Lords Chamber

Wednesday 14th May 2025

(began 16 hours, 11 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:08
15:09
15:09
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
70% of scams originate online. 54% from meta alone. 31% of stone -- scams for telecoms company full top yet despite facilitating much of the scams, they have no viability for the losses and are subject only to voluntary charges. Indeed, one company, BTE has actually started to charge extra to warn them if texts might be a scam. Does the noble Lord the Minister agree that tech and telecoms companies will only take serious action if they have a real financial liability for the losses just like the banks do? Does he agree it's a disgrace that a company like BT he he is profiteering from scams and will he take action to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stop that before the others follow? I will look into the question you mentioned in regards to that company mentioned in regards to that company and I will look at that point separately. He will be aware that separately. He will be aware that since March 2025, Ofcom's illegal harms codes of practise has come into effect and that means that into effect and that means that platforms such as meta and the others he mentioned who contribute others he mentioned who contribute through hosting illegal activity, significant levels of fraud, have significant levels of fraud, have now an absolute mandate to proactively stop and remove fraudulent content or else they will fraudulent content or else they will face fines and other potential measures.

He has mentioned the disparity between the banks and the disparity between the banks and the platforms. We are having the Online Safety Act which is only just come Safety Act which is only just come into effect, we have the potential areas to look at in the fraud strategy and we keep open those options and the fraud strategy I
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Facebook's removal of fact chequers from its platforms leaves people even more exposed. With a new people even more exposed. With a new person being scammed every seven minutes. To make matters worse, Ofcom decided to delay implementing... Codes of practise for paid for fraudulent advertising. Does the Minister share my concern that this decision by Ofcom means that key parts of the Online Safety Act will not be fully enforced until

**** Possible New Speaker ****

at least 2027? The noble Baroness has mentioned the fraudulent advertising duty, the fraudulent advertising duty, which again is a key part of the Online Safety Act. Off, sure me they Online Safety Act. Off, sure me they are going to be consulting very shortly, towards the summer, on shortly, towards the summer, on codes of practise that will look at codes of practise that will look at the very issue she mentions. -- Ofcom assures me. The advertising duty with the name to publish the duty with the name to publish the final advertising codes around this time next year.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

time next year. Fraud of this kind target some of the most vulnerable people in our society and causes considerable emotional as well as material harm. Given that 70% of fraud in the UK Given that 70% of fraud in the UK either originates overseas or has an international link, can the noble Lord the Minister please update the House on how the government is House on how the government is working with other countries to make sure those a broader targeting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people in this country are stopped. Absolutely. As a valuable point. The government knows and we are looking at potentially a number of countries where fraud emanates from. We put just under a million pounds into supporting the UN conference into supporting the UN conference which will be held next year on this very issue. The UK is leading the very issue. The UK is leading the charge on that. For those noble lords who may have missed me a couple weeks ago, I spent four days
15:15
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:19
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Second Oral Question. Paper. And refer to the private spill half-full house on road accident offences caused by bikes, e-bikes and e-scooters. -- The private members bill. The government speaks to the motor insurance bureau On e-scooters. This includes discussions about personal injury and property damage costs being covered by motorists, through the motor insurance bureau's uninsured drivers agreement, where an illegal e-scooter is involved in a collision ensuring victims are, said. The e- ensuring victims are, said.

The e- scooters managed by the relevant local transport authorities are covered by insurance. covered by insurance. May I thank noble Lord for that question. He'll be aware that the cost is £530 million that all motorists pay for the uninsured losses of all victims of illegal, of all uninsured vehicles, including illegal scooters. I asked the noble Lord what the government intends to do to close this gap, where there is no insurance, offered by the market, for illegally operated e-scooters and other such vehicles?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Baroness is rightly persistent on the subject and as she knows, I have offered to meet her on knows, I have offered to meet her on it. The previous government commenced trials but did not develop or introduce legislation. We or introduce legislation. We recognise the depth of public concern, and are actively considering next steps. In the considering next steps. In the meantime, I understand the vast majority of claims elated to e- scooters, to the MIB, off less than scooters, to the MIB, off less than £50,000 Musso likely to be a small proportion of the £530 million she proportion of the £530 million she mentions.

-- So unlikely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

mentions. -- So unlikely. E-scooters are quiet and dangerous pavements. What actions the government and to prevent e-

**** Possible New Speaker ****

scooters being used on pavements? The use of e-scooters needs to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The use of e-scooters needs to be, needs legislation to regulate be, needs legislation to regulate it. And this is a question which I have answered in the House before have answered in the House before and no doubt will continue to come until we produce draft legislation. The issues are complex. And noble Lords will know that I have replied to the noble Baroness pigeon and put in the library a resume of the legislation applying in all European countries, which has vast differences in where you can use them, whether you should have a helmet, there's an age limit, whether they should be registered and insured.

We are working hard through those issues. They are not through those issues. They are not easy to solve. But the noble Baroness is right, actually determining what can be used on pavements and what is safe, in pavements and what is safe, in particular in a world where people with disabilities are rightly very worried about this, is very important. Even when things are made legal, we know that there can be -- they can be abused, it has to be. E-bikes are only supposed to travel at 15.5 mph maximum and not be able to be throttled up to that speed and get around us all the time, we see employees effectively of multinational companies, delivering our groceries and our takeaways, who are being exploited on illegal and uninsurable vehicle.

Will he take

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that into account? With e-scooters? He is right, and the speed limit

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He is right, and the speed limit of 15.5 determines the point at of 15.5 determines the point at which a bicycle which, electric bicycle, capable of more speed than that, is actually of course a that, is actually of course a vehicle which needs to be licensed. The enforcement of the law is a matter for chiefly surfaces. But we matter for chiefly surfaces. But we are very clearly considering what we can do in this area because I can do in this area because I recognise as much as everyone else in this House does, that actually in this House does, that actually these alleged bicycles travelling at 25 or 30mph silently and in particular with the logos of quite particular with the logos of quite major companies on the back of the Midas rucksacks, represent a Midas rucksacks, represent a significant challenge to legal use

**** Possible New Speaker ****

significant challenge to legal use of road systems. -- On the back of their rucksacks. Cyclists who seem to have an ever

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Cyclists who seem to have an ever expanding space on our roads, do not pay road tax, they don't pay insurance. The government have any

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Do the government have plans? I don't recall whether she was one of the speakers in the debate we had before Christmas on the subject.
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:26
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, we currently have a perfect storm with e-scooters. Already referenced the fact that there is no need to register them, it's illegal to use them on private, on roads, public roads and pavements, and also, there is no registration when you buy the e- scooter either. So wouldn't the first step for this to be to ensure that when somebody buys and e- scooter, because you're supposed to have a drivers licence provisional or full, they have to give their driving licence details over which would then be locked with that would then be locked with that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

particular e-scooter? -- Logged. I very much respect her view about the safety of these things, particularly from the point of view particularly from the point of view of anybody with mobility difficulty, or disability. But this is only one or disability. But this is only one of the things that needs to be contemplated carefully, in introducing legislation. Simply because the legislation has to work because the legislation has to work in practice. I think we are learning some things from that control trials that the Department has sponsored, that the Department has sponsored, and in fact I'm sure she will note and in fact I'm sure she will note that the e-scooters concerned are identifiable in a way that the ones identifiable in a way that the ones purchased from retailers aren't.

But I think we also have to be realistic
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
Baroness Twycross Portrait Baroness Twycross (Labour)
-
-
pleased to have a dialogue. I'm sure my noble friend would agree that if this is to be " Our BBC", the communications with listeners, timescales for implementation linking and with genuine accessibility for every user and also developing this with the world service and investment in our soft power is really important and perhaps tongue-in-cheek to ensure that when we are broad all of us can tune in and listen because it helps us feeling that we aren't strangers in someone else's land.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

As I made clear to my noble friend, we're having conversations friend, we're having conversations with BBC to better understand the timings and implications of the proposed changes and accessibility is clearly important. As somebody is clearly important. As somebody who like many other members of your Lordships House listens, using BBC Lordships House listens, using BBC Sounds when abroad, I very grateful that they are going to consider this that they are going to consider this further. What I would say is that further.

What I would say is that under the current proposals, the international audience will still be able to access radio for, the world service and the BBC's journalism for free through BBC.com. Ultimately whatever comes out of the delay to changes and refinement of the plans, this is a matter of operational

**** Possible New Speaker ****

independence for the BBC. I declared interest with having been a BBC producer for 25 years. been a BBC producer for 25 years. Today, the BBC Director General called for supercharging of the BBC world service so he can double it world service so he can double it and reach one million people weekly. Can the Minister respond to his call for the government to be ambitious for the BBC world service and invest in its significant growth, rather

**** Possible New Speaker ****

than cuts being suggested at the moment. I read the Director General's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I read the Director General's speech with interest as noble lords can imagine when this comes into can imagine when this comes into your inbox five minutes before coming into the chamber, I haven't had a chance to reflect on it at
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:35
Baroness Twycross Portrait Baroness Twycross (Labour)
-
-
remember a shortwave broadcast coming from hungry in 1956 when it was invaded by the Russians -- Hungary. One of the few ways in which countries around the world can communicate or to obtain information through radio is using frequencies that in this country have now gone. Can the Minister confirmed to me that whatever the BBC do in order to have a long reach around the world, they are taking into account the fact in which the way in which people receive radio is not always as sophisticated as we are able to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

benefit from it here. The noble Lord makes a really

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord makes a really

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord makes a really important point and I think the way this whole agenda gets taken forward this whole agenda gets taken forward is clearly key. I would recommend noble lords read the speech by the Director General, thought it was thoughtful about where he sees the BBC going forward and hopefully BBC going forward and hopefully noble lords will take some reassurance that he sees that reassurance that he sees that responsibility of the BBC international world context, but also the government sees the significance of issues like that.

I was not old enough, I'm afraid, to was not old enough, I'm afraid, to remember the 1956 conflict... I remember the 1956 conflict... I wasn't born. But I will feedback the wasn't born. But I will feedback the noble lords points both to FCDO colleagues.
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:47
15:47
15:48
15:48
15:49
15:50
15:51
15:54
15:54
15:54
15:55
15:56
15:56
15:57
15:58
Baroness Altmann Portrait Baroness Altmann (Non-affiliated)
-
-
in it about how these developments will be monitored over time to make sure that a change is delivered because in the end what we all want

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to see is high levels of investment. If the noble Lord is right that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If the noble Lord is right that this is entirely, why is it necessary for the government to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

threaten to make it mandatory? Because it's very important this fallen tree commitment delivers the investment is promised for the UK

**** Possible New Speaker ****

economy. Are we not approaching it from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are we not approaching it from I would actually like to welcome I would actually like to welcome this initiative, and indeed I would be pleased to see the government go be pleased to see the government go even further in ensuring that our long-term pension funds have faith in Britain, invest in Britain, and use the £70 billion a year of use the £70 billion a year of taxpayer money, which goes into pensions every year, to add to contributions made by individuals and employers, to benefit Britain rather than being free to put 100% in overseas markets, but of course we do need to make it more attractive to invest in the UK and I would urge the noble Lord the would urge the noble Lord the Minister to look into the possibility of using closed ended investment companies that currently investment companies that currently do exactly this kind of investment, are selling at discounts, and have are selling at discounts, and have been hit by unfair regulation which has stopped them being able to raise new capital and provide long-term new capital and provide long-term returns of this nature for pension funds.
16:00
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the noble Baroness for the question. She has a great deal of expertise in this matter and I enjoy the meeting we had, her and I, with my honourable friends Pensions Minister, and this exact topic. He mentioned her in his remarks in answer to this in the other place, so she's clearly had a big impact on his thinking. I'm pleased and I welcome the fact she welcomes his reforms. She is often called for greater investment by pension funds in productive assets which is exactly what is being livid.

She is called for greater investment by pension funds in the UK assets which again was being delivered. Of course there is always more that can be done, I hear what she says about the campaign she has led for many months now. And I'm sure that my honourable friends will sure that my honourable friends will sure that my honourable friends will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A number of pension providers have worn the progress will be dependent on a steady supply of high-quality UK investment high-quality UK investment opportunities. That is a big pipeline challenge because our record of financial returns on infrastructure projects, as we know, infrastructure projects, as we know, is suboptimal. Investing in fast- growing startups and scallops, growing startups and scallops, whether here in the UK or overseas, carries far greater risks. The carries far greater risks. The failure rate of such startups is over 90%.

Can the Minister explain over 90%. Can the Minister explain how these investment opportunities how these investment opportunities sit with pension funds, fiduciary and consumer duties in terms of and consumer duties in terms of maximise returns for pensioners

**** Possible New Speaker ****

without taking excessive risk. I think the noble Lord is right about the importance of the pipeline that he speaks about. The government is playing our part in that with 100 billion pounds of additional public investment over the course of this parliament. Our job is also to support the pipeline of investable projects. Which is why we are having planning reforms, the development of onshore wind, the National Wealth Fund and crucially why we will be publishing at the...

Noble Lord is also right about the long-standing problem in the UK economy of the ability for growing firms to get hold of scale up finance which this hold of scale up finance which this accord will help to address. It will provide investment for infrastructure but also growth infrastructure but also growth capital to a much wider range of firms. These are often smaller firms. These are often smaller ticket items and they will need to be aggregated to a high level which is the work of the British business bank.

bank. If the government is keen to encourage more investment into the United Kingdom, why does it still give tax relief to those with Isis who invest in overseas equities?
16:03
16:03
16:05
16:06
Lord Cashman Portrait Lord Cashman (Non-affiliated)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

After clause 63, amendment 206 a. I must give my apologies for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I must give my apologies for racing here like a 15-year-old. I was under the impression that there was under the impression that there was another urgent question, but I do apologise. There is no excuse. I got here. You will be pleased to hear this is my first intervention at Committee stage, but I did raise the issues before your lordships at second reading. I rise to move amendment 206A, 262 and 71. Apologies, 271.

As I said, this is my first intervention, but I'm all too aware of the complexity of the bill before us. Therefore, it is right I give my gratitude to the clerks of your Lordships House who advised me from the very beginning on how to proceed. Initially was my intention to bring forward one amendment in order to address the absence of rights and protections for permanent houseboat residents. Those who live permanently on houseboats along the river as in inland waterways of the United Kingdom.

After further advice, we have three amendments. I'm grateful for the help I received from Abby North and Carolyn Hunter from the University of York and from Pamela Smith of the national barge travellers associations and residents of houseboats around the country. I'm also particularly grateful for the noble lords and the noble Baroness for their support in adding names to my amendments. I believe the amendments are straightforward and what they request, but I also recognise the reality that they could be complicated in their implementation.

Amendment 262 calling for a review from the Secretary of State I consider to be entirely reasonable and indeed, I will consider returning to it at a later stage if there is no movement from the government or commitment to it or its principals. I also wish to place on record my thanks to the noble Baroness the Minister and her team and officials for requesting to meet with me when I just had interestingly the one amendment listed.

It was a frank discussion, good-humored and I am aware of the good-faith concern that exists, but I have to say I was deeply disappointed to learn that such a reasonable amendment calling for a review could not be accepted and would, it was said, drain resources cross departmental he. -- Departmental he. It's a reasonable ask, specifically since this issue has been shunted sideways by governments since 2005 despite frequently being raised in another place and in your Lordships House. These amendments will address a series of wrongs which need to be righted.

Relying solely on the financial conduct Authority and the infection from eviction act as an insult to these people, but boat residents and it just doesn't work. They need basic rights ,'s hence the amendment. The need for action is becoming urgent. The rights and protections afforded by this and other acts of Parliament should apply to houseboat residents because they have tendencies in agreement for their moorings. A mooring fixed to a peer or a riverbank. They have to applied -- abide by all the regulations in their environment.

And they pay council tax, energy bills, water bills, insurance. I am missing the statutory rights and protections. They have even fewer protections when the owners of moorings propose increased to mooring fees, develop the site and some refused to renew licences. The problem is growing. It is happening across the country from Vauxhall to Chelsea to the Isle of Wight, Manchester, Brentford, along the rivers and the canals of the United Kingdom. One solicitor specialising in this area said the calls are increasing monthly.

We need these amendments. The calls are for people now faced not only with eviction from their moorings, but having to physically move their homes. Take their homes with them or abandon them. She told me these calls are often coming from vulnerable people, from disabled people who pay council tax and have leased residential moorings. I am grateful to the Association and Slavic for bringing their plight to my attention. Currently plans are before the Council which could force out residents, businesses, community hubs and demolish the entire site, a site where marine facilities are provided to over 200 boats and over 300 marina residents, further proof of the need for government action.

To quote them, boaters have no legislative protection from rising fees. They have no security of tenure and are increasingly facing existential threats to their way of life, which means that these communities and increasingly, communities across the entire country are experiencing huge existential threats. The Council who owned the site have decided to look again, but the development threat hangs over yet another community of dwellers. -- Boat dwellers. Time and time again, government have dismissed these overlooked and forgotten people.

The excuse was more evidence was needed. My Lords, it is there. I've outlined some of the evidence and it is growing. The problem will not be wished away. As homes become more difficult to rent an impossible to buy, people will turn to alternative sources, as we have seen with the mobile homes and boats. People need places where they can live. A basic human right. A right of having a home, a place in which to rest their head. For those who cannot afford to buy a place in London, but maybe have some money, perhaps they will be tempted by one of the advert that encourages people to buy their floating home from 250,000 pounds upwards with flexible moorings.

Flexible moorings without security of tenure. I have gone on longer than I intended. I know the Minister is sympathetic, but now is the time for action. The time for commitment is now. Therefore, I say to the Minister, if not now, when? There must be no attempt to kick it into the long grass again. Let's not say we can't do it because there are a mixture of different departments that need to deal with it or there are enough resources because of the resources are not there now, when will they be? Meanwhile, evictions and homelessness amongst these communities will continue to increase.

This needs political will and intention. I urge the government at the very least to commit within the legislation to bring forward the review that I request from the Secretary of State. We can compromise on the length of time, but let us have a commitment to get it done. Let us deal with and recognise the needs of these people before these shameful situations. Turn into a national scandal. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment propose, print the inserted clause to as mentioned on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Marshalled List. I was going to apologise for not being able to speak at the second reading of this very welcome Bill reading of this very welcome Bill which will return that most valuable public good. I support all the public good. I support all the amendments in this group and will amendments in this group and will speak to 200 6B and 275 a in my name speak to 200 6B and 275 a in my name -- 206B. I think friends, families and travellers for their expert and travellers for their expert advice and declare those positions in relevant organisations as set out in relevant organisations as set out in the register.

I am also most grateful to the public Bill office for sorting out last-minute corrections so rapidly. Amendment 206B would confer equality with other renters under part one of the other renters under part one of the bill to the residential renters of mobile homes. This is right because amendments to the mobile home act 1983, especially those of chapter 1 of part one confer on mobile pitch agreements, the key characteristics of a tenancy rather than merely a It mirrors the nature of assured tenancies and gives exclusive occupation and the right to quiet enjoyment for the payment of rent over specified period, or on a periodic basis, and if the landlord decides to recover possession, by terminating the agreement, in breach of the agreement, he has to show it's reasonable to terminate the agreement and the court has a right to suspend that termination.

Finally, the occupier pays council tax and bills and can get help with payment of the fee for occupation and the sight of the caravan through welfare benefits. That is to all
16:17
Baroness Whitaker Portrait Baroness Whitaker (Labour)
-
-
intents and purposes a tenancy. So intents and purposes a tenancy. So there can be no justification in denying to people who occupy sites denying to people who occupy sites under those agreements equal rights with people who live in bricks and mortar. I'm afraid it's another mortar. I'm afraid it's another example of lack of respect for people with a different culture. In people with a different culture. In the case of Gypsies and Travellers, one protected by law, I know noble one protected by law, I know noble friend the ministers fully aware of the problems and has an past been active in remedying them so I hope active in remedying them so I hope she will accept this amendment.

Amendment 208 to 5, A, has broader Amendment 208 to 5, A, has broader remit. Part of the residents of a remit. Part of the residents of a Gypsy or Traveler site home is the immunity to which houses the toilet immunity to which houses the toilet and the cooking facilities. It is part of nomadic culture to keep these places hygienically separate from you live and sleep. We tried very hard to get these blocks included within the legal concept of a dwelling. They are rented in the same way and in cases where the caravan is owned by the family, rather than renters, there is still a need to rent an amenity block so that falls within the contractual relationship.

I'm very grateful to my noble friend the Minister and her officials for discussing this issue with us, and explaining the legal problems. But of course, the explanation does not in itself remedy the injustice. The need for legal protection to deter unhealthy substandard conditions is at least as pressing as invented to caravan homes, current provisions in mobile homes do not allow for legal aid to bring the recalcitrant landlord to court and the only recourse is a First-tier Tribunal.

Not accessible to most residents of caravan sites. Nor is there an ombudsman scheme as there is for other homes. The decent homes standard and the proposals for the applications of a rubber floor are just as necessary and relevant. But the inhabitants of traditional Gypsies and Travellers sites are denied them in respect of an essential part of their home. This is unequal treatment. That is why this amendment mandates the review of the real-life applications, of the exclusion of Gypsies and Travellers, living in mobile homes on a site.

For the protections available to other citizens. I hope my noble friend the Minister agrees.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I've added my name is to amendments to hunt and 62 and 271 and I'm very wakeful to the noble Lord Lord Cashman for tabling -- Lord Lord Cashman for tabling -- 72 it remains legible situation we 72 it remains legible situation we have arrived at whereby people living on boats have continually living on boats have continually fallen through the cracks between
16:20
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Portrait Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
housing and what is now known as DEFRA. And I'm going to go a little bit into history, so perhaps the Minister will appreciate the need for action now. Those with permanent moorings do have some protection, though the cost of mooring fees and licenses are an issue. I'm especially concerned with those who don't have a permanent mooring and are classified as continuous cruisers which means they can only stay for a maximum of 14 days in one place. This situation dates from the British waterways act of 1995 when Parliament removed the need for boatbuilders to have a home mooring.

The canals and rivers are responsible for our waterways, have embarked on a review by an independent, and as a result, says that this review will seek to implement any reforms, including any legislation changes, as soon as possible, after the conclusion of the review. Your Lordships may feel that that's a good way forward. But the problem is that housing is not reflected anywhere in the canals and with 's main purposes. -- Canals and with 's main purposes.

-- Canals and rivers trust 's main purposes. It might include the development along the riverbanks. So your Lordships can see that nowhere are they tasked with looking after the rights of boat dwellers to a safe and secure home situation. All we are asking the Minister to do in this amendment is to ensure that this group of boat dwellers considered within the scope of this bill and the implications of it. DEFRA formed a working group in 2017 to try and resolve some of these issues, but that was inconclusive.

Amendment 271 by the definition of a dwellinghouse, while in 2016 the planning and Housing Act place a duty on local authorities to assess the needs of boat dollars and barges with regard to housing stock but that act did not read across to the duties of the canals and rivers trust and whose gift the mooring and mooring relations are. And as the riverbanks are continually assessed for development or ledger potential, a supply of moorings is constantly under threat. The ability to more somewhere is obviously an essential, if a boat is your home.

With the canals and Rivers Trust rule of not staying for the continuous cruisers on any one mooring for more than 40 days, then for the boat to remain a home, there must be a supply of available moorings. There is a lot of history to this and I will not go into all of it because I don't want to detain the House. But I would simply mention that in 2004, I took part in a debate on this very issue when the late Baroness Hanham was trying to pass an amendment to address this very issue.

And my noble friend Baroness Hamwee made a very aqua site point, "she said the office of the Deputy Prime Minister to refer people devolved to Defra for DEFRA to tell them it's a matter for the office of the Deputy Prime Minister leaves us wondering what we can do to get bits of government not just to talk to one another but to find a solution to a very real problem. " That was over 20 years problem. " That was over 20 years ago.

And then my right honourable friend Vince cable, when he was MP for Twickenham, raised the issue in 2006, and identified one reason why the navigation authorities and regulatory bodies are rather hostile to residential point owners. -- Boat owners. Lady Whitaker touched on this. He said at best they tolerate them but they don't see them as integral to canal conservation. So there's a certain amount of presages against boat dwellers and travellers -- prejudice. I don't believe that a change was replying to my right honourable friend Vince cable was the Minister Angela Smith who of course now is Baroness Smith, leader of the House.

She said that a working group has been formed and that action in this area had been sought for a number of years that was 19 years ago. And the solution is no nearer, because the department responsible for waterways never considers the housing matters for boat dollars, and the housing department which has been through many names in 20 years, doesn't relate to waterways issues. Really this bill must break the mould and address this matter, now, in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill. Have an interest to declare, as my family owned land in Cookham, with 1/4 of a mile of river frontage with 1/4 of a mile of river frontage along the Thames in one of its tribute, but we have never accommodated houseboats. I have
16:25
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
accommodated houseboats. I have added my name to amendment 262 so ably moved by Lord Cashman. It is actually appropriate that houseboats are linked in this group of amendments with mobile homes, about which Baroness Whitaker has just spoken. In both cases, the home is owned or rented by the owner. But the land or water on which it rests is owned by somebody else. And so this leads to issues of security, mentioned by the three previous speakers. As the home, costing as we have heard from Lord Cashman, perhaps 1/4 of £1 million, really has no value and the city's online or security land.

And to that extent there is some comparison with leaseholders, because the flat owner owns the flat does not own the land on which it is based and that is the point that I really want to make. All three tenures, leaseholders, mobile homeowners and boat owners, have varying degrees of security. Right at the top of the scale are leaseholders, whose rights are being progressively improved over the last 50 years, and more rights are promised in forthcoming legislation. Lower down the scale of the mobile homeowners.

They have rights, I have put on the statute book as the Minister of the mobile homes act 1983. And that legislation was then succeeded by other bits of legislation further improving the rights of mobile homeowners. By contrast, houseboat owners are right at the bottom of the list. And they have very little security indeed. And so far, all governments have refused to make any progress. Now I won't repeat the problems facing the boat owners, that have been so ably mentioned.

But I will just make this point. In answer to a question on January 17, the Minister in the other place of this. " The government recognises that while the occupants of residential boats have the benefit of protection under the protection of affection act 1977, and wider consumer legislation, they do not enjoy the same level of security as those in the private rented sector. " This is the final sentence. "We will consider what action might be necessary to provide houseboat residents with greater security in their homes".

My Lords, that is exactly what amendment to hundred 62 actually does. It asks the government to review the security of houseboat residents. Something that the answer says they are going to do anyway. So I honestly don't see why the Minister has any reason at all not to accept this particular amendment, as it simply is in line with an answer given by her Parliamentary colleague, only three months ago.
16:28
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, my name is down in support of the noble Lord Lord Cashman's amendment to hundred and 62 which is he has so eloquently explained, because for a review of the position of houseboat residents. And I also support his amendment to hundred six, A, to give houseboat residents similar protections to those afforded to renters in the bill before us. Protections are needed for those houseboats against evictions and massive increases in mooring fees and licenses which are simply not affordable to many who have made their homes in our rivers and canals.

I coupled these houseboat amendments with amendment 206, B, convincingly covered by the noble Baroness Lady Whitaker and supported by the noble Lord Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, which enhances the rights of those living in so-called mobile homes, often known as park homes, there are obvious parallels between those living in mobile homes where the living in mobile homes where the site is owned by someone else, and those living in houseboats where the resident again does not own the place where the home is situated, as the noble Lord Lord Young has explained.

In both cases, there is a need for protection just as much for the rights of these occupiers as for those living in permanent bricks and mortar homes that cannot be moved. I pay tribute to Baroness Whitaker for her fearless campaigning for Gypsies and Travellers rights and I will not attempt to speak on her expert amendments in respect of these communities. My interest in respect of mobile homes stems from the mobile homes act which Peter Aldous MP introduced as a private members bill, and I piloted to your Lordship's House in 2013, and today some 200,000 people, many of them elderly, occupy these mobile homes on about 2,000 sites.

Although some are living in happy communities, they have been too many cases of unfair practices by site owners, taking advantage of these evidence. Some important protections for part-time residents have been introduced by the early legislation, and these protections have parallels to the circumstances facing houseboat residents, Park home residents pay pitch fees which are similar to mooring fees. There are legal protections from excessive increases and charges which broadly keep rises in line with inflation and there are controls of free sales of electricity and water.

The position facing mobile homes owners is far from perfect, indeed park homes campaigners will tomorrow present a petition attaining Downing Street calling for an ablation of a 10% commission they must pay site owners when they sell their part homes. But there are lessons to be learned from the rights that these ready have, that are afforded to Amendment 206B relates specifically to those residents of our combs who are renting, not owning the property -- Park homes.

These act as a minority of home owners who are tenants. The amendment would ensure these have the same rights as any other tenant since most are older people and there's a history of exploitation by some site owners, it's important that they have the key protections which this bill confers. The point of principle is that all residents in Park homes and all those living in houseboats share a need for security and for constraints on increases to the charges they must pay, charges that are can to rental payments -- akin.

They should be treated as nearly as possible, like all the other renters whose rights are enhanced by this bill. He is amendments -- these amendments take those forward and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support this. I apologise for not being present

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I apologise for not being present during second reading or the proceeding committing stages Matt proceeding committing stages Matt Committee stage is due to a health issue. I declare my interest as the vice president of the LGA. I fully vice president of the LGA. I fully support this group of amendments and wish to speak in particular to amendment 275A to which I would have amendment 275A to which I would have added my name if I had been more alert to the changes at the time.

I'm delighted to see amendments 206A, 262 and 271 which cover the conditions of those living in boats. The noble Lord has laid out the arguments extremely eloquently for arguments extremely eloquently for these amendments. Over the years I these amendments. Over the years I have had several meetings with the national bar G travels Association. These are group of people within our community who have had a difficult time as they have no permanent moorings. Some find they are moorings. Some find they are constantly moving in order to comply with mooring conditions.

This can be extremely disruptive, especially to those who have school aged children or those with appointments to keep. As my noble friend has said, this is an issue which has been running for a very long time indeed. It really is time that equality was brought to the issue for all those living on a boat as their home. There should be no difference between the way the different house boat dwellers are treated. Boat dwellers should have the same protection as those living on dry land, a safe and secure home.

The noble Baroness Whitaker set out the case for amendments 206B and 275A extremely well. It is essential that all facilities on site, including amenity blocks, are in a good state of repair and fit for use. Residents living on traveller sites often experience poor living conditions with inadequate mechanisms in place to hold landlords to account. Especially on the maintenance of essential living facilities. The Renter's Rights Bill presents a vital opportunity to address this and we should be grasping it.

The RR be most significantly abolishes assured short hold tendencies and fixed term tendencies. It also introduces an extensive range of further measures designed to enhance the rights of tenants, including applying the Decent Homes Standard's to the private rented sector your and extending Awaab's Law to private rented tendencies. There was research conducted in 2022 with residents living on private and local authority sites who reported issues such as fly tipping, vermin infestation, proximity to environmental hazards, dampness and leaks and the general need for repair.

This could be the environment in which some children would consider their playground. The current changes will not apply to buildings comprising essential living facilities or the caravans and mobile homes situated on a pitch on a gypsy or traveller caravan site. These measures, together with the housing, health and safety rating system contained in part one of the Housing Act 2004 are important means of policing housing standards. There is no justification for not applying these regimes to the buildings gypsies and traveling households use as part of their home or the mobile home when rented from a landlord.

The previous speakers have supported this group of amendments and I agree wholeheartedly with their comments. The protections afforded to tenants in bricks and mortar buildings must be extended to those whose homes are in caravans and mobile homes and to in caravans and mobile homes and to the amenity buildings on the sides of the caravans and mobile homes and of the caravans and mobile homes and I look forward to the noble Lady the I look forward to the noble Lady the I look forward to the noble Lady the
16:37
Earl of Lytton Portrait The Earl of Lytton (Crossbench)
-
-
I think -- thank the noble Baroness. I welcome this group of amendments as a point of view of discussion. I commend Lord Cashman for his introduction of them. I am unsurprised as somebody who spent 50 years in the property business, that he may have had a less than enthusiastic welcome by the members of the bill team. -- Bill team. This raises a fundamental principle of what we're looking at. Whether we're looking at the use of land or whether we're looking at the use of a water body, what we used to refer to as land covered by water.

And principles relating to those two are rather different. Because a fixed pitch for a caravan is fundamentally different from a mooring that is essentially a connection to the shore, but with the vessel fundamentally sitting over water. It's not just houseboats that are involved here, it is moorings and marinas -- in marinas where the marinas -- in marinas where the water body may essentially be a title area, which one would assume may be in the possession.

The fundamental difference is when you have a house is a piece of real estate, lands in bricks and mortar. It is fundamentally fixed and it has a degree of permanence in law. Some of it can be sailed away or you can take another analogy as somebody wishes to have a motorway -- motorhome and park at one location, does the same apply because that could be driven away, is not in the nature of a permanent feature. I don't have any particular problems with the provisions of this bill applying more widely, if that is the policy decision that is made here.

But I do see a problem in terms of its application. It gets a little bit more complicated when you consider that the item which is actually occupied for this particular purpose, may be something that somebody rents as in entirety, in other words, the boat and piece of mooring or water over which it floats. Or it may be something quite different in terms of its nature because the person who occupies the thing may have actually owned the boat and bring it there.

Referring to the point about Awaab's Law, Awaab's Law might clearly apply to the former instance where it is like a complete package, the boat and the pitch as it were are all rented as one element. But clearly does not apply to the occupier of their own house boat. However leaky the bucket may be, that ultimately is their responsibility and not the responsibility of the person from whom they are renting the mooring. I can see there are a number of different ways in which this rather difficult cake gets cut.

I merely rise to try to clarify some of the points as a matter of land law rather than to pass judgment on whether or not as a matter of policy there should be the protections afforded under this bill either in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

whole or in part. Before he sits down, with the greatest respect for his expertise greatest respect for his expertise in this area, could I suggest to him in this area, could I suggest to him that the key aspect which the that the key aspect which the Renter's Rights Bill deals with is not that it is not essentially the physical structure of the home, but the fact it is somebody's permanent home and they are the residents and home and they are the residents and home and they are the residents and they rented.

