroding trust in the law. The law
eroding trust in the law. The law
My understanding is that the government does not believe the removal of reasonable excuse in a separate offence would breach the
ECHR.
I'd be very grateful if the government would accept this amendment in order to make this offence as comprehensive as possible and ensure that no abuser slips through the net. I conclude by
asking the Minister to give his assurance that were reasonable excuse to remain in these offences
that no court in England and Wales would interpret reasonable excuse as
a perpetrator claiming they were creating content for artistic purposes. The baseline should always
be a woman's consent. There is nothing more important.
20:05
Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I rise to pay tribute to the
noble Lady Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge. We need to be crystal-clear
that we would that would not be here, we would not have come as far
but for her work. Her entry into your Lordship's House was greeted by
the most shocking barrage of
misogynistic innuendo and abuse. Including, from sexagenarian veteran
of progressive journalism, you really ought to have known better.
It was ghastly to watch.
However, it
has been a joy of equal measure to witness the noble lady's response to
her critics. The best kind of response. This one. For with her
campaign, supported by supporters
across the House, looking no Lord Clement-Jones, but across the house,
and all her supporters in civil
society and in the Academy, she has made, in less than two years, a
greater contribution to the most vital parts of the work of this
House, the legislative work of this House.
A greater contribution in less than two years than many make
in decades. So perhaps the young have something to teach their elders
after all. And about the new
continent of the Internet in particular, the all too lawless
continent of the Internet that we have been discussing for some time
today. After nearly 30 years of the interface between criminal policy
and the ECHR, I share the analysis that harm caused by this 21st-
century cybersex offence, the analysis offered by the noble Lady
Owen and by noble Lord Pannick.
By
contrast, I'm afraid, I fear that Whitehall has displayed a breathtaking lack of empathy, for
the mostly women and girl victims of this conduct. A lack of empathy at
times verging on the produce. And
this has gone on for some years --
verging on the obtuse. Hence, by the way, the time it took for the government to agree to the offence being imprisonable, but I'm glad we
finally got there. Now, at the 11th
hour, I, too, fear the sheer breadth of the government's reasonable
excuse defence.
Which I think might drive a coach and horses through the
protection. This kind of degrading
conduct is no light-hearted matter. To create a deepfake intimate image
without a person's consent is capable of destroying their dignity,
the mental health, a lie. -- Their life. More broadly it is capable of
changing the whole flavour of our society, in the classroom, in the
workplace, wherever men and women rub along together. That is what is
at stake. It was a very unsettling
experience, even more than that.
Reasonable excuse defences are
appropriate and necessary, in the context of broad, strict liability offences, capable of catching
otherwise innocent behaviour. So the
classic example is a strict liability offence of being in
possession of a blade public place. If we think about that my Lords, that that reasonable excuse defence,
any of us could be criminalised on the way back from the kitchen
department at John Lewis. There's a novice reason for reasonable excuse
defence to that strict liability event -- there is an obvious reason.
I put it to the House that we would not dream of a reasonable excuse defence to sexual assault. The
offence requires intention, action
and the sexualised aspect. Once these are established, there simply
is no reasonable excuse. I believe
that the creation of a deepfake intimate image is equivalent to
sexual assault if it is without
consent. The government, and learning, is apparently considered about freedom of expression in the context of creating deepfake
intimate images without someone's consent.
Let's please remember that
freedom of expression is not an
absolute. It must be balanced against a portion of interference to protect the rights of others. Hence
breach of copyright, sorry to go back to that one, child pornography,
etc etc. All over the world, including in the United States,
famously the land of the first amendment. So I'm afraid I really
best price my noble friend the Minister -- I must press my noble friend the Minister to explain in
some detail, more than we have heard so far, why the noble Lady Baroness
Owen is tighter reasonable excuse defences, of red teaming, and
political satire, don't do the trick.
In other words, what are
these other reasonable excuses for
pernicious conduct of this kind? And why any reasonable excuse for the
solicitation of events? Where is the freedom of expression in soliciting someone else creating this deepfake
image? I notice the introduction of this concern about COVID policing, I
think my noble friend the Minister raised COVID policing, but surely he
raised COVID policing, but surely he
recalls the COVID human intelligence act, very controversial, I'm still very concerned about it, act, off 2020 which allows the authorities to
grant advanced immunity to people
committing criminal conduct in the course of their COVID surveillance.
I'm a bit concerned about that, suddenly popping up as a reasonable
excuse of government at the 11th hour on this offence. I'm afraid
that without further specifics, I'm really concerned about the impression the government just
doesn't get it. But it's not totally
understanding what is being
perpetrated online. And it's not properly taking the protection of
women and girls sufficiently seriously. And I would so regret that. I would so regret that. This
is the cold face of human rights at this moment in the 21st century so I really hope there is still time for
really hope there is still time for the government to listen further to the compelling argument of the noble
the compelling argument of the noble Lady Baroness Owen and think again.
Lady Baroness Owen and think again.
20:13
Baroness Kidron (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
The noble Lady Baroness
Chakrabarti has said everything I was going to say, and more, and better. So I really just want to
rise to pay tribute to the noble Baroness Lady Owen, of Alderley
Edge, and to say I come to, have witnessed, a forensic fight over the last few months and admire her
last few months and admire her hugely for a and I congratulate her
hugely for a and I congratulate her for getting this far. I share all the concerns that both of the noble lady's have expressed, but just in
lady's have expressed, but just in case I don't have the opportunity again, congratulations and really extraordinary work, extraordinary
campaigning.
campaigning.
20:14
Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
It's a pleasure to follow the
three noble Baronesses, and are, too, want to start by congratulating noble Baroness are in for her magnificent and successful campaign
to outlaw the making and requesting of nonconsensual images. First with
her private spill and then amendments to this bill, and she has footage with huge skill and
determination, and rightly she has pushed into the wire in terms of
wanting the most robust offence and the tightest defences possible. And
I also want to thank the Minister for his flexibility, that he has shown, so far, with the emphasis on
so far.
The amendments that the noble Baroness has put forward
today, I now represent a compromise given strong and rather extraordinary opinion of the
Attorney-General, and the defence of reasonable excuse is needed for the defence to be compliant with the
ECHR, that therefore the whole bill risks being non-compliant if that
isn't contained in the defence for
these offences. That is the equivalent of a legal recall. -- A
legal brick wall. And despite what I thought was an excellent opinion
from Professor Claire McGlynn, which in my view demolished the Attorney-
General's case, which seems to be based on ensuring the ability of Big
Tech companies to read team that models on images used without
consent, which is rather peculiar
basis.
Why can't the Big Tech companies use images with consent?
And therefore they would then beat red teaming in a rather different
I did find the exchange of correspondence, the noble Baroness
is referred to rather baffling. She is entirely right to put forward her compromise and seeking escape with a
reasonable excuse to only a narrow
set of cases that the government has outlined. Especially given the fact that the government, as previously stated, that prosecutorial discretion is sufficient to ensure
that a defence that could qualify under the ECHR is nevertheless
compliant with it.
And, of course,
she is right to require the review of the way the defence operates, My Lords. As she says, as regards to
her amendment fifty-five a, it uses
the definition as she said in her opening speech. It uses an intimate state in the Sexual Offences Act to ensure that reasonable excuse cannot
be used, as a Trojan horse. In addition,, in principle, we very
much support her amendment, fifty- six a. It is clear that the reasonable excuse is not required
for the requesting offence, to be compliant with the EHRC the stop
that should be deleted, in our view and we agree with that, My Lords.
There are, however even, where we have got to so far going to be many people who will be grateful for her
efforts, given an extraordinary one
in fourteen adults have experienced threats to share intimate images in England and Wales, rising to one in
seven among young women. As we know there is a clear link between gender-based violence and image-
based abuse and a great many women will feel safer as a result of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
noble Baroness is efforts. I happened to be in the House when Baroness Owen was taking her
20:18
Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
when Baroness Owen was taking her Private Members' Bill and I remember
very well the reply given by my noble friend, the Minister, to her,
to her bill. And therefore, it is a great achievement that this has
become part of government legislation, but not complete. We
have just heard, my noble friend,
Baroness Chakrabarti argue and I can only adopt entirely, she has always been a very much better advocate
than me. I can only adopt entirely
what she says and persuade a very reasonable Minister my noble friend has always been a very reasonable
Minister, that he acquiesces to this argument, notwithstanding the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
advice. I just wanted to declare my
20:19
Baroness Cash (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I just wanted to declare my interest as a commissioner at the
interest as a commissioner at the EHRC, first, and I've also been a campaigner and defender of free
speech. I do not approach this subject are likely, at all. I have some sympathy with the government's
position, that reasonable excuse is required to be compatible with
article 10. However, the definition of being as broad as it is, it does
reinforce the worries of the noble Baroness Owen and of Lady
Chakrabarti.
I wasn't really clear,
I'm concerned though, as noble colleagues have already alluded to
why the defence is drafted so widely. I wasn't sure whether this
was coming from EU law and if that were the case, I wanted to draw the
house's attention to the very most recent EU directive on violence against women and girls. And
preventing it. And if we look at
that directive, clause 19, section
19, they have unequivocally decided that deepfakes should be
criminalised and that such
production, manipulation, I'm reading from section 19, should include the fabrication of deepfakes, particularly where these resemble existing objects, places
and so on.
They then go on in a section 20 of the directive. I
appreciate of course that we are no longer bound Bailly law. Given that this will be applied by the ECHR, under which we do still operate. It
is interesting to note that under
section 20 -- EU law. They have knowledge to the article 10 obligation. But have narrowly
defined it. I have a reason to draw attention to this and to ask the
government that they do take it into account and will reassure this House
that they will urge guidance to be issued, if this defence has to go
forward, as is currently drafted.
Any reasonable excuse, defence,
retained in this clause is clearly
retained in this clause is clearly confined, by guidance issued, as as
soon as possible, by the CPS.
20:21
Lord Markham (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend, Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge, her amendments fall into categories and we support all
her amendments. I would like to start by joining Baroness
Chakrabarti and others, in terms of paying tribute to her tenacity and
by standing up for women who should not have to live in fear of becoming victims of sexually explicit
deepfakes. As mentioned, she has won the deep respect of this House and
at the same time, one many, many
friends from her action.
And I think
the cross-party support that she has managed again for this, I believe it shows that this House at its best. A House that I am proud to be a member
House that I am proud to be a member
of. Firstly, my noble friend has tabled reviews to ensure the offence that is being created as a result of her tireless campaigning is effective. We support her in these
motions and we agree with her that we must do everything we can to ensure the law is robust and
effective, in protecting women.
Secondly, like many others, I have
been puzzled by the EH CR reasonable
excuse approach being used by the government and it was very helpful, as ever, have experts on hand, in
this matter and Baroness Cash, to be able to bring her expertise and
agree with the position that whilst we understand it it is a very, very
widely drawn, as is currently set up. Again, I think it is very sensible that what my noble friend
sensible that what my noble friend
is trying to do, in this, by seeking to tighten those definitions of a reasonable excuse and remove the reasonable excuse, in the case of requesting a sexually explicit deepfakes in her amendments fifty-
deepfakes in her amendments fifty- five K and fifty-six A.
I completely understand what she's brought these
understand what she's brought these amendments and why they would appear
amendments and why they would appear to be instead of the reviews, we for my noble friend is a right to challenge the inclusion of reasonable excuse as it relates to
reasonable excuse as it relates to these affixes. And with that she has
complete support. complete support.
20:24
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, I have listened
carefully to the arguments of noble Lords, in this debate. Particularly
the arguments in favour of the noble
Baroneseses amendment fifty-five B, which seeks to replace the
reasonable excuse defence to the creative offence with any targeted offence for routine software testing
and reasonable political satire. We share the noble Baroness as a desire to ensure any offence to the
Operates tightly, only a narrow and limited circumstances would a person have a reasonable excuse for the creation of such images, without consent.
We believe that is how our reasonable excuse defence will
apply, impact those, which is why the government believe that the
the government believe that the
However, we are unable to agree to these targeted defences she proposes, to the creating offence, in place of a reasonable excuse defence. This is a novel offence, tackling behaviour that is changing
rapidly, along with the technology itself. We cannot anticipate all the ways in which people will use
technology as it develops. The defence of reasonable excuse, which as I have said, we believe will be interpreted very carefully by the courts, will ensure that the offence can be used effectively to target
culpable perpetrators, even as technology and its uses changes.
The
targeted offence as proposed by the noble Baroness, will also crucially not eliminate the risk of successful
legal challenge, which I explained in my opening speech. We believe
that such targeted defences, creating offence, with successful
challenge, in the courts, leading to uncertainty and reduce protection
for victims. Returning briefly to amendment fifty-six A, which is the
requesting offence. As I set out, it is the government's view that the reasonable excuse to requesting
offence will only apply an extremely narrow set of circumstances, such as
covert law enforcement operations to stop the legal issue which applies
to the creating offence does not apply to the requesting offence.
However, we always aim for
consistency and parity, across similar offences. And so would urge that this House not to pass
amendments fifty-six a, we also think that without the defence at
the comments included for the requesting offence, law enforcement and intelligence officials maybe
unable to effectively carry out
their functions. To conclude, we
make a manifesto commitment to ban the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes. This legislation, as amended, in the Commons are just a start. For the first time there will
be a protection for victims and punishment for the perpetrators who create or ask other people to create
intimate deep fake of images without consent, or reasonable belief in
consent.
These provisions represent
an important and necessary response
to image deepfakes. As I have said, the government is clear that these offences are comprehensive and robust. Whilst we think defence is a
reasonable excuse to both offences that are necessary, it does not
provide a get out clause, for the many perpetrators creating intimate deepfakes. Especially sexual
deepfakes, without consent. We remain firmly of the view that this
is the most effective way to protect victims from this appalling abuse. It is our duty to act decisively,
for those reasons, I urge your lordships to support, with
confidence, motion of fifty-five C, which containing amendments in a Lua fifty-five D and fifty-five EE and
amendments fifty-six B and I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Owen to
withdraw her motion fifty-five a and amendment fifty-six a.
Turning to
some of the questions which are
asked by the noble Lady and others. She asked about deprivation orders,
we share the frustration with her. There has been, in place of the ability for a court to put
deprivation orders in place and they have not been used as extensively as
they could be. And so the judges are looking at guidelines to try to see
how that lack of implementation and
defence help orders can be remedied.
... The other questions by my noble
friend, Baroness Chakrabarti... She asked whether offenders of the
requesting offence would also be deprived of images of the court. The
answer to that is yes they would be, because we want to ensure parity across both the creating and the
requesting offence, so that includes their computers and any images that are stored, anywhere. I think most
generally, I think what I will say is a number of noble Lords have expressed scepticism about whether the courts would adequately apply
reasonable excuse defence.
That
really is a issue we are debating
now. I have had this discussion many times with the noble Lady, in private. I would say, as a
magistrate for nearly 20 years, we often hear completely ridiculous
defences. It is not unusual. Not in crown courts but certainly in
magistrates courts. Magistrates and judges are well able to deal with
those types of defences. I know the noble Lady is sceptical of that and
that is the reason, one of the prime reasons why we have put the review
on the face of the bill, she will know it is very unusual for
governments to commit on the face of the bill, to have a review.
Because
we do understand that this is a new area of law. We do understand that the way we are defining a reasonable excuse is a politically contentious
area. I do urge her to continue to work with us, which I am sure she
will do, in any event, but I encourage you to do that. And I would urge her not to move her
amendments, to a vote. I beg to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the House do agree to amendment 53. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The
Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment 54,
contents have it. Amendment 54, Baroness Jones of the church, moved formally. The question is the House
formally. The question is the House to agree with the comments on amendment 54. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it.
Amendment 55,
contents have it. Amendment 55, Baroness Jones of the church, moved formally. The question is at the
formally. The question is at the House to agree with Commons on amendment 55. Motion 55 acre
amendment 55. Motion 55 acre
amendment 55. Motion 55 acre Baroness Owen. Not moved. Motion 50
Baroness Owen. Not moved. Motion 50 5C proposed, leave the last post in motion 55 a and in circle 50 5C as
motion 55 a and in circle 50 5C as printed on the Marshall list.
The question is that the House do agree with the Commons on their amendment
55. As many as are of that opinion,
say, "Content", 56 moved formally. The question is that the House to
agree with the Commons on their
amendment 55 as amended. Agree with amendment 5C, I big your pardon. As many as are of that opinion, say,
"Content", Of the contrary, "Not
content", The contents have it. Amendment 56 Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, moved formally. The
question is that the House do agree with the Commons on their amendment
56.
Amendment 56 a, Baroness Owen.
56. Amendment 56 a, Baroness Owen.
The question is that amendment 50 6B
moved formally. 56 a has not been moved. Moved formally. The question
is that amendment 56 a has not been is that amendment 50 6B as an amendment to the Commons 56 a has not been moved. Moved formally. The
question is that amendment 50 6B as an amendment to the Commons 50 6B agree to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The
contents have it.
The question is now that amendment 56 as amended B
agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The
contents have it. Amendment 57, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch. The
question is that the House to agree with Commons in their amendment 57 to 79 on lock. As many as are of
that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The
20:35
Legislation: Renters’ Rights Bill - committee stage (day 5)
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Taylor. My Lords, I big move that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I big move that the House do now again resolve itself into a committee upon the bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
into a committee upon the bill. The question is that the House do now again resolve itself into a committee on the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content",
Of the contrary, "Not content", The
Of the contrary, "Not content", The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. Clause My Lords. Clause 145, My Lords. Clause 145, Baroness
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Scott. My Lords, before we start the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, before we start the debate in the first group, it may not surprise noble Lords that I would remind the House again of the protocol around declaring interests.
protocol around declaring interests. As I mentioned last week, noble Lords should declare relevant interests at each stage of proceedings in the bill. That means
a Committee stage, relevant interest should be declared during the first group in which noble Lords speaks. The Noble Lord declares an interest
during the last two days of committee, that is sufficient.
But
if this is your first contribution, any relevant interest should be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
declared. If I might thank the Noble Lord for what he has just said, reminding
us of the importance of declaring an interest where it has not been
interest where it has not been declared so far. Could I ask him whether he could make a statement to the House about what its plans are
the House about what its plans are for further consideration of this bill. Given that we were promised we
bill. Given that we were promised we would have six days of consideration.
We lost over two
hours last week on general business. Today, for extremely good reasons,
we have lost now over five hours of consideration. And I hope the
Government has now decided that it must give this committee and extra
must give this committee and extra day because we were promised six days and we have not had six days
days and we have not had six days and I hope the Government intention is not simply to go through the night tonight and through the night
night tonight and through the night on Wednesday which would not be
reasonable discussion of the 132
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendments which still stand to be debated in your Lordships house. Thank the Noble Lord for those
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank the Noble Lord for those comments, but just to say that we
20:38
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
will try to resolve this through the usual channels, but this is the fifth day of six days. We want to
make progress today and we want to commit on the sixth day which is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Wednesday this week. In clause 17, amendment 145, Baroness Scott. Thank you my Lords. Can I just
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you my Lords. Can I just make it very clear that we will not have had six days with the Noble
have had six days with the Noble Lord. My Lords, I do not feel I can open this group without paying
open this group without paying tribute to the late noble and it Lord. His amendments are why we are
Lord. His amendments are why we are debating this important issue
tonight. We will miss his insightful contribution to this bill and to the House more broadly.
We are a poorer
House more broadly. We are a poorer place without him. And I send my
place without him. And I send my heartfelt sympathies to both his partner, his friends, and his family
partner, his friends, and his family for their loss. May his memory be
for their loss. May his memory be able. This group follows on from a
able. This group follows on from a previous group at the last committee day, but it focuses more
specifically on the burden of proof applied in the determination of
penalties.
I will be brief, as on these benches we simply have too
question is for the noble Baroness the Minister. May I draw your
Lordships attention to the probing amendments 145 and 1452. We are
concerned about the government's proposal to grant local housing authorities the power to determine whether a person is guilty of an
offence under section 16 without proper due process. And could the
Baroness Taylor Minister the noble Baroness the Minister kindly set out
for the House how this provision is intended to operate in practice.
And
whether it will be subject to any appeal or review process. Next, I
wish to draw attention to the principal reason for these probing
amendments. The selected standard of proof. We are seeking to understand why there appears to be a lack of consistency in the standard of proof
applied across different parts of this bill. I have no doubt that many distinguished lawyers of your Lordships house will address this
matter with far greater clarity and precision than icon, however the question remains why should different standards of proof apply
within the same piece of legislation.
I appreciate the noble
Baroness the Minister is not themselves a lawyer and may wish to
themselves a lawyer and may wish to
take some time to reflect and return to the House with a considered response, but could the noble Baroness kindly set out either today
**** Possible New Speaker ****
or at a later stage the rationale behind this apparent inconsistency. I egg to. Amendment proposed, clause 17,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed, clause 17, page 26 line 24 leave out beyond
20:41
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
page 26 line 24 leave out beyond reasonable doubt and insert on the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
balance of probabilities. I rise to speak to amendment 148,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to speak to amendment 148, 197, 242, on behalf of the noble
197, 242, on behalf of the noble Earl. But, first, may I start by
Earl. But, first, may I start by
joining my Noble Friend in expressing some sincere condolences to the family and friends of the
to the family and friends of the late noble and learning it Lord. His
late noble and learning it Lord. His reputation as an exceptional legal mind represents the very best that
mind represents the very best that this House has to offer.
And,
this House has to offer. And, secondly, I just remind that noble Lords of my interest as a practising
Lords of my interest as a practising solicitor. These four amendments
solicitor. These four amendments seek to make two substantive changes to the bill. First, the removal of
the word recklessness will ensure a
landlord is only guilty of an offence if it can be proven that they are wrongly relied on grants
for possession with actual knowledge
of the offence.
Secondly, the
replacement on the balance of
probabilities with beyond reasonable doubt raises the standard of proof
for these offences when the local authority is determining the case.
Now, I expect that the noble Baroness the Minister will oppose
these amendments on the grounds that they will make it less easy for a
local authority to find a landlord guilty of an offence. But surely the
crucial point is that it will put a proper check on the incorrect
prosecution of landlords that may arise from this new system which
would be imposed by local authorities.
There is also a
legitimate question on how we can be certain that local authorities will
have the resources they need fairly
to assess cases where landlords are accused of an offence. We, surely,
have to have a system that ensures landlords are held to high
standards, but surely that system
has to be seen to be fair. Any system that makes landlords feel that they are perennially at risk of
being found of being guilty of an offence without their knowledge would only land to the chilling
effect of this bill on our rental
markets.
I also agree that the standard of proof or a local
authority is making the decision on a case without recourse to the
courts should be had. Local authority offices should be
absolutely sure when making these decisions. So, I have two questions
for the noble Baroness the Minister stop can the noble Baroness the
Minister please take this opportunity to explain how a landlord who has been found guilty
of an offence by a local authority
will be able to appeal that decision, and, secondly, can the
noble Baroness that Minister please answer the question that appropriate
local authority resources to enable
local authority resources to enable
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, first of all can I echo
20:45
Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, first of all can I echo sincere condolences from our benches to the husband of the Noble Lord
to the husband of the Noble Lord Etherton, his husband Andrew and his family. They really do have our
sincere condolences. I would also like to echo the concerns that were
delivered in a rather measured weight from my noble friend Lord Shipley regarding the way things
have gone along. Just to say I have communicated this with the noble Lady the Minister also.
