Bills
Live Bills
Government Bills
Private Members' Bills
Acts of Parliament Created
Departments
Department for Business and Trade
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Department for Education
Department for Energy Security & Net Zero
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Department of Health and Social Care
Department for Transport
Department for Science, Innovation & Technology
Department for Work and Pensions
Cabinet Office
Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Home Office
Leader of the House
Ministry of Defence
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Ministry of Justice
Northern Ireland Office
Scotland Office
HM Treasury
Wales Office
Department for International Development (Defunct)
Department for Exiting the European Union (Defunct)
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Defunct)
Department for International Trade (Defunct)
Reference
User Guide
Stakeholder Targeting
Dataset Downloads
APPGs
Upcoming Events
The Glossary
2024 General Election
Learn the faces of Parliament
Petitions
Tweets
Publications
Written Questions
Parliamentary Debates
Parliamentary Research
Non-Departmental Publications
Secondary Legislation
MPs / Lords
Members of Parliament
Lords
Pricing
About
Login
Home
Live Debate
Lords Chamber
Lords Chamber
Tuesday 15th July 2025
(began 3 weeks ago)
Share Debate
Copy Link
Watch Live
Print Debate (Subscribers only)
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:36
Lord Dubs (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, My Lords, first My Lords, first Oral My Lords, first Oral Questions, My Lords, first Oral Questions, Lord Duncan.
14:36
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
opportunity and potential that the
UK soft power presents. The soft power council is advising Government
on how best to ship in you strategy on soft power. British Council reaches around 600 million people
globally, promoting UK values and interests. The BBC is doubled is
most trusted mobile broadcaster, the United Kingdom is the top
destination of study and research, with four universities in the world's top 10 and 17 in the top
100.
14:37
Lord Dubs (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, I welcome my Noble Friends commitment to the importance
of soft power. I wonder if, as a humanist I would be permitted to
quote something from the 1940s when
there was a question asked of Stalin about power for the church. In Stalin's answer was how many
divisions has the Pope? We are in a fantastically privileged position,
but we're going to lose it all if we do not put our full effort into
improving our soft power.
The BBC are losing out to Russia and China.
I beg the Government to do more with soft power. soft power.
14:38
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I must declare an interest as well as a humanist, but can I just say that I think that my Noble
Friend is absolutely right. But I do not think, actually, that the
importance of the soft power council is so essential because it is not
just restricted to UK Government, soft power is not just about UK Government action and only, although
Government action and only, although
that is important, it is about how we mobilise all elements of soft power.
By the way, in all the countries I have visited in Africa, every African name speaks to me
about one thing. And they actually
share my car on many occasions, I write in us. They talk about the
premiership. Its reach is massive. And what we should understand is that soft power is not limited to
the number of things that we talk about, it is about economics development, it is about economic growth, it is about education and
research.
14:39
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Is that Ministers are being in
receipt of a British Council grant to enable us to study at a Danish
university, does the novel of the Minister share my concern as to the
portability of English and British people to speak a foreign-language?
Is that something has department will look at to ensure there is more foreign-language teaching in schools? schools?
14:39
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Well, I agree with the Noble Lady, and in fact the work of the
British Council is to spread the English language. That has been the most important element of their commercial activity. But I also
agree that actually how we support the teaching of foreign-language
here is really important. I was in front of the Foreign Affairs
Committee this morning, making that exact point, that actually how we communicate is really important, but
do not forget, I mean, again, when I have been visiting countries those
that want that economic growth and development see English as a tool
for business.
They do not see it as a cultural issue, they see it as a way of growing their economy, having
English being taught in their schools. And, certainly, even in
Francophone countries, that is what they are telling me. they are telling me.
14:40
Baroness Coussins (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
What assessment has the Government made of the risk of further World Service radio closures
which might result in rush-hour China immediately occupying those frequencies? And wouldn't more
robust long-term Government funding for the world service be a sensible, protected measure against disinformation?
14:41
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Well, I think the Noble Lady is right. We should not underestimate the importance of the World Service and its reach. And, certainly, when
we set a target to reach 306 million people they have exceeded that
target, so we know how important it is, but the Noble Lady makes a
really important point. We need a fully funded World Service, we need
a long-term solution, long-term
sustainable solution. And we think that the upcoming BBC Charter review
is the right place to do that, and I hear what the Noble Lady says in terms of radio frequencies.
And,
certainly, any change to the
broadcasting radio facilities is subject to dialogue with the FCD.
14:41
Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Whilst soft power is, of course,
is vital instrument for advancing the UK values and global influence,
there is, of course, another side to it, so I want to ask the Minister what assessment they have made in
the ways in which such power can be used by hostile states such as
Russia, Iran, and China. And what steps the Government is taking to
mitigate the risks.
14:42
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I hear and I have think we have
had many debates in the House about
this and particularly in the use of social media and other forms of communication that have not been
mediated through journalism and fact checking, so the Noble Lord is
absolutely right. Obviously we need to take proper counter measures in
terms of security, that is what that national security review is doing,
and I know that the noble Lords have questions about that, but I do think the context and why think my Noble
Friends questions are so important,
they're actually being positive about our soft power, not actually seeing it as particularly about defence and security, but seeing it
about how we can spread our values and particularly supporting economic growth.
14:43
Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
Notwithstanding the report but one of the reasons why we are
amongst the top four soft power and
the reputation of the world has been very partnership the Minister has referred to because we have invested
in a strategic way to build those partnerships, especially through the BBC World Service, the council, and
to development and search for those and is the Minister not as concerned
as I am on the impact report today which says that the UK ODA will now
be at 0.24%, the lowest ever that
statistics have been compiled.
If we are to maintain our position in the
world will the Minister listen to
those that are seeing we need to invest in the bodies that have developed the partnerships that have
developed the partnerships that have been so successful over the years? been so successful over the years?
14:44
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I think my Noble Friend Baroness Chapman has answered these points, obviously they are part of a Spending Review, lots of decisions that have not yet been made, there
will be more detail in the coming weeks and certainly by November, but
I will repeat what I said before. Our soft power and certainly our
focus on economic development, though it is not the only tool in our toolkit, actually when African leaders speak to me and certainly
the global South, what they say they
want is not aid.
They say they want economic diversification. They want
inward investment. They want a value
addition. All of those things have delivered and our City of London is one of the biggest providers of
capital to African countries. It is those sorts of areas of soft power that we need to focus on. The partnership approach that we are
taking is that we are listening to
the constant and responding to it. the constant and responding to it.
14:45
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, I declare my interest as the vice-chair of the British
Council, as has been acknowledged, the British Council is a vital soft power interest for the United
Kingdom, so can I ask my Noble Friend the Minister to confirm that
his department is now actively engaged in how to alleviate the
COVID burden that was provided by the previous Government because
alleviating this COVID era is absolutely vital to securing the financial sustainability of the
council and its role in supporting British interests and power globally British interests and power globally
14:46
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
We are working with the British
Council to return the British Council to financial sustainability
and we are committed to a successful British Council that is financially
stable and funding over 116 million
in 25/26. I would just reassure my noble friend, FCDO officials are
working closely with the British Council, on a financial turnaround
plan. To ensure the financial, the British Council finances are return to a stable footing, so the council
can continue delivering the UK, for years to come.
14:46
Lord Howell of Guildford (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs is
entirely right to emphasise the importance of soft power. Can I add a note of regret, that Joe Nye of
Harvard, a strong friend of this country and behind much of that soft
power, died very suddenly recently.
We will miss him. The Foreign Secretary deserves some credit too.
He has brought forward the soft power council, to which he kindly invited me. The only snag was when I discussed it and when an emissary
came to discuss it with me, they were full of new ideas but they
seemed to have not won a vital idea that the far biggest soft bed and
fertilising power of the soft power in this world is the Commonwealth.
No mention of that in the initial report at all. I know the noble Lord
thinks quite differently, so could you take a message back to his
office and remind them that soft power under the Commonwealth to massive support for the prosperity
well.
14:48
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I am tempted to say I agree with the noble Lord, but then I'm in
danger of suggesting that are not in agreement with the Foreign Secretary. Let me be very clear, we
are at one. Because the Commonwealth is very important. We have a new
Secretary-General who is working, we are giving support to the Secretary-General, development and a
clear strategy, focusing on the best bits. As in the noble Lord knows, I do see the Commonwealth as a more than simply an Association of
than simply an Association of
governments.
It is about people. How we bring those people together, civil society, businesses and other organisations. The simple fact is
the Commonwealth adds value to business and economic development
and we are absolutely focused on delivering that in the future.
14:48
Baroness Berridge (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Second Oral Questions.
Paper.
14:48
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
How wonderful to go from the outer reaches of the world to
outer reaches of the world to
See, but that is the benefit of our House I think. Can I thank the noble lady for her question. She has a very personal connections with Rutland, I understand that the
government believes the historic identity, rights and privileges of
counties in England are extremely important and should be safeguarded and celebrated. There is no intention of that reorganisation will impact on a ceremonial rights
and privileges and we will ensure
they are maintained.
We wear specific provision is needed legislation this would be considered
as necessary to reflect the local circumstances, in each area. In Rutland I know the Minister has
provided a written assurance, to the MP and I have met with the leader of Rutland Council who will also arrange this issue with me.
14:49
Baroness Berridge (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank the noble lady further clarification that if legislation is
clarification that if legislation is
needed, she will protect county status. That will be given. I am sure the answer will be welcomed by the over 7,000 people in Rutland who
signed the petition that, about a
ceremonious status presented by Alicia Kearns recently. Could the noble Lady the Minister please
confirm that the timing of that legislation that is an issue that people from Rutland have raised with
me was that the unitary authority, but only when it is abolished, it will abolish ceremonial status.
That won't happen until primary
legislation has happened to status. Which legislation is envisaged that that issue would be within the scope of, please?
14:50
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
We are still in the process of
working with that local area, on
their proposals, for local government. We invited their proposals and councils in the area centres of their interim plans, in
March, and received detailed written feedback in June. At this stage, no
decisions have been taken, on those
interim proposals. So decisions will
be taken on that, in due course. The legislation, to enact the devolution proposals, just been introduced in the other place. As that proceeds
through, we will be considering carefully what the sequencing is, of any further legislation that is
needed in respect of these ceremonial boundaries, that we will want to protect and safeguard.
14:51
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
You are absolutely right that it
is a great tribute to the House of Lords, that we can look after the
interests of the 41,000 people of Rutland, the Lord of tenant and the 12 deputy tenants. Does she also agree that if President Putin and
President Trump did the same in their own countries, the world would be a better place.
14:51
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I think that is probably a
question of for my noble friend, Lord Collins to answer, rather than me. I think the point is that this
issue of the devolution will provide greater power and decision-making
, for all our local areas. I think
that is a benefit to all of us, in the country. I look forward to working with all areas including Leicestershire, red Leicester and Rutland, as we move these proposals
forward. It is a great project we are working on and the community
are working on and the community empowerment part of the bill is as empowerment part of the bill is as important as the English devolution part of the bill.
14:52
Lord Caine (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
50 years as one of the most unloved reforms of local government, in our history, given the changes
that are now taking place, as at the time not come to bring together the word county, from local government
administrative units and to restore, for ceremonial purposes, including by realigning a lieutenant seized, all of our historic counties, with their traditional boundaries,
including of course God's own county of Yorkshire.
14:53
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
We will want to see all power and
strength to Yorkshire. We wouldn't be without our Yorkshire tea, any of
us. It is very important. At the moment are local and government is
very engaged in not only doing local government organisation, also the devolution project. I think we will
consider whether any further realignment of ceremonial boundaries
as necessary and that there will be some areas where there needs to be further legislation on this, but I
think for the moment, we will work with local government to do the reorganisation and if the noble Lord
wants to talk to me further, about the West Riding or anywhere else,
I'm happy to have that discussion.
I'm happy to have that discussion.
14:53
Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
50 years ago there was a reorganisation of some of the great
counties of our country. Communities that had no previous relationship. In some instances were forced
together. What assessment has the government made of the success, of or otherwise, in creating a coherent, whole, from an artificial
14:55
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
You know, as the noble Lady will
You know, as the noble Lady will know I grow up in a new town, which when it was first announced, in
when it was first announced, in Hertfordshire, was not the most popular decision, that was back in 1940s. We have all worked together on this and now we have a very
on this and now we have a very coherent picture in Hertfordshire
coherent picture in Hertfordshire and people work with us and we are working on unitary proposals.
I
working on unitary proposals. I think there are always memories of historical areas that people want to retain and I think the answer to the
retain and I think the answer to the noble Lady's original question, set out that we do recognise, as a government, how important these
government, how important these ceremonial areas are. Some of them go way back in history and I think
go way back in history and I think we have got a lot to do to undertake
the local government reorganisation.
If there is any further reorganisation to be done, we can certainly consider it. I think there
certainly consider it. I think there is enough going on for the moment.
14:55
Baroness Eaton (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
is enough going on for the moment. These historical memories are really important to people. We should value them and treasure them. The history
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and heritage as part of our country. I declare my interest as a vice
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I declare my interest as a vice President of the Local Government Association. Rutland County Council is one of England's highest
is one of England's highest performing local authorities. Not least in the area of adult social. And Rutland residents have always
And Rutland residents have always felt very close to their Council and
to the elected members. And all
decisions have been made locally. With this in mind, can the Minister outline tangible benefits, for Rutland is of forcing this small but
perfectly formed Council to become part of the larger unitary authority
14:56
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
part of the larger unitary authority and what data has the Minister-based views on?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Firstly I would say there is no
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Firstly I would say there is no forcing involved here. We have put out and offered to submit proposals. We've had proposals back. I have met with all the councils in
with all the councils in Leicestershire and Rutland and separately with the Mayor of Leicester. There is a very strong
Leicester. There is a very strong willed, in the county to work together. They've been working very
together. They've been working very well together. We look forward to taking these proposals forward with
taking these proposals forward with them.
I hope that the reassurances, not only to Leicestershire, Rutland and Leicester, but to other counties
and Leicester, but to other counties in our country as well. The fact that administratively, they will be
that administratively, they will be working in a different, under different boundaries, that won't
14:57
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
different boundaries, that won't affect some of the historical links
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that they have between them. I've just been reading...
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I've just been reading... I think we do need... Next.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think we do need... Next. The English devolution at and I haven't got through the full 300
haven't got through the full 300 pages. I'm puzzled by the term community empowerment. It empowers
mayors and strategical authorities and gives mayors that the power to appoint up to 7 commissioners who
appoint up to 7 commissioners who are responsible for them. It cuts down the role of individual
councillors and the strategical authorities will be a very, very long way above the local
14:57
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
communities. Should we not cut the term community empowerment from this bill?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I strongly disagree with the noble Lord view on that. We want to
noble Lord view on that. We want to improve the engagement. This will create a fantastic role for
create a fantastic role for community councillors, to work with their local areas. We are very clear in the importance of engagement and of developing proposals were strong
of developing proposals were strong stable unitary councils are fit for the future. Including engagement
14:58
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
with local residents and stakeholders, members of Parliament, businesses and public service providers.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Can the Minister clarify, please, the anticipated timescale local government reorganisation in England
government reorganisation in England and also, can she indicate what
14:58
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
and also, can she indicate what elections, for what authorities are expected to take place in the next
year?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Government's starting point on elections is for all elections to
on elections is for all elections to go ahead unless there is a strong justification. We anticipate that the areas, except Surrey, Surrey is
the areas, except Surrey, Surrey is moving on a much faster timescale as
moving on a much faster timescale as the noble Lady will be aware. On the most ambitious timelines. They could be elections to the new unitary councils in May 2027, head of the go
councils in May 2027, head of the go live of new councils on 1 April On the most ambitious timelines.
They could be elections to the new unitary councils in May 2027, head
unitary councils in May 2027, head of the go live of new councils on 1
14:59
Lord Booth (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
April 2028. Third oral question, Lord Bruce.
14:59
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Third oral question, Lord Bruce. I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper. The OBR will produce a new
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The OBR will produce a new forecast for the annual budget, the Chancellor will take decisions based
Chancellor will take decisions based on that forecast. We were set out
Thank you to the level of the
Thank you to the level of the Minister for his answer, as much as I expected. The government has recently had its first anniversary and it has been marked by a series of U-turns. My question to the noble
of U-turns. My question to the noble Lord is this.
He uses persuasive powers to ask his Treasury colleagues to get rid of the jobs tax, making one further U-turn?
I'm not quite sure what taxi is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm not quite sure what taxi is
referring to. But absolutely not, because it is essential to stabilise
because it is essential to stabilise the public finances. It is essential
the public finances. It is essential to fund our public services. The party opposite welcomes all of the
15:00
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
party opposite welcomes all of the spending that we announced in the spending review, a few weeks ago. If they want the spending and they have to have the taxes to pay for it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
When the Treasury is considering how it is going to increase its revenue, can it give careful
consideration to the fact that UK graduates, repaying student loans,
graduates, repaying student loans, are already disadvantaged, in that
are already disadvantaged, in that they are paying 9% additional tax, above just over £20,000? To pay off
their loans. And here is an example. Student has spoken to me recently,
Student has spoken to me recently, who is young teacher, with an old- fashioned loan, the now only stands at £9000.
Through very careful
at £9000. Through very careful repayments. But is paying £64.51 p a
repayments. But is paying £64.51 p a month, in interest, on the loan.
Surely, there needs to be a situation and I would ask the level
of the Minister to encourage the Treasury to make student loan repayments, or at the very least
15:01
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
repayments, or at the very least their interest on them tax-
I am grateful to the Noble Lady for her question and based on a hypothetical I will not respect you later the next budget now but I do understand absolutely the issues
that she is raising and I am very happy to take those points back to the Treasury and back to Mike Colin.
15:02
Lord Bridges of Headley (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
With the noble of the Minister
have said several times in the chamber that the Government has no prison plans to introduce tourism
plan, will he reiterate the same plant against able tax was much of a
bed for the Noble Lord and I would start by wishing him a very happy
start by wishing him a very happy birthday. And I said what I have
birthday. And I said what I have said on tax. I not going to give a running commentary on fiscal forecasts, nor am I going to stick it on tax rises now.
As I have said, we are doing things in the usual
we are doing things in the usual way, and I would ask the OBR to produce a new forecast in the autumn for the budget that we will take decisions based on that forecast. decisions based on that forecast.
15:02
Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
Do you understand that today at the House the Chancellor will avoid the word tax and instead focus on pumping risk-taking into financial
services as the mechanism for growth? The financial crash of 2008
was entirely generated by risk- taking, all of it legal, allowed by
the regulation of the time and widely admired and never called to
account. Now, I can understand some of the streamlining of regulation, but since on every front safeguards
are being sliced away slice by slice, will the Government now issue
a summary of all of the safeguards both the Government and the regulators have discarded so that we
can assess whether or not we are repeating the past.
repeating the past.
15:03
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Will, the Noble Lady has speculated on a speech that has not been delivered yet, so perhaps we
should wait for that speech this evening to see what might right
honourable friend the Chancellor of
the Exchequer says in that speech. Absolutely, those of the Chancellor wants to see a greater rebalancing from risk to growth and I think that is absolutely right, but of course
we must make sure that we continue to regulate to avoid risk while we also maintain growth. also maintain growth.
15:04
Lord Watts (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
It seems to, the opposition seem to be suggesting that we actually
contact without finding a way of edging that gap. Does he agree with
me that just politics and economics
that we saw that Nelly brought the country to its knees seem to be there with the opposition?
15:04
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I do completely agree with my
Noble Friend on that point. Every time we hear from the party opposite they have opposed every single
measure we have taken to stabilise the public finances, and yet at no point have they opposed the spending
that has gone to fund. That is exactly the mistake that Liz Truss
made in her mini budget that sought mortgage payments rocket for working people that are still playing the
rice of the high mortgages and that is something we absolutely would do.
is something we absolutely would do.
15:04
Lord Dobbs (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I understand why the Noble Lord that Minister refuses to give hypotheticals on forthcoming tax,
but this Government did make a very clear commitment not to introduce
clear commitment not to introduce
taxes on working people. And it is very much like a fish on the end of a hook over the last 12 months trying to define what a working
person was. Perhaps they should have thought about the before they matter to clear and binding commitment.
Without being hypothetical, going
back, does he agree with the Chancellor, who during that election campaign defined working people, and I will quote it here, a working
person as working people that go out to work and work for their income.
There are people who do have savings who have been able to save up and
those are working people as well.
those are working people as well.
15:05
Lord Whitty (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
A working person as someone that
goes out of work and the Government has pledged not to increase taxes on working people and we stand by that which is why we are not increasing the income tax, not National
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Insurance contributions or VAT. The concentration on this question has been a national finance and national taxation, with the real crisis is in local authorities of all descriptions, all parts of the
all descriptions, all parts of the country, and all under control, it is a finance of local authorities. Does the Government intend to look at the basis of financing local authorities so it can introduce a
15:06
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
authorities so it can introduce a robust scheme before the end of this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Parliament? Well, I'm grateful to my Noble Friend for his questions and in
Friend for his questions and in terms of council tax there was a Introduced by the previous
Introduced by the previous Government intensified %, councils do not have to increase council tax of 5% per under the rules they cannot increase it by more than 5%
15:07
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
cannot increase it by more than 5% with the local referendum, that remains the position. Well, the Treasury team, when the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, the Treasury team, when the Treasury team are working together to prepare the budget model they
consider looking at so Geoffrey Howe's budget of 1981 which was delivered in very similar economic
circumstances to today. It was, at the time, the most unpopular budget
in my political lifetime, but it was also one of the most successful
because it paved the way for recovery with growth and lower inflation and rising living
standards. Does he think the present Chancellor has the courage to
concentrate on the public interest and the medium-term health of the
economy? Or will they be obsessed by rather reckless promises in the
manifesto or short-term reactions in
manifesto or short-term reactions in
15:07
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Well, I grateful to the Noble Lord for his question and his expertise. I think that budget did
create the deepest recession in British history, so I do not know that we would necessarily want to follow it in its entirety. I think that history is on my side here. But
absolutely. If you have the courage to do long-term reform, I think she
to do long-term reform, I think she has shown that absolutely she has.
15:08
Lord Wigley (Plaid Cymru)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords.
Government heard that and will they take notice of the first Minister of Wales? Wales?
15:08
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
We always listen carefully to budget representation, but as I say, I will not speckling the next budget now.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The fact is that we are all to close to a fiscal and economic crisis, much of which this
crisis, much of which this Government has created debt interest
Government has created debt interest is now a substantial proportion of departmental expenditure, productivity is flatlining, and by
productivity is flatlining, and by 28/29, the tax burden will be at its
28/29, the tax burden will be at its highest level in this country's history and does the Noble Lord the Minister recognise that further tax rises are not passed sustainable
rises are not passed sustainable recovery and will he affirm that he recognises taxing people and taxing
businesses ever more heavily undermines our productive capacity and further reduce the growth we all
15:09
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
want?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
She has a rather selective memory and seems to have forgotten about
and seems to have forgotten about the last 14 years but she is quite right in what she sees in the most sustainable way is to grow in the economy. And the last fiscal event
economy. And the last fiscal event the OBR score in the panic reforms
was the biggest increase to growth of any non-fiscal measure and we
15:09
Oral questions: The Competition and Markets Authority’s investigation of seven major housebuilders regarding information sharing
-
Copy Link
hope very much that they will continue the growth measures and that is, she says, the most sustainable way of those finances.
15:09
Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
Fourth Oral Questions.
standing in my name on the Order Paper. Paper.
15:10
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The housing market can only thrive when there is fare over competition and it is fair when this
competition and it is fair when this
is not the case. And they were right to highlight the areas for improvement in the market and that is why we have responded to their
findings about delivering a system that works in the public interest. The hundred million pounds additional funding would mean more
families can benefit from a safe and secure home and to answer the noble
Ladies point about information, several companies highlighted in the CMA report they have agreed to work
with the Home Builders Federation and homes for Scotland to develop
industrywide guidance on information sharing and not to share certain types of information with other
housebuilders, including the process houses are sold for, except in very limited circumstances.
15:10
Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
I think the nobility for her
answer. There could an alternative version to this. Major housebuilders
pay 100 million to halt the CMA investigation into potentially
illegal collusion through the sharing of competitive and sensitive information that could have inflated
house prices. Minister, while the settlement might appear a pragmatic
and cost-effective solution, would it not be more useful to have some
evidence led answers about whether or not business models of the major developers is a significant factor
in the slow delivery of housing? And therefore shouldn't the Government
insist that CMA actually completes its investigation? Rather than allowing the financial settlement that obscures the fact and
definitely looks dodgy.
definitely looks dodgy.
15:11
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Well, I would say that the CMA is continuing its work on this because on 9 July the CMA announced it is
consulting on the recent intention
to offer by the housebuilders in relation to the investigation and that consultation closes on 25 July
and I have already set out some of the commitments that the companies have made, but the £100 million
payment, the largest secured through commitments from companies under investigation will be split between
affordable housing programs across all of our four nations and I hope
that will make a significant contribution to delivering the affordable housing that we all want to see.
15:12
Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
The traditional markets authority
confirms the hundred million payment for competitive activity stuck in
the Noble Lady the Minister give an assurance that none of the affordable homes to be built with
that money will be billed by the volume of housebuilders responsible for this activity? Otherwise they will simply get their money back.
will simply get their money back.
15:12
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I think the Noble Lord makes a very good point and I sure that the Competition and Markets Authority as
part of the consultation will be looking at the best way of distributing that money so that it is not just recycled to the people that caused the problem in the first place. place.
15:12
Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
Irrespective of the areas of the hundred million pounds being taken
by the CMA and the 7 million hospitals, with the noble Baroness
the Minister agree that we should be reducing and indeed eliminating our dependency, as a nation, on a small
oligarchy of major housebuilders? We need more variety, we need a semi builders doing more, and we need the new development corporations set up
that arm's-length to local authorities by mayors and combined
of who can replace our dependency on a very small handful of large-scale housebuilders who, I an afraid, will
always let us down stop always let us down stop
15:13
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Well, I have much sympathy with what the Noble Lord is saying, and he has great expertise in this area,
so I recognise that. I would say that our focus is on creating more
balanced and competitive market overall by addressing the systemic barriers that prevent SMEs, and
others, from delivering more homes, and we are taking action to support
SMEs across the three main challenges that we know that they face. That is access to finance, access to land, and an uncertain and
on complex planning system, so we have announced two immediate
packages to support buildout and SMEs fire the £100 million a semi
accelerated loans and measures to support decisions on smaller sites which I hope we will.
15:14
Lord Rennard (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
The payment of £100 million towards affordable housing is only
about 3% of the operating profit of
the five biggest housebuilders this year. Is this a relatively small penalty for them to pay for anti-
years?
15:14
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Well, as I already commented, this is the biggest settlement that has ever been achieved by the CMA.
Of course, we could always do with more money for housing, and we have
to consider what is appropriate in these circumstances, I am sure the
CMA has done that, but this will, undoubtedly, make a significant contribution to delivering the affordable housing that we all want
to see, and I sure that the CMA will continue to watch the market very carefully to see the changes that
are introduced as a result to make a
difference that we know we need.
15:15
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
UK GDP fall by 0.1% in May with declines in the industrial output
and construction dragging down the overall performance. What communication has the noble Baroness
the Minister had with the construction industry to ensure that
not just major housebuilders as we have heard but also our important
SME housebuilding sector, what supporter she giving them to grow
rather than to stall or regress, as
they are at the moment? Particularly, I have to say, in the context of the government's housing
context of the government's housing context of the government's housing
15:16
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
A set out already in the action were taken to support SMEs, the £100 million in accelerator loans. We are
working collaboratively with all stakeholders, including a large
developers and including the setting up the major sites, accelerator,
which is helping to unlock some of the sites we know have been held up, in the process. There is a lot of
work being done, with both the Home builders Federation, with the industry, with the development
To make sure that alongside our reforms to planning and
infrastructure delivery, we are moving this on as quickly as possible.