Even if it was a balloon in the sky in a permanent home rented, may I suggest that is the criteria which should be applied the criteria which should be applied to apply equal rights to the residential person. I am probably residential person. I am probably going to defer to the noble lords expertise, but it seems to me that renting your home is what matters, renting your home is what matters, not what it consists of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not what it consists of. She has great wisdom in this area and I am grateful. I was, what I would describe the humble technician on this area. There is an issue to do with permanence, there is an issue to do with whether the item is in some way permanently fixed or adhering to the surface or if it was a house on stilts glued to the bottom of whatever water body. Or whether it is capable of being simply removed.

Permanence is a bit of a problem I agree, because I daresay that the average static caravan if I can call them that, might have a life expectancy of maybe 20 years or something like that before it is effectively scrapped. I don't know how long the House boat last because I've never asked anybody that. I do know that every now and again they have to be hauled out of the water, taken away to some yard and have plates welded on the bottom of them.

Then all sorts of other things done to them to make them fit for purpose. They don't have that permanence of being permanently affixed to a site from which they cannot be removed without total demolition. I see that is a rather different thing to something that can be sailed away or driven away or lifted out of the water, it is a different nature of animal. That is why I tried to distinguish between what we understand as real estate and the real estate here would be the land covered by water or in the case of a mooring in a marina, that particular bit of title water.

In the case of something that might be something on wheels, the permanent bit is the pitch and not the actual device or box in which the living takes place. That seems to me the point we are dealing with here. I make no policy judgment on this, I just say that there is a technical difficulty in real estate technical difficulty in real estate terms in trying to pin it down which is why I think the noble Lord got is why I think the noble Lord got the reception he described earlier.
16:44
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Portrait Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Labour)
-
-
I wonder if I might rise briefly to support my noble friend and I want to emphasise the shortage of appropriate accommodation for gypsies and travellers particularly when the size of this community is growing. There are multiple disadvantages linked to insufficient quality accommodation on sites, not only poor education, physical and mental health outcomes, but also a sense of social exclusion from the wider community. The dearth of GRT sites accommodation can cause conflict and tension, local councillors are beset with complaints of unauthorised encampment appears in their area, unauthorised encampment is also -- often result from a lack of suitable authorised places.

Government already knows these issues, but it needs partnership of the housing sector to drive change in speed up delivery of sites. I know the social housing sector would like to help government in breaking the cycle by providing sufficient and appropriate site for accommodation. There are a number of measures that can be taken in partnership to deliver more homes and reduce conflict and cost to the taxpayer. A key ingredient to delivering site successfully is planning support for the Gypsy and travellers sites.

I echo my noble friends emphasis on the importance of amenity blocks and is a recent share of the property Ombudsman, I hope the government will acknowledge the need to include amenity blocks for mobile homes in the remit of an Ombudsman. Also looking ahead I support a moment 252 which would extend application of the Decent Homes Standard to mobile homes rented for residential purposes. Gypsies and travellers are an important part of Britain's heritage and social fabric. Providing well- designed, quality manage sites for these groups supports healthy and happy communities and addresses wider determinants of health, education and employment.

This is not solely the realm of housing, other public services should care about this issue to, including public health, children services and others because the symptoms flowing from a lack of quality accommodation and up presenting in schools, hospitals, welfare services and hospitals, welfare services and prisons. As a business case, the delivery of appropriate size has been shown to say public money from been shown to say public money from being spent on endless evictions being spent on endless evictions
16:47
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I would like to thank all noble Lords who have contributed, with what makes this House so good at these auto debates, because the expertise from all parts of this debate have been shown today. I thank noble Lords for that. This group draws the attention to the housing circumstances of those of non-traditional tenures, particularly residential boats dollars, mobile home evidence and members of the travelling communities. These are individuals and families whose housing arrangements do not always align neatly, as we have heard, with the frameworks established by the private rented sector.

The amendment in this group most notably from the noble Lords Lord Cashman and Baroness Whitaker raise legitimate questions from the proposal to classify mooring fees and site fees as rent, to call for more views on how this legislation impacts riverboat dwellers, mobile home residents and Gypsies and Travellers communities. These amendments ask us to think carefully about the scope and the reach of the Renters' Rights Bill. We on these benches recognise that individuals living in houseboats, mobile homes and in traveller sites, often face unique vulnerabilities and we must be cautious not to exclude them from appropriate protections.

At the same time, it is essential that we examine whether the state of instruments proposed in the bill are the right fit for these circumstances, or whether we risk introducing unintended consequences for landlords licensing authorities, the Canal and River Trust, who manage our waterways, or even residents themselves. One of the key questions here is whether the current legal definition, such as dwellinghouse and rent, are suitable for application to mobile structures or moorings, as we have heard.

But we must also consider the interests and views of different traveller communities. Has the government undertaken proper consultation with these communities? Do they in fact want to be brought into the scope of this legislation? And on what terms? We must avoid legislating for communities without engaging with them first. As we have heard today, particularly from my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, these amendments do not seek sweeping or immediate change, rather, they propose reviews and clarifications.

But even the suggestion of classifying moorings or site fees as rent could trigger significant changes to how the law treats these 10 years. This could introduce unintended complicity for landlords, many of whom are small-scale, and lead to disputes where the legal framework is unclear or inapplicable even. So more work needs to be done in our opinion, on this issue, and as my noble friend said, that is already promised from the already promised from the government.

Finally, we must ask whether there is a clear and compelling case for bringing these compelling case for bringing these non-traditional tenures within the scope of the legislation, or whether scope of the legislation, or whether doing so risks creating unintended, both for the tenants and for the both for the tenants and for the landlords. -- Unintended consequences. consequences.
16:50
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
First of all, I would like to express my appreciation for starting these debates, at a reasonable time today. We have got later and later so I'm very pleased. I hope we finish there to reasonable time as well. I would like to thank the noble Lord Lord Cashman and noble Baroness Lady Whitaker for the amendments relating to non- traditional tenures. And who have contributed to this debate. I agree with the noble Lady Baroness Scott, in saying it does show the best of this House when you get expertise like that from across the House, from Baroness Miller, the noble Lord young, the noble Lord Best, Miss Bakewell, The Earl of Lytton, and Baroness Warwick and of course Baroness Scott herself.

Can I thank noble Lords for their helpful engagement on the issues they raised today. I would also like to say before I give my responses, I do truly understand the frustrations that both noble Lords feel, and those on whose behalf they speak, that these issues haven't been addressed by successive governments and say that while I expect anticipate from our meetings, I don't believe this vehicle, this bill is the vehicle to address the issues, I will continue to work with them to seek appropriate solutions to the issues they have raised.

Turning first to amendments to hundred and six, A, 262 and 271, I would like to thank noble Lord for raising concerns about difficulties faced by houseboat owners in general, and houseboat owners in Chelsea that he has talked to me about the past amendment to hundred and six, A, would give those who own or rent houseboat the same rights under part one of the bill as renters of residential buildings. While occupants of residential boats may benefit from some protection, under the protection from eviction act, 1977, and some wider consumer protection legislation, the government recognises that they do not enjoy the same level of tenure security as those in the private rented sector.

The Renters' Rights Bill is however focused on the law related to rented homes, not only occupiers, and the tenancy reform measures in part one of the bill focused on the insured tenancy regime, which applies to most private creditors in England, and relates to residential buildings. The assured tenancy regime does not apply to houseboats or other movable property, an issue I believe was referred to earlier. Those invented houseboats will have a licence to occupy the boat, and wilful outside the issue of tenancy regime, which this is concerned about.

Turning specifically to the management to hundred and 62, as houseboats are predominantly owner occupied do understand some rented, but mostly they are owner occupied, and don't within the assured tenancy regime, it is therefore unlikely that a review of the impact of provisions in this bill would provide significant new insights into the issues affecting houseboat owners. Additionally, to bring houseboats within the scope of the regime, as proposed by amendment 271 would raise fundamental and complex issues. I will explain a bit more about that moment, including what security of tenure means in relation to a chattel as opposed to land, and what the potential implications for the rings owners and vocational authorities might be.

The policy and legislative implications would be far-reaching and they would be a high chance of unintended, as indicated by the noble Baroness Scott. The government's parties to ensure the smooth and successful implementation of the measures in this bill which are before the this bill which are before the committee today. On this basis while I'm very sympathetic to the aims of my noble friend, I cannot support these amendments as they stand. The government will however continue to engage with parliamentarians and stakeholders on the complex issues about houseboats, which the noble Lord has rightly and powerfully helped to highlight.

I think the issue and history raised by the noble Baroness Mela illustrated some of the complications in resolving these issues. And I would just like to add that providing additional security of tenure to houseboat owners would require engagement with a range of stakeholders, including more than 20 navigational authorities and owners of land adjoining waterways. That's just part of the compensation here. I understand that the noble Lord young... Gregor Poynton, noble Baroness Miller said there was a working group 19 years ago which the now Baroness Smith took part in.

I could only say we have been in government for the last 14 years so it's been difficult to move any of this forward. The noble Lord young referred to security of tenure. I would simply sound that that providing additional security of tenure to houseboat owners would require engagement of those navigation authorities, and owners of land, and other uses of the waterways would have different needs and requirements which would also need to be taken into account. And that security of tenure under the Housing Act 1980 applies to tenancies of buildings and land so would not be suitable for licences to buy boats without significant amendment.

To bring rented houseboats within the scope of the legislation would require a detailed assessment of the implications for the assured tenancy regime and the changes being introduced to the Renters' Rights Bill and other legislation which refers to it, and the exercise said high chance of unintended. I would also mention that the noble Lord Best referred to unfair practice honourable homesites, I think my email inbox indicates very much what some of those complications are. But I will talk about the mobile homes amendments now.

Turning to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Whitaker, I would like to thank her for her work to ensure that Gypsy Roma and Traveller communities have a safe and secure place to live. I had a number of conversations with my noble friend since I joined this House and she knows that I do share her concerns in some of the issues she raises. The noble Baroness and I have had many discussions about this. And physically about the standards of communal acidity is provided on sites occupied by the gypsy Roma and Traveller community.

-- Communal amenities. I would also like to add that for those sites owned and operated by local authorities, there is of course recourse both the local authorities complaints system, and if that's not successful, to the local government ombudsman, although I do appreciate there are some unique difficulties in these communities accessing those routes. Amendment 206, B, with those who own a caravan and use it as their main residence the same rights under part one of the bill as renters of residential buildings.

This would include those who already have protections under the mobile homes act, 1983, and for similar reasons, to those I have really set out in my response to the noble Lord Lord Cashman's amendments, while I'm similar to the difficulties faced by mobile homeowners, a different approach to addressing those difficulties as necessary than that posed by this amendment. There will be a high risk of unintended and attempt were made to extend rights under part one of the bill which is about 20 times at a mobile homeowners -- which is about rented homes.

The mobile home act confers on mobile home pitch agreements, the key characteristics of a tenancy, rather than merely a licence to occupy. While there may be some similarities between the terms implied by the 1983 act, and the terms of certain tenancy agreements, the fact remains that those occupied pictures and caravan sites only have a licence to occupy the pitch, they have no interest in the land and they would still be a intention by the site owner to create tenancy between the parties.

Moreover the pitch agreement does not relate to the occupation of the mobile home itself, just the pitch on which it stands, and in that sense a pitch agreement and a secure or short tenancy are also fundamentally different types of agreement. To bring those within the mobile home act, to bring those within the scope of the assured tenancy regime, as of the assured tenancy regime, as proposed by amendment 206, B, would raise complex issues, including what security of tenure means in relation to a chattel as opposed to land, and what the potential implications for caravan site owners might be.

Amendment T hundred and 75, A, or, the government to carry out a review of the impatience in not extending the provisions of the act of the gypsy Roma traveller unity, and while I'm a sympathetic to the aims of my noble friend, I cannot support this amendment because noble homes are predominantly unoccupied and do not feel with then the assured pregnancy regime. Although I do understand and will consider her points about the immunity blocks and how those issues may be addressed. In addition as the Renters' Rights Bill is focused on a law relating to 20 times, it's unlikely review of the impact of the provisions in the bill will provide significant insights into the issues affecting insights into the issues affecting The government priority to the smooth implementation of the measures in this bill, before the committee today, I do understand my noble friend Baroness Warwick's point about the delivery of the sites and it is well made, but the National Planning Policy Framework is very clear, that local plans must contain, both an assessment of the need for mobile home sites and provision, that allows them to be provision, that allows them to be delivered.

So, having said all of delivered. So, having said all of that, once again I thank the noble Lords for the amendments and can I ask that they withdraw their amendments, on this occasion. amendments, on this occasion. amendments, on this occasion.
17:01
Lord Cashman Portrait Lord Cashman (Non-affiliated)
-
-
It has been to debate, not for the first time, in my short 30 years of politics. I think we have won the arguments, but have lost the vote, should it ever be called. I thank all noble Lords for their interventions and I hope noble Lords will forgive me, if I pick out three or four, what I would call, my friends, Baroness Miller, Lord Young and Lord Best. For their very early guidance and support, to me, on this issue.

The Earl of and is absolutely right about the problems I'm proposing. The exercise over the issue of land and chattels, in relation to boats and fixings, to peers. Arguably that is why I think we need a clear definition in law and clear protections, in law. I have course associate myself with the other amendments, in this group, because I want to see greater protections afforded to people, not fewer. Of course I'm disappointed by the response of the noble Lady, the Minister.

I expected more, I always expect more. I come from a profession, which I've almost forgotten, many, many years ago, where if there was a problem you went into a room, used in imagination, in order to solve that problem, or at least come out with suggestions as to how to solve the problem. I think, if as politicians, in government and in opposition, if we actually adopted the same process, people might give us more than we fail. Because our intention is to succeed, for all the best reasons.

I will say this, of course there are unintended consequences. I think, I'm told, it feels lawyers pocket so when such laws are passed and that happens. But I will say this, of course there are unintended consequences. Consequences of doing nothing and when I would draw these amendments, will be a continuation of the people being evicted from homes and their homes and caravans and boats and that homelessness and and boats and that homelessness and the evictions will be accompanied by the evictions will be accompanied by families in despair.

Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendments.
17:04
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
Is it your Lordship's pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment and 206, Baroness Whitaker? Not moved. Lady... Clause 64, amendment 206 C, Baroness Scott

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Bybrook. This group contains just one amendment, amendment 206 C, which stands in my name. This amendment stands in my name. This amendment proves why definitions that determine who is subject to housing laws, rights and responsibilities laws, rights and responsibilities can be amended, by regulation. This can be amended, by regulation. This is yet another part of the bill that is subject to the change at the discretion of the Secretary of discretion of the Secretary of State. Definitions, in law, are State.

Definitions, in law, are important. In this instance, the ability to change the definition of a private landlord, relevant tenancy and dwelling, for the purposes of determining which tenancies of all determining which tenancies of all within the scope of the landlord within the scope of the landlord redress scheme and the PRS Database. This is significant and fundamental This is significant and fundamental power. And I ask the noble Baroness, why has the Government sought to grant itself this power? Through the affirmative procedure, rather than affirmative procedure, rather than through primary legislation? If the intent of these regulations is merely to clarify the position of the superior landlords, in certain single circumstances, surely such clarification is best achieved through a full parliamentary process.

The one in which your Lordships' House and the other place can explore the specifics and nuances of a niche 10 years, such as the student accommodations, or The Government has committed to lay these regulations, as soon as possible, following Royal Assent. We are aware that there are to be no transitional arrangements, included in the bill. In previous debates, we urged the government to reconsider this approach and a firm their long-standing commitment to respective a lawmaking, by providing clear commencement dates and a reasonable transition periods, for all new obligations.

This would help protect both tenants and, law landlords, from the risk associated with abrupt and unfair change. However, the government are clear that they do not share this view. Despite that, can the noble Baroness the Minister confirm when these regulations might come into force? Importantly, how are they going to be communicated to the affected parties? Even the absence of transitional arrangements. And My Lords, like many aspects of this bill, this provision is concerning, particularly given the lack of particularly given the lack of detail, on the face of the bill.

This is part of a growing trend, from this government, a pattern, not just in this bill, but across others just in this bill, but across others just in this bill, but across others This, we will commit now, but we will do later. I beg to move.
17:07
Lord Marlesford Portrait Lord Marlesford (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed, Claude 64, page 98, line 22, leave out subsection 4.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support very strongly my neighbour friend, I declare my my neighbour friend, I declare my interest. A farmer who has converted redundant and cultural buildings into dwellings, part of the farm into dwellings, part of the farm into dwellings, part of the farm operation. I warned the government that they are in danger of relying that they are in danger of relying on statutory instruments, Henry VIII on statutory instruments, Henry VIII clauses, subsidiary legislation and what will be primary legislation.

The purpose of the Parliament is to legislate, in the first instance, private primary legislation. The private primary legislation. The House of Lords, above all, with its careful scrutiny of statutory instruments plays a particular role and record in doing this. This particular bill is going in any case to have a lot of unanswered questions. We are going to try and ask most of those questions entirely of the government to face up to the answers and give us the answers.

Because, it is a very bad principle of law, legislation. For a government to say we will leave that to the courts. Again, that is not what legislating is about. What is very important is that we do not unnecessarily add into potential secondary legislation, what should be primary legislation. I think the Government have got to take this very seriously. Because this is a long and difficult bill, they need to get ahead of it. Not least, I will say it again.

The private rented sector plays an important part in the provision of housing. The provision of housing is one of the objectives of the last government and of this government. It is also part of generating economic growth. The Chancellor and the Prime Minister have repeatedly told us it is their prime priority. So I beg the Government to be more So I beg the Government to be more rigid, dissect in their thinking, before wishing ahead. before wishing ahead.
17:10
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
I rise it to support my noble friend Baroness Scott, on the front bench, to reiterate a very strong argument that she has made and indeed a my noble friend Lord Marlesford just now. This is a trend that we see quite significantly in primary legislation, over the past year or so. Since the general election. A very wide ranging permissive powers that the Government is seeking to award itself, on the face of a primary legislation, with very little detail.

I do think that is a significant concern. Certainly if the boot was on the other foot, were there to be a Conservative government elected which had brought forward a clause, such as clause 64, where we are being invited to take on trust the expeditious production, postdated production of a statutory instrument and regulations. Then, the party now in government would have, quite rightly, complained about that. I do think that if you look at the detail this is an extremely wide ranging amendments.

Affecting the meaning, for instance of if one looks at both four B and four C, it talks about relevant tenancy. And the added on removal of any particular kind of relevant tenancy. It is particular in capital C. Dwelling or additional includes any structure vehicle and includes a building or part of a building, anything for the time being for the meaning of dwelling. That is a very wide definition to be on the face of the bill.

When we have an open-ended commitment to produce regulations for a date. I do think and I've said before, the idea of retrospective legislation is poor, in a different context, the beginning of committee stage in your Lordships' House, I did mention this issue. It is a very worrying that there isn't an opportunity for there to be a period of amelioration and getting used to the regulations. And finally I would say, given all of that, the chance of there being a significant incidences of litigation, arising from this particular clause are pretty high, I think.

So, for those reasons I would like to ask the Minister if she is able, before the report stage, at least to give,
17:14
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
perhaps to write to noble Lords. At least to give an indication of when those regulations are likely to be published. To reassure your Lordships' House that this is a Lordships' House that this is a one-off, in terms of how wide and permissive these powers are. Frankly it is not good enough, it doesn't allow us to properly analyse the efficacy of the policy and the efficacy of the policy and the likely impact it will have on any litigation, both landlords and litigation, both landlords and tenants.

I hope the Minister is able tenants. I hope the Minister is able I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendment regarding the definition amendment regarding the definition of a landlord and the noble Lord Marlesford and the Neville Jackson Marlesford and the Neville Jackson for participating. Amendment to a six C 6 to remove a subsection of four of clause 64. This will mean four of clause 64. This will mean amendments to the definition of relevant tenancy, residential landlord and dwelling, set out in the bill, cannot be made by regulations.

This would affect part two of the bill, which includes a wee dress and database provisions. I fully agree that any changes to the definition of those who bear responsibility and benefits, for rights under this legislation should, of course be made, with The definition of residential landlord, under clause 64 of this bill has been drafted, with care, to capture the majority of typical private tenancies, in England. However the private rented sector has proven itself to be dynamic. I'm sorry to say that the unscrupulous use of complicated arrangements, such as certain types of rent to rent schemes, has demonstrated the need for flexibility, in how we define who is or who is not in the scope of the private landlord redress, or the database.

We are also aware that other forms of occupation, such as occupation under licence, may benefit from a part two, part two predictions in the two, part two predictions in the future. A strong case may be made for expanding who is protected, if certain arrangements proliferate, following the implementation of the bill. Our focus at this time, must however, be on getting our reforms right for the people living in typical private tenancies and then expand the redress database provisions to other kinds of residential occupiers.

Whose needless circumstances might be quite different to the majority. We have included a power to change the scope of part two, by regulations in the future. It considers the future. It considers The reason for that is the introduction is a significant undertaking, the definition of a residential landlord, as I said, has been drafted for the majority of tenancies and we have retained the flexibility to change the scope of rental agreements, covered by the database and Ombudsman in future, should that be deemed necessary. I would add in response to both the noble Aaron Scott and Lord Jackson's questions, about timing, following the Royal Assent of the Renters' the Royal Assent of the Renters' Rights Bill, we will allow time for Rights Bill, we will allow time for Smooth transition to the new system, we will support tenants, landlords and agents to understand and adjust and agents to understand and adjust to the new rules.

In line with this commitment, we'll ride the sector with enough time to prepare for the introduction of the new PRS landlord introduction of the new PRS landlord ombudsman. I would, therefore, ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw the amendment at this stage. stage.
17:17
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to thank my noble friends, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and Lord Moore's book, for their support on this, what we consider very important amendment. It also, for the noble Baroness, the Minister. I am surprised at her Minister. I am surprised at her response on having a period of time to get communications in place. Because I think in a previous, and I will look back, in a previous group, it was suggested that the implementation would come quite quickly after Royal Assent.

Which would not have left that. But if that is the case, I would quite like to know what the sort of timings will be in weeks or months, if that's possible. As those things are known. On these benches, we of course recognise the Secretary of State should be afforded certain powers to deliver the context of legislation. However, I feel the government possibly hasn't fully considered the scale and scope of these regulatory powers, nor the level of trust that landlords, tenants and legislators must place in the Secretary of State on this issue.

My Lords, this is not about questioning the intentions of the Minister or others, rather it is to suggest that significant changes should be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny. And that both your Lordships house and the other place should be given the opportunity to fulfil their constitutional role in that. Quite honestly, my lords, that's the reason we are here. I believe what the Minister was saying is that these powers are necessary. But my Lords, I did not hear compelling justification for why that is the case.

Perhaps a later stage, as I said, we may have more information on this. And the Minister might be on this. And the Minister might be able to give a better explanation and I would be very happy to have that in writing, my Lords. But at that in writing, my Lords. But at this point, I wish to withdraw my amendment.
17:19
Lord Hacking Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-
Is at your Lordships pleasure the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave with one The question is amendment six the fall stand as part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. In clause 65, amendment 207.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We now move on to clause 65 of the bill, and I have tabled a number of amendments in this group. of amendments in this group. Amendments to O7, 20 10, 214, 215 and 216, all of these amendments are directly at the time to tidy up the terms of this bill, but they are also rather complicated. So, I was also rather complicated. So, I was asked for the patience of this House as I go through them one by one, that I get the argument right, that I get the argument right, relating to each of them.

My Lords, 207 takes us straight to chapter 2, 207 takes us straight to chapter 2, page 99 of the bill, to the landlord page 99 of the bill, to the landlord address schemes. And enclose 65 And enclose 65.1, the Secretary of State is under a duty to make regulations is under a duty to make regulations or requiring a residential landlord to be a member of a landlord redress to be a member of a landlord redress scheme. The difference of opinion and have in moving this amendment, it shouldn't be in the terms of 'me', but 'most' because it is a feature of the landlord redress schemes at all residential landlords join in.

My Lords, then I move to the next amendment, and I must not get into a model with my papers, the next amendment is amendment 210. This goes further on into the section of the bill. And the requirement I am seeking here, there should be only one landlord redress scheme. I think my noble friend, the Minister, is sympathetic to that but I would just like to be rather stronger and make it under obligation for only one redress scheme.

And also, we then move to the next grouping, 214, 215, and 216. 214, my Lords, is giving sympathy to those who are digitally inept. That certainly includes me. And I am seeking that amendment, and I have got it wrong, yes, 214 I think I am addressing. I have got it correctly. And that is the requirement to enable those who are not familiar with computers and other electronic devices to be able to enter the redress scheme and will not be digitally excluded.

I move now to amendment 215. This amendment is the most complicated of all the amendments I have. This amendment makes it a condition of approval, of a designated redress scheme, that the Secretary of State should apply the test of what is considered to be appropriate and proportionate in support of tenants experiencing health-related problems. -- House related problems, a matter of drafting perhaps, but of some importance. Now I move to clause 2, 16. This is very sensible, I hope my honourable friend, the Minister, will also help me here.

And that is that I suggest that we should be quite sure that the duty of the Secretary of State is to designate one landlord redress scheme and the private sector, and not any more than one. My Lords, I hope I have covered all of these amendments covered all of these amendments sufficiently and accurately. I beg to move.
17:23
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Clause 65, page 99, line 25. Leave out me and insert must. --

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Leave out may. My Lords, did right here hopefully my last diet committee stage but I have now inserted stage but I have now inserted stage but I have now inserted To an important appointment tomorrow which I cannot cancel. I do think it is appropriate for me to thank profusely all of those who have profusely all of those who have helped me personally and probably all of us, with their rather excellent briefings, helping with amendments, and in my case, frantic email exchanges, when I haven't email exchanges, when I haven't quite understood things.

Namely, all those in the renters coalition. The local government Association. The national residential landlords Association, the independent landlord, to name but a few. This is actually a very important section. I actually a very important section. I would like to say we largely support Lord Hacking's first two amendments, Lord Hacking's first two amendments, with regard to just having the one, with regard to just having the one, and the most and the may. Ariza to speak to this amendment in my name, it is a simple probing amendment which is on a complex issue.

This makes continuing or repeat briefs to the landlord scheme and offence will stop and not joining the scheme in the first place is not merely a breach, but it means the landlord can still be fined by the local authority for not joining. But a tenant cannot claim a renter repayment order as it is not an offence. Now, there is clearly an imbalance here. My amendment simply seeks to probe the government's reasoning for not making failure to join the scheme an offence in the first place.

Rather than waiting for landlords to continually cannot adhere to the new requirements. The reason for wanting this failure to be, current offence from the get go is we believe non-compliance with the redress scheme will have serious regulatory consequences for significantly impacting tenants' ability to hold their landlords to account. And that is the key matter on issues, such as disrepair and the standard of the home. Because the rent repayment order gives them compensation, a substandard accommodation.

And can incentivise tenants to actually report things. In the first place. Interestingly, generation rent's own polling found that nearly one in three renters have had maintenance issues in their home, which they have reported but their landlord has not dealt with. A simple but very telling snapshot. We also note that in the Republic of Ireland, failure of a landlord to register a tenancy with the residential tenancies Board, the Irish equivalent to what we are proposing, is a criminal offence. Punishable by imprisonment up to six months, and a fine of 40,000.

And 250 a day of non-registration. Perhaps they take a rather different Perhaps they take a rather different approach. We are concerned that as councils are already overstretched and currently have very little resource for proactive enforcement, this could mean that an undetermined number of landlords will actually avoid joining the redress scheme initially, as they will think being discovered by the council is low risk and being reported by the tenant, who would not be eligible for a rent repayment order, so no incentive there, is also a very low incentive there, is also a very low risk.

Both aspects are not what we want. Therefore, my Lords, we feel that this imbalance does not treat seriously enough the impact which non-compliance in these matters will have in undermining and frustrating one of the fundamental tenants of the new regulatory regime. I hope the noble Lady will rely our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for opening this group of amendments and also, the noble Baroness Thornhill, the landlord redress scheme is a vital function of this bill, and vital function of this bill, and vital function of this bill, and onus is on all of us to ensure the legislation is as effective and robust as it needs to be. I hope the robust as it needs to be.

I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, will take the time to reflect on the constructive suggestions made by my fellow noble Lords. I take the back fellow noble Lords. I take the back to the Department for further consideration. The fact the noble consideration. The fact the noble Baroness herself is brought forward amendments is, I would suggest, a recognition that the bill is not perfect even in the eyes of those charged with defending it. Before I turn to the amendments tabled in the turn to the amendments tabled in the noble Baroness, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I will begin by speaking to those amendments by the noble Baroness.

I draw the House is amendment to amendment to await, this would require a residential landlord to be a member of the landlord redress scheme only if Lieutenant doesn't already have access to redress via a letting agent who was a member of another approved scheme. This avoids duplication, unnecessary regulatory burden, and the potential confusion, between effectively being a member of two different schemes. My Lords, this is vital because clarity and efficiency in regulation are essential for both compliance and enforcement. Next, I turned to amendment 210 A, this proposes to the duration of the limited period of the redress scheme, as things stand, there is no indication, no hint even, what that timeframe might be.

I would ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, to provide some clarity on this point. Stakeholders need certainty to plan and prepare appropriately. My Lords, I now turn to amendment 210 B, it seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish draft regulations, establishing the landlord redress scheme within six months of the passing of this bill. A clear time and commitment is essential if the
17:31
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
government are serious about delivering this. Without a defined timeline, there is a risk that timeline, there is a risk that implementation will drift, will be indefinitely delayed, to the indefinitely delayed, to the Especially tenants. They asked the Especially tenants. They asked the Minister what constitutes meaningful progress? What timescale is the department working to. Finally, I department working to. Finally, I speak to amendment two one two A, which probes the appointment process which probes the appointment process for the individual, who will be responsible for investigating responsible for investigating complaints, under the redress scheme.

Understanding this process scheme. Understanding this process is essential, if this House is to scrutinise how and why an scrutinise how and why an individual. Transparency is not just individual. Transparency is not just desirable it is fundamental. I hope the Minister agrees, when I asked Curtis about the proposed appointment process. If not today, then at least before the time we reach report. I now wish to turn to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking and begin by addressing 207 which stands in his name.

The Attention to the importance of the redress scheme which plays a crucial role in the private rented sector. Such a scheme provides a clear and accessible mechanism for resolving disputes between landlords and tenants. It's fundamental to promoting fairness, transparency and accountability, across the sector. By ensuring that tenants and landlords have a reliable route to seek redress, we help raise standards, build trust in the system as a whole. I now turn to amendment two one zero and two one six tabled by Lord Hacking.

Which quite rightly highlight the importance of simplicity, clarity and operation for the redress scheme. These amendments propose that the Bill be amended so the Secretary of State may approve or designate only one landlord redress scheme, for the private rented sector. As I understand it there are currently two redress schemes. And it is the onus on the government and so ensure that they work together to ensure effective and efficient redress system. Turning to amendment 214 These rays of the important issue of digital exclusion.

Not everyone has access or as comfortable using digital platforms. We must ensure the system remains accessible and inclusive. I wish to briefly touch on the final amendment in this group, 215, this draws amendment to the need to support tenants facing housing -related issues such as debt management, security and welfare challenges. We know that many tenants in the private rented sector are struggling and this will be exacerbated by a series of crude, peaceable welfare changes, introduced by this government. Often at the benefit of coherent reform or sufficient support structures.

Can I also thank the noble Baroness, Baroness Thornhill for her amendment and stressing the importance that we need to ensure that everyone is a member of the redress scheme. Finally, I wish to address the government's own amendments, in this group. Noting that they are still tabling amendments to their own bill, at such a late stage. I begin with amendment 211 and 212, these amendments seek to clarify that the Secretary of State has a freestanding duty to make regulations, under clauses 65 and 66.

While the intent may be clarification, in practice this grant yet more regulatory power to the Secretary of State stop this continued layering of a ministerial discretion without sufficient parliamentary oversight raises are genuine concerns. It speaks to a broader problem with this bill. Namely the reliance on a secondary legislation at the expense of clear primary. If the government are confident in the substance of these measures they should be willing to bring forward more of the detail on the face of the bill.

Finally, I wish to address amendment to 13. This amendment provides that the person who has been expelled from a landlord redress scheme may, in appropriate circumstances be permitted to join another scheme -- 213. I simply ask what are those appropriate circumstances? The phrase is a vegan without further clarification of risks undermining the credibility and consistency of This is an important amendment and goes to the heart of the integrity and enforcement of the redress system. I hope the Government will provide detailed reassuring answers to the questions raised in this group of amendments and I look

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward to the Minister's response. I would like to thank my noble friend, Lord Hacking and the noble Baroneseses Lady Scott and Luigi Thornhill for their amendments and Thornhill for their amendments and Lord Henderson for moving Lady Scott's amendments. Before I move, Lady Scott advised of her position to clause 65 as part of the bill. to clause 65 as part of the bill. Clause 65 gives the Secretary of State power by regulators to require State power by regulators to require low residential landlords to be part low residential landlords to be part of the redress scheme.

I note her concern over placing a legal requirement on landlords to join the redress scheme. However having no redress scheme. However having no legal obligation on landlords means retaining the status quo, where a minority of private landlords choose minority of private landlords choose to voluntarily sign up redress to voluntarily sign up redress scheme. In fact previous voluntary scheme, I believe it was around 100 landlords out of 2.3 million we have got in the country actually joined got in the country actually joined This lottery for private tenants is wholly unfair, particularly as those renting in the social sector enjoy universal access to landlord redress, through the Housing Ombudsman Service, for decades.

This law makes clear that being a residential landlord is a serious commitment, most landlords understand that. And it carries responsibilities and obligations, towards the tenants. For those that do not understand it, we do need to make it quite clear, through this bill. Placing a legal requirement on landlords to be part of a redress scheme is a necessary and is key to scheme is a necessary and is key to delivering a long promised government commitment. Access to justice for tenants shouldn't be at the discretion of landlords, but built into the new tenancy system, promoting high quality, safe and
17:38
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
secure privately rented homes. Starting now, with the amendments tabled by my noble friend, Lord tabled by my noble friend, Lord Hacking, I hope he is going to carry on saying here here as I go through his amendments. 207 Will Pl a duty on the government to leave on the government to leave regulations requiring residential landlords to be members of the landlord redress scheme, rather than landlord redress scheme, rather than giving it discretion to do so. I do giving it discretion to do so.

