Lords Chamber

Tuesday 15th July 2025

(began 1 month, 1 week ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:36
14:36
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:48
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
None Portrait Oral questions: The Competition and Markets Authority’s investigation of seven major housebuilders regarding information sharing
-

hope very much that they will continue the growth measures and that is, she says, the most sustainable way of those finances.
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:17
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:22
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-


**** 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 Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
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 Portrait Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Labour)
-
-


**** 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 Portrait Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
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
Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Earl of Kinnoull (Crossbench)
-
-
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 Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-


**** 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
15:49
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
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 Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
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 Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
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 Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
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
16:24
16:26
Lord Hacking Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-
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 Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
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 Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
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 Portrait Lord Carrington (Crossbench)
-
-
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 Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
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
16:48
16:48
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
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 Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
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 Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
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 Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
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 Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-


**** 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 Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** 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 Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
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 Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
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
17:17
17:29
Lord Bishop of Manchester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)
-
-
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 Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** 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 Portrait Lord Stirrup (Crossbench)
-
-
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 Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
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 Portrait Baroness Altmann (Non-affiliated)
-
-
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 Portrait Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
-
-
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 Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
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 Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
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
18:08
18:09
18:22
18:22
None Portrait Amendment:107 Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-

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 Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
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 Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
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 Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
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
18:49
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
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
18:52
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** 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 Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
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 Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
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
19:11
None Portrait Amendment 115
-

Thornhill.
19:11
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
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 Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-


**** 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
Lord Bishop of Manchester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)
-
-
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 Portrait Lord Cashman (Non-affiliated)
-
-
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
19:27
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-


**** 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
19:31
19:31
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
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 Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-


**** 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
19:42
19:43
None Portrait Amendment 118
-

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
None Portrait Division
-

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 Portrait Lord Carrington (Crossbench)
-
-
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 Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-
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
20:06
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-


**** 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 Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
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 Portrait Lord Carrington (Crossbench)
-
-
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
20:16
20:20
None Portrait Legislation: Football Governance Bill - consideration of Commons amendments (around 7.30pm)
-



**** 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 Portrait Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
-
-


**** 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 Portrait Lord Burns (Crossbench)
-
-
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 Portrait Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
-


**** 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 Portrait Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Labour)
-
-
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 Portrait Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
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 Portrait Baroness Brady (Conservative)
-
-
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 Portrait Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
-
-


**** 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 Portrait Lord Maude of Horsham (Conservative)
-
-
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 Portrait Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Labour)
-
-
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 Portrait Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
-
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 Portrait Lord Grantchester (Labour)
-
-
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 Portrait Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Conservative)
-
-


**** 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 Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
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 Portrait Lord Markham (Conservative)
-
-
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 Portrait Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
-
-
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
None Portrait Oral questions: Effectiveness of the UK's soft power, having regard in particular to the BBC World Service, the British Council and universities
-

21:39
21:39
None Portrait Oral questions: Effectiveness of the UK's soft power, having regard in particular to the BBC World Service, the British Council and universities
-

House House of House of Lords House of Lords - House of Lords - 15 House of Lords - 15 July
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page