It will make the biggest contribution to growth, as Lord Livermore has just said. We know that is what is going to get our country going again.
15:17
Lord Aberdare (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
About support SMEs. Is the
government also looking at other issues, SMEs and the construction
sector, such as poor payment practices and cash protections. practices and cash protections.
15:17
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I understand these issues around
slow payments and there is a long ongoing issue. I do think we have to continue to look at all of the
barriers to SMEs, as we go through this process of trying to speed up, the housing delivery, in this
country. Without removing some of these barriers, we won't get, we have got this ambitious total of 1.5
million, we want to deliver that. We need to make sure we are unblocking all of the areas that are causing the problems in the system.
15:17
Lord Kamall (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
The Minister has rightly talked about the barriers to SMEs and
smaller developers entering the market. Talking about some of the barriers they face and stop one of those issues identified is planning
to put departments. What conversations has the Minister or Department had to come up with some of the smaller housebuilders facilitating the conversation to ensure that they are able to
understand some of the complexities and get their development through planning.
planning. Of skills capacity planning departments hasn't been a real focus, for this government, since
focus, for this government, since last July when we were elected.
We know that that is one of the areas we need to support local authorities. We have put larger sums
authorities. We have put larger sums of money into it to create 300 new skilled planning roles, in a local
skilled planning roles, in a local government. And to improve the pipeline of planners, coming through, as well as addressing some
of the other skills industries, in
the sector, which we know are critical, to delivering this. And the other point I will just mention is the Building Safety Regulator,
lots of developers have mentioned that aspect as well.
The noble Lord may know that we have made some very may know that we have made some very rapid changes to the Building Safety Regulator and that has been moving along very quickly now.
15:19
Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
What is the government doing to
encourage the lack of skilled, to have more skills and expertise which
I gather is lacking.
15:19
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The nobility is quite right. The
age profile of some of the skilled
workers in the construction sector
is higher than we want it to be. We have put £600 million in to improving skills, setting up a new
technical colleges. 10 new technical colleges, so that we can encourage
young people to take up trades, in the construction industry. It is a very exciting industry to be in, so I hope they will follow that through. We also trying to encourage
some of those who are getting closer to retirement age in the construction sector to take on roles as trainers of ER very young people
so that we are passing on those skills from the generation from the older generation to the new
**** Possible New Speaker ****
generation. That concludes Oral Questions for
15:20
Business of the House
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That concludes Oral Questions for Message from the Commons, they have passed the deprivation of citizenship orders, affected during the appeal bill, to which they desire agreement of the Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
desire agreement of the Lords. Deprivation of citizenship orders affected appeal bill, go to move
**** Possible New Speaker ****
affected appeal bill, go to move this Bill is now read a first time. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary,
say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The Lord Privy Seal.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Lord Privy Seal. I beg to move the motion in standing in my name on the Order
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Paper. The question is that the motion to? 10. Of the contrary, "Not
to? 10. Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. This may be a convenient time for any make members who wish to leave the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Further Further consideration Further consideration on Further consideration on report of the Renters' Rights Bill,
15:22
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness Taylor Stevenage. I beg to move that this bill be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
now further considered on report. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
"Not content". The contents have it. Before we start the bill, the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Before we start the bill, the first group on declaring interest for the final time. As we sit
for the final time. As we sit previously noble Lord to declare relevant interest at each stage of
proceedings on a bill. The first contribution on report stage, noble Lord must declare any relevant
financial interests in a specific brief way. Declarations do not need
to be repeated in subsequent speeches, so that if a declaration has been made report already, it does not need to be made again.
Whilst I have the the attention of
the House. I'd like to remind noble Lord that repressing or withdrawing
an amendment. Set out in 8.7.9 B an amendment pressing on withdrawing an
amendment should be brief. It doesn't need to respond to all the points made in the debate. No points
are made from moving the amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Due to an error amendment 86,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Due to an error amendment 86, which is a really been debated does not appear on the marshalled List
and has not been disposed of. I will therefore begin by calling amendment 86, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb? Not moved? Not moved. We now come to clause 41 amendment 87, Lord Keen of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Ealing. Could I begin by referring to my interest, as recorded in the
interest, as recorded in the register and add that I am the proprietor of properties in London,
proprietor of properties in London, that are the subject of tenancy agreements, which are managed by an agent. In this group, we have
agent. In this group, we have amendment 87. And 88, in similar
amendment 87. And 88, in similar
terms. Amendment 87 deals with clause 41, which can be found on page 58, line 4, of the marshalled
page 58, line 4, of the marshalled List.
My Lords, it concerns the right of a local authority association to pose financial
15:25
Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
association to pose financial penalties. It concerns the burden of proof upon that authority, in
proof upon that authority, in respect of those penalties. I take leave of your Lordships to put this
leave of your Lordships to put this into context. Beginning with clause
into context. Beginning with clause 41, of the bill. Which can be found
41, of the bill. Which can be found at page 58 of the bill. It provides the local housing authority may impose a financial penalty, under
impose a financial penalty, under this subsection, on a person, if satisfied, on the balance of probabilities that the person has
probabilities that the person has breached a requirement and that it refers to regulations made under
refers to regulations made under section 40.
Again, if we go to
section 40. Again, if we go to clause 58, of the bill, at page 90,
it refers to a local housing authority, being able to impose a financial penalty, under this subsection, when a person is
subsection, when a person is satisfied on the probabilities that
satisfied on the probabilities that the person has a breached a
the person has a breached a probation, in clause 57. If we going to clause 67, which can be found at
109 of the bill.
We have a provision
that a local housing authority, again, may impose a financial penalty, on a person, if satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that that
person has breached regulations. So, again, regulatory offence. Then a
significantly different burden of proof based upon the same local
housing authority. And again, if we
go to clause 92, page 126 of the bill. It provides that again, a
local housing authority may impose a financial penalty on a person, if
satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that they have reached a requirement
imposed by section 83, monetary three, certain regulatory
requirements that they be imposed.
We find ourselves in a situation,
which a local authority is to be imposing financial sanctions on landlords, for breaches of regulations and yet, depending upon
which regulation is referred to, the
burden of proof shifts between the balance of probabilities and beyond
reasonable doubt. The first point I make is that there is clearly a need for some sort of uniform standard,
in this legislation. What on earth
is a local authority going to do when faced with the prospect that there may be multiple breaches of regulations, but different standards
of proof applied, in respect of whether or not they can find a breach.
It produces a nonsense
result. And indeed, in circumstances
where, a local housing authority is entitled to impose a very serious financial penalties, amounting to
thousands of pounds for breaches of regulation, it is, I suggest, only appropriate that the relevant
standard of proof should be that, in any criminal proceedings, beyond
any criminal proceedings, beyond
The risk not only of confusion, because of the different standards applied, between different regulations, in the legislation. The very real risk of wrongful penalties being imposed.
In circumstances
where a local housing authority thinks that there may have been a breach regulation, it is in the balance, but we think there probably is, so we will find them £7000. With
regard to the next breach regulation they say, it is in the balance, we can't possibly propose any kind of
financial penalty. It is really a
nonsense. It also, I respectfully suggest, it raises the question of fairness and proportionality. Is it
truly fair that we should have one set of regulations that can be met by way of a breach on balance and
another where it requires a proper standard of proof, namely beyond
reasonable doubt.
It also is going to place pressure on local housing
associations and their resources. Are they really equipped to distinguish between those two standards of proof? As between the two sets of regulations. Overall, my
Lords, I do seek to move amendment
87, to amend, in respect of clause 41, the reference to a housing
association proceeding on the balance of probabilities and substituting, therefore, the requirement for the standard to be
beyond reasonable doubt. I note that in respect of amendment 88, I seek
to make the same amendment, in order
that clause 41 and clause 58, of the bill, with regard to the housing association, through breach of
regulations, are brought into line with the provisions of 67 and clause
**** Possible New Speaker ****
move. Clause 41, page 58, line 4, leave out on the balance of probabilities
out on the balance of probabilities and insert beyond reasonable doubt.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and insert beyond reasonable doubt. I am speaking to amendment 104,
15:30
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am speaking to amendment 104, in my name in this group and in doing so I declare my interest, is a trustee of the nationwide
trustee of the nationwide foundation. Firstly-I thank my noble friend, Baroness Taylor Stevenage for the excellent meeting we had together, with the noble Lord, Lord
Cromwell and rental groups are safer rending, Acorn and the Renters (Reform) Bill coalition. Can I thank
my honourable friend for the letter she said responding to the points raised at the meeting and for the
additional conversations between her officials.
Amendment 1046 to
standard standard of proof required, based on offences under the protection from eviction act. Currently tenants must prove their
case to a criminal standard, beyond reasonable doubt even though these
are civil proceedings and a tribunal. This change will make rent payment orders a realistic option
for renters, who are victims of illegal eviction and harassment, serious offences that cause immense
harm. As we know, most illegal evictions and harassment occur
behind closed doors, without witnesses. I appreciate my noble friend Baroness Taylor Stevenage recognises that these offences are
hard to prove, harder to prove than other offences.
The available
evidence rarely meet the criminal standard, but may clearly satisfy the civil standard of the balance of
Claims already use the civil standard and can carry far higher
penalties, the definition of legal eviction and harassment in the Housing Act 1988 uses the same
definition as in the protection from eviction act for all intents and purposes there is no distinction
between the conduct targeted by both laws, aligning the standard
inventory payment cases with inconsistency, fairness, and a real
access to redress.
The problem is clear, research shows that at least 16,000 illegal evictions occurred on 21, 22, yet there were only 31
successful rent repayment orders made. This shows the current system
deters value claims and does not provide a realistic route of address
provide a realistic route of address
for renters. It is vital that tenants can enforce their rights against criminal landlords, yes, it is a small minority of landlords, but their criminal landlords whose impact on renters lives, health, and
well-being is immense.
As we heard at committee, because the rent repayment is affected, these
criminals gamble on breaking the law, knowing how hard it is for tenants to prove their case.
Amendment one of the make justice more attainable for renters and allow them to take a leading role in hunting landlords to account. I know
from my Noble Friend Baroness Taylor of Stevenage that is competent on this issue and to Lord Cromwell that the Government is my did not to
change its view on the standard of proof at this point.
Of course, this is disappointing, however, I do very much appreciate my noble friend's acknowledgement that rent repayment
orders are not currently working as well as they should be and
harassment offences, as well as my noble friend's commitment to monitor the impact of that repayment order changes, this is very welcome.
Collecting the right data will be required to assess whether rent
repayment orders are working as intended in cases of illegal eviction and harassment after this Bill becomes law. Moreover, I very much welcome my noble friend's commitment to continue to work with
noble Lords and stakeholders to assess whether rent repayment orders are working for a legal harassment offences with a view to potential
changes down the line.
I wonder,
therefore, if I can ask my Noble Friend can we now start gathering the evidence needed to assess the
scale and impacts of the problem? And what my honourable friend noble
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage consider in addition to the report are set out by Lord Cromwell and Lord Best amendment 113 which I very much support, would she consider
publishing PRS enforcement data, provided by local authorities, to
include a record of a number of reports of suspected illegal eviction or harassment received by
the authority so that we can get a better authority of the scope, the problem, mandating local authorities
to provide the Department with enforcement data instead of data reported as in voluntary so that we
can get eight more competent and
complete data set.
Work with the Ministry of Justice to collect and publish regular data on rent repayment orders to facilitate
monitoring the system and respect the volume and success of applications alleging illegal
eviction and harassment. And, finally, as well as the issues renters face, access and redress
through a rent repayment order since
2012 there has been an 80% reduction in illegal applications for bringing cases of illegal eviction and harassment in the civil courts,
harassment in the civil courts,
therefore could I ask my Noble Friend Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
if, at all possible, could she assist me in safer renting, and other noble Lords, getting a meeting with the Minister, or an official of the MHA to discuss the availability
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of legal for civil cases involving legal eviction and harassment. It is a great pleasure to be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It is a great pleasure to be followed the Baroness Kennedy and to
15:35
Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
followed the Baroness Kennedy and to discuss these issues and to discuss amendment 110 my name and I'm very grateful for the support of the
grateful for the support of the
noble Lords and between them they have brought unsurpassed knowledge of policing and housing matters
which are both very relevant. I am also grateful to the organisation
safer renting and Acorn for their
assistance in highlighting the need for this amendment, and, of course, to the bill office for its clear and
effective drafting.
This amendment is distinct from others in the group as it does not deal with standards
of proof as they do, rather it addresses as I outlined in second reading and Committee stage the
difficulties faced by those at the
bottom end of the rental market and the most risk from abusive landlords. It is these people, the
economically and socially vulnerable that are the most likely to face illegal and sometimes forcible evictions. They are often also the
least equipped to resist such behaviours.
A core problem that emerged in discussions with tenant
organisations is insufficient clarity of understanding about what
the protection from eviction 1977 act requires of the police. There is
a widespread and incorrect belief
around police officers that illegal evictions are civil matters. This
has resulted in a timely number of prosecutions and indeed statistics
show that the police have not acted in 91% of cases. I do not want to stretch the House as patients with
detailed case studies, but three quick examples would give colour to the type of incidents we are concerned about.
A tenant returning
to their flat offender landlord had changed the locks, and when the police were contacted, they
threatened to arrest the tenant for obstruction of the landlord, actually assisted in the removal of
actually assisted in the removal of
the tenants belongings. In other cases, tactics such as the landlord turning off the water supply,
intimidation as well as threats and actual use of force were applied. Tenants calls to the police with told this was a civil matter and to
call back when an actual crime was being committed.
In other cases, tenants actually went to the police station but were turned away
repeatedly on the basis that such evictions are a civil matter. At
Committee stage I put down an amendment to clear up this misunderstanding with the law and also to improve coordination between
the police and local authorities. This did not gain Government
support, and I find that very disappointing, not least given the avowed focus on those most in need
of help in this bill. The Government respond did address the coordination
point, setting extra work from the police and the incidents in Liverpool whether nobility the
Minister has personal experience with such coordination working well.
Tenant bodies involved reflected on this statement before us today met with the Noble Lady the Minister and
I received a copy of a letter from the Noble Lady the Minister afterwards. I am of course very grateful for the Noble Lady the Minister's considerable engagement.
But the letter does not address the role of the police for stopping
illegal evictions before or as they happen. Where does refer to the substance of today's amendment, it
says that the abolition of section 21 will, and I quote, strengthen the tenants ability to argue that they were unlawfully.
Of their homes. With the greatest of respect, that
With the greatest of respect, that
is very widely the issue here. If the convicted tenant ever managers,
or indeed days, or can afford, to bring a legal claim against the landlord who put them out on the
street. We are dealing here with landlords who care little for the niceties of the law, people that the
Noble Lady the Minister refers to
as, I quote, a small minority of scrupulous vandals, but we have repeatedly been told the purpose of
this bill is exactly to tackle these unscrupulous landlords.
This report
stage amendment has dropped reference to local authorities and focuses fully on the core legal
issue. It requires a report to establish a level of understanding
of tenants as to the criminal nature of the convictions. Clarification of
what the correct legal situation is, and incorporation of that legal position and how it should be dealt
with into the training of the
police. This is a modest amendment, but critical for those facing or
experiencing illegal evictions.
Those that feel powerless in the face of the violent actions of their landlords and those who find that
the police seem to be against them when they should be protecting them and, not least, for police officers
themselves who are trying to follow and apply the law and to do the
right thing. And I ask the Government to bring forward to address this issue and they have
chosen not to do so but instead, chosen to say that they are, and I go scrub working towards updating
the departments guidance.
That is simply not sufficient when we have the opportunity, one of the few in this bill, I must say, to address a real and terrible day-to-day
experience from honourable lenders. And I believe that we should stand firm, these requirements are clear,
deliverable, and highly impactful
and most in need of our help to the bill and I will, of course, listen to what the Minister says in response but I anticipate seeking a
view of the House in this amendment. view of the House in this amendment.
15:41
The Earl of Kinnoull (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
I rise to talk to amendment 87, 88, and 103, which I have signed. I
should have my thanks to the Noble Lady the Minister for with me and
quite a few others on the bill and having always been courteous to those points of view. The origin of
these amendments was that they were originally drafted by the noble and learned Lord, the late noble and
learned Lord, the late noble and
learned Lord Atherton and to look at the efforts in this area I had signed them at Committee stage, the amendments had been taken over and
introduced indeed by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Etherton viewed
these amendments, the selection of amendments, as being his efforts to try to manage the cross eyed
judicial process and he was looking
at it, of course, having been there with very practised I and he was
fully knowledgeable on the various large civil penalties that are
around in the housing and planning act, 2016, for which the Ministry of
community and Government issued a 20 page memorandum in order to help local authorities to this particular
maze of the judicial process.
The
problem, as he saw it, was for local authorities it could not be a noble
playing field and that the best local authorities had plenty of resources that were highly trained and could look into because I judicial themes in great fairness
and promptly, promptness being important for both sides of any argument all around. That the local
authorities whose resources were very stretched or who were at the bottom end of the quality scale were
going to reduce problems and we felt that in this area it was important
not to set the law so that it would be for the best local authority for
the local average authority to
settle at eight reasonably modest rate, no one, therefore, that every local authority could execute, with fairness, whatever the issues were,
because I judicial issues were to deal with.
Therefore, on amendments
87, 88, which are about the standard
of proof, he was keen that it should move from balancing probabilities to beyond reasonable doubt, and he felt
that was more in keeping with how
the housing in Planning Act 2016 had turned out. He noted that in that
act and moving on now to amendment 103 in that act there were some quite large penalties, £30,000 which
I suppose, £40,000 penalties we see
in this bill, at the moment, simply to £30,000 that have been grossed up
He was not worried, necessarily, but the £40,000 as an amount of money but it was consistent with the
£30,000 as he saw it, but he was worried about the fact that under the housing in Planning Act 20 £16- £30,000 penalties were only
available for offences where the mental element was intentional, and
were not available for offences where the element was recklessness.
And, of course, it is the great
difficulty in the North for deciding what the difference is between
negligence, recklessness, and intention. It is very much something
that in the judicial process great deal of training goes into try and
allow courts and judges to be utterly consistent up and down the land so that one has clarity for
negligence, clarity for recklessness, clarity for intention. And his feeling was that
recklessness is very difficult and what is a 20 page memo for the housing in Planning Act 2016 is
going to be a considerably longer one if one is going to try to
educate local authorities in what recklessness truly means.
He was
very keen to remove recklessness from the clause in amendment 103 and
I would be very grateful to hear from the Noble Lady the Minister
where she feels that the late noble and learned Lord was wrong in his
**** Possible New Speaker ****
analysis at that point. My Lords, I rise to support Lord
15:46
Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I rise to support Lord Cromwell in his amendment and to add
Cromwell in his amendment and to add my name. Sadly, I do think he is right, the place has not had
sufficient knowledge against the law changes. I suspect the reason is because they tend to be infrequent
If you think their complaints are
not going to be listened to, they
don't tend to make them. They have not kept pace with the law as it is changed and the needs of
complainants.
Traditionally the police to get involved, even when it was a civil dispute, usually to
prevent violence. A tenant I have access to a firearm, so there will
be work to make sure that firearm was removed from the scene and things could not get more serious.
It seems to me this is a reasonable step. The amendment of the committee stage, a country that level of
support, there was a danger, all this is trying to do is try to
establish the problem of what can be done about it.
The police are to actually perform their duty. The
risk is that they are not. There may
or may not be acceptance, but there are fairly straightforward ways in which could be helped. All the
expectorant Constabulary, he does go and investigate every force of the year. It was part of one of the
things to look at. Ink about it. The tenants to have a single point of contact in the force, so the
contact in the force, so the
expertise, it is one person or two or three people, a department, were
able to apply this knowledge and put officers on the street.
I think there would be helpful. To carry on as we are do not think is fair. It is not fair on the tenants and where
there is a problem, if Parliament
decide this is a criminal act and the police have a role to play in that. I support this amendment, it is a reasonable step and I think if the government don't accept the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment, how are they going to address the gap? I rise to briefly support
15:48
Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
amendment 110 in the name of Lord
Cromwell and Lord Hogan-Howe. I'm grateful to safer renting, the Renters (Reform) Bill coalition, for bringing this matter to our attention. I noble friend have noted
that this is a milder and more focused version of Lord Cromwell's
amendment, debated at the committee stage, calling only for a review of
the legislation, that covers the duties of the police, in respect of
illegal evictions. Although the amendment places are very modest obligation on government, namely
simply to publish a report on the position.
This would be a good first step, towards addressing a highly
It is It is clear It is clear that It is clear that the It is clear that the laws, It is clear that the laws, against illegal and sometimes violent evictions are not being enforced. We see from the statistics that there were 16,000 illegal evictions in
2022/2023 and the police do not act in over 90% of cases. The underlying
problem is surely not because of any malice, on the part of the police officers, but because of ignorance, of what should be done and of the
priority which it should receive.
A report which this amendment will elicit, will clarify matters and make the recommendations that are
needed to end wrongful and criminal practices, by the very worst of
landlords. I'm delighted to support the amendment.
the amendment.
15:49
Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
Thank you. Amendment 87, 88 and
106, as we have heard seek to raise the burden of proof to that of the criminal standard, beyond all reasonable doubt. From the civil
standard, in all probability. We aim to do this consistently, across the bill. In the next group, on
financial penalties, all those amendments seek to lower the amounts
of money and enforcing council can find the landlord. This group and
the next to me a heads and tails of
the same coin.
Seen together, both sets of amendments seek to considerably help landlords, by raising the standard of proof for an
offence and to lower the flag if
they are in breach of it. We believe it is a very naked attempt to tilt the balance, massively in favour of
landlords, in a dispute with the Palo balance is already heavily in their favour -- power balance and to
deter tenants from complaining and taking action. We do not agree with
anything that undermines two of the
First 1st to act as a deterrent to bad landlords and we come from these benches keep saying, as does the
Minister, good landlords have nothing to fear, from this bill.
And certainly not from this aspect. The fines have to be tough enough and
the burden of crew prove appropriate to -- Civil offence. To bring them
in line with similar penalties the CANB in force. Already against landlords that breach legislation. I
want to look specifically at the amendments. I think the forensic
legal are of Lord Keen and another are looking in a particular way. I look at it from the unintended
consequences for tenants. So 87,
higher in the burden of proof can actually relate to families claiming
benefits.
Refusing to rent to someone, due to them claiming benefits is unlawful. However, with high demand, this form of discrimination is actually really
hard to prove. It is often based on verbal, rather than written
evidence. This amendment would therefore make it so difficult significantly more difficult for
recipients of benefits to hold their landlord to account, for this
discriminatory practice. Similarly, amendment 88, relates to bidding
wars and is absolutely right that this bill will ban bidding wars is up too often renters are pitted
against each other, for a home.
Driving up the cost of renting, in
the process. It is already a very hard to prove, without making it even harder, by raising the burden
of proof. In increasing that
standard of proof, it makes it significantly more difficult, for a local authority to enforce the ban
on bidding wars and especially, due to the nature of the evidence, in
such cases. As for 103, it relates to the database that the bill
intends to set up now. Noble Lords
will know from committee stage, I am
a database believer.
However, without the right data and information it risks losing its
utility, for all tenants, prospective tenants and local authorities. And this amendment will provide landlords with a lovely loophole. That they could
potentially exploit. It will be very difficult to prove that the landlord
did have a knowledge of the breach they committed and therefore would allow landlords to contravene the new regulations, without fear of
enforcement. I do acknowledge the complexity of this amendment and look forward to the noble lady the
Ministers response.
To us, all of
these amendments seek to undermine the protections, for tenants, so we are very much against. Let's turn
and be positive. Turning to
amendment 104, in the name of
Baroness Kennedy. The noble Baroness has explained this issue and the situation very clearly and we
support her fully. In fact, this is a really positive move. Amendment of 104 would reduce the burden of
proof, the rent repayment order, where illegal eviction, hence the
connection to Lord Cromwell's amendment has taken place, on the balance of probabilities.
This is
important, as they are beyond
reasonable doubt is the criminal standard. It is just too hard, at the moment, for tenants to
successfully get justice. And cases regarding illegal evictions and harassment are typically really hard
to prove, to the standard, as in far too many cases, where evidence is based on the word of the applicant,
it is practically impossible. A rent repayment order is not a criminal
prosecution. Cases are settled in
the first-tier property Tribunal.
It does not follow criminal procedural rules. There is no criminal sentence, or criminal record, for the respondent. There is no illegal
aid available to rent repayment order claims and thus applicants are often self represented, with little
help and no legal expertise. Which is again, why the high criminal burden of proof is so inappropriate,
for this kind of action. It is virtually a nonaction. As evidenced already, by the low numbers of rent repayment orders that are ever
brought. But we also need to consider the very serious
possibility, that with the abolition of section 21, there will be a more
illegal evictions.
Therefore it is important that a bigger deterrent is in place. This needs to be changed,
from the balance of probabilities. It is really important not to confuse criminal and civil offences
and their parallel burdens of proof. Which takes us neatly to amendment
110, in the name of Lord Cromwell, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Best. A
formidable trio. It would take a lot
of political will, Minister, to withstand their arguments. So 110
clearly, should the noble Lords wish
to test the opinion of the House.
We all know from all the arguments in committee, that less than 1% of illegal evictions are successfully
prosecuted. And a major part of the problem is exactly, as has been enunciated, the police these things
as a civil matter, or even worse as
this landlord. Even though it is a criminal act, they refuse to get
involved with it at all. I cannot
think of anything worse than getting illegally evicted from what I
believe is my home, with my family.
There has to be a greater awareness and more training, which is the aim
of the amendment. As this view seems to be shared by many important bodies, it gives it real credibility.
15:57
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Keen of Ely and Lord Cromwell. Lady
Kennerley Cradley, for their amendments. I thank the noble Earl
Kinnoull cover for his comments and of course we will miss the late Lord Etherton very much. And very
grateful to him for the way he did on this. Thank you to Lord Hogan
Howe and Baroness Thornhill and all the tenant groups are taking time to speak to me about the amendments, in
this group. Amendments 87 and 88, which require local authorities to
meet the criminal rather than civil standard of proof when imposing
civil penalties for rental discrimination and rental bidding breaches.
The standard of proof we
have chosen for these breaches is lower than that, which applies to the imposition of financial
penalties, for breaches of other measures, brought in by the bill. This is because, unlike those other
breaches, rental discrimination and rental breaches cannot lead to a criminal offence, if the conduct processes. Breaches of the rental
bidding and rental discrimination
requirements cannot result in a landlord being prosecuted, or given a civil penalty of up to £40,000. They are only subject to the lower
£7000 maximum penalty.
This means that the jeopardy for landlords, in
relation to those breaches is significantly lower than for others in the bill. I would also like to
point out, I hope the noble Lord finds this reassuring, the local authorities already impose a civil penalties, on the civil standard of proof, in other legislation. For
example in the enforcement of agent
redress requirements. My view since committee has therefore not change, I consider it appropriate local authorities need to prove these
breaches come into the civil standard, on the balance of probabilities, rather than the criminal standard, beyond reasonable
doubt.