I do In this bill. In this bill. I In this bill. I would In this bill. I would like In this bill. I would like to reassure him that the Government is committed to requiring private lenders who become members of an ombudsman, as soon as it is ombudsman, as soon as it is practical to do so. However it would be beneficial to the sector, for the Secretary of State to be obliged to require landlords to join an ombudsman scheme, before being ombudsman scheme, before being assured that the scheme is ready for landlords to join.

We have taken powers in the bill to allow the Government to make sure that the Bosman is introduced, in the most Bosman is introduced, in the most effective way, with the appropriate sequencing. This will make sure the ombudsman scheme is ready to deliver high quality service, at the point that landlords are required to join that landlords are required to join it. Amendment 210 at six out to let ? Redress scheme can operate. To sit out regulations at the number of redress schemes that can operate in the private rented sector at any one time.

It is indeed intention to improve a single redress scheme, as my noble friend outlined, which will private landlords will be required to join. However, as when a friend has noted, the legislation does allow for more than one scheme. There are an estimated 2.3 million landlords operating in England, letting their properties to 11 million tenants. Allowing for multiple schemes in legislation multiple schemes in legislation offers government flexibility and assurance that should demand for redress proved too much for a single provider, to handle effectively, additional schemes could be brought into the space to take over some of the load.

This approach to multiple scheme is precedent for instance. In the Housing act 1996, which makes provision for social housing redress, as delivered by the Housing Ombudsman. It is therefore vital that the government can set out in regulations of a number of redress schemes that it will approve or designate, for the private rented sector. This will allow the government to set a limit of one scheme at first, with the assurance that this is not set in stone, should demand for redress proved too much, for a single provider to handle effectively.

Amendment two one four will make it a statutory requirement for Private Rented Sector Landlord Ombudsman scheme to enable access to the service through off-line routes. I fully agree with my noble friend, on the importance of ensuring that those who cannot or do not wish to use computers still able to engage with the service and access redress. I'm pleased to reassure the House that the government intends to ensure that the scheme is accessible, including to those who require off-line access. We will expect the new ombudsman service, regardless of whether administered by public or private body to meet the same set of high standards for accessibility, as outlined in the government service standards and accessibility requirements for public sector bodies.

There will be further opportunities for the Government to ensure that this is the case, without amending the bill. Amendment 215 expanse of the private rented sector and Bosman to provide support for tenants with housing -related problems which are outside of the landlord's control. Such as issues with employment, welfare or debt. I did find the comments from the noble Lord and Jay Wilson about Peace Bell amendments to the welfare system. I think he called them a little bit ironic, in view of where we find ourselves, with the welfare system.

The amendment would be an additional responsibility for the ombudsman, not directly linked to resolving disputes. We think it is important that we focus on the main function of the ombudsman, rather than considering other functions which may slow down implementation. Or direct resource away from delivering against the court purpose of the redress service. Recognising that tenants are facing housing -related, employment, welfare and debt problems should, of course have access to support. It may be appropriate for the ombudsman to signpost tenants to, for instance, the local authority, Citizens Advice, or tenant advocacy charities and we do not think any amendment is necessary for that take place.

For those reasons a kindly asked my noble friend to consider withdrawing his amendments. Turning to amendments tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Scott, amendment and 208 would exempt landlords from joining the private landlord ombudsman. If they use property agent who is a member of another approved redress scheme. We can have a situation where tenants have no room to redress from outside agents control. Such as where landlord refuses to authorise large repair works or behaves badly towards the tenant. That is what they think it is fair that landlords including those can be held accountable if they failed to satisfactorily resolve a tenants complaint.

We take seriously the noble Baroness as concerns about duplication, careful consideration will be given, during the implementation process, is to help the PRS landlord ombudsman service will interact with the agent Our primary concern is that service works effectively for landlords and tenants, so that tenants can access redress when needed and they are treated fairly by the system, regardless of whether there landlord 's agent stop amendment to 10 -- 210 A. Problems can occur for 10 at any point, in the rental process.

Right up to the very end. In fact the end of the tenancy can be an extremely stressful time, for both Landlord and Tenant Act, with a lot of scope for things go wrong, as a landlord takes back possession of the property. Requiring landlords to remain with the ombudsman for a reasonable amount of time, one so stop being a landlord gives tenants the opportunity to seek redress, harm or inconvenience caused at the end of the tenancy. As part of the implementation process we will work with stakeholders to ensure that the period of time from which former landlords are required to remain members of the scheme is appropriate and proportionate.

I would therefore like to reassure the House that we are committed to ensuring landlords choose to leave the sector can exit the scheme as quickly as possible. This is not a hotel California ombudsman where you can check out but you can never leave. However this needs to be balanced with giving tenant sufficient time for issues to come to light and then to escalate complaints, after the tenancy is ended. Amendment 210 B redress regulations under clause 65 to be published within six months.

We agree that transparency is important we are committed to giving the sector as much time as possible to prepare for route new redress requirements. However it will be published in the published scheme, not the regulations and indeed not regulations under clause 65, which was set out how private landlord redress scheme will operate. We are committed to working with the sector to implement the PRS landlord ombudsman service, smoothly. We intend for the details of the scheme to be published with significant lead-in time and piloted, before landlords apply to become members.

We do not think it would be right to place a legal requirement on the Secretary of State to publish draft regulations, within the set time for Royal Assent. This is already a complex landscape and work on this needs to be carefully thought through, delivering it in a rush could be counter-productive, creating more problems, down the line. Amendment 212 A 6 to provide the proved individual to see the investigation determination for the complaint under the scheme. This individual will likely be known as the private landlord ombudsman.

We believe that clear accountability is important to promote good performance. Responsibility and authority oversight of the complaint handling process must lie with a single accountable person. This is common practice across other readdress schemes and will be rightly the case for the private landlord ombudsman. We were set out further in the regulations of the processes for appointing responsible While not a final decision, if this is the case, we anticipate the appointment for the responsible individual will mirror the public appointment process, for the existing housing ombudsman sector, therefore I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw amendments.

Turning now to amendment 218, by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, this would let landlords address with the scheme, rather than is currently the case, civil breach in the first instance, cross the provisions in the bill, we are taking a clear, proportionate and splitting approach against those who found the rules. Around a less serious non- compliance, local authorities can apply a civil penalty of over £7000. For serious or complete non- prosecute, or alternatively if you a civil penalty, of up to £40,000.

I think it is right that a failure by landlord to register with the redress scheme, which may not be done with malicious intent, is dealt with proportionately and not as a criminal offence. If a landlord continues to fail to register, two days after receiving the first penalty, then it becomes a criminal offence. We recognise effective enforcement against those who flout the rules is essential for the successful implementation of our reforms to the private rented sector. We are placing a statutory duty on local housing authorities to enforce the provisions of the bill, we expect them to take a proactive approach to enforcement and give this the priority deserves.

We are strengthening local authority's ability to enforce, for example through the new investigator empowers we are providing for the bill. And we will fund a net additional cost that will follow local authorities, as a result of our reforms, to help ensure they have the resources they need to enforce. Therefore, I would like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, withdraws her amendment. Turning to the government amendments, 209, 211 and 212, this clarifies the sequence of Statutory Instruments to the private rented sector landlord.

Our amendments make it clear that the regulation setting out the conditions for improving or designating the scheme, can be made for regulations which make it mandatory, for landlords to join the redress scheme for service will make sure landlords are only required to sign up to the ombudsman, once it is ready. Turning finally, the government amendment 213, the ombudsman service will have powers to compel landlords to comply with the scheme, and its decisions. This includes being able to expel those who fail to meet their redress obligations.

We believe it is right that expelled landlord can rejoin an approved or designated redress scheme if they take the necessary steps to correct their actions at any point. Amendment 213 ensures this is the case, even under exceptional circumstances, the noble Lord asked for an example, I would say such as where the scheme from where the landlord is expelled is no longer in operation, that might be one example, this amendment allows for a landlord to be omitted as a member of another approved a designated scheme instead.

My Lord, I beg to move the government amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend, the minister, who is very constructive. It happens is very constructive. It happens is very constructive. It happens when this House seeks to change me into most, to have pressure for the into most, to have pressure for the government to commit to a certain form of action for stubborn the government traditional reply is leave it as MAY, you have to promise leave it as MAY, you have to promise that we will do our best to bring that we will do our best to bring these measures in, and actually apply the most test, rather than MAY, so I accept what my noble MAY, so I accept what my noble friend has said.

I was interested in her comments on the landlord redress scheme, and the explanation that she scheme, and the explanation that she gave, of why it would be quite sensible as a starter, to have more than one redress scheme in place. But the aim must be to have a uniform scheme in place, as soon as possible. But the most important thing of all is the obligation on all residential landlords to join a scheme. And I think, I hope the government will concentrate on that and won't have the type of figures that my noble friend has given to that my noble friend has given to the House about that earlier scheme, with a tiny number of landlords with a tiny number of landlords joining in the scheme, and with the great majority, not.

That is probably the most important scheme for suppertime very happy, therefore, in the circumstances to therefore, in the circumstances to withdraw my amendment, but based upon the very helpful response, that upon the very helpful response, that my learned friend, my noble friend, the Minister has just given us. the Minister has just given us.
17:51
Lord Hacking Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-
Is at your Lordships pleasure the amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 208, Baroness Scott, not moved? Amendment 209, 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 contents have it. Amendment 210, Lord Hacking? Not moved. Amendments to hundred 10 A and B, Baroness Scott. The question is that clause 65 has amended stand part of the bill.

As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents of it. In clause 66, amendment 211, moved formally, and amendment 212, moved formally en bloc. The question is these amendments be agreed to, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 212 A, Baroness Scott, not moved. Amendment 213, 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 contents have it. Amendment 214 and 15 and 16, Lord Hacking? Not moved. The question is that clause 66 as amended stand as part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 217, already debated. Not moved. The question is that clause 67 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content".

The contents have it. In clause 68, amendment 218, Baroness Thornhill, not moved. The question is that clause 68 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 clauses 69-75 en bloc stand as part of the bill. 274, stand as part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Intranet content Mac. -- Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.

Clause 76, the question is that schedule three, the third schedule to the bill, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. And now we come to close at 75, stand as part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content", the contents have it. Clause 76, amendment 219, Lord Hacking, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moved? Is it all right for me to move the amendment now? I must congratulate our chairman for getting through these complicated getting through these complicated revisions. And she is doing very well, me she received well, me she received congratulations from all of us. My Lords, we now move on to the section relating to Private Rented Sector Database. That is an essential component in the fission bringing into the visions of this bill, and really, that database should be set really, that database should be set up even before this act comes into force.

And what I am seeking in force. And what I am seeking in force. And what I am seeking in amendment 219 is to get an obligation that the database operator must establish and operate operator must establish and operate within one year of the act the within one year of the act the database. And that is trying to settle down a timetable for the bringing in of the database. All of this set of amendments, like the earlier set of amendments, are meant to be tidying up amendments.

Are meant to be amendments that are helpful to all of us taking part in this debate. They move them to the other amendments that are in my name, in this group of amendments. 231, 232, and also 237. 237 in earlier grouping was in this group but has somehow disappeared. So, can I ask for it to be brought back to this group? So that we can try and discuss that one as well. 231, this amendment requires the database operator to ensure the facilities are available for a person to report breaches of any requirement, by other means, than computer for I have already spoken to the problems of the computer inept, including myself.

And my honourable friend, the minister, is already sympathetic the minister, is already sympathetic on that issue. Now, 213 requires the database operator to ensure the facilities are available for access of information, in situations when people do not have a computer or economic device. So, that again, it is helping those like myself who are rather digitally inept. Then we moved to amendment 237. The purpose of this amendment is to remove the exception for landlords to be registered on the private sector rented database, before a court can grant possession in such cases under ground 7A, under the Housing act, as amended, and iAd for example proceeding the landlord for possession of this behaviour.

That seems to be a sensible amendment, there shouldn't be restraint of a landlord bringing such proceedings which are vital for the community, the community with which those tenants are playing a part in. My Lords, those are all the amendments. I hope I have been able to describe them illicitly, I have been able to describe them correctly to your Lordships, and I beg to move the whole lot.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause 76, page 110, line 5.
17:58
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause 76, page 110, line 5. After 'most' insert 'within one year on the day on which the act is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

passed.' I rise to move amendments to hundred and 20 and 225. Amendment 220 in my name and the names of the 220 in my name and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill, and Lady Gregory, this is the first of several amendments to support and of several amendments to support and enhance the bill's proposal for a enhance the bill's proposal for a PRS Database. I am great full to my noble colleagues and also the lettings industry Council, Generation Rent, and the Large Generation Rent, and the Large Agents Representation Group for helping draft these amendments.

My helping draft these amendments. My Lords, the database, as proposed by clause 76 of the bill, will contain some basic information about the landlord, and the property. This will assist local authorities in the will assist local authorities in the carrying out of their duties, and the enforcement of required standards in the PRS, private rented sector. It will save councils time and my chasing landlords for the and my chasing landlords for the information the council needs, locating properties, failing to meet statutory requirements.

However, the database can do much more than this. Amendment 220 may scheme it can have a wider more significant role. It would truly be a wasted opportunity if the property database would only be of use the local authorities. The amendment makes clear that information on the database should also be available for the benefit of tenants, landlords, and their agents. Not least this new resource should enable landlords and agents to identify any obligation for them to obtain a licence from the local authority, whether property is subject to a licensing requirement.

And would assist them in making such an application. For prospective tenants, amendment 220 makes explicit what is surely intended, namely the database is being created to provide important information for those seeking a property to rent, who want essential details about their future home and its landlord. My Lords, amendment 225 in this group seeks to assist the database process by clarifying that its functionality should allow data to be uploaded by landlords agents, as well as by the landlords themselves.

Otherwise, landlords will need to be constantly contacted by agents to obtain the information they need with around half of rented property being supported by letting agents, this tweak is another reason why the amendment is a necessary addition to the bill. This property portal amendment is supported by those representing renters, those representing landlords, and property agents. With the additional features agents. With the additional features we will discuss in the next group. These amendments ensure the database These amendments ensure the database has a transformative impact on raising standards, helping raising standards, helping enforcement, widening knowledge of all properties in the sector, I beg all properties in the sector, I beg
18:01
18:02
18:02
18:02
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
of the rented, Private Rented Sector Database remain, for the government, renting power, support for landlords aware of their obligations and aware of their obligations and providing an effective toolkit for local authorities to drive up local authorities to drive up I rise to speak also to amendment I rise to speak also to amendment 220 and 225. My own amendments at 220 and 225. My own amendments at 243 and 243 A which resulted clarifying the role of the new Private Rented Sector Database.

Firstly I would like to support Lord Firstly I would like to support Lord Hacking's amendment 219 and say that in so much of this bill we actually in so much of this bill we actually lack a timeframe. And we have, between us brought forward several amendments asking for clarification of timescales, timeframes and it is not just ourselves seeking these timelines but everyone that is impacted by this bill. This is an area of great potential. I actually can confess to getting quite excited about it when I first realised that it was the real bill.

A well- designed database genuinely can be transformative, supporting better enforcement, empowering tenants, giving responsible landlords of the tools they need to navigate the system more effectively. You and I have very similar thoughts on that. But to achieve that it must be more than just a repository of basic information, which is where I feel we're going. It must be useful, accessible and enforceable. 220 tabled by the noble Lord Western supported by myself and others seeks to make clear that the databases are not just a tool for local authorities but for public good.

It should serve the interests of tenants, responsible landlords and letting agents alike. In its current form, the bill seems to emphasise enforcement utility, but underplays the wider potential of the database as a source of transparency and information for all parties in the rental market. If we want this rental market to help drive up standards and support informed decision-making we will set that intention out clearly. Amendment 225 also tabled by the noble Lord best introduces to further practical improvements.

Firstly it allows the letting agents to upload information on behalf of landlords, a sensible provision, given the role of many agents already playing in managing clients. Second it proposes that the database should offer a portal to help landlords determine whether their properties require licensing under the local authority schemes and to apply for those licences when necessary. Too often licensing rules can vary from one area to another, and be hard to navigate, particularly for smaller landlords, a centralised usually friendly tool will significantly improve compliance.

Turning to my own amendment 243, this probe is a critical issue, enforcement. The bill states that landlords must be registered on the database, along with each of their dwellings. It is currently unclear what consequences there are for non-compliance. This poses that failure to register should be an offence and it seems clarity from the government and how these provisions will act should be enforced in practice, without credible enforcement mechanisms, even the best designed database risks being ignored by the very landlords it is intended to regulate.

And finally amendment 243 A would give the Secretary of State the power to include links to re- useful resources on the database such as the my housing issue gateway. These types of side posts might seem minor but they can make a real difference for tenants, especially who need guidance on their rights, or for landlords seeking to meet their obligations. The database should not exist in a vacuum. It should connect users to health advice and relevant legal frameworks. These amendments may differ in focus but they are united by a common aim.

To ensure that the private rented to lives up to its promise and potential. It must be more than a tick box exercise. It must be practical, enforceable and truly useful to the people it is meant to serve. I hope the Minister meant to serve. I hope the Minister will give these proposals careful consideration and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
18:07
Earl of Lytton Portrait The Earl of Lytton (Crossbench)
-
-
If I may just make a couple of comments on the two amendments my noble colleague, Lord Best. Starting with 220. Turning also to the point made in support of that by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, because clearly what is proposed here is effectively a public register. That is what is proposed. I wasn't absolutely sure I understood in certain ways by the term referenced as interested stakeholders whoever or whatever they may be in the circumstance.

A public register is what we are dealing with. If I may sort of link this across to the next group of amendments. Lady Thornhill has an amendment, 222, which has a very extensive list of requirements. And I would just simply say that some of what she sets out their might be the rethink in terms of that degree of information on the public register, bearing in mind who else may have access to it and for what purposes.

Turning to amendment 225. I have a question. Firstly I absolutely agree with the functionality and I will add to that by saying it must absolutely be an email communication option in any database of this sort, even the state of the normal regular post Postal Service, having an email option and being able to flag up an alert system of some sort would be absolutely essential for any landlord, or agent for that matter. Any renter using it.

The question then is to do with the way in which it is applicable to local authority schemes. Lady Thornhill confirmed what I believe to be the case: namely that local authority schemes might vary quite considerably. If we have a national database, I would simply ask the question, does that deal with local things on a per local authority basis? Rules of the game obviously apply nationally. In terms of the actual property concern, the landlord and the renter, in particular.

That may be local. I would simply flag up how that is going to function, or whether there is going to be a subsidiary local authority, subset subsidiary local authority, subset on a per local authority basis. If we have that, given the amount of data that the noble Baroness is later amendment suggests, then I would suggest to the alternative view, moved by Lord Hacking, that we are looking at quite a considerable leading in practical terms to get this database in place.

If it is to be of use, it needs to start off, I think being some sort of, if you like cutdown version, in order to enable essential information to be there. Even if it is then expanded. I see this only being achievable by some sort of rollout, over time and could it be in place from day one, I think it would be a recipe for something approaching chaos. something approaching chaos. something approaching chaos.
18:11
18:14
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
simply closed by saying I think it is, these are good amendments. I is, these are good amendments. I is, these are good amendments. I is, these are good amendments. I I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking for opening this group, this marks the three vital group, this marks the three vital debates on the database. An issue of great interest to stakeholders great interest to stakeholders across the sector. There are 16 groups of amendments, amendments in groups of amendments, amendments in this group, dealing with a range of quite complex issues, relating to the database.

So, with the leave of the database. So, with the leave of the House, I will try and fully address the issues, raised, but I might take a little extra time. Before turning to our specific amendments, those in the wider group of to start by saying the creation of to start by saying the creation of a Private Rented Sector Database is a major change, for landlords and tenants, in this country. It is an opportunity to seriously improve transparency and outcomes, for renters.

We have expressed concerns on previous bills about the overuse of regulation making powers to deliver those statutory powers, the government is seeking. Ministers should, we believe it set out clearly their plans, on the face of , as far as is practically possible. Given the lack of detail in the clauses relating to the establishment of the database, we will take this opportunity to ask the Minister to clarify the government's plans. If she cannot answer points today, we would be very happy to have us in writing, after today's debate.

I will start off by addressing amendment 228 A, tabled in my name. This is a simple amendment which would ensure that the Secretary of State is required to make regulations, to ensure that the database entries are regularly updated and maintained. It is essential that the accuracy and completeness and timeliness of the data must be maintained. If it is to be a useful resource, for both tenants and for landlords. And this is common sense and it should be a requirement. I hope the noble Baroness that the Minister will agree to that, if the government cannot accept this amendment today, would she please just take this opportunity to explain why the Government feels that the Secretary of State should have any discretion of State should have any discretion Next I would like to draw a lot of attention to amendment 228B, in my name, which require circumstances in which an active landlord, or dwelling entry, in the database, becomes an inactive entry.

Similar to 228 entry. Similar to 228A, my Lords, it is vital because it requires a clear legal duty on the Secretary of State to establish a mechanism for maintaining the integrity of the database, ensuring that entries are deactivated when appropriate is vital. Turning now to amendment 228H, this amendment seeks to probe why the Secretary of State should be compelled to specify cases under subsection 4. And I asked the noble Baroness, the Minister, simply why. We would also like to understand more about the government's intentions with this regulatory power.

What other classes of person does the government intend to make subject to the duty imposed under subsection 3? We would also like to understand the role of the letting agents in maintaining these records. We know many landlords will employ a professional agent to maintain their database entries. So, will the landlord always be responsible? Or does the government intend to allow for transfer of these duties from the landlords to their professional agent? Moving on to 228D, tabled in my name, with this amendment, we are seeking to establish a consultation on the efficacy and the adequacy of the first regulations, made under this section.

The creation of the database is a major change in the way our private rented sector works. And any effective government would want to engage with landlords, tenants, and other parties, before, during and after its establishment. If the government resists this amendment today, we would be very grateful if ministers could clearly set out their plans for post- implementation engagement with the sector. Letting agents in particular may also be interested in feeding into this process. Which is why I have included leeway for the Secretary of State to consult other persons deemed appropriate.

Turning now to 224A and 226A, tabled in my name, my Lords, this probes the government's willingness to allow parliamentary scrutiny on the appointment of the database operator. The database will be a critical resource for both tenants and landlords, underpinning enforcement and transparency in the private rented sector. My Lords, this amendment is important, because it seeks to ensure the appointment of the database operator, a role central to the system's effectiveness, is subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny.

My Lords, there has been a number of recent concerns about appointments made by government in the last few months. Things like the football regulator, Baroness Deech raises concern about ministers, about a deliberate policy of pausing the process for fulfilling public appointments without particular reasons. Public appointments should be made with due process, which is why we are proposing parliamentary oversight of this appointment, my Lords. On amendment 230 A, this amendment touches on the access that to the database for people with disabilities.

This amendment would ensure that tenants with disabilities are provided with appropriate facilities by the database operator, so they can access information relating to their tenancies. My Lords, we should consider a range of options which ensures that tenants with disabilities are not excluded from access to critical information about the tenancy. Noble Lords will note the bill already includes a requirement to facilitate those who cannot or do not wish to use electronic devices when updating database entries and we feel similar provision to facilitate access to disabled people, would be an disabled people, would be an effective improvement of the bill.

Finally, on my amendments, my Lords, I wish to discuss amendment 233, this is a probing amendment to give mortgage lenders access to information on the database. So that they could use the information at buy to let, BTL, Morgan application stage -- Mortgage application stage, by giving lenders access to the database, at a buy to let mortgage application stage. This provision ensures that those with a history of poor practice, non-compliance, or unsafe housing, can continue to expand their property portfolios with impunity.

It aligns financial due diligence with regulatory standards, creating a powerful deterrent against bad actors in this sector. Next, I'd like to speak to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, amendment 219, proposed landlord registration scheme presents an opportunity to ensure every property in the PRS meets minimal health and safety standards and is properly managed. Whether by a landlord or an appointed agent. And I believe your Lordships house would agree that PRS Database should improve the current rental process.

And address many of its well-known pain points in the system. The government should commit to getting on with it, and delivering the system, my Lords, delivering the system, my Lords, without delay. So, Canon noble Baroness, the minister, commit a data the delivery of the database, and can she set out a clear and realistic timescale for its implementation and finally, will she commit to enshrining a delivery date commit to enshrining a delivery date in law and if not, why not? I would also like to discuss amendment 230, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, this requires the PRS Database to make use of the unique property reference number.

The database should use the official unique property reference number. To address the end-to-end process. As well as the urgently required mandating of digital property safety certificates, my Lords. It must be said the database operator should report metrics and communicate with the consumer agent landlord regularly to continually improve engagements across the sector. My Lords, I urge the government to make use of the unique property reference number. I now turn to amendment 220, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best.

This amendment rightly clarifies that the database should serve the interests of all parties. From these ventures, we strongly believe that the database must support tenants, landlords, agents, and local authorities alike. It should be embedded as an integral part of the private rented sector, pulling together the registration landlords should comply with, ensuring health and safety standards are met, as a condition of letting, and recording accessibility to encourage an increase in accessible PRS homes. Our concern is not what the -- Not what the bill does on the database but it's clear failure to do nothing.

And do enough, rather, not nothing. We must make it clear that if implemented public, this database can be a force for good across the entire sector. Turning to amendment 225, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, this introduces two important provisions. First, it allows letting agents to upload data on behalf of landlords, recognising the practical real recognising the practical real reality that many landlords, to delegate day-to-day management to their agents. Second, it will require the database to include a portal for landlords to identify whether their properties fall under the local licence scheme and if so, to apply directly.

This moves the database from being a passive record-keeping tool to an active driver of compliance, my Lords. Speaking now to amendments 231 and 232, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. These raise the important issues of digital exclusion. Not everyone has access or is comfortable using digital platforms. Therefore, we must ensure the system remains accessible and inclusive and I hope the noble Baroness will take this point seriously. Moving on to amendment 242, tabled by the noble Lord, I don't know whether anybody actually tables that on his behalf.

But I will speak to it. Pardon? 242. Rightly highlights the issue of full support misleading information, this is --. Or misleading information, this is an area that must be treated with care, particular wet offences are involved, I urge the government to consider not just the accuracy of the information it entered into the database, but the broader implications of misinformation, especially when enforcement and tenants safety are at stake. Finally, amendment 243, A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Baroness Thornhill, looks to the future potential of the database.

And while the government may choose to begin with basic landlord registration, the database could be developed as a vital communication and compliance tool. By integrating unique property reference numbers with centralised digital records, such as the gas safety register, and the EPC register, using a standardised template, it would be helpful to know the government's plans for the future of the database. Not least because landlords and tenants deserve some certainty of where the deserve some certainty of where the database is going.

My Lords, we on these benches support the principle of greater transparency and accountability, in the private rented sector. And we welcome the government's stated commitment to that. That said, the government must show great ambition and deliver on its commitments in a timely way. Our central concern is not with what the bill includes, but with what it omits. And the missed opportunity that those missions represent, my Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank the noble Lords, Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hacking, Noble Lord Best, Baroness, Lady Scott and Lady Thornhill, for their amendment on database, and accessing the database, the noble Baroness, Baroness Kennedy, Lord Liddle and Lord Thurlow for their contributions, I believe the noble Baroness, Baroness Scott, spoke to Baroness, Baroness Scott, spoke to 230 in the next week, the noble Lord Hacking spoke to 237, in group 6. If Hacking spoke to 237, in group 6. If it is OK, I will respond to those when we get to those groups, if that
18:28
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

is OK. I have got to lists that all have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

different numbers in them. When we get to this stage of the bill, I think it is very fair, people start to... Especially when we have three or four groups on the same subject, I am not surprised people get them mixed up. Can I people get them mixed up. Can I start by saying I very much share the sentiments of the noble Baroness, Baroness Kennedy, the Baroness, Baroness Kennedy, the noble Baroness Thornhill and Baroness Scott about the potential of this database, about landlords and tenants.

So the noble Lord Thurlow clearly set out why this is important for responsible landlords, as well as tenants. And I am sure those landlords who do a very good job, which is the majority of them, get incredibly frustrated by the minority of rogue landlords who certainly do not. And I hope this certainly do not. And I hope this will help them as well. My Lords, amendment 219 for my noble friend, Lord Hacking, proposes a duty be placed on the database operator, to placed on the database operator, to ensure the database is established an operational within a year of the renters' rights act coming into renters' rights act coming into force.

I know the database will be a vital tool in raising standards in the private rented sector, but let the private rented sector, but let me I show my noble friend, we are aiming for the date, and other noble Lords that raised the issue, we are aiming for the database to be active as soon as possible. The database is being designed as a bespoke product to ensure it aligns with the operational and legal details set out in regulations. We are currently focusing on getting the basic functionality right.

Testing with the sector and local authorities, and developing guidance for users. Setting a timeframe on the face of the bill for a database is unnecessary, and it could be counter-productive. We simply cannot risk it being brought in when the secondary legislation or technology is not ready. This would make life more difficult for tenants, landlords and local authorities. And for this reason, Robert kindly ask the noble Lord consider withdrawing that amendment. I think the noble Lord, Lord Best, for amendment 220, which would require legislation to benefit landlords, tenants, local authorities and other interested stakeholders.

I want to ensure the noble Lord best and Baroness Kennedy, who spoke to this amendment, that the database is being designed for the benefit of all potential users, including tenants, landlords and local authorities. I recognise the positive intent behind the noble Lord's amendment, however the government is already working towards this end we continue to focus on these user groups, as these database is designed, and I don't believe it is necessary to accept the amendment and for that reason, I ask the noble Lord withdraws this amendment.

I would turn out to amendments to do for letter a and 226A, from the Baroness Lady Scott command can I say, I will set out more information regarding the data that might be included. In the course of the next couple of groups. Amendment 224 A6 to remove the power from the Secretary of State to appoint third party, as the database operator, meaning the operator must be the Secretary of State, 220 6A would prevent the Secretary of State for arranging for a person to become the database operator, until they attended the relevant committee hearing in the House of Commons, whose remit includes PRS matters.

A public sector organisation will operate the database. This could be the Department on 1/3 party, such as the legal authority. Private bodies may be involved with the running of the database, with the entering into contracts of the database operator, but we do not intend to appoint a commercial entity as database operator. We are developing the database with a view to initial departmental operation and considering options who is best placed to operate it in the longer term. For example, whether the Department or legal authority should Department or legal authority should As we have not yet made a decision, we would like to maintain flexibility for the Secretary of State to arrange for a third party to be the database operator.

I would also like to point out to the noble Baroness that the bill contains robust measures to ensure that database provisions are subject to scrutiny from the Secretary of State. For example clause 86 requires the database operator to report to the Secretary of State on performance of the database and allows the Secretary of State to specify the intervals of these reports, if needed. The bill already provides the Secretary of State the significant oversight, particularly regarding employment of the database operator. How that entity operates database and reports on its performance.

We therefore do not believe that 226 A is required. The reasons I've outlined I would kindly ask the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing her amendments. The moment 2 to 5 in the name of Lord Best would ensure that regulations can be made to enable the PRS Database to have the functionality nominated letting agents to upload data, on behalf of landlords. Regulations could also be made to ensure the database enables landlords to identify the need to and apply for local licensing and apply for local licensing schemes, via the database.

For the many landlords who rely on letting agents to manage the properties, allowing agents to upload information is a proportionate approach. The noble Lord also raises a sensible point about whether the database can flag it for property subject to local authority licensing. I would like to reassure the noble Lord that we are aware of these considerations. We intend to allow agents to submit information And will be exploring through secondary legislation what this might look like in practice and what capabilities we will need to build.

We intend for the database to be a useful tool for landlords in understanding their obligations. We plan to explore the feasibility of such functionality, such as the noble Lord has described, which could notify landlords whether they are subject to licensing. Licensing schemes will remain separate to the database and as we develop and implement it we will continue to review how to operate together. In response to the noble Earl of Lytton's comments the PRS Database will provide consistent national datasets, such data is essential for local authorities to effectively design their local strategies and to target their enforcement work, to track across different local authority areas.

The database will complement other locally held data and will improve the overall picture local authorities have about the local authorities have about the private rented stock in their areas. For all of the reasons I've outlined. I would respectfully ask

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the noble Lord withdraws his amendment. Turned to amendment 228 H and B.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Turned to amendment 228 H and B. Table by Manda Scott. It will place a legal duty on the Secretary of a legal duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure that dwelling entries are kept up to that dwelling entries are kept up to date. 228 B will make regulations which specify the circumstances, in which specify the circumstances, in which elective landlord or dwelling which elective landlord or dwelling An inactive entry and vice versa.

The government appreciates that the importance of keeping the database up-to-date and the related importance of active landlord and dwelling agencies being maintained. dwelling agencies being maintained. The government already has regulatory powers which, when utilised will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations to of State to make regulations to require the landlord and dwelling entries to be kept up-to-date. We intend to make these regulations under clause 79 point one, in due course. It is also important we course. It is also important we specify the process for making active entries inactive and vice versa, through regulations to ensure that the database can be flexible, to account for future circumstances.

However we anticipate the entries will become inactive if the landlord fails to reregister within a specified time or if the landlord informs the database operator that they no longer lead inactive entry. The provisions of clause 81 is drafted or essential the accurate and effective functioning of the database and are only duplicated by the noble Baroness as amendment. These members are therefore unnecessary and I would kindly ask the noble Baroness considers withdrawing them. Amendment 228 D tabled by Lady Scott would ensure that a consultation with users of On its efficiency and adequacy is conducted within 18 months, from the date regulations are made under clause 81, divorce.

I would like to assure the noble Baroness that the needs of users are at the heart of the database and have been since its inception. The development of the database is following the service standard that makes it user centred design central to public service design. This includes testing the digital product, during development with users and enhance the service This approach will continue even after the service becomes live as we continue to make improvements, to the database during its lifetime. I should add that this is what we think it is important that some of the detail of the database is left to secondary legislation.

Upgrading the database to meet future needs and requirements. Therefore I ask that this amendment is withdrawn. 200 and in the name of Baroness Scott it would place a legal duty to make regulations which circumstances, other than residential landlords, such as property agents are subject to the legal duties set out in clause 83 three of the bill. These include ensuring there is an active landlord or dwelling entry in the database and any subsequent regulations made in relation to updating the entries, in the database are complied with.

It is important that user testing is undertaking with other persons, such as property agents, if they are to be subject to legal duties, in relation to the database. To ensure such proposals would work in practice. The Government would like to consider the implications of allowing other parties to take up responsibility in the place of landlords and the legal consequences of this and therefore it would be inappropriate to specify whether there will definitely be circumstances of this type. If we determine it is appropriate on the landlord's behalf, this will be outlined regulations.