We come to
another key part of the bill, perhaps one less explored, but in
our view important, that of enforcement. It's important to
remind ourselves of the current
state of affairs in the enforcement world, albeit very briefly as this is not a second reading. The reality
is that after decades of cutbacks councils have gradually been
reducing the number of staff in the area of housing enforcement, Decent Homes Standard tenant matters. It's
arguable as a result of this they have failed over that same time to carry out proper proactive
enforcement work, inevitably leading to more substandard housing.
Let's
be blunt the rogue landlords no they
can likely get away with it. The big
change of course is clause 107. It's an important section in the bill and in short it very boldly states that
it is the duty of every local housing authority to enforce
landlord legislation in its area, a very powerful change. It is not optional nor desirable, it is
mandatory. The landlord legislation wraps up other requirements from
other acts, such as the 1977 Protection from Eviction Act and various housing acts.
It is a real step change from the current
situation and it cannot happen too
soon, but our concern is that our local authorities tooled up for this? Are they ready and will they
have the right resources? This is
not the blame game, but it is actually the reality. The bliss we discussed in a previous group allows the two main activities to fund
their enforcement activities. Civil penalty notices, as previously
discussed, and rent repayment orders, which we get to at some time
later.
The importance of these funding streams is why we opposed any reduction in the previous group and why we have amendments in the next. The amendments in this section
centre around the burden of proof that local authorities can apply
when taking civil action and I agree with the noble Lady Baroness Scott that we need to understand the rationale for using the criminal
standard of proof beyond reasonable
doubt as opposed to the civil standard and the balance of
probabilities and vice versa. The more so given that the increased powers that have been granted under this bill.
It needs to be stated
that there are actually many and
they are quite complex. I have confessed earlier that I am no lawyer, but even I could see that
perhaps even some of our offices need to get their heads around some of these changes. But given that I
have argued previously that local authorities are going to need this
money to fund enforcement activities, amendments 145 and 152
would seek to lower the burden of
proof to on the balance of probabilities, thus making it easier for local authorities to impose civil penalties.
Whereas amendments
197 and 200 seat the opposite. I also note that in the Renters
(Reform) Bill clause 15 had the higher proof, so I look forward to
perhaps the reasoning from the noble Lord who will sum up as to why there has been a change from their
perspective. In short, my Lords,
these are legitimate questions, consistency and clarity are essential and I look forward to the
essential and I look forward to the noble Lady the Minister's replies, particularly on the notion of recklessness and the culpable mind
recklessness and the culpable mind in amendments 242 and 148.
20:50
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, can I say how sorry I
am to have two deal with the noble Lord's amendments after he said
passing. I didn't have a long time
to get to know Lord Etherton, but during my time in this House I have truly appreciated both his
engagement and wisdom in this bill and he's courtesy and kindness. I know he will be greatly missed by
the House and I would like to add to what other noble Lords have said in sending my condolences to his
husband and to his close friends and
That his wonderful legal brain will be a sad loss to this House and we were all missing.
So I am very sorry that he is not here today to
complete the work that he started on this bill. As the noble Lady
Baroness Scott said, may his memory be a blessing to all those who knew him. I thank Lady Scott and Lord
Hunt for speaking on behalf of Lord Etherton in this debate. The
amendments on financial penalties,
and Baroness Thornhill for her comments on these items, too. I will make the declaration upfront that I
am not a lawyer either, so I rely on others for legal advice for this
section of the bill.
Starting with the amendments in the name of
Baroness Scott, the criminal standard of proof will be replaced
with breaches of the tenancy
agreement that were not criminal. This can form part of a criminal offence. We consider that it is
necessary therefore for the criminal standard of proof to apply. Amendment 152 would reduce the
standard of proof from beyond reasonable doubt to on the balance
of probabilities where local authorities were imposing civil
penalties as an alternative to prosecution for tenancy offences.
Where civil penalties are being
Criminal prosecution, it's necessary for the same standard to be applied. That is already the case for civil
penalties imposed as an alternative to prosecution for offences under
the housing at 2004, such as failure to comply with an improvement notice. For these reasons I would
ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendments. Turning to the
amendments tabled by Lord Etherton, amendments 197 and 200 conversely
require local authorities to meet the criminal rather than the civil
standard of proof winning please --
when imposing civil penalties.
Unlike other breaches rental discrimination and rental bidding breaches cannot lead to a criminal
offence if the conduct is repeated or continued. As such rental discrimination and rental bidding
cannot result in the landlord being
prosecuted, or given a £40,000 penalty and are only subject to the lower £7000 penalty. We therefore
think it is appropriate that local authorities to prove these reaches to the civil standard on the balance of probabilities rather than the
criminal standard beyond reasonable
doubt.
The noble Lord Hunt raised
the issue of resources. I answer that with two points. One, the government has committed to assess the financial impact on the local
authorities and has committed to new burdens funding, but also those
fines will be available for local authority use for this purpose or other purposes if they wish to use them for that. Secondly, the noble
them for that. Secondly, the noble
Lord Hunt asked about appeals. I'd just like to say that local authorities can consider evidence
and decide whether the individual concerned was aware the information they provided might be.
Misleading
and whether it was reasonable for
them to submit it. The legislation also provide safeguards. In prosecution cases it will be for the court not the local authority to
decide whether the individual had
been reckless. The landlord has the right to make representations before a penalty is imposed on a right of
appeal against the imposition of the penalty or the amount of the
penalty. Amendment 148 narrows the offence of misusing grounds of
possession where position would not be obtained on backgrounds.
It does so by removing the element of recklessness. Amendment 242 narrows
the offence and provides information
that is. Misleading. In order to commit the first of these offences a landlord or person acting or
purporting to act on their behalf would need to know that the landlord
would not be able to obtain possession on that ground. If the
landlord or person acting or purporting to act on their behalf was simply being reckless as to whether the landlord could do so, it
An offence.
Landlord should not be penalised for minor mistakes, but recklessness goes beyond making a mistake. It entails taking an unjustified risk and landlord should not take an unjustified risk when
there action may result in someone losing their home. It is the case
that the offence is only committed if the tenant actually surrenders possession. Making enforcement in
every case dependent on being satisfied to the criminal standard that the landlord or those acting or
purporting to act on their behalf knew that the landlord would not be
able to obtain possession using a ground for possession would make it too easy for unscrupulous landlords
and agents to escape enforcement.
To
require knowledge to be proved in
every case would make it to easy for purported compliance. It is well established in legislation for
offences relating to misleading information to include the mental element of recklessness, including in housing legislation. It is used
in relation to the provision of.
Misleading information to local authorities. An offence that is prosecuted by local authorities. We
considered that the mental state of recklessness is one that is
appropriate to apply to the serious offences.
I asked that the noble
Lord considers I asked that the noble Lord considers withdrawing his
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendments. Can I first say that I am really disappointed because the number of
disappointed because the number of noble Lord who have been involved in all these debates over the last four days are not able to be in their
days are not able to be in their seats because of the late time of
seats because of the late time of day. I think that is not going to help us scrutinise this bill as we should do. My Lords, I would like to
begin by thanking all those who have
begin by thanking all those who have contributed to 48,, 148, 1497 and
contributed to 48,, 148, 1497 and others.
Noble Lord is our right to
others. Noble Lord is our right to highlight the issue of consistency, an issue we on these benches intended to race today, but he also
intended to race today, but he also introduces an important new concern,
the threshold of proof required by local authorities before a financial penalty can be imposed. It is vital
penalty can be imposed. It is vital we draw on the expertise of the
legal profession to improve the drafting of this bill. I hope the
noble Lady the Minister will seek wise counsel.
The financial
penalties under consideration are significant, as pointed out. Many
landlords are small-scale or so- called accidental landlords who may
not be in a position to absorb such fines. It is therefore entirely
appropriate that this House seeks clarity on the methodology, the consultation process and factors
such as the ability to pay, used in
determining these thresholds. Even the scale of these penalties the standard of evidence and the threshold for their imposition must
be carefully examined and my noble friend set out with clarity the
issues that may arise without sufficient burden of proof on the legal argument underpinning these amendments.
There is legitimate concerns about penalties being
applied without adequate legal
scrutiny, potentially undermining due process. We welcome these
amendments and believe Lord Hunt has made a compelling case. When large
fines are at stake rigour in the legal standard must be applied. Any
concerns should not be dismissed too readily and should be carefully
**** Possible New Speaker ****
considered, but at this point I will draw my amendment. Is it your logic pleasure that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is it your logic pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn?
this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. The
Amendment is by leave withdrawn. The Amendment one faucets, 147, not
Amendment one faucets, 147, not moved, Baroness Scott. -- Amendment
147. Amendment 148, not moved.
147. Amendment 148, not moved. Amendments 149-152, not moved en
Amendments 149-152, not moved en bloc. Amendment 153, Lord Kinnoull,
bloc. Amendment 153, Lord Kinnoull,
bloc.
Amendment 153, Lord Kinnoull, not moved. Amendments 154, one 162
-- 154-162, not moved en bloc. The question is the clause stands part
of the bill. The contents have it. Amendments 163 and 164 en bloc, not
moved. The question is that clause
18 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not
Not moved en bloc, Lord Hacking? Not
Not moved en bloc, Lord Hacking? Not moved. The question is that clauses 19 and 20 stand part of the bill.
As
19 and 20 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content" of that opinion say content, Of the contrary, "Not
content, Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. That brings us to the second group, in
brings us to the second group, in clause 21, amendment 167, Baroness Scott. Scott.
21:02
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
The amendments I have tabled in
these groups are to probe the government's decision to define a family in the way they have in
clause 21. The Explanatory Notes to this part of the bill explain
subsection 4 provides that where
there are two or more tenants and one of the tenants is a family member of the guarantor, if the family member dies, then the guarantor will not be liable for
rent on or after the date of their deaths.
And the bill defines family
member in such a way that excludes anyone more distant than a first
cousin. It is essential that in the
definition of family in law reflects
the family unions we have seen in our day-to-day life, and in many tightly knit communities in this country, families still live closely
together with many cousins both near and distant having strong family
ties to each other. In these communities, it seems very likely
that a second cousin might step into help as a rent guarantor, and surely
that person falls within the intention of this part of the bill.
It seems strange that Government
would seek to recognise relationships between two first cousins, but ignore the relationship
between second cousins. The example
I gave shows how a second cousin might because of their close family
ties help a family member out as there guarantor, but this bill would not include that person within the
tightly defined family under the bill. So, I asked the noble Baroness the Minister would she please
explain why the Government has defined the family in this way.
Can
she also explain why a second cousin who act as a guarantor for her family member is treated as a second-class citizen compared to
their other, closer cousins. We are also interested in the case of
smaller families where perhaps an only child chooses to help a family member who is more distant on paper
but is in reality their nearest kin.
There will have to be a definition of family in this bill. We
understand that. But we do need an explanation as to why this definition of the family is being proposed.
proposed.
21:04
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
Amendment proposed page 39 line
**** Possible New Speaker ****
33 after child insert or grandchild. While it is understandable that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
While it is understandable that some individuals have close bonds with distant relatives, extending the definition of family member to include removed or second cousins
include removed or second cousins And enforcement of these provisions
And enforcement of these provisions which currently offer a clear and practical framework, broadening the definition further could introduce uncertainty for landlords and tenants alike. Potentially leading
tenants alike. Potentially leading to disputes over familiar links and undermining the protect aims of the
undermining the protect aims of the clause.
For those reasons, we do not support these amendments, but look forward to getting on to the next
21:05
Lord Northbrook (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
forward to getting on to the next group of amendments where we believe
the issue of guarantors becomes less important if a certain amendment is accepted, and therefore diminishes the need for this debate in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
particular. Arise to support my Noble Friend
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Arise to support my Noble Friend
Ernest Scott. But, firstly, we would like to express great sympathy to
like to express great sympathy to her husband. It seems entirely sensible to widen this definition of
sensible to widen this definition of family within the bill to include first and second cousins and I
first and second cousins and I cannot see any reason for refusing
21:06
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
cannot see any reason for refusing Can I thank the noble Baroness Lady Scott for her amendments relating to guarantors and family
relating to guarantors and family members and the noble Baroness and
members and the noble Baroness and the Noble Lord for contributing to the debate. Amendments 167, 168 and 169 would expand the definition of
family member used in clause 21 to include ants and uncles as well as siblings and grandparents. This
would absolve these individuals from liability after a tenant has died
when they act as guarantor.
I understand the noble Ladies motivation in probing this
motivation in probing this definition of family, and I would
definition of family, and I would like to say she sometimes accuses me of not listening or thinking these
things through, but I have carefully considered the balance of these
considered the balance of these provisions. They do protect bereaved guarantors from potential hardship while allowing them to keep guarantors in place when it is reasonable to do so most of the
reasonable to do so most of the definition of family member reflects the need to encompass more distant family members who might commonly be used as tenancy guarantors.
While we
understand that more distant relatives covered in the definition
may rarely be used as guarantors, defining family members for the
purposes of this legislation means that a line needs to be drawn somewhere. This definition does not seek to disregard or downplay many
family links between relatives that are not included within that definition. I think that some of my
second cousins might have something to say if I tried to do that. It is
to say if I tried to do that.
It is worth noting that landlords holding guarantees liable in these scenarios is already uncommon and most
is already uncommon and most landlords would already act compassionately to a deceased tenants family. Furthermore, by
tenants family. Furthermore, by removing fixed term, personal representatives of the deceased
representatives of the deceased The landlord to months notice. We believe this strikes a balance that this data tenants, guarantors and landlords alike, and therefore I would ask the noble Baroness Lady Scott to withdraw these amendments.
21:08
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Minister for her
Baroness the Minister for her
response, but I do not think we have quite gotten to the better understanding of the Governments reasons for defining family in this
way, just that they're going to define a family in this way, and I point out that many families once
again are different shapes to the one described in the bill, and we feel very strongly that it would be
a strange outcome if slightly more distant cousins were not protected
by the legislation, but close cousins are.
And we have set out clearly that many people have very
close family ties with their slightly more distant cousins and we feel Government have failed to adequately explain why those
individuals should not have the same rights based on their family ties
compared to other members of the family. We do reserve the right to come back to the Supreme Court
stage, but we hope the Ministers will listen to the argument we have made today and consider improving
this part of the bill to properly reflect the family relationships
reflect the family relationships
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that many people have now in this country, but at this point I leave to withdraw my amendment. Is a urologic pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is, by leave, withdrawn.
amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendments 168 and 169, not moved.
Not moved. The question is that clause 21 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not
"Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. That
21:10
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
brings us to the third group after
**** Possible New Speaker ****
clause 21, amendment 117. My Lords, arise to move amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, arise to move amendment 117, 265. Both of which aim to strengthen the very com antidiscrimination additions to the
bill. I am grateful to the
colleagues that have added their names and shelter for help. Amendment 170 set out circumstances under which landlords may not
under which landlords may not require a tenant to provide a guarantor. Practices that has increasingly become a precondition
in tenancy for certain tenants, naming those for security, lack renters, women, families, and
disabled renters.
And when that could therefore be used as a way of
circumventing the bills antidiscrimination clauses. The spirit of the amendment is the same as that behind the Government
amendment in Commons. To prevent landlords requiring multiple months
landlords requiring multiple months rent up front. To quote the
rent up front. To quote the independent age who are among the many organisations supporting our amendment, this is a sensible measure that safeguards against the risk of solving one problem, excessive rent in advance demands,
only for it to be replaced with
another excessive reliance on guarantors.
Who are already, over the last five years, 550,000 private
renters were unable to rent a home they wanted because they did not
have a guarantor that met the landlord's requirements. I know and respect that the Government does not want to prohibit the use of guarantors altogether. My Noble
Friend the Minister explained why in her health proposed second reading letter. At this amendment would not
do that. It simply sets out the circumstances in which a landlord
cannot ask for a guarantor. In these circumstances they reflect the national residential landlords
Association guidance on appropriate guarantor use.
Likely wary tenant
cannot prove they can afford to pay the rent. However, recent research
by Shelter has shown that in practice, guarantor requests often do not follow this guidance. Thus,
the amendment is not radical, but early serves to ensure that
guarantors are used as intended. The case for ensuring their use is limited is a strong one. Very much
in line with the aims of the bill. First, it helps to safeguard the
bills antidiscrimination measures. Requests for a high earning or homeowner guarantor are too often
used in the disciplinary manner.
Renters who receive their security,
have a disability, or members of racialised minorities are all significantly more likely to be
asked for a guarantor, similarly as independent age, requiring a
guarantor can be a way for landlords to discriminate against older
renters. Second and related groups most likely to face a guarantor requests are also those least likely
to be able to meet one. 45% of benefits recipients and 43% of
families struggle to provide a guarantor compared to just 24% of
those not receiving benefit or
without children.
This would make a huge difference to student renters, especially working-class
International, estranged or care
experience to face difficulties finding a guarantor. And become the highlight of finding a guarantor by
care experienced by young people more generally. The research found only around two in five local
The guarantor scheme for them. Third, in practice, fewer than 33% of landlords attempt to pursue a
guarantor for unpaid rent in the past two years. Moreover, insurance offers a sensible option of recovering this risk. For, the argument that the unfettered freedom to request a guarantor provides an
essential lifeline for tenants before credit and annual problem
debts, this shelter argues a disingenuous one because there is evidence that landlords already avoid such tenants because of the
manner in which a tenant referencing
is done.
These are not the tenants who are most likely to be able to find a suitable guarantor. As well
as the renters reform coalition of which Shelter is a member, calling
for limitations on the pasture require guarantors, including the
Mayor of London. I very much hope that my Noble Friend the Minister will be willing to discuss what is
possible between now and the court, but if he cannot accept this
particular amendment, would he consider proposing an alternative? Otherwise, I fear that some of the
good protected by the bills antidiscrimination measures will be undone in practice.
Turning now to
amendment 265, this would repeal the right to rent in the immigration act
2014. It requires landlords, including those taking lodges and letting agents to check for tenants
in immigration status to confirm
they have the right to rent in England before granting tenancy. Letting a property to someone
without the writer rent can now be punishable with up to £520,000, or a
five year prison sentence. The report on the windrush lessons review Wendy Williams described it
as one of the most contentious
aspects of hostile environment.
It has been criticised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I was a member, the chief inspector of borders and immigration
questioned its efficacy as a tool to encourage immigration compliance,
and the UN special temporary forms
of racism who deplored its racialised impact and the way it deputised immigration enforcement to
deputised immigration enforcement to
A common concern is that it would become a discriminatory tool. The Home Office had not considered the
impact on those with protected
characteristics, particularly Windrush generation, when the legislation was developed.
During the passage of the legislation Lord
Kennedy of Southwark warned that the government runs the risk of
landlords playing it safe by renting only to those with British
passports, therefore creating a whole new area of discrimination and injustice whereby people with foreign names, foreign paperwork and
foreign passports are routinely refused accommodation. British
passports can also include poorer
white citizens, as Baroness Meyer of Basildon pointed out. A decade and
we can only conclude that so it came to pass.
A joint briefing from housing and migration organisations
spearheaded by the large agents
representation group is title Shop
out -- Is Titled Shut out. Many landlords are making decisions on a
discriminatory basis. Abolition of
the scheme is a key step towards the bill's aim to prevent discrimination against tenants. A High Court judge
argued that the scheme doesn't only
provide the opportunity for landlords to discriminate, but it causes them to do so. A mystery
shopping exercise found that people with white sounding names receive
25% more responses to their rental enquiries than those with salvation
names.
A survey of 2,000 landlords by a charitable organisation found
by a charitable organisation found
that 60% of landlords said they could not rent to those without
passports and said it was due to
failure to comply with the renting legislations. Nearly half of
landlords survey found that the right to rent cheques to difficult
or time-consuming. As well as encouraging discrimination against British it into cannot easily prove their entitlement, the scheme contributes to homelessness amongst
refugees and regular migrants who are disproportionately reliant on the private rental sector for
housing.
Hibiscus warned that discrimination against migrant
renters is currently baked into the housing and immigration systems. Their research shows the right to
restrictions is one of them major
barriers to securing housing to black and migrate women making them
more vulnerable to exploitation. It's unusual for a measure to unite
landlords, tenants and migrant organisations in the way that opposition to the right to rent
scheme does. A corporate's abolition has also come from the Mayor of
London and the society for labour lawyers.
The scheme is incompatible with the government's commitment to
nondiscrimination and fairness in the private rent sector. Its
abolition would please landlords as it would release them from the role of acting as immigration enforcement
of acting as immigration enforcement
officers. Landlords are not trained immigration officers and should not be responsible for verifying immigration status. They support the
removal of this counter-productive
policy, allowing lenders to focus on providing safe and secure housing. I therefore hope that the government will take seriously this opportunity
to call time on it in the interests of both landlords and prospective
tenants, many of whom are in the most vulnerable circumstances.
I beg to move. to move.
21:20
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Amendment proposed, after clause 21 insert the new clause is printed
**** Possible New Speaker ****
on the marshalled list. I just want to rise briefly to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I just want to rise briefly to
speak in support of amendment 117. I declare my interest as a trustee of
declare my interest as a trustee of the nationwide foundation. There is a growing use of guarantors in the
a growing use of guarantors in the PRS. Generation research found last year that 30% of renters who moved in 23 -24 had been asked to provide
in 23 -24 had been asked to provide
a guarantor. Requesting a guarantor is being overused and is moving towards being standard practice.
A guarantor in many cases has proved
guarantor in many cases has proved to be unnecessary. Shelter found
that only 2.9% of landlords pursued guarantors for unpaid rent. That is
guarantors for unpaid rent. That is despite showing 1.85 million renters have been asked to provide a
have been asked to provide a Where a renter through an affordability assessment can prove they can pay the rent, a guarantor
should not be asked for. Amendment 117, or an amendment like it report
stage is a necessary addition to the bill.
I would like to ask my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage the
Minister if she will consider favourably this amendment and bring
an amendment like it very close to it back to report stage, and if she
it back to report stage, and if she will also consider using development of national guidance for fair and
of national guidance for fair and proportionate referencing. And though we may took about this tomorrow, will she also consider adding information on guarantors to
adding information on guarantors to the private-sector rental database.
the private-sector rental database.
21:22
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, I rise to support
amendment 117, to which I have put
my name, along with amendment 265.
As the two previous beaches have explained the endless attempt to ensure that the dangers of
discrimination are not and intended -- unintended consequences of this
bill. As we dismantle one source of insecurity, namely the abolition of
section 21, we must be vigilant that new discriminatory practices do not
simply rise in its place. Requiring a guarantor is often presented as a
simple piece of standard referencing, a lifeline for vulnerable tenants, but in reality
it is quite the opposite.