On amendment of 103, the PRS Database depends on landlords
providing accurate information, to raise standards, protect state tenants and support local authority enforcement. Retaining the reference
to recklessness and the current wording of clause 93 is essential to achieve this. By preventing
dishonest landlords, from submitting. Misleading information.
I would like to reiterate that there were Baroness Thornhill, good landlords have nothing to fear, from
this legislation. Recklessness is not a simple mistake, it involves
taking an unjustified risk and this wording is consistent with other
similar offences, including offences under the Housing act 2004.
Under which local authorities already make
prosecutions. If we required proof of knowledge, in every case, it
would have a number of repercussions. It will make enforcement far more difficult, allow an scrupulous landlords to
evade accountability, compromise the integrity of the PRS Database, there
by undermining our goal, in this bill, of raising standards and
ensuring tenant safety. A bigger disproportionate response, given the
safeguards and resourcing I set out
at committee. By way of reminder, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt helpfully asked how a landlord who was alleged to have committed an offence, by a local authority could appeal.
I explained that there are safeguards,
if a civil penalty is issued, the landlord has a right to make representations to the local
authority, as well as a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal, which would then determine, on the
evidence, whether the applicant
acted recklessly. It would be for the magistrates court to decide whether the accused has been reckless. The noble Lord also asked whether local authorities would have
resources, required to enforce and
administer this. I can again confirm the government is committed to funding a New Burdens, rising from our assessment of the financial
impact of the bill.
And that the income from a set penalties will
also be available to local authorities to use for the enforcement activity. It is appropriate for a serious offence to
remain committed to recklessness, without requiring proof of knowledge
we have accounted for this, and our plans to resource local authority enforcement, accordingly and allow
16:03
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
right of appeal for landlords. Amendment 104, this amendment will reduce the standard of proof that
reduce the standard of proof that needs to be met, for rent repayment orders, from criminal to civil. When applied to the illegal eviction and harassment offences. The government
harassment offences. The government is quite clear that illegal eviction and harassment are unacceptable and perpetrators need to be robustly
perpetrators need to be robustly
perpetrators need to be robustly published. That is why we are giving local authorities the power to enforce civil penalties of up to £40,000, for illegal eviction and
£40,000, for illegal eviction and harassment offences.
I would like to thank my noble friend, Baroness
Kennedy for her help and engagement on this. And a very useful discussion we had. As the noble
Baroness knows, I am very sympathetic to the intentions of this amendment. Currently illegal eviction and harassment, too often
eviction and harassment, too often goes unpunished as we have heard from Baroness Kennedy and other noble Lords. There are too few rent
repayment orders for these offences. I do have several concerns. Rent
I do have several concerns.
Rent repayment orders are effective because they provide a significant financial deterrent for landlords,
from committing certain offences. An incentive for tenants to take action, when the landlord breaks the
action, when the landlord breaks the law. Lowering the standard of proof to distort the clear link between the severity of the events and the skill of the penalty. This could
lead to inconsistency and predictability and decisions,
undermining the regimes ability, as a tool for both punishment and
It now is that these offences are
difficult for tenants to prove that the Government will be publishing
new tenant facing rent repayment order guidance which will include
information about how together the
right type of evidence for these type of offences.
The Government considers rent repayment order to be a critical part of the private rented sector enforcement system and
we are very keen that we will work as well as possible for illegal
eviction and harassment. My Noble Friend Lady Candy raised important questions about the availability of
data on illegal eviction and harassment rent repayment orders and
the availability of legal for these
offences. We have introduced a new duty in clause 1.10 of the bill to require local authorities to provide the Government with information about the exercise of their
functions under landlord legislation and this includes the act 1987.
This duty will be used to mandate the
provision of data by local housing
authorities from 26/27, currently undertaking a voluntary data collection to help refine the data
we will require and we expect data returns to include information on
complaints received from tenants and enforcement action taken in relation
to illegal eviction and harassment. We are also committed to working with safer rent and others monitor the effectiveness of rent repayment
orders, in punishing and deterring illegal eviction and harassment in the new system and we will consider
whether further changes are needed.
And these are already publicly available online and we will work with the Ministry of Justice and HM
Courts and Tribunal Service and discuss how we can make this data more accessible. Free, not means
tested legal advice is available to housing advice service for people at
risk of possession proceedings, loss of home or illegal eviction. And
they would be very happy to pass on
to the Ministry of Justice, so to
monitor rent repayment orders effectively in the system and consider whether further changes are
needed.
Turning finally to amendment 110 from the Noble Lord Cromwell,
again, can I thank him for his continued engagement throughout the
course of this bill and other
measures in the chamber and beyond and I believe the aims of the amendment can be achieved without
further legislative intervention and
in a more timely and efficient way.
And the Government agrees that those responses for illegally evicting tenants from the home should be met with robust enforcement action which is why we have given local authorities the power to issue
authorities the power to issue
And up to £40,000 as an alternative to prosecution.
The Government is already actively working with colleagues in the Home Office and the police to ensure how we might increase awareness and enforcement of illegal eviction offences and we
hope this collaboration will improve awareness around police powers
relating to the small minority of landlords that would seek to illegally evict a tenant. We are
also working with local authority stakeholders to understand how they
can work effectively with the police to enforce convictions of this will be used to identify best practice for joint working to help inform the government's approach and to the
Noble Lord I think his point about
its majesties Inspectorate is a good
one, back in a distant life I was Chief of Staff and I remember the inspection process very well and I think they make a good point about
that and I would pass the suggestion
on to Home Office colleagues.
Beyond this, the Government is updating the illegal eviction and harassment guidance as Noble Lord have made
reference to. We want to make it clear that illegal eviction is a criminal, not a civil offence, and
tenants that have been illegally evicted may call the police that have the power to prevent illegal
eviction and this guidance has been developed in collaboration with a wide-ranging stakeholders from across the sector and the examples
given by the Noble Lord Cromwell and other stakeholders when I met with
the renters bodies clearly illustrate how important ongoing
work on this will be, but I do hope that these commitments I have made today provide some reassurance, and with this in mind I would
respectively ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am obliged to noble Lords for
16:08
Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
their contributions to this debate. And I would make a number of
observations. First of all, I sympathise with the observations made by the Noble Lady Baroness Kennedy about the conduct of Doshi
identifies as criminal landlords, but before someone should be
stigmatised and identified as a criminal, they should be guilty of
an offence that leads to them being
stigmatised as criminal and that should not be done on the balance of probabilities. The relevant standard of proof with regards the
criminality is beyond these no doubt and, indeed, where there is
uncertainty about whether our conduct is civil or criminal, I
believe the normal Lord Cromwell, it is important to ensure that either you can make that clear distinction
or that you understand that the
relevant standard of proof must be that which is fair to both parties.
And I have to disagree with the
noble Baroness when she suggested it difficult to prove a case you should
reduce the burden of proof. The
consequence of that, if developed, very wide-ranging indeed, and we note there are many areas of
criminal prosecution where it is extremely difficult to secure a conviction but no one would suggest that it is appropriate in these
circumstances simply to reduce the burden of proof.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Given that we are not talking about the comment offences, we are talking about civil offences, and
talking about civil offences, and given the power imbalance of a landlord and tenant, with the Noble
landlord and tenant, with the Noble Lord at least accept that by
Lord at least accept that by lowering the burden of proof you are
lowering the burden of proof you are actually allowing the tenant to feel that they might have a voice? That you are empowering them to feel that they could, possibly, bring
they could, possibly, bring something? Otherwise, what your amendment is effectively doing is saying we'll do not bother, the burden of proof is too high, so please carry on with your poor
**** Possible New Speaker ****
please carry on with your poor behaviour. This is civil conduct and behaviour. I do not accept the proposition advanced by the Noble Lady at all.
advanced by the Noble Lady at all. In circumstances where you're going to stigmatise someone's conduct as
to stigmatise someone's conduct as criminal as the Noble Lady Baroness Kennedy pointed out, it is
Kennedy pointed out, it is appropriate that it should be a relevant standard of proof and you are not taking away anyone's voice in that context. Can I come on,
in that context.
Can I come on, briefly, to deal with the helpful communications that the Noble Lady the Minister and in particular to
the Minister and in particular to welcome her observation that inconsistency and legislation
undermines the regimes credibility
and that is very much the point here and that is we cannot accept as accurate her suggestion that you can
distinguish the provisions in clause
41 and in clause 67 and in clause 58 related provisions of the bill on
the basis that the latter lead to greater jeopardy, and, as she put it, could result in a criminal
offence.
And then I merely remind
noble Lords of what clause 67 and clause 92 actually says. Clause 67
sees that a local housing authority may impose a local penalty on a person if satisfied beyond a
reasonable doubt that the person has breached regulations under section
65, that is not a criminal offence, that is a breach of civil
regulations. And, again, in clause 92, a person commits an offence and
the person knowingly, sorry, the local housing authority may impose a financial penalty on the person if satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt
that the person has reached a requirement opposed by section 83,
won two or three of the bill.
That is not a criminal offence. Again,
what has been underlined here is actually the very point that the Noble Lady the Minister wanted to
avoid. The inconsistency in the legislation which is liable to undermine the regimes credibility,
and it appears to me that there is a need, if nothing else, for
consistency with regard to the obligations imposed by this series of provisions. And I would, therefore, moved to test the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment the House. The question is that amendment 87
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that amendment 87 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", the question will be decided by division stop I will remain on my feet until
stop I will remain on my feet until the voting is open. Voting is now
16:13
Division
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The question The question is The question is that The question is that and The question is that and 87 The question is that and 87 be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the
opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents will go to the right by the
contents will go to the right by the thrown the not contents to the left
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment The question is that amendment 87
They They have They have voted They have voted content They have voted content 237, They have voted content 237, not
They have voted content 237, not
They have voted content 237, not
My Lords, the My Lords, the question My Lords, the question is My Lords, the question is that
amendment 88 be agreed? As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content".
Of the contrary, "Not content". The
contents have it. Amendment 89? Lord
contents have it. Amendment 89? Lord
My Lords, give me a moment as My Lords, give me a moment as I My Lords, give me a moment as I move
this from the backbenches.
16:24
Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Amendment 89 is in respect of
clause 59 and addresses the question of penalties for this proposal in
terms of revision, which is, at
present, proposed as £40,000. The
amendment is that that should revert to the same level of penalty for other provisions in the bill of
£7000. On the basis that the figure of £40,000 are simply excessive. I
should say, if we are going to have enforcement, in regard to the
various provisions within the bill,
again consistency and uniformity is to be welcomed.
It does seem that in
the context of the regulatory obligation, as pertains within
clause 59, in the appropriate level,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
it should be £7000. Amendment proposed, clause 59,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed, clause 59, page 92, line 18 currently about £40,000 and insert £7000.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
£40,000 and insert £7000. The issue, in this group of amendments on the financial
16:26
Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
penalties raises the very important point, on how local authorities are
point, on how local authorities are
informed of landlord breaches and in a position to impose financial penalties. Without that My Lords, there can be no imposition of
financial penalties. This issue has
already been raised, and our last debate by Baroness Thornhill and Lord Cromwell, relating to police
failures. A major thrust, My Lords, throughout this bill is to curb, or
rather optimistically to stop rogue landlords acting illegally.
We need
therefore to realistically identify who are the rogue landlords. It may
sound trite, but they are rogues and
they have every intention to exploit the law to their benefit, or ignore the law altogether. Therefore it is
no good to labour financial penalties, unless the landlord
breaches are identified and brought to the notice of local authorities,
so that financial penalties can be applied. Under this bill, there are
commendable new schemes, being set
up.
Firstly, the private rental sector (Ombudsman Scheme) (Fees) to secondly, the private rental sector
database scheme. Thirdly, the
private sector rental payment orders, otherwise known as TROs. --
orders, otherwise known as TROs. --
PR oh. They rely on landlord
breaches being reported. Moreover,
if these breaches are reported, through the ombudsman, it is doubtful if the ombudsman, this
entirely civil procedure has any right to report on the landlord breaches to local authorities. The
major potential reporter is the
wronged tenant but history shows that wronged tenants are very reluctant, for obvious reasons to
report their landlords.
The answer
therefore must be to legislate sensibly for matters of that would be most effective against rogue
landlords are not penalising lawful
and honest landlords. I have to say I claim respectfully this is where
this bill fails. Taking the 12 month plan and putting properties again on
the market, after failed sales or a
failed occupation, after evictions
failed occupation, after evictions
won a. Landlords will exploit this procedure, taking other stakes and this will not, I suggest provide any effective deterrent to the rogue
landlord.
I do suggest, as my noble Lord will remember that the much
better way and focusing on the wrong
that is being sought to be put right, namely landlords raising
rents, after failure of sales, or
failure of family occupation.
Arising out of that I suggest that the much sensible at and much more
the much sensible at and much more
directed focus is to ban or rent pieces at all, right across the market after abortive sales reported
family application.
Since this is a
simple across-the-board revision, we will find it much more difficult to
act in breach. Remember my account, My Lords, of the landlord having a
sort and obtained eviction of a tenant, in order to put his parents
into the property and then one of his parents then has a stroke and
are unable to enter the property and that the landlord is then left with
the inability. The penal result of
12 months against putting the property on the market and are being
quite unable to collect a much-
16:33
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Driving Driving honest Driving honest well-meaning
Driving honest well-meaning landlords out of the market, not because of any wilful negligence,
because of any wilful negligence,
but out of fear. I would like to thank my noble friend, Lord Keen of Ely for leading this group, from the backbenches today and for bringing forward to considered amendments to
forward to considered amendments to the attention of the House. This group continues our discussions in committee, as we remain unclear on
committee, as we remain unclear on how the scale of the fights have been determined.
Frankly, they
been determined. Frankly, they appear to be armed, with no transparent methodology, or
transparent methodology, or rationale behind them and we would welcome clarification from the Minister, how are these amounts are
Minister, how are these amounts are determined? And why were these particular values chosen. Without a
clear explanation, it is difficult to support their inclusion in the bill. Turning now to amendments and
98 and 99, My Lords. These amendments seek to clarify that
fines should only be issued for persistent breaches.
Including this,
on the face of the bill, would provide a much needed reassurance.
It will make clear that significant penalties will not be levelled for the first offence. That is
especially important, when many landlords may not be immediately
aware of their new obligations. Either those are set out in this legislation, or those introduced later through regulations. Imagine,
My Lords, and landlord renting out a cottage, for many years in rural Wales. They are entirely unaware of this bill and the proceedings of
this House.
They do not register on any new database, not out of malice,
My Lords, but because they simply do not know what is required. Is it
right that they should face a steep fine for this? Surely not, that is
why the word persistent must be on
why the word persistent must be on
2-AG report -- To assure this is a
fair and proportional. Example I have given more defined, the discussion will be used, enforcement
will be reasonable.
My Lords, one assurances are not enough, we need
to ensure this protection is guaranteed in all, not simply assumed in guidance or left to
future interpretation. We need this clarity on the face of the bill and
without it, the risk remains the well-intentioned landlords, those
that may simply be unaware of new requirements could still find themselves facing this portion of
penalties. -- Disproportionate penalties. If the landlord cannot accept this premise we must embed
this protection clearly within the legislation.
And then I regret to
say we would be minded to test the opinion of the House. My Lords, the
noble lady was so quick.
16:35
Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
I was trying to get my thoughts, I will be very brief, I think from what I said in the previous group,
it is pretty clear we will be opposed to anything that lowers the fines. What I would like to point out, I'm a little bit concerned
about the attitudes about coming up towards local government, particularly from the noble Baroness
Scott from her own experiences. But local authorities do have experience and expertise, they employ lawyers and solicitors, and the nature they
can apply fair unfortunate responses to enforcement across a range of
things and they do it with
consistency and uniformity.
There is almost a sort of infantilised of local authorities, as if they are
wanting to grab lots of money from lovely, nice, well-meaning landlords. One cottage in a very little village. I just don't see that happening, Baroness Scott, I
really do not. I do see that enforcement across a range of things, even when we are doing
things like parking, if we are changing parking, we put a little
notice on the windscreen, saying next week you will get fined if you park here. Local authorities do have guidance and standards they would
like to adhere to, and I guess there
like to adhere to, and I guess there
is the order rogue authority and landlord.
But we want to have things pinned down so local authorities can have no discretion about what they
do. The second thing is this Bill is bold and radical and has new things
in it that have to succeed. The database, for example, has to succeed. And if the fine is not
enough to actually deter landlords, then it will be ineffective and one
of the real tools that I think is transformative about this will be
transformative about this will be
taken away from them.
So, I think we have to trust local authorities to do that. I would doubt whether many
40,000 would happen, and that is why
we are also calling for reviews, and this would be part of looking at
that, but I certainly do think we need to give local authorities higher financial penalties, because
I think I am quietly confident that local authorities would not be taking it out on the uninformed
landlord. And also, there is something fairly patronising about that. There is so much information
out there, so many lobbying groups from the landlords, that it would be very surprising if they were not
aware that there were some changes
and that there weren't.
If they were astute enough to be a good landlord,
they would be astute enough to note that this big Renters' Rights Bill might have some impact on them. But we won't be supporting any valve
that reduces the ability of councils
to impose higher fines.
16:38
Lord Carrington (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment, I want to concentrate on a slightly different aspect of this,
which really comes up as a result of the intervention of the noble Lord
Hacking, and in remarks made by Baroness Scott. The noble Lord
Hacking has referred to the fact
that the rogue landlords are going to ignore whatever we put in this bill, and that may well be the case.
I hope that he is not accurate in
this.
Baroness Scott, however, has mentioned however there are people in Wales, who will never have heard this bill and are expected to
conform by the provisions of it. So, my question to the Minister, which
covers both aspects of this. Can she come at some point, whether it is
now or later point, tell us about the implementation of this bill so
that everybody understands how the bill works and avoid going to court
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and all the other matters. I thank the noble Lords, Lord
Keen ovale, Lord Cromwell, and the
Keen ovale, Lord Cromwell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for the amendments. Starting with amendments e.g. Nine, 92 and 101, the said amendments would reduce the maximum
amendments would reduce the maximum civil penalties for offences in relation to illegal eviction.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
relation to illegal eviction. I thank the noble lady, the Minister, for thanking me but I haven't actually spoken to this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment. I think someone must have assumed you were going to, Lord Cromwell,
16:40
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
you were going to, Lord Cromwell, but I apologise. So, with my
For these reforms to be effective, of course, they must be enforced robustly and fairly, our approach to civil penalties is fundamental to
this, landlords who commit first time a minor non-compliance would be subject to civil penalties of up to £7000, however, for serious and complete non-compliance, landlords
would be subject to civil penalties of up to £40,000. The principles
that local authorities can propose civil penalties for housing offences
is well established, since they were introduced in 2017, civil penalties have proved an effective enforcement
tool, and I do agree with what the
noble Baroness Thornhill says, I don't think we need to question the professionalism of local authorities, in dealing with these matters.
They are more than well-
versed in exercising legal duties, and have legal professionals to
support them. It is important to emphasise that £40,000 will be the
maximum, not the norm. Local
authorities will need to have clear rationale at the why they have set a civil penalty at certain level, and
apply aggravating and mitigating factors. £40,000 will only be available for landlords who
committed serious or complete non-
compliance. Failure to sign up to the database, for example, will only carry a penalty of up to £7000.
Local authorities will be able to
impose a penalty of up to £40,000, however, if the landlord continues or repeats his conduct, after being
given an initial lower penalty. Considering whether to issue a local penalty, local authorities are
required to issue a notice of intent, built the note is the noble Baroness Thornhill mentioned about
parking. Allowing time for landlords to make representations. The local authority will need to be satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, the landlord had committed an offence.
If the landlord disagrees with the imposition of the amount of penalty, they will be able to appear, appeal
to the first deal tribunal.
This approach to civil penalties ensures
efficiency for local authorities, protection for tenants, and fairness
landlords. As noted in committee, we will also publish new guidance to help local poet's wish to civil penalties, with greater consistency
and effectiveness. Turning to amendments 98 and 99, the name of the noble Baroness Scott, she raised
the issue of the scale of fines. Increase the maximum civil penalties to take account of inflation, since
the £30,000 and £5000 maximum were
introduced for similar housing offences referred to earlier.
We want to ensure the deterrent value of civil penalties is maintained. As
I have stressed before, the maximum
penalty amounts. Of course, local authorities will need to take into account a number of factors, such as the culpability of the landlord, and
the harm caused to tenants in determining the appropriate level of the civil penalty. And I would comment on the point about the
comment on the point about the
single landlord in the depths of the Welsh countryside. Lord Carrington's point, housing is devolved in Wales,
so it is a different matter in Wales altogether.
These amendments would require there to be persistent
breaches. Amendments 98 and 99. Certain provisions in clause 83,
offences under clause 93, before the
local authority could find an individual. I appreciate the noble Baroness's is acting in good faith, but they would have significant negative consequences for the
effectiveness of the database. Under these amendments, individuals could
avoid penalties for failing to
register or knowingly or recklessly provide false information to the database regulator, to name two of the relevant provisions, unless they did so consistently over a
protracted period.
For the database
to be useful, to users, it is important that as many landlords as possible register with the service, indeed, as the noble Lady, did
herself at committee, it is essential the accuracy, completeness, and timelessness of
the data is to be maintained if it is to be a useful resource for tenants and landlords, to which I
also add local authorities. I fear these amendments could discourage regulation and produce the quality of the data recorded by watering
down the threshold to which financial thresholds will be
opposed.
It would be unfair to those good landlords, the vast majority of
good landlords, the vast majority of
them, who would comply with regulations at the outset, could escape sanctions for periods of time, disadvantage the compliant
landlords this bill intends to support. I do recognise the noble
support. I do recognise the noble
Lady is trying to protect landlords from being unduly punished, therefore, I hope she is reassured the level of fines at the maximum level, rather than the standard,
local authorities must also be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a requirement under section 83 has been breached, or an offence
under clause 93 has been committed before they can impose the fine, moreover, new guidance will be
published in new due course, to help local authorities with consistency and effectiveness.
Finally, turning
to amendments 100 and 102, these amendments would reduce the maximum civil penalties farmers who fail to comply with their responsibilities in relation to the new Private
Rented Sector Database. Our introduction of the national PRS Database is fundamental to enhancing
the experience of tenants, improving local authority enforcement and helping landlords understand their
legal obligations, it is therefore vital that landlords comply with the
requirements active entries and accurate information to the database. The maximum penalties, and
again, I want to stress these are maximums of several thousand pounds for less serious breaches, and
£40,000 for more serious offences, apply across the provisions in this
bill.
Having a lower penalty regime for non-compliance with the database requirements would reduce the
deterrent effect and send the wrong message, it would run counter to our aims for consistent, robust and
proportionate system, for the whole private rented sector. That's not fair on tenants and not fair on good
landlords. So, for the reasons I set
out, I would kindly ask the noble Lord, Lord Keen of Ely, and Baroness Scott of by Brooke consider
16:47
Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank those who have contributed and the noble Lady for
her explanation with regard to the financial provisions irrespective of
financial provisions irrespective of
which we seek amendment, I would not intend to insist on the amendments and I shall withdraw them. But I
would regard that with regard to the amendments, what is being addressed, is persistent offences by particular rogue landlords and therefore it
does appear to me that the use of that term in the context of clause
92 would be appropriate.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is the noble Lord withdrawing the amendment?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am withdrawing amendment 89, 92, 101. The amendment be withdrawn, the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The amendment be withdrawn, the amendment is by leave withdrawn, amendment 90 will be debated not
16:48
Amendment 91
-
Copy Link
amendment 90 will be debated not moved. Amendment 91.
16:48
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, may I draw the
attention to amendment 91, this amendment would require residential landlords be a member of the
landlord scheme only if their tenant
does not already have access to an address through a letting agent who is a member of another approved independent scheme. The purpose of
this amendment is to avoid duplication, prevent unnecessary regulator burden, and ensure that the system remains proportionate and
clear. Clarity and efficiency in regulation are not just desirable, they are essential for both compliance and effective
enforcement.
At committee stage, the noble Baroness the Minister said and I quote, we take seriously, the
noble Baroness is concerned about duplication. Careful consideration will be given during the
implementation process as to how the PRS landlord ombudsman service will
PRS landlord ombudsman service will
interact with provision. We fully agreed that tenants should have a clear and accessible route to
redress. But that route must be simple, coherent, and proportionate. A system that is overly complicated
by parallel and potentially overlapping redress obligations
could hinder rather than help.
For
example, if a landlord were a member of two address schemes, which one should the tenant apply to? Or to both? How would liability be determined? And does that not risk
further delaying confusion as lawyers from both redress schemes
seek to argue it out. This amendment seeks not to water down tenants
rights, but to ensure that those rights are delivered through a streamlined, efficient system that
works in practice for tenants, landlords, and agents alike. Clarity
here is important.
I hope that the noble Baroness the Minister agrees.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I move. Amendment proposed, close 65 page
104 line 21, at end insert the words, which property is not managed by an agent who is a member of an
**** Possible New Speaker ****
by an agent who is a member of an independent address scheme approved by the Secretary of State. I rise to comment on amendment 91
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to comment on amendment 91 and the names of the noble Baroness
16:50
Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
and the names of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. There amendment would exempt a landlord from joining
the new redress ombudsman scheme if that landlords property is managed by an agent who was already a member of one of the existing ombudsman
redress schemes. I declare a past
interest as chair for eight years of the property ombudsman which handles
complaints about agents. I think the amendments intention of avoiding duplication of membership of two redress ombudsman schemes is
entirely right, otherwise, the tenant is left puzzling over which ombudsman there landlords ombudsman
other agents batsmen they should
address their complaint to.
However, this particular amendment would not I think, achieve the desired
results. What I know from having had some responsibilities for redress in
respect of managing lettings agents,
is that the response from the agent to a complaint by a renter is often, I was only doing what the landlord told me to do. And the agent may be
justified in this, yes a renter may have requested an urgent repair and
the agent has done nothing, but the problem has been the landlord telling the agent that the cost is
too high or the work is not needed.
The intolerable delay is not the
result of the agent's negligence, it is the landlord who has held things
up. These cases cannot be resolved because the landlord is not a member of any redress scheme. And that problem would persist if the
landlord was exempted from having to join the new ombudsman redress
join the new ombudsman redress
scheme. So to avoid duplication of having one redress ombudsman scheme for landlords and one for property
agents, I suggest the solution is for a single ombudsman redress service for both.
This avoids
complaints resolution being halted and tenants being sent from pillar
to post where to different ombudsman
services are involved with one issue. I know government is still considering how best to introduce the new redress scheme for landlords
in this bill and I do recommend that there should be one port of call for
tenants with a complaint. The position is already confusing with
the housing ombudsman providing a redress service for a few private landlords as well as for all social
landlords and the property ombudsman and the separate property redress scheme, both providing redress
schemes for property agents bringing
in the new mandatory redress scheme for complaints about private
landlords.
Well add to the confusion for the consumer and the renter. So this is a good moment to rationalise
and consolidate the arrangements, but not by excluding the landlords who use an agent which would not
solve the problem.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The first thing I will say, as I
16:54
Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
agree with Lord Best. One line
saying there should be one port of call. If one of the main planks of the bill is to drive up standards, I
think it is absolutely critical that landlords are mandated to be part of
the ombudsman scheme. And there should be a catchall. Unfortunately,
I think this amendment would allow landlords to opt out of the
government redress scheme and as has been explained, deny tenants access to redress via the national private
sector ombudsman that the bill is
intending to set up.