The bill already contains power to pass the regulations to this end. Therefore I would kindly ask that the noble Baroness consider withdrawing her amendments. I now turn to amendment 228 ill 231... For those accessing it online. Amendments and 228 ill will require the database to allocate the unique identify in writing to each person or dwelling in respect of which database entry is made. 230 K will require the database operator to provide appropriate facilities which support disabled individuals who are unable to use computers to access information which relates to their information which relates to their tenancy.

231 and 232 will require the database operated to ensure the off-line facilities are available for tenants and do not and cannot access the database online. 231 specified the provision must be made available for tenants in brink breaches of clause 83. I want to ensure that the database operator provides an end-to-end non-digital route for database users. Part of this will ensure such uses are made aware of unique identify is, during the off-line journey. For example by a call centre or by post.

We are designing the database in compliance with governance government service standard, these require we work off-line and a nondigital route for non-database registration. Given that were already intent there will be a nondigital route for database registration which will extend to confirmation of unique identify is being provided off-line, these amendments are not needed. I will kindly ask the noble Baroness my noble friend to withdraw their amendments. I tend to amendment 233 which will add more agendas to the list of bodies for full data access.

This information could be used by mortgage lenders to identify and deny finance to landlords who were seeking the right to an audit. They should play a role in driving up standards, many information made public must be necessary and proportionate and done so in compliance with human rights and datasharing legislation. This amendment would mean mortgage Lincoln's -- lenders would be provided access which would be unnecessary and disproportionate. A unnecessary and disproportionate. A current list of bodies must give access is deliberately a small number.

They are all public bodies that play a practical role in carrying out enforcement action against a variety of offences. We do not believe providing all information is proportionate and I would kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott would draw that amendment. Amendment and 243 tabled by Lady Thornhill. Made a first time, I seem to have a repeat in my papers here. Of a previous I won't repeat what I said earlier on that let me make sure I know where I'm 243 243 A 243 A is 243 A is the 243 A is the next 243 A is the next amendment 243 A is the next amendment that 243 A is the next amendment that I should have been speaking on.

Tabled by Lady Thornhill which will add a new regulation to the power to facilitate to resources, which would have understanding of their rights and access to the needs of redress. The government appreciates the need to provide tenants with clear guidance and will publish a full suite of updated guidance on the gov.uk. This will allow tenants to understand their rights and responsibilities and help them make informed decisions, throughout the tenancy journey. Where the database may contain this guidance, once it is published.

Signposted tenants to resources does not require resources does not require legislative footing. The government would like to keep flexibility to create links with the database and other services, in the way that best meets users needs. I would highly often a Baroness consider withdrawing her amendment. Apologies. Apologies.
18:43
Lord Hacking Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-
I think I have got the first amendment, isn't that right. That's amendment 219. I'm very happy to withdraw that amendment. My noble friend has done magnificently. On behalf of all of us she is doing magnificently. The fact she stumbled for a moment just now is amazing that she hasn't stumble before. She is carrying her brief with extreme detail and I thank her on behalf of everybody, in the House. Her reply on my amendment, seeking a definite date for the establishment, of the private rented sector database, I think my amendment was unrealistic, the development of the database obviously takes time and a promise has already been made.

Yes we are working on this database, we do recognise the importance. I think that satisfies me. A burden on my honourable friend. 237 will be put into another group my noble friend Whip has told me I am not allowed to speak again on amendment 237. Is there any chance of my noble friend replying to my amendment now. This

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think it is more appropriate for I think it is more appropriate for me to respond to that amendment in order, it makes it difficult for other members of the House to reply to their amendments. I will reply under group 6. If my noble friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

under group 6. If my noble friend I assume the Lord wishes to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I assume the Lord wishes to withdraw his amendment? Is it your Lordships leisure this amendment be Lordships leisure this amendment be withdrawn, the amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment to 20, Lord Best, not move? Not moved. The noble Lord is looking a little uncertain. Therefore, in a close 76, amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Therefore, in a close 76, amendment My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 221, 224, 227, 229, and
18:47
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
230. These amendments are in my name, and the names of Lord Young of name, and the names of Lord Young of Cookham, the noble Baronesses, the noble Lord apologises for his absence but underlines his support. These amendments relate to the These amendments relate to the content of the new database, a content of the new database, a property portal. And they add key items to the information being provided. Amendments to Q1, two to provided. Amendments to Q1, two to four and two to seven, and landlords four and two to seven, and landlords record of gas and record safety checks with definitions of what checks with definitions of what these comprise, comedy there is a national digital register of all national digital register of all energy performance certificates, and these EPCs will be brought together with details of the lesson, however, with details of the lesson, however, there is no register for the critical landlord gas safety or electrical checks, these are frequently lost or neglected and tenants may be unaware of them.

The PRS Database provides an opportunity to have these vital safety certifications brought into the digital age, and made available widely, to ensure the safety of rented property. Building safety is now a national concern and details of these checks represent important content for prospective tenants, as well as for local authorities. Can I ask the noble Baroness, the minister, whether I'm right in thinking the government intends to consult one further items to be covered by the database and whether as part of the consultation, there will be the opportunity to add items to go into this new portal.

I would include many of the extra items listed in amendment 222 and amendment 228 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Grender., listing rent levels would provide valuable data for the First-tier Tribunal, who will be taking decisions on market rent levels. The further addition, would be good to see, is a categorisation of parties, suitable for people using wheelchairs or with mobility problems, to have this information readily available via the database would be helpful, not just to renters seeking accessible accommodation, but here that aren't awful and adapted property he was looking for tenants -- Landlords that are looking for adapted property.

230 would require the PRS Database to make use of the property reference number, to which the noble Baroness the Minister has already referred. As the identifier for every property on the database. This valuable and reliable tool already exists as a means of identifying any specific property. Your Lordships may not be aware that all of your homes already touch a number. -- Have such a number, which can dramatically speed up the search for a particular house or flat. The bill provides the perfect opportunity to put this excellent facility to good use.

A pilot scheme utilising you PRNs in Nottingham, requiring councils get a six full return from investing in this approach and streamlining the property data for collection, for their area. The noble Baroness, Baroness Scott, has jumped the gun in welcoming this amendment. Which I will say for doing so again later and thank you for that. In conclusion and in relation to all these amendments in my name at the names of colleagues to whom I offer my thanks, I believe them to be acceptable and agreeable to the organisations representing renters, landlords, and property renters, landlords, and property agents.

I hope the noble Baroness, the minister, can support them and I the minister, can support them and I look forward to her response. I beg to move.
18:50
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Amendment proposed, close 76, page 110, line 18, at end insert the words as printed on the Marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to my amendment to 28, this enhances transparency and oversight in the private rented sector, by requiring the database to include database on tenancy disputes. This would cover a range of issues including disputes about of issues including disputes about rent levels. It would also record the outcome of each case, and how long it took to reach a resolution. long it took to reach a resolution. This is at its heart a proposal for This is at its heart a proposal for greater clarity.

It is not intended to be punitive, nor to cast all landlords in a negative light. Quite the opposite. It is an opportunity the opposite. It is an opportunity to reward good landlords. Those who respond quickly to issues, to respond quickly to issues, to resolve disputes fairly, and demonstrate the commitments to their tenants, should have that record reflected and recognised. Too often, the private sector operates in the the private sector operates in the shadows. Tenants unsure of their rights and little visibility over rights and little visibility over how disputes are handled behind closed doors.

This amendment would closed doors. This amendment would bring to light that process, by recording the nature of disputes, the parties involved, the outcome, at the time taken to resolve it. We therefore create a more informed and accountable system. For tenants, this information is empowering. It helps make better decisions about where and whom they rent, for landlords it provides an incentive to act responsibly and promptly, knowing their actions contribute to a public record. And for policymakers and regulators, it offers a valuable source of data, to identify patterns, spot areas of concern, and improve enforcement.

The inclusion of rent level disputes is especially important for improving transparency for a time when affordability is a growing concern, making this information available would provide clear insight into how disagreements over rent are handled and resolved. It would help build a more accurate and evidence-based picture on where pressure points exist in the system, it would also help tenants and policymakers understand how rent issues are being addressed in practice. In short, my Lords, this amendment would help foster a culture of fairness, responsiveness and trust.

These qualities are essential, if we are to improve standards across this sector and I hope the Minister will look favourably on it.
18:52
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley Portrait Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I briefly want to speak directly to the amendment 222 in the name of another Baroness Thornhill, I support all the amendments in this group, 228, in the name of the noble Baroness render, and noble Lord, Lord Best, to which I have added my Lord Best, to which I have added my name. I also declare my interest as nationwide foundation trustee, I think I did it last time I spoke but I cannot remember, for better twice than never, so apologies.

My Lords, for me, I'm sure Baroness Thornhill, and the noble Baroness, will set out in great detail why the list of criteria is needed in the bill. But very simply, more detail on what the PRS Database will contain needs to be on the face of the bill. The bill needs to set out core functions and minimum standards leaving the details to be filled in later by regulation, dare I say it, the whim of the Secretary of State or a future of Secretary of State is not acceptable.

It would make the bill less stable and requirements less easily understood. Landlords need clarity about what the law requires of them, and tenants need clarity on what they can expect in terms of their rights. So, I hope my noble friend, Baroness Taylor of friend, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, will bring back an amendment forward at report stage which sets out minimum requirements for the PRS Database that can sit on for the PRS Database that can sit on the face of the bill, to give clarity, to give direction, akin to clarity, to give direction, akin to that amendment 222 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill.
18:54
Baroness Freeman of Steventon Portrait Baroness Freeman of Steventon (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I rise also to speak to amendment 222 in the name of the noble Lady, Baroness Thornhill, to which I have added my name. This bill is very big and has wide- ranging impacts. Certainly some planned and possibly some unplanned. And it is vital those impacts are evaluated. And it is unfortunate the evaluation plan at this stage is slightly uninformed. But the impact assessment mix is clear it is relying on some of the data collected in this database.

And given that it is going to rely on some of the data in the database, I think that data has to be specified in the face of the bill. For example, one of the prime aims of this bill is to increase security of tenure, to produce evictions, to reduce unplanned moves. The councils of that data is from the English Housing survey, which suffers from the fables of any survey at the moment and questions about its validity. But more importantly perhaps, it doesn't have the granularity necessary, given that the local authority level is going to be the level at which this bill to be the level at which this bill is enforced.

So, we need the data that is going to be collected in this database, in order to be able to tell whether this bill is effective at all. And what other effects it might be having. That's true also of things like rental increases that it is trying to keep a lid on. If we don't have a record of those rental increases, we will not know if it is effective. I am concerned tonight to be hearing that the database may not be fully in action, possibly even the first year of the act being made.

So, how will we know what the effects are if the act is already been in place for over a year, before we are even over a year, before we are even measuring some of these impacts? So, I would love to hear from the Minister, the noble Lady, the Minister, the noble Lady, the Minister, more about what is going to be in the database and when those different aspects of the database are going to be active. are going to be active.
18:56
Earl of Lytton Portrait The Earl of Lytton (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, speaking to this group of amendments, I have already mentioned amendment 222 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, I don't need to say more about it at this stage, so I will turn to the one other amendment in this group that interests me, one introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, now the information that she proposes should go into... Should be disclosed in the database, it is quite extensive. I really have three points to raise for staff firstly, if there was an ongoing dispute, is she satisfied and Would the Minister consider and be satisfied that putting that data on an incomplete process would be free from creating a prejudice of the outcome, that might be in either direction I am only thinking this is, it might be a quasi-judicial process, that I would just wish to flag it up.

In any event it would have easily identified both the parties, the rental, as well as the landlord. And the noble Baroness, I assume when she said, this would create, her amendment would create greater regulatory anything, I assume she was happy that landlords were mentioned, because the identity of the parties would be known. But depending on the detail that goes in, it might be that there would be a disclosure of what might be described as more sensitive information, relating to the nature of the dispute.

And I would just wish to flag that up, in case perhaps that had been overlooked. Bearing in mind, if we are talking about and over register, this goes to anyone anywhere who can tap into the information. There is a whole issue here about the performance that sits behind this group of amendments, the performance characteristics of what is going on with the efficiency of the process, that might be information derived from this database. I think there has to be a difference between the meta data from the processing of things like the speed of with which things are dealt with, and so on and so forth.

Under typical -- And the typical type of disputes that might arise. The frequency of distribution. And the individual data on the register. There is certainly derivative information that doesn't necessarily require the total disclosure of all sorts of quite intricate and possibly personal details. I would be very happy for this, the database, to be used for the purposes of further processing of non-personalised data of one sort or another, for statistical performance and cultivating processes.

I am less clear that that is necessary sits as a direct part of the database as a derivative of it. And I think we must be careful on what one is expecting, as actual raw data on a database, to consist of, and how it is going to be used as a derivative thereafter.
19:00
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, first of all, I would like to say apologies, I was remiss before the last group do not thank the noble Lady. For the time she gave up to meet with Baroness, Baroness Grender and I to talk about the database, and I know she is willing to meet with noble Lords and giving up a lot of her time, so accept my thanks now. The amendments in this group continue to relate to straightening the content, the utility and functionality of the new private rented sector.

Database. And as has been already highlighted in the debate, the database could be a powerful driver of higher standards, tenant protection, and importantly, tenant protection, and importantly, To fulfil that role and must be built on comprehensive, reliable and adaptable foundations, something these amendments aimed to deliver. Amendment 222 in my name and supported, thank you Baroness Freeman, and I would like to thank Lord Best for his positive comments, in fact I think both Lord Best, Baroness Freeman made some pertinent comments which I hope will add to the debate.

Yes, it set out a broader and more ambitious vision for what information could be captured in the database from the onset. If this system is to be genuinely useful, it needs to go beyond the basics and include key documentation that reflects safety, security and condition of the property. Renters deserve to know that the home they are moving into a safe, compliant and fairly let. The Baroness Kennedy, I would say I don't intend to go into great detail, because today I know time is of the essence.

But can I summit up by saying, in our view, the point of this is to actually expose infringing, dodgy landlords. Good landlord has nothing to fear. But if things like Banning Order's are on site, then maybe, just maybe, it might incentivise landlords, not to get themselves into position, in the first place. And I know in Watford we have had issues with a who is a prolific property owner and it is useful if you could see the number of offences -- a landlord who is a prolific property owner.

If they looked at the name of the landlord that is quite powerful. I do accept the concerns, but if there was any hope of any of my catchall list being taken up, I would happily argue with him, on a case-by-case basis. Amendments to hundred and 21 and 227 tables by the noble Lord Lord Best would ensure that the database includes records of gas and electrical safety checks, and crucially, that they become a digital home for all these certificates. We already require these documents to be produced, so incorporating them into the national system should be a logical next step.

Amendment 227 would even allow a safety system for provider to upload directly removing administrative burdens from landlords and improving data accuracy. This would modernise the -- and streamline an essential part of compliance process. Baroness Peter Wright focuses on tenancy dispute, specifically rent levels and resolution outcomes. In the absence of reliable rent data, we actually lack an evidence-based needed to track affordability, something that's come up across time in the bill, or understand the impact of policy changes.

Including dispute outcomes would help tenants to navigate the system more confidently and enable more informed decision-making by both renters and landlords. It also provides an accountability mechanism to ensure the system is working as it should. Amendment 2 to 4 also from Lord Best and supported by myself -- 224 -- is linked to these proposals and would reinforce the requirement for the database include the right types of detail to make it genuinely functional for enforcement and policy use. And I'm sure we would all be willing to contribute to general discussion about what that might be.

Amendment 229 introduces a small but important clarification to ensure that the database links records, not only to landlords but to specific dwellings. This might seem technical but it speaks to a broader point. The system must allow us to track the full history of property, and not just its owner, although the owner is clearly vital, especially as we have mentioned many times, the invisible, the absent, non-contactable landlord. This is vital in properties where they change hands that the issues persist, in reference to the case I referred to earlier, locally, often it will just a family in the's name that had changed, so I think the more we contract down infringing landlords the better -- often it was just a family member's.

Next, the just a family member's. Next, the use of the EPR and SS -- UPR and -- UPRNS. S using these in the database was reduced to purgation and enable effective datasharing across agencies. Something that they and asked all think needs to be improved. It's a ready-made tool that would help knit together fragmented motion across the sector and as we have heard, has proved effective. These amendments work together to build a more useful transparent future proof database, one that supports not only enforcement but also renters safety, data integrity, and informed policy-making for the future.

Each of these proposals is practical, proportionate and grounded in existing obligations. What they offer is not duplication but integration. I hope the government will have nice the value in taking more ambitious approach to what the database can deliver and I am heartened by the comments that the heartened by the comments that the noble Lady has already said today.
19:07
19:08
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord Lord Best for opening this group. The question of what data is recorded on the database is an important one. And the government needs to give the sector greater clarity on their plans. Noble Lords need to not only look at some of the briefings provided by letting agencies to landlords over the past few months, to grasp the level of uncertainty around this bill. For the benefit of renters and landlords we need greater clarity as soon as possible.

As my noble friend Baroness Scott of Bybrook said earlier, from these ventures, we believe the government should be more ambitious. We are broadly content with that action of travel and greater transparency but taking this forward through regulations is leaving landlords and tenants in the dark. We support the noble Lord West 's challenged the government on the inclusion of gas and electrical safety checks within the PRS Database, amendments to 21, 2 to 4 and 2 to 7 tabled by the noble Lord Lord Best will touch on this issue.

The database makes use of official EPR ends covers the full end-to-end process of property compliance, including urgent need to mandate digital property safety certificates, this will certainly increase transparency for landlords and tenants. Including gas safety certificates and electrical installation report would assist tenants who wish to confirm the property is safe. That said, I should say we do have some concerns about amendment 227, which appears to place the burden of registering digital, gas and certificates on the certificate provider rather than the landlord.

We do not think responsibility should be placed on the providers without a proper impact assessment and a full understanding of how this will work in practical terms. But perhaps the noble Baroness the Minister can commit to considering this proposal from the noble Lord between now and the report stage. I tend to amendment 220 tabled by the noble Baroness Baroness Thornhill this proposes expanding the types of information or documents required for registration on the PRS Database. I commend her for her thoughtful drafting and this amendment highlights further the uncertainty and lack of clarity that has arisen from the government decision to place broadly drafted regulation making powers in the bill rather than providing detailed provisions in the face of the Bill to enable their plans.

Finally, I wish to speak to amendments to hundred 29 and 200 2030. UPR ends are universally means of identifying properties and they will be central to this system. The database has easiest possible to use for both renters and landlords and we accept that Lord Best's amendments are well-intentioned and we will listen carefully to the Baroness Lister's response to these amendments. My Lords, we do have a separate concern, the government does not have a good track record in delivering IT projects.

We share the concerns that have been raised by the noble Lord Litton and the noble Baroness Freeman earlier, on the time it will take to roll out this database. Can the noble Baroness the Minister provide us assurance that this project will be delivered and
19:13
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
delivered on time? I hope that the noble Baroness the Minister will give serious consideration to these give serious consideration to these well-intentioned and constructive well-intentioned and constructive well-intentioned and constructive My Lords, I thank the noble Lord Lord Best and noble Baronesses Lady Thornhill and Lady Grender for the amendments regarding which data should be recorded on the databased. should be recorded on the databased. The noble Baroness Kennedy, noble Baroness Freeman The Earl of Lytton Baroness Freeman The Earl of Lytton and noble Al Al Cromwell.

I will and noble Al Al Cromwell. I will begin with amendment 222. This would expand clause 76 and mandate the information that landlord and willing mask time. I would like to thank the noble Baroness for thoughtful amendment and for meeting with me to discuss the database in greater detail before committing, we greater detail before committing, we certainly both appreciate the potential of the database and I would like to reassure her we do would like to reassure her we do expect to collect most of the information on the database, detailed regulations about the making of landlord and dwelling entries in the database will be made under clause 78.1.

Our approach to data collection takes account of the balance of both the benefits and burdens for different uses and ensuring it remains proportionate. I will stress to the committee and the noble Baroness that it is vital that the database is designed in such a way that it can evolve to incorporate technological information and changes in the sector. While I understand the points made by the noble Baroness Kennedy and the noble Baroness Freeman, we do not think that to accomplish this aim the content of landlord and dwelling database entries should be meditated on the face of the bill.

Rather this detail should be set out in secondary legislation to ensure the database can be more easily adapted to meet future circumstances. To respond to points about when the database is going to be ready, do aim for the service to be operational as soon as possible following the passage of primary and secondary legislation. We are putting forward the digital development in line with government service standards. We will conduct extensive testing of the new service ahead of the mentation and continue to engage the sector on our proposals, and we very much welcome the ongoing involvement of all those who have been helping us already with this.

The noble Lord Cromwell highlighted the importance of why we must develop and design and testing. The difficulty of IT systems. Two, I have had them in past life so know it can be a tricky issue. We have only been in government for nine months accusing us of having track records, or did he mean all governments? I hope you meant all We need to make sure that we do the development carefully and the testing of the system carefully and I ask the noble lady to withdraw her amendment.

Turning to amendment 221 and two to four tabled by Lord best, it establishes and operates the database to mandate entries that recall the date and details of property safety records and electrical installation condition report on the database. It defines the terms landlord gas safety records and landlord electrical installation condition report into 221 mandating entries and property gas safety records and electrical installation condition reports. I agree with Lord Best on the importance of collecting electrical information alongside key health and safety data around private properties on the database, but it needs to have the ability to evolve the information it collect based on current needs of the sector and current needs of the sector and changes in regulations.

We intend to define the information the database must collect by secondary rather than primary legislation and a good example is working on a future homes standard that may contain different evidence which may need inclusion in the database. The anticipation is recording information on the database and I asked the Lord to withdraw amendments. Amendment 227 enabled regulations to be made to require authorised providers of gas safety records and electrical installation condition report's to upload them onto the database. We appreciate the role of the database as a source of compliance information and landlord should upload records to demonstrate compliance with these important safety regulations, but it relies on the digitisation of gas and let regulation which is beyond the scale of the legislation.

Records currently exist across tenure and across England and any digitisation will need careful consideration of needs and capacity of user groups. While there are no immediate plans to look at safety certificates, it will be built in such a way that it has the capability to draw upon datasets if they become digitised in the future. Included in this is the delayed implementation of the database and I asked the noble Lord to withdraw it. I turned to amendment 228 tabled by the noble Baroness that would clarify the regulation making powers in clause 78 is sufficient to enable regulations providing details of tenancy dispute and rent dispute to be on the private sector database.

It is not needed with the existing regulating power in clause 78 sufficiently wide and allows for regulations to mandate the recording of such issues. It is important it is designed in such a way that can incorporate technological innovation that changes in the sector. That is why it should be set out in regulation rather than on the face of the bill to ensure it can be easily adapted to meet future circumstances. We will conduct user research to understand what information would support them to make a decision that is informed.

It will be taken in accordance with data protection and human rights legislation. We will work with stakeholders to get their input as we design and implement the database and I ask the noble lady to withdraw her amendment. Turning to 229 and 230, it tables the requirement for the database operated to allocate a unique identifier on the database and this will enable the database to use unique property reference numbers as a method to identifying property. It would require the database operated to allocate a unique identifier for each property that would become a unique property reference number and I think that is reference number and I think that is a new acronym, you PRN, and I want to reassure noble Lords we recognise the value of this and intend to use them.

We are looking at how they can be investigated in the database, however, we know there may be gaps in coverage so we are undertaking technical exploration with partners to understand how we might address this. We need to complete this this. We need to complete this research to ensure they can be used effectively in the database and we do not think it would be right to put this on the face of the bill until we are certain of the certainty of it on the database and we need to test them within the we need to test them within the database and I ask the noble Lord withdraws the amendment.
19:21
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
I am grateful to noble Lords who participated in this debate. Mostly agreeing with amendments and sometimes quite enthusiastically. One thing we have not covered before of the provision for the providers and safety certificates and electrical checks to be the people who uploaded onto the database that information rather than putting the onus entirely on the landlord. This sounds radical, but it is actually quite an important piece of the jigsaw.

We do this with our MOT. The MOT provider looks after the car and sends the information to the DVLA. It is now pretty well instant that you can record this without a lot of hassle. This happens with the PCs, the energy performance certificate. The provider uploads it onto the database. It is not a huge jump, but I was encouraged by the Minister's comments for which I express appreciation. We are all onside, and there will be things added to the list of content included within this, but we will take this at a gentle pace with the unfortunate feeling and we will wait for the legislation and secondary legislation with extensive testing, trials, and bringing forward pieces of this one step at a time.

It may be sensible, but it will be quite frustrating when there is potential for opportunity for the database to make a real difference. I thank all participants and the minister, but I urge we press on with this as soon as possible because it is valuable and it will make a big difference. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
19:23
19:23
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
resumed and then we will move to consider the statement and will not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

return to the bill before 8:02. The question is the House be Questions Questions on Questions on a Questions on a statement Questions on a statement made Questions on a statement made in Questions on a statement made in the House of Commons on Thursday the eighth May on trade negotiations.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

eighth May on trade negotiations. Firstly, I thank the Minister for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Firstly, I thank the Minister for the statement. The economic prosperity agreement between the United Kingdom and United States is United Kingdom and United States is a welcome but limited first step towards a compressive free trade agreement and signifies a positive agreement and signifies a positive view towards strengthening the special relationship with our most important ally. It was refreshing to see that it was explicitly acknowledged as one of the three core objectives. If it is to ensure, it must be based on fairness and reciprocity.

The United States is the largest bilateral trading partner outside of the EU with trading goods and services valued at £310 billion in 2023. Following the costs from the national insurance contributions, this brings relief to sectors in our economy. Tariffs on UK vehicles have been reduced from 25 to 10% benefiting 100,000 vehicles annually and attendant auto vehicles annually and attendant auto parts. With this development it will provide relief as the clause of the S MMT noticed.

It reduces tariffs over the US and is greater for the industry and consumers and applications were severe and immediate to the automotive exporters and this provides much- needed relief to the industry and those that work in it to approach the future more positively. We take these words at face value. Similarly, the removal of tariffs on steel and aluminium that disrupted £400 million of exports is welcome news to the manufacturing sector, but what will the constructing quoter in our most-favoured-nation rates for UK steel and aluminium products mean in practice, and particularly for troubled British Steel? In agriculture, US beef export quotas have increased from 1000 13,000 metric tons and negotiations are expected to continue.

Sectors where they see significant export interest and capacity. The agriculture secretary said that this was clear in the trade agenda and further discussions progress and it will be important to account for the structure and the need of the farming sector. While there is broad support for open and competitive markets, we know that some British producers have raised concerns about production practices and the cost of implication of the regulatory approaches. It acknowledges that they will look at the Sanitary and Phytosanitary standards.

Could the Minister update the House on the nature of conversations held with domestic farming representatives so far and how the ongoing negotiations progress. Our there any major areas other than the chlorine wash chicken that made it difficult? There is also digital trade despite the ambitions in the AI opportunity plan to position the UK as a global lead-in emerging technology and we will look at how this support the goal in practice, but acknowledged the commitment to look at and ambitious set of revisions.

Can the House be updated on the future of the digital services tax. Moreover, the agreement is the UK will receive preferential treatment if it is posed as section 232 into pharmaceuticals and other products. It is worth reminding ourselves what that means. Section 232 of the trade expansion act of 1962 provides the ability to impose restrictions on imports based on an informative decision on the department of commerce that products under investigation are be imported in the United States in quantities or circumstances as to threaten to impair national security.

Preferential treatment sounds in positive, but it is how we look at practice. Will it mean lower tariffs, or different treatment to what other countries receive? It is crucial for the pharmaceutical sector and we need transparency on the arrangement, and how will it impact on our relationship with Ireland home to many pharmaceutical companies. Could the Minister alight us on how Northern Ireland will be affected by the deal? Note that security of supply chain is explicit in the disagreement.

China expressed concerns that it could lead to Chinese products and British supply chains and could breach international norms. In light of the stated intention to reset and stabilise relations with China, it is important to understand how it is being managed. What steps will the government take to ensure that one strategic partner does not compromise and engage with another? Furthermore, in the economic and financial dialogue agreement, which includes cooperation with pharmaceuticals and financial services, how does the government look at the potential impact on future negotiations in the same sector? I appreciate this refers to other sectors including corporate, lumbar, film production, semiconductors and critical minerals, but it goes through the document and represents the foundation of the special relationship, but there is no mention made of the defence sector, so could the noble Lady update us on discussions in that space? The agreement states that they both look to expand on current agreements and go through industrial goods.

How does that square with the metrology bill currently in the Commons? Superficially, it says they should have accepted amendments in this area, but it is not too late. While tariffs on UK have been reduced, the baseline tariff remains higher than pre-president Trump levels and we acknowledge the progress but recognise this represents a less favourable environment for the UKIC. What this country needs is a comprehensive free trade agreement with the United States to alleviate these challenges and it would be remiss to not mention that small and medium-sized enterprises which are the backbone of the economy needed clarity on how they go through this agreement.

Tina McKenzie mentioned that sting SME markets -- boosting markets is clear. Much is needed to be done. The government must focus on services, investment and small business support ensuring all sectors are given a fair chance to thrive. As has been asked and evaded thrive. As has been asked and evaded everyday this week, will Parliament everyday this week, will Parliament
19:31
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
As a vice chair of the all-party motor group, this agreement was good news for the UK car industry, or perhaps more importantly it was less bad news, coming in were the noble Lord shop left off. In truth, malefactors will still see a rise from pre-trial tariffs of 2.5% post-ramp of 10% but of course that is much more manageable than the 27.5% that they are being faced -- free Trump Tower. And as key shareholder, I'm sure the government will welcome the moves on steel, as well.

But on these and the wider perspective, there is much detail still to resolve and it will be helpful if the Minister can set out a timetable for when businesses will start to know the detail of what this agreement will actually deliver. Because the government has not published the documents we need, such as impact assessments on key British industry, and how it leaves us in the dark as to what ministers have really given up an exchange for these lower tariffs.

I was a little intrigued by the ethanol concession. Secretary of State Jonathan Reynolds said in the Commons that he is working closely with our domestic ethanol sector to understand its concerns, and potential impact on business, including what more government can do to support the sector. This seems a little late. Some weeks ago, I was meeting staffers of senior senators and I asked them what was their number one redline on the most popular response from the staffers was ethanol.

If I knew six weeks ago, I assume the government knew a long time before that, which means there was plenty of time to work through the implications on the domestic suppliers, and yet it seems only now is that process underway. How can negotiators know the value of what they are conceding without having done the work that seems now to be underway? The deal also allows more American beef into the UK market. The Secretary of State was at pains to say that import would not compromise standards.

Can the Minister confirm that this is being achieved by operating the tariff rate quota for so-called high quality beef -- up-rating. Can the Minister share the government's analysis of how much high quality booth the US produces per annum and what is the annual expected level of imports of that beef into the United Kingdom? Finally on this, can she set out what border inspections regime will be planned to make sure that this indeed meets the standards of high quality beef? Given the urgent need for phytosanitary agreement between the UK and the EU, can the Minister tell your Lordship's House what conversations the government has had with the EU counterparts about this decision to allow US beef into the UK? But my Lords, overall, how certain is any of this is Mac for example, trump signed a full deal with Canada and Mexico in 2018.

And then he threw the deal out in his first week of his presidency. This US UK agreement may have been President Trump -- may have been endorsed by President Trump, but it may change. Does the Minister agree with the live Democrats that the best long-term defence is to build our relationships, our trading relationships, with long-standing partners who are not changing their views all the time. The European Union, and dependable allies, such as Canada, and can the Minister explain to your Lordship's House the government's analysis of how this US deal impacts the furthering of relationships with those reliable potential partners.

And further unanswered question that was touched on by the noble Lord Lord Sharpe surrounds our position with China. The deal with the US include strict security requirements, particularly around steel and pharmaceuticals industries, requirements that have already caused China to complain that this could be used to squeeze Chinese products out of British supply chains. So how will the government manage its relationship with China when President reaping knows that Donald Trump is leaning on us in every way -- President Xi is.

The level of uncertainty over the details in this agreement many questions but again, it seems the government will duck proper scrutiny. If this was a full-blown trade agreement we would expect it to be put before your Lordships International Agreements Committee of which I'm a member. But so far we have been starved of involvement of the Greenstone agreement and we haven't really been taken in on this. So can the Minister confirm whether the International Agreements Committee will scrutinise this agreement? But even if we did make a report, the key to a debate in the Commons is still held by the government.

The shortcomings of our scrutiny process of trade deals is laid bare. At the very least can the Minister confirm that this agreement will have a full Commons debate? Because if the government doesn't follow this course, if it indicates that this agreement is not a treaty that needs to be fully ratified, and if it isn't a fully ratified treaty, under the WTO, most favourite and rules, the UK will have to offer similar tariff re-entry to all other countries, not just the United States.

Unless Keir Starmer wants to join Donald Trump in breaking a fundamental international agreement that supports world trade, this should be treated as a trade deal and lodged with the WTO, and that requires full crack process in your Lordship's House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I would like to thank noble Lords for their remarks and noble Lords for their remarks and for the questions they have put today, and of course we recognise
19:39
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
the strong level of interest in this House in this historic trade deal that we have secured with the United States. To ensure that those interested can see for themselves what has been agreed, the general terms of that deal have now been published on gov.uk and a copy has been placed in the House library. As the Prime Minister has rightly said, we are living in a new world now. One governed less by established rules and more by deals and alliances. And so our vision is to leverage our relationships with other powerhouse economies to make the UK a global hub for trade and investment.

And this is why last Thursday we reached an agreement on the basis of an economic prosperity deal with the United States. But I would say in answer to noble Lords, pertick Lisa noble Lord Lord Fox, that this is a deal, not a full- blown treaty. We are absolutely, we need to be absolutely clear about that. Our trading relationship were £350 billion per year is now set to grow stock we already have 1.2 trillion invested in each other's economies between ourselves and the US and between us we employ about 2.5 2.5 million people across both countries.

That is why the deal is so important. Saving thousands of are played highly skilled jobs that are vital for our economy is absolutely essential. Protecting drugs in motivated, steel, pharmaceuticals and aerospace, sectors that employ over 320,000 people across the UK. In addition, an estimated 206,000 jobs are supported across the economy by the auto industry alone. The noble Lord Lord Sharpe and the noble Lord Lord Fox said that the deal on, the automotive sector, welcomed relief and I would agree with that.