It adds a significant, often insurmountable
hurdle for many prospective tenants, typically impose in addition to
demanding a deposit, the first months rent in advance and passing an affordability assessment.
Landlords already possess simple
tools to assess a tenant's ability to pay and to mitigate potential
financial risk. Tenant referencing, rent guarantee insurance and deposit protection schemes provide those
robust safeguards. When tenants can demonstrate they can afford the rents, requiring a guarantor becomes unnecessary and serves only to
narrow the pool of renters.
The demand for guarantors is an
unnecessary additional hurdle, which disproportionately impacts those on low incomes, those from low income
backgrounds, goes without family
support networks, benefit recipients, women, single-parent households, black and Bangladeshi
households in particular and most shocking of all, people with
disabilities. Indeed a renter with a disability is 20% more likely to be
asked for a guarantor. A black renter 66% more likely. This is not
a lifeline for the vulnerable, it is more like drowning.
Independent Age
tells us it's a problem for older
people to. An older renter who can
afford the rent has recounted facing questions about their income and bring us for a guarantor. A self-
employed single mother who could pay six months in advance, topped up with Universal Credit, was asked for
with Universal Credit, was asked for
a guarantor with an annual income of £45,000 per annum. And there will be
people who do not know someone with that level of income.
We have heard
much throughout our debates about
arrears and sometimes as if it is endemic, but government statistics
state that 2% of private sector
rented tenants reported in arrears in 23-24, or even the English Housing survey put it around 5%.
Whilst that is still too high, it does not reflect certain assumptions
that all tenants are inevitably going to be in arrears and therefore
need a guarantor. Amendment 170 176
to bring sense and portion Aliti --
and proportionality to this.
As the noble Lady Kennedy so ably put it, landlords over the most recent two
year period, only 3% of them have
attempted to claim lost rent from a tenant's guarantor. When landlords have attempted this route, it has
proven much harder than the standard insurance products to indemnify
against non-payment. The government
has rightly listened to because to limit excessive upfront payments. If we tackled one former financial
barrier, we must tackle the other to prevent some landlords simply
switching tech six, which is -- switching tactics.
Everyone who
supports this amendment, the -- that
is the greatest fear. There could be
a wider reliance on guarantors. This sensible step will ensure landlords can still use guarantors when genuinely needed, was protecting vulnerable renters from being
unfairly shut out of the market. I hope the government will consider
and adopt this amendment, or agree
to discuss a possible alternative.
21:28
Lord Tope (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, I added my name to amendment 265. Speaking briefly on
it, can I thank Baroness Lister for the way she introduced that, and
indeed amendment 170, which I support. I should first of all declare an interest as co-president of London councils, which is the
body that represents all 32 London boroughs and the city of London, and
I am also inevitable Vice President of the local government
associations. I think the point has
been very well made, not least by Baroness Lister tonight.
I do not want to repeat the arguments at this time of night, although I would very
much like to have done so. I just
want to ask the Minister one thing. I hope in a minute she is going to say to us that the government are going to take this opportunity to
repeal that part of the act and to proceed hopefully to support these
amendments. If that is not what she
is about to say, I wonder, given that I think it is widely agreed and
it's been agreed by a High Court
judge that the right to rent is discriminatory, can the Minister give us any evidence at all that it
21:30
Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
has had any effect in actually
has had any effect in actually reducing illegal migration? Has it achieved its purpose in anyway? If
it has not in its 10 year life, then why on earth is a Labour government keeping it in this bill when they
keeping it in this bill when they have the opportunity in this legislation to remove something that is both ineffective and
21:30
Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
is both ineffective and My Lords, as my noble friend logically may have said, and with apologies to Robert Frost, I have promises to keep and miles to go
before I sleep. My promise was to support amendment 265. I knew that Baroness Lister would be as thorough
Baroness Lister would be as thorough as ever. When she started to say the
word efficacy, I thought it was going to turn into ethics, but maybe that as well. So I simply want to
that as well.
So I simply want to record my support, though I have to say given today's White Paper I do
so, as has been the case are often
so, as has been the case are often in the past, without much expectation, though my enthusiasm for the amendment is entirely
for the amendment is entirely disproportionate to the time I have taken, and I promised it would be
taken, and I promised it would be
21:30
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Think you very much. I think we
have heard some very compelling arguments from across the House on
this very important issue and can I think the noble Baroness for her
very cogent and careful explanation for the reasons of bringing this
forward. The issue we are addressing today is of great importance,
particularly given that the bill removes the options for tenants to pay rent in advance. Furthermore, the Noble Lady the Minister has
declared, sorry, declined to support our amendment which would have allowed for an arrangement between
two consenting adults to agree on such infrastructure.
This is a
missed opportunity. Of those majesties has not we share the serious concerns that have been raised and I will try not to repeat
the many arguments that have already been made. Unfortunately, the government's proposal in their current form. To pay a little more
than lip service, in practice they
fail to provide this in the rental
market. Let's be clear about the deficiency of the amendment 172065. These amendments specifically
prevent landlords from requiring a guarantor. In a wide-ranging circumstances.
Yet there remains
ambiguity as to whether the amendments would still allow
landlords to accept a guarantor for profit and can I thank the noble Baroness the Minister of put aside
for actually being very clear that they could still accept it and that
does create some ambiguity. While we recognise that requiring a guarantor can be a significant barrier for
many, particularly those from vulnerable backgrounds, this where
it is proportionate the guarantor system does serve a legitimate function. It can provide a safety
net for tenants with limited financial history such as students, individual supported by local councils, those who circumstances my
be traditional expectations of landlords.
The government's approach to rent in advance is inconsistent with the rest of the bill. Tenants
are not allowed to offer rent in advance as an alternative to the
guarantor we must ask how the Government would ensure a fair proportion of mechanism put in place
to assess risk. The private rental market is not a one size fits all
model. It encompasses a diverse range of tenants from students and
graduates to care givers and renters. How does the Government plan to accommodate those who may
not have access to a guarantor but are still financially reliable? And,
crucially, where does this exist in the framework? Mutual agreement, the choice between two consenting
adults, tenants and landlords.
Furthermore, the Secretary of State
power to ensure alternatives to guarantors raises significant
concerns. We ask the noble Baroness the Mr Howarth accessible these
products are likely to be and what steps are being taken to ensure that
they do not create another costly barrier for tenants. As it stands, the insurance model seems unlikely
to provide a fair and proportionate
solution to the challenges tenants face. These are not abstract
concerns. With provisions as drafted placing undue strain on tenants and their families without achieving the
balance the Government claims to see.
Unless there are significant revisions, this issue will,
undoubtedly, return with force. The
bill has generated substantial interest across the rental sector and has us already been mentioned
with campaigns led by students, the NUS, being particularly striking. Students across the UK, especially those from marginalised and
underrepresented backgrounds are sounding the alarm, guarantor requirements have emerged as one of
the most significant barriers to accessing stable, affordable
housing. As the NUS has clearly outlined these requirements disproportionately affect working- class students, care experienced
class students, care experienced
young people and estranged use and international students.
Groups already navigating considerable challenges in their pursuit of
education. Many of these students
face an additional margin. They do not have a family member in the UK that can meet the often arbitrary financial thresholds demanded by
landlords. As a result, they are forced to either pay up to one years
rent in advance, and impossible ask for many, or to turn to expensive guarantor services. We now find
ourselves in the situation where it costs more to rent a home if you are
poor.
Guarantor requirements
contribute to this divide by insisting that students find someone, often someone that earns up
to 80 times the monthly rent and is based in the UK to guarantee their
tenancy while systematically blocking out those that cannot meet these criteria. No one should be
denied the opportunity to pursue academic excellence simply because
of who they know and, more importantly, who they do not know. This is why these amendments fail. This is why the NUS student representatives work so tirelessly
to bring this forward in The Other Place.
This is why it is so vital
that we do not let this opportunity slip through our fingers in this
House. While I have focused much of my speech and the barriers faced by students, it is essential to
remember that this also affects many other vulnerable groups. None more so than caregivers and might speak as the next leader of the council
were ice been much time in the position of caregivers. Having already overcome considerable challenges in their lives, they
should not face yet another hurdle in their pursuit of independence.
How can we, in good conscience,
expect K givers to comply with a condition they simply cannot meet on
their own? But this also demonstrates the complexity of the
situation. As, often, their local councils were often willing and keen
to provide them in order to ensure
they were uneven playing field competitive those with better financial backgrounds. As I have
outlined today, restrictions on rent in advance, the lack of objective criteria for when a guarantor is required would only entrench
existing inequalities, penalising individuals who may be financially
reliable but lack family support and financial connections to meet the
arbitrary thresholds demanded by landlords is unjust.
This is not
just an issue of housing. It is an issue of fairness, opportunity, and
basic dignity. Housing is not merely
family, it is the foundation of stability and opportunity. When we deny people access to housing because they cannot meet arbitrary
demands of a guarantor, we are not
only closing doors to homes, closing doors to education to create advancements to future independence.
The noble Baroness list also raised a very valid issue regarding the
right to rent.
The fact that introducing what may seem quite a sensible rule does lead to complications and does place landlords in the awkward situation
landlords in the awkward situation
if they do not fully understand the legislation in front of them and we have heard earlier today in this
House from number of noble Lords and
furnaces that admit they were not lawyers. It is unreasonable to expect every landlord to be a lawyer when the law is complex and we need
to make it simple and easy to comply
with.
I think this is one of our major concerns with this legislation. In conclusion, I asked the noble Baroness to minister to listen to the voices of those who
are most affected by these provisions. Two students, care
givers and low income tenants making
necessary changes to ensure that this bill delivers fairness for all.
21:39
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Before I respond directly to amendments, I would just say in
response to the noble Lords last comments, he talked about denying
people access to housing, students, caregivers and people on low incomes. The fact that so little social and affordable housing has
been provided over the last 14 years is a very strong reason why we are
in the situation we are in now. And
the fact that those people have not been able to find affordable housing is largely due to the housing
policies of the previous Government.
And I will not, as I give my answers for my Noble Friends amendments, I
want to just put that on the record first. Can I thank my Noble Friend
the Minister for her imminent relating to guarantors underwriter
rent? Can I add thanks to hers to shelter. Shelter provided so much help and support during the passing
of this bill and I very grateful to them. Can I also find that noble Baroness Kennedy, noble Baroness, the noble Lords, for their comments.
Amendment 170 would restrict the circumstances in which a guarantor
could be required by a landlord and I would appreciate that underlining
this amendment put forward with her characteristic clarity commitment
and compassion by my Noble Friend is concerned that those do not have access to a guarantor would find it more difficult to find a home in the
private rented sector than those who can obtain a guarantor.
I would like to make it clear to my Noble Friend
that is the beauty that our approach
to this particular issue was underpinned by the need to provide tenants with the recent protections they deserve. At the same time, we wish to God against the unintended
consequences that may, some tenants, make renting more challenging. I
recognise that obtaining a guarantor can be difficult for many prospective tenants. The Government is clear that landlords should
consider tenants individual circumstances when negotiating
rental contracts.
And just to clarify the noble Lords gem as seem
to indicate some sort of compulsion that landlords find a guarantor. If they wish to come to an agreement we would be more than happy and able to
do that but what we cannot do is require significant sums of rent in
advance under this bill because that is what was really discriminating
against people into most highest sums of rent in advance while making
it difficult for people. However, it is important to acknowledge that in many circumstances the use of
guarantors can provide landlords to let their companies to tenants and
they might otherwise find it difficult to secure tenancy within the private rented sector.
This includes tenants with histories of
entries, for example. People with incomes that fluctuate from month- to-month and those with no previous rental history, for example students
or young people moving out of home
for the first time. And prohibiting landlords from accepting large
amounts of rent will benefit all tenants by giving them the
confidence that the maximum financial amount they need to secure
tenancy will not exceed the cost of the tenancy deposit on the first months rent. The Government recognises that providing a UK-based guarantor may be difficult for some students, including international
students under the renters rights bill they will continue to offer tenants who cannot provide a UK-
based guarantor the alternative of purchasing a rent guarantor insurance.
Leave that that measures
set out in the amendment tabled by my Noble Friend would inadvertently risk blocking certain types of
renters from accessing accommodation in that sector altogether, despite
the amendments honourable intentions. And can I just respond
to the noble Baroness Kennedys questions on guarantors, the
Government is clear that they should consider these things, as I said,
each stands individually, including when it is appropriate to require a guarantor. They should not apply blanket requirements for guarantors
to all tenants.
In response to that
question, the database will act as a record of properties rather than individual tenancies, and therefore
it would not be appropriate for landlords to record the risk
mitigation measures from the tenant on the database. She also made the point about guidance on guarantors and I will take that away in the
and I will take that away in the
Department to consider that further. I wish to assure the committee that
we have carefully considered the extent to which different practices act as barriers or enable us to
accessing the private rented sector sector.
That is why we have taken the action we have to limit rent in advance from the bill, of course we're always happy to meet with my
Noble Friend to discuss this further. But for all of these reasons I hope my Noble Friend will withdraw that amendment. Turning now
to amendment 265 which would abolish the writer rent scheme which applies in England, the restaurant scheme was introduced to ensure only those
was introduced to ensure only those
lovely in the United Kingdom could access the private rent sector, and, this is important, to tackle unscrupulously in flood is who exploit vulnerable migrants,
sometimes by letting properties that are in very poor condition indeed.
Some landlords who rent to those who
Some landlords who rent to those who
are here illegally are criminal operators and we all have a shared objective to drive them from the market. Think everybody around the chamber would agree with that. We
have been absolutely clear that discriminatory treatment on the part of anyone carrying out the writer rent cheques is unlawful and the
dreadful examples given my Noble Friend illustrated that. The cheques
apply equally to everyone seeking accommodation in the private rented sector, including British citizens.
And I would just like to operate a
bit further on that. The writer rent scheme is carefully being operated proportionally by landlords and letting agents in all cases. The
very purpose of the statutory code of practice will avoid unlawful disconnection when conducting
checks, recognises and seeks to address the risk of disc nation. There is list of documents available
that tenants can provide to prove their writer rent. Codes of practice
required under the writer rent legislation sends out what landlords
I would simply add that there are no
current plans to end the right to rent scheme.
Again, happy to discuss
that further with my noble friend, but for these reasons I asked that my noble friend withdrawals the amendment. amendment.
21:46
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I am grateful to everybody who has spoken. I will not go into any
great detail, given the late hour that it is. I don't think my noble
friend the Minister answered the question posed by the noble Lord
Lord Hope, which was has the right
to rent had any effect in reducing illegal migration. I don't know if she would care to answer that question now?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I do not have any direct
**** Possible New Speaker ****
statistics in front of me, but I will come back to noble Lords on that point. Thank you. I am grateful for the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. I am grateful for the support I have received. I was slightly confused by Lord Jamieson.
slightly confused by Lord Jamieson. I wasn't sure if he was supporting my amendments or not. He said they
were ambiguous, but I think his approach was a bit ambiguous and I
approach was a bit ambiguous and I can't resist pointing out that the
can't resist pointing out that the right to rent was introduced by his government and we are now saddled with it.
I am disappointed and perhaps not surprised that my noble
perhaps not surprised that my noble friend said that there is no plan to
friend said that there is no plan to be shot of it now, especially as the
be shot of it now, especially as the noble lady said in light of today's White Paper. It's not conducive to
White Paper. It's not conducive to it, but it is important to come back to the point. I was a bit disappointed that my noble friend
did not feel able to give a bit more on the question of guarantors.
She said that the proposed amendment
would inadvertently block certain
groups and could have unintended consequences. I think everyone who
spoke to this, maybe this amendment isn't quite right, but it is aiming
to do something which actually supports what the government is trying to do. I had hoped that,
although she very kindly said she is willing to discuss it, but I did not
get the sense that there is a
willingness to discuss it in terms of bringing forward a government amendment to achieve what we are
trying to achieve.
But given the late hour, I give leave to withdraw my amendment. my amendment.
21:49
Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
Is at your Lordships pleasure that this amendment is withdrawn?
The amendment is by leave drawn.
Clause 22, amendment 171, Lord Shipley.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There are four amendments in this group on notices to quit. I wish to
group on notices to quit. I wish to move amendment 171 and speak to 172,
move amendment 171 and speak to 172, 173, 174 and 175. The background to
173, 174 and 175. The background to these amendments have been raised by frontline advisers of Citizens Advice and I want to thank them for their contribution to our
their contribution to our consideration of this bill and I hope the Minister will be able to allay the concerns they have
allay the concerns they have expressed when she responds.
These
expressed when she responds. These concerns relate to how tenants serve, withdraw or reduce notice in
serve, withdraw or reduce notice in joint tenancies, and the length of notice tenants must give to leave
notice tenants must give to leave before the expiration of an eviction notice they have been served using
notice they have been served using the new no-fault grounds one and 1A. It may come as a surprise to some
It may come as a surprise to some that in joint tenancies one tenants
can serve a notice to quit to the landlord, ending the tenancy for all tenants without the other joint
tenants knowing this has happened.
Tenants remaining in the property
might not know that a notice has
been served until the landlord expresses an intention to issue a claim for possession on the basis that the tenancy has been ended by a
notice to quit. This will put the remaining tenants in a very
vulnerable position. At risk of homelessness and liable for court
costs. This is the status quo with periodic tenancies, but it could
become a more common problem when all tenancies become periodic. It is
important for one joint tenant to be able to end a joint tenancy
unilaterally, I accept that, but the mechanism is essential to ensure
that all joint tenants are notified.
Similarly, whilst it is welcome that
the bill will provide for reduce notice by agreement between Landlord
and Tenant Act, it should stipulated
that this is only where oil -- all joint tenants agree in writing. If
not there is a risk that parting joint tenant and the landlord will
agree to bring a tenancy to an end quite quickly without the remaining joint tenant being aware. In terms
of the withdrawal of notice there is
a similar problem.
In theory one joint tenant would issue a notice to
quit and the other tenant and
landlord may agree it is withdrawn. The agreement of all joint tenants
should be needed for the withdrawal of a notice. There is a further
issue this is where a tenant serves notice when the other tenant would
have sought to transfer the tenancy solely to them if they had known
that notice was being served. This happens mostly when joint tenants go through a relationship rate down and
the tenant who leaves serves notice to quit, sometimes with the
intention of harming the remaining
tenant.
A court injunction could be sought, allowing the tenancy to be transferred to them. The remaining
joint tenant would maintain the security of the 10 year and not be
made homeless. It's important to note that many of these cases
involve children. Finally, when a
tenant receives an eviction notice
based on the no-fault one and one...
In the fast moving rental market
tenants have to move quickly to secure an appropriate new home before the eviction notice transpires.
Tenants may have to
start a new tenancy before their
current one has ended in order to avoid homelessness. So there will be a new deposit, first months rent and
often household bills on the new property and their current home.
This creates a high cost burden for tenants and could push those on
lower income into significant debt or at the risk of homelessness if
they cannot find a property and aligning tenancy start date. This
will be amplified with the increase
in tenants notice from one month to two.
This group of amendments would require joint tenants to be notified by both the landlord and any tenant
giving notice that a notice to quit has been submitted and the tenancy
will come to an end on a specified date. We should note this amendment reflects the notification
requirements of section 130 renting
homes Wales Act 2016. Secondly the amendments will ensure that a tenant
notice to quit can be reduced or withdrawn through agreement with the
landlord only if all joint tenants agree to it in writing.
Thirdly, it
will allow withdrawal other tenant notice in circumstances where a transfer or assignment of the
tenancy to a remaining tenant is a viable option, which would remove the need to anticipate and pre-empt
a notice to quit within injunction.
Finally, it would reduce the notice tenant may give to one month were
notice has been served to give much needed flexibility to tenants and help them manage the high cost of moving, which is unaffordable to
many low income renters.
I hope the Minister will give due consideration
to those issues. I think they are really very important. I have learnt a little bit about joint tenancies
that I did not know before Citizens Advice got in touch. So I just hope
that the Minister will be willing to
give further consideration in detail to this said that at report stage we can produce the amendments that are necessary to solve the problems that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
have been identified. Amendment proposed, page 40, line
21:56
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed, page 40, line 13, the House and insert and all
joint tenants have.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I was intrigued by Lord Shipley's MMS today. It's interesting to hear they have come from the Citizens
they have come from the Citizens Advice bureau. I am intrigued because I'm conscious and savvy evolved over time and he mentioned
evolved over time and he mentioned in relationship -- he mentioned
in relationship -- he mentioned relationship breakdowns. Renting with other people, there is a risk
with other people, there is a risk that someone will walk out and you will be left liable.
I guess I am trying to understand, perhaps I was
trying to understand, perhaps I was not listening quite closely enough,
not listening quite closely enough, but to get the point of where will
they start to drive the situation of instead of having people coming together, will it drive more
accommodation into going into housing with multiple occupation? I
give you my own personal experience. It is when I was working for a very large company. I moved to another
large company.
I moved to another city to reflect the job situation
that I needed. There's no doubt I
deliberately sought out situations where it wasn't exactly an HMO, but where individual contracts and tenancies were allowed with the landlord so that it didn't fall on
my shoulders to think about these issues. I suppose I am trying to
understand how this amendment really will address the situation of making
sure there are enough tenancies and accommodations available without
putting more burden on the landlords.
I understand why the government set this in their
manifesto. I appreciate there may be differences on the impact, but
differences on the impact, but perhaps in his follow-up be useful
perhaps in his follow-up be useful genuinely how much of a problem this really is as opposed to a theoretical problem.
21:58
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, I'd like to thank the noble Lord draw Shipley for bringing
noble Lord draw Shipley for bringing
these amendments to the House. As we have on this side consistently said throughout the committee we support
the bill's overarching aim to create
a more secure and fairer private rental sector, but if this is to deliver on that promise, it must
engage with the way people rent in reality, not in theory. Joint tenancies are a common and practical
arrangement, whether between couples, friends or flatmates.
Yet
as currently drafted the bill leaves considerable uncertainty as to how
these tenancies will be treated, particularly where one party wishes to leave. Amendments 171 and 175
rightly seek to bring joint tenancies fully and clearly within the scope of the bill. Without this clarity both tenants and landlords could be left navigating ambiguity
with little guidance in law and potentially significant consequences
in practice. Similarly, amendments 172 and 174 focus on the mechanisms
172 and 174 focus on the mechanisms
for ending the joint tenancy.
It's not just a matter of legal process, it is a matter of fairness and practicality. Tenants must be afforded flexibility, particularly
in cases of relationship write- downs, or changes in household
arrangements, while landlord should not be left in legal or financial limbo. In this context I believe it
is also right to raise this issue of subletting, which is closely tied to
how joint tenancies evolve and adapt over time. When a tenant is not
using although even part of their space, subletting enables more efficient use of under occupied
homes and this is particularly important in areas facing housing shortages where every single room matters.