To make this advantageous move, or landlords need to do, is to use a letting agent who
is signed up to 1 of these alternative schemes and it would create a significant loophole in the
legislation. It would also deny such tenants access to redress for issues that lie solely with the landlord
and not the managing agent, such as
damp and mould that is caused by structural issues. Generation rents polling found that one in three tenants have had maintenance issues
in their home that they have reported that the landlord has not
dealt with.
This is actually quite a widespread problem. If we want to
drive up those standards, we want to make it easier for tenants to
complain and for landlords to comply. And in addition, if this amendment were to pass, I actually think that would create more
confusion. As there are currently multiple independent letting agent
schemes and they compete with each other which arguably could be seen
as creating a race to the bottom in terms of standard. Arguably, this phenomenon exists to some extent
with deposit protection schemes which incidentally are also chosen by landlords or agents, not by
renters.
So the landlord will choose the one that thinks like they do or
favours the way they work. The system is proposed in the bill, and seems to be the correct way forward.
As making membership of an on-board scheme mandatory for landlords to use managing agents, will mitigate
the situation where a good agent, and there are good agents, is trying to remedy a complaint but is reliant
on an overseas landlord he was refusing to engage. As well as these
advantages, one ombudsman can tackle
the root cause of problems, address systemic issues, provide feedback and education to all interested parties, as well as offer support
for vulnerable consumers.
Amendment 91 would die loot all of these
potential good impacts of the new ombudsman, reducing tenants ability
to hold bad landlord practice and behaviour to account, and I cannot
think why anyone would want to do
that. I thank the noble Baroness for
16:58
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
her amendment on the landlord redress scheme and the noble Lord best and the noble Baroness Fall
best and the noble Baroness Fall their comments. Our new private rented sector landlord ombudsman will ensure that tenants are able to seek redress against the landlord
seek redress against the landlord when they have a legitimate complaint about the landlords action, inaction, or behaviour. We are clear that landlords who use
are clear that landlords who use letting agents cannot delegate responsibility for their own actions
responsibility for their own actions or behaviours.
Landlords almost always retain some responsibility
always retain some responsibility for their property which cannot be passed onto agents, for example,
making structural repairs and buildings. Tenants should be able to access redress if they experience issues like this, regardless of whether there landlord uses an
whether there landlord uses an agent. That is why we think it is essential that both landlords and
essential that both landlords and agents can be held to account for their individual responsibilities. For landlords that have already
For landlords that have already voluntarily joined a redress scheme,
voluntarily joined a redress scheme, once a mandatory private landlord ombudsman service is in place, it will be tailored to the specific needs of the private rented sector
needs of the private rented sector and they will have to move to that.
And this will work better for
And this will work better for private rented sector rather than having it mixed up with social. Landlords would be required to sign up to the new landlord database so
we are exploring how to realign the signup process for this and the landlord ombudsman and that will help make it simple for landlords
who already members of an existing redress system to join the new landlord ombudsman service. We are committed to ensuring that private
residential tenants know where to complain and enjoy consistent
standards of service and outcomes, having private residential landlords as members of the same service will
support this aim.
We want to ensure as well, where it is not clear which scheme a tenant should complain to,
there should be no wrong access point for tenants. The schemes will
be expected to work together to ensure that regardless of where a tenant raises a complaint, it is effectively triage and referred on to the right body with minimal
impact, input from the complainant.
I understand the noble Lady's concerns about duplication but we will work closely with the new ombudsman and the property agent
redress schemes to support them to work effectively together and ensure
the process works smoothly for both tenants and landlords.
So for the
reasons I have set out, I would kindly ask for the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am grateful to the noble Lord
16:59
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness Fall speaking on this important topic and I think there are some things we can all agree with we want a system that
agree with we want a system that works, one that is clear, that is easy to understand, while we do seem to have some slight disagreements on
how that might be best achieved, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his agreement that the current
system is confusion. And I am
grateful to the noble Baroness her
response and for engaging seriously with the concerns that have been raised.
While I appreciate the government's recognition of the risks of duplication and their
commitment to addressing these during implementation, we remain of the view that greater clarity is essential to ensure the redress
scheme works smoothly and fairly for
all. The key issue of triage, how the different schemes will work together, and we very much look
forward to the Minister bringing forward proposals and guidance that we can all see and can be clear to
both landlords and tenants on how they will go through the system because I think we are all in
agreement that we wanted to work and we have a real concern about duplication.
Although I will not
press this amendment, we will continue to hold the government to account on this issue as the bill
becomes law. With that, I beg to
becomes law. With that, I beg to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment by leave withdrawn. Clause 73, not me. Now come to
clause 76, amendment 94.
17:01
Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
clause 76, amendment 94. My Lords, you all realise by now I am a bit messy about the database,
I am a bit messy about the database, and I listened very carefully to what the Minister said at the end of committee stage about the database, which is that very much of it is
which is that very much of it is going to be given to us guidance and by Statutory Instruments Act I will look forward to the opportunity to
look forward to the opportunity to contribute to that.
The reason to
contribute to that. The reason to continuing depressed this case is to continue putting on the record just how important this is as a plank of
how important this is as a plank of this bill, and how transformative it could actually be, so I will speak
could actually be, so I will speak to my amendments, 94, 95 and 96, and
to my amendments, 94, 95 and 96, and speak against amendment 97. So, the Private Rented Sector Database present a major opportunity to drive up standards through empowering
up standards through empowering tenants to make informed decisions,
before entering into a new tenancy.
Whilst giving local authorities the
Whilst giving local authorities the information they need to proactively enforce the new regulations. At that
is two really important points. But the database will only be as useful as the information it stores. My
as the information it stores. My
amendments seek to it sure it is as useful as possible. It is my
shopping list of things that one would like to see, but I am sure people other than myself and interested bodies will be putting
into that further guidance and
further information.
So, renters will not be reading it in bed at night, or on holiday, they will look
for when searching for a new home. If it has useful information that
helps make informed choices, such as past enforcement actions, taken against the landlord in question,
accessibility features of the home or rent levels for similar properties in the area, they will be
able to choose a home that is right
for them. For example, a recent Generation Rent survey found that more than three quarters of renters
would support including any prior prosecutions of a landlord on the
database, at her my amendment 94.
-- As per my amendments 94. This will
help. Along stable tenancies that both renters and landlords alike want. Whilst discouraging landlords
from attempting to sidestep the bill. Renters using the database
will tell their family and friends about it, and in my experience, this
kind of word-of-mouth marketing is the most effective. My amendment 96 would ensure actual rents are
recorded on the database. The government has put much trust in the First-tier Tribunal, protecting renters from unaffordable rent
hikes. But at the moment, the tribunal uses advertised rents to see if a rent increase is fair.
Often these are inflated and could
become even more so with the end of bidding wars. So, recording
actionable rents will help the tribunal and tenants to have a better understanding of the local
market. The issue of local authority finances has been debated many times, as the bill has progressed.
We are right to be concerned about their capacity to rightly reinforce the bill. Having key information in
one place, such as section 8 eviction notices, as per my
amendment 95, would be a massive help to enforcement, when the bill comes into action.
Cutting out much of the proactive fact-finding work
that local authorities often lack the capacity to do. Outside of the
printing process, the database could -- Renting process, the database could be of use to policy-making. According rents, for example, would
help inform national decisions on housebuilding and crackdown on
landlords tax avoidance, which the Think Tank Tax Watch estimates to be
as high as £1.7 billion a year. With regard to amendment 97, we oppose amendment 97, to limit costs related
to the database.
Given that there will inevitably be some areas of the
act, which may turn out to need more enforcement than others. It makes
sense for government to have some wriggle room, to set some costs at a
Relies heavily on enforcement and
therefore, having the ability to raise funds through the database feeds written into primary legislation is an important
mechanism in case it is needed in future to cover costs, such as an awareness campaign, or guidance and
training to tenants and landlords.
Finally, I would like to end on a positive note. Much of this debate
often pits landlords versus renters.
And seeing the issue like a seesaw. But findings from Generation Rent's survey, from April this year, from its supporters, found that more
information about a landlord that the renters have, the better its relationship with them. And nearly
1/4 of renters you had a direct contact lying to their landlord
rated them five out of five, compared to less than one in 10 who didn't.
With the right information
that the database can help foster, will help., more of these
**** Possible New Speaker ****
relationships. I beg to move. Amendment proposed, clause 76, page 115, line 13, at the end,
17:07
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
page 115, line 13, at the end, insert the words as printed on the
Marshalled list.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, let me begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, a expansive and
constructive thinking on what mother
constructive thinking on what mother database could do to support the rental market that works fairly and effectively for landlords and tenants alike for sub during committee, we had a thoughtful and
committee, we had a thoughtful and wide-ranging discussion about the purpose, function, and future potential of this database. And many
potential of this database. And many noble Lords suggested that it could, and perhaps should, do more.
And I agree, my Lords, in time, that may
agree, my Lords, in time, that may well be prudent. But from my
well be prudent. But from my experience as a minister, I have learned the value of taking one step at a time. Let us focus first on getting this system up and running
getting this system up and running and getting it right. I am very much
and getting it right. I am very much reminded of the second reading of the Pensions Bill in the other place, when the Minister began to
explain the provisions of that bill.
It was met with laughter, from both sides of the House. My Lords, the
sides of the House. My Lords, the joke was all in very good faith, and
joke was all in very good faith, and the Minister joined in the moment, but it speaks to a deeper truth, we cannot allow this database to become
the next pensions dashboard. A project weighed down by scope creep,
and plagued by delays. While I
welcome the noble Baroness's ambitious vision and efforts to think beyond the immediate text of
the bill, we must begin with the basics, especially if additional functionality comes after costs of
higher system complexity.
And crucially, higher financial burdens, honour those who provide rental homes to millions across the
country. -- And on those. And that
country. -- And on those. And that
brings me to amendment 97, concerning minimum additive costs, this cannot become a system that proposes unlimited and never-ending
costs on landlords. My Lords, they need certainty, clear, reliable reinsurance from the government that relevant costs will not spiral every
time a new minister as a bright
idea. -- Has a bright idea.
It is that word again, balance, I know noble Lords are probably sick of hearing it but it does remain the
guiding principle. We must strike the right balance between the cost of the system of the functions it is
expected to perform. Only then can we assure the database succeeds, not
just in theory, but in practice, for
those who depend on it. And despite this, I will not seek to test the opinion on the House on amendment 97 and I therefore beg leave to
withdraw my amendment.
17:10
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady
Scott, for amendment concerning the database. And I would like to start by thanking the noble Baroness
Thornhill for all the thought and work she has put in, the assistance
she has given us to edit our thinking about what may or may not
be in the database. And I appreciate the intention behind amendment 94 is
to empower tenants with more information and to support their decision-making, before they decide to rent a property.
As the noble Baroness helpfully outlined in
committee, that forms part of a broader and much more ambitious
vision for the database, and we do need to ensure that the database is helpful for both landlords and
tenants, I hope the noble Lady is pleased that clause 84 mandates that we will include record banning orders on the database. The clause
also specifies we will record
relevant banning order offences and related financial penalties on the
database, we intend to make this information available to the public, using the regulations set out in clause 87.
Furthermore, the bill
includes the regulation making power, in clause 84.6, for the
database to record other offences, committed by landlords, will specify offences recorded in secondary legislation, I hope the honourable
lady is encouraged to hear that renter repayment orders are among those we are actively considering
for inclusion. Our approach to recording offences will consider the necessity and proportionality of recording this information,
alongside making sure, of course, it complies with the data protection,
and human rights legislation. And we do need to give that some very careful consideration as well.
As we
discussed during committee, we intend to retain flexibility, regarding the information the database records and makes public,
so that it can involve, in response
to the changing needs of the sector, including both tenants and landlords. So, enough information to be helpful, but not so much that only Torsten Bell can understand
what is honoured. Amendment 95 to 60
record -- Amendment 95 seeks to record landlord and tenant awareness
and responsible landlord practices, I welcome this as a positive provision to improve the database
and help it to be a provider of health standards and tenant
protection, built in competitive and reliable foundations, so I thank the noble Lady for that thoughtful
amendment as well.
The government is currently considering recording possession information in the database. And be made available to
the public. Any decision on what information is recorded in the database has to take into account
database has to take into account
both the benefits, and the burdens, for different users, and we will ensure the information collected remains necessary, and proportionate. As the noble Lady
will be away from our previous conversations about what information
the database will record, it will play significant importance on the
flexibility of database for future circumstances, that is why we therefore believe the information collected on the database should be
set out in a second and that is stated -- Secondary and that is set
stated -- Secondary and that is set
out in clause 78, clause 8660 -- Seeks to make amendment to improve transparency for protected tenants,
and informed decisions, in the private rental market, the government is still considering whether to collect rental data on
the database.
However, we do recognise the potential value information could provide to
tenants, by allowing a more informed
rented experience. We are also aware that other government departments and bodies, such as HMRC, may find this data useful. We believe,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
however, for the database remain fixable, the information it connects should be specified through regulations. Remains flexible. In 1997
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Remains flexible. In 1997 restrict the database fees to be costs associated with the operation and enforcement of the database
and enforcement of the database only, not by reference of the cost of wider PRS enforcement activity. I appreciate the need to keep the fee
appreciate the need to keep the fee at a manageable level, and justify any new costs to landlords, however, I would draw the noble Lady's
I would draw the noble Lady's attention to what we have heard in previous debates, regarding challenges the local authorities, they fade, in resource in their
they fade, in resource in their enforcement actions, so we believe it is appropriate that, as far as
possible, costs of enforcement should be met by those individuals
should be met by those individuals who break the rules.
However, well- regulated benefits all good landlords, as well as tenants, clearly to achieve these, local
clearly to achieve these, local authorities must be properly resourced. This clause provides ministers with the option of using a
ministers with the option of using a proportion of fee income, to provide revenue to fund private sector
revenue to fund private sector enforcement activities, beyond those relating to the database. As I have set out previously, database fees will be determined and fixed at a
will be determined and fixed at a later point by legislation, so can I
ensure noble Lords fee cancellations will be reasonable and bear in mind the cost of landlords among other
factors.
Given what we have heard about the importance of local
authority resource in, I do not think it would be prudent to limit calculation and use of database fees in this way. So, for these reasons,
I think actually, the noble Baroness has already withdrawn at amendment.
But I would ask the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, to withdraw her amendments.
17:15
Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, I am anything if not a realist, but I am glad to have
pursued this to this stage, and the noble Lady has given me some very
serious reassurances of what will be included in the database. And I am particularly pleased to see the consideration about rate repayment
orders, and would urge the government to think again about rent
collection, because I think rent is the big issue, and perhaps how the database can help, but I'm under no
illusions that all of these proposals and processes and functions will need further
discussion.
Particularly with regard to human rights and legal matters, and completely agree with Baroness
Scott that we need to get this right, and to begin with the basics,
so I look forward to the Minister perhaps given us some sort of
timeline, and working with the secondary, but in the meantime I beg
**** Possible New Speaker ****
leave to withdraw. Is ideologically the amendment be withdrawn? Amendment by leave
withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 95 and 96, not, amendment 97, Baroness Altmann not
17:17
Division
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment 97, Baroness Altmann not I have no confidence that landlords would be protected in law
landlords would be protected in law against unfair fines so I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It is that amendment 90 8B agree to, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The question will be
"Not content". The question will be decided by a division, I will notify the House when voting is open and I
the House when voting is open and I shall stay standing... Voting is now
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The question The question is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that The question is that amendment The question is that amendment 90 8B agree to, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the
opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The
contrary, "Not content". The contents will go to the right, the
My My Lords, My Lords, the My Lords, the question My Lords, the question is My Lords, the question is amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Content, Content, 215. Content, 215. Not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Content, 215. Not content, Content, 215. Not content, 240.
The not content's have it.
Amendments 99 and 100, not moved.
Amendments 99 and 100, not moved. 101, not moved. 101, not moved. 103,
101, not moved. 101, not moved. 103,
101, not moved. 101, not moved. 103, not moved. 104, not moved. We now
17:29
The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)
-
Copy Link
-
not moved. 104, not moved. We now come to clause 101, amendment 105.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to move amendment 105 standing in my name, I declare my interest are set out in the
register, my wife and I own one appointment in the West Mill plans
appointment in the West Mill plans -- West Midlands. Nothing in this group would provide me with an advantage I can see. One in five
advantage I can see. One in five extends as I said in committee stage
extends as I said in committee stage and can be brief this afternoon.
Those in temporary accommodation are
Those in temporary accommodation are among the most vulnerable in our society. They are already battling against major disadvantages and being placed on properties that fail
being placed on properties that fail the standard simply adds to their burden. There are over 150,000 children in temporary accommodation,
children in temporary accommodation, a number that continues to rise. Often, these young people are
Often, these young people are struggling in inadequate space and many miles from their schools, to
many miles from their schools, to study for those exams which results will affect the rest of their lives.
will affect the rest of their lives. The word temporary is something of a misnomer, it is not uncommon for such residents to last beyond the
air. Many households need the protection of housing and it is
protection of housing and it is these. However, I accept that whereas most tenants in the private rented sector are making their own
arrangement with the landlord and hence require statutory protection to address the power imbalance in that relationship, in the case of
temporary accommodation there is another player, in the name of the local authority.
If local
authorities were rigourous and requiring properties that are used for temporary accommodation meet a high standard, then protection would
be there. Moreover, there will be
some types of property which whilst acceptable for short-term usage, are definitely not for the extended periods many are currently
experiencing, properties that are intrinsically unable to meet the decent homes standards, lacking things like bed and breakfast
hotels. I am not to test the House
on this amendment but I am looking to the noble Lady the Minister to respond and give some indication of
what other mechanisms, apart from placing text on the face of the bill, His Majesty's Government might have in mind.
In order to ensure
that through the local authorities, a standard of housing used for temporary accommodation is the best
we can deliver for some of our most
These families who often spend long and anxious. Separated from the loved ones serving in dangerous
locations overseas, will receive as
generous supporters we can provide, if the noble Lady tests how she will have my support and finally we are
well aware of the dangers of damp and mould, a place in Rochdale has become uproarious so I support the
amendment in the name of the noble Baroness victim.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment caused -- propose, leave out from homelessness to the
leave out from homelessness to the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
leave out from homelessness to the There are three amendments in my
17:32
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There are three amendments in my name in this group, I think Baroness Coffey, noble and gallant Lords Derrick, for putting names to
Derrick, for putting names to amendment 106, which I beg to move. I also thank the noble Lord Best for his wisdom and support as ever, and
the noble Lady, the Minister, the
mini meetings she has held on this and other matters. On these pages, we are supportive of the other two amendments in this group, and look
forward to hearing the government response to both.
Amendment 106 is a crucial and necessary addition to
this bill. One that speaks to our fundamental duty to those who
fundamental duty to those who
sacrificed so much from the nation's security, namely, the application of the Decent Homes Standard, to the
Ministry of Defence accommodating. On these benches, we have pushed votes on amendments sparingly,
because we support the government for bringing forward this long- awaited and much needed legislation, to Reform private rented sector but
it is imperative that we do not leave out any group.
Especially any
group behind, especially dedicated military personnel and their
families. This government has already taken welcome first step. The landmark deal in January to bring 36,000 military homes back
into the public ownership. The launch of a new defence housing review in February, and the April announcement of a new consumer
charter for forces family housing, all positive developments. But, my
lords, they are not enshrined in law. As this bill is the opportunity
to do just that. They are policy
pledges, subject to the way of goodness knows future governments,
ministerial priorities, or economic pressures.
The housing and morale of
our Armed Forces should not remain
dependent on policy changes alone. The current state of service
accommodation is, in many cases, unacceptable, there have been consistent reports of damp, mould,
rats, inadequate maintenance, and
poor communication. Satisfaction levels with service family accommodation fell to their lowest reported levels in 2023. The Defence
Select Committee has reported that one third of single living accommodation and to thirds of family accommodation is not fit for
purpose.
Reports have shown service
family were badly let down the many years, underpass housing contracts. This deplorable situation impacts
recruitment and retention, within our Armed Forces, undermining our
national security, in a time of global uncertainty. My lords,
applying the Decent Homes Standard
through the Renters' Rights Bill would provide a very clear legally binding benchmark for acceptable
housing quality for service family accommodation. It would ensure accountability, and establish a right to a decent home, for those
who serve our nation.
They deserve homes fit for heroes. And that
amendment will be the vital step towards making that a reality. This
continues the work of Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson in the
House of Commons. She is a former captain of the Royal military
police, who served in both Bosnia and Iraq and she has tirelessly
campaigned to ensure MoD housing is included under Decent Homes Standard. Her experience firsthand understanding military life, and
dedication to our service personnel, is invaluable. Incurs late
commission report, and, my Lords, we
miss him so much, was Homes Fit for Heroes, it was commissioned and laid
bare helper with the standards in
military housing.
That amendment would directly build upon and reinforce the work of both Helen Maguire NP and the recommendations
of the commission. It moves beyond mere acknowledgement of the problem
and the setting of targets. Seeking to legally enforce the standards our service families deserve. The
Minister has previously argued this amendment is unnecessary, because
this approach is not right for service family accommodation. Due to unique challenges like access to
secure sites. We have set out in
amendment 109 some of the detail could be added to the bill to reflect these obstacles and
considerations.
Amendment 119 is a consequential amendment 109, I will
not test the House on either of those, but it does provide some of the detail about how it could be
done. However, if amendment 106 is
not accepted by the government, or some tangible and strong process, then I do intend to test the opinion
of the House on this. Pride in our Armed Forces must mean pride in how
we how's them. We oh it to them to
guarantee in the strongest possible terms of their homes meet a basic dignified standard.
This change would be a powerful and lasting
declaration of our commitment to our service personnel and their families, and they deserve nothing
17:38
Lord Stirrup (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, I rise to support
amendment 106, to which I have attached my name. For decades now, I
have seen close hands at the deficiencies in service families accommodation, they range from an inability to get things fixed,
serious problems with damp and mould. They are always irritating,
and too often, disgraceful. For years, I have listened to successive government undertake to get to grips
government undertake to get to grips
with the issue. For decades, I have seen them fail to do so for not because they care, of course they care, but because of budgetary constraints, institutional
inefficiencies, bureaucracy, other
organisational issues.
I served in the military 43 years and I have been out of it for nearly 15. And
yet, the problems persist. So why should I, or anybody who comes after
me, put any faith in any government promises that are not backed up by
enforceable measures? We have been
told that we shouldn't worry too
much, because 90% of service families accommodation meets or exceeds the Decent Homes Standard
already. Well, even if that is so, does the noble Lady, the Minister,
think that one in 10 of service families living in substandard
accommodation is acceptable? Because I do not.
Perhaps you could clarify that point later on. In the debate
in another place, the government maintained, as we have already
heard, that this amendment was impracticable, because there would be problems with local authorities
gaining access to service families accommodation behind the wire on military sites. Well, we debated
this very issue juggling the passage of the Armed Forces Commissioner
Bill -- During the passage of. And we saw no issues with giddy access
to more sites behind the wire for
accommodation.
Frankly, this kind of bureaucratic brush off is not worthy of such a serious debate on such a
serious issue. My Lords, let me refer the noble Lady, the Minister,
to the recent strategic defence review. Conclusions of which have been accepted by the government. It
says the transformation of UK defence most must ultimately be
delivered by its people. It's a targeted intervention is needed to
tackle the crisis, including prioritised investment in accommodation that falls well short
accommodation that falls well short
of the standard required.
In this context, the context of future security of this country, can the noble Lady, the Minister, explain to the long-suffering families of
service personnel why they are not
entitled to the same formal protection that has been accorded to renters in the civilian sector.
Because I think she will find it extraordinarily difficult to do. And
if we are forced to divide on that issue, I trust that the House will send a message loud and clear to
those people, that they are entitled to that prediction and much more
**** Possible New Speaker ****
besides. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and
17:42
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and also the noble and gallant Lord. I put my name to this amendment,
because of my experience in representing Armed Forces previously, in a role in the other
place. Also, to be candid, I'm sure
many of us have had family members in the armed forces over the years and it has always struck me that if
it is good enough for social housing, if it is good enough for private housing as has been put up
in this Bill, what an earth is it good enough for the homes of our
brave men and women who put their lives on the line every time they dominate Armed Forces uniform? --
Every time they don that Armed
Forces uniform? And it is undoubtedly, in my experience, the quality of housing unfortunately, I will not pretend it is unanimous
right across the country, there is some fantastic new accommodations being built, but by and large, it is
a key factor in why people leave the Armed Forces.
I will use the example
of a barracks home to 300 engineers, parachute engineers, just outside
Woodbridge. This is the kind of base where people are not therefore lifetime basic. The strategy going
ahead is that people, perhaps once part of a lifetime base might be
able to buy their own home, rather than being necessary in Armed Forces accommodation. That doesn't happen on some of these specialist
regiments. At the base commander with one of the few people who
invited me in, I was getting letters from constituents, really irritated about what was going on in their
homes, and how it was time to fix -- And how it was not taking time to
fix.
Of course, the key point here is, for me, putting this into
legislation gives not only our
, it gives families reassure us that
they can have a very clear representation of the state of their homes, and what should be done if
they are not at that state. But going further, in the Armed Forces
Commissioner Bill, there is, of course, welfare as an element there, I think the government has talked about housing. But within the
legislation, it specifically refers to matters where the Secretary of State can specify, and if it is
believed certainly these matters might be going against the safety of somebody or against national-
security, then actually, the Commissioner can be stopped from
investigating.
We all know how long it takes to actually frankly get a Commissioner to do anything. Better to have a high standard in the first
to have a high standard in the first
That the government may try and say things will be better in the future. My Lords, I am in a position now to
say enough is enough, we would be very happy if the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, pushes this to division, I will certainly be voting
**** Possible New Speaker ****
with her this afternoon. My Lords, I rise to speak to my amendment 106, A, in this group. I
would also like to echo fully the support for Baroness Grender's amendments 106, 109, 119,
17:45
Baroness Altmann (Non-affiliated)
-
Copy Link
-
amendments 106, 109, 119,
I do thank the right reverend for his support as well, this amendment
is probing the government to ensure
it does recognise the role of both temperature and humidity in ensuring
the comfort and safety to prevent
hazardous levels of damp and mould which do pose significant health risks, whether to children or the
elderly or other vulnerable groups.
I would like to thank next gen carbon zero for their research and input and I declare my interest as a
private landlord.
This amendment
seeks to draw an explicit link between temperature and humidity and
the damp and mould hazards. I wonder if the noble Lady the Minister could confirm that the government does recognise the fundamental importance
of keeping homes at a safe temperature and humidity level. To
avoid these hazards. There are
indeed preventative solutions that can help maintain safe temperature and humidity levels, to help tackle
one of the main root causes of damp and mould problems. As an example, I am told that infrared heating technology can eradicate severe damp
and mould in one week by drying out
walls and reducing humidity levels.
And can even monitor on a room by room basis to automatically switch
on if levels become dangerous. With many households currently struggling
to adequately heat their homes, whether as a result of losing their Winter Fuel Payment, or the
combination of that with rising living costs, temperature and
humidity control clearly has a role
in preventing the hazards that these problems could otherwise cause. And
indeed, I would argue that this is more important than ever. The
2023/24 glitch housing survey showed that private rented homes are nearly
twice as likely as those in the
social rented sector to experience problems with damp.
The proportion of damp homes containing at least
one occupant with a health condition has risen from around one third in
2013 to nearly 1/2 in 2023/24. And
of course, we need to recognise that stronger protections, while they are
needed to safeguard tenants from dangerous health effects of damp and
mould, we have two be concerned that many private landlords, especially smaller ones may struggle to afford
effective remediation. So the renters rights Bill which is
renters rights Bill which is
extending to the private rented sector, needs to be supplemented by a funding package of remediation to
help landlords with the cost of repairs, or at least may be some VAT exemption on some of those
mechanisms.