For the car industry we have negotiated a quota of 100,000 vehicles that reduce tariffs from 27.5% to 10% and secured an arrangement for associated carports. Recognising the vital role the sector plays an hour, -- car parts. We have seen Jaguar, Land Rover, out in support of this deal and its very positive news for organic British manufacturers such as McLaren. Lord Sharpe asked about the steel future, for steel and aluminium this would remove 25% additional tariffs put in place earlier this year, reducing US tariffs to an average of 0.6 to an average of 0.64 steel including derivatives and 2.7% for aluminium including derivatives.

This is a very major victory for steel in the UK. It reassures us that steelmaking is alive and well in this country thanks to the action this government is taking. Providing a critical lift for the steel industry which has been brought back from the brink of collapse is allowing the UK steelmakers to continue exporting to the US. The noble Lord Lord Sharpe, and I think noble Lord Lord Fox, asked about agriculture. For UK beef farmers we have to live at unprecedented market access, our farmers will be able to export their high quality beef through an exclusive UK quota to market of over 300 million people, providing unparalleled access to the world's largest consumer market.

The NFU has long campaigned for this and this government has delivered. And let me be crystal-clear, our agriculture imports to the UK will still have to meet our high quality food and animal welfare standards. In the noble Lord Lord Fox asked about, maybe it was the Lord Sharpe, asked if we were engaging with the farming committee. Of course colleagues in Africa regularly engage with the farming organisations on this issue of market access and indeed with the NFU.

The noble Lord Lord Fox asked about some statistics to do with beef and I have to say that I don't have those to hand but am obviously happy to write with details of those proposals. The noble Lord Lord Sharpe asked about the digital tax, digital service tax and I can reassure noble Lords there are no changes to that tax in this agreement. The noble Lord also asked about the impact on the pharmaceutical sector. Pharmaceuticals and life scientist, the deals provide assurances we will receive significant preferential access in the case of any new US tariffs in the future.

Something only the UK has so far secured. Pharmaceutical manufacturing sector alone contributes £20 billion to the UK economy a year and employs around 50,000 people, so that is a welcome move. The noble Lord Lord Sharpe asked about Northern Ireland, and with regard to Northern Ireland, I can confirm that we have considered the impact of the agreement on Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland is part of the UK Customs territory and internal market and Northern Ireland exports and access the US markets under this deal, on the same basis of the rest of the UK.

Secondly the deal does not affect how imports and Northern Ireland operate. And Northern Ireland businesses importing eligible US goods under this deal can avoid unnecessary duties within the established Windsor Framework schemes such as the UK internal market scheme. As we have said, we continue to act in the best interest for UK businesses, including those in Northern Ireland. Noble Lords asked about, will Parliament have a say. And let be make it clear, the general terms is not a treaty, I will not be subject to a vote in parliament, we will promote the terms of the deal in accordance with the appropriate domestic processes and to be clear, we are not seeking any change in the process of ratification of any duty.

Members of this House will have the chance to scrutinise the treaty when it's agreed and presented to this House. If I have missed any of the points out I will of course write to noble Lords, but to summarise, this deal shows what can be achieved through pragmatism, diplomacy and acting in the national interest was not the the national interest was not the deal shows the UK to be a key and influential player on the world stage and one that can get deals stage and one that can get deals done.

We are sending a message to the world that Britain remains open for business, we will protect jobs and investment and boost and defend our industries, and we will drive economic growth in all parts of the economic growth in all parts of the economic growth in all parts of the
19:46
19:47
19:49
19:50
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Portrait Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

further trade deals on that basis. I apologise for attempting to speak to early and I would like to speak to early and I would like to ask a couple of questions. How, and this was touched on by Lord Sharpe and Lord Fox, will the new agreement operate with the most-favoured- nation rules which means the lowest tariff must be offered to all countries and the reason I ask if it is consistent is because Mr Navarro, the architect of the trade policy of Donald Trump, as recently as August eighth in the Financial Times, wrote a strong article criticising the rules of the MFN.

The alternative is reciprocal tariffs which Donald Trump has mentioned, but it would lead to a more complicated system of international, a huge amount of business bureaucracy and would lead to commercial chaos around the world and I would be grateful if the Minister could answer the question. Another question is relating to the 10% basic tariff which gave an indication that they might want to negotiate further on. The 10% tariff places businesses of Britain at a disadvantage compared to where they were before, but it is strange that 10% applies to Britain because the object of American policy is to object of American policy is to remove the imbalance in the trade remove the imbalance in the trade system and written had no imbalance in goods as Donald Trump acknowledged.

The implication seems acknowledged. The implication seems to be the 10% will apply to countries around the world and all countries around the world and all countries around the world which is the Governor of the Bank of England said, it applies for the whole world as well as Britain. as well as Britain.
19:52
19:53
19:55
19:55
19:56
19:57
19:59
19:59
20:00
20:01
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Portrait Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, defence doesn't form part of the trade deal of the deal that we have in front of us today but as I said there are a number of other areas where negotiations are continuing and we are hoping to have a much more comprehensive deal with the US as quickly as we can and I'm sure that defence will be a consideration in those discussions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sure that this steel has been warmly welcomed in steel and in the warmly welcomed in steel and in the automotive industry, -- this deal. Not everybody realises export a Not everybody realises export a significant number of minis to the United States, so it's good news there too. Two quick questions, one is about labour rights and how they will be protected and advanced as will be protected and advanced as will be protected and advanced as this deal progresses.

My noble friend the Minister may be aware that under the previous government, and the previous administration in and the previous administration in the United States, there was a quad the United States, there was a quad involving the TUC, and our sister trade union centre, AFL CIO, and the trade secretary and the US and for trade secretary and the US and for trade. Who were involved in trade. Who were involved in consulting and developing those labour rights secondly is envisaged labour rights secondly is envisaged there will be an investor state mechanism because I never found the Minister is very aware, concerns Minister is very aware, concerns have been expressed that the mechanism models that we have to mechanism models that we have to date privilege the interest of the corporations over those of citizens and workers, and particularly when and workers, and particularly when we get to the stage of talking about we get to the stage of talking about Big Tech and technology, your answer will be very important.

will be very important.
20:03
20:04
20:05
20:06
20:06
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Has to be again committee on the Renters' Rights Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Victor move that house to now resolve itself into a committee upon the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the bill. Question is the House do now adjourn of itself into a committee upon the bill. As many are of that upon the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. Amendment to hundred 23, Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thornhill. Thank you, that was a very swift

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, that was a very swift roast dinner. Just give everyone a roast dinner. Just give everyone a moment. I rise to meet amendment to hundred and 23 in my name. The amendments in this group in my name amendments in this group in my name and others and there are quite a lot of others, but can I be sure noble Lords, that actually they all work together and they function as a pack. So therefore, my description of these amendments, working together, will actually be quite brief.

They look to strengthen the link between compliance with the Private Rented Sector Database, and the lawful use of affection powers. I do appreciate I'm kind of pushing the envelope a little bit here and will be genuinely very interested in the noble lady's response. These amendments R-rated in a very simple principle. If we expect landlords to meet minimum legal obligations, and we do, and we hope for more compliance, and that is what the whole bill is about, such as registering on the new database, which following our discussions previously is going to be a game changer, then there really must be meaningful consequences when they don't.

Currently, the bill does not explicitly tie database compliance to a landlords ability to issue a section 8 notice. And these amendments aimed to correct that. Or at least to open up the discussion about that. Amendment 223 would require landlords to register any section 8 of action notice the database within seven days of ensuring it. -- Eviction notice. This would help local landlords and tenants track patterns of use, and ensure that the exactly a reliable record of how and when eviction powers are being exercised.

And if not through this, then my question to the noble Lady is, how do we gather that data accurately? Because I believe it's important data, and without that, we lose very valuable oversight. Amendments to hundred 35, 238 and 240 would prevent a section 8 eviction notice from being considered valid, if the landlord has failed to comply with section 83.3 of the bill. Namely the obligation to register themselves and their dwelling in the database. These are not minor nor excessive requirements.

They are actually fundamental baseline requirements for responsible landlords. It is entirely reasonable to say that if these duties are not met, a landlord should not be able to proceed with eviction. Amendment 236 provides necessary clarification, ensuring that this requirement applies to the entirety of subsection 3, and not just selected parts. Taken together, this group of amendments help to make the database a functioning gatekeeper for landlord compliance. It reinforces the idea that legal powers, especially those as significant as eviction, should only be available to those who follow the rules.

And that, in turn, builds confidence in the system and protects tenants from being displaced by landlords who are themselves acting unlawfully. I hope the Minister will look carefully at these proposals, they are proportionate, targeted, and they go proportionate, targeted, and they go to the heart of what this reform is meant to achieve. A fairer and more meant to achieve. A fairer and more accountable rental sector. I beg to move.
20:11
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed, clause 76, page 110, 918, at the end insert the words as printed on the marshalled

**** Possible New Speaker ****

list. I would like to thank Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank Baroness Thornhill for opening this group, the issues of database fees and the issues of database fees and position, restrictions are of real significance and this group of amendments is therefore of considerable importance. Before turning to the wider contributions turning to the wider contributions made today, I would like to speak to amendments that I have tabled in this group. Let me begin with amendment to hundred 28, C, tabled in my name, which seeks to probe the in my name, which seeks to probe the circumstances under which a landlord may be charged a fee under the regulations made under this clause and I would be grateful if the noble Baroness the Minister could provide some clarity on this point, under some clarity on this point, under what conditions does the government foresee such charges being applied? Next I turned to amendment to Next I turned to amendment to hundred 28, E, this amendment would prevent the cost of enforcement action against non-compliant landlords from being charged to those who have complied with the requirements of this chapter.

This seems entirely unfair, on law- abiding landlords and we want to understand why landlords who are compliant must bear the costs of enforcement taken against those landlords who fail to comply with the law. Can the noble Baroness the Minister explain why compliant landlords must bear that cost of enforcement targeted at those who failed to meet their legal obligations? Turning now to 228 point, paragraph D, this includes the cost of the enforcement action in relation to the private rented sector across the whole of this act.

Our original understanding was that these fees were intended to relate to the database but this paragraph seems to be a classic case of ministers seeking additional and wide-ranging powers as a belt and braces approach. This is not an acceptable way forward. We understand completely that the database must be funded and we accept that a fee is reasonable but we do not need to ensure that the fees charged under this clause, we do need to make sure that the fees under this clause remain reasonable.

We know this is an increase in the cost of business for landlords so we need to ensure that the cost is both reasonable and proportionate, and we are concerned that this wide definition of relevant costs may result in unreasonably high costs. Perhaps I can press the noble Baroness to give the House some sense of what the fees will be like. And how increases will be managed. Ultimately, we must be in mind that it is usually the tenants that bear these costs through the rents in the these costs through the rents in the future.

Soils the bonus, the noble Baroness the Minister Max I ask, what are the predicted cost of setting up database? Of running the database? And therefore what are the costs likely to be to the landlord? My Lords, many landlords are small- scale and independent. They are not corporate landlords with legal teams and financial reserves. They are ordinary individuals, often renting out one or two properties as a way to supplement their pensions or to provide long-term family support. The database to function as intended, it must be financially accessible.

Moving onto 228, G, clear communications of the changes of fees is essential. It builds trust, helps people plan their finances, but it also avoids any confusion, or indeed frustration. As I have stated in earlier groups, except the database could be more ambitious. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, amendment 223, is an interesting and constructive proposal and I would be keen to hear whether the government supports the inclusion of serve notices in this database, or whether they believe this will go beyond the intended remit of the system.

It may also be worth asking whether the government has considered developing the PRS Database in defined phases, to ensure its long-term success and usability. For instance, an initial phase could focus on landlord registration and communication tool laying the foundation for engagement A second phase might include health and safety checks strengthening tenant protection and future phase could integrate information on notices supporting transparency and in. Moving on to Amendment 234 tabled by the Minister, this seems broadly sensible and they seem right to address the bill and we accept this as a minor change which carries on the principle already established in clause 87.

Turning to Amendment 235 and 236, this raises serious and timely concerns and I hope the government will set out the position in view to the increased regulatory powers in clause 83. We heard from Lord Hacking earlier about Amendment 237 which also warrants attention, antisocial is a scourge in many communities and the impact on housing is particularly damaging which can replace community spirit with fear and tension and leave residents trapped and helpless and antisocial strips away the essence of what makes a House a home.

To assess amendments from Baroness Thornhill and Lord Hacking, we must understand how the government intends to use the database. As the bill stands, that remains unclear. It is difficult to assess these proposals without a clear picture of the databases purpose and future functionality. As I said previously, the plans should be clearer, it is not something that should be introduced quietly at a later date through regulation, and I wish to through regulation, and I wish to touch on 238, 239 and 240 tabled by Baroness Thornhill.

It raises important points about the role of the database in strengthening accountability and compliance and protecting tenants from unscrupulous landlords. We support the principle that the database should be a tool to drive up standards and increase transparency in the PRS sector. This must be achieved in an proportional and balanced way. We look forward to working with Baroness Thornhill between Committee and report stage as to how we might take this forward. Before concluding this final point on the private rented sector database, I would like to put three questions to the Minister for her consideration.

Landlords are required to comply with database requirements under the bill, but it is not clear how the operator will be held to account for their performance. Could the Minister confirm if the landlords failed by the database operator will be able to effectively raise that failure? Also, in the case where databases failed resulting in a cost to the landlord and through a loss of income because they cannot let without proof, they have live and up to date, they cannot prove they have a live and up to date entry.

Would the landlord entitled to compensation? A well-balanced, properly implemented private sector database may be successful in transforming the rental landscape by improving transparency, accountability and enforcement if delivered properly. We believe this is an opportunity to live a better outcomes for landlords and tenants and we are happy to work and we are happy to work constructively across the House to ensure the provision in relation to ensure the provision in relation to the database as appropriate. This is important to get right and I urge the government to squander that opportunity.

opportunity.
20:21
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I would like to thank Baroness Thornhill and Baroness Scott and Lord Hacking who is not in his place, but I thank them for the amendments regarding database fees and possession restrictions. Starting with the amendment from Baroness Thornhill, Amendment two to three would mandate the database operator establishes the database so it contains entries in respect to possession notices with entries to be recorded on the database within seven days of the landlord serving them. I appreciate the intent as we are exploring collection of information on the database and identified potential benefits to collecting this data as it may support local authority in identifying where procession grounds have been misused or tenants are at risk of homelessness and it could be used for tenants making choices about where to rent.

However, research highlighted challenges around landlord self reporting and we need to give careful consideration to how the issue could be managed and I'm keen to press on the Baroness the Committee we do not think the information the database collect should be on the face of the bill and we discussed this on the bill. Research demonstrated the imperative that the database could be adapted to meet future needs and the data it collect on regulation and is already possible through regulation making power clause which the government will use to outline registration requirements and this amendment is unnecessary.

Amendment 235, 236, 238, 239 and 240 look at proposed changes in the bill provision so landlords cannot serve notice under section 8 or be granted repossession by the court if they are not compliant with database regulation requirement. In addition, it means landlords would not only need to be registered, but entries must be up-to-date in order for notices served to be valid. Baroness Thornhill would do this by adding to provision of the bill for updating section 7 of the Housing act 1988 which refers to court powers ordering possession to be updated to affect compliance relating to the database.

Also, the wording of section 91 so that refers to section 83.3 as a whole. The Baroness Hunt concern about incentivising landlords to comply with regulation and sees the value in replicating safeguards that has been in place in the section 21 notice. Landlords who have not met the basic obligation should not be able to gain exemption of a property. This is an important incentive for landlords to register and supports the role of the database driving up standards in the sector, but it will already see the Housing act 1983 updated to prevent landlords from being granted possession if they do not have an active database entry for themselves or the property.

This is proportionate and stops them granting prevention if they fail to meet obligation. It sets out obligation to maintain active database entries and ensure that they are up-to-date. Landlords who do not have an up-to-date entry will be subject to enforcement action by local authority. Regulations stipulate the requirement for active and up-to-date entries and the criteria for gaining possession as outlined in the bill provides a protection against tenants and landlords who fail to register without sanctioning them disproportionately. We do not want to risk eight situation where landlords cannot meet grounds, but have no alternative means of seeking protection.

I hope that this amendment will considered to be withdrawn. The amendments tabled by Baroness Scott. 228C removes the ability to make regulations requiring the payment of fees required for renewals when it becomes active. I understand they seek further information on the circumstances in which a landlord can be charged a fee under the regulation under clause 80. It is the intention that the initial fee would have it at the point of renewal and it will become inactive if it expires at the end of a registration and becomes active again on renewal.

Landlords will not be charged for updates between renewal point and in cases where they make an entry inactive because they are no longer letting the property, they will not be charged. We will set out in detail where this becomes inactive and vice versa in secondary legislation. The time for the registration renewal is set out in secondary legislation. Amendment 228E will replace the requirement to put two months notice of the changes with an active database entry and raises a useful point to consider if they develop the database and we look at landlords receiving clear and timely communication about changes in fees and understanding when one is required.

As we develop it, we consider the communication to landlords to understand the obligation including payment of fees. We consider how we can design the database to facilitate this in a timely way. As we consider this on the proposal implementation, we do not consider this amendment to be not consider this amendment to be necessary. Two to 8F and 228G sets database fees with reference to enforcement of database requirements and wider PRS enforcement cost respectively. This means any fees can only be calculated by reference to operational cost and function of the database.

Effective enforcement is essential for this successful operation of the database. Without it there is no means to take action if landlords fail to sign up or provide the correct information. We have heard through the passage of the bill about the challenges for local authority resorting and capacity for enforcement. Removing the option to factor in the cost of checking and taking action against non-compliance would in the long- term leave local authority out of pocket and limit the effectiveness. With regards to wider enforcement cost we believe as far as possible the cost of enforcement should be met by those flouting the rules.

Ultimately, as well as the public, the most important is the tenant and they benefit from a well enforced PRS. Clause 82 provides ministers with the option of using the fee income to provide much-needed revenue to support this activity. In relation to Baroness Scott's question about fees, if I could briefly cover how that is going to work, it will not be set arbitrarily and it provides the relevant costs will be covered by the fee and based on the cost of establishing and operating the database, performing the functions required under legislation and enforce the database and wider PRS legislation.

We will ensure decisions take into account a range of factors including the burden on landlords and it will be set out in secondary legislation. We are in the process of developing a structure for fees. It will need to reflect the operating cost for digital tools currently in development and will find local authority enforcement. We are in the process of designing a bespoke tool and develop our understanding of what the cost will be and this will set out in the impact assessment and will be subject to change as our plans develop and I'm not able to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give an exact answer at the moment. To ask the Minister, surely there

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To ask the Minister, surely there is a budget or even a proposed is a budget or even a proposed budget that will go into the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Treasury to deliver the scheme? As with all future funding for our department and other departments, spending review bids departments, spending review bids have gone in. I will take it back to see if we can be clear on that, but see if we can be clear on that, but my understanding is we are not able to get an exact figure for that. to get an exact figure for that. Noble Lords will be aware database fees will be set at a later point in fees will be set at a later point in regulation and in setting fees, we will make sure and we have always been clear it will be fair and take into account the cost of landlords.

into account the cost of landlords. She also asks about the accountability of the database operator. I will write to her on that point if that is OK. I do not think it would be beneficial to the private rented sector database or reforms more widely to place additional limits on what additional cost may be recoverable by fees. Turning to the amendment, it will be a legal requirement for residential landlords to ensure they are registered on a database before the court can grant possession orders and gain possession of the property.

Clause 91.1 and men's the Housing act 1988 so that can order prevention in the database from the landlord and the dwelling and clause 91.1 stipulates possession is made in relation to antisocial are exempted from the requirement. Amendment 237A proposed removing clause 91.2 from the bill and by doing so removes the ability of the secretary of state to amend section 7 of the act. This prevents the government from changing how this will operate in the future in terms of the type of landlord and under which circumstances such as grounds.

We do not think that this is a reasonable approach for tenants or landlords and looking at the regulation power in clause 91.2 and ability for government to consider who it applies to and to take action in the right way in the future risks undermining the spirit of the bill and it is right landlords should not be granted exemption where they have not meant legal obligation registering on the database. It will be essential in helping to confirm priorities meet standards and tenants deserve protection where landlords failed to ensure they and their rental property is registered on the database.

It must be clear to landlords they have a legal obligation to ensure they are obligation to ensure they are We can ensure this works for both parties. Let me reassure the noble Baroness, designing the database so it is as user-friendly as possible, for landlords to register and we engaging with landlords accordingly to test it out. All the reasons I have set out I would ask the Baroness Lady Scott to withdraw these amendments. Turning to amendment 237, as I have set out, the bill will make it a legal requirement for landlords to register the database to gain possession of the property.

Possession grounds must be fair, in supporting local communities. Communities must be protected from the severe impact of antisocial behaviour and I agree with everything noble Baroness Scott said on this matter. For this reason have decided to exempt cases of antisocial behaviour, from the requirement, for landlords to have registered on the database, before taking possession of a property. Amendment 237 was to risk punishing innocent neighbours who have to deal with the reality of antisocial behaviour for a landlords port practice.

It is therefore appropriate to retain these grounds for possession, even where landlord has not registered on the database. I agree with noble Lords that landlords must be clear on that legal obligation to register for the database. That's why I have introduced restrictions for other possession grounds which do not impact third parties. We will consider how to ensure effective enforcement in case of antisocial behaviour, for example through guidance targeted at landlords dealing with antisocial behaviour cases and so I would kindly, I think the noble Lord has withdrawn that amendment but I will kindly ask he withdraws the amendment.

Finally turning to government amendment to turning to government amendment to hundred 34 to clause 88.1 point, this is a government amendment which expands the clause to allow the information contained in the database to be shared with the Secretary of State where they are not the operator of the database. As the noble Lady Scott indicated this the noble Lady Scott indicated this is a technical and minor amendment which ensures the Secretary of State has access to the information on the database if they are not the database operator in accordance with clause 87.3, therefore I beg to move clause 87.3, therefore I beg to move that amendment.
20:34
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Before she sits down I'm probably breaking the rules, but I'm breaking the rules for good reason, I want to state the House my noble friend the Minister was quite right on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 237 and I was quite wrong. I thank the noble Lady for her response and I absolutely accept response and I absolutely accept that my amendments were pushing at the boundaries. But at their heart the boundaries. But at their heart is protecting tenants from being evicted by a landlord who themselves evicted by a landlord who themselves are acting unlawfully. Almost as a matter of principle. I accept that matter of principle. I accept that the Minister has confidently, is confident that the Bill as it stands confident that the Bill as it stands should drive compliance.

And therefore, my amendments will be necessary. My answer to that noble Lords is that only time will tell, Lords is that only time will tell, which will lead us to the group 13, I think, where we talk about reviews I think, where we talk about reviews and why we need reviews. I would also like to thank the noble Baroness Scott who articulated some concerns and felt that maybe we concerns and felt that maybe we could open a dialogue on this issue, could open a dialogue on this issue, and I thank him for that.

I believe to withdraw my amendments. Is it your lordships' pleasure that this and be withdrawn. It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 224, Lord best. The question is will 76 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 224, A. Not moved. Amendment 225, Lord Best, not moved. Amendment 226, Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thornhill. My Lords, I rise to move my amendment to hundred 26 and speak to amendment to hundred 26 and speak to my amendment to hundred and 5 -- 257. And to offer support for a number of amendments including those of the Minister herself and the noble Baroness Kennedy. And I'm actually looking forward to their contributions. As colleagues will know, rent repayment owners remain one of the few enforcement mechanisms available directly to tenants and that is the key.

They're not just about recompense. They are not just about recompense. They are actually about ensuring that landlords meet their legal obligations, and that tenants are protected when they are not. And protected when they are not. And recompense to his mate. Amendment 226 in my name would ensure rent 226 in my name would ensure rent repayment orders can be applied where landlord has failed to where landlord has failed to register on the private sector database established by this bill and if we are serious about transparency and raising standards, then non-compliance with the system we are waiting must carry real consequence.

I'm starting to feel like a broken record. You get the message. Otherwise, the credibility of the database and the wider enforcement regime is seriously undermined. Amendment 257 6 to extend rent repayment orders further. To cover cases where the landlord has failed to redress scheme to... This relates strongly to amendments in the previous group and on the enforceability of the database. If we want a rental system that is responsive, accountable and fair, we must ensure tenants have clear recourse when landlords do not engage with these fundamental duties.

I am also grateful to the noble Baroness Kennedy for amendment 244, A, which adjusts the standard proved the probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. This change is both proportionate and pragmatic. We know that the burden of gathering evidence can be an enormous burden for tenants and this amendment helps to address that imbalance while preserving important legal safeguards in more serious cases. I also welcome the suite of government amendments in this group, which bring clarity to have entry payment amounts are collated and which offences full within scope.

These amendments, physically those aligning the repayment period provide much-needed consistency and support effective enforcement. The inclusion of new categories of offence and consequential changes to the House in the planning act 2016 are helpful and aligned with the overall intent of the bill. However, I would gently emphasise that while the government amendments are welcome, they will be significantly strengthened by the addition's proposed in my amendments. There is little point in creating systems to register landlords and offer redress if we do not give tribunal's power to act when landlords ignore them.

Rent repayment orders are not a silver bullet, but they are an important tool to renters. We should not pass up the opportunity to make them more robust, more comprehensive and more effective in practice. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 77, page 111, line 9. At the end insert
20:40
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley Portrait Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Labour)
-
-
page 111, line 9. At the end insert the words as written on the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a privilege to speak after

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a privilege to speak after the noble Baroness Thornhill because I agree with every thing she said in her opening speech. I want to speak to amendment 224, A, which would to amendment 224, A, which would apply the civil standard of proof or rent repayment orders, pursued only on the basis of a protection from eviction action offence. By changing the evidential standard, from beyond the evidential standard, from beyond reasonable doubt, the balance of probabilities, amendment 224, A, probabilities, amendment 224, A, would provide clarity, the normal work of the tribunal and provide encouragement to tenants to claim encouragement to tenants to claim redress which was Parliament's intention by including protection from affecting act offences among from affecting act offences among the things rent for payment orders could be claimed for.

In short, the could be claimed for. In short, the current requirement of a criminal standard of proof support that standard of proof support that intention. Rent repayment orders are intention. Rent repayment orders are in the first-tier, and the first- year property tribunal is not a criminal court. A repayment order is not a criminal prosecution. The first-year property tribunal does not follow criminal procedural rules or result in a criminal sentence or criminal record if a defendant is convicted. However, they require a criminal standard of proof.

In addition, repayment offers are often brought by self represented applicants, seeking to reclaim rent they have paid to their landlord as compensation and legal aid is not available for rent repayment claims, for these reasons alone, it is therefore an appropriate repayment orders for protection from eviction act offences should apply the criminal standard of proof. Moreover, a civil claim in a civil court for a legal eviction or harassment applies the civil standard. This is despite the fact that civil claims, typically attract much higher penalties in the form of civil damages rather than the chance to apply for a payment of rent paid.

It is therefore logical and consistent to apply the civil standard of proof to protection from eviction act rent repayment orders in line the rest of the civil law, and this is what amendment to hundred 24, A does. Why does getting rid of this anomaly matter? Firstly, the nature of their production from eviction act offences means they're often impossible to prove to the communal standard. Often landlords change the locks on tenants and dispose of their possessions when renters are not at home.

Illegal evictions and harassment occur in the privacy of a renters home, often without witnesses. The criminal burden places an extra, often insurmountable burden on layup and to prove their case at tribunal. It has a chilling effect of preventing claims being brought in the first place as the evidence available for these offences are unlikely to meet the standard. Under the standard therefore renters can supply for rent repayment orders as they cannot prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, even where it is clear that an offence has occurred, that only the landlord will be motivated to commit.

This weakens enforcement, weakens access to justice and undermines the purpose of the rent repayment order legislation. Secondly, the incredible low number of rent repayment orders for protection from eviction act offences demonstrate the system isn't working. Safer renting in the University of York have done research estimating that over a two-year period, from 21 to 22, there were at least 16,000 illegal evictions stop a figure which is almost certainly an undercount. Meanwhile data gathered by the organisation marks out of tenancy shows that over the same period there were 31 rent repayment orders, for the grant protection of eviction background that was successful stuff.

Despite the large number, people are not applying for rent repayment orders as a source of redress. Her criminal standard salts in tenants and those assisting them considering an application, not worth pursuing. Thirdly and finally, criminal and as ruthless landlords which are the minority of landlords, with the forthcoming abolition of section 21, means that some may take a cut collated risk that they can save money by lawfully affecting or harassing the tenants. As they know how hard it is for tenants to enforce against them in the First- tier Tribunal.

Rent repayment orders are realistically the only option for renters to enforce their rights without legal representation. Therefore has never been more important to strengthen the rent repayment order regime for full protection from eviction act offences so that renters can enforce their rights and the access to justice. These offences are some of the most egregious offences a landlord can commit, a legal -- illegal eviction and harassment. The illegal eviction and harassment. The impact of these offences on renters and their families cannot be overstated.

I look forward to the overstated. I look forward to the reply from my noble friend Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and I'm sure she will want to reflect on the wider debate today, and I hope you will debate today, and I hope you will agree to meet with me and experts in this field to discuss the aim of this field to discuss the aim of amendment to hundred and 44 before report stage to see what can be report stage to see what can be report stage to see what can be
20:46
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
It is a pleasure to follow those who have spoken who are clearly very powerful advocates for private rental tenancy for those that need them. I rise to speak specifically to amendment 257 that Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb has put her name. We are now into the green hour of the evening. Before I do that, having listened to Baroness Kennedy, I think the noble lady made it powerful for the inequality of the tribunal and the judgement level that was suggested is that it is clearly the right one.

I will speak to amendment 257 which as Baroness Thornhill clearly outlined will enable the tribunal to make a rental repayment order where they failed to join the scheme or have active interest in the private rented sector database. This is a simple and clear process where a tenant can get what they are owed when the landlord failed. I was looking at Citizens Advice and the advice they provide for tenants, and it is telling that on recovering rental deposits, there has been real progress in the past decade also, but there is more situations where renters are left stranded.

There are situations where they are left homeless, or in situations desperately trying to find a rental property and do you have the time, energy or resources to go through those procedures that you need to? those procedures that you need to? This has worked well in the tenant This has worked well in the tenant the Ponzi scheme and all landlords know they need to register deposits and this is a proven system. A case and this is a proven system.

A case of extending the system to deliver justice, so I think that these non- justice, so I think that these non- government amendments are terribly important ones.
20:48
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to thank all noble Lords for their contributions on group seven that addresses important sections of the rent repayment order as it strengthens the mechanism by which tenants and local authorities can hold landlords accountable when they breached laws and ensure rent repayment orders are fair and effective. Proposals tabled by Baroness Thornhill, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Baroness Kennedy, art significant points that warrant attention. We see the register on a public database which would make existence of the orders transparent and tenants and others will be aware of the non-compliance history.

It serves as a powerful deterrent against those who may continue to disregard responsibility. In addition, we see proposals to change the amount to be repaid as well as extending the ability of tribunal's to extend it on case of non- registration of a public database. We must ensure the consequences for landlords are proportionate to the harm caused and tenants receive a fair outcome. While it is appropriate to have rent repayment orders where a tenant has been impacted or suffered a loss is outlined so well by Baroness Kennedy.

It is also important that where a landlord breached inadvertently the regulation and received a fine that no harm has been done to a tenant that they should receive a rent repayment order. On these benches, we accept that they are an important all for holding landlords to account and we welcome this to be more accessible and transparent for tenants. We note there are complex issues surrounding practicality as I mentioned earlier, particularly in relation to the standard of proof and scope.

I asked the government to respond to the following point, how do they propose the amendment regulating the amendment not placing unnecessary burden on tribunal or create unintended consequence for landlords who may not be aware of the rules. How will the government address the issue of nonregistration on the database and the potential impact on landlords that failed to comply. These are important questions and I look forward to hearing the government response stop I thank government response stop I thank Baroness Thornhill, Baroness Cranley and Baroness Bennett of Manor and Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle...

Sorry, Baroness. These are important questions I look forward to hearing the government response. to hearing the government response.
20:51
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I thank Baroness Thornhill and Baroness Kennedy for their amendments in relation to rent repayment orders and the noble Lord for his contribution. I will look at for his contribution. I will look at the name of Baroness Thornhill and amendment to hundred and 26 extends penalties for non-compliance in the private rented sector database requirement and it includes a proportion and escalating approach to penalties against those that felt the rules. For the non-compliance local authority they can impose a small penalty and Baroness Thornhill said she was beginning to sound like a stuck record and I know that feeling.

They look at the landlord to register for the repeat non- compliance local authorities can prosecute or alternatively issue a penalty of up to £40,000. In case of the database, that provides a landlord knowingly or recklessly providing information to the database operator which is false or misleading in a material respect. We have significantly strengthened the orders because we believe there are a powerful mechanism for the enforcement. In relation to the database, they are available where a landlord knowingly or recklessly provides false or misleading information to the database operator and they are available where a landlord fails to register or provide the information to the database following the penalty.

These are criminal offences that are not appropriate to extend payment orders to noncriminal breaches of the requirement and rent repayment orders act as a punitive sanction against landlords who commit common offences, extending them to conduct that does not relate to the offence would undermine this. Amendment 257 makes rent repayment orders for initial failure to be a member of the landlord Ombudsman related to the database. My view is that it may be appropriate to extend it to the noncriminal breaches.

The new ombudsman is a fundamental part of reform and a better private rented sector with greater accountability and it is vital they are robustly enforced. We believe the route of enforcement represent an effective and proportionate approach. Of course, we will monitor the use of rent repayment orders under the strength of the regime and consider if further changes are necessary and ask that Baroness Thornhill withdraw the amendment. Turning to the amendment tabled by Baroness Kennedy, this seeks to lower the standard of proof to first-tier Tribunal must be applied before making a rent repayment order against a landlord for the offence of illegal eviction or harassment under the protection of eviction act 1977 and she set out in a very clear and concise way why she was putting that forward and it was a convincing argument.