Subletting arrangements can
offer a pragmatic solution for tenants trying to manage their finances, respond to personal
changes, or simply avoid exiting tenancy altogether. It can also help to maintain housing stability where
one joint tenant moves are by
allowing a new occupier to contribute to rent without formalising a new tenancy agreement from scratch. Moreover subletting
can play a role in addressing the
chronic supply issues affect the rental market. It offers access to
more affordable rents, supports tenants incomes and introduces more flexibility into an often rigid
system.
Yet many shared ownership leaseholders for example face
restrictions in their leases that prevent them from subletting
altogether, or from setting rent at the market rate. This was not designed with today's housing
pressures in mind. Without reform we
risk trapping leaseholders between
outdated terms in new regulatory obligations with no room to renegotiate. So this is about proportionality. It is about flexibility and modernising the
rental framework to reflect the real experiences of those people living
22:02
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I would like to thank the Noble Lord for his amendments. Which
relate to tenants in assured tenancies and joint tenancies and in
doing so can I thank him for raising the very important issues prompted
by the citizens advice. They have been in touch with the Department as well. And can I thank Citizens
Advice and the stakeholders for
engaging with our officials on these issues. And can I think the noble Baroness coffee and the noble Baroness Scott for their comments to
Chris on amendment 171, or joint
tenant has served a notice to quit, this amendment would require any agreement to a notice period of less than two months to not trust the
landlord as the currently requires with all other joint tenants as
well.
Whilst there is merit to this
approach, I genuinely am cognizant of the potential impacts on tenants
who do not wish to inform their co- tenants they are leaving and there
may be a number of reasons why that might be the case. Any change in this direction we would need to give careful consideration to make sure
we understand any impacts that might have that we are currently working through that. Amendment 172 would
allow a tenant to only provide one months notice to end a short tenancy if the landlord had already provided
a notice of their attendance to seek
position, using one one.
The Government understands tenants might find new properties to let within a four month notice period and the landlord has given them and that
market pressures would ideally good goal when they need to and it is
right and fair that they provide them with the two months notice so that landlords have sufficient
notice and they might have to change or alter their plans as a result. We think this strikes a fair balance was tenants will benefit from
slightly longer notice periods that are right that the landlord can plan the ending of the tenancy also.
And
I should also point out that nothing prevents the agreement of a shorter
notice period will still be expect at in many cases landlords would gladly facilitate a quick rent for
tenancy to allow them to sell or move in more quickly. The noble Baroness got raised several strings around this which I will come back
to her on those points. Amendment 171 would require joint tenants to
notify each other when serving a notice to quit for an assured
tenancy and landlords to provide joint tenants that such a notice has been served and provide a copy of
the notice.
The bill as currently drafted does not require tenants to inform each other of the tenancy.
Understand the point that there is an inherent risk that tenants might not find out until later in the
notice period that their tenancy is ending, however at the moment the Government is concerned about the
potential impacts, which, for example, domestic abuse victims are being required to inform the
perpetrator that they are ending the tenancy, possibly in order to flee.
In the balance of risks we believe domestic abuse victims must be allowed to prevail, although I
recognise it is a difficult decision and we are giving it further consideration.
Finally, amendment 175 would require altering tenants
to withdraw a notice to quit. This is unnecessary as it has already
been established in law that all joint tenants must agree to positively sustain the tenancy. It is very unlikely that a court would
is very unlikely that a court would determine a single tenant could
determine a single tenant could withdraw a notice to quit because there is not the positive consent of all tenants and for these reasons of the Noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
22:05
Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
There are essentially probing and
movement and I am very glad to have had these discussions between the
Department and the Citizens Advice. And I understand some of the points
that she has made. I think that the aim to take up the point that the
noble Baroness mentioned earlier is
that one has to avoid in a new bill like this unintended consequences,
and so it is important that all of
these issues are thought through and examined the best answer can be found, so I hope it might be
possible between now and reform stage for some of the issues that
the Minister has raised to actually be looked at in detail and I look
be looked at in detail and I look
forward to her response to see whether there are ways in which some of the problems that have been identified in some of the responses and perhaps unintended consequences
and turn the Minister has had could
identified and might actually find a solution.
With that, I beg leave to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
withdraw the amendment. Is at your Lordships amendment
that the imminent is withdrawn? In man is, by leave, withdrawn. Not move. In 170, Lord Truscott, not
move. In 170, Lord Truscott, not moved. Amendment 174, Lord Shipley, not moved. The question is the clause 22 stand part of the bill. As
22:07
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
clause 22 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not
content", The contents have it. Enclose 23 amendment 75 Lord Shipley, not move. The question of
that clause 23 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. The question is
the clause 20. Part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Enclose 25 amendment 176. I rise to move amendment 176 and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to move amendment 176 and also speak to amendment 177 which stands in my name. Before I begin, I refer the committee to my register
refer the committee to my register of interests as set out in the
register as a farmer, landowner, and residential landlord, in particular I have a number of houses that are occupied by employees under insured agricultural occupancy. These two
agricultural occupancy. These two amendments are probing amendment. Intended to allow the committee to understand better how the Government
understand better how the Government sees these provisions of the bill operating but also to probe whether impact of the bill in this area may
impact of the bill in this area may have unintended consequences that need to be resolved.
Before moving to a detailed discussion I would
to a detailed discussion I would look to follow my Noble Friends Baroness Scott who, in an earlier group, underlined the importance of
group, underlined the importance of being able to offer on-site accommodation to agricultural employees. Have three heads people
employees. Have three heads people and one relief hotel man who rise dearly around 3:30 AM in the morning
dearly around 3:30 AM in the morning to milk. A short work from the hood and this is critical to their employment conditions.
Those heads people also take primary responsibility for animal health
within the herds, as well as the link to young stock. Again, being on-site is vital to allow frequent inspection of the animals to ensure
they are doing well. There is also an important security consideration of having employees on site and able
to deal with any malicious trespass, animal escapes, et cetera. In short,
this may not be a matter of huge general interest but it is critical
to farming in general and livestock farming in particular, that accommodation is available on-site
.
When they leave, it needs to be available for their successes, however we must also recognise that
farmers like this may have lived for many years and even decades in their community with options to stay in the area, even when employment ends are desirable. Again with amendment
176, Explanatory Notes indicate that leaving out this paragraph is intended to probe why the Government has sought to remove section 21, 25,
one, of the 1998 act. Since the 19
Since the 1998 act it appears agricultural occupiers with a short and cultural occupancy are entitled
to remain in that occupation, even if they leave the occupation of the
landlord, as long as they remain in agricultural employment.
And this section from the bill it could mean that agricultural occupiers retain
protection, even after the qualifying employment ends. I asked the noble Baroness to Minister
whether that is the intention. The
removal of this section may be because it refers to fixed term tenancies which the Government is
seeking to abolish in this bill, however, in this case, it is linked to fixed term employment. It appears that the Government not have
considered the importance of this link and the necessity for landlords to be able to recover agricultural
accommodation in links to employment.
I also asked the noble Baroness the Minister what impact
this will have in the short agricultural occupancy in the entire agricultural dwellings and whether
they are employed in agriculture it may well be a breach of planning regulations. Amendment 177 is a
similar probing amendment. Around 16
for recovery possession of a short cultural occupancy at the end of
employment was omitted from the 1998 housing act. This created a headache for agricultural employers, but in practice the implications of this
have been rather limited, as the departing employees often leave for
other employers with accommodation included, or because the open market rent for policy of rural accommodation tends to be unavoidably high for those working
in agriculture.
In the renters rights Bill, the Government has
continued to omit the ability to recover accommodation at the end of employment, or at least that is what
I thought. The noble Baroness the
Minister earlier groups said we appreciate the agricultural sector has distinct requirements, and it is often vital for workers to live on site and carry out their duties, as
the noble Baroness very Emily
described to us, that is why we have included this ground. However, it does not appear that it is applicable to landlords and assured
and cultural occupants to ensure
houses can be recovered in active employment as it is emitted as being
a grants.
I would be most grateful to the noble Baroness the Minister if you could explain how she sees it working in practice for agricultural players to recover vital
accommodation at the end of employment. These assured agricultural occupiers will also
beginning to protection given that grounds to ZC and to said they are not available for use. I asked the
noble Baroness the Minister by the Government thinks this is appropriate. Why are agricultural
lands being treated different to other landlords and not able to regain possession of properties
after the landlord changes under section 18 of the Housing Act 1988 or after taking over tenancy.
And a previous group the noble Baroness
previous group the noble Baroness
And making two zippy and to set see discretionary. This introduction of legal uncertainty in our view would make the conflict city even worse.
From my limited exposure to this bill, I am natural how easily anyone could see all tenancy is captured by the bill without this. This description may elevate that base
level of expertise through actually been practising at the bar, given it
is largely estate agents and tenants that manage them I think it is
important to me provisions to the bill as clear-cut as possible.
I would also ask the noble Baroness the Minister without the Government
has considered the impact of this bill on a particular practice which will deliver, we believe, unintended
consequences. Many agricultural employers when housing employs have understandably sought to avoid
creating short and cultural occupancy is by serving those before
occupancy is by serving those before
a tenancy begins and ensuring it is a short all tenancy. This allows serving section 21 notice with
certainty on how to is going to be recovered at the end of employment and ensure it is available for the next employee was not as a
consequence of this bill, those will now begin what appears to be greater protection than originally intended.
The noble Baroness the Minister consider adding provision to ensure
all landlords and employees disposition have the opportunity to change the status of those tenancies to potentially short agricultural
occupancies before this takes effect? I beg to move stop effect? I beg to move stop
22:14
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Lost 25 page 1 line 35 leave out paragraph a.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to speak to amendment 18 to speak to amendment 182 in my
name. I am a great supporter of the policy and writer require. I think
policy and writer require. I think it is one of the best policies in the last 50 years, making sure that people add investment in their
people add investment in their communities, able to determine how
different things in their homes looked, and basically make sure that we had a greater proportion of owner
we had a greater proportion of owner occupiers.
I think it was during my
occupiers. I think it was during my time as a member of Parliament that I had not realised that in effect there had been discrimination
against people living in the countryside. And I discovered this when we were propagating some of the
when we were propagating some of the latest policies in my party putting
latest policies in my party putting forward to the hat it said to me very squarely on the doorstep in particular housing estate in
particular housing estate in Windlesham in Suffolk.
What a load
of good I was doing, but frankly it meant nothing to them because they
had already tried to acquire their housing association home and been told that they could not. The question of housing actually is
really an important one. I think we have got to contend with increasing
housing demand, we have certainly had stagnant wages, though I appreciate your going up again recently. Also significant
It's a method that people in the
countryside are wealthy. It's a myth that somehow salaries in places like Liverpool are much lower than in
places like Sunny Suffolk.
It's a complete and often myth -- Artemis
into terms of housing costs as well.
That's why was concerned to learn that this in effect discrimination
goes all the way back to 1997, when I should declare to the house by the way I had hoped to discuss some other amendments alongside this
today which initially weren't deemed
in scope but now have been, it is
the genuine belief I have that we shouldn't be treating people in rural communities significantly differently than somebody who lives
in a town perhaps less than 20 miles away.
So these schemes such as right
to buy and right to acquire have traditionally favoured tenants, it's important in my view they should
have equal opportunities. It promotes fairness and stability. I
think it also encourages community development to see local development
and individual empowerment. There have been long struggles with these sorts of issues, unlike urban areas
where the challenge is often density, rural areas face lack of
supply and investment, we know some of the challenges of a rapidly
ageing housing stock.
I'm also concerned in other clauses we will consider later that this situation
is being made far worse due to some of the policies being put forward by Ed Miliband when it comes to renting
homes. I think it will have a real knock on impact, particularly in
rural areas including those not connected to the gas grid. Many
rural tenants as a consequence depend on housing associations for stable accommodation, because the
private rental market can often be
almost going into holiday lets or like after COVID where people moved out of the cities into more rural
areas.
There has been progress in
terms of housing policy, but I must say rural tenants have often been
ignored. While urban tenants have benefited from being able to purchase their homes at discounted rates, that certainly has not been the case in rural areas.
Homeownership does remain rightly a key aspiration to many people,
bringing a sense of security and belonging. But also that stability
of local community. In terms of where economic opportunities can be more limited, homeownership is a
rare pathway to upward mobility.
By
allowing tenants to acquire their houses government would be
empowering individuals to take control of their situations. One of the things that drove me into
looking at those, I've already mentioned about knocking on doors and speaking to people and their sense of missing out simply because
they lived in this rural village, in particular Rendlesham in Suffolk
which is built principally on former
U.S. Air Force housing stock which was somewhat handed over and as a
consequence has also been designated a growth village in the local plan.
And at the same time, housing
association in other parts of what might be considered leafy counties,
in particular examples of where the housing association is selling off housing association homes in a
market tender through an auction, not the process of where people can
get a mortgage in order to bid in the auction. In order, they say, to
build more homes elsewhere. One of the challenges we are seeing is with housing associations getting bigger
and bigger in the areas they cover, what's been happening is that by
selling off property in areas like this they are building more homes,
but they may be closer to Cambridge
and really faraway from the areas where actually that housing is still
desired and still wanted by families that want to live there.
Or indeed as we've heard, the need for
expansion in some way of housing in
areas. As a consequence, I am concerned that people are missing
out in that opportunity. In terms of one frequent argument against allowing people to purchase their
homes is the risk of diminishing affordable housing stock. One of the things I would say is that once
people acquire these homes it's not like they suddenly disappear, they still need a home, they are still
there. The lordships will be aware I'm sure that there are certain
rules still attached to the right to acquire.
And if anyone who has acquired a home seeks to dispose of it within the first 10 years, things change, people might need to move
elsewhere, then the housing association is the first port of call in order to be able to
reacquire that particular home. Of course, there is opportunity to
balance sales with reinvestment. We are already seeing that with a different amount of money when being
sold out on auction, which doesn't necessarily always get the best
value. But there is still an opportunity for capital to go back in the housing association.
We also
know many rural areas of piloted
schemes with retention, community
land trusts could also be away of having a covenant on the land. But it's important we continue to make
sure that we do have that opportunity to build a buy in to the
prospect of homeownership. The core issue is one of fairness. Rural
tenants are no different from urban tenants. They just so happen to have grown up in that village, they may
have been working, their parents may have been working on the farm or the
dairy, and that's where they are now.
That's where they want to form their lives, that's where they have their networks. That's where they
want to live. If it so happened that
they were living just a matter of 10 or 20 miles away or in a major town there wouldn't be any question about
whether or not they could buy into having that security and tenure, and
that opportunity to own a home. From my perspective, this is really an
issue of fairness. Denying people in the countryside the same rights that other people have.
It's just
generally unfair. I also want to
just briefly speak to the amendments
tabled by my noble friend Lord Roborough, and I suppose I have a
slightly different perspective in this regard. It worries me we are starting to see in particular Herefordshire, it seems to be in
this situation. My noble friend referred to this situation where
often properties can be initially acquired at quite a low rent, or
indeed a low capital purchase because of the covenants and restrictions that have been put on
it.
If nobody reports this or if the council isn't that interested in
enforcing them what we are seeing is people with considerable wealth getting a very good deal by actually
having lied when they acquired that particular property. Then they can
apply after 10 years to say nobody has made a complaint about it, you
haven't kicked me out of my house or done anything like that. I don't think we will should be rewarding
unfairness in that regard. Some of the points my noble friend referred
to in trying to make sure property does stay linked into the sector I
think is really important, to major we continue to have a society in that regard.
Not one where people
lie in order to gain.
22:24
Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
I rise to say if you words about
Amendment 182 in the name of
Baroness Coffey. I'm afraid not in support of her amendment. Is it fair
that residents residing in rural properties should have a different treatment to those in the rest of
the country? I have to confess I've done a number of rural housing
schemes myself, being responsible for them. And indeed I've just recently chaired the Devon housing
commission, looking at the issues facing the communities in Devon.
I would suggest there are a number of
reasons why it is fair to treat tenants in rural areas rather
differently than in the rest of the country. First of all, it's much more difficult if property is sold
and over a period of time therefore doesn't come back for re-letting, we
now know from the right to buy being a matter of history that after a period of time you will not get the
rillettes, the opportunity for more people to enter those properties in
the years ahead.
It is more difficult to replace properties in a village than in a town. If we lose
the six houses we have built in that village they are gone forever, it
has taken years often to acquire a site to convince the parish council, to deal with the landowners, it's
taken a very long time to get those six homes built. We don't want to
lose them if we can help it. Because in the future we will regret that. My second reason is that the amount
of social housing housing association and council housing in
rural areas is appreciably less than in the rest of the country.
It's about 11% for areas classified as
rural locations, compared with 17% for the rest of the country.
Including double areas. -- The rural areas. There are already signs of
acute shortage in areas of affordable housing, we catapult to
lose what we've got. The third reason is that most of the developments in rural areas, in
village areas, are small developments and therefore there is
no requirement to do affordable housing, to have a proportion of the homes available on subsidised loan
rents.
So most of the developments that are going to happen in rural areas being less than 10 homes is
not going to have any of affordable
housing attached to it. We have to hang onto the properties that we have got, then re-elected them later
on. -- Re-letting them later on. Prices are higher, but wages are
lower. It's much more difficult in
rural areas for people to find housing they can genuinely afford.
There are retirees moving in in the case of Devon, from the south-east very often into the south-west.
There are more affluent commuters paying more than locals can afford
on their salaries. There is second homes, and we are going to be talking soon about short-term lets,
talking soon about short-term lets, Airbnb, holiday lets. Locals are priced out and it becomes a very
priced out and it becomes a very precious commodity to retain those few rural social houses. So I'm
few rural social houses. So I'm afraid I'm unable to support
amendment 182.
22:28
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
These benches recognise the vital importance of our rural and agricultural communities who operate under more specialised and long-
standing tenancy agreements. Such
tenancies often span many years, involve successive generations, and reflect a connection between the land and those who work it. Going
well beyond the norms found in other areas of the rental sector. We fully
appreciate the challenges that tenants and landlords may face under these arrangements, particularly
when legislation risks creating ambiguity or disruption. And it's
the height of irony that when I looked at these amendments it struck
me that discretionary rather than mandatory powers would be a very
useful thing to have.
So it's hugely ironic that the noble Lord rubra has
raised my own amendments on this issue, I would have thought some
discretionary approach for any
decision in the courts may well be a useful thing in this context.
However, while we are sympathetic with concerns raised that sympathy
doesn't translate into ready support
for amendments 176, 177, and 182. It's our understanding that this bill will not apply to residential
property let under the farm business
tenancy or the agricultural holding act tenancy, but will apply to a holding as subsequently being sublet
previously on what we now know is a
short hold tenancy.
It will have in future grounds for possession as set out in other parts of the bill. We
also understand that a process will be in place for landlords to avoid
inadvertently creating assured
agricultural occupancies. And we fully back the words of the noble
Lord best, as ever, with regards to rural communities and retention of
in particular social housing. And we
believe very firmly that local authorities should be given the
powers to make decisions over those social homes.
With the right level of localism and autonomy over that.
With that said, we look forward with interest to hearing the noble Lady
22:32
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
the Minister's response. But remained unconvinced by these three
22:32
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
remained unconvinced by these three If I would like to thank the Noble Lord Roborough and the noble Baroness coffee for their amendments
Baroness coffee for their amendments that the Noble Lord best and their comments. Turning first to amendment 176 and 177 in the name of the Noble
176 and 177 in the name of the Noble Lord Roborough, amendment 1766 to reverse the bills removal of section
reverse the bills removal of section 25.1 from the Housing Act 1988. The
25.1 from the Housing Act 1988.
The
Has answered and the answer Has answered and the answer he Has answered and the answer he will be pleased to know is a straightforward one, after the bill as amended section 151 of the 1988 actual BA spend provision so that is
actual BA spend provision so that is to say it will have no effect. That is because it deals with happens
when a statutory periodic tendency arises a cross the end of a fixed
term and assured agricultural occupancy. Statutory periodic tendencies will no longer exist after the bill is implemented, nor will fixed terms.
In fact, all
tenancies including assured
agricultural tenancies will be periodic tenancies. The provision included in clause 25 is purely a
consequential amendment tidying up the spend provision from the 1988
act following our reforms. Amendment 177 our reforms. Amendment 1776 to allow the eviction of tenants with a short agricultural notice under
grant 2ZC. This would reduce the security that these tenants currently enjoy. The Noble Lord
Roborough has highlighted and their seeking to probe whether bill is
expanding directions on when assured agricultural occupancies would be evicted.
With respect this represents a misunderstanding about
the provision is doing. " Five contains technical consequential amendments to the assured
agricultural and occupancy regime
that aims to maintain the status quo in the light of our reforms and includes preventing landlords from evicting these tenants under the
employment in five-point see as well as grants a and the new superior
landlord rent. These are covering circumstances were tenants under
assured agricultural occupancy cannot currently be evicted. These grants are being amended or introduced by the bill and may pose
a risk to their security in the new system rather than expanding the restrictions on evictions for these
tenants, this will broadly maintain the status quo, and for those reasons I would ask the Noble Lord
to withdraw his amendments.
Turning now to amendment 182 in the name of
the noble Baroness Lady Coffey,
which would prevent any secondary legislation led under the power to Lord 65 from exempting the rural
sector from the right to acquire and widely seeks to ensure that residents and properties in rural
areas have the right to acquire and the provisions in clause 65 another Secretary of State to lay regulations specifying types of
assured tenancies towards the right to require would not apply. This
consequence shall allows the Government to consider whether the existing exemptions and apply to
that shortfall tenancies should be transferred across to the new
regime.
The noble Baroness would prevent this power from being used
to prevent the rural sector from the right of reply. Rural properties are currently exempt in designated rural
areas which are generally settlements with fewer than 3,000 and the Noble Lord mentioned already
that the housing commission which he has chaired and made me aware of the
conclusions of that commission,
conclusions of that commission,
these are designed to protect affordable housing in areas both rural and urban where replacement is often non-viable due to the high cost of replacement planning
restrictions, or land constraints, for example, and as necessary to
ensure the supply of rural and affordable housing.
The Government does not have any plans to change this and it might be helpful if I
comment briefly on the right to require and to qualify for that tenants must have spent at least
three years as a public sector tenant and occupy property that is also eligible, that price without
therein rural or urban areas, however there are important exemptions such as those in the rural sector and for properties
built by or acquired by its housing
associations using their own funds. These strike a balance between promoting homeownership and Social Housing Act areas or situations
where it is most needed and the noble Baroness reflected some of the
reasons why that might be the case.