There is of course a risk that landlords would be
unfairly penalised, but the overriding concern is to make sure
that tenants are not living in
unsafe conditions. And that brings me to amendments 106, 109, and 119.
Our military and service personnel, surely should be prioritised over
other groups when it comes to supplying decent housing and decent
homes. Frankly, it seems shameful that military and service personnel
that military and service personnel
housing standards are so significantly rated as unsatisfactory.
They put their lives
on the line for this country and if the noble Lady presses her
amendment, I will be very happy to support it and I look forward to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
hearing the government's response. I also rise to support first of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I also rise to support first of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I also rise to support first of all, amendment 105 by the noble Lord, very glad to support you and
Lord, very glad to support you and you and I have worked quite a lot on
you and I have worked quite a lot on business to make sure that those who were homeless could get a House where they would have a bed, and a
where they would have a bed, and a kitchen so they can have independence. The standard we are
17:50
Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
independence. The standard we are expecting for others to be given. I want to support amendment 106, moved
by the noble and gallant Lord. If
you remember, when you had a debate on this your Lordships House on the duty, I told you a story but I don't
think some of you were here and if you have forgotten, I can remind
you, I will be brief, a gentleman who had survived in Afghanistan of
the Parachute Regiment, returns to
Yorkshire.
He had been injured and could not go back to service. He visited for widows who had already
been rehoused because their husbands had died in the line of duty. The accommodation they said, was not any
better than the one they had in the service work. So he said, we should
make the point very clearly by
having a parachute jump. At my age, people were advising me, no do not do it. But we did it, we landed, and
when I got home it was a retired
soldier who had just sold his business, he was the 1st to give to this fundraising for houses for
widows, he was the 1st to give £50,000 and of course, it went up
and I am very grateful to all of those people who supported.
So the question, if there is a duty of
candour that should apply to all of us -- all service personnel and
accommodation, it will to be as good as the instruments they use when
they go to war. Again, I hear a story of the Yorkshire Regiment
similarly, when widows were put into accommodation that was not suitable,
it breaks your heart. We signed, if
you remember, a covenant to all the people in the service, army, air
people in the service, army, air
force, and others, that we will, and we have got a duty, we are bound to
support them.
This amendment is a challenge to all of us, you better
challenge to all of us, you better
I rise to speak to this group and
decent home standards. A commitment to ensure that all tenancies, regardless of tenure or circumstance
have access to safe, healthy, secure housing. In particular, I turned to amendments 106 and 119 tabled by the
noble Baroness. The noble Baroness, the noble and gallant Lord, and my
noble friend highlighted the
persistent and ongoing issues that military and service accommodation
faces.
We are in no doubt that those who serve our country and whose families bear the burdens of that
service, deserve decent homes. It is regrettable that despite the
application of the decent homes standard to military housing on a non-statutory basis since 2017,
17:55
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
serious concerns persist about the condition and upkeep of military
condition and upkeep of military accommodation. These amendments offer Parliament an opportunity to
reaffirm that military and service families should not be left behind. We therefore welcome commitments
We therefore welcome commitments made in the strategic defence review on 2 June, 2025, which the
on 2 June, 2025, which the government announced an additional 1.5 billion in funding for our service family accommodation,
service family accommodation, bringing a total investment of 7 million, alongside this the
million, alongside this the development of a new defence housing strategy and consumer charter including timelines for repairs,
including timelines for repairs, named housing officers, and a strengthened complaints process.
It
is a step in the right direction. But such undertakings must be matched by effective and timely
matched by effective and timely delivery. We would be grateful for greater clarity from the Minister on when the additional investment will
when the additional investment will begin to make a difference on the ground. What time frame the mystery
ground. What time frame the mystery of defence asset for the implementation of these reforms, and how progress will be assessed and
how progress will be assessed and monitored and reported back to Parliament.
Commitments of this
scale demand not only ambition but accountability .For and their
families deserve more than expressions of appreciation. They deserve action and they deserve
results. These amendments speak to that imperative and that is why we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
are pleased to support them. I thank the Right Reverend and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the Right Reverend and the noble Baroness as for their amendments regarding the decent homes standard and to the noble and gallant Lord, I thank him for his
gallant Lord, I thank him for his experience and knowledge in his contribution. The noble Baroness and
contribution. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord and the noble Lord,
the noble Lord and the noble Lord, amendment would take away powers to set out in regulation the type of temporary homelessness accommodation
temporary homelessness accommodation that the decent homes standard would apply to.
I completely understand
the sentiment and the intent. The government intends to apply the decent homes standard to as much temporary accommodation as possible. Indeed, the consultation we launched
17:56
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Indeed, the consultation we launched on the decent homes standard which was published on 2 July, and closes
on 10 September, makes this very clear and asks for further information on that. I committee
stage we have got to strike a balance between improving standards and avoiding risk to supply. Given
the pressure which we all understand on local authorities, there is sometimes no choice but to use forms
of temporary accommodation such as commercial hotels. It may not be
possible for this to meet all decent homes standard requirements, for example where there are no kitchen
facilities.
We want to avoid a situation where applying the decent homes standard could mean such
accommodation can no longer be used even where there is no alternative. This could make things worse for
people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, not better. Of course the long-term solution is to provide a much greater quantity of
affordable but in the meantime we have to make sure we do not shut off
vital resources to local authorities. I hope the Right
Reverend is reassured by the government's intention to apply the decent homes standard to as much temporary accommodation as possible
and to deliver the affordable House we know we need to solve the problem in the longer term and that he
recognises the most practical way to do this change to the decent homes
standard is through regulation
making power so I would ask that he withdraws his amendment.
Amendment 106 would bring Ministry of Defence service family accommodation within the scope of the decent homes
standard measures in the bill including enforcement of this standard by local authorities. No
one is going to disagree that those
who defend our country deserve to live in decent homes. As I said a committee, the government absolutely recognises that action is required
to tackle the poorer housing and this is why we are already taking
decisive steps to remedy the situation we have inherited and I would just gently remind noble
Baroness the noble Lord that their party was in government just over
one year ago and we inherited this
situation from them.
As noble Lord's will be aware, the Ministry of Defence has concluded in a landmark deal to bring military housing back
into public ownership. It is also developing a defence housing strategy which will be published
later this year that will set out further steps to bring about a renewal of military housing to
restore it to the quality housing that we all want to see forearmed
services. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for defence and a great expert on
housing as the noble Baroness acknowledges, he said in his statement to the other place on the strategic defence review, we will
invest £7 billion of funding this Parliament for military
accommodation.
Including 1.5 this accommodation. Including 1.5 billion
of new money with rapid work to deal with the scandal of poor quality military family homes. He has also announced a consumer charter that
will introduce new consumer rights for families in military homes and the Defence Secretary has instructed
the MoD to immediately plan improvements to enhance service family homes after the years of
neglect from which they have suffered. Improvements set out in
the charter will be in place by the one-year anniversary of the announcement to buy back military homes last December with the final
detail to be shared in the defence housing strategy later this year.
In relation to standards, the MoD
already uses the decent homes standard as a benchmark and applies
its own decent homes plus is target standard for service family accommodation. The MoD is reviewing
this standard in line with from the
review and the House of Commons defence committee. In terms of the amendment, I do not consider it as a
workable approach to bring MoD accommodation within the scope of local authority enforcement. As I said a committee, local authorities would face major challenges in
trying to gain access to inspect the thousands of properties that are
behind the wire or on secure sites and I heard the comments of the noble and gallant Lord but I do
think this would create a real issue.
In addition, the decent homes
standard provision in the bill is
not the only issue applied to England only, while service personnel of course are located across the UK and overseas, the amendment would therefore result in
the complex and fragmented system and a lack of parity for service
personnel as different standards and enforcement processes apply to MoD accommodation depending on where it
was located. The government is therefore already taking substantial steps to improve the quality of military housing and the defence
housing strategy to be published later this year will set out in
detail plans for doing that.
Given that the major enforcement challenges that would result from
the amendment, I consider the approach the covenant is taking is a better and far more practical way of
achieving a very laudable aim which we support, of providing homes fit
Turning to amendments 109 and 119,
Turning to amendments 109 and 119,
this will require changes to be made to the standard, applying to all Ministry of Defence accommodation. Amendment 109 sets out requirements
that regulations must include mandates that military homes standard must be higher than the Decent Homes Standard that will
apply to privately rented homes.
As I have said, it is of course
important that service personnel and their families have accommodation of the high quality that they deserve. However, these amendments are not
practical and they are unworkable and risk undermining the outcomes
they seek to achieve. For, the proposed prohibition of category two hazards, including an amendment 109,
is technically infeasible. Under Housing Health and Safety Rating
System, every home by definition will create some category two hazards, even if they pose minimal
risk. A training such prohibition in law would create standard impossible to meet in practice, leading to legal uncertainty and administrative
burden.
It also fails to account for the specialised nature of single living accommodation, provided by the MoD, to single service personnel
or those not accompanied by their families. These homes generally
include some shared facilities. As a result, it is unlikely to meet some part of the Decent Homes Standard.
The MoD has therefore introduced its own different minimum standard that sets standards of decency, while taking account of the specialised function of single living
accommodation. If the military homes
standards were an enhanced version of the Decent Homes Standard, as the
amendment suggests much single living accommodation would not meet it.
Applying the standards accommodation as proposed by the
amendment would significantly limit the ability to provide such accommodation, undermining its critical role in the deployment of
critical role in the deployment of
our Armed Forces. It is also not clear how this proposed military homes standards would be enforced. Amendment 109 doesn't specify what
authorities should enforce this standard and as defence accommodation is situated in all four nations of the United Kingdom
and overseas, the result would likely be a complex system, with different authorities being responsible for enforcement in
different locations.
This lack of consistency would make it more difficult and confusing for service
personnel to raise complaints about accommodation. As a result, I don't believe these amendments would achieve the desired outcome of improving the quality of MoD
accommodation. The proposed approach also risks having negative impacts on service personnel and their
families, and crucially, crucially,
on the operational effectiveness of our Armed Forces. I have already set out strong action government is taking to tackle poor quality Armed
Forces accommodation. Will achieve the intended outcomes of these amendments, while avoiding the risks
created by them, and I would
therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, to withdraw these amendments.
Finally, dressing amendment 106, A, in the name of the
noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, I can confirm the government fully recognises the importance of
addressing damp and mould in rented homes and the role that humidity, as well as temperature, can have in
causing such issues. Clause 101 lists matter the regulation setting out Decent Homes Standard's
requirements me cover and this amendment would add specific references to humidity, and damp and
mould to this list. However, requirements that can be set out,
setting regulations, are not limited to those set out in this list, and it is our firm intention the new Decent Homes Standard include
specific requirements on damp and mould, indeed, we publish our consultation on the content of the standard on 2 July, this
consultation proposes the standard be expanded from four criteria, to
five, with the new criteria requiring landlords ensuring their properties are free from damp and
mould.
I can also confirm that as set out in government guidance and
the Decent Homes Standard consultation, we recognise deficiencies in buildings, such as poor ventilation, mentioned by the
poor ventilation, mentioned by the
noble Baroness, can lead to excess humidity, which can cause dangerous damp and mould, they should be addressed, to ensure homes are safe
and decent, and I am sure noble Lords will have heard me explaining during oral questions the other day, that the infuriating term she used
about lifestyle issues, for tenants that are suffering from damp and
mould, has got to end, there is nearly always buildings related issue about damp and mould, and we
need to address those.
In light of this, we hope the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, can see the government
taking issues she has raised very seriously, and we are taking firm steps to address them. I would
therefore argue her amendment is not necessary, and I would ask to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
withdraw her amendment. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in a short
debate this afternoon. I do thank the right reverend and my noble
the right reverend and my noble friend, Lord Sentamu as well, and
his passion all the concerns in
18:07
-
Copy Link
his passion all the concerns in society, is well received in your chips out, I thank him for demonstrating it again today. I thank the nobody, the Minister, for
her response my amendment. Which I think means that we are not very far apart at all, and with those
reassurances, are not going to press the matter any further. I will leave it to Baroness Altmann to say
whether she is also satisfied with the response to her amendments, but as I said before, I do think the case for our military families
case for our military families
remains compelling, and if the House should divide on amendment 106, then I shall be voting with the noble Baroness Grender, but with that, I beg leave to withdraw.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is it your Lordship's pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 106, Lady Grender.
18:08
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 106, Lady Grender. I thank all noble Lords who have participated, there is no doubt on these benches about the sincerity of
these benches about the sincerity of the intentions of Minister John Healey, however, we believe,
enshrined in the law is the right way to proceed. We had some eloquent arguments about the noble and
arguments about the noble and
gallant Earl Lord Stirrup about the behind the white inspections and what is feasible, and therefore, I
what is feasible, and therefore, I
would like to press this matter.
-- behind the wire inspections. We have pressed many matters on this bench,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
because we are behind this a great deal, but we wish to test the opinion of the House. The question is amendment 106 be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is amendment 106 be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the
opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The question will be decided by a
question will be decided by a division. I would advise the House
division. I would advise the House
when voting is open. Voting is now
18:09
Amendment:106:Division. Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-affiliated)
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that amendment 106 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the
that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The
contrary, "Not content". The contents will go to the right by the throne, not contents to the left by
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The question The question is The question is does The question is does amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is does amendment 106 is agree to. -- That amendment
106 is agree to. -- That amendment
18:22
Amendment:106:Division. Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There There have There have voted There have voted content, There have voted content, 282.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There have voted content, 282. Not-contents, 158. The "Contents"
Amendment Amendment 106 Amendment 106 a Amendment 106 a Baroness Amendment 106 a Baroness Altmann
Amendment 106 a Baroness Altmann not
Amendment 106 a Baroness Altmann not moved. After clause 101, amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
107, Lord Shipley. Move amendment 107 and speak to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Move amendment 107 and speak to amendment 108. These amendments would remove unnecessary barriers to the use of licensing schemes to
the use of licensing schemes to improve housing standards. Licensing
18:22
Amendment:107 Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
raises housing standards. It can help to regenerate areas that are
help to regenerate areas that are blighted by poor housing and other social problems. Licensing provides a means for local authorities to inspect privately rented housing
using enforceable conditions to identify and resolve problems
without the need for tenants to have complained. Licensing schemes pay for themselves through the fees that
are charged. Licensing schemes enable local authorities to target
regulation where it is most needed, in other words tackling the worst landlords and supporting the most
vulnerable tenants.
The amendments I am proposing would remove
unnecessary barriers to the effectiveness of licensing schemes and they would increase the maximum
duration of schemes from five to 10 years. Amendment 107 would permit
local authorities operating selective licensing schemes to use licence conditions to improve the
physical state of the licensed properties. It would remove a
peculiar disconnect in current legislation which has been
highlighted by the chartered into environmental health, whereby local
authorities are permitted to introduce selective licensing schemes to address poor housing but
are not permitted to include in the licences themselves conditions requiring the physical state of the
licensed properties to be improved.
Amendment 107 would also give local authorities the same discretion in relation to the licence conditions
used in selective licensing schemes such as they already have in
relation to licence conditions used
in additional HMO licensing schemes. The government implied in Committee stage the introduction of a decent
homes standard to the private rented sector will make this amendment
unnecessary. But I do not accept this view. Neither the decent homes
standard nor the law will remove the
need for local authorities like authorities to use licence conditions to deal with general disrepair in areas with poor housing
disrepair in areas with poor housing
conditions.
There are four reasons why I think the decent homes standard will not remove the need for local authorities to be able to use licence conditions in this way
for the first, when licence
conditions are in place, if breach of these conditions has proved local
authorities can survey civil penalty Lotus on the landlord without first having to issue an improvement
notice -- notice. Or take other action involves unnecessary delay. However they will be able to do this
for breaches of the proposed decent homes standard only in more serious cases, possibly only where there is a serious and immediate risk to a
person's health and safety.
And only
where they can prove that the landlord has failed to take reasonably practicable steps to
address the issue. Licence conditions would therefore give landlords a much stronger incentive
than the decent homes standard to
address general disrepair. Secondly the enforcement of licence conditions can be funded by licence fees. The cost of enforcing decent
home standards will fall on council tax payers. In practice therefore the use of licence conditions would lead to local authorities undertaking a much higher level of
enforcement.
Thirdly licence conditions give local authorities a
clear justification, as well as sufficient funding for entering
properties to carry out inspections without the tenant having
complained. It seems likely that outside of licensing schemes, the vast majority of inspections under
the decent homes standard will be in
response to complaints. Fourthly licence conditions could deal with items of disrepair that would be
difficult to address using the decent homes standard. With regard to way Rob's law it will not remove
the need for local authorities to be able to use licence conditions to
deal proactively with general disrepair in areas with poor housing
conditions.
The enforcement of the
law will depend on the ability and willingness of tenants themselves to seek redress and ultimately to take
legal action through the courts. It is often difficult for tenants to
use legal remedies themselves. Areas with poor housing conditions contain
many poor and vulnerable tenants who are particularly badly placed to do so. Licensing would clearly be a
much better way of targeting support
on them. Let me turn to amendment 108. 108 would permit local
authorities to implement longer additional HMO licensing schemes and
selective licensing schemes without repeating the time-consuming and
expensive designation process.
Local
authorities introduce new schemes to bring about large-scale improvements, but these are unlikely to be fully achieved within five
years. This amendment would allow
them to advertise longer timescales time and -- staff and our training of new staff in the schemes. It will also provide more time for local
partnerships formed through such schemes, for example to resolve
antisocial behaviour, to become updated and effective. The government suggested that Committee stage that a maximum duration for licensing schemes of five years strikes the right balance between
the needs of local authorities and the needs of landlords.
But it does
not take account of the time and money that is wasted through councils being unnecessarily
required to repeat the designation
process. In conclusion I believe the removal of these unnecessary barriers to the effectiveness of
licensing schemes would make a major contribution to the regeneration of
some of the most deprived areas of
the country. From last December a new general approval to establish selective licensing areas came into
effect. Local authorities are no longer required to obtain confirmation from the Secretary of
State before implementing a selective licensing scheme of any
size.
This is most welcome. But it
needs to be accompanied the powers identified in my two amendments and I hope the government will now understand the importance of them. I
beg to move.
18:29
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Amendment proposed, after clause 101 insert the new clause is printed
**** Possible New Speaker ****
on the marshalled List. I would like to thank Lord Shipley for bringing these
Shipley for bringing these amendments once again to the attention of the House stop however on these benches we do not consider these amendments to be necessary. We
these amendments to be necessary. We recognise and wholeheartedly share
recognise and wholeheartedly share the noble Lords ambition to seek housing conditions improved. When I was in government I was proud to
was in government I was proud to support the decent home standards and helped to lay the groundwork for
and helped to lay the groundwork for what is now become the law.
The government's approach should be focused on delivering tangible improvements to living conditions, this includes tackling poor quality housing wherever it exists. Not
housing wherever it exists. Not slowly within the selective
licensing areas. Amendment 108 tabled by Lord Shipley seeks to
tabled by Lord Shipley seeks to extend the maximum duration of selective and additional HMO licensing schemes from five to 10
licensing schemes from five to 10 years for the we must recognise that licensing regimes, while in many cases beneficial, can play
significant additional responsibilities and costs on
landlords.
These may include fees, compliance with detailed conditions, and administrative burdens, all of
which can have a knock-on effect for
This reason, it is essential that local authorities monitor and
evaluate any schemes that they
implement to ensure that they remain proportionate, targeted, and effective. A long fixed term
duration for land licensing schemes is problematic. Simply a shorter term and she was that local
authorities have the flexibility to assess whether a scheme is delivering meaningful results while
also preventing landlords from being locked in to prolonged, regulatory frameworks without timely reviews or
a clear justification.
Frequent reassessment helps maintain proportionality and accountability
in such powers and how they are used, and therefore, my Lords, but
not be supporting these amendments.
18:31
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, I thank the Noble Lord Shipley for his amendments on licensing schemes. Starting with Amendment 107 we share the noble
Lords Shipley's desire to improve housing conditions. We have always
been clear that all renters deserve safe, secure, good quality homes. That is why we are introducing the
decent home standard and a workload to drive reform and improve conditions across the sector and I acknowledge the work that the noble
acknowledge the work that the noble
Baroness got did on Arabs law while we were on different sides of the House and we think this is the right approach so that all rent has and
local authorities are able to challenge and address poor quality
homes, not just those in selective licensing areas.
Turning to Amendment 108, we believe that licensing schemes are crucial in
helping local authorities tackle specific issues and improve standards. We also think that local authorities are the best place to
make decisions regarding the use of
these enforcement tools in their local areas. That is why at the end of last year we removed the requirement to obtain Secretary of
State approval to introduce larger selective licensing schemes, but we
know that licensing schemes also place additional responsibilities aren't landlords. Local authorities must therefore keep schemes under review so that they remain
proportionate and targeted in
delivering the intended outcomes, as discussed at committee stage a maximum duration of five years
schemes achieves the right balance, keeps the local authorities were time to assess the effectiveness of
schemes while also providing landlords with the assurance that they will not be subject to any
increased regulation for extended periods, where issues in the private rented sector persist after a scheme
has ended, the local authority may introduce a new scheme to take further action, provided that the statutory criteria is still met, I would therefore ask the Noble Lord
Shipley to withdraw his amendments.
18:33
Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
I and very grateful to the Minister for their comments, and we clearly have a difference of opinion
on the importance of selected
licensing, and the operation in the future of the decent home standard.
It remains my view that the extra powers that exist within the licensing scheme, indeed, the
Government has accepted the importance of it because it would
remove the requirement of the Secretary of State as we have just
said. I am reluctant to move this Amendment one or seven to a vote for
the reason that clearly the House will vote against them and I think
that would not be helpful in the current situation, both frontbenchers of the two largest
parties in the chamber have maintained their opposition to that, so any vote that I move would be
lost.
I think, however, that the issues are so important that, actually, it will be important to
actually, it will be important to
withdraw them. Because there are two pieces of work going on in the House of Commons now on this matter. One
is the consultation on the Decent Homes Standard that the Government
is undertaking as the Minister referred to a moment ago. It is also the case that the housing
communities at local Government committees have taken evidence on housing conditions generally in
England, and so I think that it will be important for the Government
consultation and for the housing community and local Government
committee to take the evidence from
our debate on these amendments to see whether the concerns that I have expressed and the professional
bodies have been expressing about the importance of selective licensing in driving up housing
standards in the private rented sector as well as the public sector
more generally.
In the hope that there will be sufficient goodwill to
allow the consultation of this debate to be referred to the bodies
now undertaking consultation and I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
beg leave to withdraw Amendment 107. Is at your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment 108, not moved
withdrawn. Amendment 108, not moved
withdrawn. Amendment 108, not moved from 109, not moved, amendment 110.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
from 109, not moved, amendment 110. I would like to thank all of those that have spoken in support of
those that have spoken in support of this amendment, Lord was very candid, I thought, in his
candid, I thought, in his acknowledgement of the issue with the police application of the 1997
the police application of the 1997 act. Lord Best underlined the need
act. Lord Best underlined the need for clarification and of the achievable nature of this amendment and I would also particularly like
to thank the noble Baroness Lady Thornhill for what she called the formidable trio putting it forward.
formidable trio putting it forward. And finally I would think the Noble Lady the Minister for her comments which I listened to with care, but I
which I listened to with care, but I have to say that her assurance that, if I may quote, she is actively
if I may quote, she is actively
if I may quote, she is actively working to explore with a number of various bodies about what to do is, I am afraid, not good enough. It is
clear what needs and what should be done within the next six months which would solve the core issue here of the correct understanding
and application of that 1997 law, to
do right by vulnerable tenants, to target rogue landlords, and to support the police in the correct performance of their duties, and for performance of their duties, and for that reason I would like to test the opinion of the House.
18:38
Division
-
Copy Link
The question is that amendment 110 be agreed to. As many as are of
that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", the
question will be decided by division. I will advise the House
when voting is open. Voting is now
when voting is open. Voting is now
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lords, My Lords, the My Lords, the question My Lords, the question is My Lords, the question is that
amendment 110 B agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say,
as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", the contents of a go-to
content", the contents of a go-to the right by the throne, the not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Questionnaires Questionnaires that Questionnaires that amendment Questionnaires that amendment 110
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Questionnaires that amendment 110
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There There have There have voted There have voted content, There have voted content, 98. Not-contents, 148. The "Not
Not-contents, 148. The "Not
In In clause In clause 126, In clause 126, amendment In clause 126, amendment 111,
18:49
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
In clause 126, amendment 111,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. Government amendments 111, 112 and 113 to section 239 of the
and 113 to section 239 of the housing thousand and four clause 126
housing thousand and four clause 126 of the Renter's Rights Bill amend the requirements for entering premises without a warrant the purposes of certain enforcement
purposes of certain enforcement action. Notice to the property owner or landlord will now be provided after the entry has taken place
after the entry has taken place within a reasonable amount of time, rather than at least 24-hour's
rather than at least 24-hour's before.
The 24-hour's prior notice requirement for tenants and occupiers will remain, so residents
occupiers will remain, so residents will always be aware that however entry is going to be exercised, whether that is under section 239 of
whether that is under section 239 of the Housing Act you thousand four clause 126 of the bill. I would like to thank the Right Reverend Prelate Bishop of Manchester for raising
Bishop of Manchester for raising this issue during Committee stage. We've given considerable thought to
We've given considerable thought to the Right Reverend Prelate proposal as well as to feedback from local authorities.
Local authorities have
authorities. Local authorities have told us that providing notice can
told us that providing notice can result in unscrupulous landlords hiding evidence of breaches, intimidating tenants, temporarily
intimidating tenants, temporarily fixing issues before reverting to
non-compliance. We recognise that landlords want to be aware of any inspection and indeed the outcome of the inspection. The local authority
will therefore need to provide notice after the inspection has taken place and engage the landlord
about any issues raised as a result.
We have heard throughout the passage of this bill about the importance of local housing authorities having the right resources and tools to
enforce. Making this change will make a real difference in their ability to address unsafe or hazardous living conditions more promptly and to tackle unscrupulous
landlords. I beg to move the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendments in my name. Amendment proposed, page 156, line 26 after subsection 3 insert all 3A.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
all 3A. I thank the Minister for her
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the Minister for her comments just now, I declare my interest, I own with my wife one
18:51
The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)
-
Copy Link
-
interest, I own with my wife one apartment in the West Midlands, this will not help me in any way if this
amendment is passed but I think it's the right thing to do. For exactly the reasons the Baroness has given,
ones which I myself trust that Committee stage and am very grateful
to her and colleagues whom met with me in the meantime undertaking this amendment that the station I do urge
noble Lords if these matters are put to a division of the House that they support these amendments.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Likewise we support the Right
18:52
Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Likewise we support the Right Reverend Prelate during report stage and we will support the government
and we will support the government now. Through actual real experience
of seeing the kind of things are local authority really does take very seriously whether it decides to
enforce an entry and go into a property, so we are not talking again about the life that nice
little cottage or the cottage belonging to Lord Hacking, we are talking about properties where bad
stuff goes on.
We are talking about properties where modern day slavery
can be happening, where people are being refugees and people are living in appalling conditions. There is no
way we would say hey Road landlord we are just letting you know that
we're coming in 24-hour's, the absolutely has to be opportunity at this extreme end of enforcement to be able to make a surprise slap
inspection. I'm glad the government
have listened to that. Of course there need to be safeguards of course, but I think it's another of these instances where we really are talking about the good landlords
need not fear so you don't need to worry about your flat in the
Midlands.