Illegal eviction and harassment are serious offences and offenders must be robustly punished. I accept that this happens too rarely. Through the bill, we seek to address this with civil penalty as an alternative to prosecution of illegal eviction over the protection of the act 1977. The noble Baroness asked why the chair tribunal is not a criminal court and why should the criminal standard of proof applied? It is predicated on an offence being committed and an established principle in law that they are taken to be committed when proved beyond reasonable doubt creating a lower standard of proof for the same offence providing guilt in the tribunal compared to the criminal court is confusing, inconsistent and could be subject to a successful challenge.

We are placing a duty on local authorities to enforce against specified landlord specification specified landlord specification that includes harassment under the protection of eviction act 1977 and we are looking hard at how we can support them effectively. This is determined to bear down harder on illegal eviction and harassment and we are concerned about what impact this could have under the rent this could have under the rent regime as a whole. Rent repayment orders are predicated on an effect being committed but it might apply to criminal offences and penalty is significant.

The changes we make double the maximum penalty up to two years rent and extend the circumstances in which the tribunal must award the amount. I recognise the illegal eviction may be hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt, but it is not a principal reason to apply to returning a order with affect to serious criminal offence. The severity quite operably applies to the rent repayment order regime with serious questions about procedural fairness should criminal standards of proof not be required.

The criminal standard of proof will be required when the local authority issues a civil penalty for local eviction on harassment under section 1 a of protection of eviction act 1977 or other provisions to be proved under reasonable doubt. It is subject to the civil standard of proof that will create an anomaly and bare departure from well- established position which we consider to be hard to justify. I happy to meet with Baroness Kennedy and safer renting, but I asked that she withdraws the amendment.

I will end with a brief explanation of the end with a brief explanation of the government on this area as it is a critical part of ensuring high critical part of ensuring high standards and better compliance in the private rented sector and that is why we expanded them in this is why we expanded them in this bill. The government amendments seek to ensure they work as intended in to ensure they work as intended in the application to the offence of breaching the restricted period after relying on moving and selling after relying on moving and selling grounds of the possession and amended licensing offences are described correctly.

I beg to move. described correctly. I beg to move.
20:58
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I would like to thank Baroness Kennedy, Bennett and Lord Jamieson for their excellent contributions that are thoughtful and thought- provoking contributions. I would think we would all agree it is disappointing rent repayment orders are so valuable but so rarely used. Let's hope that the changes the Minister outlined and the renting culture changes and tenants and power and as we have gone through the process we begin to see all the impact of the bill and how it should work together to produce that change and perhaps an increase in the number of rent repayment orders will be an indication that things are improving, but I followed the logic of the argument from the previous amendment.

I do hope we have given food for thought and I withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is by leave withdrawn. I beg for patients withdrawn. I beg for patients because I have a lot of pages to read through. Amendment 226, Baroness Scott of Bybrook, not Baroness Scott of Bybrook, not Baroness Scott of Bybrook, not moved. 220 6A? The question is 77 stands part of the bill? As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". Of the contrary, "not content". The contents have it. Amendment to contents have it. Amendment to hundred and 27, Lord Best.

-- Two to hundred and 27, Lord Best. -- Two to seven .-- 227. As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". Of the contrary, "not content". The contents have it. Amendment to contents have it. Amendment to hundred and 20 8A. The question is clause 79 stand part of the bill. As clause 79 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". Of the contrary, "not content". The contents have it. Amendment 228b and c, Baroness Scott.

Not moved. The question is clause 80 stands part of the bill. As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". Of the contrary, "not content". The contents have it. Amendment to hundred and 28 -- 228 D. The question is clause 88 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". Of the contrary, "not content". The contents have it. Amendment 228 e-g en bloc, not moved. As many are of that opinion will say, "Content".

Of the contrary, "not content". The contents have it. Amendment 228H, Baroness Scott. The question is clause 83 stands part of the bill. As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". Of the contrary, say, "Content". Of the contrary, Amendment 2 280I. Amendment 2 29 and 230 taken together, Lord Astor? Not moved. -- Lord Best. The question is clause 85 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it.

Amendment 230.A Baroness Scott, not moved. Amendments to 31 and 232 taken together. Lord Hacking. Not moved. The question is that clause 86 down part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. Amendment 2 33, Baroness Scott. The question is that clause 87 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. Amendment 2 34 Baroness Taylor of Stevenage.

The question is that amendment 2 34 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 88 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. The question is that clauses 89 to 90 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it.

Amendment 2 35 Baroness Thornhill? The amendment 2 36 Baroness Thornhill? Amendment 237 36 Baroness Thornhill? Amendment 237 Lord Hacking? Amendment 237 .A Baroness Scott of Bybrook? Not moved. Amendments to 3.H en bloc Baroness Thornhill not moved. The question is that clause 91 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. Amendment 2 41, the Earl of Kinnoull already debated.

The question is that it's done part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." content back. Amendment 2 43, Baroness Thornhill not moved. The question is that clause 93 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 93, amendment 243.A Baroness Thornhill? Not moved. The question is that clauses 94 to 98 stand part of the bill.

As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. Amendment 2 44 Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. The question is that the amendments done part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. Amendment 244.A Baroness Kennedy of Cradley not moved. Amendment 2 45 Amendment 2 45S Taylor of Stevenage. The question is that amendments to 45. The question is that amendments to 452.

The question is that amendments to 452248 en bloc stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." the question is that clause 99 is amended stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. Amendment 249 The Lord Bishop of Amendment 249 The Lord Bishop of Manchester. The question is that clause 100 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content".

Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. Amendment 2 49 The Lord Bishop of Manchester.
21:05
Lord Bishop of Manchester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)
-
-
I thought my moment was never going to come. I beg to move amendment 249 study my name and I'm also glad to spot amendment children 52 in my name and might which I've added my name. I do declare my interest. I'm the co-owner with my interest. I'm the co-owner with my wife of one rather modest apartment in the Midlands which we let out. As one who has chaired a wide range of housing associations, I've seen the huge positive impact the Decent Homes Standard's have had ever since one was first applied to social housing.

Not least it has forced landlords to pay proper attention to their existing stock rather than focusing all of their energy and resources on need of elements. So I am delighted that this bill will for the first time extend the standard to much of the private rented stock. It's a sector desperately plagued by underinvestment and repairs and maintenance and stock improvement. One in five privately rented homes does not currently meet the Decent Homes Standard compared to 10% in social housing, more than one in 10 has a category one, that's 2.5 the figure for social housing.

So what my amendment seeks to achieve along with those in the names of other Noble Lords I wish to support in this group is to test where the receptor in your Lordship's House to extend the application of the standard to support others whose homes will not be covered as the bill currently stands. My amendment 2 for nine would make the Decent Homes Standard apply to all homeless temporary accommodation as provided under the Housing Act 1996. Record numbers of individuals, families and children are currently housed in temporary accommodation.

117,450 households in March 2024, that was itself a rise of 12.3%, almost an extra one and eight from the previous year extended the decent home standard and will enable those living in timber accommodation to expect basic standards from accommodation. And the very phrase temporary condition is something of a misnomer. Many of those who live in such properties are housed there for years that time. However the same property may be used then for a further single temporary tenancies. And whilst I can understand that sometimes it may appear better to allow a family deliver a short while in a property, perhaps awaiting imminent major refurbishment- demolition, rather than leaving the building empty but this is not what is happening in the vast majority of cases.

I have previously raised in your Lordship's House, and had a good conversation with Baroness Scott of Bybrook a year or two ago about the particular plight of children in temporary accommodation. The figure was then over 130,000 and is still rising. Often housed many miles away from their schools and their play friends. That is disapply difficult. Some of my schools in Manchester are already having to put on special provision for children living in temporary accommodation. So imagine what it means having to do that in a home that doesn't meet basic standards of decency.

We are failing such children utterly. Alongside families with children, we know that many residents in temporary accommodation have particular vulnerabilities in terms of health and often not well equipped to advocate for themselves. And a national standard will make a huge difference. And my amendment will close a glaring loophole in the current bill whereby private landlords could escape the Decent Homes Standard switching to providing temporary accommodation. If we allow the poorest quality homes in our nation simply to move to another form of tenure, without doing anything to tackle their condition, that defeats the entire object of extending the standard at all.

I'm not going to steal the thunder of the noble Baroness whose amendment 2 50 would extend the standard to accommodation used by HM forces, so be to remind us that these households containing those on whom we rely for our nation's defence deserve the very best from us. And similar with amendment 2 51 from my right honourable friends, that would extend the standard of accommodation provided by -- to those fleeing persecution and war. Those seeking to lawfully make their lives here.

The amendments by my Noble Friends to which I've added my own name seeks to extend the application of the Decent Homes Standard to mobile homes which are rented for residential purposes. I've been a long-time advocate for the rights of Gypsy Roma and traveller households who often experience levels of prejudice beyond that beyond almost any other ethnic group in our society. But to seek simply to live a way of life they followed for centuries and have long been an absolutely vital part of the workforce, especially in rural areas such as agriculture.

Where short-term temporary workers with high mobility are required every particular points in the seasonal cycle. So these amendments seek to extend some of our most vulnerable or deserving households a standard that the bill already agrees is the proper one for most of our citizens. I do hope that in response to debate, the noble Baroness the Minister will be able to indicate some movement or at least offer scope for further discussions with those ahead of report stage on these important issues.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 101 page 129 line to leave out from page 129 line to leave out from homelessness to the end of line 4. The question is the amendment be made.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

made. I rise today to speak in support of all the other amendments in this group. But in particular I want to
21:11
21:12
21:12
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
accommodation used by service families. Our service personnel and their families make extraordinary sacrifices for our safety and security, and the very least we owe them is decent housing. The current them is decent housing. The current state of servers accommodation is in many cases unacceptable. Satisfaction levels with both Satisfaction levels with both service family accommodation, SFA' service family accommodation, SFA' day SLA fell to their lowest reported levels in 2023, impacting reported levels in 2023, impacting recruitment and retention. The defence select committee's report defence select committee's report said that 1/3 of SLA and two thirds of SFA are in such poor condition of SFA are in such poor condition that they are essentially no longer fit for purpose.

We hear persistent fit for purpose. We hear persistent reports of damp and mould, inadequate maintenance and repairs inadequate maintenance and repairs and poor communication. We can't discuss the state of military housing without acknowledging the damaging legacy of past decisions. The sale of 57,400 military homes to Ellington property Ltd in 1996 and the Conservative government was described as a disastrous fire sale. This deal left the government trapped paying rent and maintenance costs with no power to plan major upgrades.

Indeed the Public Accounts Committee concluded the service families were badly let down for many years. Under the previous housing contracts. The tax payable is left with nearly 8 billion worse off due to this original deal with money that should have been spent on maintaining homes that were lost. The current Labour government has taken steps. They repurchased 36,000 homes from Allington in January, a deal that is expected to save 230 million a year in rent. A defence housing review was launched in February.

A new consumer chart promises measures like higher moving standards, more reliable repairs, and to a named housing officer for every family. The MoD has also agreed with the conclusion that the current complaints process is inefficient and a new simpler two- stage process is being devised is welcome. Now I'm coming to the however bit I'm afraid. However, the scale of the problem is immense. A result of historic underinvestment over decades. Estimates suggest billions are needed, potentially 2 billion to 2.4 billion SFA alone and over 1.5 billion for SLA.

And just want to reassure the noble Lady the Minister that yes, we did do our costings and our own manifesto, and definitely identified funding in some of these areas. While investment plans are being set out, questions remain about whether funding will be sufficient and sustained to address the condition of the entire state. This amendment is crucial because it continues the work of my colleague in the House of Commons, Helen Maguire MP, herself a former captain in the Royal military police who served in both Bosnia and Iraq.

It reinforces the work of the MoD and it honours the Kerslake commission. It ensures that the Decent Homes Standard which provides a very clear benchmark for acceptable housing quality is legally applied to service family accommodation. It goes beyond acknowledging the problem of setting targets. It establishes a right to a decent home for those who serve our nation and their families. They deserve homes fit for heroes, and this amendment is a vital step It ensures accountability, provides service families with the basic standards they have every right to expect.

I urge all lordships to support this amendment, after all, my lords, it is only right that our service personnel and their families live in safe, clean homes, that meet basic dignified standards, especially when they risk their lives to keep us safe. Pride in our Armed Forces, must mean pride in how

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we how's them. -- House them. I rise to speak particularly to the amendment in my name, amendment the amendment in my name, amendment 251, but in doing so, may I say that I wholeheartedly agree that with all I wholeheartedly agree that with all that was said by the noble Lord that was said by the noble Lord bishop, and if we were able to disagree with his amendment now, they minister could not her head if that is about to happen, then we could bring an end both to what I am going to say and, dare I say, some speakers with two amendments as speakers with two amendments as well.

My Lords, the noble bishop, the amendments would cover it all. In the unlikely event this does not happen, I will speak to amendment
21:17
Lord Tope Portrait Lord Tope (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
happen, I will speak to amendment 251, which seeks to extend the Decent Homes Standard, to include asylum accommodation. My Lords, in doing so, because I am going to speak with particular reference to the situation in London, I must again declare my interest as again declare my interest as copresident of London councils which is the body that represents all 30 do London boroughs, at the city of London. -- All 32 London boroughs. And vice president of the government Association.

My Lords, I spoke at second reading of the extensive evidence from London Borough councils about the poor standards of asylum accommodation. Particularly in London but by no means exclusive to London. I think many of the things I said then and will say again today apply to many other parts of the country. London boroughs have reported issues of low-grade accommodation properties with multiple categories of category 1 hazards, leaving the private rented market, and being procured by Home Office accommodation providers.

The Minister has also received a letter from London councils signed by the lead spokespeople of all three parties on that body. And the Chief Executive Officer of the Chartered in Housing, asking the government consider how the bill showed inclusion of Home Office accommodation, to ensure asylum seekers and refugees benefit from the same protections that all private and social renters received. In her response, the Minister agreed to discuss these issues, with the Home Office, and I'm very grateful to her, as is London councils, for arranging a meeting between officials, at London Councils to officials, at London Councils to discuss this in more depth, and that meeting has, I understand, taken place, so I look forward to hearing from the Minister what conclusions she has got from these discussions.

And more particularly, what action

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is now to be taken. My Lords, extensive feedback from London local authorities has consistently highlighted evidence of consistently highlighted evidence of poor standards across asylum poor standards across asylum accommodation. As we know, enforcement action is slow and also enforcement action is slow and also often ineffective. There is also often ineffective. There is also widespread concern, not only from London councils and not just in London. But not including Home Office accommodation will inevitably Office accommodation will inevitably Office accommodation will inevitably exult in a two-tiered -- Result in a two-tiered system where a small minority of rogue landlords may be incentivised to procure poor quality accommodation for use as asylum accommodation for use as asylum accommodation.

My Lords, at the accommodation. My Lords, at the committee stage in the other place, the government argued that extending the provisions of the bill to asylum the provisions of the bill to asylum accommodation is unnecessary. I hope and believe that we have come a very and believe that we have come a very long way from that now. And that the Minister is convinced by all the evidence she has had from those actually working in the system that all is far from well.

Clearly, there are practical difficulties of implementation to be resolved. But, my Lords, if there is a will, there is a way to do so. Including asylum accommodation in the provision of this bill will be a strong incentive. Not doing so will inevitably have the opposite effect. I look forward to hearing the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister's positive response. All the amendments in this group, I will speak to amendment 252 in my
21:21
Baroness Whitaker Portrait Baroness Whitaker (Labour)
-
-
name, and Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, Andy Lloyd Bishop of Manchester, whose support I am most grateful. If I may say so, the Right Reverand prelate's observations, drawn from actual experience were extremely valuable. I also thank my noble friend, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, for her earlier support Undercliffe, for her earlier support for this amendment. It simply brings the homes that caravan dwellers rent within the scope of the bill, and surely noncontentious. Surely, realising that gypsies and Irish travellers who keep to their traditional and legally recognised way of life, the caravan, which is their residence, is as much a residence as any other dwelling and should be eligible for the same legal protection.

The owners of such caravans should respect the Decent Homes Standard as much as any other rented dwelling. And in many cases, this is sorely needed. I know the case where a new gypsy and traveller site, built nearly 4 years ago, was from the day the family moved in was infested by rats, frequently flooded, subject to damp, mould, slugs, trip hazards, faulty electrics, broken boiler, and sewage Had terrible effects on the families' physical and mental health. Medical treatment was needed.

I remind the House that gypsies and travellers have the worst health outcomes of any minority ethnic group and this example shows one reason why. All these health and safety hazards with a result of structural issues in the rented amenity block and site as a whole. For which the site owner was responsible. The family contacted the site owner, with over 50 emails over the years, and went through the formal complaints process. When they contact the Housing ombudsman they were told that cases concerning management of gypsy and traveller sites were not investigated.

Does that not make it clear my Lords, that there is a lack of effective protection for families living on gypsy and traveller sites? Why should they not have equal protection and equal status with other renters? I know my noble friend, the Minister, understands friend, the Minister, understands this and I hope she will accept this amendment. amendment.
21:23
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to this group of amendments I have tabled, 252A, I guess I am still learning about this House, all speakers have been exceptionally generous saying they support the members in this group. Perhaps they haven't read my amendment which actually excludes a certain number of properties from this Decent Homes Standard. I think it is also fair to say the only other remembered that I actively support in this group would be that proposed by the noble Lady, Baroness Grender.

What I would say though about accommodation, I ran some surgeries, because I was pretty appalled at the state and operations of, unfortunately, the property arm of the Ministry of Defence, and how they contracted to different suppliers, but didn't seem to have a grip on what was going on. The change that happened nearly 30 years ago, is in hindsight regretted, which is why the previous administration initiated the process, which I congratulate the government for completing. But I think it is also fair to say that strategic changes that should actually help families in the Armed Forces is a move towards lifetime basic which applies to the majority of our armed forces, although not specialist regimens, like the 23 power engineers based just outside of Woodbridge.

Which necessitates quite a rotating number of people. But I think it is a fair to say that our Armed Forces deserve the best. There is nothing more concerning than somebody who is abroad, not a rethinking of the key strategic role they are playing, or tactical role, and yet worrying about the state of housing of their beloved ones back home. I have put forward my amendment, 252A, driven by this is really, I am going to elaborate now, my concern about how I think, in effect, the policy of moving to requiring EPC level certificates for private rented property is at risk of actually removing from the private rented sector many, many homes, right across the country.

Particularly in rural areas. One of the things, in terms of applying the Decent Homes Standard. It is fair to say that EPC legislation or the required minimum standards on -- On energy efficiency, it doesn't actually apply to housing. And there is an expectation, so we announced a situation where the Decent Homes Standard, which currently only applies to social housing, is now going to be applied to private sector. I think that is actually, in a broad sense, good thing.

But where I am particularly concerned is aspects of how, as I say, it will drive landlords out of the market for thinking of rural communities. There are about 2.6 million homes, according to MHCLG, in a survey they did last summer, where they do not fit the EPC C level, EPC D is lower than that, that is actually the private rented sector. So, this is concerning, and I completely understand the need to address fuel poverty. I.e., actually founded in poverty.

I.e., actually founded in the other house APPG on fuel poverty, was particular focused on Ofgas grid, which by the way, of course, covers a lot of rural communities but also covers in cities, like Manchester, Salford, and the other areas represented by the Right Reverend Prelate. But we should bear in mind, that the current estimate of MCH LG is that 10% of those properties cannot, in any way, be upgraded to reach the level of EPC level C. That still But the challenge now is there is a variation of what is going on in what could require significant investment, in order to upgrade investment, in order to upgrade those homes.

So, I think where it is reasonable, and by that, I am thinking of some of the mounting investment needed, in order to make that adjustment, of course we want to try and make sure that these properties are suitably warm. Of course, that would be helped if pensioners still had the wind if you allowance, not having to worry about whether to heat or eat. -- Winter allowance. Wondering how we address that, and without losing the housing capacity available. My Lords, under the current regulations, I think there is a 300,000 cap on making those changes at the current level, which is required only at level E, as I say, I support the ambition to head that way, but now, the proposal on the policy, the consultation, is that the cap on investment required will be up to £15,000.

Below which, there will be no exemption. Now, let's just get, in a certain sense, practical. What I'd like to understand, only appreciate the Minister today may not be prepared for this, but it should be considered by her department. But what actual rural assessment has been conducted on this. It is a standard policy of the government, they are supposed to take what is often known as rural proofing. But considering policies and how this will impact rural communities. And I am genuinely concerned, both on that, but also the proposals on changing the methodology on ascertaining the level of EPC, will have a significantly detrimental effect on rural communities right across the country.

Now, in my amendment, I must admit there was an error, there was a misunderstanding between me and the public bill office, because as it reads, this not only excludes rural communities, it also excludes any community, any house built after the age of 1,900, when it was supposed to apply to pre-1900. ONS did surveys statistics and assessment, and confidently, which when people hear this will say, of course that makes sense. The age of the property is the single biggest factor, single factor, in the energy efficiency of homes.

Pretty much, the number of houses or proportion of houses in England built between the year of 1,900 is 15% of all homes, and in Wales, to And it's nigh on impossible for the majority of those homes to receive EP PC. And that's principally because they are built of solid brick and so you can't do retrospective installation. When you start doing external cladding, the costs mount up. And that factor doesn't go away. It goes away to a certain extent to properties up to the age of 1930, but also the extra cost of dealing with listed properties is also a significant factor in how difficult it is to get these properties adapted.

So going back to where we are thinking about the challenges and I appreciate the right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester understandably talks about temporary accommodation. He and I will both know that what we need to focus on is getting those 700,000 empty homes back into being used by homes. I could be a bit cheeky here. The Church of England I think is the third largest landowner in the country. And one of the wealthiest institutions. I'd love to see all the empty factories being opened up or indeed potentially sold, the money being reused to extend in that way, but I appreciate the Church Commissioners have two balance the books like everybody else.

But I did go in some detail looking at this. My own House is EP CD. It's quite interesting looking, were used to rent in London actually had made it I think 2C. That said, the consistency of how EPC is measured was quite stark when the neighbouring flat had quite a different rating and different attributes where tribute to exactly the same external walls, so it shows a slight inconsistency in that regard. But even now, if I wanted to payback of over 50 years.

And my Lordships, I am 53. I have absolutely no expectation to last hopefully another 30 years but nowhere near another 50. And we just have to get realistic about this, and I appreciate the government will say there are all these other wonderful schemes. I did actually apply to be evaluated under the great British inflation scheme. And all I will say is once I got through a certain part of the system, the firm wanted to have my pre-agreement that I would agree to building adaptation in terms of ventilation in order to actually go any further, so I stopped the process.

So in conclusion, I do agree that we need to improve the quality of homes. What I'm concerned about when I'm thinking of renters in this situation today is that some of this legislation will drive down particularly in rural communities the amount of property available, and we need to keep bearing in mind where we do all this legislation, who is that we are trying to help? Of course we won the rogue landlords to go. Of course we want nice homes for people, but ultimately people choose to live in the countryside.

That's where they grew up or whatever it is. We need to make sure they continue to be able to have a home there, and that's why of moved the amendment today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to my Noble Friend Baroness Coffey's amendment 252.A, exempting certain buildings 252.A, exempting certain buildings from EPC requirement. And I hope Noble Lords were listening to what Noble Lords were listening to what she said because it's absolutely true. The methodology that is used true. The methodology that is used for assessment of EPC's is not foolproof, as my Noble Friend said. The actual assessment does seem The actual assessment does seem heavily weighted against older buildings.

And whilst she was mentioning early 20th-century buildings, there is a decent buildings, there is a decent proportion of houses in this country which are from the 18th and 19th century, and they themselves have century, and they themselves have even greater problems. For instance the assessment doesn't make any... the assessment doesn't make any... Requires double glazing to get as Requires double glazing to get as one way of getting to EPC C. But many 18th and 19th-century houses have shutters, which actually when closed at night do a similar job, but that's not part of the assessment.

And many of these houses are in rural settings, so again when my Noble Friend was saying is so true. Also as she alluded to, variation in assessment of EPC's by different assessors, and as an experiment on one particular property that we own, we actually got two separate assessors in. They didn't know that they were being tested against each other. And you guessed it, each of them came up with a different EPC grade. So that's a real problem. So the assessment does need to be sorted out.

And indeed I think it was in the newspapers that the Secretary of State for business, Mr Miliband had a similar situation where he had two different assessments. And then we go to listed buildings. And there has been a lot of campaigning by various organisations. You cannot take out 18th and 19th century sash windows and replace them... You can replace them with the glazing but it completed ruins the look of the building. And number of people actually prefer to live in a House with which looks nicer but might need to have a little bit more heating or something.

And as my Noble Friend bonus said, Mike Baroness's said, this bill is likely to be subject to the law of unintended consequences, and many houses would be sold and will be lost to the rental market and that would create this government and this country an even bigger problem. After the Second World War, some landlords, not that I would suggest I would want to do this, even took I would want to do this, even took the roofs of their houses so that they were no longer houses.

And finally, I just want to speak, finally, I just want to speak, sorry, against the Lords amendment sorry, against the Lords amendment 251. If we are to apply Decent Homes Standard's to asylum accommodation, then I'm afraid that has to be last then I'm afraid that has to be last in the queue whilst we sort out the accommodation for our own people in this country.
21:38
21:38
Baroness Janke Portrait Baroness Janke (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I rise to support amendment 251 in the name of Lord Tope and which I have signed. We have all in this House mentioned the support we give to this bill because it offers the opportunity to address the problems and injustices suffered by renters in the PRS. Which is the most insecure, most expensive and lowest quality of any tenure. However, this bill fails to recognise the certain vulnerable groups of tenants suffer disproportionately as we have heard over this last group.

And needs special measures to give them the level playing field they need to be able to live in suitable accommodation that is fair, reasonable and secure in the private rented sector. Refugees and asylum seekers are just one such group. And their housing experience is in need of radical reform. Lord Tope's amendment for the Decent Homes Standard to apply to housing for refugees and asylum seekers offers an opportunity to move forward on this. However, the asylum housing system in the United Kingdom leaves tens of thousands of people in inadequate accommodation where they often live for years in conditions that significantly undermine their physical and mental well-being.

The current outsourcing of asylum housing to private companies has created a system marked by significant issues, including exorbitant costs, excessive profit- making, substandard housing, inadequate safeguarding, and oversight. In fact, I've read in the Sunday Times this week that the owner of one of them clear spring ready homes is now a member of the Times Rich list. As a result of rapidly expanding contracts from the government. At the taxpayers expense. These providers need to be properly accountable.

Refugee organisations report appalling conditions and many incidents of poor, unsafe and cold properties with infestations and mould. It should therefore form part of contracts with providers that the decent housing standards should apply to properties paid for by governments. The taxpayers money is being used to fund substandard accommodation and providers are not being sanctioned. Many of those who are obliged to live in such misery our children, forced to live in virtual isolation and incarceration with housing conditions that are woefully inadequate for their needs.

I therefore support my Noble I therefore support my Noble Friend's amendment and call on the Minister to reflect on this situation, and if she is angling to amend the bill, would she say what amend the bill, would she say what the government is proposing to do to resolve the desperately pressing resolve the desperately pressing circumstances of refugees and asylum seekers? And the housing crisis that they are facing?
21:42
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to thank all Noble Lords who have contributed to this debate on Decent Homes Standard's, and its potential application across a broader range of accommodation types. As we've heard, this bill introduces new powers for the Secretary of State to specify additional standards for qualifying residential premises. Offering the potential to raise housing quality and improve conditions for tenants across England. This is in principle a welcome ambition, particularly if it helps extend protections to the most vulnerable in our housing system.

But we must of course recognise as well the dignity of all residents regardless of tenure, but while the intention behind these amendments is laudable, we do believe it is vital to interrogate both the practicalities and also the legal impact of such proposals. For instance, how would the government define qualifying residential premises in the context of asylum accommodation? Where providers may be delivering services under the Home Office contract rather than under tenancy agreements. What enforcement mechanisms are appropriate in temporary or institutionally managed housing, and wherewith the burden of compliance ultimately fall? We must also examine the legislative implications for landlords and housing providers, particular those operating unconstrained margins.

Applying a uniform standard across such a diverse landscape of housing may sound straightforward in principle, but in practice it could impose significant compliance costs. Particularly in sectors like mobile home parts or spot houses where the business model and the regulatory framework already differs markedly from the private rented sector. Stakeholders such as GE 15 presenting London's largest housing associations have raised this very point, urging caution in implying one size fits all approaches. And stressing the importance of clarity, resourcing and consultation.

Similarly, the Royal Institute of to has warned of the unintended market disruption that could follow from ambiguous or overly broad standards, particularly if applied unevenly or without sufficient support for implementation. I would like to turn though now to amendment 252.A proposed by my Noble Friend Baroness Coffey, which seeks to exempt certain buildings from the requirements to maintain specified energy efficiency criteria. Specifically those in rural areas, those that are listed buildings or those that were constructed prior to 1,900.

This raises an equally critical set of questions. Many older and listed buildings as we've heard simply cannot meet modern EPC targets. Such as EPC C without intrusive and costly works that may fundamentally alter their structures or even their appearances. The amendment therefore is it measured and proportion intervention designed not to weaken the Decent Homes Standard but to ensure that it is applied with practicality and flexibility where needed. Finally, we must ask whether there is a clear and coherent framework in place for assessing which tenures and building types should fall under the decent homes umbrella.

And whether without such a framework, we risk creating legal uncertainty or burdens that will ultimately be passed on to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank The Right Reverend Prelate Commodore Bishop of Manchester, other noble Baronesses, Lady Grender, Lady Whitaker, lady Lady Grender, Lady Whitaker, lady coffee for their amendment only coffee for their amendment only Decent Homes Standard and standards within the private rented sector, and the Earl of Leicester, noble Lord, Latin noble Baroness, Baroness Lord, Latin noble Baroness, Baroness Janke, for their comments in this group. Sorry, noble Baroness Scott. group. Sorry, noble Baroness Scott. Cannot say how much I agree with the Right Reverand's work about the Decent Homes Standard is and how Decent Homes Standard is and how dramatically that has improved homes in the social housing sector.

in the social housing sector. Beginning with amendment 249, tabled by The Right Reverend Prelate, this by The Right Reverend Prelate, this What the studies would apply to. What the studies would apply to. People in temporary accommodation deserve a safe and decent home, I therefore agree with The Right Reverend Prelate's aim of ensuring Reverend Prelate's aim of ensuring that accommodation meets minimum decency standards. I can confirm it is the governments intention that as much of this sector as possible is covered by the Decent Homes Standard.

I feel really strongly about this. I was told by the Mayor of London, last week, that one in 21 children in London is currently in temporary accommodation, but is bubbly more than one in each classroom, full of children. However, this is absolutely shocking that this is the case. Of course, the long-term answer is our commitment to the biggest increase in social and affordable housing, we have already invested £2 billion in making a start on helping towards that situation. However, it is important that I say the pressure of the supply in temporary accommodation make it very important we carefully consider how we apply the standard to this sector.

Having this power allows us to fully examine these issues, and to consult and that would make sure we strike the right balance between improving standards and avoiding risks to supply. I am of course very happy to meet with The Right Reverend Prelate
21:49
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
on this issue, because I think we all want the same outcome here. But for now, I would ask that he withdraw his amendment. Turning to amendment to an end 50, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, this amendment seeks to bring service family accommodation provided by the Ministry of Defence provided by the Ministry of Defence within the scope of the Decent Homes Standard provisions in the bill for I certainly agree with the noble Baroness, the conditions that much of the service family accommodation that we inherited were absolutely shameful.

I strongly agree, we own shameful. I strongly agree, we own our dedicated military personnel and their families safe and decent their families safe and decent homes. However, as the Minister set out when this amendment was debated in the other place, bringing this accommodation within the scope of the enforcement system established by the bill isn't the right way to achieve this. And I will explain achieve this. And I will explain why. Our government is determined to deliver homes fit for heroes, and I'm sure noble Lords will be aware I'm sure noble Lords will be aware that the Ministry of Defence has recently completed a landmark deal to bring military housing back into to bring military housing back into public ownership.

The deal that the noble Baroness referred to. This represented a once in a generation opportunity to provide service families with a better standard of accommodation while contributing to our economic growth mission and boosting British housebuilding overall. Alongside this deal, the MoD has started work on a new defence housing strategy, to be published later this year, to deliver a generational renewal of military housing. In April, the MoD announced a new consumer charter, a forces family housing, which form part of the strategy.

A charter will introduce consumer rights, a forces families, from essential property information, and predictable property standards, to access it to robust complaints system. One standards, the MoD already uses the Decent Homes Standard as benchmark, and homes below that standard are not allocated to service personnel, and their families. And the MoD uses its own hired defence decent homes close as the target standard, a service family accommodation. And as part of the new strategy, the MoD is reviewing that target standard in line with the recommendations made in the excellent review that the noble Lady referred to.

And the House of Commons defence committee. On the specifics of this amendment, we consider the approach taken in we consider the approach taken in This, is not one for the service families, there are challenges in bringing accommodation into the scope of local authority enforcement, including access to more than 6,500 homes that are located behind the wire on secure sites. The government is already taking action to ensure service personnel and their families have homes of the quality they deserve, as part of that commitment, to renewing the contract with the people who serve us.

And by gaining ownership of military housing, we will now be able to embark on the substantive program of redevelopment and improvement, which will enhance the recruitment and retention of the Armed Forces, and with it, our national security. My right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for defence, has set out his commitment to improve military housing, and will report to Parliament later this year, when the defence housing 30 is published, given this, I hope the noble Baroness will agree to... That her amendment is not required.

Amendment 251 will extend the Decent Homes Standard provision in the bill to Home Office asylum accommodation. This will require such accommodation to meet the Decent Homes Standard requirements, and increased scope for enforcement by local authorities. A number noble Lords raised this issue during the second reading of this debate. Following that debate, officials, as Lord Hope mentioned, officials of my department and Home Office and the chartered for housing to express concerns, and I can assure the government shares the objective of enduring asylum accommodation of good standards, but I don't consider this amendment is the right way to achieve this.

There are already robust places in place, to respect standards of all types of asylum accommodation. The contract the Home Office has with providers explicitly include standards requirements. Based on the Decent Homes Standard. As well as the Welsh quality homes standard, the Scottish home quality standard, those contracts, including the standards requirements, are publicly available to view on the GOV.uk website. There is also a clear complaints process in place, and inspectors inspect the property is only targeting and rolling basis. In terms of the amendment, there are several reasons why it would be appropriate to bring asylum accommodation within the scope of the Decent Homes Standard provisions in the bill.