The Government recently consulted on the reforms directed by seeking
eligibility criteria in the maximum
percentage discounts and protections for those and replacement of homes sold. The consultation closed on 15 January and we are considering the
responses to those that we received and we will receive more information on the next steps in due course. The
writer require was not included in
that consultation, so the Government will consider whether any changes should be made to the writer require and future changes to the right to
buy, but, for now, we have no, sorry.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The nobility the Minister before she sits down I wonder she might consider addressing the situation where housing associations are
where housing associations are selling off rural housing to the
selling off rural housing to the open market to the highest bidder rather than to the tenants.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
rather than to the tenants. We hope to provide more
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We hope to provide more sustainability and financial terms to housing associations through mechanisms and I hope that will prevent them from the need to do
22:37
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
prevent them from the need to do that. In relation to the right to require, the Government does not
have any current plans to change this. On that basis, I would ask the noble Baroness Lady Coffey to
withdraw her amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short
debate, and in particular to my Noble Friend on agricultural
Noble Friend on agricultural dwellings and I also grateful to the Minister for providing very helpful
clarification. I think that the dwellings that have an agricultural restriction on them and employees after the cease to become employees
after the cease to become employees but are potentially protected in tenancy under the bill remains open
tenancy under the bill remains open and I hope that she might mention the right on that one.
But, in the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
meantime, I would like to withdraw. As many are of that opinion will say content. No, sorry, you do not
say content. No, sorry, you do not have to say content. Amendment 177,
have to say content. Amendment 177, not moved. The question is that clause 25 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not
"Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. The question as clause 26 to 29 stand
question as clause 26 to 29 stand part of the bill en bloc, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The
contents have it.
After clause 29, amendment Baroness Jones, not moved.
The question then is clauses 30 and 31 stand part of the bill en bloc, As many as are of that opinion, say,
"Content", Of the contrary, "Not
content", The contents have it. In schedule two, amendment 179 and 180, Baroness Taylor, moved formally en bloc. The question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as
amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it.
We now come to amendment 101, Lord Best.
22:38
Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
I rise to move amendment 101 and
I repeat my declaration of an interest as the Vice President of
the chartered trading standards Institute as well as the Local Government Association. Trading standards represent an important
ingredient in achieving the objectives of this bill stop there are the frontline in enforcement of
key measures of good practice by property agents carrying out lettings activities. To assist local
businesses of all kinds and the
trade associations that represent and advise that there are arrangements in place for primary authorities that local authorities
are able to provide specialist advice on a range of consumer
protection legislation primary authorities cover different aspects of property matters and support
property agents and their trade association property market and the petit ombudsman.
These arrangements
enable authoritative, assured advice to be given to property agents who
could then rely on that advice in dealing with any query or dispute
and relieves local authorities enforcement teams from dealing with queries, complaints of misdemeanours
that could be avoided if she would advise was available. Demand for
high quality rises is likely to grow as a result of the renters rights
Bill stop more landlords are likely to make use of letting agents to ensure all regulatory requirements
are being met.
The letting agents into need the best possible advice
on the extensive legislative measures that affect their client landlords. A problem here, however,
is that current arrangements for assured advice do not extend to
aspects of letting activities and
the tenants fees act 2019. This legislation bans agents from charging fees to tenants as well as
to landlords. Since the introduction of that legislation, local authorities have shut in this area
of letting agency work to be included in the assured advice
arrangements.
This small amendment would mean lettings advice covering
the Tenant Fees Act would at last be available on which property agency businesses can rely on local
authority enforcement authorities can act with confidence. It is an
entirely helpful tidying up piece of defective legislation and fully
supports the objectives of the renters rights Bill. I am not expecting a passionate expression of
support from lots of your Lordships
for this somewhat technical amendment, but I do hope that the noble Baroness the Minister will be able to say that it meets with the
Government approval and I pleased to move it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
199, 196, at end insert the words
22:42
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
as printed on the Marshall list. Appoint to you, Lord Best, because I feel I will rise very briefly because I think this ties in very neatly with your later amendments on
the letting agents become more professional and having better
qualifications. Any means that will actually reduce the pressure on
local authority enforcement teams is
to be very welcomed. It is techie but simple. And I think could be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
effective. My Lords, can I also thank the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, can I also thank the For bringing forward this very sensible amendment. It is thoughtful and well considered. The integration
and well considered. The integration of Tenant Fees Act 2019 into the framework for regulatory and the sanctions act 2008 through schedule
sanctions act 2008 through schedule three is not just a technical improvement. It is a step towards greater improvement in clarity in what is already a highly complex
what is already a highly complex area of legislation and bill of this scope and detail, ensuring that our
scope and detail, ensuring that our legislative frameworks are aligned and complement one another is not only sound lawmaking, but essential
only sound lawmaking, but essential for those responsible for implementation on the ground.
Is
implementation on the ground. Is that passionate enough? The
practical implications of this amendment deserve the houses close attention. In essence, it allows primary authorities to give assured,
primary authorities to give assured, legally backed advice to letting agents on how to comply with the
Tenant Fees Act 2019, supporting letting agents through legislative transitions in this way will help
avoid confusion and will ensure compliance from day one, the key
goal for any regulatory Chair. This amendment would also bring pressure
on local enforcement teams at the noble Baroness Don has mentioned,
many of whom operate with limited resources, both financial and capacity and by reducing this where
possible we enable the teams to concentrate on the most serious
breaches, rogue landlords, unsafe housing, exploitation of vulnerable tenants or intervention is most urgently needed.
This approach is
not without presence, organisations such as the lettings ordinary
council has called for greater guidance, clarity, in how
regulations are enforced across local authorities. Integrating the
Tenant Fees Act into the structure directly supports those goals and
shows that the Government is listening to those working on the frontline regulation and compliance. We are therefore sympathetic the
spirit of this amendment also it offers practical benefits to tenants, agents, enforcement
agencies alike and we believe it will contribute to a more effective, fairer, streamlined regulatory
**** Possible New Speaker ****
inquiry. I am not sure if it is the late
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am not sure if it is the late hour, but my which just sent me a
hour, but my which just sent me a
hour, but my which just sent me a dancing emoji, as if to tell me to show passion, so I will do my best. I would like to thank the Noble Lord best for his amendment which would
best for his amendment which would allow for the Tenant Fees Act 2019 to be included in the primary authority scheme. This will provide
state agency and businesses the right to have assured device when complying.
The scheme allows a local
complying. The scheme allows a local authority nominated as a primary authority to provide assured advice to businesses that operate across multiple local authority areas and
multiple local authority areas and this helps the businesses comply
with regulations. The scheme has the potential to streamline interpretation of regulation for the
business. It can also be a more efficient approach to regulation for local Government. I welcome business numbers of how sharing their views
numbers of how sharing their views on this matter and we will undertake to consider this amendment further and for now, though, for those
reasons, I would ask Lord Best to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 182, Baroness Coffey, and
Amendment 182, Baroness Coffey, and not move. 183, Baroness Taylor moved
not move. 183, Baroness Taylor moved formally. The question is this amendment be agreed to, as many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary, "Not content", the
of the contrary, "Not content", the contents have it. The question now is that scheduled to as amended be
the second schedule to the bill, as many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary, "Not
"Content", of the contrary, "Not content".
The contents have it. We now come to clause 32, amendment
now come to clause 32, amendment 184, moved formally. The question is that this amendment be agreed to, as
that this amendment be agreed to, as many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not
"Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The question now is that clause 32 as amended stand part of the bill, as
amended stand part of the bill, as many as are of that opinion, say, "Content".
Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.
After clause 32 amendment 185, Lord Best.
22:47
Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
I apologise for having to win a
road. Amendment 185 in my name and the names of the noble Lord Truscott
and Lord Young and Lady Barran as
Thornhill -- Baroness Thornhill, would require planning consent
before assured or short hold tenancy's can be converted into
short-term lettings. The definition of short-term letting is defined in the levelling-up and regeneration
act 2023, these lettings are often
referred to as Airbnb lets. Although several companies handle them.
I
should begin by noting the amendment does not affect the letting of spare
rooms to supplement family income, or temporary use of an owner occupier's home for example when
they are away on holiday. Instead, the amendment covers the switching
of privately rented properties from ordinary longer term ratings for those living and working locally to
short-term lets for visitors. This phenomenon is having a serious
impact on housing shortages in a number of tourist hotspots. In some
places the loss of PRS lettings has reached critical proportions, from seaside towns to national parks to
historic cities.
Appallingly there
are many examples of landlords serving notices to quit evicting tenants so that long established renters can be replaced by higher
paying lettings to tourists. According to air DNA for example, which tracks the lettings by Airbnb
and similar companies, York saw a
increase of 30% in short-term lets in the city between August 2021 and 2023. York has now more than 2,000
such lets. In Coniston in the Lake District, 50% of homes are not lived
in full-time. In the picturesque town of Salcombe in Devon it's
understood around 40% of the accommodation now comprises second
homes or short-term lettings.
I
commend the relevant section from the Devon housing report on this. The switching phenomenon also has particular relevance in London. The
survey by the property consultant saddles around 117,000 homes listed
for short-term lettings on the
Airbnb and another website in last year in just 12 London boroughs. The
survey found more than half were let for the permitted days in London,
and in the central London boroughs 40% of the private rental sector was let on a short-term basis. In many
other European and American cities action is being taken to address this problem, indeed Wales and
Scotland have legislated to reduce the impact of losing homes for
locals to rent.
In England the levelling-up and regeneration act
2023 has provided the basis for a start to be made. The act requires
the Secretary of State to introduce mandatory registration for short- term lets. This measure would
provide local authorities with an evidence-based on which to decide whether the level of short-term lettings in their area should be
restricted. Regulations under the levelling-up and regeneration act
would prohibit the use of short-term lets of nonregistered properties.
Introducing registration would be a good starting point, but so far no
action has been taken.
In February 2024, Michael Gove, then Secretary
of State, announced government would be taking this issue to the next stage using the planning system to
control switch overs to short-term lets where the local planning
authority deemed this necessary. To inform the details of this new regime a government consultation
considered the introduction of a new use class for planning purposes,
this would enable local authorities
to refuse a change of use for long- term to a short-term letting. This produced nearly unanimous agreement,
such action would be a valuable mechanism to discourage further
expansion of the so-called Airbnb sector in specific places.
The government of the day pledged to
take this forward at pace. Sadly, no
action followed. The previous government did reform the tax regime
for furnished holiday lets, this has now come into force. The change removes a strong incentive for
flipping properties from long to short-term letting, but more
landlords may be tempted to flip their properties introducing --
making the introduction of a new use class all the more urgent. This
amendment 185 is intended to provide the opportunity for government to progress the action needed to amend
planning law by creating a new use class for short-term lettings, empowering each local authority to
decide whether it's in the interests of their community to permit changes
of use from long to short-term lets.
The Minister for Housing and
Planning Act place, Matthew Pennycook, has demonstrated an appreciation of this issue and has promised to take further action. But
when? If the noble Baroness the
Minister is not able to accept this amendment it would be helpful if she could update the committee on the
timetable for introducing first the long-term lettings registration scheme, and second the legislation to create a new use class for
short-term lets. Action now is overdue. I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
After clause 30 to insert the new
22:53
Lord Truscott (Non-affiliated)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
After clause 30 to insert the new clause as printed on the marshalled list. As mentioned previously in
committee I declare my interest as a landlord and a former tenant in the
long-term lets sector. The noble Lord best has made the case
convincingly. As much as the government should include this
amendment in the current bill
because there is -- and the exponential rise in Airbnb and other short let platforms, a register
while welcome would chart the
expansion in this area which is already having such a deleterious effect on long-term accommodation
for locals in their communities.
The noble Lady the Minister may say this is not a matter for this bill, but it is. The bill before your Lordship's House would accelerate
the trend of short-term lets unless amended. It would simply introduce another class of short-term lets
protected by law. The PRS has not grown in the last nine years, as I
mentioned previously in committee. The current bill, by prohibiting
upfront rental payments and fixed term tenancies, will mean more landlords moving to short lets. This
trend is ignored by the bill but will follow as surely as night follows day.
Tenants will be able to
give two months notice under proposed legislation. Why should
they do that? Once tenants move in
the length of their tenancy will be impossible to police. If tenants move out only after a month rather
than the minimum two, how will that be monitored and by whom? It will result in widespread short lets by
result in widespread short lets by
the back door. The tourists can simply move into what was previously a long let, give two months notice and save thousands of pounds.
It would just take a little fib on the
part of the tenant. A landlord would have no way of knowing the landlords -- the tenants real intentions so
will put up the rent, assuming all long lets can become short lets. The distinction between the short and
long-term lets will disappear.
Neither the prohibition of fixed term tenancies nor advanced rental payments were in Labour's manifesto,
I'm at a loss as to why these two measures that provide stability and
certainty to the market have become nonnegotiable.
The majority of tenants actually want fixed terms,
so I fail to see why HMG think they know better than tenants themselves.
Ever more landlords gravitate towards more profitable short term
lets, 10 rents go up -- rents go up. The noble Lord best mentioned London
and Devon, I have quoted before how some London housing plots have become over 90% Airbnb or similar
short lets. Local residents be done.
I know Devon well, Lord Best
mentioned sulk. Similar cases can be found in Wales.
It's not just
coastal resorts and historic cities like Bath, which I also know well, and York which are affected. Areas
around Birmingham have also become short let hotspots. Of course, it's
not only the UK. Airbnb and the like has reached saturation point in
Spain. Both in cities like Barcelona and on Tenerife. It has become so bad with locals priced out of
accommodation that tourists have been assaulted in restaurants and on
beaches. The fact is short lets are far more profitable for landlords
than long lets.
Airbnb and other short let platforms are becoming increasingly dominated by professional landlords, as regulation is either non-existent or
a very light touch. By way of comparison, long let residential properties already governed by 170 laws and regulations. The
attractions for landlords moving to short lets is obvious and will be enabled by this bill. Apart from the
further regulatory and legal provisions in the bill, long let
landlords will be asked by HMRC to make quarterly tax returns by April 2026. And new regulations code cost
2026.
And new regulations code cost
anywhere from £15,000 per property.
Airbnb I suspect tax evasion is rampant. Renting out flats or rooms
on Airbnb or other short let platforms undermines long-term
rentals, legitimate B&Bs and smaller hotels all of whom must pay taxes,
abide by a host of regulations, employ local people and support local economies. With more and more remote professional landlords, Airbnb does none of that. The idea
that Airbnb and other similar platforms allows a few grannies to
innocently rent out spare rooms is far from the true picture.
The impact of short lets is also
pernicious, undermining the sense of community and can be a security risk
to blocks of flats. With Airbnb tenants having parties and coming at
all hours of the day and night. Researchers found half of London's
117,000 short let holiday lets are
being rented out. Councillor Adam Haag, where over 50% of residents
living short-term property, said
short lets hollow out the area, giving significant noise disruption.
In 2015 there were fewer than 30,000 short lets in London, which more
than doubled throughout 2016, peaking at over 100,000 in 2019.
As
The London Mayor deputy said we need to bring these back into long-term
properties or properties for people to buy or live in and occupy. This bill as drafted will legalise ever
more short lets as tenants will be able to legally move out of the
property after just two months. I had experience of an Airbnb rented
flat in a block where short lets were banned under the lease. The owner was fully aware of the fact and kept denying the property was
rented out on Airbnb.
Despite the property being advertised openly on
the website. Airbnb takes no action in these situations. In our case it took over two years for the owner to
be forced to abandon Airbnb, despite his flat being the only short let in
the block. People were coming and going every few days, concerns for
security were considerable. The only action which reigned in the current
lease holder was a threat by the excellent managing agent to forfeit the lease. They previously said this
option will be banned, so I wonder how such situations will be resolved
in future.
I retained the nuclear
option of forfeiture for relatively minor transgressions. It's interesting to see how other countries are dealing with the likes
countries are dealing with the likes
In Barcelona, the city has bank short-term rental since 2021. Majorca band MP and be rentals with
certain conditions. A ban on air beyond be style accommodations and
beyond be style accommodations and
the info/ regulations, including property rentals and empowers one of the largest markets in the world for
air.
And be, in 2015 the Government crackdown on these apartments at up specifically for short-term rentals.
Earlier the ban on air. Be unsure to
rentals in 2015 being on the back of that restriction in 2018 and in California and many of its coastal cities including Santa Monica
short-term rentals are either banned or tightly controlled. So, the UK is well behind the international curve on regulating and banning short term
rent. In conclusion, I support Lord
Best's amendment and furthermore urge his majesties Government to think about the dire consequences of
stimulated the shift to evermore shorter let properties at the expense of the availability of long
**** Possible New Speaker ****
lights, local residents, and communities. I too have added my name to Lord Best amendment and want to add a
Best amendment and want to add a very brief amendment to the two speeches that have been made. It is
23:02
Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
speeches that have been made. It is at times like this that we risk the contribution of the Noble Lady
baroness of Parks who we will Forcefully when they were mentioned, reminding us of the erosion of rented property in London. Also as Lord Truscott has mentioned some problems in large blocks of flats
with short term tenants not conforming to the normal rules. What
we need here is a balance. There is a role for short-term lettings to
play as part of a portfolio of opportunities in a coastal resort or
indeed a capital city, but what we have at the moment is a one-way street of the erosion of long-term property for rent to a short-term
letting, and if we are to have a
balance and get the balance right it should be the local authority who should be in a position to strike
that balance, and the distinguished
leader of the local authority the Minister as I sure they would agree that local authorities are best
placed to do this, I think I am right in saying that until fairly recently we did actually need planning permission to move from
long-term letting to short-term
letting.
But in a move to deregulate and make it easier to move from one
class to another, in the 2010 or
2015 that requirement to get that planning consent from one to another was waived. Apart from London and it
was retained in London and only in London where if you want to short-
term rent property you can only do
so for 90 days. And this is effective unless it is enforced and local authorities find it difficult
to enforce it.
And what this amendment is seeking to establish is
whether the Government are minded to extend from London to other parts of the country. That type of
restriction. Two, as I said, stop
what is, at the moment, a one-way
street. Just a reminder to what Lord Best has suggested, planning to go from long-term to short-term, do
think you need to have planning consent to go the other way. In
other words, it should be a hurdle to get over, but if you want to evict a long-term continue should not have to go through the process
again.
But if one looks at various parts of the country, in some
coastal areas shop term homes one in 10 are now that or roughly 24 homes
a day are being lost through this process. So, I hope the Minister
will be able to respond sympathetically to the thrust of this bill. And said that while plans
to give local authorities the powers which I think they need to get the right balance in the tenure in their
area.
23:05
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I live not far from Aldeburgh, not too far and I are very conscious of the issues that have arisen from people acquiring homes and then
turning them into short-term rentals. It is a really important
part of the coastal economy, but I would suggest in a different way
that I am sure the changes made to the tax situation where it is possible to offset mortgage and all
sorts of expenses led to a significant increase in the price
that people were prepared to pay for houses.
And as all this in Southwold when I got a lot of angry letters, admittedly, from people that had
done such a thing. But what happened
is that a neighbouring house that had been priced only if you years earlier for something like three or £4000 they were now selling for over £1 million. And this was done on the
basis of the short-term property and rental that was possible. However, what concerns me about this is it
does not account for those people that are moving in place to make it a permanent home and this is suggesting in this amendment that if it is being used at all for long-
term tenancy then it is to be excluded or need further planning
permission.
And what I would suggest is there are plenty of people that are trying to make whether it is in the rural or coastal areas a long-
term home. But I do want to take
advantage of the times when the Jews themselves to go on holiday in order to get some rental income. It is a
perfectly sensible way for people to move away in potentially the higher
season to get that extra income, so while I am sensitive to the issues
raised by the Noble Lord best and my honourable friend the Noble Lord of Cookham, I do think we need to
explore what happens when the property transitions from one owner
to another so that they can use their new family home in the best way possible.
Not only to enjoy that
home, but to make sure it gets used all year round.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to support amendment 185
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to support amendment 185 in the name of Lord Best and signed
23:08
Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
in the name of Lord Best and signed by the Noble Lord young, Truscott, and by myself. And explained very much full and in detail, so needs no
further references or expansion from me. Indeed, from our many and
various discussions, Oral Questions during house business, we are only
too aware of the problem, both here and abroad. The loss of properties
from the long-term private renting sector into the much more lucrative and less regulated short-term
lettings is causing considerable problems in some parts of the country, as outlined in detail by Lord Best.
It is a fact that some
communities, I am sorry to keep stressing that, but I feel it is
important to keep us at sea balanced perspective on this, that some communities are being hollowed out
as locals cannot find somewhere to
rent for the longer-term and nor can they find somewhere that they can actually afford to buy, so therefore
landlords from reflecting as outlined by Lord Young would also be
supported by us. We do recognise that willingness and the
difficulties of both the previous
and this government's efforts to balance the needs of tourists, homeowners, and local residents.
And it is a tricky one because balance
it is a tricky one because balance
is the key and individual local plans should be able to reflect each local authorities own needs and circumstances. Now, to help local
authorities, as we have already heard, was the proposed mandatory registration scheme proposed by the
last Government and that was a very positive thing as it would improve
transparency and ensure compliance with local regulations, but I note
that in parliamentary debate relating to this bill, the housing
minister stated that the previous administration's proposals to clampdown on holiday lets did not go
far enough.
And that his Government
is considering what additional weight to give local authorities
unable them to better respond to the pressures they face as a result of what is being called excessive concentrations of short-term lets
and holiday homes in some parts of
the country. Therefore, to keep brief and to some up, I think what
would be very welcome before report stage is an update on the mandatory registration scheme, and any other
powers that are being taken forward, whether in this bill or in other
legislation, including actions on
companies who take no action, as was very well outlined by the Noble Lord
Truscott.
So that we can judge whether this amendment is a helpful
addition to take forward at report, or completely unnecessary. I look forward to the noble Ladies
response. response.
23:12
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, I think the Noble Lord
best for proposing this amendment. It does raise suspicion to one of
the acute processes following this sector, the supply of housing. Can I also think the Noble Lord Truscott, the Noble Lord young, and the
Baroness Coffey and Thornhill for their comments. It does seem that
this House has a fair degree of support for this from all sides. But
noble Lords will remember that this is one of the themes that we on these benches have been most
concerned about.
I Noble Friend Baroness Scott highlighted the production and housing supply on the first day of committee. They have reported that they have seen a 42%
reduction in the number of rental properties on their books in the first quarter this year. Data
involved for the national residential landlords Association
and at 41% of landlords say they plan to cut the number of properties they plan to rent out in the next 12
months. This is highly concerning, given that the supply of available rental properties is already
falling.
20 has found that the supply of properties has dropped by
1% compared to 2024 and plummeted
22% below 2019 pre-pandemic levels. Currently, only 284,000 rental homes
are available nationwide, a decline
of 18% from last year and 23% in
2019. The first quarter of 2025, 15.6% of new property listings for sale were previously rental homes.
This is a sharp increase from 9.8% in the same period in 2024. And
renting is no longer simply a
transitional phase or fallback option for many people, it is a deliberate and legitimate long-time long-term housing choice, renting
office flexibility, freedom from the financial practical burdens of
homeownership.
But tenants cannot
benefit if there is simply not enough supply. The Noble Lord Truscott raised, as did many others, the risks associated with this
current bill of actually accelerating this trend in short- term debts of the air B&B and other
types. That is why this amendment from the Noble Lord best would contribute to the solution where
there is not enough supply of available rent accommodation and
many landlords are planning on working to reduce the amount of short-term lettings to protect
currently available supply and, hopefully, prevent further
reductions.