Because I can't imagine that they are going to be dashing in
at six cock in the morning, but I think because of some of the extreme things that do happen in our country sadly, that power does need to
exist. Therefore we will be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
supporting the government in this. I rise to speak to this group of amendments concerning powers of entry, particularly in relation to
18:54
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
entry, particularly in relation to notices served to landlords and occupiers under clause 26 and 135 of the bill. The amendments before us the name of the Minister seek to
make targeted to when and how notice must be given before entry is
exercised by local authorities under their enforcement powers. I have noted the Baroness Lady Thornton
makes the case via the extreme end I believe that is the right quotes, of
the spectrum. The extreme end of modern day slavery and other
criminal activities I do believe might just be a police matter and
actually this is dealing with
rightly things that may need enforcement, and the notice would be given to the tenant, but you have an owner and there are rights of owners and the owner also been given notice
and not retrospective written notice
after the entry has taken place.
From these benches we have consistently supported effective
enforcement, but it needs to be a proportionate, accountable and clearly justified. The balance between enforcement and individual rights is delicate, and changes to
that balance demand close scrutiny.
The government amendment 111 may appear a consequential provision linked to wider changes proposed in
other amendments in this group, but together they are not technical amendments. These amendments brought forward to this House so late in the
process underpin a significant shift in approach. One that removes long-
standing procedural protections for
landlords and residents without adequate explanation or assurance.
These changes introduce ambiguity into what should be a tightly
regulated area of enforcement. They risk undermining trust in local
authority investigations could lead to a greater number of legal challenges, confusion and even
misuse. We cannot and will not support provisions that weakens accountability without offering clear safeguards in return. Powers
of entry are intrusive by their
nature. If they are to be exercised without prior warning there must be rigorous justification, robust check and balances and explicit limits to
prevent overages.
That bar has not been met. We also have deep
reservations about government
amendment 113 which proposes similar changes in relation to section 239 of the Housing Act 2004, again the
proposed move from prior notification to retrospective notice raises serious concerns.
Particularly in the absence of defined threshold for such unannounced entry would be deemed
necessary or proportionate. The Renter's Rights Bill is an
opportunity to rebuild confidence
across the House -- housing system. Confidence rests on fairness.
These amendments risked tipping the
balance too far, undermining transparency and weakening the very safeguards that protect landlords and tenants alike. For those reasons
we will be voting against this package of amendments, we urge the government to reconsider its approach in this area.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Would you actually concede, I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Would you actually concede, I absolutely understand the extreme
absolutely understand the extreme end is criminal, but would you concede that local authority officers are very often the ones to uncover the criminal practices in
uncover the criminal practices in
their proportionate response, responding to local concerns over time that have built up, they will go in and then find that there is
go in and then find that there is actually more there than they originally thought and then of course is time to hand over to the authorities I think that does prevent overreach in my experience,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
prevent overreach in my experience, you have to be able to build your case and be quite confident before you would ever assert these powers because they are quite strong. I would refer to my comments
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I would refer to my comments If they are to be exercised without prior warning they must be rigorous justification, robust checks and balances and explicit limits to
18:58
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
balances and explicit limits to prevent overreach. That bar has not been reached and it is not in the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bill. It needs to be in the bill. I thank those that have
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank those that have contributed to this debate, we do believe this is a well balanced approach that enhances enforcement while respecting the rights of both landlords and tenants. Allowing local authorities and its local
local authorities and its local authorities that have been very keen that we supported the Lord Bishop of
that we supported the Lord Bishop of Manchester's proposal in this, and allowing them to enter premises without giving advance notice to owners and residential landlords
owners and residential landlords will help them better target unscrupulous landlords, ensuring the properties are compliant with PRS legislation.
And meet safety
legislation. And meet safety standards, in response to Lord Jamieson's points, local authorities
Jamieson's points, local authorities are only able to use his powers of
are only able to use his powers of entry if they consider the necessary to determine whether enforcement action is needed, I think Baroness
action is needed, I think Baroness Thornhill referred to this as well. Officers will need the correct authorisation stating the purpose of the inspection and ensuring lawful use of the power of entry.
Compliance landlords will not face any detriment as a result of this change, it is not intended to impact on good landlords.
They will benefit
on good landlords. They will benefit from streamlined enforcement with transparency through timely post
transparency through timely post inspection notices. As I set out in my opening speech, making this
change will make a real difference in the ability to address unsafe or
hazardous living conditions more promptly, it will assist our local authorities to promptly tackle
unscrupulous landlords. I beg to move the amendments 111, 112 and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
113. The question is that amendment 111 is greeted. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the
opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". -- Agreed
19:00
Division
-
Copy Link
contrary, "Not content". -- Agreed to. The question will be decided by division, I will advise the House
when boating is open. -- Voting.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lords. My Lords. The My Lords. The question My Lords. The question is My Lords. The question is that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. The question is that amendment 111 B agreed to. As many
amendment 111 B agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not
"Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", the contents will go to the right by the throne, the not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, My Lords, the My Lords, the question My Lords, the question is My Lords, the question is that
My My Lords,
My Lords, they My Lords, they have My Lords, they have voted My Lords, they have voted contents
214, not contents 153, so the
My My Lords,
My Lords, amendment My Lords, amendment 112, My Lords, amendment 112, Baroness
Taylor, moved formally to, the question is that amendment 112 B agreed to, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the
contrary, "Not content", The contents have it.
In clause 135,
113, Baroness Taylor, moved formally. The question is that amendment 113 B agreed to. As many
as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not
content", The contents have it. After clause 136 amendment 114, not
19:11
Amendment 115
-
Copy Link
Thornhill.
19:11
Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 115, asking the Government to seriously consider repealing the
right to rent policy. If any bill is appropriate to repeal this, it is
the renters rights Bill. I am picking the pattern from Baroness
Lister who tabled this amendment report who clearly listen to the words of her colleagues the Minister
and has decided not to pursue her amendment, but I bet her commitment
is just as strong, as is mine. I was actually quite surprised at the strength of the Minister's response
at committee to so firmly closed the
door on repeal.
I regard this as a pernicious piece of legislation and
it seems that this is one of those pieces of legislation designed to sound tough on immigration and therefore for public consumption and
political soundbites rather than
effective policy. The right to rent was introduced as a mechanism to make it harder for those without legal status to live and work in the
UK. Part of the so named hostile
environment. It placed a legal obligation on private landlords to carry out immigration checks before
renting out their property, turning them into defect all border
officials.
My Lords, landlords and letting agents are ordinary citizens who are neither trained nor equipped
to make complex legal determinations. And when even the national registered landlords
Association is seeing very loudly and clearly this is not working, it
is not a good thing. You really do have to question the ability to do
what it says on the tin. This is not about being soft on immigration, it is about being fair. Proportionate,
and practical. And on all those three counts, the right to rent
fails.
Evidence is clear, the right
to rent scheme fuels racial and xenophobic discrimination. Landlords fearing the consequences of getting
it wrong, including fines and even
prison. They are more likely to play it safe and reject any tenant who does not hold a UK passport, both
Nall and Shelter say that one in four landlords believe they can only
rent to Tish passport holders. The Minister in her previous response
also asserted that it is possible to carry out the checks proportionately and without unlawful discrimination.
But the reality is that it is not
happening. Landlords and letting agents often end up resorting to proxies like names, accents, and
skin colour to roll out prospective
tenants that they assume will not pass the right to rent. We are
seeing the chilling effects of this policy vulnerable groups are being pushed further into the shadows, forced into unsafe housing, unable
to assert their rights and at greater risk of exploitation by
those rogue landlords. Across the House we have all been saying that we hope this bill will eventually
flush them out and make it more difficult for them to exist, but
this piece of legislation delivers vulnerable people right into their
hands.
To sum up, the fact is that the Government has turned ordinary
landlords into immigration officers. No training or guidance, just
threats of fines and prison sentence if they get it wrong, and that resulting discrimination is plain in
evidence. Let us be clear it is not just a policy failure, it is a moral
failure. It is pushing people into the shadows, into dodgy housing,
unable to complain or seek help. And, all the while, this is the one that really is the killer, there is
no evidence that this policy even
works, none at all.
The Home Office can't show that it has reduced
illegal in, or it improves enforcement, but it has created
fear, suspicion, and exclusion in
It has divided communities and made racism easier to justify those who
want to justify it. I have spent my life working in local government dealing with housing with real families and real issues, as has the
Minister. I can tell you this. When people have a safe, stable home,
they can thrive. They can
contribute.
Write to rent does the
exact opposite, it should be repealed if not now, when? I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Men proposed after clause 136 insert the new clause is printed on the marshalled List.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the marshalled List. I'm grateful to Lady Thornhill
19:17
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm grateful to Lady Thornhill for taking over this amendment to which I was pleased that my name and I assure her I am still as committed as ever. Two opposition to this
as ever. Two opposition to this policy. Given widespread support for the repeal of this discriminatory
piece of legislation including among landlords organisations, I had hoped the government might consider accepting the amendment in
committee. I made what I believed was a strong case for repealing in
committee and I won't repeat that now especially as Baroness Thornhill has made so powerfully caused just
two points.
Since committee a new research report into race, ethnicity
and homelessness has been published which underlines the racism all too often placed in the housing market
biracial minority sized tenants especially refugees and other
migrants. I'm indebted to the lead refer -- researcher for sharing some
of the findings with me. Although
the research was not specifically into the) scheme, a substantial number of participants based private landlords who clearly did not want
to let to racially minority sized tenants, and practitioners repeatedly flagged up a reluctance to enforce housing rights among this group even when there were aware of
them.
Professor Fitzpatrick suggests that confidence in exercising housing rights might well have been eroded by hostile environment policies including the right to rent
policies including the right to rent
policy. In recommendations to report he argues that ending the right to rent policy which has been shown to drive racial discrimination would
demonstrate the bill's commitment to dealing with antidiscrimination practices. Second, I was left
somewhat bemused in committee.
Speaking for the opposition Lord Jamieson who is not in his place stated that I had raised a very
valid issue regarding the right to rent and the fact that introducing
what may seem quite a sensible rule leads to complications and places landlords in an awkward situation
they do not fully understand the legislation in front of them.
When I
pointed out that many people including Lady Smith and Lord Kennedy highlighted the potential
problems at the time the legislation
went through Parliament, I was grateful for his acknowledgement for
the problems now. And his observation that, where the law is complex we need to make it simple and easy to comply with. He then
went on to say that this is one of our major concerns with this legislation, apparently forgetting that it was his party which
introduced it.
I would say that it's never too late for a sinner to
never too late for a sinner to
repent except behind me as the Right Reverend Prelate. Except we are now saddled with this unfair legislation. Which all too easily
leads to the kind of discrimination uncovered by the Harriet Watts research. My party which was so critical of it at the time, now defends it. Despite the evidence of
its damaging impact on migrants and members of racially minority iced
communities. In the lessons learned
review one of the most contentious aspect of the hostile environment.
It saddens me that despite the
evidence to the contrary the Minister, who I've got great respect
for, rejected the amendment in committee on the grounds as we have
heard that the right to rent scheme is capable of being operated proportionately by landlords and letting agents in all cases. I
disagree. I therefore believe it really is not compatible with the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
aims of this bill. I added my name to this amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I added my name to this amendment and I'm very grateful for the powerful speech from Baroness
19:21
The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)
-
Copy Link
-
powerful speech from Baroness Thornhill, they've left new with very little to say except I think Baroness Lister has given me a queue
with her words about repentance sinner. Going to take it further back in history to the book of
Genesis, and the destruction of the
Abraham Abraham argues Abraham argues with Abraham argues with God Abraham argues with God and Abraham argues with God and Abraham argues with God against the destruction of the city and God
agrees only, he will not destroyed the cities if only 10 people can be found who are righteous, the principle that established which passes down into our personal today
is it is better to let the guilty of than for the innocent to be punished.
I think this is what this is about in this particular amendment here because the people
who are suffering are not the guilty
you who may be here illegally and should not be here, they are the many people of minority ethnic backgrounds who just don't get a look in because landlords play it
safe we heard that in Baroness
Thornhill introducing the debate, that is the problem. If we do not get would have this pernicious piece of legislation we continue to see innocent people who just because
they have a different skin colour to my own, suffer because landlords will not let the properties on the off chance that there might you
something not quite right in their paperwork.
I don't believe that the renters the right to rent act can be reformed and I do support the
amendment that is now before us.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I hesitate to follow when Sodom and Gomorrah have both been mentioned, however Baroness Thornhill has made a powerful case
19:22
Lord Cashman (Non-affiliated)
-
Copy Link
-
Thornhill has made a powerful case
for her amendment and indeed I the passionate defence of this amendment
by Baroness Lister. As has been said
the amendment seeks to repeal the right to rent appeals introduced by the immigration act 2014 and I
remember being a new be here in 2014 and being on the benches opposite and indeed the hearing to speeches
against the clauses and the
provisions within the Immigration Act that we now seek to repeal.
At
its core, as we know this scheme
turns landlords and letting agents into immigration officers. It was part of the hostile environment
created at that time, and I'm sad to say to the noble Lady the Minister
on the frontbench that it is a continuation of that hostile
environment. There is no excuse for this provision. It's a policy that has enabled and indeed legitimised
discrimination and I believe it has no place in a housing system that
should be fair and that should treat
everyone equally.
And with dignity. Landlords and letting agents are making judgements based on what they
think will fall within protecting themselves. They are immigration
officers. It's been shown, and I thank Shelter for their briefing, that a prospective white tenant is
36% more likely to get a positive
response than a black tenant. Renters with South Asian names get
25% fewer replies than those with white sounding names. Evidence of
the consequences of this pernicious piece of legislation. The courts
recognise this reality, in 2019 the High Court found that the policy
causes discrimination.
That ruling was later overturned on appeal, not because the discrimination wasn't
happening, but because it was deemed
justifiable. And that I believe is not acceptable. I could go on but
Baroness Thornhill has pointed out that the Home Office has never
produced evidence upon which we should legislate that the scheme
reduces irregular immigration or
improves enforcement. Finally, discrimination particularly when sanctioned by the state is never
justifiable. There are many reasons to accept this amendment, but I urge
the frontbench to accept the decent,
just and fair case.
I see the realities of the discrimination in the housing sector in my own borough of the London Bor of Tower Hamlets.
Now is the time to do the decent thing. I urge the government to
listen and I urge the government to reply and do the decent thing and
repeal the right to rent provisions introduced by the Immigration Act
2014.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I will be brief. On these benches refine the argument for full repeal unconvincing. The right to rent scheme was designed to serve a clear
19:26
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
scheme was designed to serve a clear and important public interest. Ensuring that access to the private
rented sector is not used as a back door to unlawful residence in the United Kingdom. That principle
remains relevant. This bill is not
the right vehicle to Rio reopen immigration law, any reform to the right to rent scheme must be
considered in the round and as part of a wider conversation about
enforcement, fairness and social cohesion in our immigration system, for those reasons we cannot and will
not support this amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank Lady Thornhill for
19:27
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank Lady Thornhill for amendment 115 that would abolish the right to rent scheme which applies in England, and to Baroness Lister,
in England, and to Baroness Lister, Lord Cashman and the Right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for their contributions and to Baroness
Scott. The scheme was introduced to ensure only those lawfully on the outer kingdom can access the private
rented sector and importantly to tackle unscrupulous landlords who
exploit vulnerable migrants, sometimes in very poor limit --
living conditions of some landlords who rent to those who are here illegally criminal operators.
We all have a shared objective to drive
them from the rental market and to deter unscrupulous landlords from entering into exploitative practices
will stop we have always been
absolutely clear that discriminatory treatment on the part of anyone carrying out) checks is unlawful.
The cheques apply equally to everyone seeking private rented accommodation, including British
citizens. The scheme has been independently evaluated twice, while
some examples of discrimination was found, there was insufficient evidence to claim any systematic
unlawful discrimination as a result of right to rent scheme.
There are therefore no current plans to end
the) scheme. It is our view that it's wrong to abolish in its entirety by simple notice of amendment. Immigration legislation
was designed to address those who are disqualified from living in UK by virtue of their status, that
remains an important priority for this government. The government will continue to support legitimate
landlords and letting agents that continue to act properly by carrying
out the prescribed checks in legislation published guidance. We
have made big strides to improve the
digital capability of the systems involved.
I would emphasise that the Home Office has listened to and taken on board concerns expressed
about right to rent during the progress of the Renter's Rights Bill, and from wider stakeholder
engagement. As a result officials will actively engage further with
To ensure the right to rent scheme works fairly and inclusively for
all. Early engagement has helped the Home Office identify individuals who may struggle to prove their identity and in consequence face barriers accessing housing and other services. The Home Office has begun
to work with local authorities to understand how individuals can overcome these barriers with the aim to extend successful approaches
across the UK.
As we move forward we we remain committed to working with stakeholders including community-
based initiatives and the third sector to strengthen the inclusivity and accessibility of the right to
rent scheme. I thank Baroness Thornhill for her interest in the
scheme and would be happy to facilitate a meeting with the appropriate Home Office officials to
discuss how to ensure the scheme can
operate inclusively unfairly for all tenants, landlords and letting agents. In the light of these reassurances I would ask that the noble Baroness withdraws the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment. I thank the Minister for her answer. It seems to me that the
19:30
Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
answer. It seems to me that the government want to make the scheme
work. Whereas I feel that on my benches we are fundamentally opposed
to making ordinary citizens landlords into immigration officers.
landlords into immigration officers.
You know we do not fight injustice by staying quiet, we fight it by
shining a light hand by telling the truth. The truth is this is not
working. And by demanding better. That is what those of us who have
spoken today in some small way have tried to do by supporting this
amendment.
I am disappointed that this Labour Government has not taken an opportunity to repeal this, and I
feel so strongly about this that I did want to push it to a vote, but I
did want to push it to a vote, but I
am not silly, and I do not want to waste your time knowing that it will not come to anything, so I will not
push it to a vote. But I will be exploring every avenue to bring this up again and again in any
legislation.
But, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Wye is at your Lordships pressure that this amendment is withdrawn? Amendment is, by live, withdrawn.
Amendment 116, Baroness Thornhill.
116, Baroness Thornhill. Not moved.
19:31
Amendment 116
-
Copy Link
Just give me two seconds.
19:31
Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
Apologies to everyone. Slightly different tone now. My Lords, I rise
to promote amendment 116. I have
been pleasantly surprised by the support for the amendment form a range of bodies, including the Law
Society and the National landlords Association, plus many and various housing legal practices, and thus I
can say with confidence that reassurances we have had thus far
about the capacity and capabilities of the courts to deal with the impact of this bill when it becomes
an act is clearly challenged by those who actually have to deal with the courts regularly and currently,
and I have listened to them.
It
seems we are still recovering from the backlog of COVID. They are not
convinced it is sorted, and neither are we, yet. But we hope this amendment today provides an
opportunity for the Minister to indeed do that. Put very simply, this amendment asks for a review of
the impact of the cycling path on the judicial system and to set out
findings no later than two years after the date on which the act has
passed. It asks the Government to consider effects on case volumes, court efficiency, resource demands
and access to justice.
These are all key areas to measure effectiveness
of the court process to both
landlords, tenants, and, in fact, to ensure confidence in the whole system. Does the Minister have
access to those same measures and the current caseloads on which we
can measure the progress? This
amendment also reflects concerns raised across this House about the capacity of the courts to deal with
additional case loads that this might generate and I seeking the reassurance that the Government will
give a clear commitment today to provide the necessary resources to
the courts that they might need going forward.
But, of course, that begs the question how will the Government will this if it does not
carry out some some sort of
fundamental review. And today if reviews or something similar are promised by the Minister, given the widespread concerns still about the
courts, perhaps the Minister could
also give a reason why this cannot replace the bill. I know that we have all received emails from around the country from landlords stating
their own instances of the length of time it takes for an application of
the possession order to get to an actual hearing, and this has gone
from weeks to months and it varies depending on where you live in the country and that is now.
I hope the
Minister can give us all some assurance on what the current situation is so that we can have a
benchmark before the ill becomes an act. Indeed, at Committee stage,
Baroness Scott stated backlog is are arising, courtrooms lie empty and
unused, the lack of staff and overburdened judges are stretched too thin. With the Minister please
too thin. With the Minister please
give us a progress report? Amendment 120 and 121 in Lord King's name seem
to be asking for a delay, setting an
unrealistic measure of cases being processed as quickly as they were
before the first lockdown.
To achieve this, some might say
desirable benchmark, we could inevitably delay the implementation of the very important until reforms
of this bill, so we could not support them, but we would like to hear that the Government and the
court are now in tandem and half
**** Possible New Speaker ****
agreed to have an agreed commencement date. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after close 36
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed after close 36 insert the clause as printed on the
19:36
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Marshall list. My Lords, I thank the noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness Lady Thornhill and Noble
Baroness Lady Thornhill and Noble Lord king of Ealing for their amendments. Starting with amendment 116, we fully recognise the
importance of the justice system, both courts and tribunals needing to be ready for our reforms, and for individuals to access timely justice. We are, therefore, as I
have commented before in previous sessions on the bill, where working
closely with the Ministry of Justice to assess the impacts of our reforms
on the courts and tribunals and to listen these wherever possible.
The work had been ongoing for years and in great detail. The digital service
proposition claims is one advance that will make it more efficient and
easier to understand for landlords and tenants. The amendment we have tabled our rent increase measure shows that we are listening to the
concerns of the sector, and this House about tribunal workloads. It
put in place a sensible and proportionate safeguarding case it is needed. The Ministry of Justice
already publishes quarterly statistics on the operation of the County Court possession process, including the volume of cases going
through the system and average timelines.
The data is widely
available and regularly reported on in the press. As set out in the impact assessment for the bill and in debate, we are already committed
to monitoring and evaluating the
private sector reform program and I have spoken at length about the ambition of this program so I would
simply reiterate that we would use a wide-ranging sources to support this
monitoring and evaluation work. Existing datasets will be used and new data will be collected and the department is fully committed to
publishing our evaluation findings and the two-year and five-year points after the bills implementation.
I can therefore
reassure the House that we will already be collecting extensive data, in this context it is not
necessary to commit to undertake any further review and I welcome the
noble Baroness Lady Thornhill's wish
to give our reforms a regular MOT, but I hope she accepts that we have ambitious evaluation plans and do not want to duplicate them
unnecessarily and, therefore, I would respectfully ask her to withdraw her amendment. Amendment 121, 121, would require the
Secretary of State to certify that session actions in respect of residential property processed by the courts in no greater time on
average than they were in the year
before the first COVID lockdown before most of the bill could be capable of coming into effect.
The
Noble Lord king has also made amendment 120 that, if made, would confirm the commencement of the important reforms to be delayed before the certification in
countdown and I fully vitiate the
need for the justice system to be ready for the reforms and for landlords and tenants to access
justice in a timely way and that landlords need a smooth and efficient process in County Court for the minority of cases where court action for possession becomes
necessary. I want to be clear that we will not let the implementation of most of the provisions in this bill to an arbitrary target, the sector has already waited too long
for this urgently needed reform.
Court rules already specify that possession cases requiring a hearing should be listing between four to eight weeks. The emoji quarterly
landlord possession statistics for the period of January to March 2025
indicates that claim to order median time limit is 8.3 weeks. I
understand there will be cases outside of that, and they often have different circumstances. Setting a target for other parts of the possession process is not sensible
as it is dependent on the actions of the party proceeding. So, the
important stage is the application for a warrant of possession and this
is dependent on the actions of a landlord and is outside the control of the court service, where a tenant
stays in a property beyond the date of the possession order, a landlord can choose if and when to apply for a warrant to.
Possession order
Can also decide whether to apply the
case to the High Court. Instead of agreeing to these unnecessary commitments where working in partnership with the Ministry of Justice to assess the impact of the reforms and listen these wherever
possible and this collaboration has
been done in a great deal of detail. And this will make the possession process more efficient and easier to
understand. And the impact for the bill we are committed to monitoring
and evaluating. And more efficient action processes but I hope he accepts we are making good progress
and making these progress online.
On that basis, I hope you will agree to
withdraw his amendment.
19:41
Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
I am really pleased that the Minister is sounding very assured in what she has told us, and I completely accept what she says.
completely accept what she says.
What I will say is that view is not shared by everyone. We did say everyone should know the process et cetera, but that does not appear to
be the case, so I fear if you are confident in the good news and you
are in tandem with the courts then I think there is a message to get out there.
Because without meaningful
court reform the ambitions of the renters rights Bill could be
seriously undermined. And we all
know and understand that. And my
Lords I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is a job Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment 117 Baroness Jones of
Amendment 117 Baroness Jones of
Moulsecoomb. Not moved. Not moved. Amendment 118, Baroness Scott.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 118, Baroness Scott. My Lords, this was an amendment
19:42
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
we spoke to at an earlier report day stop it is a very important
19:43
Amendment 118
-
Copy Link
amendment in our view because it asks that there be an annual report laid before Parliament on the bill.
laid before Parliament on the bill. The reasons for this is that we have
begun to see problems within this sector. The availability of homes
that we would want published, the
rents charged that will come from a lack of homes availability. House
lack of homes availability. House prices in and around the same sector. And, also, very importantly,
request for social housing, because as the rented sector starts to cool down, then the social housings
down, then the social housings sector hots up.
We really think that
sector hots up. We really think that the Government should accept this
the Government should accept this type of annual report. So that if anything really goes badly wrong with this sector then something can
be done about it very quickly. The Government is offering some sort of
review that will come out with figures, but that is not what is wanted by this side of the House.
This side of the House once an annual report, not a review, and he wants that to be laid before
Parliament so that it can be debated
properly, so that amendments can be made, so that things can be changed, if they need to be, to bring the
sector back up to what it is at the moment.
So, I know that it is late,
but I do intend to test the opinion of the House on what we consider a
very important amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that amendment 118 B agree to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the
that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", I think the
19:45
Division
-
Copy Link
contrary, "Not content", I think the not contents have it. This question will be decided by division. I will
will be decided by division. I will alert the House when voting is open.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that amendment 118 is agree to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the
opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The Contents will go to the right by the
Contents will go to the right by the throne, the Not-contents to the left
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The question The question is The question is this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is this amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The have The have voted The have voted Contents The have voted Contents 106, Not-contents, 148. The "Not
Not-contents, 148. The "Not Amendment 119 Baroness Grender not
Amendment 119 Baroness Grender not moved. Amendments 120 and 121 not
moved. Amendments 120 and 121 not moved. Amendment 122 Lord
Carrington.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I speak in support of amendment 122 and welcome the support of Lord
122 and welcome the support of Lord
Hacking. The amendment aims to introduce a transition period of
introduce a transition period of three months for new sure to tenancies and six months for existing tenancies before the bill's
existing tenancies before the bill's provisions take effect. Much of the debate surrounding this legislation
19:56
Lord Carrington (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
debate surrounding this legislation focuses quite rightly on the need to tackle rogue or criminal landlords.
tackle rogue or criminal landlords.
While ensuring that the new responsibilities to the PRS landlords are fair, equitable and sustainable. But there is another
important consideration which has received considerably less
attention. But is equally critical.
If we are to maintain a vibrant PRS. The implementation of the Bills
measures must avoid any disruption in the flow of mortgage finance that
underpins most of our countries privately rented homes.
Careful
consideration must be given to the implementation of the legislation to ensure a smooth transition to the
new tenancy system. A great many landlords have no knowledge of the
bill and what it entails. Landlords,
lenders and other in that in the PRS will need time and support to adjust
to the significant changes that the new tenancy system requires. I would
new tenancy system requires. I would
like to explain why this the very similar amendment was not tabled at Committee stage.