Firstly, these provisions introduce the Decent Homes Standard for privately rented homes in England only. Whereas, there is asylum accommodation across the United Kingdom. Attempted, this amendment would therefore result in a fragmented system of different standards requirements and enforcement systems are flying, depending on where the United Kingdom the accommodation is based. And the government wishes to avoid this. In addition, we wish to avoid a situation which requirements to comply with decent homes will mean certain types of asylum accommodation can no longer be used, even if there is no alternative.

For example, we want to end the use of hotels over time. But it is sometimes necessary to meet the legal duty, to accommodate destitute asylum seekers, that accommodation might not meet Decent Homes Standard's, as full board hotels where there are no kitchen facilities, and I appreciate they are certainly not ideal for families seeking asylum, but they would not meet the Decent Homes Standard. The standard requirements already apply to asylum accommodation, there are adequate routes of redress for occupants when things go wrong.

I would therefore, ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendments. Amendment 252, tabled by my noble friend, Lady Whitaker, 16 rented mobile homes within the scope of the Decent Homes Standard provisions, while I am so pathetic to the aims of my noble friend, I cannot support of my noble friend, I cannot support , as Decent Homes Standard is not suitable for mobile home. The standard has been specifically designed to apply to residential buildings, this is integral to the design and operation of the standard, for example, Housing Health and Safety Rating System, the assessment method, underpins part of the standard, was specifically developed to assess health and safety risks in buildings.

As a result, it's not possible to apply and enforce effectively the Decent Homes Standard in respect of types of accommodation buildings. This amendment would therefore not achieve the design outcome of improving the quality of rented mobile homes, I am of course happy to discuss further with her how we might seek to achieve what she has been trying to achieve, I know, for many years. But given this, I would ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment. Turning finally to amendment 250 2A in the name of the noble Baroness, lady coffee, which would limit the breadth of the Decent Homes Standard as it applies in the private rented sector.

We will be launching a consultation on the content of the Decent Homes Standard on social and privately rented homes in the coming months and will consider carefully the responses, before finalising the detail of the standard, and the regulations will make to implement these requirements will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the affirmative procedure. I acknowledge the PRS is a diverse sector with a broad range of differing housing types, and some may have features, as you rightly pointed out, as the Earl of Leicester also mentioned, that make it very difficult to meet certain aspects of Decent Homes Standard.

We want landlords to take reasonably practical steps, to bring their properties up to standard, but we will not unfairly penalised those who are unable to do so. The legislation we are introducing will therefore provide local councils to the range of enforcement tools, to respond to different circumstances. And we will publish statutory guidance to support councils in dealing with such issues in a pragmatic and proportionate way. That is fair for both tenants and landlords. Accepting the amendment would result in different standards apply to different types of PRS homes, which would make it harder for tenants and landlords to understand what requirements apply, and is more challenging for local and is more challenging for local authorities and enforcement.

As I stated, the legislation will provide local authorities with flexibility, and will consider that this will and will consider that this will provide a more effective and fair provide a more effective and fair away -- Fairer way of dealing with it, when properties can be kissed at a top as I am the Minister was a top as I am the Minister was responsibly for Net Zero, I am happy to write, I have a lot more information about how we intend to operate in PC -- EPC, and the energy operate in PC -- EPC, and the energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector, and I'm happy to write a date lady with a lot more detail, but can I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
21:57
Lord Bishop of Manchester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)
-
-
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, I think it has been a characteristically good-natured debate and well- informed, and I'm grateful particularly for the noble Baroness, the Minister, as she has responded to the various amendments in this group. Because we are going to have a rather late-night tonight, I will not say too much at this stage. I would wish to respond to some of the comments made by the noble Lady, Baroness Coffey, not least, I hadn't spoken of her amendment in my introduction, because I hadn't understood it in the form it had appeared on the Marshalled list.

I am very grateful now. I guess I declare an interest. My daughter lives in a pre-1800 former gatekeepers cottage in a very rural part of Devon. She doesn't have a tenant, because she managed somehow to negotiate a very favourable rate of mortgage with the bank of mum and dad, a bank which I think many of your Lordships are very familiar, all-too-familiar, I fear! And I understand the complex it is of trying to get that cottage up to anything up to a like a decent .

I have great sympathy. She mentioned particularly about the Church of England's land, so I may say that the commission, which I chaired, in succession to Lord charters, until about 15 months ago, currently has a developmental portfolio, sufficient to about 30,000 homes. We would like to develop that out to make more homes for people to live in. And we recently set up a group that I another Chair of, the church housing association. It was registered with the regulator, about six weeks ago. And that is looking to utilise more church land, particularly land owned by parishes, owned by dioceses is, in order to produce more social housing, particularly housing and social rent level, across the country, and I'm hoping to meet with Homes England and many others in the future, to progress that.

My own diocese is going through a very determined process of evaluating all passages, selling the ones we don't need, and investing the money into improving the ones we are going to keep, so I hope the noble Baroness will agree this is the right way to take these matters forward. So, I am very grateful to all that has been said tonight. I look forward to meeting the noble Lady, the Minister, to further some of the conversations we have had. The time conversations we have had.

The time being, I beg leave to withdraw.
21:59
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Is it your Lordships pleasure the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 259, amendment 251. Two in 52, Baroness Whitaker. Not moved. Amendment 250 2A, Baroness Coffey. Not moved. The question is that clause 101 standards part of the bill, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents of it. Amendment 253, Lord Shipley. Shipley.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Four amendment -- 253, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Four amendment -- 253, and amendment 267, -- 268 and 269. Amendments to hundred 53 and 50 forward remove barriers to licensing schemes, to improve housing schemes, to improve housing standards. Licensing is an important tool for improving housing tool for improving housing standards. Because licensing is proactive. Licensing provides a proactive. Licensing provides a means for local authorities to inspect privately rented housing, inspect privately rented housing, using enforceable conditions to identify and resolve problems without the need for tenants to have complained.

Licensing is self funding. Licensing schemes pay for themselves through the fees that are themselves through the fees that are I provide a particular source of income, which allows authorities to maintain staffing levels and support the training of new officers. And my Lords, licensing supports targeting. Licensing schemes enable local authorities to target regulation on where it is most needed. In other words, on tackling the worst landlords, and supporting the most The problem however is that local authorities having dental licensing schemes in the face of unnecessary barriers to their effectiveness.

And one of these unnecessary barriers is that local authorities operating selective licensing schemes are not permitted to use licence conditions to improve housing conditions. That is the physical state of the licence properties. This makes no sense for two reasons. Local authorities can introduce selective licensing schemes in order to address poor housing conditions. This means that there is currently a peculiar disconnect in the licensing legislation which has been highlighted by the chartered in so of environmental health whereby local authorities can introduce selective licensing schemes in order to address poor housing but cannot include in the licences themselves conditions requiring the physical state of the licensed premises properties to be improved.

And if they are permitted to do the former, what justification can there be for not permitting them to do the latter? Secondly, local authorities are permitted to include such conditions in licences for properties covered by additional HMO licensing schemes, so what justification can there be for not permitting them to include such conditions in licences for properties covered by selective licensing schemes. Amendment 253 by permitting local authorities operating selective licensing schemes to use licence conditions to improve the physical state of a licensed property, which remove the peculiar disconnect I mentioned and would give local authorities the same discretion in relation to the licensing conditions used in selective licensing schemes as they already have in relation to the licence conditions used in additional HMO licensing schemes.

A second unnecessary barriers that local authorities are not permitted to implement additional HMO or selective licensing schemes that last more than five years without repeating a time-consuming and expensive designation process. This doesn't make sense either as local authorities introduce the schemes in order to bring about large-scale improvements which are unlikely to be fully achieved within five years. So amendment 254 would address this issue by increasing the maximum duration of these schemes from five to 10 years. That increase would allow local authorities to advertise longer term posts and to include training new staff in these schemes, also provide more time for local partnerships for such schemes for example to resolve antisocial behaviour to become embedded and effective.

1/3 unnecessary barrier is the requirement for local authorities that are established in selective licensing schemes using certain criteria to ensure that the private rented sector forms a high proportion of properties in an area. However, if there are issues in the private rented sector which can be addressed through selective licensing schemes, it does seem arbitrary for local authorities to be enabled to establish such schemes without ensuring that the sector forms a high proportion of properties. I want to welcome the fact that the government has recently enabled local authorities to introduce selective licensing schemes of any size without approval from the Secretary of State.

I suggest that that makes it all the more urgent for these other unnecessary barriers to the effectiveness of such schemes to be removed. The proposals I hope the Minister will agree that I am making our small but I think are important, and I hope the government will be able to agree with them. The three amendments, 267, 268 and 269 in the name of the noble Lord Young of name of the noble Lord Young of Cookham relate to the issue of the passing of the Housing Act 2004 because at the time of that passing, the institutional private rented sector did not exist.

And as a result, selective licensing provisions were drafted for smaller individual landlords. And while selective licensing remains an important all for local authorities that have deep-seated issues in their areas, the provisions of the act may not work well for large institutional landlords. And to rectify this incompatibility, these three amendments are tabled which would take account of the impact licensing has had on institutional landlords without undermining the intentions or principles of licensing. First, I refer to 268.

This amendment to section 91 seeks to address the ability to transfer the licence from one named person to another, which is not currently exist under the act. It's right that this prohibition on transfer applies to bad landlords simply seeking to pass the licence onto family members or friends, and that behaviour should continue to be discouraged. However, in a corporate setting, this requires landlords to apply for an entirely new licence every time the staff member holding the licence leaves the company.

Despite that, the corporate landlord managing the property remains the same. A licence can cost over £1000 per unit. To be licence a large development can therefore be several hundred thousand pounds. This is a huge cost to incur for a purely administrative change and is far in excess of the cost the local authority will incur for changing the name on the licence of conducting a proper fit for purpose test. It also leaves to perverse outcomes where institutional landlords have the licence in the name of the employee least likely to leave the company rather than the most qualified person to be held accountable.

This proposed amendment 268 would rectify this situation, allowing institutional landlords to transfer licences between employees of the same institutional landlord. And importantly, not change the existing provision for individual landlords, allowing local authorities to continue to exercise their important monitoring powers. Amendment 269 seeks to address delays faced by institutional landlords bringing upwards of hundreds of often much- needed rental units into the market at once. Local authorities can be overwhelmed when an institutional landlord seeks to licence a large number of unit at once, due to insufficient resource to process these applications.

And this has led in some situations to local authorities requesting that the landlord saw their applications until the local authority has the resources available for them. And while institutional landlords will comply with this request, the law does not allow for the situations. It requires that a licence is applied for at the earliest opportunity. So for you to apply for a licence, even at the request of the local authority, leaves institutional landlords in breach of the act and liable to a rent repayment order despite the fact that the circumstances are entirely out of their control.

Amendment 269 would I submit address this problem by allowing the local authority to issue a temporary exemption where it must extend the time needed to process applications. And finally, amendment 267, which aims to amend section 87 with the objective of addressing the high cost faced by institutional landlords licensing their properties and now the consequence of the institutional rented sector being subject to an act drafted before its emergence in the UK market. Applicants selected licences pay a fee per unit as is appropriate for individual landlords with multiple separated units in another locality.

However, institutional landlords develop large blocks which are very unlikely to fail property management standards due to their recent of element and high standards of management. Licensing the units in these purpose-built blocks may require little more work for a local authority than licensing and individual unit. But despite this, institutional landlords are charged individually for each unit in their block. This amendment 267 seeks to address this inconsistency and the disproportionate costs faced by some institutional landlords by allowing a local authority to apply a proportionate approach to fixing fees.

This proportionate approach could cap the total fees for model units in a block to a limit which will be set by regulation. There would need I think to be some consultation on this matter. There would need to be clarity on the powers of a local authority because this amendment would remove the current requirement in subsection 87.1 of the Housing Act 2004 the selective licensing applications can be made by the local housing authority and could thereby lead them to be processed by other bodies in the private sector.

The licences are usually drafted after the local authority has inspected the property. The processing of the applications is undertaken by trained environmental health practitioners who understand the local private rented sector market and the type and location of the property. The licences contain specific provisions to address the issues to which the scheme has been brought into effect. And local authorities would seem to be the best bodies... Sorry, the bodies best placed to deliver a locally tailored approach, and moreover if the body processing selective licensing applications would be different from the body the HMO licensing applications, an extra layer of complexity would be created, which would be particularly problematic where applications were incomplete or insufficient fees had been paid.

I realise I've spoken to some length on those matters. They are actually very important issues, and I hope very much that the Minister who I know has had discussion with the different bodies, may be able to give some comfort on those five amendments because they all reflect problems within the capacity of this bill to solve. solve.
22:13
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed after clause 101 insert the new clause is printed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the marshalled list. I'm grateful to speak on this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to speak on this group amendments of this important debate concerning property licensing. The discussion takes on a particular practical part of the regular three framework. How local regular three framework. How local authorities manage and enforce licensing regimes to rental licensing regimes to rental properties and meet appropriate standards of safety and quality. The amendments in this group put forward by the Noble Lords Lord Shipley and by the Noble Lords Lord Shipley and Lord Young of Cookham address both the effectiveness of the licensing schemes and the administrative burdens they impose on landlords, local authorities and tenants alike.

local authorities and tenants alike. Amendments to 53 and 254 in the name of Lord Shipley speak to the role of selective licensing, improving housing conditions proposed to housing conditions proposed to extend the maximum duration of these schemes. We already have selective licensing, and the UK government guidance is clear that local authorities can use this process to tackle poor housing conditions as well as other issues. These are worthy proposals. We will listen carefully to these concerns and work with Noble Lords across the House to get the balance right and ensure this bill plays its part in driving up the quality of housing.

Particularly in the areas where local authorities can clearly demonstrate poor housing conditions or evidence antisocial behaviour. But we must also ask, are licensing schemes always the right lever for improving housing quality? Licensing can in the right circumstances help drive up standards, but if Paul -- poorly targeted, they may create unnecessary bureaucracy, doing little to deter the worst offenders. We must guard against the risk of licensing becoming a tick box exercise. And like to thank the noble Lord Shipley of introducing the amendments to 67 of introducing the amendments to 672 of introducing the amendments to 672269 tabled by Lord Young of Cookham.

These are pragmatic and draw on my Noble Friends extensive experience in both They propose more proportionate licensing fees, simplified procedures for name changes and facilitated applications. All are practical measures designed to reduce red tape and bring common sense to what can sometimes be a cumbersome process. In particular, amendment 267 raises a real-world issue, where a large block of flats under single management structure is subject to individual selective licence fees for each unit. It can result in duplicated administration and disproportionate costs.

In such cases, we must ask whether the fees truly reflect the regulatory effort involved, whether they risk being seen as unfairly as a revenue raising mechanism. Similarly, the proposals to simplify name changes on licences that allow both applications speak to the need of digital modernisation and the need for efficiency. These are not controversial suggestions, they are, in effect, overdue. From the perspective of landlords. Especially professional landlords, institutional investors, we must recognise that licensing, while important, must be predictable.

Transparent and administratively workable. The private rented sector has changed dramatically over the past two decades and the regulatory framework must evolve to reflect those realities. And one that encourages investment in the sector, to increase supply to the benefit of tenants. My Lords, we on these benches support local authority oversight, but we must also believe that licensing must be targeted, evidence-based, and cost justified. So, we would welcome the government's views on the following. Do they agree that the licensing process should be simplified? Particularly for landlords who already meet high standards of compliance.

And crucially, will they consider clearer national guidance consider clearer national guidance to help local authorities balance enforcement powers, with enforcement powers, with administrative fairness? We want to see a system that works for tenants see a system that works for tenants and local authorities alike but also one that does not discourage responsible landlords or entrench unnecessary bureaucracy. unnecessary bureaucracy.
22:18
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I would like to thank noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Young of Cookham, for their amendments relating to selective licensing, particularly for Lord Shipley for moving Lord Young's amendments in his absence. And, thank noble Lords Johnson for his comments. I will start with amendment 253, this amendment seeks to allow local authorities to use selective licensing conditions to improve housing conditions. We acknowledge and share the noble Lord's intentions to improve housing conditions. We believe all renters deserve to live in safe, secure and quality homes.

With the introduction of the Decent Homes Standard at the application of a Awaab's Law through this bill, the government will reform and improved conditions across the sector. We think it's important these measures benefit all measures and local authorities, tackling poor quality homes, regardless of whether they are in selective licensing areas or not. Amendment 250, -- 254, six to allow local authorities to increase the maximum duration of selective and additional HMO licensing schemes, from five to 10 years, as many noble Lords will be aware, the government recently removed the requirement to obtain Secretary of State approval to introduce larger selective licensing schemes, we think it is right that local authorities have greater autonomy to implement schemes, provided they meet the statutory criteria.

However, we also recognise licensing schemes do, as noble Lords have said, place additional burdens on landlords. It is therefore important that local authorities monitor any schemes, to make sure they are proportionate and are continuing to achieve their aims. The maximum scheme duration of five years strikes the right balance in giving local authorities time to make this assessment, whilst also ensuring that landlords are not, by default, subject to increased regulation for prolonged periods. I would therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, to withdraw his amendments.

Turning out the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. Amendment 267 six to streamline the licensing application process and cap the total fee that local authorities can charge for licensing similar properties under a block under single ownership. The government recognises that selective licensing imposes a burden on landlords, the financial administrative costs can be particularly significant for large portfolio landlords, such as those operating in the build to rent sector. Local authorities already have discretion to streamline licence applications and fees, for landlords whose properties meet the requirements for block licences, where appropriate and consistent with the aims of their licensing schemes, we would encourage local authorities to make greater use of block licences.

This reduces the burden on a large portfolio landlords and can better reflect efficiencies for local authorities in licensing such properties. For example, the ability to inspect multiple properties in a block on a single visit. It is right that licensing schemes continue to be determined locally and that local authorities have the flexibility to decide the best application process and fees, to support delivery of the schemes. Placing a cap on application fees could cause issues, due to regional differences in cost between local authorities.

And potentially undermine the success of some schemes. Amendment 268 seeks to allow the transfer of certain licences in circumstances where the licence need to be passed to an employee of the same corporate body. As noble Lords will be aware, under section 91 of the Housing Act, 2004, licences currently cannot be transferred, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, explained. A new licence application is needed, whether changed to the licence holder is required after the licence has been issued. A crucial part of the application process is ensuring compliance with the fit and proper person test.

This is designed to ensure that prospective licence holders do not pose a risk to the welfare of tenants. I'm sure it is not the noble Lord, Lord Young's intention, except in this amendment would, may mean circumventing those important checks for any new licence holders within the same organisation. I accept it may seem excessive for a local authority to require a full licence application, to be submitted, whether licence needs to be transferred due to changes in staff. In cases where there are no other changes to the management or use of the property.

We would encourage local authorities to take a proportionate approach in these cases, for example, by only requiring details of the new licence holder to be provided in the application, and charging a fee that only covers the essential parts of the application process. For example, the fit and proper person test. Amendment 269 six to allow local authority to allow temporary exemption to selective licensing to an applicant, where they have determined they require more time to process the licence application.

My Lords, recognise the issues this amendment attempts to address, where local authorities receive multiple licence applications from the same applicant, they do need sufficient time to review these, as a result, applicants may receive a decision after the period they deem reasonable. And I would say, I totally agree with the noble Lord about the digitisation of this process and making the whole process more efficient. Local authorities are of course already required to determine all licence applications within a reasonable time, and we would encourage them to clearly set out their expected processing timelines when inviting applications.

When planning a licensing scheme, local authorities should also carefully consider the level of resources they are going to need to process the applications to avoid large backlogs being created. However, regardless of any challenges the local authority may face, in processing licence applications, landlords with licensable properties should apply for licences. This ensures they are protected from enforcement action being taken against them, for having control of or managing and licence control of or managing and licence property. -- And unlicensed property, so I would ask the noble property, so I would ask the noble Lord's amendments are withdrawn.
22:24
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Can I thank the Minister for her very full explanation. I think the best course of action would be now to review and enhance on what she has just said and looking ways in which we might progress some of these issues, by the time we reach report stage in a few weeks time, but for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw amendment 253.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 254, not moved. Amendments Amendment 254, not moved. Amendments to full -- 255, moved formally en bloc? The question is amendments to hundred 55 and 250 6B agree to unblock, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content" Of the contrary, "Not content", the contents have it. The question is schedule four is amended with 1/4 schedule to the bill, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", the condenser would.

The question is that romantic intense habit, the that romantic intense habit, the question is close to stand as part of the bill, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The question is that schedule 5B the fifth schedule to the bill, and many As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 257, Baroness Thornhill, not moved, the question is that not moved, the question is that clause 103 stand as part of the bill, as many as that -- As many as bill, as many as that -- As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content".

Of the contrary, "Not content". That intense habit. The question is close 104-113 stand as part of the bill en bloc. As many as are of that bloc. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. After clause 113, amendment 258, Lord Cromwell.
22:26
Lord Cromwell Portrait Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendment 258 in my name, I am very grateful for the support of the Lord Bishop of Manchester Baroness Kennedy of Cradley, and Lord Best for adding their names and support. I should also like to thank Lord Hogan-Howe who cannot be here at this time, but has authorised me to say that he both supports the principle of the amendment, and believes it is deliverable in practice. My notes given the role of the police in this amendment, his support has been amendment, his support has been invaluable.

I'm also grateful to the organisations Are Safer Renting and Acorn for their assistance in highlighting the urgent need for this amendment. And of course, to this amendment. And of course, to the bill team -- bill team a working day magic in drafting. My Lords, a second reading, I underlined concerns about those at the bottom end of the rental market. Here are the economically and socially vulnerable. They are the most likely to face a legal -- Illegal and sometimes forcible evictions. They are also often the least equipped to resist illegal evictions.

It is this shadow private rented sector, the lowest part of the rental market that both needs help. And in particular, as so often with the legislation that we like pass in parliament, needs proper support through effective and well organised enforcement of renters' rights in what can be a wild world of criminal landlords who pay little mind to the niceties of tenancy agreements when removing tenants. That is what this amendment seeks to address. Illegal eviction is defined in the protection of the eviction act of 1977, as a criminal offence, referred to earlier this evening by the noble Lady, the minister, a serious criminal offence.

That can include physical force, changing of locks, depriving renters of essential services, and other forms of interference and harassment. Figures from 2022 show that 8750 illegal evictions were reported for that year. The actual number will of course be higher than that and we have quoted a figure by the noble Baroness Kennedy of Cradley, of about twice that, earlier tonight. However, currently prosecutions of the legal evictions a very low, the police do not act on 91% of cases, making an enforcement rate of below 0.3%.

I underlined that this is not to blame the police. Rather, it arises from a legislative ambiguity that needs resolving. While protection of eviction act 1977 set out the legal definition of illegal eviction, a criminal offence, it did not include the duty on the police to enforce the protections. The results of this have been a first, ambiguity of responsibility between local authorities and police, as to which is the enforcing agency. This, in turn, has led to both councils and police each referring renters to the other organisation.

Second, the police have almost always held the incorrect belief that illegal evictions are a civil matter. My Lord, the amendment also takes into account the need to be realistic about overstretch of police time and resources. The duties under this amendment have two aspects. Reporting intervening. One reporting, in the interests of joining up working, the police will notify the local housing authority, where a complaint has been made, and vice versa, where a complaint is received by the housing authority.

The immediate anxiety here is of course to avoid imposing an additional reporting burden, on frontline officers and officials. But my Lords, any incidents raised by and with the police or the local authority gets reported, or it certainly should. That report should certainly should. That report should simply be electronically copied to the other, so that both can be aware, spot patterns, so forth. So, it is not really more flipping paperwork because adding ACC to a report is not really very own arrest.

On intervening, as mentioned, this is typically so that to date, by the police and local authority territory. Collaboration between local authorities and the police is of course important. And there are some examples where it works well. I'm also loath to create even more work for stretch police resources and people. However, my Lords, the law is that illegal evictions are criminal rather than a civil matter. Therefore, this is a police matter. Clarifying this is at the heart of this amendment. I should also say that in reality, when being forcibly evicted, particularly at night, the number the tenant is going to call is likely to be the police, rather than the local authority.

The amendment requires the police to take reasonable steps to prevent an illegal eviction and defence continuing, if a tenant has either been illegally evicted or if they believe a tenant is at risk of legal eviction. Finally, there is a tendency for local authorities and some police to conduct investigations seminal A. The amendment requires local authorities and police to cooperate with each other's investigations where an alleged illegal eviction has taken alleged illegal eviction has taken This amendment by clarifying and streamlining the roles of police and local authorities also bought those most at risk of illegal eviction.

It is the area in most acute need of protection, not just in law but in practice. In closing I would like to thank the noble Lady the Minister for the opportunity she provided to discuss this amendment with her and her team. However, having discussed this in detail with tenant groups I do not share what I think is her view based on her own very successful local authority Significant one, and the current system is effective. Current tenant representation group suggest the acute need for this amendment and I hope the noble Lady the Minister will reconsider and accept this amendment or perhaps bring forward a suitable government amendment in its place.

If you would find it helpful before report, would you perhaps meet with these groups, and we've already secured a meeting I believe during Baroness Kennedy's contribution, and clarify this specific amendment? I beg to move.
22:32
22:34
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

support this amendment. I want to scratch lots of bits

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to scratch lots of bits out now, now Lord Best seeing as you have been so succinct. Amendment 258 in the name of Lord Cromwell has had in the name of Lord Cromwell has had some notable signatories, and the Noble Lord sold his amendment well. Noble Lord sold his amendment well. In short, this is an amendment that should not be needed if the police and local authorities did their jobs and local authorities did their jobs correctly as per the law as outlined in the protection from eviction act.

This amendment is rightly seeking to reinforce what should be happening reinforce what should be happening but we know it isn't. They already mentioned organisations savour renting actually monitor data from their clients over a given period their clients over a given period which revealed that where the clients were going through an clients were going through an illegal eviction, and whilst in progress, they called the police for progress, they called the police for assistance, worryingly in only 9% of the cases did they actually go to the property and assist the tenants.

Therefore as the Noble Lord said, in 91% of cases, they either failed to turn up or turned up and sided with the landlord. Interestingly so concerned with savour renting about the statistics, they decided to do something about it. And it's to their credit that in partnership with the Metropolitan Police and the GLA they developed a training course for officers. Approximately 80,000 officers took the training, but sadly this did not mean they've recorded any significant improvement when talking to their clients, which begs a lot more questions that are probably not answerable here.

As has already been said by several Noble Lords, it is imperative that the police understand the harassment before and during an illegal eviction or indeed what constitutes criminal offences, but most importantly to cooperate with the local authority charged with the role of prosecuting these criminal landlords. Shockingly this is not always happening. Safer renters illegal eviction account for England and Wales in 22/23 showed 8748 illegal evictions. That's one every 67 minutes.

It is necessary for the police to prosecute these offences unless they witness criminal actions taking place alongside the eviction, but it's crucial for them to understand the law to both refer them to the local authority and to cooperate with the authorities investigations. So yes we do support this amendment, but we hope the noble Lady will reassure us that it is needed. -- Isn't needed. is needed. -- Isn't needed.
22:37
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment 258 tabled by the noble Lord Cromwell aims to provide greater clarity for local housing authorities and police forces in responding to cases of illegal eviction. Illegal eviction is a serious offence. It's not simply a housing matter but a brazen abuse of power. That said we do have reservations about the practicalities of this proposal but I have listened to Lord Cromwell, having asked Lord Hogan-Howe about his views on it. But in essence, the amendment places a statutory duty on police and councils to notify each other when a complaint of illegal eviction is perceived to cooperate investigating the offence and taking reasonable steps to assist the tenant.

The intent here was understandable. Tenants report illegal evictions and bounced between bodies, we know that. Policing is a civil matter, councils struggling with limited capacity. While the intent behind the amendment is undeniably well- meaning, I think we have to pause and ask whether it may inadvertently entrench confusion within the statutory framework rather than statutory framework rather than resolving it. The proposal to impose duties on local housing authorities and police forces to cooperate and assist without clear definitions opens the door to operational ambiguity.

What exactly constitutes reasonable steps to assist? What measures, outcomes -- measurable outcomes are expected from this cooperation. Without these clarifications I believe there is a real risk of creating possibly more confusion for the very tenants we want to protect. I also think we want to be very careful about the practical Burton's command Lord Cromwell did say this, that both councils and police forces are grappling the whole time with existing resource shortages, and this amendment adds new responsibilities without addressing, we think the underlying issue of capacity.

Should we not first evaluate whether these agencies are equipped to handle their current workload before we impose further duties? What assessments have been made of the additional resource implications of this? There is great merit in the principle behind this amendment, namely the need for clearer cooperation and more decisive enforcement but there are significant questions about whether this amendment is drafted achieves that aim in a proportional workable manner. And I agree with Baroness Thornhill, and I ask the Minister, is the guidance clear enough to, particularly lease forces, as it is an illegal act.

It is against the law. Is there enough guidance? Are they being told exactly what they have to do? And for the local authorities, have they got clear guidance about looking after the tenant which is their responsibility once the eviction if they have been evicted and if they are out... Homeless at the time. And do ask the Noble Lord, the noble Baroness the Minister whether this can't be done in a different way by insisting that the Home Office work with MHCOG to the Home Office work with MHCOG to actually try and embed the guidance that is already there and insist that is already there and insist that both of these organisations deliver what they should be delivering at the moment?
22:41
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I thank the noble Lord Cromwell his amendment and for meeting with me to discuss it. This amendment would place a duty on local authorities and police forces to share information regarding alleged offences contrary to section 1 of the protection from eviction act 1977. Can I thank the Noble Lord best and the noble Baroness Thornhill and the noble Baroness got? Local authorities and police force would also have a duty to cooperate investigation of these offences and take steps to prevent offences from occurring or continuing as well as assisting tenants to gain access to their properties.

The government is clear that illegal eviction is unacceptable. Changes introduced in this bill will further empower local authorities to penalised those who illegally affect, giving them the option to issue a financial penalty of up to £40,000 as an alternative to prosecution. Illegally evicted tenants are also entitled to receive a rent payment order. Local authorities will also be provided with new investigatory powers alongside the powers police forces have to investigate and prosecute breaches of the protection from eviction act 1977.

But I'm concerned at the administrative burden and reporting due to my place on lease forces. The Department's training approaches to improving multiagency targeting and disruption of rogue and criminal actors operating throughout the private rented throughout the private rented sector. For example Liverpool City Council's private sector housing intelligence and enforcement task force, snappy title I know, but it does what it says on the tin. In this successfully carried out joint operations with Merseyside police and the Home Office. The government will continue to explore how we can encourage more effective collaboration between the police and local authorities.

Of course I'm happy to add this topic to the agenda for the meeting I don't be agreed to with Baroness Kennedy and safer renting, and of course happy to take another look at the existing guidance and make sure it does what it needs to do. But that said I would respectfully ask the noble Lord Cromwell to withdraw his amendment.
22:43
Lord Cromwell Portrait Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
Thanks to Lord Best and to Baroness Scott for their contributions. Before I detain the House too long, I would just say to Baroness Scott, about her comments on cooperation and working it out in detail, I think one of the things we found early was trying to specify every detail in what would go in the database. It's much better to let the two responsible bodies worked out themselves. I think they are grown-ups and can work that out. In terms of it being a further duty on the police, it is in a further duty.

It's an existing duty, but it just clarifies what they are supposed to be doing, and I don't want to pray on him too much in his absence, but Lord Hogan-Howe felt that was a realistic thing they could deliver without too much stress on their resources. In terms of information and coordination, I think that someday we should or two rely on. someday we should or two rely on. And it's currently not the case that the police take it on themselves because they have an ingrained ideas a civil offence, not a criminal one, which is incorrect.

But that said, I'm grateful to everyone for their comments, I look forward to the meeting and I am very grateful to the Minister for agreeing to meet with the tenant groups who are very passionately convinced that this is an essential amendment, and on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is a young option splash at the amendment be withdrawn? Amendment by live withdrawn. The question is that live withdrawn. The question is that clauses 114 to 133 standard part of the bill and block. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. We now come to
22:46
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. We now come to I rise in behalf of my honourable friend, Baroness Jones, to move amendment 259, which noble Lords will see is a three word amendment, this is an amendment that provides argument for the value of explanatory statements. As an explanatory statement says, the conditions of these three words, Energy Act 2021, gives authorities, local authorities, the power to use this data about home energy efficiency, to enforce minimum energy efficiency standards.

Now, as we have discussed very often in this bill, many renters are stuck in cold, damp, leaky homes. And sometimes, there are very simple and cheap fixes, such as adding or topping up loft insulation, sometimes it might be more complicated and challenging ventilating properties. This gives local authorities the power to obtain and use energy efficiency information to help private renters. This would allow housing officers to support tenants in the most poorly insulate homes, or support councils. I think this is particularly important to develop the street by street insulation programs that could bring economies of scale and support and of widespread insulation.

The case study, which is quite an old one now, but is a lovely one of Kirkley's. The Green councillor, was one of the driving councillor, was one of the driving forces behind the street by street insulation program, that we actually saw, now Lord Cameron of this House claiming credit for, which may have been a first time we have seen green achievements being so claimed. But I actually saw reports on how that work afterwards. One of the things that really came through was how much people are concerned about cowboy builders and that might be true of landlords as well as tenants.

They trust their local authorities, and that street by street process works really well but to make that happen, you actually need the data and that is what this modest amendment is designed to achieve. It builds on the positive clause, 134, which will already give local authorities the data to support tenants and take enforcement action against failing landlords. Given the hour, I will leave the noble Lady, Baroness Hayman, to explain amendment 274, which is obviously related to this. But I hope also in responding, noble Lady, the Minister is able to set out how the government claims to ramp up support for energy efficiency, especially the private renters.

As we have just been hearing, so many are in vulnerable situations and, given the cost of living crisis, it is often seen as an environmental measure, but it is absolutely crucial antipoverty measure, and we crucial antipoverty measure, and we need to make this as easy and simple for local authorities to achieve as possible. I beg to move.
22:49
Baroness Hayman Portrait Baroness Hayman (Crossbench)
-
-
Amendment proposed, clause 134, page 155, line 27, at end insert

**** Possible New Speaker ****

'Energy Act 2011'. I declare my interests as a previous share of Peers for the Planet and a director of that Planet and a director of that organisation, and rise to speak to amendment 274 in my name, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, who cannot be in the chamber this evening. It continues the theme of energy efficiency that the noble Baroness, Baroness Bennett, has just spoken to on her amendment, 259. She specified and dealt specifically specified and dealt specifically with the issue of data, in terms of energy efficiency.