Planning consent helps local authorities manage the shift and safeguard the rental supply,
especially in high demand areas. This is especially true given the
highly regionalised disparities in supply, deficits, of private rental
housing. I would add that as the
bill goes forward we do need to ensure that local authorities have submission capacity in their
planning teams and, in this context, whether it might also be better to consider whether licensing may also
be an effective tool in this area.
23:15
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I would like to thank the Noble Lord best for his amendment which
would seek to restrict the
conversion of a shared rental properties into short-term until the Noble Lord trusted and Lord Young, the noble Baroness coffee and the noble Baroness Thornhill and the
noble Jamieson for taking part in this debate. The Government
recognises that while short-term can benefit the tourist economy, they can also impact on the availability and affordability of housing,
including the private rented sector sector.
And I understand noble Lords
frustration that little had been done to assess the impact of this and its development, as its
development has accelerated over
As we discussed at earlier stages landlords may be leaving the long-
term rental sector to give short- term lets. Some figures were given about reductions in the rental
market, but I would say statistics
released on 28 April from right moves rental tracker told a different story. They found the
number of new properties coming to the market in March was 11% ahead of
the same period last year, while the overall number of rental properties
is 18% up on 2024.
Just months before the legislation is set to come into force this summer. So there are differing opinions about
the impact. But in order to address the issues noble Lords have raised,
the bill includes provision to ensure landlords will not be able to
evict tenants simply to return the property into a holiday let. As many
noble Lords will be aware, we also abolished the furnished holiday lets tax regime, as a result of this
measure landlords will no longer be incentivised by the tax system to make properties available as short- term holiday lets rather than longer
term homes, for people who want to
live and work in the area.
The government will also introduce a short-term lets registration scheme,
as legislated for in the levelling- up and regeneration act 2023. The scheme will collect crucial data on
the sector to ensure all providers of short-term lets are aware of their legal responsibilities to ensure health and safety standards
are met in their property. And in respect of the comments made by Lord
Best and Lord Truscott and Lord Young, and Lord Jamieson, I would
add we are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the reform program, and we have set out how we
are developing our approach for the bill.
It builds on the Department's
long-term housing sector monitoring work, and we will conduct our process impact and value for money evaluation in line with the
departments published evaluation strategy. We won't just drop the bill and leave it, we will continue
to monitor the situation. Lord Best and Baroness Thornhill asked about
when the register will be operational. The government is keen to introduce the registration scheme
full short-term lets in England as soon as possible. With the initial phase of development complete,
public testing is planned to start in the next 12 months.
During this next phase of work we will test a
working interface with a small number of users to make sure the systems and processes are robust and effective before publicly launching a first version of the service. So
it's on its way, we have started working on it and will bring it
forward as quickly as we can. Lord Truscott asked a question about energy performance standards for PR
(BLEEP) and short-term lets. On 7
February this year day Naz Mike DESNZ introduced standards in the private rented sector, the
private rented sector, the
consultation includes an EPC or equivalent by 2030.
DESNZ are also
seeking views on whether short-term lets should be included in the scope of these changes to help ensure a common standard across all private
rentals properties. The proposed
amendment to this bill seeks only to allow councils to place restrictions on the change of use from a private
rental property to a short-term rental property, and would not
affect the change of user. The amendment will not have the intended
effect, as the use classes order does not permit the change of use in the way proposed.
I want to assure
you all we are carefully considering what additional powers we might give
to local authorities to enable them to respond to the pressures created by short-term lets. However I also
recognise the complexities of introducing these types of restrictions, therefore I believe we
need to explore the various potential levers that could help achieve that better balance we all
want to see between housing and tourism economy before moving
forwards. So I would therefore ask Lord Best for now to withdraw his
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment. To seek a point of clarification from the noble Baroness the
23:20
Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
from the noble Baroness the Minister, you just made a comment that this legislation will take
force this summer. I just want to clarify, does that mean everything will be in place including things
like the database and ensuring there is capacity and so forth.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The comment was related to the finishing of the bill, there may be
finishing of the bill, there may be subsequent work to be done on the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bail after that. -- The bill. I'm grateful to noble Lords for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm grateful to noble Lords for their support all round the house for this amendment. My thanks to
for this amendment. My thanks to Lord Truscott, he emphasises the
Lord Truscott, he emphasises the urgency of the situation of the position in so many other major
cities, Paris, Barcelona, Menorca, Santa Monica, other countries are getting ahead of us in taking action
getting ahead of us in taking action that we should probably be learning
that we should probably be learning from.
He mentioned and Lord Young mentioned the disruption to other
mentioned the disruption to other residents, which comes from short- term lettings. The nuisance of parties, fly tipping, security
parties, fly tipping, security problems, that is not the main reason for the proposed amendment.
But it is an important additional factor that gives emphasis to its
importance. The noble Lord Young said we must strike a balance, and
the local authorities best place to do that. Between the interests of
the tourist industry and the interests of those who are looking
for somewhere to live.
Baroness
Coffey was a bit worried about owner occupiers being badly affected, not being able to let out their properties for example when they are
on holiday. I think the amendment takes care of that, but it certainly should. It is not the individual
owner that lets a spare room or even
the whole house for a week or two that we are talking about here. It's the businesses that operate at some
scale. I'm grateful to the CPRE, The Countryside Charity for helping
formulate this amendment.
And with many thanks to the noble Lord
Jamieson, who made important points, we must protect the current supply
of accommodation at a time when we are worried about the loss of any
homes that are badly needed. I will
withdraw the amendment. But just to say, thank you to the Minister for
telling us about registration. I think the time scheme you for the --
think the time scheme you for the --
timescale for the registration is over the next 12 months, with a first version then being tried.
All good stuff, but it sounds slightly
slow. The as soon as possible bit
was the best bit. The noble Baroness the Minister also said other
solutions alongside the possibility of introducing a use class in a way
that works as part of it are being considered. And pulling the right
levers is obviously going to be important, but I think if government takes away the message that, yes,
they are prepared to do something but the speed at which it is done is going to be important as well.
We
can't let this fester much longer. With those comments I do badly to
withdraw the amendment. -- Begley to withdraw the amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I was reading his amendment where it says where a property is being let subject to an assured tenancy or
let subject to an assured tenancy or short hold tenancy any time in the preceding three years it must not be
preceding three years it must not be let as a short-term rental property until a change of use is being permitted. What I was trying to understand from his amendment was
understand from his amendment was when there is a change of ownership, not just any old renting out if someone goes away, at the moment
someone goes away, at the moment that would prevent a new owner
that would prevent a new owner occupier from being able to do what is suggested without planning permission.
I'm trying to understand
**** Possible New Speaker ****
his own amendment. Thank you for that point, which sounds entirely valid. And may need
sounds entirely valid. And may need us to refine still further the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment we are working on. Is a your Lordships pleasure the amendment be withdrawn? Amendment by
amendment be withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 186,
leave withdrawn. Amendment 186, debated, moved formally. The question is that amendment 106 be agreed, as many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the
contrary, "Not content". They contents have it. Amendment 187,
already debated, moved formally. The question is that amendment 187B
made, as many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary, "Not content".
The
contents have it. The question is that clause 33 as amended sang part of the bill. As many as are of that
opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary, "Not content". Contents have it. The question is that clause
100 -- amendment 188 be made, as many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary, "Not
content". The contents have it. The question is that clause 34 as amended stand part of the bill, as many as are of that opinion, say,
"Content".
Of the contrary, "Not content". They contents have it.
Amendment 189, Lord Young of
Cookham. Already debated. Not moved.
The question is that clauses 35 and 36 en bloc stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not
content". The contents have it. Amendment 190, Lord Black of
Brentwood.
23:26
Lord Black of Brentwood (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I would like to speak to amendments 190, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96
and 98 in my name, which are also signed by Lord Lexden. And with the
exception of amendments 193 and 198 by Baroness Coffey. I am grateful to
them. Given the hour and as we are discussing animals, I think it right
to acknowledge there are clearly
night towels. The purpose of the amendments is to insert new clause 36 to extend pre-tenancy discrimination protections to pet
owners.
In an earlier debate on this bill in committee I set out why this
legislation is so important, and why pet owners need certainty and clarity about its application. This
set of amendment yields on that debate on a further very specific
issue. Whilst the current version of the bill provides protections after tenancy begins for pet owners,
requiring landlords to consider pet requests reasonably, I am concerned
these are rendered ineffective if pet owners are excluded before
tenancies are offered. As I made clear before, I'm delighted this bill rightly seeks to prevent pre-
tenancy discrimination against tenants with children and benefit
claimants.
It should also be
extended to tenants who own pets and are seeking a new place to rent,
currently the are in protected. Without such a measure there's a real risk landlords will
automatically disadvantage or reject applicants simply based on the issue of pet ownership. The truth is that
pet ownership is regrettably already currently treated as a de facto
disqualify by many landlords. Applicants can be dismissed outright on the sole basis of owning a pet
with no requirement to rectify the decision.
This renders any post
tenancy pet rights in the bill practically inaccessible for existing pet owners who are moving
home, who are barred from progressing past the application
stage in the first place. As the noble Lady the Minister rightly highlighted in the debate last week,
the pet provisions in the bill are fundamentally based upon the principle of reasonableness. And that's absolutely right. However, as
it stands landlords are not
technically required to consider any form of a pet owner at occupant and
can reject them outright without any safeguards in place.
This creates a
gap, while existing tenants may have protection prospective tenants
looking to move may not have legal support to make a reasonable request to keep a pet at the point of
applying for a tenancy. I fear this will continue to result in pet owners facing that heartbreaking
decision of having to choose between a home and their pet. As many thousands of homes will remain
closed off to them. The proposed clause and consequential amendments
of a balanced solution.
It does not require landlords to accept pets
unconditionally, instead it prevents landlords from automatically rejecting applications on the grounds of pet ownership. While
retaining their ability to refuse consent on reasonable grounds after
an application has been successful. That seems to me the right way to deal with this matter. Government
statistics indicate tenants with dependent children represent less
than 19% of the private rental sector, and those receiving housing support approximately 25%. Yet both
groups are rightly recognised in the bill as warranting protection, due to their increased vulnerability in
the housing market.
In contrast, pet owners or those aspiring to own a
pet make out a significantly larger
Only 8% while 676% of tenants who
wish to do so. The disparity between
the availability is striking and lack of legislative protection arising from this bill exacerbates
this mismatch. Furthermore, as I noted before in committee, figures
from Battersea dogs and Cats Home show that 39% of homes come from
renters, underscoring the direct impact that a lack of housing has on
pet ownership.
This demonstrates the risk of pet owning tenants facing in
the sector where a tenant can easily reject applications without
explanation, often forcing tenants to give their pets to access housing. Indeed, this is the second
most common reason animals are sadly surrender to Battersea dogs and Cats
home. This clause is essential to tackling the first barrier tenants face when they are entering the
private rental market. Being excluded before even securing a
excluded before even securing a tenancy. Without such a small and
tenancy.
Without such a small and proportionate practical change, this bill sadly risks following a little short of its goal of ending the blanket ban on pet in privately rented homes and broadly creating a
rented homes and broadly creating a fairer and more inclusive rental fairer and more inclusive rental system for all. I beg to move.
23:32
Lord Lexden (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Amendment proposed after clause
36, insert the following new clause
**** Possible New Speaker ****
as printed on the Marshall list. I am God, as always, to support
my Noble Friend Lord Black, whose commitment to animal is well-known.
commitment to animal is well-known. His proposed new clause and his amendments in this group represent a further stage of his determined
further stage of his determined efforts on behalf of beloved pets
efforts on behalf of beloved pets and their owners. The principal underlying these proposed changes is
simple. Fairness in the rental market must apply at the very first stage of the process which is where
stage of the process which is where an application was made for tenants.
My Noble Friend has pointed out the
My Noble Friend has pointed out the bill rightly prohibits pre-tendency
bill rightly prohibits pre-tendency discrimination against those with children or in receipt of benefits. Similar protection should be
Similar protection should be extended to those with pets, who at the moment face rejection for an application for tenancy on that one
ground alone. The new clause does
not compel noble Lords to accept pets unconditionally, it simply introduces fairness by ensuring that
applications cannot be dismissed out of hand just because a pet is involved.
As my Noble Friend has
made clear, we need to therein mind the terrible position in which the absence of fairness places pet
owners at the moment, the heartbreak that infers to choose between a home
and a companion animal is one no tenant should have to make. I hope the Government will give very
careful consideration to my noble
23:35
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Put my name to these amendments. I must confess I did not quite understand amendment 193 and 198, so
understand amendment 193 and 198, so I did not put my name to it but I'm grateful to the explanation that my Noble Friend has given. There is no doubt that the availability of
doubt that the availability of private rental in having pets is considerably smaller. I am conscious
considerably smaller. I am conscious that when I moved to Suffolk I think it was back in March 2010 when I was
looking for places to rent, not holiday rent, to rent properly as a
holiday rent, to rent properly as a home, my recollection is that my availability if I did not have this
at the time was over 200 properties.
When it came to actually landlords that would even encounter having a
that would even encounter having a dog it was reduced to four. And this
dog it was reduced to four. And this is an area of 300 mi. It gave me a very clear insight into how people
very clear insight into how people who want to move with their family and pets are often considered part
of that family, what restrictions are put in there. And, of course, as has been mentioned elsewhere,
certainly a premium to pay as a consequence of what property was available in my opportunity to be
able to have Brazil come and visit
on a regular basis.
I think one in particular that we have tabled with
particular that we have tabled with
the preferences. I think I was pretty horrified to learn that in the majority of caseworkers over the years about these artificial
restrictions and people had taken up that simply said I am not allowed to
do so. And that is why we send my Noble Friend amendment, as my Noble
Friend has said this is just plain discrimination they had not been
able to secure a home in a particular area and I believe these
are for the bill to welcome the opportunity to try to move these
exclusions on pets into homes where people are renting, and that is why
I hope that we can still look kindly on these particular amendments to
make sure that this part of the potential loophole right now is addressed.
addressed.
23:36
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I do that the Minister will not
agree to this, as someone with the fact that I live part-time and
sometimes I rented an allergic to animals, the idea that I would have to consider and take an application for someone with a pet when I could
not possibly have them living there because of my allergy just seems to me quite unfair that they would have
to come and see it and waste all of their time knowing there is no chance in the world that I could
rented to someone with a pet, so it would not get in the way of forcing
someone like me to waste someone's time going to see a property which there is no way I would able to have
there is no way I would able to have the animal in the flat which I then
lived in at other times.
23:37
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, could I thank my Noble Friend Lord Black Brentwood for his amendments and also the contributions from my Noble Friends Lord Lexden and Baroness Coffey and
Baroness Hayter who made it very clear that we have to have a balance. And, my Lords, this group
seeks to address the growing concern
among renters but we also must consider the values and practical
concerns of landlords. While these proposals aim to prevent blanket
bans on the properties it is essential to recognise that there
must be a legitimate reason for any restrictions.
Many tenants may view
their pets as family members, as we have heard, but we also must acknowledge the potential challenges and consequences of allowing pets in
rental properties challenges that can affect property maintenance,
insurance costs, and, also, the well-being, as we have heard from other tenants. A balanced approaches
needed. On that considers both the
rights of tenants and the legitimate concerns of landlords and property owners. Landlords are often responsible for the upkeep of the
property and ensuring the safety and comfort of all tenants, allowing pets may also complicate insurance
policies needed to hire premiums, or even exclusions in certain cases.
These concerns are not trivial, and
These concerns are not trivial, and
must not be dismissed likely, but treated in a way that is both fair and proportionate and the amendment recognises the need for a balanced approach that takes into account
both the rights of those tenants and the legitimate interests of
landlords. We on the benches have made our position clear on previous
days of the committee and we continue to offer a balanced
solution that respects both the needs, as I have said, of the tenants and of property owners.
Ultimately, these amendments
contribute to a more equitable housing market, were tenants and
pets are not excluded from their right in the home that suits their needs. They also ensure that the landlord can continue to manage
landlord can continue to manage their properties responsibly with the appropriate protections in
the appropriate protections in
23:40
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I would like to thank the Noble
Lord block of Brentwood for his amendments relating to pets in rental discrimination, and the Noble Lord Luxton and Baroness Coffey, my
Noble Friend Baroness Hayter and the Baroness Scott for their comments on
this group of amendments. Amendment
190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 and 198 would extend the core rental
discrimination provisions of Chapter three to prospective renters with pets, protecting them from any
unfavourable treatment in the letting process.
We know that pets bring a huge amount of joy to their
owners, even the snake that we heard
about the other day. We are committed to supporting pet ownership in the private rented
sector, however it is our view that extending our rental provisions in
this manner would be proportionate and no is it necessary. The bill already contains measures to ensure
that landlords cannot unreasonably withhold consent when a tenant requests to have a pet in their home
and they must consider the request and provide valid justification is consent is refused.
This ensures
that tenants are not unfairly treated from keeping pets while still allowing landlords to consider
legitimate concerns such as property, suitability, restrictions,
for example. We discussed the other day around the leases and clauses around pets or potential issues with
other residents as the Baroness
Hayter mentioned. Tenants will be able to escalate unfair decisions
and they will have strong powers to put things right, such as compelling
put things right, such as compelling a landlord to take a specific action, issue an apology underwater financial compensation.
As such, I would kindly ask that the Noble Lord would kindly ask that the Noble Lord consider withdrawing his amendments.
23:42
Lord Black of Brentwood (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I am very grateful to all of
those that have taken part in this short debate. My Noble Friend in
particular who pulled us quite rightly about the heartbreak that
followed when tenants have to choose between home and a pet, something
between home and a pet, something
that happens far too much which this bill is determined to diminish. Also, I very grateful to my Noble
Friend Lady Coffey who brought to my her considerable experience and
expertise in this area.
And takes it very seriously. I say to the Noble
Lady Hayter of course I understand the issue that arises and I am
unfortunately allergic to pollen and there is little that I can do to avoid that, but you are absolutely right, that is why we had to strike
a balance, as my Noble Friend Lady
Scott said, this is all about balance between the rights of tenants and landlords. I believe these amendments strike that
balance, which is why I have brought them and am grateful to the Noble Lady the Minister for her comments
and understanding.
She has been very constructive in all the discussions we have had on the pets in the committee and I thank her for that.
When we discussed matters in committee, I think it was last week,
she was talking about some of her
guidelines being drawn up alongside this legislation when it comes into force and it just occurs to me that this might be one of those areas
where there occurred be some form of guidance that would help to ameliorate some of the problems and
perhaps you would be happy to do so and talk to the various animal
charities concerned I think they would be happy to help.
But, in the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendments. The question is that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment is, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment 191, already debated, not
Amendment 191, already debated, not moved. Amendment 192, already debated, not moved. The question is
debated, not moved. The question is that clause 37 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the
contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment 193,
already debated, not moved. The question is that clause 38 stand
part of the bill.
As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment 194,
already debated, not moved. The question is that clause 39 stand part of the bill. As many as are of
that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The
contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment 195, already debated, not moved. The question is that clause 40 stand part of the bill. As many as are of
that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The
contents have it.
Amendment 196 are not moved. The question is that clause 41 stand part of the bill. As
many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment 197 already debated, not
moved. Amendment 198, already
debated, not moved. The question is that clause 42 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", The contents have it, The contents have
it. Amendment 199, Baroness Jones of
Moulsecoomb, not moved. Not here.
Not moved.
Be very hard to move it. Under those circumstances. The
Under those circumstances. The question is that clause 43 to 57 stand part of the bill on block. As many as are of that opinion, say,
many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it.
content", The contents have it.
23:46
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
My amendments in this group are intended to probe the government's decisions on rental bidding and to
better understand the rationale behind this section of the bill. I
begin by drawing your Lordships attention to amendment 199 a tabled in my name, I wish to understand why
a tenant or prospective tenant
offers a lower rent than the value the landlord is prevented from accepting it. If a tenant is able to
secure the property at a more affordable rate, this seems a and
beneficial outcome.
If the proposed
letting value is set unrealistically high then allowing offers below that figure provides an important market
correction, one that benefits tenants. This is particularly relevant in weaker rental markets
when negotiating powers often lies proportionately with the landlords. I simply ask the noble Baroness
Minister, did she consider this
before putting it forward? On these benches we recognise the difficult balance the government is attempting
to strike between preventing unfair and unaffordable rent increases and
ensuring the proposed letting value reflects market conditions.
Market conditions of course are determined
by the supply of homes, and the market rent must still incentivise
landlords to stay in the sector to provide housing capacity that we
urgently need. This brings me to the amendment in my name, to oppose the question that clause 58 stand part
of the bill. The rent setting process must be transparent and it must be free to function. We should
not pretend we can fix prices
without distorting the market signals that allow for an efficient and well resourced housing market.
We must be careful not to introduce
policies that mask the simple fact that we need more homes of all
types. We on these benches are
committed to working with the noble Baroness the Minister to that end, but I ask first of all has she
considered whether these measures might actually obscure the true
demand in the rental sector. Understanding that demand is key to finding the right supply, the right
homes built in the right places. As the Minister considered the impact
on labour mobility? Tenants in rent controlled units may be discouraged
from relocating for jobs or education.
Thus reducing workforce
mobility. With over 800,000 vacancies we should not be
inadvertently curtailing the movement of our workers. Finally I wish to probe whether the government
has fully considered the potential impact on new renters compared to
existing tenants. No one on these benches doubts the Minister's intention, we simply fear the
Department has not given pause to
fully reflect on these key issues.
Now turning to amendment 199B, tabled in my name. I will cheekily
anticipate the Minister may say in response to this probing question,
yes.
The bill attempts to define the term relevant person, in subsection
6. But before the Minister reaches that definition I wish to question
its adequacy. And its clarity. Is there any formal process to
designate someone as a relevant person? Or is this determined on a
case-by-case basis? Furthermore, how is the term "Acting indirectly" to
be interpreted? Does this involve
other parties? Crucially, what is meant by reporting to act? --
Purporting to act? I'm sure some in this house will argue this is a
loaded term which depends heavily on
loaded term which depends heavily on interpretation.
I would be grateful if the Minister could offer her
understanding on it, and importantly explain how consistency in interpretation will be ensured. Clause 58 represents a significant
Clause 58 represents a significant shift, and with that must come clear answers. I hope the Minister will
help your Lordship's House understand the government's thinking
more fully today, so I beg to move. more fully today, so I beg to move.
23:51
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I speak to these amendments, and I have two different things going on here. One is not allowing the market
to work, so I'm trying to understand what the amount of evidence there is
to suggest this is a real issue. I might go on a little bit of a personal story, thinking about when
at University a group of us wanted
to rent a house and the rules of the University whether Jew could only live a certain distance and so on. We were particularly attracted by
not wanting to take on a 12 month
tenancy to seek out the houses that would only require a nine month tenancy.