Lenders rightly wanted further engagement with
government to discuss how the legislation can be implemented successfully, to share insights on
the impact on the lenders and to consider how the sector can be
supported to ensure the best outcome
for tenants. In order to achieve a smooth transition to the tenancy system following a second reading in
February, the mortgage lenders, led
by UK finance, wrote to the Minister at MHCLG in early March requesting a
meeting. The ministers officials at MHCLG responded in mid April
offering that meeting.
Ongoing discussions then started regarding the concerns of the lenders. I
thought it best to wait until the outcome of those discussions was
known before muddying the waters with an amendment. Unfortunately these discussions which also
involved HM Treasury, have not so
far satisfied mortgage lenders. In fact, no follow-up has been received
from the Treasury. Current meetings continue to take place with the Bank
of England. As noble Lords have been made aware, the PRS currently houses
one in five households including workers, students, and those unable to buy homes or access social
housing.
60% of landlords rely on
buy to let mortgages. To maintain the supply of PRS homes needed to
meet sustain demand, a continuing
flow of buy to let mortgage finance is therefore essential. As such, the government should welcome this
amendment to introduce a transition
period for the introduction of reforms before the Bill's provisions take effect. So that the buy to let mortgage lenders have sufficient
time to implement the necessary
system changes. I believe the government has committed to implementing the new tenancy system
in one stage, avoiding unnecessary cliff edges and working with all parts of the sector to ensure a
smooth transition.
To achieve this, sufficient time will be needed for the sector to prepare. The changes
will include drafting new tenancy agreements, developing training materials to support property
professionals, helping agents understand the new procedures and enabling insurance and mortgage providers to adjust their policies
among other issues. It would make
enormous sense to provide a transition period to support the industry to implement the required
changes. These lenders will need at least three to six months depending on whether the tenancy is underpinned by their mortgages are new or existing ones, to implement
the changes would be required by the legislation.
To give some examples, lenders will need to review new mortgage application terms and
Billy, lenders with forward flow with agreement for funding may need approval from their funders and
forward flow partners. However, and most importantly, buy to let
mortgage lenders cannot begin implementing many of these changes
until they have actually seen the
finalised details of the act. Addressing these issues is vitally important to ensure a continued
supply of PRS homes for people across the country and to avoid disruption in mortgage finance that
could lead to a contraction in our supply.
We have had no information on the timescale of the implementation of this ill, except the text of clause 1 ill, except the
the text of clause 1 ill, except the
text of clause 145 which I find incomprehensible. I urge the Minister to tell us the timescale of
implementation, or to consider and accept the amendment as a means of a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
smooth transition. I beg to move. Amendment proposed, clause 145,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed, clause 145, page 169, 95, at the end insert words as printed on the Marshall
**** Possible New Speaker ****
list. I am pleased to support the Noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am pleased to support the Noble
20:02
Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Lord, and I in the stand that he is taking understand that I am now taking, there is nothing political
about it. It is purely a practical amendment. And,, I moved a great number of amendments to do with the
start date of professions in this bill and they were also not in any
way political, administrative or practical, and the reality, as all
your Lordships no, that in this build their are absolutely
fundamental changes in the role of landlord and tenant.
The short-term
tenancy is gone and has been replaced by a periodic tenancy and a
number of other features we have gone through in detail both at
committee and at report which are new and represent a massive change.
The consequence of that is that everybody needs time, everybody who
is involved in the letting and property, that is the estate agents
property, that is the estate agents
and landlords needs to have time to draw up entirely new tenancy agreements.
And, as it happens, that
I personally, all of my tenants
agreements with each of my tenants I
have to get down to this task of completely rewriting the tenancy agreement. I come of course, have the advantage of having participated
in this bill at second reading and at committee and now at report, but
I think that I do not meet the full
three months for either existing new tenancies or existing tenancies, but I am sympathetic to others who need
more time, so I would ask my Noble Friend the Minister, not for any
political reasons, but for purely practical reasons, would she
consider giving us more time? Because there is a lot of work to be done and I think I can do it within
the requisite time, but others might
find it very difficult.
20:04
Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
Lord Carrington, Lord Hacking, I hate to say that we do not want to
do anything that would delay this bill. We actually want the key
statutes to be on the box as soon as possible. And, being planned, the key players you are talking about,
they have known this is coming for a
long time. And, to me, there really should have been on it for months, and if they have not then I am not quite sure what planet they have
**** Possible New Speaker ****
been on. Individual landlords, yes, maybe. Sorry. Would you kindly help me? When I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Would you kindly help me? When I have the right honest tenancy agreement it does take time.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
agreement it does take time. We are hoping that some of the larger players will have ones that
larger players will have ones that are actually off-the-shelf for you to use. I am sure the Minister will be able to help out with that. But,
be able to help out with that. But, basically, we do not want to delay things anymore and we genuinely believe that the trailing of the key
believe that the trailing of the key parts of this bill have been so public and so out there, but some definite timescales I think would be
helpful.
20:06
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
helpful. My Lords, we think the amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, we think the amendment from Lord Carrington is sensible and it is measured. The amendment provides a minimum of three months notice before new tenancies are
notice before new tenancies are treated and a further three months
before existing tenancies are reclassified in the same way. This introduces a clear and reasonable transition period, giving landlords
and tenants time to prepare for a significant legal and practical implication of these changes.
Crucially, it gives thanks also. As
the Noble Lord Carrington noted,
amendment 122 is supported by UK Finance, including lenders such as
Nationwide and Paragon.
Banks need time to adjust. Any changes to how a
landlord can't evict a tenant mix lenders more cautious about the security of their investments, and I have to say these lenders will want to have seen it written down in
writing before they started make too many changes. Additionally, lenders
will need to reassess their understanding of rental income
flows. Lenders will have to adjust their risk models and potentially
their loan terms to accommodate the risks under the new regime. Not only
in relation to individual property but also with regard to the broader
market stability.
It is vital to understand how the regime affects overall demand in the rental market.
May I also take this opportunity to
raise the specifics of buy to let mortgages. Flexibility increasing rent in these cases is especially
important and an area were sufficient time for adjustment will
be needed. Lenders must evaluate their continued attractiveness of buy to let properties as collateral
for loans. Operational readiness matters also. Quite simply, new
Will need to be adapted to the framework. Earlier today, we
discussed systems such as the database, or even the pensions dashboard.
Of course, many private companies are often more agile when responding to challenge and change,
but even they need time. This is a complex bill and I have said several
times its implementation will require careful communication and a phased approach. I see this
phased approach. I see this
amendment as a practical way of helping the Government ensure that no stakeholder is caught offguard by the shift to the assured tenancy regime. I would welcome clarity from
the noble Baroness the Minister on the government's plans for
commencement, so I'm sure would landlords.
So would tenants. And
stakeholders will need time.
20:08
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, I thank the Noble Lord Carrington for his amendment, and for his engagement generally on the
bill. Subsequent to our meeting earlier this week I did have a detailed response prepared for the
Noble Lord on clause 145.
In the chamber just as I was coming in this afternoon, it probably has
not reached him yet but it is on his way. And amendment 122, the committee is committed to introducing the new tenancy system for the private rent sector in one
stage to bring to an end section 21 no former convictions as soon as
possible.
These cause misery for tenants on the other end and a huge
amount of cost to local Government in picking up the pieces when people
get evicted at very short notice. In simple implementation date for new and existing tenancies would enable all tenants to benefit from the
reforms as soon as possible and prevent the confusing two tier
system during transition. We are continuing to work very closely with stakeholders, the Noble Lord
Carrington refer to meetings with my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and financial institutions
and has also met with many landlords
associations and other stakeholders to ensure the secretariat has prepared the reforms of the bill.
I
want to be very clear that we are committed to providing sufficient notice to ensure that all parts of the private rented sector have time
to prepare. Limitation will not be immediate as we have secondary legislation. We are making good
progress in drafting that and on the necessary guidance that goes along
side it. All of this will help us to implement in a timely manner. In
addition, this ensures a smooth provision to avoid unnecessary cliff edges, so to ensure that notices of
landlords for the commencement date
remain valid after that date.
Based on ongoing work to ensure a smooth transition to the new system, we
consider that there will be no benefit to requiring arbitrary minimum time periods afterwards
before the tenancy reform measures
of the bill can come into force. With these reassurances that we are committed to a smooth and responsible approach to implementing the bill and I would respectfully
ask the Noble Lord Carrington to withdraw his amendment. withdraw his amendment.
20:11
Lord Carrington (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
Thank you, Minister. And thank you very much for your engagement with me. Although the letter has not
arrived yet. I am in a position of enormous power now, in the sense
that this is the very last amendment
and I keeping you from your drinks and everything else. But I just wanted to say that I am very pleased
that the nobility the Minister has reassured me that the cliff edge is not going to happen just like that as far as financial institutions are
concerned, it there is time for
concerned, it there is time for
preparation.
I thank also, the Noble Lord packing for his support and his emphasis on the fact that this was
not a political amendment but practical. And I wish him great success in the work that he does
with his tenants. Happily, I have
suffered. Anyway, I would have thanked everyone for their kind
engagement. And I have pleasure in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
withdrawing the amendment. Before the Noble Lord sits down, I am entitled to intervene here and
I am entitled to intervene here and I just want to thank him very much
I just want to thank him very much for his words and also to thank my Noble Friend the Minister who has reassured me more time is going to
reassured me more time is going to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be given and more time for me to rewrite the tenancy agreements. It is a pleasure that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It is a pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment 123, moved formally. The
Amendment 123, moved formally. The question is that amendment 123 be agreed to. As many as are of that
agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The
contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment 124, moved formally. The question is that
moved formally. The question is that amendment 124 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it.
content", The contents have it. Amendment 125, moved formally. The question is that amendment 125 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the
contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. My Lords, before we move on to next business, I will give a moment for people to move
20:14
Legislation: Football Governance Bill - consideration of Commons amendments (around 7.30pm)
-
Copy Link
adjourn during pleasure to sort out the membership of a house for approximately five minutes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the House adjourn during pleasure for a
adjourn during pleasure for a minimum of 15 minutes. Five minutes, I am sorry, I misheard you, for a
I am sorry, I misheard you, for a minimum of five minutes. The question is that the House to adjourn. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the
opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The
20:16
Ajourn during pleasure
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Consideration Consideration of Consideration of amendment Consideration of amendment to Consideration of amendment to the Football Governance Bill. Baroness
20:20
Legislation: Football Governance Bill - consideration of Commons amendments (around 7.30pm)
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Twycross. I beg to move that the Commons
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendments be now considered. The question is that the Commons
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the Commons amendments be now considered. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not
20:20
Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
content". The "Contents" have it. I beg to move that this House do
agree with the Commons in their amendment one with the leave of the House also speak to amendments to
House also speak to amendments to
Use of football metaphors or ponds in the earlier stages of the bill, but as the bill left our Lordships house previously I think we can say we did think it was all over and I
sincerely hope with your Lordships agreement it almost is now.
Over the course of the passage of the spill
we've had concerns over the risk posed and the distribution mechanism
outlined in the bill. I did think the original model had its merits however as I committed to do at report and third reading in your
Lordships house, the government has taken another look the mechanism and in response has made a series of important amendments in the other place. The government is grateful
for the careful and considered scrutiny from noble Lords across this House which was invaluable in
the development of this new model.
I would like to take this opportunity to again put on record my particular
thanks to Lord Birt for his extensive and thoughtful work in
providing such scrutiny. I know the noble Lord was sorry not to be able to be here in person today, I know
however he will be resented by his crossbench colleagues. Right also thank Lord Burns, Lord Pannick and
Lord Thomas for the expertise they've provided over the last few week stop the amendments we've made
alter the distribution models
through changes to part six of the bill alongside supporting amendments to other clauses.
These are primarily designed to change the
mechanism for the previous binary choice mechanism to a new staged regulator determination model. This
new model is designed to give more certainty to parties whilst ensuring that the backstop is designed to reach the best solution possible for
all of football. I'd like to briefly explain how the amendments achieve
this goal. Firstly the amendments
introduced to new clauses. Clause 61 has been replaced with a completely redesigned proposal process. We have
been clear our strong preference is for police to reach an independent distribution solution without the need for the backstop to be triggered.
Since the bill was last
before this House the government has announced a preferred candidate to
chair the regulator. I know David Cogan shares the view that the backstop should only be triggered as an absolute last resort and our new proposal stage has been designed to
incentivise that. If the backstop process has ever triggered the regulator would invite the leagues to submit proposals detailing the
solutions to the resolution. The
leagues were then submit proposals to both the regulator and each other this will allow for more constructive negotiations as the leagues will be more informed regarding each other's position on
core issues.
The leagues will also be able to submit revised proposals ensuring both sides have the best chance possible. To outline a position to the regulator and in
position to the regulator and in
turn allowing the regulator the opportunity to request additional
relevant information. The structure will ensure the regulators is in the position to make the best possible evidence-based decision while also incentivising the leagues to make their own agreement. We also replace
clause 62 to introduce more flexibility for the regular to. It
removes the binary choice to the regulator instead sets out how the regulator can create same distribution order if after all
previous stages have concluded the leak still cannot strike a deal.
In
the creation of this order it can choose all of the league's proposals, part of either or both
proposals or propose unique solutions based on the evidence. The regulator would first have 60 days
to create a provisional order for some the regulator would share this order with the leagues and invite representations which it must
consider before finalising the order. Any finalised audit produces would have to take into account any relevant issues raised by the state of the game report will stop the evidence regulator gathered
throughout the process, its
engagement with the leagues and any proposals they submitted.
Finally under the new model the regulator would be required to can salt with
the FA before setting the questions to resolution, ensuring the national
governing body can now raise any
views about the scope of the backstop process was we are confident the regulator with its clear objective to promote sustainability and its duties to avoid adverse effects on growth and
sporting competitiveness would come to a balanced solution. I know there is probably a slight variance
between models noble Lords view is ideal.
However I am confident that
this new model is the right one and
I hope noble Lords will support it as being substantially better than the original model we debated earlier in the bill's passage
through your Lordships house. In addition to the changes to the backstop we also made some minor technical changes to other parts of the bill to aid the implementation
and effectiveness of the regulatory regime and reduce the burden on the industry. I'm happy to -- answer any questions noble Lords have on these
changes.
I hope noble Lords understand and support the changes we have made in the other place. They have been arrived at after much careful consideration and
conversation with noble Lords and industry. And will ensure the regulator can best deliver for fans.
We believe it will strengthen the bill and the regular Tory model. This government promised in our manifesto to safeguard the future of
our national game. In fact all noble Lords will be aware the commitment to establish an independent football regulator was in the manifestoes of
all three main parties at the election year ago.
I hope noble Lords will support this much-needed
piece of legislation which delivers on that commitment by protecting and
promoting the sustainability of English in the interests of fans and the local communities football clubs
**** Possible New Speaker ****
serve. I beg to move. The question is that the House do agree with the Commons in their
amendment one.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment one. I'm grateful to the Minister for introducing these amendments and for setting out the reasons behind them.
setting out the reasons behind them. During the report stage of the bill
During the report stage of the bill Produced a series of amendments. These were aimed to address what was regarded as some weaknesses in the role of the independent football
regulator in distribution of funds between the various bodies. I supported the amendment along with Lord Thomas and Lord Pannick.
Unfortunately now but neither Lord can be here this evening and I will
can be here this evening and I will respond jointly for our group.
Lord Pannick is in his place I'm pleased
Pannick is in his place I'm pleased to say and I hope you will follow in due course. Throughout the debate on this bill we have emphasised the
uniqueness of the situation under the proposed legislation and regulator could potentially make
regulator could potentially make decisions to transfer income from one regulated body to another. Moreover both bodies are part of the same football family and they must
same football family and they must coexist. Many clubs could potentially find themselves moving
between the Premier League and the English Football League.
We argued that the arrangements should take these factors into account including
the object of the overall success of
the football pyramid. We are very grateful to the Minister for the
time she spent on this since then, subsequently the government brought forward their own amendments and we were, which were agreed by the Commons and now return to this House
20:29
Lord Burns (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
today. As a group we support these
amendments, while they are not
amendments, while they are not entirely as we hoped, they address many of the concerns we had with the original bill and go some way towards meeting the test that are
towards meeting the test that are involved. The most significant changes that fundamental re-
engineering of the backstop process,
engineering of the backstop process, this removes Russian roulette binary
this removes Russian roulette binary mechanism when expert panel would have chosen between the final office of the two parties without the option of finding middle ground, instead the regulator now has the driving seat both negotiation and
driving seat both negotiation and the determination process.
The
amendment strengthen the role of the state in the game report and modified the principles in criteria to express referred to the regulators duties as well as its
regulators duties as well as its
regulators duties as well as its objectives. Whilst it doesn't go as far as we had hoped, it is an improvement and it means that if the regulator is called upon to decide, it will consider domestic and
it will consider domestic and international competitiveness, growth and investment in the industry and I think that is a
industry and I think that is a significant step forward.
We are confident that David Cogan, the
preferred candidate to be chair of the IR will be able to make these
arrangements work, he has exceptional football knowledge and expertise. Following the publication of the state of the game report we hope that the regulator will set out
its views about the most significant
challenges that are faced by the leagues covered by this process, at the same time we hope the regulator
will set out the criteria that it will apply and determine the
appropriate funds to go down the pyramid for the overall I'm
**** Possible New Speaker ****
satisfied this leaves us in a much better position than when we last discussed the bill and we support the amendments. I declare my football interests,
20:30
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I declare my football interests, I remain a season-ticket holder at Arsenal football club and I remain
counsel to Manchester City football club in the continuing disciplinary and regulatory proceedings involving
the Premier League. In respect of both of those interests I'm very
much looking forward to next season.
I'm grateful to Lord Burns for setting out with such clarity why
the team captain by Lord Birt of which I am proud to be a member does
welcome the amendments made in the Commons, in particular to remove the binary mechanism which would have
feted the power -- feted the power of the regulator I welcome these
government remain -- amendment because they seem to me to further
what I understand to be the three key goals of this bill and I hope
key goals of this bill and I hope
First of all, the amended bill recognises implicitly the extraordinary success of the Premier
League.
The regulator is a man of great experience and good judgement,
and I'm confident that David Kogan will have in mind the vital need to
will have in mind the vital need to
ensure that hammering down on this legislation injures the Golden
Boots. Secondly recognises that there are contexts in which football will benefit from regulation. That is because football is such an
important part of the lives of so many people. Indeed of so many local
many people. Indeed of so many local
communities, and the grassroots of the Premier League reached down to
the lower leagues.
Seeking to balance these first two objectives,
the amended bill recognises it should be light touch with the
regulator and intervening where it is needed. I thank the Secretary of
State and the Minister, and indeed the bill team for the efforts they
have made to engage with myself and with other noble Lords to improve
this bill. I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister
on their significant achievements in
managing this bill. And mixing the sporting metaphors, getting it over the line.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to say a few words, in support of what the Minister has
support of what the Minister has said this evening. I think that it is right that we talked a little bit
20:33
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
is right that we talked a little bit about the new arrangements for mediation and the backstop. I think
the original amendment was over complex, and I think many of us were
concerned about the binary nature of the choice that was going to be made. I think that for many of us,
the important factor in trying to find a way forward was that we did
actually maintain a backstop because we are not talking about negotiations between equal partners,
and that is why I think we had to
have the retention there.
I think that is very important and I congratulate Ministers on finding a way through this which I think is
satisfactory to everyone who expressed concerns and wanted to
move forward on this. I do welcome what the two previous speakers have said about the new independent
regulator. I do think that he is
very intent on making this job work and trying to move things forward very quickly. I think that is
exactly what football needs. Can I say on behalf of my noble friend
Lord Bassam who is not able to be here this evening, but we are very
impressed and very much welcome the engagement of the Minister in this
house, Baroness Twycross.
It is a model of how ministers and
backbenchers, civil servants, and external parties can actually react.
I'm very glad to see Lord Parkinson nodding at that because we have what
was agreed on every aspect of this bill as it has been going through.
So I think that has been important.
I should declare my interest, I am looking forward to the new season with Bolton Wanderers and playing at
Stockport on that first Saturday. I think I'm looking forward to that
anyway.
Bolton Wanderers went through all the problems that are
through all the problems that are
very well known, and I was wondering in the final stages of the debate on
the other place how many MPs have to get up and say that their individual clubs have actually just gone through difficulties, or are facing similar difficulties in the very
near future. I think Sheffield Wednesday is the most obvious example. So I think the need for
this bill is well and truly proven.
I do think it is now in extremely good shape.
And I do congratulate those who have been involved. I
think we should mention Tracey Crouch who started this process with
her review. Can I also say that I'm very pleased that three talented
women ministers have actually been the ones to see this through.
the ones to see this through.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I will be brief. Most of what I was going to say has been covered,
20:36
Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
was going to say has been covered, the technical stuff, because we sent the bill back and I think everyone agreed it was not perfect. We had this list of amendments coming back
and my heart sank at the thought of
another 12 hours of debate. The only person's eyes who lit up were Lord
Pannick, who was he gets paid by the
hour from Manchester city. I think, I'm not sure who is the underdog in
that game, between Bolton Wanderers and Stockport County but it will be
an interesting encounter.
We went over these amendments to try and
find fault with them to work out where the government was trying to slide something in. This has improved the bill tremendously. I
think that is partly because of the
input from the designated regulator. It is clarify the situation. For that we were a bit in the dark as to
what we thought it should be, and talking to David and understanding
his love and what he was going to do
and the passion he speaks about it regular to, I think it is in safe
hands.
I have had chairman's from Northern championship but Division I
and Division II emailing me. And I said, this will be good for the
game. That is where I have always been, at the bottom of the pyramid. The Premier League is fantastic and
will flourish and will carry on delivery. But still Division I, Division II, that is where they take
a deep breath now and say, let's see this happen because if it gives them that certainty and that hope that
there will always be something there for them when times are difficult,
then that is the position that football clubs have come to local
authorities and that is a difficult thing to do with public funds.
But
we did it and the benefit is there now for all to see. For the economy,
for local councils, for shopkeepers. The community is all football. If
you had any doubt about it, look at this, and I have no problem with
Chelsea becoming the world
champions, it is the most ridiculous competition in the most ridiculous place not only for regular football
fans to see, 2 AM kick-off. That is the Armageddon we said would happen
to us and it has not happened because we got our bill through, we got our ducks in a line and we will
be able to protect the league that we love and we cherish.
So I think
we can move forward. Hopefully if the Baronesses got nothing to do she
might want to help me out with the Employment Bill tomorrow if you are free because that is another bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that is taking challenge. My Lords, I refer the House to my register of interests. In particular
20:39
Baroness Brady (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
register of interests. In particular my position as vice-chair of West Ham United who play in the league.
One of the privileges of speaking in this House is that we can talk not
only to the present moment but for the historical record. When the story of the Football Governance
Bill is told, I hope it will reflect that this house asked the right questions, foresaw and understood
the risks, and ultimately helped
improve this legislation. I want to acknowledge that the bill we return to today is better than the one we
began with.
That has not always been an easy journey. But ministers have listened time very grateful for, and
some important safeguards have been added. And for that they really do deserve genuine credit. We are now
entering a new phase. Moving from the politics of the bill to the
reality of the regulator. And in doing so, I suggest the new regulator will be judged against
three simple but vital tests. First,
will it protect growth? The Premier League is not just a domestic competition. It is one of the U.K.'s
most globally admired exports.
An economic powerhouse, a cultural
asset, a voluntary support of the
entire football pyramid. And it contributes £4.2 billion to public
finances. Future success is not inevitable. It is under pressure
from a range of sources was FIFA and
UEFA are expanding club competitions and business models that competes directly with the Premier League and put huge pressure on the domestic
football calendar. Broadcast market are changing very fast, and the number of competitive European
leagues, domestic revenues are broadcasting, and they are falling.
We see this in France. Money is
being taken out of the game was the
state backed competitors such as the Saudi pro league are changing the football economy. In the EFL's
leadership appears to have chosen stasis over invasion. In that
challenging context, protecting growth must be front and centre for the regulator. Not just because it
is good for the Premier League, but because that growth underwrites the very system this regulator is
charged with supporting. That system today includes record redistribution, rising solidarity of
payments, and the ongoing voluntary support for clubs up and down the
pyramid.
If we do not protect growth, we risk weakening the whole
system. It must therefore be uppermost of everything the
regulated us. The second test, but the regulator truly be like to
touch? This is a commitment ministers have repeatedly made. The proof will be in the pudding. The
new independent regulator will have extraordinary powers that are unprecedented in global sport. That requires not just legal and policy
being restrained but it must show
independence and judgement and be evidence led and not driven by grievances or agendas of others.
Above all it must demonstrate a proper understanding of football's competitive dynamics, with a
regulatory approach that offers clarity and certainty. That means
protecting the competitive balance that is so central to the magic, the appeal, and the value of the Premier
League. In other words, clubs in the
same division must know how to comply with the financial regime,
and trust they will not face opaque financial constraints that place them at an unfair disadvantage on and off the pitch. In football, a
fair and level playing field is not a nice to have, it is a precondition
for compliance.
A disproportionate approach where clubs do not know if
they fall the right side of the line or even which line rival clubs are aiming for, simply cannot work in football. It will be the fastest
route to failure. Whatever views of party politics, the appointment of
David Kogan as the inaugural chair is encouraging. He brings serious
knowledge of the game and credibility across football. The regulator will have an early
opportunity to set the tone through the approach taken through the state of the game review.
Through the
appointment of the Board and the CEO, through portion of the TM clarity the regulatory approach
instilled in the first place. The third test, will the backstop truly
be a backstop? This House has done very important work to constrain and
de-risk this power. I want to thank noble Lords including Lord Pannick,
Lord Thomas and Lord Burns for their diligence and thoughtfulness and
pragmatism. The legal, evidential, and procedural safeguards now in place appropriately strong. Under
this model, the IFR board will need to consider could be carefully
whether it could ever be in the best interests of English football to use
the mechanism which Dane Tracey Crouch described as nuclear loading.
Thanks to an important government amendment, the IFR board is now
exhaust all other regulatory tools before ever using the backstop. As
the sports minister confirmed in the other place, that means using those
tools and failing, not just imagining they may not work. Yet the
EFL's current situation appears to rest solely on the promise of this
lever. Betting its future not on innovation but on a perceived regulatory shortcut. There's no
doubt the backstop is made conventional consensual approach to agreeing the distribution of Premier league revenue far harder.
I can
report to the House that the Premier League has recently made incredible
and generous proposals to the EFL. But these have been rejected by the EFL board. We must hope that common
sense will soon return, and that a new approach can develop in the best interests of the whole game. My
Lords, we now move from process to purpose. The regulator will be tested quickly. The Premier league
and its clubs will engage positively and constructively, but it will also
defend what makes our competition great.
I hope as we enter this
critical new phase in the context of all the challenges I have set out, that the government should also consider its approach to our
national game. We must stop layering
on new risks more friction and additional cost. We can no longer treat the Premier League is a
bottomless well of money because the Premier League is not just a domestic institution. It is a
special national asset that belongs to its millions of passionate fans. And it's success powers the whole
pyramid, the deepest and best funded in the world.