I wish to contribute particularly on the issue of the financing of energy of the financing of energy efficiency measures. It's the first and only time I have spoken on a and only time I have spoken on a committee bill, but the reason for that is because my interaction with that is because my interaction with the Minister and her officials in the run-up to the bill, which I clarified several issues very helpfully. But the issue of improving energy efficiency in the private rented sector has been discussed at length, and on multiple occasions, in this House.

And I hope that the current consultation will go some way to address the lack of coherent and consistent long-term policy certainty in this area. Because it has suffered from stop-go and from changes of administrations and of forms of assistance that have been incoherent and have stopped us making progress. But of course, one of the main issues are making progress, against making progress in this area, is funding. So, my amendment seeks to break through some of the barriers to progress, by requiring the government to publish a roadmap on how private finance initiatives could be scaled up to support the funding of energy efficiency measures.

Some of the other speakers on the committee appointed out the problems that exist because of the quality of the stock and the private rented sector. As The Right Reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Manchester, pointed out, nearly half of the houses stock in the private rented sector has an EPC rating but lower than C, while poverty has fallen by 35% among home occupiers, 54% in Council tenants, since 2010. It has fallen only 4% for private renters. Their homes are still disproportionately damp and cold, causing both short and long- term health issues and higher bills, adding insult to injury.

And of course, this is an issue where we should take action, not only because of the need to help people in this situation but also because of the detrimental effects this has on our achievement of Net Zero, round in terms of improving our energy security. But while there has been widespread agreement on the value of improving energy efficiency, finance has always been an obstacle of progress. As the costs, my Lords, of improving the quality of housing will be, as others have said, substantial, given where we are starting from.

And it is not realistic to expect the government to foot the bill in its entirety, nor to put intolerant burdens on landlords. We need to find ways to finance these improvements that will work for tenants, landlords, and for the public purse. I recognise that the government is doing some work on the government is doing some work on this. And on looking at how barriers can be overcome. The green homes accelerator fund, due to end in June, has a number of projects, specifically looking at rented properties, and a number of pilot schemes.

And I would like to hear from the Minister what steps the government plans to take in response to what it is learning from the experience of the fund, and to what timetable it will be working. But there are also a growing number of innovative private sector finance mechanisms, which deserve serious attention. As the UK sustainable investment and Finance Association recently reported, the high upfront costs to install energy-efficient technologies remain the biggest challenge for landlords, and ensuring there is private capital to support this process and investment to help drive down the cost of energy efficiency is paramount.

To meet this challenge, there are a number of policy proposals that have been made and that my amendment been made and that my amendment would prompt the government to consider. The Green building Council for example has proposed the warm home stamp duty incentive, with stamp duty would be adjusted up or down, depending on the EPC of a property, and really would be triggered within two years of purchase, if the energy efficiency of the home had been improved. The local government Association has local government Association has recently recommended the government should incentivise landlords through tax rebates.

In France, they have added energy efficiency improvements to the list of deductible costs of managing the property, such as legal managing the property, such as legal fees and insurance. In the UK, Scotland has introduced interest loans for landlords. Such loans could, in future, be linked to the property, rather than the individual for which there is a precedent for the interest free loans that are available to restore renewables. Property linked finance has been deployed in several other countries, and these are all measures that deserve serious consideration by the government, and could cut through the Guardian order that we have a moment of all agreeing there is a great deal of what needs to be done, but no one can see how it could be financed.

So, I hope Would the Minister responds, she will provide a little more detail on government thinking in this area, particularly on ways of incentivising landlords, and how the government intends to make progress, in an area about which much has been said. But too little has been done.
22:56
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I thank Baroness Hayman and Baroness Bennett for raising these amendments. And generating this debate. We support both of these amendments, from these benches. Every renter has the right to a warm and energy-efficient home, as part of a decent standard of living and improving energy performance in private rentals is not only vital for tenants' comfort and to reduce fuel poverty, but of course, it also contributes to those all-important climate targets. The LGA and I thank them for their briefing, and of course concerned about how enforcement will be enhanced, to ensure that minimum energy-efficient standards in the PRS are upheld.

The sad reality is we all know, some landlords continue to let out inefficient poorly insulation properties, leaving tenants with high energy bills and cold homes. Indeed, tenants in the private rented sector, living in the least efficient homes, paying as much as an additional £1000 per year on their energy bills, compared to someone who is living in a relatively energy-efficient home. As we have heard in previous discussions, and expansion of the rent repayment orders, to cover situations where the landlord lets a property that fails to meet the minimum energy efficiency requirements would mean that if a landlord reaches energy standards, for example, renting out a property below the legal EPC threshold, the tenant or counsel could apply for an order to reclaim up to 12 months rent, which we think is, will be a powerful deterrent against non- compliance.

An amendment to wooden 74, tabled by Baroness Hayman, is an extremely useful step to the ultimate goal of making homes warmer and more sustainable. The clear government strategy to unlock private finance, for example with green loans, incentive schemes for landlords, to retrofit insulation and efficient heating, and it makes me a little bitterness to logic for something that was applied, which we think is an excellent model but was on a wider infrastructural basis which was on the Green investment Bank introduced in the early days of the coalition government.

The National order of praised it for having a clear rationale, mission and objectives. Backed by sound oversight. The Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy at the time, and the NAO and the Institute for government all concluded that it had largely been successful in scaling up the U.K.'s green investment, during its early years, and in fact it invested 3.4 billion into green projects, retracting 8.6 billion of private capital. A healthy 2 x 50 of private investment for every 1 pound of public money.

And by 2017, his portfolio was expected to hit a 10% return, sadly, in 2015, the Conservative fog that offered therefore that 10% return was not realised. But I would love to be able to tempt the noble Lady, the Minister, to have a look at that model as a really interesting model of putting in investment. I thank of putting in investment. I thank the noble Lady, Baroness Bennett for recording the excellent Kirklees, which is, I think, the largest local authority retrofitting and insulation project and was award- winning.

And it was quite some time ago now. And I wouldn't want to lose the opportunity to reference the fact that it was under my noble friend, Baroness Bennett, who was leader of Kirklees at the time. -- Baroness Pinnock, who was leader of Kirklees at the time, and as I understand it, there was some finance they received foreign infrastructure project, they decided to initiate across every single tenure in the largest local authority area. And I still believe it is the largest local authority it is the largest local authority area, unless anyone wishes to correct me on that, but it remains, both of these remain excellent both of these remain excellent examples of how facilitating investment in measures like insulation, efficient boilers, double glazing, the government can double glazing, the government can ensure landlords have the means to comply with energy requirements.

Rather than simply exiting the market or passing the costs onto market or passing the costs onto their tenants. We therefore welcome this proposed roadmap, and data collection, and we look forward to collection, and we look forward to
23:01
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
We all want to see energy efficiency, better homes for tenants and to reduce fuel poverty. But as has been discussed early this evening, this needs to be done in an affordable and pragmatic way. And also in a way that does not force older rural and Heritage homes out of the rental market. Amendment 259 in the name of the noble Baroness Lady Bennett of Manor Castle seeks to extend the powers of local housing authorities to use available data to enforce and exercise their functions under the energy act 2011.

As the noble Baroness has established, that act provided for obligations on landlords to meet certain energy efficiency requirements for their properties before they are able to let their properties to. Clause 134 of the bill already enables local housing authorities to use the information they possess to enforce housing offences and other functions under a wider range of legislation than previously permitted in the Housing Act 2004. This amendment therefore extends the already expanded agreement of clause 134 to the domain of energy efficiency.

We understand the intentions of the noble Baroness in this amendment and will be interested to hear the response from the noble Baroness the Minister. I would question the necessity of the amendment. However, the energy efficiency private rented property in England and Wales regulations 2015 made to the energy act 2011 already provides for the energy efficiency regulations to be enforced by local authorities. In the case of domestic private rental properties and by Trading Standards in the case of nondomestic private rented properties.

Those enforcement authorities are empowered by the 2111 act... Sorry, 2011 act to impose monetary penalties of up to £5000 of any landlord who breaches the energy efficiency regulations. Given powers that already exist, the highly significant changes to energy performance certificates that the government plans to implement, this amendment appears to be unnecessary. A review of energy efficiency improvements required and the methods for funding these improvements would be more appropriate, which is why we support amendment 274 from the noble Baroness Lady Hayman, supported by my Noble Friend Lady Penn.

This amendment simply requires the Secretary of State to publish a roadmap for using private finance initiatives to provide the funding for any required improvements to energy efficiency for the private energy efficiency for the private rented sector. This is a sensible and measured approach to the issue at hand as opposed any prescriptive requirements. I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness the minister's response.
23:04
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Had led to thank noble Baronesses Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Hayman for their amendments relating to minimum energy standard and the noble Baroness Ben who they described herself as the green night out. And Baroness Grender and the noble Lord Jamieson for contributing to the debate. Turning first to amendment 259 in the name of the noble Baroness Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb which would allow information given to local authorities by tenancy deposit scheme administrators to be used by local authorities for a purpose connected with their functions under the energy act 2011 and that would include enforcement against breaches of minimum energy efficiency standards and the energy efficiency private rented property in England and Wales regulations 2015.

Had led to reassure the committee that local authorities are already equipped to enforce the private rented sector minimum energy efficiency standards of EPC rating of D. In February consultation was published to amend regulations and raise energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector, addressing fuel poverty and carbon emissions. The consultation proposes local authorities will be empowered to issue fines of up to £30,000 for non-compliance with a new minimum energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector. And to respond to the noble Baroness Brendan's point, officials from the Department of energy security net zero exploring support for enforcement in collaboration with stakeholders including local authorities.

Local authorities often identify non-compliance during other property engagements and can take appropriate action. The local authority may issue a compliance notice to landlord suspected of reaching the energy standard. If the landlord fails to comply the authority has the power to issue a penalty notice. I recognise the value data plays an ageing enforcement which is why we've widened access to information for other enforcement purposes through the bill. And for these reasons I would ask the noble Baroness Bennett on behalf Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb to withdraw the amendment.

Turning to amendment 274 from the noble Baroness Lady Hayman which would require the secular state publish a roadmap for scaling up private finance initiatives to support the funding of energy efficiency improvements in private rented homes within six months of the passage of the bill, I strongly support improvements to energy efficiency in privately rented homes. The government has pledged to take action to stand with tenants and deliver the safety and security of warmer and cheaper homes. In February we published our consultation on improving energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector in England and Wales.

The consultation closed on 2 May and we are analysing the responses and expect to publish the government response later this year. I appreciate the intention behind the amendment as we recognise the important role that private finance will play in supporting the private rental sector to meet the proposed energy efficiency standards. We are currently considering the consultation feedback and options to further support landlords to make the necessary improvements to their the necessary improvements to their property. I believe the amendment is not necessary.

It's the information not necessary. It's the information and support including private finance to fund energy efficiency improvements in the private rented homes will be available shortly. homes will be available shortly. Therefore add -- I would Therefore add -- I would respectfully ask her to withdraw her amendment.
23:07
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
I thank her for her response and everyone who has taken part in this shop are -- short but to pay remarkably marked by passion. I was reminded of the stats I learnt probably a dozen years ago that British homes were in terms of energy efficiency the second worst in Europe behind Lithuania. I'm not quite sure how Lithuania has done in those 12 years since then but I know that we have made very little progress.

I'm just come to pick up a couple of points very briefly. The noble Lord Jamieson and indeed noble Lady the Minister talked about local authorities having enforcement powers are indeed enhanced enforcement powers but of course you can only take enforcement when you have the information and the data that enables you to know when to take action. Just guessing which might be the homes that aren't great isn't a really effective way to proceed. And I want to thank the noble Lady Baroness Grender for the Lib Dem support for this amendment.

And also for embracing Kirklees. Everyone wants to embrace Kirklees and really where we want to get is a situation where we can embrace every town and city in the country with the same kind of project particularly with those treated Street type arrangements. Just one final comment, the noble Lady Baroness Hayman spoke about the long-term policy certainty which might be of going I think in 2012 to the UK insular UK, it was the insulation industries annual expo and the whole industry was shutting down because the funding had disappeared.

And that boom bust, boom bust has been an enormous problem and we haven't mentioned yet but of course we are talking about a huge number of opportunities particular for small independent businesses in every town and city up and down the land. If we find the funding and if we find the data and the push to make it happen. So I will reserve the right to come back to this to technically look at the details but in the meantime of course I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your lodge is pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? By leave withdrawn. The question is that clause 134 stand part of the bill. clause 134 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. In
23:10
Lord Bishop of Manchester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)
-
-
content." The contents have it. In clause 135 amendment 260 The Lord Bishop of Manchester.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move amendment 260 standing in my name. The six to allow the 24-hour's notice allow the 24-hour's notice requirement for an inspection under section 239 of the Housing act 2004 section 239 of the Housing act 2004 to be served solely on the properties occupier. Proposing it I'm grateful to the help of the Greater Manchester combined authority, the work with local authority, the work with local authorities in my diocese to help to get me to this amendment. Local enforcement will be vital to making enforcement will be vital to making the attention of the Renter's Rights Bill a reality, including the extension of the Decent Homes extension of the Decent Homes Standard, however amendment is needed to the power venture that cancers account used to enforce the standard so the negligent or criminal landlords don't get a criminal landlords don't get a tipoff in advance of inspections that will allow them to frustrate their process or to put pressure on their process or to put pressure on the tenant.

Enforcement officers would never tipoff the proprietor of licence in advance of an underrated licence in advance of an underrated mystery shopper trying to buy mystery shopper trying to buy alcohol or cigarettes, but as currently drafted, this bill would require enforcement officers to give landlords a 24 hour tipoff to any formal inspection the compliance of the Decent Homes Standard. It comes from two Cass section 239, escapade appropriate to give notice to the occupier. It's their home, they are the ones who have made the complaint that has led to the environmental health officers or enforcement officers wanted to come round and have a look at it.

But why on earth do we give the landlord that 24 hours notice? Do we know already that way enforcement officers tell us where there is a requirement tipoff landlords, it allows criminal landlords to take on lawful countermeasures, these include things like forcibly removing tenants from an overcrowded property, pressuring tenants not to let enforcement officers into the home already taking retaliatory action. They can dissuade tenants from pursuing complaints, get them to withdraw complaints and indeed every reason why a tenant may not want the landlord know they've made a complaint at this early stage of the process.

Finally I'd urge that focusing the notice requirement on the occupier is consistent with the equivalent enforcement legislation, for example council enforcement officers, powers of entry and the environment protection act 1990 environment protection act 1990 includes no requirement to give notice for properties owner. Unlike the noble Baroness the Minister the noble Baroness the Minister Manor Castle who is he has just left us, I'm not a night owl. She did get to midnight and I still be here, to midnight and I still be here, these ecclesiastical robes were like Cinderella turn to rags.

So we can have their effective but brief debate on what is a clear proposal debate on what is a clear proposal and I hope the government, the noble Baroness will agree this is a timely sensible amendment. I beg to move. sensible amendment. I beg to move.
23:13
23:14
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
power of entry under T39F the Housing Act 2004. This would mean the landlords do not have to be told that their property is going to be entered for survey or examination. I would argue that the owner of the property should have the right to be informed that their property is going to be investigated by enforcement authorities and that the authority is going to exercise their power of entry into the property. That is the case as it stands now. And I believe that that is how it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should remain. At like to thank the right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At like to thank the right Reverend Prelate The Lord Bishop of Manchester for his amendment to 60 and the noble Baroness Lady Scott and the noble Baroness Lady Scott for her comments. This amendment to section 239 of the Housing act 2004 section 239 of the Housing act 2004 seeks to enable local authorities to inspect PRI's properties without the inspect PRI's properties without the need to give the 24 hours notice to property owners where the property is unoccupied but retaining the notice requirement for tenants.

Section 239 currently requires local authorities to provide 24-hour's authorities to provide 24-hour's notice to owners if known and occupiers before an inspection can take place. We are aware that the current requirement to provide property owners with 24-hour's notice enables some unscrupulous notice enables some unscrupulous landlords to hide evidence of breaches of PRS legislation to intimidate tenants, and obstruct inspections. We recognise the current notice requirement may in some circumstances into local some circumstances into local authority's ability to address tenants unsafe or hazardous living conditions, effectively.

While we support any efforts to improve local authorities ability to enforce against rogue landlords and appreciate that this amendment is in support of that objective, we do want to carefully consider any implications. We will continue to have conversations with the right Reverend Prelate with stakeholders and we welcome any Noble Lord to share their views on the matter so the government can take them into consideration, but for the reason of wanting to give this further consideration, I would ask the right Reverend Prelate The Lord Bishop of Manchester will consider withdrawing this amendment.
23:16
23:16
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
"Content". Of the contrary, "Not The question is clause 136 stand as part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Clause 261, already debated, Baroness Scott, not moved. Amendment 262, Lord Cashman,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thornhill. My Lords, I rise to move amendment 263 in my name, and kindly signed by Baroness Freeman of Steventon. My noble friend, Baroness Steventon. My noble friend, Baroness Janke, and Baroness Grender, will speak to their own amendments in speak to their own amendments in this group, and we will all aim to be brief due to the lateness of the be brief due to the lateness of the hour. All through every day of this committee stage, my Lords, there have been a series of common threads that have occurred regardless of the that have occurred regardless of the groupings.

One such thread is the uncertainty of the impact of the supply of homes to the private supply of homes to the private rented sector. We have had claims rented sector. We have had claims and counter claims, and the reality is that no one yet exactly knows what will happen, because this is a what will happen, because this is a genuinely radical bill. A subtheme, if I may call it that, is that there if I may call it that, is that there has been a plea throughout the bill for various aspects of it to be reviewed.

So, my amendment tries to reviewed. So, my amendment tries to pull these concerns together and provides the need for an honest, full and all embracing review. Presenting the Parliament no later than two years after the passing of the act. Two years seemed like a long enough time to gather data and to see trends, but not too long to make changes, if it were apparent that changes needed to be made. The proposals within the bill are so far-reaching, the legality is complex, and the regulations as yet largely unknown, awaiting guidance or agreement through secondary legislation.

At the impact of them could be extremely, and we hope, extremely positive in changing the rental market for the better. Or a total disaster. We have certainly had plenty of hyperbole, and tub thumping rhetoric to that effect. Or maybe it will simply be somewhere in between. This amendment tries to cover all the important key indicators as the explanatory note states. It requires that the Secretary of State to review and report on the impact of the act, on the private rented sector, including housing supply, rent levels, tenant security, regulator burdens within two years of its enactment.

It also helpfully suggests who might be consulted upon. But also helpfully leaves an option for whomsoever is deemed appropriate by the Secretary deemed appropriate by the Secretary of State. My Lords, I do not think it would be helpful at this time of night to expand on why each of these things is extremely important, but things is extremely important, but we know they are. And that is why they are listed in the amendment. So much so, which is why we would like to see some list or something very similar to base on the face of the bill.

I beg to move.
23:20
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Amendment proposed after clause 136, insert the following new clause suspended in the Marshalled list. -- As printed on the Marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, having an extremely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, having an extremely brief on everything, I beg the noble Lords indulgence on this particular issue which I think is extremely important. And I really sincerely important. And I really sincerely hope we make a bit of progress on it. Firstly, I want to thank the it. Firstly, I want to thank the renters reform coalition for the very hard work in this amendment. very hard work in this amendment. Indeed, for the whole of the bill. Indeed, for the whole of the bill.

And I think Baroness Lister of -- I thank Baroness Lister of Burtersett who strongly supported this amendment but was unable to be here tonight, whilst this was debated at tonight, whilst this was debated at the House of Commons report stage in its drafting, the original proposal its drafting, the original proposal was ruled out as not in scope of the legislation. This, therefore, is a new draft to reframe it as a review new draft to reframe it as a review of the impact on rents of this bill, so it has been redrafted in response so it has been redrafted in response to that feedback.

But to be clear, according to the Renters Reform Coalition, the likely projection of increase in rents is a direct result of this bill is limited to the net core cost to landlord to £12 per home per year, or 0.1% of the mean annual rents. But I will go on to explain why rents continue to be a problem, in spite of whatever the impact of this bill is likely to be, according to them. This amendment proposes the Secretary of State must, within 18 months of passing this act, establish a body to report on the impact of the act on rent levels in the private rented sector.

A report published under this section must include analysis of any changes in average rent levels, an overview of historic affordability of properties, and consideration of proposals for improving the affordability of properties in the report should include characteristics such as age, income, employment status, some of the context will be very clear to noble Lords. Private tenants have the highest weekly housing costs of any housing tenure, with lowest income tenants, in particular, often spending huge proportions of their income on rent.

An average rent to spend 34% of their household income on housing, compared to 19% for mortgage years, and 60% for up averages. One in three private rent to spend at least half of their monthly household income in rent alone. Nearly 30% of private renters struggle to pay their rent in 2022. struggle to pay their rent in 2022. , as a share of disposable income, is among the highest in Europe. An analysis from Generation Rent has shown not a single borough of inner London is affordable for roles across education, healthcare, social care, construction, retail, commerce, and hospitality.

Recent data released by zoo player showed that renting a new home is, on average, £170 per month more expensive than in 2021. Meaning that rents have increased more than £3000 annually, in just three years. An increase in housing affordability would enhance the government's objectives, for driving growth. New research from the Mayor of London, London councils, the trust for London, and G 15, shows that a 1% increase in house affordability, in this city, could yield a boost of 7.3 billion in economic output over a decade.

This research clearly shows that worsening housing affordability has a negative impact on productivity. My Lords, we welcome the fact the government is ending the bidding wars. But without also including something that acknowledges the issues of rent. This is a very, very small version, and modest, in terms of what it does to the bill. Rents will remain too high across-the-board as I know measures within this bill to tackle that issue. Already measures currently will be limited. The amendment stipulates that any report made would need to include proposals for improving the affordability of rentals in the private rented sector but doesn't prescribe what those policies should be.

A report of this nature is an invaluable opportunity to consider the factors which makes renting increasing increasingly unaffordable and wants to address this. This complicated issue will take time, given the various intersecting factors which contribute to the unaffordable nature of renting. The report could consider supply and demand in the private rented sector, the role and long-term future of local housing allowance. The shortage of social housing, the effect of various kinds of rent control and stabilisation methods, in comparison to nations, and the impact of introducing any kind of rent measures and our own preference would be rent smoothing, as we discussed several times.

Not meant controls. Any impact on rent prices, since the passing of the act and other relevant factors. In other words, this is not about being prescriptive but is about studying all the impacts on rent. The impact report proposed in this amendment would provide an ongoing mechanism for acknowledging the scale of the affordability crisis. It would provide an opportunity for the government to thoroughly assess the available evidence on affordability in England. This amendment, as I've said before doesn't commit the government to anyone policy or approach but it does aim to gather evidence and data and information in a way that currently is not, we believe, sufficiently gathered.

And neither does the renters reform coalition. It is also the opportunity for the Minister to commit publicly to further considering, perhaps, the noble Lady, the Minister, how to bring rents down in relation to incomes. And so, kind of, I will draw my conclusions, my remarks to a conclusions, my remarks to a conclusion. This amendment is simply conclusion. This amendment is simply seeking to strength what the government is already trying to do to improve the private rented sector, but without this piece, sector, but without this piece, there is something very, very substantial missing.

I look forward to hearing the noble Lady, the Minister's response. Minister's response.
23:27
Baroness Janke Portrait Baroness Janke (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to my amendment, 273, which would require a report within 12 months of the implementation of the act on its impact on BME and ethnic groups. I would first like to thank Race on the Agenda and Shelter for their briefings, the private rented sector has the highest number of ethnic minorities relative to others, 23% compared to 19% among social renters, and 8% among owner occupiers. Yet black renters are disproportionately faced with barriers that prevent them from securing a home in the sector, as compared to white renters.

Generation rent's 2024 survey of private renters around the UK reveals that minority ethnic renters were significantly more likely to face obstacles in accessing new tenancies. Racial minority respondents were almost twice as likely to have been refused a tenancy, when they intended to move home, with 12.5% reporting this experience compared to 6.3% of white, British or Irish renters. 7% of England's population are the AMT, yet in June 2024, 20% of homeless households were BME. 8% of households were living in poor conditions were BME, as against 3.5% identified as households.

It is very well documented that black groups experience wealth inequality, this experience wealth inequality, this mix is much more difficult for these groups to avoid rent increases, pushing them into debt with associated mental health difficulties that brings. Measures in the bill, such as banning discrimination against people on benefits and dissemination on families with children. Should help to reduce this carbonation against to reduce this carbonation against BME groups, as will the ending of bidding up of rents, and the restraints on upfront payments.

restraints on upfront payments. These are positive measures. I would like to end with a comment from Race like to end with a comment from Race on the Agenda, we note that though some revisions were made in the bill some revisions were made in the bill to address housing discrimination in general terms, there was a problem, as the bill has not converted a full racial impact assessment and does not sufficiently include robust measures to tackle racial discrimination in housing and homelessness. I hope in light of this, the Minister will embrace the this, the Minister will embrace the need for this review, and set out in this amendment.

this amendment.
23:30
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Baroness Thornhill for opening this group and introducing her amendment, 263. This amendment requires a Secretary of State to review and report on the impact of the act. On the private rented sector. Including the housing supply rent levels, tenant security and regulatory burdens within two years of its enactment. My Lords, from these benches, we do not support reviews for the sake of reviewing. I often consume time and public funds, and require precise delivery, in order to answer the questions they set out to answer.

However, this legislation proposes a significant risk to the market. Noble Lords across the House agree that we must protect tenants and ensure they have access to secure, stable, and decent housing at a fair price. And we have been clear, this bill does not deliver that. The government must review the efficacy of this bill and be held accountable for the decisions they have taken and insisted upon. To achieve this, we need a functioning market, with an adequate supply of good quality homes, to meet a growing demand.

My Lords, ensuring the availability of homes is key to making a -- Accommodation attainable and keeping rents affordable. Any legislation in this area must strike a difficult but essential balance between these competing interests. Only by getting that balance right can we hope to achieve an efficient and effective We along with many stakeholders with consulted belief that a review is necessary and that it should be before Parliament. Finally, turning to the amendments tabled in the names of noble Baroness render and Baroness Jenkin, I am keen to know whether the government is giving them serious consideration.

May I ask whether the Minister, ask the Minister how will the success of this will be judged? What does success look like in the eyes of the government? In our view, the fear and uncertainty surrounding this bill is already having a negative impact. On the first day of committee, I quoted figures from samples, and I will underline them once more. According to samples, the number of rental properties available on their books in quarter one of 2025 is down 42% compared to the same period in 2024.

That's 24% fewer homes for families, 42% less choice for people searching for somewhere to live. If the government is confident in the positive impact of the bill, what reason does the noble Baroness the Minister have for not reviewing its effects on the housing market. Specifically its impact on the availability of rental homes, rent levels, House prices and the demand for social housing. If this bill were to have a damaging effect on the rental market, surely ministers would want to know.

ministers would want to know. Getting this dance right is paramount, the difference between getting an accessible rental market and one that is suffocated. Is the difference between tenants being difference between tenants being able to find a secure and affordable home and landlords leaving the sector altogether. I look forward to sector altogether. I look forward to the Minister response.
23:33
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
At like to thank noble Baronesses Lady Thornhill, Lady Grender and Lady Jenkin for their amendments which proposed several different types of reviews. To the future act and the noble Baroness got for her comments, although I'd say to her I have to ask why we haven't got a functioning effective rental market. It's not as in government over the last 14 years. But I will start with amendment 263 tabled in the name of the noble Baroness Lady Thornhill which would introduce the legal requirement for the government to carry out a review of the impact of the bill on the private rented sector.

This review will be conducted and subsequently reported to Parliament within two years following the bills receipt of Royal assent. In particular requires a review to consider the impact of the bill on supply, rent levels, security of tenure and the burdens on landlords. Also prescribes the government consult with representatives of landlords, tenants and local authorities during the preparation of such a review. I know the committee shares my interest in the practical impact that this legislation will have on the private rented sector.

I want to reassure the committee that it is this interest which is at the heart of the government's commitment to monitor and evaluate robustly the impact of our reforms. Our approach will build on the Department's existing monitoring of the housing sector. Our process impact and value for money evaluation will be conducted in line with the departments published evaluation strategy. Our monitoring bag will make use of a range of data including the results of the English Housing survey, data from relevant stakeholders including local authorities and data generated from the reforms themselves.

We will also deliver an evaluation involving extensive data collection through interviews, surveys, and focus groups. These will be conducted with a range of stakeholders such as tenants, landlords, letting agents, third sector organisations, delivery partners, the court service and government officials. Monitoring data from existing surveys and new data produced by reforms or supplement these findings. I can also reassure the committee that the conclusions of our evaluation will be published in a timely manner in line with our broader policy for the publication of research.

This includes an interim evaluation of rapport and processes, early impacts on intermediate outcomes which we will produce in the early years after implementation. I hope this gives the committee confidence that the government's proposed approach to monitoring and evaluation is the right one, setting arbitrary deadline for this process as the moment tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Thornhill would do we believe represents an unnecessary step and on that basis I would ask the noble Lady Baroness Thornhill to withdraw her amendment. Turning now to amendment 270 in the name of the noble Baroness Lady Grender, the sector of state carry out a review of rental affordability in England with the report to be laid before Parliament within 12 months of the bill receiving Royal assent.

This amendment would require this review to be wide-ranging, capping the affordability of rents across both private and social sectors, the impact on tenants, regional differences and would also require specific assessment of the effectiveness of measures to control excessive rent increases and the uptake and outcome of the tribunal. As denoted the government is committed to very robust monitoring and evaluation of the private rented sector reform program. Will also continue to monitor trends across the industry as a whole using a range of data sources, including the evaluation office agency, rental prices data, the Office for National Statistics, rental price index and data from the English Housing survey and the English private landlords survey.

This will enable us to respond unexpected impacts or unwelcome outcomes and initiate appropriate changes where these are needed and with this in mind I hope the noble Lady Baroness Grender will withdraw her amendment. Finally tend to amendment 273 from the noble Baroness Lady Janke, which would introduce a legal requirement for the government to produce a report on the impact of the bill once enacted on different racial and ethnic groups in the private rented sector. I fully outlined at length our broader plans for assessing the impacts of the bill.

Regarding specific impacts on racial and ethnic groups in the sector, the department fully -- follows the national identity and religious guidance published by the Office for National Statistics, ethnicity statistics regularly collected and published at the Department about tenants and landlords to understand the demography of the private rented sector through the English Housing survey and the English private landlords survey. This data supports our continued compliance with the requirements of the Public Sector Equality Duty and wider government responsibility by contributing to the race disparity order.

It's also worth stressing that in keeping with the Public Sector Equality Duty, once the bill enacted the government marketing to have due regard to groups for related protected characteristics including race. On

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this basis I would ask the noble Lady to withdraw her amendment. Before she sits down, I was quite
23:39
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before she sits down, I was quite clear about, I understood the collection of the data, which I think is excellent, so we know think is excellent, so we know what's going on. But how is that going to be scrutinised by Parliament? Is that going to come in a report? And if it is, when is that first report going to come to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Parliament for scrutiny? I will write to Noble Lords, confirming the policy the confirming the policy the publication of research. But think publication of research. But think it's a matter publication and then the members to call it forward if they wish to scrutinise it further.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they wish to scrutinise it further. I thank her for that. And glad Baroness Scott because she failed to one of the things I was going to say. But she is absolutely right. -- say. But she is absolutely right. -- She pinched. We are coming from She pinched. We are coming from different positions about this bill. I think the fact that we are agreed on this and actually I think a summary of my amendment 263 said it summary of my amendment 263 said it all as to why we feel we need something on the face of the bill.

something on the face of the bill. If the government is confident in the way that it will monitor and the way that it will monitor and evaluate, then why not put something on the face of the bill? And as for on the face of the bill? And as for an arbitrary day, two years, you can come back whenever you like within that period, but by two years we have surely had some indication of trend. And I think that's what is bothering us.

It's the uncertainty and the radical nature of the bill, which we hope is successful. So we actually reserve our right to come back on this issue but I beg to move my amendment. Withdraw my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your place of this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 264 already debated, Baroness Thornhill not moved? Baroness Thornhill not moved? Amendment 2 65 Baroness Lister not moved. Amendment 2 66 already moved. Amendment 2 66 already debated Lord West not moved. debated Lord West not moved. Amendment 267 Lord Young of Cookham Amendment 267 Lord Young of Cookham not moved. And men 268 Lord Young of Cookham not moved and 269 Lord Young Cookham not moved and 269 Lord Young of Cookham not moved.

Amendment 2 78 of Cookham not moved. Amendment 2 78 -- 280 not moved. Amendment 2 71 Lord Cashman not moved. Amendment Lord Cashman not moved. Amendment 272 withdrawn. Amendment 273 Baroness Janke not moved. Amendment 274 Baroness Hayman not moved. 274 Baroness Hayman not moved. Amendment 275 Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb not moved. Amendment 275.A Baroness Whitaker not moved. That's it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is now 23: 41. We've made good progress on the scrutiny of this bill this evening. And have completed 13 groups of amendments. completed 13 groups of amendments. We have three groups of amendments We have three groups of amendments remaining. Given the hour, as agreed in the usual channels, I will now resume the House and return to resume the House and return to complete the remaining three groups after the second reading of the fraught error recovery bill fraught error recovery bill tomorrow.

I'm grateful for all the staff of the House you have stayed so late to support is denied. And on so late to support is denied. And on Monday. A particular want to thank the staff in the public bill office the staff in the public bill office for their work to facilitate proceedings. Also greatly appreciate all the work they've done and also other staff in the House, including other staff in the House, including the clerks, door keepers, attendance, catering staff and the Hansard reporters. I look forward to completing the committee stage of completing the committee stage of this important bill.

I beg to move the House do now resume.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary, "Not content." The I beg to move the House do now adjourn.
00:00
None Portrait Oral questions: Ensuring that technology and telecommunication firms contribute to the cost of fraud prevention and the reimbursement of victims of fraud that arises on their platforms
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page