And actually the landlady
we were involved with did this in a particular way. She used to make
money, considerably more rent in the summer with tourists and short-term
lets, and gave students the opportunity to not take on the liability for the year. It helped
keep rents relatively low. I'm sure your Lordships can imagine such a
scenario, while it may seemingly,
was very important to students at that time. So was the availability of the houses in reflecting that
opportunity.
I'm not going to pretend, it's nothing to be
embarrassed about, in effect gazumped by being prepared to sacrifice a living room and turn it
into an extra living room, and also give more rent to that particular
landlady. This is one of the
factors, when she had I think 46 groups that went to see this particular house and wanted to
secure the tenancy in that regard. While I completely understand that
we don't want to, there may be some
intentions in this clause getting into ridiculous bidding wars, I am surprised that with particularly in
surprised that with particularly in certain parts of the country where there is a real scarcity of private
there is a real scarcity of private sector rental why we would want to unnecessarily put such handcuffs on
unnecessarily put such handcuffs on the landlord, to only accept the
the landlord, to only accept the rent they advertise, not being creative about the situation prospective tenants may find themselves in.
23:53
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Can I thank Lady Scott for
tabling her amendments relating to rental bidding and Baroness Coffey
for contributing. I will respond to the probing amendments in a moment.
First I want to set out to the committee why I consider her
fundamental objection to clause 58, which will end the unfair practice of renters being pitted against each
other in bidding was, to be misplaced. The measures contained within clause 58 will require
landlords and people acting for them, letting agents for example, to state a proposed rent in any written
advertisement for the property.
Landlords will then be prohibited from asking for, encouraging or
accepting bids above this price. In response to the noble Baroness Lady
Scott's comments, these are not rent controls. The landlord may advertise
the property at the rent they wish to achieve, what they can't do is then increased the rent as other bidders come along. Currently too
many tenants suffer from a lack of transparency in the letting process. I can't imagine the heartbreak of
thinking you found a property at a rent you could afford only to discover the landlord or letting agent has pushed other tenants to
offer more.
Their experience
wouldn't be one of a viewing but of a curbside auction. The impact on renters is clear, our measures will
end it for good. This is a specific problem we are trying to target and a majority of landlords do not
engage in rental bidding. But we are trying to stamp out the egregious practice of a minority of landlords
who exploit the fact that particularly in hot rental markets there is a lack of supply relative
to demand. Tenants can be pitted against each other in ways that ensure the rent of a tenancy
escalates to a point beyond which many of them can afford, or if they can afford it puts an incredible
financial strain on them.
I visited a housing site in Greenwich this
week, I heard that in some parts of London a house in the private rented
sector will cost 94% of the renters salary just for the rent. These
measures will improve the experiences of prospective tenants across England and provide clarity to all those involved in the
lettings process. Turning to amendment 1998, this would remove
the prohibition on landlords inviting or encouraging a tenant to offer an amount of rent that exceeds
their stated rent.
If this was taken forward landlords with only full
foul of provisions if they accepted a rate above the stated rent. While
I welcome the scrutiny, I am concerned this amendment would risk
allowing a form of rental bidding to continue.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
While we are talking about this, does the noble Lady the Minister not think that what could happen and
think that what could happen and what may happen is that the level of
what may happen is that the level of rent will be above what they would normally be, because the landlord is going to try and go for the absolute
going to try and go for the absolute maximum they can. Is that not a danger?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
danger? I think I answered this question under a previous group on a previous
under a previous group on a previous day, this is not intended to be a rent cap, it's intended to stop the
rent cap, it's intended to stop the practice of changing the rent once the rent for that property is published. It will be up to
published. It will be up to landlords to advertise the property at a rent they believe they can
at a rent they believe they can achieve for that property, and once they have advertised it at that price they won't be able to increase that rent when things subsequently
that rent when things subsequently come along.
Under the amendment a landlord could lawfully encourage
landlord could lawfully encourage bids above the stated price and use
any bids used to establish that price to relist the property. I think that would have an
inflationary effect on rents. I don't say this would be commonplace,
but it would be lawful. If it were to occur it would be at the detriment of tenants. I consider
that our belt and braces approach of prohibiting both the accepting and encouraging of bids to be the right
one, I would ask the noble Lady to withdraw that amendment.
Turning finally to amendment 199B, this
seeks to remove the words by any other relevant person from the definition of stated rent in clause
58 subsection 4B. The rental bidding
causes prevent a landlord or someone acting for them from inviting encouraging accepting a rent higher
than the stated rent, stated rent is defined as the rent originally proposed in the written
advertisement either by the person now doing the inviting, encouraging
or accepting of higher offers, or as the case may be any other relevant person.
A relevant person could be either the prospective landlord or a
either the prospective landlord or a
person acting or purporting to act on behalf of the landlord. The latter would usually be a letting
agent, could also be a more informal
agent, could also be a more informal relationship such a is a friend of the landlord. It's necessary to avoid a loophole whereby the
avoid a loophole whereby the landlord publishes the statement then asks a friend or letting agent to carry out the auction.
The bill is drafted deliberately to ensure
is drafted deliberately to ensure the prohibition applies in those circumstances, as well as the more
circumstances, as well as the more straightforward scenario in which it is the landlord which publishes the advert then proceeds to carry out the rental auction. I would ask the the rental auction. I would ask the noble Lady to withdraw the amendment.
23:59
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I would like to thank the noble
Baroness the Minister for her reply, and for Baroness Coffey and her
insight into this issue. On these benches we recognise the challenging
balance the government is seeking to achieve detecting tenants from unfair and unaffordable rent
increases, while also ensuring the proposed letting value remains aligned with the functioning market.
These market conditions are shaped by the availability of housing, and
any rent setting approach must still offer sufficient incentives for
landlords to stay in the market and continue providing the homes our
communities so urgently require.
I thank the noble Baroness the Minister for her answers, but I do
urge her to truly reflect on the
points we have raised, carry them
back to her department alongside her, and if necessary come back with her continued engagement with the
house. This group of amendments, like many others, is not overtly
political. It consists of serious and practical probes into serious
and practical issues. In our pursuit of stronger protections for tenants
we must be careful not to deter landlords or make it unfeasible for them to continue to provide the homes our communities badly need.
These are concerns many landlords
share, and we believe they must be at the forefront of the government's thinking. We do ask them to go back
and reflect on what we have brought forward, and I ask the noble
Baroness administered just to step back and consider any unintended
consequences of this part of the legislation. Or at very least,
acknowledge the genuine concerns and voices of those who do oppose this
part of the bill. But saying that, I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is ideologically pressure that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is ideologically pressure that the man is withdrawn? Amendment is,
the man is withdrawn? Amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment 119, not moved. The question is that
not moved. The question is that clause 58 stand part of the bill. Is
00:01
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
clause 58 stand part of the bill. Is that a motion that you wish to debate? The question is that clause 58 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not
content", The contents have it. Amendment 200 already debated, not moved. The question is that clause 59 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not
content", The contents have it.
Amendment 201, already debated, not moved because of the question is that clause 60 stand part of the
bill.
As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. The question is
that clause 61 stand part of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bill. Lord Jamieson. Yes, I speak to the amendment in the name of my Noble Friend Baroness Scott which rightly brings the issue
Scott which rightly brings the issue of abandonment to the attention of
of abandonment to the attention of the House today. I wish to be brief but take the opportunity to pose several question so that the noble
several question so that the noble Baroness the Minister can set out the government's position. The Government is correct to note in its
Government is correct to note in its Explanatory Notes that part three of the planning and Housing Act 2016
the planning and Housing Act 2016 which sought to address the recovery of planning properties has never been brought into force, however, in
been brought into force, however, in light of the significant changes now on these grounds ask the noble Baroness the Minister has the Government sought to revisit this?
Government sought to revisit this? For the departure of section 21 and the insistence that landlords must rely on specific grounds as outlined
rely on specific grounds as outlined in schedule one, what options are available to a landlord if a tenant
available to a landlord if a tenant abandons their property? I welcome some clarity on several practical matters, for example is there a
requirement for specific types of
evidence in terms of format, scope, or detail? How many attempts must a landlord make to contact a tenant? I
understand this may appear later, as the Government has refused to implement these changes gradually,
they really are burning questions.
Next, with no distinct legal ground,
how does the Minister propose to ensure that landlords understand how to use grounds eight, 10, or 12 which appear to be the only
potential avenues in such cases. Additionally, I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what is
the current average wait time for a court order in such circumstances?
What if anything is being done to underdressed -- not address the underlying cause? I fully recognise
underlying cause? I fully recognise
this issue extends beyond housing policy, however, ensuring that tenants are able to remain in their
homes and feel secure in doing so is not only beneficial to them but it is vital to the health of our wider
society and economy.
In connection with this, I would also ask from a landlords perspective how is one
expected to assess the risk of a tenant returning after a property is
believed to have been abandoned? It
appears there is currently no specific legal ground for position on the basis of abandonment and while the Minister might point out that the incidents of abandonment
are low, I would argue that this is not a justification for leaving the issue underdressed. Particularly now when the framework for position is
being overhauled.
And getting
abandoned properties back into the rental market will actually allow others to benefit from that tenancy
and also a tenant who has abundant
air property not accumulating further unpaid rent. Finally, may I
ask whether the Government give any consideration and in part three of the housing and planning act, especially in light of the proposed removal of assured tenancies which
part three originally referenced. I hope the Minister will take this
opportunity to provide clarity and, where necessary, commit to reviewing this further and I look forward to
her response.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Before the Noble Lady the Minister stands up to respond, may I
Minister stands up to respond, may I just make the point that it has gone midnight. We will start
midnight. We will start consideration of committee until 8:30 this evening stop it has meant that people have gone home without
that people have gone home without actually having had proper scrutiny
actually having had proper scrutiny on the last few groups. The House has done amazingly well to get as far as it has, but it has now gone
**** Possible New Speaker ****
far as it has, but it has now gone midnight. I do not know what we intend to do with the House. Sorry.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Sorry. I will resume at the appropriate time. This is not the first time
time. This is not the first time where debates have gone beyond midnight. The Great British Energy
midnight. The Great British Energy report stage day one went until 1 o'clock in the morning. I do not
o'clock in the morning. I do not intend to take this much further. I want to stop at amendment 206, which
**** Possible New Speaker ****
want to stop at amendment 206, which is another two groups and then that will be it, so hopefully we will be finished very shortly. Penultimate group, the reason we are in the penultimate group is
because people have not actually been in the chamber to be able to move their amendments at committee,
so very short debates on committee, and some very important groups in
committee have just been glossed over, that is my point.
00:08
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
, we want to get to 206. There is
, we want to get to 206. There is only one amendment that has not been moved, and like I have said, there have been other debates that have gone until 1 o'clock in the morning. I think if we spend less time
I think if we spend less time discussing this aspect we could be
discussing this aspect we could be An essential aim of the renters rights Bill is to give tenants more security in their homes.
Landlords must not be able to evict tenants
must not be able to evict tenants without ground for possession, as defined in section 8 of the Housing Act, 1988, which we are expanding and refining to ensure landlords can gain possession where this is proportionate. The noble Baroness
proportionate. The noble Baroness Lady Scott supported by the Noble
That That they That they do That they do not That they do not support That they do not support clause That they do not support clause 61 standing part of the bill.
This clause will repeal part three of the housing planning act 2016 which, if
brought into false, would have allowed landlords to take possession of the premises they believe to be abandoned without a court order. However, part three of the 2016 act
was never brought into false. It
also wholly pertained to a short
hold tenancy. Those tenancies would cease to exist in the private rented sector after the implementation of this bill. At the repeal of part three, therefore, is necessary to maintain a coherent statute network.
As I mentioned, part three of the 2016 act would have enabled landlords to reclaim properties under a short hold tenancy that has been abandoned without a court
order, providing they had issued three more notices without response, and the tenant was in rent arrears. While we acknowledge that genuine
abandonment can present challenges, I think for years and years, not only for landlords but for the wider
community, these provisions would not be appropriate solutions. At the time, they were criticised as a rogue landlords charter and it is
appropriate that they were never implemented.
Where abandonment has occurred, landlords would need to establish ground possession. It is
likely that in abandonment scenarios tenants would also be in rent
arrears, making those grants for position. Landlords may also rely on breaches of tenancy agreements such as clauses prohibiting prolonged on
occupancy, or on grounds related to deterioration of property. In
clear-cut solutions, as situations implies renters may also apply, for
example where tenants have returned the keys and the landlord has accepted them, even if no formal
accepted them, even if no formal
notice was given.
It is vital that tenants have access to justice when facing the loss of their home. Landlords must not be enabled to take possession without a valid
ground. Clause 61 ensures the removal of these redundant provisions from the statute work and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I commend this clause to the committee. The question is that clause 61
00:10
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that clause 61 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content",.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of the contrary, "Not content",. Thank you very much. I would, I will not do a full closing speech,
will not do a full closing speech, but really the whole purpose of this was for the noble Baroness the
Minister to give us some thought on how you might deal with abandonment
rather than have to go through a lengthy court case when it is quite clear that the property has been
abandoned, so I would be very grateful if the forecourt we could go to the report stage of the noble Baroness the Minister could give
some thought.
I do not think any of us want abandoned properties. We do want to have them back into use and available. We do not want to have
people accumulating rental deficits that have to be chased through court
which is clearly a special case here that needs to be considered and I
look forward to the noble Baroness the Minister coming back and giving us a thoughtful response before
report stage as to how we can address the issue of abandoned properties because I do not think anyone on either side of the House
**** Possible New Speaker ****
would want abandoned properties. My apologies to the Noble Lord.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My apologies to the Noble Lord. The question is now that clause 61
The question is now that clause 61 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. The question now is that clauses 62 and 63 stand part
is that clauses 62 and 63 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The
contrary, "Not content", The contents have it.
Amendment 202,
00:12
Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
contents have it. Amendment 202, already debated, moved formally. The question is that amendment to hundred and two be made. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content",
Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment 203,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord Best. Is likely longer amendment, but I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is likely longer amendment, but I will take it at a brisk pace, if I may. In mid-203 and 204, in my name,
may. In mid-203 and 204, in my name, or the names of the noble Lords young of Cookham and Truscott and
young of Cookham and Truscott and the noble Baronesses lady Adrian of Kentish Town and Lady Thornhill relate to the implementation of recommendations on governmental
recommendations on governmental recommendation of property agents
working group aimed at protecting consumers from dodgy or inept estate agents, letting agents, and managing
agents.
Your Lordships have
agents. Your Lordships have considered and endorsed the case for regulating property agents on a number of occasions since the report was published by the Government in 2019. Your Lordships Select
2019. Your Lordships Select Committee on the industry of regulators endorsed the
recommendations only last. Indeed,
recommendations only last. Indeed, to Matthew Pennycook has made clear that the Government accepts the case for regulation of the sector, so
there is no need for me to rehearse the arguments again indeed the professional bodies and trade associations including the chartered
surveyors and property institutes, property market, the lettings industry Council, have persistently
supported the agenda.
Those who would be regulated are as keen on
regulation as those consumers that would be protected. However, I fear
that the housing minister feels that the new measures will have to wait
until a later date. It is possible that the forthcoming leaseholder in common reform bill will include
regulatory measures for the right please hold agency, part of the property agency sector where there have been many complaints of abuses and incompetence. However, that bill
and incompetence. However, that bill
only covers any sold property and is unlikely to incorporate lettings agents and its timetable is uncertain.
The renters rights Bill
does present an important opportunity to take a first step
towards creating a proper regulatory framework for the property agency sector. This bill is concerned with the deal faced by renters and letting agents involved with half
the properties in the PRS, so this
is a chance to raise standards in a
timely way. The working group in recommending the creation of a regulator for property agents
emphasised the need for proper qualifications, as well as adherence
to a code of practice, at present anyone can set up a property agency
business overnight with no experience in property matters.
Amendment 203 would require the
relevant agents to have or be working toward mandatory qualifications. Since this bill
relates only to lettings, it is a requirement for proper convocations
to only affect lettings agents, and since setting up a fully fledged regulator just for letting agents
could be seen as disproportionate, this amendment is strictly prohibited to the requirement for
qualifications which is the most basic of a regulatory regime. However, without the establishment
of a regulator, how can even this somewhat tentative step taken
towards creating a more professional property management sector? How, in
the absence of regulators can enforce the new regulatory requirements for qualifications set
out in amendment to all three? Local authority trading standards officers could check that legal requirements
are met in their area, but to protect the consumer a robust
national mechanism is needed to operationalise this amendments
requirements for agents to hold the necessary qualifications before acting for landlords taking
responsibility for rental properties.
A solution comes in
Resolving disputes between tenants
and property agents and between landlords and property agents, that is the redress scheme approved by
government. Currently the property ombudsman scheme and the property
redress scheme, but in the future by a single ombudsman service. Since
membership of the redress scheme is a legal requirement for a property.
Amendment 204 would make it a condition of membership of the ombudsman scheme to comply with the
new requirement for mandatory qualifications, failure to comply could lead to expulsion and an
inability to carry on the property agency business.
Is this an adequate
basis for enforcement of the professionalisation of letting agents? No, it's not. But it takes a
first step in the right direction. The bill has presented an
opportunity to up the game of the agents who look after Property Management for so much of the
private sector lettings. Billions of
pounds of assets and millions of lives renting households are affected by the quality of service
and competence of lettings agents. And landlords also will increasingly need to use agents to ensure
adherence to all statutory requirements.
These amendments
indicate a direction of travel, they would demonstrate the government's willingness to finally address a serious national concern which has
the strongest support from those representing landlords, agents, and
move.
00:17
Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Amendment moved, after clause 63 insert the new following clauses set out in the marshalled list.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I follow in the slipstream of Lord Best, and I added my name to one of his amendments. I commend the
one of his amendments. I commend the work he has done on this particular subject. The only point I want to
subject. The only point I want to make is this, to draw attention to the growing gap between the qualifications that are needed to
qualifications that are needed to manage a block in the social sector as against those needed to manage a
as against those needed to manage a block in the private sector.
I take the view that whether you live in a
the view that whether you live in a block managed by a social landlord or a private landlord you are entitled to the same quality of
entitled to the same quality of management, the same professionalism, the same
professionalism, the same competence. Two years ago we had the social housing regulation Bill. That
set out requirements of qualifications for those in the
registered social landlord sector. And it required some 25,000 people
to go out and get qualifications.
Senior housing managers will have to
have a level IV housing qualification, senior housing executives will need level V. One
could make the case that requirements are even more necessary
in the private sector, because the private sector does not have the overall protection that the social
housing sector has, by the local authorities or registered social
landlords. There is now a growing gap between the relative
qualifications you need, depending on whether the block is in the public or private sector.
Although
some progress has been made in driving up the standards of letting
agents, there is still some way to
go. So I hope the Minister will be
go. So I hope the Minister will be able to express them interest in
able to express them interest in these amendments, if not we will be back with the leasehold bill earlier -- later in the session.
00:20
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I also put my name to Amendment 203, I declare a nonfinancial
interest as chair of a property.
Regulation of all property agents. Amendment 203 is about safety,
security, good management of people's homes. I think we all agree residents deserve to be safe in
their homes. But in rented accommodation it's impossible for
owners to do -- for residents to do everything themselves, because the building and environment is owned
and managed by the landlords. As Lord Young has intimated, in the
case of social housing it took the death of someone to bring forward
mandatory qualifications for those who manage social property.
But there is no equivalent for private
property, where unqualified and even rogue agents take responsibility for
a vital part of the buildings
upkeep, its safety, its exits, its insurance and legality. Unlike other
professions handling legal and financial transactions, most of whom
are regulated, there are no mandatory qualifications or any minimum requirements for property agents, even when they are managing
the money of sure tenancies. The
absence of regulation can clearly lead to mismanagement of deposits,
rents, legal non-compliance very often through ignorance not
wickedness.
Managing shared buildings, particularly tall ones,
is extremely complicated and demanding, and growing so. There's a lot of new energy efficiency rules,
rightly. There are increasing tenant demands for involvement, quite
rightly. The rising cost of insurance. There's more focus on
legislation on health and safety, particularly after Grenfell. All of these are complicated issues, and
need to be handled by a professional in the private rented sector. Which
houses many vulnerable people. The
private rental sector is often the home of people who can least afford
to pay for any additional services, and if they are paying too much on
rent they can't even heat the property.
That can be because of mismanagement. It should be obvious,
without having to wait for a death
in the private rental sector, that all managing agents looking after them should be properly competent
and qualified. It is a job for professionals, not amateurs. This
amendment is a way forward, and we
are not talking about an expensive thing to run. It's not asking for
very much. It's simply asking that those who are paid to manage rented
properties know what they are doing, have the qualifications to prove it,
so that landlords would only employ agents capable of managing homes legally and honestly.
So let's not
wait for a tragedy, let's do it now.
wait for a tragedy, let's do it now. We owe it to all residents to ensure the state requires those managing their homes to know what they are doing.
00:23
Lord Truscott (Non-affiliated)
-
Copy Link
-
I rise to support amendments to
03 and 204, I declare my interest as
a leaseholder as well as a landlord and former PRS tenant. Noble Lords supporting these amendments are
already made a cast-iron case for property managing agents to require relevant training and
qualifications. And that these requirements should be legally enforced. I have dealt with a number
of Property Management agents, some have been excellent, others have been quite appalling. It seems
extraordinary to me that property
agents who may deal with millions of pounds of property and revenue are currently not required to have any professional qualifications or
training whatsoever.
Some agents
I've dealt with in the past have no collocations and little or no understanding of property law or lease enforcement. There is no other sector I'm aware of where
individuals dealing with such large amounts of money and such valuable
assets can be wholly unqualified and virtually unregulated. Anyone can
set themselves up as a property agent with little or no knowledge of the sector. Many property agents are of course very professional, but
rogues and amateurs to undermine the reputation of the whole sector.
This
must end, and for that reason I wholeheartedly support these two amendments and urge the Minister to
accept them.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I stand to oppose this amendment. It's rare that I'm out of step with Lord Young of Cookham, but I am
Lord Young of Cookham, but I am concerned that the overregulation on
concerned that the overregulation on aspects of employment is something that is, how can I put it, a solution waiting for an extensive
solution waiting for an extensive problem. One of the things these amendments go into is giving
amendments go into is giving considerable powers to others to set all sorts of training expectations,
all sorts of training expectations, and candidly there is simply in the private market too many sectors
private market too many sectors where government and Parliament seeks to rip away control, instead
of the individual having that engagement and relationship.
We already have in place the property
already have in place the property redress scheme, which letting agents
redress scheme, which letting agents have to be part of. Including those people who manage properties as well. Don't get me wrong, there are
well. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of landlords at the moment you are not necessarily doing what they should. But there are already mechanisms to put this in place.
Don't believe qualifications or training schemes are going to make
that particular difference.
I'm conscious also of what happened with
the social housing situation, particularly some of the significant
failures we saw, sadly, in aspects of local government and housing
associations in that regard. There was a feeling that something must be
done. So I'm conscious that does not mean we need to treat every
particular letting agent or property
manager with the same brush. For me, this is overreach on behalf of Parliament. And I would like to see
the evidence on why we need to go to this extent, yet another profession
that has minimal regulation today now needs to be heavily regulated,
and again a barrier that will put up costs in terms of agents fees.