So let us regulated
with care, let us preserve global leadership position, let us ensure that in doing so, this new regime
does not weaken English football but strengthens it for generations to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I want to first of all thank the
20:47
Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I want to first of all thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for your perseverance, Boyle staying
your perseverance, Boyle staying with the task until it is done. -- For your staying with the task until
it is done, your humour, and being fully human. He had stuff coming in your direction but you did not get
distracted, so, I want to say thank
you very much. I will speak purely on amendments. The baroness moved
Amendment one, but I want to go up to nine, and tell you why I think these amendments are wonderful.
these amendments are wonderful.
There is that word, some kind of Americanism, where verbs, nouns, pronouns, become all kinds of verbs,
which we shouldn't really want. The
word '11' -- The word levy, no matter how you pronounce it, you can
matter how you pronounce it, you can
levy. I don't know whether my
people, say it, it is the English word, wanting to observe functions
under this act, these go through section clause 53-54, I think it is
more readily understood than the levy as a word, because sometimes it
is better to use simple English then everyone can understand it.
So, I hope when it comes to those nine, we
will not quibble, but we can say they put the English in a way, in
which the man and woman on the
Clapham bus can understand.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Following The Right Reverend Prelate, just to comment, the new football season approaches. Those of
football season approaches. Those of us who are season ticket holders at these debates relish further discussion on this important issue.
And I do pay tribute to the
20:49
Lord Maude of Horsham (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
And I do pay tribute to the Minister, with this, all of us will be conscious she has many other responsibilities. And she has, I
know, this and the attentively with
her colleagues in the department, to the genuine concerns raised in these
debates, your Lordships house, at earlier stages. This is a better
bill than it was. I think, is the
Minister referred, it, into a bill, appeared into the manifestoes of the
three major parties as a dire
warning of the dangers of consensus.
Because there are many of us for whom this billet definitely in the
not proven category -- This bill is
definitely not in the proven category. What it is intended to rectify is not obviously a proven
defect. The current system has not been perfect, for sure, because of
its ability for the wealth created at the top end of the pyramid, to
filter down, to cascade down through the pyramid. But it has been pretty
effective at doing that. And sometimes, in the course of these
debates, it's been assumed that, the bottom of the pyramid is the bottom of the EFL, of course, that is not
the case.
It is significant that the leadership of the National League,
several tiers below the EFL, been very sceptical about the need for regulation. I speak with a
particular interest as Horsham
football club, just won promotion to National League self, so my interest
in football are in the Premier
League, my football club did well in Europe, not quite so well in the
domestic competition, but in the National League. These are much
closer to the grassroots, in many cases, are the grassroots, much closer than even League Two, in the
EFL.
There is scepticism about whether, in terms of improving the
mechanism, creating a wholly new mechanism for cascading wealth down
through the pyramid is really necessary at all. And we do have to
remind ourselves, as my noble friend, Baroness Brady, has done,
this is the Premier League, it is the most successful sporting league of any kind, anywhere in the world.
But there are competitive wins, side wins, headwinds, there is state
sponsored money put into alternatives, accomplishing is
healthy.
But we should not assume
this, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, referred to the golden goose, but we should not shame the goose will continue to make gold Living Planet
Index forever. -- Will lay golden eggs forever. And as many noble
Lords have commented, this is a sport that is much more than a
sport, competition. It is a passion. And attracts enormous depth of
loyalty, and the Premier League attracts a deep commitment, not just
from British citizens, but fans right across the world.
And we
should be very cherry indeed of
taking steps that jeopardise that. So, while this is definitely a better balance clear improvements to
the backstop arrangements, which I think limit, reduce, the risk of permanent damage being created, I
hope that the new Chair designate of the regulator, about whom I hear nothing but good things, will bear
in mind the need for the regulatory and to be used with great lightness of touch. There is something very
precious here and it looks like it
is solid and indestructible, but that success that the Premier League
earns every year, from which the
whole pyramid of football benefits, that right, that wealth, that
success, has to be earned, and it
has to be earned every week, every month, of every football season varies.
And so, I would urge the government do bear in mind the need
to tread lightly on this success, and the new regulator to bear very much in mind the concerns have been
raised on many occasions in this
House, and I would be grateful to the Minister and her colleagues for listening to some of those,
responding to some of those, that the concerns remain.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I have two football interests I should declare. One is a historical one and one is a current one. The
20:54
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
historical one was that I served as vice-chair of the Football Task
Force, 25 years ago. And in one of the four reports we produce, the
case for a football brigade was argued carefully. -- Football regulator was argued carefully. And
we thought we won it on the argument that we were able to persuade the government of the day, which was a
New Labour government, on the merits
of football regulation. The fact we have now got all-party support, for a football regulator, is an
indication of how far that debate has progressed, and I would like to
add my congratulations.
First to my
noble friend, for the brilliant way they steer the bill through this House, where it suffered no defeat
whatsoever. And then to the ministers in the House of Commons
who, with the support and willingness to listen, were able to
willingness to listen, were able to
Accept and approve it. This means me to my current interest, I am vice
president of the National Football League, which was just referred their scepticism was there in the
beginning, but as far that they understand, that scepticism has now gone, and they are satisfied with
the former regulator contained in the bill, and are looking forward to playing their part.
As he says, an
area important -- A very important
part of the football family, and an element that is close to fans at
local level. Two groups of people I want particularly to refer to, and
I'm going to be very brief. One is the Football Supporters'
Association, without whose support this bill would not have come to light. It was, as noble Lords will recall, a product of the fan base
review. And in the interest of fans that have been very strongly taken
into account, as represented in the outcome.
And I think they deserve a
great deal of good congratulations
for the part they played in the debate. The second group of supporters of football club. The club I was proud to support in the
1970s and 1980s. And who found that
their club was being taken away from them, and moved to another part of the country, against the wishes of
the fans, the local community, everybody. And everybody concerned with them. It's what they thought of
the sort of dictatorial decision
that would now be impossible, as a result of this bill going through.
Because the removal of a club against the wishes of its supporters to a new location is something which is prevented. And I think the
support of the Wimbledon, and their
ability to start a new club, which has been extraordinarily successful, and indeed was promoted from the Second Division of the Football
League, to the first division, the end of last season, is a testament to their resilience, and to their
skill, to making the case. Those are really the point I want to make.
Above all, I congratulate the Minister in this House, and I congratulate the ministers in the other place, for producing a bill
which is now one which I think even the Premier League are now willing
to accept and work with, and that is, I think, very commendable.
20:58
Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Whilst I agree with noble Lord,
Lord Goddard, on many aspects of sport policy, I have to say that, in character, I am afraid I disagree
with him again in what he opened up
with this evening. Because it would actually be remits of this House not to seriously congratulate Chelsea on
winning the FIFA cup. Putting it in the net, in the first half of a final, and often impenetrable net
during this season, it was remarkable. I would go as far saying one of the greatest football occasions in memory.
I congratulate
my noble friend, for that club and the extraordinary performance of
Chelsea, a few days ago. It matched the success of England's cricketers in the third test. My Lords...
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Just for clarity, I am actually
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Just for clarity, I am actually staying this week at a hotel at Chelsea football club made a fantastic setup and a fantastic
round.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
round. Good job he said that, I would have kicked his name off the register if I had been him! The key
amendments before us this evening. They are undoubtedly improvements. I thank all noble Lords, we have
thank all noble Lords, we have worked so hard, not least Burton and Lord Pannick, to bring those amendments to us this evening. And
amendments to us this evening. And it worked so hard with government to gain those improvements. At my noble
gain those improvements.
At my noble friend, Baroness Brady said, for
many of us, they do little more than remove broken egg shells from the omelettes that many in the other
omelettes that many in the other place joined us as describing as unpalatable both to fans and to professional football clubs. One
professional football clubs. One constant theme of my consideration of the details of this bill
throughout has been the layering of regulation that exists within football, and the dangers of adding
football, and the dangers of adding additional regulator to what is already quite a complex and competitive structure of football
regulation.
So, I ask the Minister, in respect of clause 51, whether
this has been, changes have been approved by UEFA and FIFA, and
whether they see now no conflict with the position that they stated very clearly, only a matter of
months ago. When, in the context of the backstop power, UEFA wrote that
the concept of a backstop power introduces significant concerns, regarding the balance of power
within football governance. And they concluded effective governance in
football is built on the foundation of trust, mutual respect, and collaboration.
As we see it, the
backstop power, or intended as a safety net, should be carefully reconsidered to avoid undermining
the fundamental principles. UEFA strongly recommends a focus on fostering an environment where
involuntary mutual agreements are prioritised and where stakeholders are encouraged to negotiating in
good faith. Potentially with the FA at mezzanine where necessary and all
I asked the government where they do not consider introducing a role for
the FAS mediator and why it rejected UEFA's advice, whether UEFA has been
consulted to ensure we enter the next season without conflicting interests over regulation between
UEFA and the government appointed
regulator.
The backstop power is actually what this bill is all about. Of course it started as a
rallying call against the breakaway super league. It has ended by creating an Independent Football Regulator with backstop powers to
intervene in financial distribution
between the Premier League and the English Football League if they failed to agree on a deal. This bill has become all about money and not
fans. An recourse to lawyers is inevitable. I wish the noble Lord
Pannick and his colleagues well in that context.
That said, the
government have worked to improve the deficient backstop in another place, for which they should be
thanked. I also echo the comments that have been made elsewhere in the chamber, contributes to the Minister
for her assiduous hard work on this bill which cannot have been easy at
**** Possible New Speaker ****
any stage. Congratulations to the Minister,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Congratulations to the Minister, I commend the excellent work of her officials in the build team in the Department on the amendment
21:02
Lord Grantchester (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Department on the amendment returning from the Commons and clarifying and typing provisions.
Especially where the bill has been strengthened in this version of the bill, much improved from the previous drafting. I declare my
interest from past experience involvement and responsibilities and
connections with Everton football club. Whilst transparency has been
improved by these amendments, I am grateful that the exaggerated perils and claims of the opposition benches
have continued to be resisted. While these proposals will bring more
resolution of the backstop.
I'm confident the bill will prove effective in including parachute
payments within the remit of the regulator. Without the inclusion,
the ability of the regulator to view financial stability and resilience across the whole football pyramid would have been substantially
impaired. These amendments will reduce the risk and uncertainty in
the backstop mechanism. Light touch
does not signify a lack of application and vigilant across the pyramid. Especially down through the
leagues, with the predominance of more maverick owners at have tended
to congregate.
There are other features that must be mentioned. The regulator is fully independent of
government, and this should reassure all fans especially as the regulator
is no longer required to consider government policies on trade and
international markets. Fans will
expect a rigid level playing field between clubs to be stupidly maintained, and encourage
representatives that will be democratically endorsed independently from their clubs. The meaningful engagement of fans will
ensure the heritage provisions of the bill will not be undermined. I
also welcome the appointment of David Kogan as the first football
regulator.
Although he is yet to take up his post officially, it is
imperative that the work begins and we can make swift progress on the state of the game reports, the next
milestone in the effectiveness of this legislation. Can I attempt my noble friend minister to confirm
that David Kogan has already been able to identify his team and is
drawing up proposals to get the processes to start immediately on Royal assent?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, despite the very kind
21:05
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, despite the very kind words of my noble friend, Lord Moynihan, and warm words of the
Moynihan, and warm words of the noble Lords, I understand that we have to be careful in declaring our interests, so I declare myself a
seasoned holder of the club world
champions of the world, which I have been attending since 1958. A time
when many noble Lords were not even
alive. My Lords, as we enter what we might call the final minutes of
extra time of this bill, it would certainly be churlish of me not to
repeat the words of my noble friend
Lord Maude about the noble ministers are careful and kind attention throughout this bill.
And the
improvements that have been made as this bill has come back from the Commons. I feel if somebody has to
stand up and say that there is an opinion that can be heard in this
House, that the regulator is a really bad idea for this industry.
For this sector. In saying that, I
accept that it was our side scoring as you might see an own goal who
have started all of this. And I hope and wish that if ever we come to power again, we have leaders who do
not say, they go the people I must follow them.
But think rather longer
term about not how football fans
respond to artfully constructed opinion polls, but how football fans
will react to the issues that this regulator however well intended, however good, and everybody from all sides as applauded the selection of
this regulator. Whatever they are,
this regulator. Whatever they are,
they will make this very bad. Why do
we have this rig later? Because Bolton football club took some risks and went bust. And got relegated.
Have they disappeared? This Bolton football club no longer? Has it now
vanished? It is still around. For
those who are not massively enamoured or conversant with the
world of business, and it appears that most of the government cabinet
is involved, is composed of those who have never been involved in
business, it may come as a surprise to know that is how business works.
You take risks and sometimes you go bust. Then you get reformed, as Bolton football club did, and you
carry on, with the same fans, with the same ground.
You are in a lower division but you can fight back and
division but you can fight back and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
get re-elected to higher divisions. Time is late so I don't want to go through the whole history of Bolton Wanderers, but his facts were
Bolton Wanderers, but his facts were actually not quite correct there. I think what we are concentrating on
here is that all clubs should have a better is this approach to football, not just rely on wealthy local
not just rely on wealthy local individuals, but people who come along and just buy up the club. We
along and just buy up the club.
We need proper fit and proper persons test. That is the kind of progress
test. That is the kind of progress we will be making the we need to
make sure that all through the pyramid, there is a better business approach to football. That is what the new regulator will help to create.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
create. I thank the noble Baroness. It is a pity we are discussing football and not chess and maybe that block
and not chess and maybe that block will be stopped to give me the time
I need. But she has made my point. The noble Baroness has made my
The noble Baroness has made my point. In life, one takes risks. And
point. In life, one takes risks. And the fact that we have the best football in the world in this country is because enormous risks
country is because enormous risks were taken in setting up the Premier League.
It has been enormously
successful. The noble Baroness was
basically saying we know best. We know best. And to impose our view of
how it should be, the non-commercial view, we will have a regulator. And what we have regulator we will
impose all sorts of little baubles on the Christmas tree as we
discussed earlier in these debates.
For example, EDI. We will impose EDI or football clubs. Just as that
pernicious doctrine is fading away.
We will impose it.
The Labour Party won an election and has the right to
impose these bills. I am merely warning as to what will happen. I
wrote to the Minister and she very kindly and at length responded that
the Labour government say how EDI is a good thing and leads to better
organisations. The McKinsey work has been completed discredited. She
kindly wrote back to me and said, I agree, the work has been discredited. But there are many
other studies that have not been discredited and show that EDI is a
very good thing.
So I called one of the senior people and said, your
studies have been discredited
haven't they? And they said yes and said there are many other studies.
He said we have looked for them and they are not there. The noble
minister did not give examples. She
did not give examples anything apart from the utterly discredited idea of
the EDI. That is why Zia of the kind of baubles that have been put on this Christmas tree that will make things worse in our industry.
It is
indeed, as the noble Baroness said,
late, and I will try to wrap up. We do not know best. The market knows best. The market has produced one of
the most extraordinary successful industries that we have in this
country. We are going to try and take the market away for top we will
try to impose on it all sorts of rules. I am here just to put down a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
marker. Can I point out to the noble Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Can I point out to the noble Lord when he lauds the market, part of
when he lauds the market, part of the impetus of this bill is that a number of Premier League clubs are going to exercise market forces to break away and destroy the Premier
**** Possible New Speaker ****
League. He is correct. And what happened? Within a few days, all of that went
Within a few days, all of that went away. They had a look and it went
away. They had a look and it went away. As I mentioned before, I wrote an article on this. Saying this is
an article on this. Saying this is not going to work. In the clubs involved looked at that and said,
yes, it is not going to work. The noble Lord talked about Wimbledon.
noble Lord talked about Wimbledon. We are now saying in this bill that clubs cannot move. There can be no
clubs cannot move. There can be no dynamism. And yet I quoted a study
dynamism. And yet I quoted a study in the debate last night which said that when we restrict, when we clampdown, when we prevent things
clampdown, when we prevent things happening, that is when societies disintegrate. And we cannot expect
disintegrate. And we cannot expect to have success if we say, we know best, and we are going to stop this
that and the other an impose it.
I'm
just putting warnings down my Lords. One of these days, I think somebody
One of these days, I think somebody is going to be in a position to say this was an extraordinarily bad idea.
21:14
Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
If I can say a couple of words to
wrap up, when we did this bill, I
who had my first comment that said I was not of this tribe, I encourage
everyone to watch a decent sport on
Saturday morning when the lines had their first test. The thing about this is football clearly touches
people's lives because it is there
local team. What this bill does is get that management and better
structures in their, and means you have someone overseeing them.
And maybe the market will ultimately do
something, runaway or we will end up playing ice hockey on artificial
pitches or something people get fed up with it. Who knows? But at the moment, football is what speaks to
many communities. And the fact we
will have these clubs which are a part of the fabric of the local society and interaction together
surviving better or at least stand a chance of so doing, is something we
should be grateful for. Now we have gone down the actual amendments,
probably the thing we argued about the end, how do we divide up the
loot? Let's face it, Wiese ended
this because bits of football were fighting with each other about money.
That is what we got to in the end. We came with a solution a bit
too elegant from the crossbenchers,
I suppose the rather brutal solution is we want brutal. But we have got
something which looks like it will work. I wish this bill well and I
work. I wish this bill well and I
also wish that this national sport which means so much to so many
people and defines identity of the place is better run. We don't have the absurdities of ground that have been there for over 100 years being
moved out because somebody wants to do a dodgy deal on development, with
more land.
Go to Brighton, the buses have improved floating the football
have. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about making sure these communities are a bit
better. I hope this is what we have
done. I give the government and David Kogan all my support. I hope
this works better because I hope we don't have to come back to it. That is what we are about here. Hope we
have been successful, I hope this works. I hope these communities and this important part of the current
fabric of our society continues to
function well.
If the Premiership may not be laying goals, mainly to
continue to provide some revenue we cannot tell the future, we don't
what happened. We don't know for continue, but if local clubs are there, we have something solid.
Hopefully we don't have something which is dependent on somebody coming in with some cash because
somebody else has come up with a
21:17
Lord Markham (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
If I can start by declaring my interest also as a Chelsea season
ticket holder, and while I won't speak too long about our Chelsea club world success it, I will note
that three of the four big European and world tournaments were won by
English clubs. At the same time, I can even say what was won by
Chelsea. So, we can say that currently, there is a very
successful game we have and also for of the starting levels were English
players, Cole Palmer was the player of the tournament, and they even had President Trump celebrating
alongside him, teaching him to do
the Palmer Rob.
We start in a good position and I have to add my thanks to the baroness. Particularly, I
think she took some political risk in terms of bringing back amendments
to the Lords, when everything had obviously been passed, and opening
up to possible further challenges, and peoples. And she did that
because she thought it would make it
a better bill. And as I say, I support everything she is trying to do, and the intentions behind that,
because I think it has made it a better bill.
Whilst I agree with
both noble friends, Lord Moynihan's,
that there are dangers in the introduction of a regulator and both
my noble friends, baroness Brady, and Lord Maude, that need to issue a
and Lord Maude, that need to issue a
light touch regulator. It is an improvement but there are dangers out there. I think we were all in the long conversations we had about
the risk of UEFA and we only need to look at the last few days with the demotion of Crystal Palace, but we
have to be sure we aren't doing
anything here does fall foul of UEFA.
And so, one of my key questions of the noble Baroness, the Minister, is she was at pains to
Minister, is she was at pains to
confirm that UEFA were on board with the last version of the bill and what we see now is quite a different
version in terms of the backstop, a better version, particularly with the removal of what we all thought
was a fairly pendulum mechanism. But what it did allow the government to
say at the time it is keep to one of
the UEFA golden rule red lines, that UEFA decision has to be that
UEFA decision has to be that
decision, Eva and ASBL, or EFL, English football e-commerce
solution, and now that the -- English football league solution, now that the regulator, is something
I support, there is not an actuator
could make that we are now imposing a government solution on this.
My
question again, I think it is the right approach being taken here, but my question for the noble Baroness,
the Minister, is has she sought similar assurances for UEFA that
this new clause and this new backstop doesn't fall foul of some
of their red wines and that they are equally as comfortable with this new version as they were with the old
version. That said, I do believe this is a better version and I
personally also thank the Fab four cross benches, for bringing this
solution together I am sorry that
both Lord Bird and Lord Thomas are not in the usual places to be able
to take their laps of honour, but it really is a sensible amendment that tries to lead to a negotiated outcome would compromise, rather than the arbitrary pendulum
mechanism.
At the same time, I think
it is very sensible and I know David Kogan was very involved in this. But
the regulator board are now responsible for the decision, with the removal of the Expert Panel on Electoral Reform it all, and they
Electoral Reform it all, and they
are willing to be standing up and accounted for in attestation. Like, I have known David Kogan for
probably 15 years or so, I truly believe we have got a real expert there, with the new knowledge of the
game and sports rights and is a real value addition to it all.
And as ever, with so many things, involved
in the judgement calls, I feel better that we have the judgement of David Kogan. At the same time, I think we would all have to accept
the appointment process maybe was a bit unfortunate. And again, I would
ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, one where we are in terms of the investigation, when we are expecting an outcome. Because we
expecting an outcome. Because we
would all obviously like to get them on board as quickly as possible.
With those thoughts and getting onto
the answers from the noble Baroness, the Minister, I would like to conclude by thanking all the work of all the ministerial team, all the
bill team, and all the noble Lords
who, through a long process, it has been very thoughtful and informative, and good process, which is ultimately improving the bill,
and I look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, the Minister. the noble Baroness, the Minister.
21:23
Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I would like to thank all noble Lords for what has been a
constructive and good-natured debate on the amendments made in the other place, for the very kind comments.
Not least from the noble Lord, Lord
Markham, recognising why I took the risk to bring it back, which was to
ensure that we do get a better bill. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and noble Lords across your
Lordships house, including the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and the noble Lady, Baroness Brady, for their
support, changing the backstop mechanism.
And the support and confidence across your Lordships house for the government preferred
candidate. The noble Lord, Lord
Pannick, is right that we need to see the regulators taking a light- touch approach, and I am really grateful for all those involved in
helping us get this over the line in a much more match fit state, then it left us. I do note the concerns of
the noble Lord, Lord Maude, noble
Lady, Baroness Brady, noble Lord,
Lord Moynihan, I will send a transcript to the debate to the Chair designate, although I am
confident he is following the debate, and is aware already of the need and call to tread lightly.
In
terms of some of the issues that
noble Lords have raised, noble Lord,
Lord Burns, as We would incorporate evidence from the state game report, after the amazing model it would be explicit the regulator must use the
state of the game as basis for decision, the reggae here must explain in their notice of how the solution addresses the state of game
report. Leaks must also submit supporting evidence alongside the proposals, which the regulator must also take into account, and the
reggae here can request additional evidence as well as gathering its own information to ensure it has a
wide evidence-based for making a decision, this is a more evidence- based and data driven process than before we are also proposing any
extension of the final proposal stage, to allow for more time for the regulator to come to a considered solution, based on evidence.
The noble Lord, Lord
Moynihan, and the noble Lord, Lord Markham, asked whether UEFA is content with the Bill as it stands.
As noble Lord will know, you -- UEFA is content with the bill and has
confirmed it, issues with the previous version of the bill, require the regulator with Policy
Connect is clearly something a
Lordships house debated at length. Legislating in relation to book football broadcasting without facing repercussions from UEFA should offer
reassurance. Italy, in 2008, and Spain, in 2015, have legislated
setting out how TV rights are to be sold and how revenues are to be
distributed, and neither association has faced consequences from UEFA.
I
am going to turn back to exactly where we are with the process, a bit
**** Possible New Speaker ****
later... I don't want to prolong this at
all but just to place on record that both the examples the noble Baroness, the minister, has given us are totally different, and in fact, reflected the model that the Premier
reflected the model that the Premier league had in place, which was effectively a non-legislative
effectively a non-legislative agreement. So, for the record, we
agreement. So, for the record, we need to be very clear, very short legislation introduced to both of those countries didn't bear any resemblance whatsoever to the
resemblance whatsoever to the substantive bill before us.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So, appreciating the noble Lord's point, I can confirm UEFA is content with the Bill as it stands. I am
going to return to the point the noble Lord, Lord Markham, asked on
noble Lord, Lord Markham, asked on where exactly we are with the Chair's appointment. The lines I have got in my pack don't exactly reflect his question, so I will try
reflect his question, so I will try to answer his question rather than use a line in the pack.
But in closing, I would like to thank
several noble Lords who have been involved throughout the passage of this bill. In particular, would like to thank my noble friends, Lord Bassam of Brighton, who was not able
Bassam of Brighton, who was not able to be here today, noble friend, Baroness Taylor of Bolton, Fulham, and Lord Grantchester, and I would
also like to thank a number of Labour backbenchers who have been
really restraint at various points,
on what has been a very long process, by rationing their contributions, to try and get this
bill to move forward.
As noble Lord's are aware, most noble Lords, probably with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, are
absolutely passionate about the game. So, I think for people to not contribute as much as they wanted,
was actually quite painful for those
people. I would particularly like to thank my noble friend, Baroness Blake of Leeds, for the excellent job she has done in supporting me,
which she continues now, and officials whose patients have been
outstanding, and noted bylaws across your Lordships house.
They have worked with me, the Minister's,
Secretary of State, stakeholders, and many noble Lords to redesign the backstop over the past few months. I would also like to thank noble Lords
on the frontbench, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham. It is always a pleasure to face you across
the Dispatch Box, occasionally, I might have wished it slightly left
-- Less late into the night. I would
like to thank noble Lords only Liberal Democrat frontbench, Lord Addington, Lord Goddard, not least for their good humour and constructive approach into raising
and resolving their concerns, and for the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who took the time to focus, in his contribution today, that this is
about how football speaks to local communities.
And I think that is at
the heart of why the government has
pursued this. I think I am particularly grateful to noble Lords
on the crossbenches, particularly the A team of Lord Bird, Lord Pannick, Lord Burns, and Lord
Thomas. You really did raise issues
that did make us pause to consider. I was sorry we were not able to bring back amendments before we got
to third reading. I hope noble Lords
understand why this is, we are keen
understand why this is, we are keen
now to make sure that the football regulator can get on with the job.
My final response is to the noble
Lord, Lord Markham, in relation to where we are in the appointment of
the Chair designate. We are still waiting for the commission of public
appointments to complete his required, we are cooperating fully
with that inquiry and it wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment further while this is instep
progress. But I know that David Kogan clearly has the support of members across the House. Hopefully
members across the House.
Hopefully
The work of your Lordships House has
helped to ensure this is legislation which I felt ready was strong in the previous government's version, it is stronger than it was first
introduced to this House. It would be wrong of me not to add my thanks
and that of the government to Dame Tracey Crouch who laid the
foundations for this piece of work. And the fans and fan organisations for the part they have played. I hope that this time noble Lords
agree that it will be full-time in
Parliamentary terms.
As was said, we are moving from purpose to purpose.
Football fans up and down the
country deserve regulator. I am glad they will finally get it. My final
word has to be however to wish the Lionesses well in their match on Thursday. I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the House do agree with Amendment one. As many are of that opinion say, "Content".
are of that opinion say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment to
Baroness Twycross.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness Twycross. I beg to move I moved en bloc. The question is the House agree
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is the House agree with the Commons that amendment 2 to
with the Commons that amendment 2 to 62 are en bloc. As many are of that opinion say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
contents have it I beg to move the House do no adjourn.
21:39
Oral questions: Effectiveness of the UK's soft power, having regard in particular to the BBC World Service, the British Council and universities
-
Copy Link
21:39
Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
21:39
Oral questions: Effectiveness of the UK's soft power, having regard in particular to the BBC World Service, the British Council and universities
-
Copy Link
House House of House of Lords House of Lords - House of Lords - 15 House of Lords - 15 July
This debate has concluded