These are the reality of having to deal
with this sort of legislation. The person who pays is the renter, not
the landlord, the renter. You have to bear in mind in this cost of
living challenge we are facing, still the number one issue for the electorate in the country, we here
tonight are considering an amendment that will continue to put on costs to people when they are trying to
pay their rent. This is the sort of economic situation that we really
need to consider on every regulation
when we are adding extra barriers to entry in order to make sure that we keep in mind the people who want to
just get on with their lives, have good relationships, and of course in
good relationships, and of course in the private sector can change which is much harder for people in the social sector, even then we may have
social sector, even then we may have gone slightly too far.
But we must continue to consider the economic impact on people in this country. impact on people in this country. With every regulation that we pass in this house.
00:28
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I rise briefly to support the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise briefly to support the
noble Lord best, and I declare an interest as chair of the property ombudsman board. Perhaps I can
ombudsman board. Perhaps I can provide some of the evidence the noble Baroness Coffey wanted,
noble Baroness Coffey wanted, because in 30 years of dealing with complaints about property agents property ombudsman has seen many disputes that would probably not
disputes that would probably not have occurred had those agents undertaken formal training and
undertaken formal training and qualifications.
In 2023 the latest
qualifications. In 2023 the latest statistics we have, the ombudsman resolved 200 letting disputes, over
resolved 200 letting disputes, over
resolved 200 letting disputes, over half concerned the main issues of organising and communicating repair. The dissatisfaction in these
disputes concerns simple and consistent communication around repairs, and in general managing
repairs, and in general managing expectations. Training for agents on how to manage tenant and landlord
expectations would stop many disputes arising in the first instance. In addition there were
over 500 disputes which related to complaint handling, again agents
currently take a consistent approach to complaint handling, which often leaves tenants and landlords
frustrated.
It became clear to me in my time at the property ombudsman that you provide a professional
consistent level of service to tenants and landlords many letting agents would benefit from formal
training. Not only would it help agents provide a better service, it would also set consistent
expectations for consumers meaning the relationships between agents,
tenants and landlords would improve. In my brief intervention I wanted to
reinforce Lord Best's report recommendations, and reinforced by
the work Baroness Hayter did. The elements required to implement a
elements required to implement a training and qualifications regime are already in place.
I hope it wouldn't be too significant a leap
wouldn't be too significant a leap for the government to make training and qualifications a mandatory
and qualifications a mandatory and qualifications a mandatory
00:30
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
Talk about save the best till
last. Penultimate, apologies. The breadth and depth and knowledge and
understanding and experience of the names backing these amendments is
fascinating and extraordinary, and I thank the noble peers. I am speaking
also on behalf of of my Noble Friend Baroness Thornhill who also put her
name to both these amendments. She
signed these amendments and we backed these amendments because it is so astonishing that property
agents still, today, have none of these qualifications.
That any can
these qualifications. That any can
be set up and become a lettings agency. It is staggering given the amount of expertise that they really need in order to advise landlords
and tenants on the significant, complex legal issues. In exchange
for the not insignificant amounts of money they get for doing that very job. Property market and others are
pressing for this. They know that there are people out there who are
not doing a good job as the Noble Lord Truscott described.
And that there letting the side down and giving good lettings agents a
terrible reputation. It is in everyone's interest that this aspect
of the private rented sector is regulated precisely because the UK property market is very heavily
regulated already. With strict laws governing tenants rights and
landlords obligations across many different acts and the training and
that is absolutely critical and the qualified property agents should possess the knowledge and expertise
to navigate through this minefield. The compliance and risk management is essential and the list of what
they have to do already is long and complex and this bill will add to it which is why a transition timeline
is essential with unclear guidance as to what is expected when and to
whom.
Balance and landlords are rightly worried about this and I
hope the Noble Lady the Minister can reassure the sector on this particular issue of the timeline. It
is worth stressing that without these qualifications, agents risk
costly legal battles, fines, and damage to their own professional
reputation. We have heard that there are already qualifications out there and the sector is keen to get going
and roll them out but they need that motion, that degree of compulsion.
These two amendments, amendment to a three and 204 provide that.
Demonstrating that the agent is knowledgeable about market trends, property evaluations, also, really
importantly, ethical practices and transparency itself. All of these
things are needed. It creates a virtuous circle and boosts tenants
confidence, it makes landlords more likely to trust their investments with a qualified agent who would
also be able to conduct property inspections, manage maintenance and
repairs financial management, surely this has got to be done with real
professional skill, reducing the risk of dispute and maintaining property value.
Those agents who get
ahead of the curve themselves are qualified now and will become the best. They will stand out from the
crowd in a competitive marketplace. This Elizabeth raising the standard
in the private rented sector, routing it out and making a once in a generation shift. This is such an
important part of the equation. Government has gotten on with it
Government has gotten on with it because at the end of the day it is
because at the end of the day it is not just bricks and mortar.
It is people's homes and livelihoods. If
not this will, where and when?
00:34
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, I would like to thank the Noble Lord best for bringing a man meant to three and 204 before
your Lordships house today. These amendments which proposed insertion of a new clause after clause 64 will rightly focus on training property
agents and the enforcement of the qualifications. Can I also thank the
qualifications. Can I also thank the
Noble Lord John who raised the very important point for the parity with the social rented sector and also Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
hooray fact that actually this is very complete and people do need to understand it.
And there all
frequently inadvertent mistakes or omissions made. And also Baroness Warren who made the point that those
statistics which I did not draw quickly enough but I am sure I will
get hold of them sooner or later is there. I also think Baroness Coffey
made a really important point which I will come back to about proportionality and the risk of overregulation. Something you may
have heard once or twice from this side of the chamber. Can I also
thank Lord Truscott and Baroness
Brenda who I will come back to.
Your Lordships house is correct to consider the value were proper
training and qualifications and the benefits this knowledge can bring to the property market. I wish to focus
my issue on the impact that training can have with reducing the risk of
regulatory impact and the benefits
to tenants. Well trained agents would not only develop a product, more cohesive understanding of the
law, but their potential for breaches arising from a simple lack of understanding would also be greatly diminished. With this
significant benefit would also be felt by local authorities as fewer cases of regulatory breaches would
important to their attention to
resolution.
This reduction in caseload is particularly important at a time when local authorities remain tasked with implementing the
reorganisation plans as I outlined in the devolution white paper. As
your Lordships house will be well aware local authorities are currently operating under immense
pressure facing financial constraints, staff shortages, increasing responsibilities, and it
is not just a case of money. I certainly know from my experience
with local authorities and housing teams it is actually a lack of enough trained people, so we really
do need to seek to minimise the amount of pressure we put on them.
We must explore proactive measures, such as ensuring property agents are properly trained from the outset. By
doing so, we not only improve
standards across the sector, but also allow local authorities to focus their limited resources on
strategic priorities rather than enforcement. That said, my Lords, as my Noble Friend Baroness Coffey raised, there is an issue. We must
ensure that any powers get past the
Secretary of State and are proportionate and can be implemented. While that ministerial
oversight is of course necessary in
certain respects, we must be cautious at top-down regulation on key aspects of trading and enforcement.
If we are truly
committed to getting this right, we must resist the temptation to defer action or consign the matter to deal
with the later category. This argument has been and will no doubt
continue to be clearly articulated
across this House. Not raising provisions on the face of the bill is not only inadequate but it will
also raise more questions than answers. We must understand the Minister's intentions fully before we consider renting such significant
powers to the Secretary of State.
Nevertheless, my Lords, the
intention behind these is well placed. Educating letting agencies
vital. The offer and play a vital role in the housing market and a direct impact on whether tenants are
direct impact on whether tenants are treated both fairly and lawfully. Exploring ways to enhance tenant protection without compromising
protection without compromising
protection without compromising housing supply should be front and centre of the government's thinking. It is vital that we establish clear,
accessible means to ensure landlords understand their rights, responsibilities, and regulatory
framework in which they operate.
Property agents must be at the heart of this ambition.
00:39
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I would like to thank the Noble Lord best for his amendments relating to the regulation and
property agents. And also the Noble
Lord young, the Baroness, the Noble Lord Truscott, the Baroness Coffey
and Lord Jamieson, who have all spoken in this debate. And my Noble Friend, Lady Warwick and Lady
Hayter. Starting with amendment 203,
this amendment enables the Secretary of State through subsequent secondary legislation to introduce professional collocations of those who manage initial tendencies. I am
very good filter the Noble Lord best for his continued engagement on such
an important topic and ideal regard it as a very important topic.
He is
an ardent campaigner for the driving standards across all property agents, not just letting agents but other folks in this amendment. The
housing minister and I have had a number of conversations with Lord
Best on how to best raise levels of professionalism. We recognise the
challenges that tenants and landlords can face when using letting agents. Many agents provide
good service, but some do not. The Government is committed to ensuring that landlords are those living in the rented and leasehold sectors are
protected from abuse and poor service at hands of unscrupulous
agents.
And on the Noble Lord young point about parity with the Social
Housing Act, we do want to ensure consistency with our work to drive up management standards in the
Social Housing Act sector. We are aware that in some blocks, including those managed by social landlords managing agents will be providing services for both leaseholders and
Social Housing Act tenants. It is important to ensure that any measures would bring forward on
managing agents and regulation take full account of the other legal
requirements, including qualifications proposed from the Social Housing Act.
There all ready
our protections in place to make
sure that both tenants and landlords are treated fairly by letting agents and how to account. This includes the act from 2019 which brands most
letting fees and Tenancy deposits paid by tenants in the private
rented sector in England and the requirement for all property agents, including letting agents, to be
members of the redress scheme. The housing minister made a written
Ministerial statements on 21 November, 2024, which set out the government's intention to revisit Noble Lord bests 2019 report on
regulating the property ageing sector.
We continue to engage across
the sector to improve standards among property agents and welcomed the ongoing work being undertaken by the industry itself as well as by
the Noble Lord best and my Noble Friend Baroness Hayter. We are continuing to consider this issue
carefully and we have already in announced our intention to announce
minimum intentions for police and
resale properties and state managers and freehold estates. And to consult on this issue this year. We will set out our full position on the
regulation of letting, managing, and estate agents in due course and can
I thank my Noble Friend Baroness Warwick for the strong evidence she
provided in this regard about why that is necessary? Turning to amendment 204, this element has the effect that property agents managing issue attendances may only be part of a mandatory redress scheme if
they make the relevant qualification requirements.
In practice, this
amendment places responsibility for ensuring the appropriate property agent has the relevant
qualifications on the property ombudsman and property redress. It also gives the redress scheme is the power to award a financial penalty
for non-compliance will stop the main role of redress schemes is to
deal with individual complaints by tenants against their agent, the existing redress schemes have a
number of leavers at their disposal, including the ability to award compensation to a tenant or a landlord where things have gone
wrong.
They may also expel members from their scheme. However, redress
schemes are not designed to be enforcement bodies, so it is not appropriate to give them powers to issue a financial penalty. Such
measures should be reserved for enforcement authorities, such as local authorities. Furthermore,
expulsion from or failure to join a
redress scheme not expressly prevent them from trading, although it does mean the agent is in breach of regulations and liable for
regulations and liable for enforcement action via the local authority. The question of who is best placed to enforce convocation
best placed to enforce convocation measures is important.
And yes certainly something the Government is taking into account as part of its consideration of the regulation
of managing, letting and estate
of managing, letting and estate agents. As I have and should before, will set our position on this in due course. I am happy to meet with the
course. I am happy to meet with the Noble Lord best and any other Noble Lord to discuss this issue further, however, with these assurances but hope that the Noble Lord will withdraw his amendments.
00:44
Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
I am deeply grateful to all of the noble Lords who have spoken.
Lord Young drew attention to the
fact that Social Housing Act providers are now required to have qualifications and the same should
go for the private sector. Perhaps even more so. Baroness Hayter introduced us and reminded us of our
law introduced by the previous
Government after the death of Isaac Mark and the dangers of housing management not operating smoothly
for the safety of the occupiers.
She said that this business was a job
for professionals for properly qualified people. Grateful to the
Noble Lord trusted who made the point that managing agents, property agents, letting agents deal with
millions of pounds with of compliance money, it is actually billions, rather than millions. It
is a really serious commitment that is required of these agents.
Baroness Coffey was not so sure that qualifications and training would
make any difference. I think this is, a bit out of step with the sector itself.
The profession which
is asking very urgently for regulation to drive out those that
are not worthy of being part of the profession, just as we would expect accountants, doctors, lawyers, also
have qualifications before they
undertake important tasks. Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe brought
I preceded her as chair of the
ombudsman for several years. That was compelling staff, the people who deal with the complaints, the
ombudsman service, saying they desperately need support and the
need for a regulator.
I'm most
grateful to the noble Baroness, one needs knowledge and understanding she said of all aspects of the many
laws and complexities, and managing agents must be trained and have
qualifications to perform these
roles. She asked for a transition timeline so we could see progress step-by-step, I think that's a
really important suggestion. Lord Jamieson supported the amendment,
thank you for that support. Local authorities are under pressure, and
this relieves pressure. If property agents do their job properly and don't require a lot of enforcement and time on the part of over
committed local government officers.
I'm grateful to the Baroness the
Minister for her commitment to protect tenants, to professionalise
the sector. She mentioned leasehold legislation is coming down the
track, this will be a chance to do some more. I hope before that bill
comes to this house we can have some conversations about the ways in
which its scope might be a little broader than just managing agents of leasehold property, but could
include letting agents, the subject of this bill. I wasn't so keen on
the phrase that this was all going to happen in due course.
We have
heard those words and words like them so often before. She agreed that enforcement was key, and the
ways in which that can be best accomplished is well worth further
meetings between now and when the leasehold bill comes to pass. With
leasehold bill comes to pass. With those banks and with much appreciation to all noble Lords who have spoken, I beg leave to withdraw
the amendment.
00:48
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
Copy Link
-
Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 204, already debated, not
moved. Amendment 205, already
debated, not moved. Amendment 206, Baroness Bennett.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
All the bright-eyed and bushy tailed members of the House who are
tailed members of the House who are still here at at 12:47 AM will note that I am not Baroness Jones of
Moulsecoomb, my noble friend is the green lark and I'm the green owl. So
green lark and I'm the green owl. So you get me after midnight. I would have to agree with the comments of
have to agree with the comments of Baroness Williams, that the hashtag I often use is no way to run a
I often use is no way to run a country.
I take the systematic
country. I take the systematic approach to this, and this House needs to urgently think of a reset of our sitting hours. I come to
of our sitting hours. I come to Amendment 206, this is a very straightforward positive, friendly
amendment, aiming to assist the government to ensure this legislation can be enforced and can
legislation can be enforced and can make a real difference. What amendment to 06 would do, and we
amendment to 06 would do, and we know that so many renters are trapped in mouldy homes, with leaking roofs, with heating systems
and hot water systems that aren't working.
When renters find themselves in those situations this
amendment would give them the right to pay the rent to a third-party
body. Baroness Jones has suggested
the new ombudsman, but I'm open to other suggestions as well. Other ways of doing it. The amendment has
written it in a neutral way. This is
to deal with a situation where a landlord refuses to carry out essential repairs, yet of course the
tenant is in a situation where they still have to keep paying for this utterly inadequate accommodation.
The arrangements under this amendment is that if a landlord carries out the works and
ameliorates the problems the independent third-party would send
them the full amount of rent due, if not the tenant can get the full or partial refund. Which otherwise they might well have to go to court to
try and recover. This is both a and effective provision, it punishes landlords and doesn't impact on good ones. From the government's point of
ones. From the government's point of view, this is a constructive suggestion to help make sure this legislation delivers on its stated
legislation delivers on its stated aims.
Widows -- with those brief aims. Widows -- with those brief remarks I beg to move.
00:51
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Insert the following new clause
as hinted in the marshalled list.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The situation, in effect this is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The situation, in effect this is creating a escrow. One of my proudest achievements was to organise a students renters strike,
organise a students renters strike, admittedly a while ago. This was
because at the time the University accommodation was due to be dismantled at the end of the year,
and as a consequence it felt like the University was not taking
the University was not taking various matters very seriously. I happened not to be a paying student
happened not to be a paying student at the time, I was a vice warden at the residents.
So I did help them, but I insisted that if I was to help
but I insisted that if I was to help them they would have to pay rent, in
them they would have to pay rent, in order to avoid being evicted. We did that by handing the money to the
that by handing the money to the student union, to effectively act in escrow. I do believe, and as a
escrow. I do believe, and as a consequence repairs were made and everyone ended up happy apart from
the University who didn't like my role in that at all.
The reason I tell that story is I actually think
it does matter that tenants should be able to withhold cash going
directly to a landlord when the landlord is frankly taking the
Mickey. Clause 63, which we didn't
specifically address but already he's extending that to the private
sector, I welcome that, but it does matter to me that we need to work
out a much easier way of how people can effectively deploy this escrow
approach. That's why I'm supporting the bill.
Sorry, the amendment. I
think it's fair to say we need to make sure any such processes are
easy to administer. Going a little
bit further, I was very conscious it's a regularly read out statistic
that something like 15 to 20% of housing benefit or housing support,
direct housing benefit or through direct Universal Credit, is thought
to to go to properties not fit for rent. I went into a reasonable
amount of detail with this with officials, the philosophy explained to me by the Permanent Secretary was
that the state thus far had not -- should not be determining on behalf
of the renter where they are going to live, it was an important right
for the renter to make that choice.
Even though it felt repulsive to me
that taxpayers money was being spent in frankly some pretty ropey places.
On my visits to some different housing, I have to say it was quite
extraordinary what was going on. But sometimes I'm afraid the dilapidation was the consequence of
the tenant, and the tenant not allowing repairs to be undertaken.
That is a minor side, but the point
is we need to try and make sure whether it is private money, your own money, the states money going to a private landlord, it matters that
a private landlord, it matters that we have habitable accommodation.
Therefore I strongly support the
Therefore I strongly support the amendment made by the noble Baroness. Baroness.
00:54
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
This group has raised a serious
and emotive issue, the reality of tenants living in Paul housing
conditions and what remedies are available. It's an area where
frustration and vulnerability can
run high. An amendment, 206,
proposes remediated rent pauses.
Under this model renters could pay rent to an individual other than their landlord when repairs are not
carried out within the expected framework. But we must also be clear
eyed about this.
How would this
operate in practice? Who would this individual, independent individual,
be in real terms? Would it be the redress scheme ombudsman? If so, if
that is -- is that appropriate or realistic for them to be holding and distributing rent payments? Would
they have the resources, legal authority or financial infrastructure to do so? It is
overcomplicated. There's also the question of safeguards, what
mechanisms would ensure this process is fair to both parties? What happens if a tenant withholds rent
on the basis of a dispute that turns out to be unfounded? How long might
rent be withheld, and what impact would that have on smaller landlords with limited financial resilience?
It is entirely right landlords should meet their obligations to
maintain safe and decent, but we should be cautious about creating a
system that effectively withholds rent before any formal adjudication.
That could introduce significant uncertainty into the private rented
sector. With this approach encourage resolution, or would it risk
entrenching disputes? Might it push responsible landlords out of the
market while rogue landlords simply continue to ignore the rules? In
short, while the amendment is well-
intentioned and we of course our sympathise with all individuals battling with irresponsible and
careless landlords, it raises complex questions about implementation and unintended
consequences. And on balance, we are
not persuaded that this provision as drafted would be workable in practice.
But there must be a better
practice. But there must be a better more practical way to ensure tenants are protected without creating
are protected without creating further layers of bureaucracy and pushing good landlords out of the market.
00:57
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I would like to thank the noble
Baroness Lady Jones, ably supported by Baroness Bennett in moving
amendment to 06. And the noble Baroness Coffey and Baroness Scott
for taking part in this debate.
Amendment 206 would allow a tenant to pay rent to an ombudsman rather than the landlord if the landlord failed to make legal requirements on
housing quality. I strongly agree with the desire to ensure landlords
remedy hazards in due time, -- in
good time.
I fear like I feel the existing prose provisions allow
this. They allow tenants to challenge landlords through the court if they failed to comply with
requirements such as timescales to remedy hazards. Alongside this it
will allow us to apply Decent Homes Standard to private rented sector, very important move. The PRS
ombudsman would provide a new route
of redress for tenants, and would investigate complaints about standards and repairs. The bill
would also strengthen rent repayment orders including by increasing from 12 months to two years the amount of rent a tribunal would be able to
award a tenant.
Tenants can seek rent to be repaid where an offence
is committed, including those relating to housing standards such
as failing to comply with a improvement notice. This amendment has the potential to be administratively complex and risks
unintended complicate -- consequences that may lead to worse outcomes for tenants. For example
rent being held by the ombudsman could delay repairs in some cases if it made it more difficult for landlords to fund the required
landlords to fund the required
works, a point the noble Lady referred to.
Existing measures in the bill place legal expectations on landlords about the quality of their properties, and give tenants access
to compensation if they landlords have not met obligations in relation
to standards. As well as providing mechanisms through which landlords can be required to carry out
repairs. Therefore I would ask the noble Lady Bennett to withdraw the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment. I thank the noble Lady the Minister for her response. And those
Minister for her response. And those who have taken part in this short but perfectly formed debate.
but perfectly formed debate. Particularly Baroness Coffey for her support for the amendment, it is
support for the amendment, it is something we might come back to and look at working on down the track. Also for the fascinating tale of
Also for the fascinating tale of student days which I think took many of us back to our own student days.
Responding to the noble Lady
Responding to the noble Lady Baroness Scott, I think there was
Baroness Scott, I think there was also an expression of support for the intention if not the exact drafting of this amendment. I would stress we are of course not wedded
stress we are of course not wedded to the precise drafting, talking
to the precise drafting, talking here at committee stage. We are looking to work on the detail of the drafting when going forward. I think just responding to the noble Lady
just responding to the noble Lady the Minister's response, I'm afraid
the Minister's response, I'm afraid there's a phrase which I'm sure was in the Civil Service handbook, inadvertent consequences.
That seems
Think that what we can challenge to the courts they can appeal to the
ombudsman, they can be orders done
for action. Those are all things that have differential levels of access, depending on people's
capacity, people's awareness of people's ability to access those things, people's time and energy and
costs, whereas the action proposed by this amendment to us is a really straightforward and simple way to give tenants the power to have
control to have agency for themselves, not relying on other
themselves, not relying on other bodies.
Having said all of that, of
bodies. Having said all of that, of course this is Committee stage and I will give your matchups house consent to withdraw the imminent,
but that leaves them with that.
01:02
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
Copy Link
-
Is at your Lordships pressure that the amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is, by leave, withdrawn.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I begged him that the House be resumed.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
House be resumed. The question is that the House now resume. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The
contrary, "Not content", The
contrary, "Not content", The My Lords, I beg to move that the House due now adjourned.
This debate has concluded