Foreign Interference in UK Politics

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I already have a date to meet the noble Lord, Lord Shamash, so we can certainly pick this up then. These potential breaches and allegations are matters for the Electoral Commission. It is our job to empower it to deal with them. I am sure that we will debate the issues he raises at some length in Committee when the Bill comes before the House.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pack, is too nice to have gone through everything that the Tories did without involving us, but one of the things they did was to bring in the requirement for ID for people casting a vote. However, those people living abroad, although they extended the vote to them, do not have to produce their ID; they vote by post. I am sorry to bring this to my noble friend again but, more importantly, although I approve what Rycroft did in bringing in a cap, it is £100,000 per year per person. A couple living abroad who may not have lived here for 40 years can do £1 million between them over a Parliament. My noble friend cannot say that he agrees with me, but can he at least say that he is sympathetic, hears what I say and that it will be taken into account in future discussions?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My noble friend Lady Hayter will have to read my body language, I am afraid. I will not be drawn. Her arithmetic is correct. If those patterns emerge, I go back to the principle that we want to stop foreign interference in our politics. If we see these rules being manipulated, as she suggests might be the case, we will respond to that. On voter ID, as she knows, the Bill does contain some provisions to make it easier for people. We will come back to those in Committee, I am sure.

Lobbying Transparency (In-house Lobbyists) Bill [HL]

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I should make it clear at the outset that I am pro-lobbying—how could I not be, given how much I have done in my time? It has been particularly helpful in the Lords. We do not have constituents to inform us of what needs doing, or not doing, by a Government, so it is good that those with a particular interest or knowledge make their way to Westminster, bringing their lived experience and the legitimate needs of their sector, company or beneficiaries to us and into the public forum—into our actual or metaphorical Peers’ Lobby.

We have seen laws be changed for the better by effective lobbying. The NSPCC and children’s charities helped achieve the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The British Lung Foundation’s work on banning smoking in cars carrying children led to the Smoke-free (Private Vehicles) Regulations 2015. Pressure on Ministers by the Samaritans and others helped create the Online Safety Act 2023. The British Heart Foundation and family groups provided the momentum for the Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Act 2019.

Meanwhile, the ABI and other bodies wisely used their access to help rewrite the National Security Act 2023 in order to ensure that the foreign influence registration scheme was fit for purpose. The RAC’s meeting with a Minister about headlight glare resulted in a change of approach to this problem. The Royal Osteoporosis Society will continue to meet Ministers to ensure that they keep their promise to make fracture liaison services available nationwide by the end of the decade.

So lobbying is legitimate and beneficial to how we make our laws, and I support it. It is not always successful, of course. My campaign to increase duty on alcohol seems for ever doomed. You win some, you lose some.

In a democracy, good governance depends on decision-makers hearing from a wide range of voices, but businesses, interest groups, think tanks, trade associations and charities should not depend for their access on whom they happen to know or which conduit they can use to get a hearing. More than that, we should all know who has the ear of government. Legitimate representations should be open and above board, not hidden below the waves. This Bill is about transparency, which is crucial for public trust, as we discussed in our debate yesterday.

There are two sides to lobbying, of course: those doing the lobbying and those being lobbied. Neither’s regime is working properly, although the Ethics and Integrity Commission, which has been tasked by the Prime Minister to improve transparency around lobbying, will consider those being lobbied when it reports next week.

My Bill is about those doing the lobbying and seeing Ministers and Permanent Secretaries to put their valid points of view on legislation, policy or procurement. At the moment, the only organisations that have to register and report are consultant lobbyists, which probably covers around 5% of this country’s lobbying activity. The other 95% is done directly by companies, trade associations, professional bodies, think tanks and charities, using their own personnel rather than outside consultants.

Yet these approaches to government from in-house people are excluded from the need to register under the 2014 Act. They fly under the radar. Say a small pressure group, an SME or a consumer representative wants to talk to Ministers about the safety of a fertiliser, alcohol duty, the use of a weapon, online safety or a local planning issue. Should such a small organisation need outside help to make its case to a Minister, it would find its advisers and itself named on the register.

By contrast, any organisation—such as pharmaceutical companies, drinks trade associations, defence companies, big tech or developers—that uses its own people, whether its public affairs department or its chief executive or chair, to speak to government can see a Minister without any requirement to register or report, and with no obligation to sign up to any lobbying code of conduct. That is an inequality of openness between those making their case to government themselves and those using an outside agency to help.

The public—directly or via MPs, journalists or interested parties—have the right to know who is talking to Ministers about decisions that are about to be taken. Therefore, any organisation seeking to influence government policy or practice, legislation or procurement, should have to register and report. A bit of sunlight will do no one any harm.

We have two options. We can wait until we have another scandal and then rush through legislation or we can grasp the nettle now. This is what lobbyist representatives—the CIPR and the PRCA—want, bringing the hidden 95% of lobbying into the open. Passing this Bill would enable the existing register of consultant lobbyists to become a register of lobbying, no longer just catching the tiny minority operating as consultants.

The Bill would extend the existing register from covering only those lobbying firms to put any organisation that puts its view to a Minister, Permanent Secretary or spad on to the register. This goes no further than other comparative democracies do. It requires openness about normal legal behaviour undertaken by in-house executives. Our UK register lists just under 300 entries. Scotland, by contrast, has 1,500 and Canada has 8,000 because both cover in-house lobbyists—as do most other countries’ registers.

Let us do it now. Let us now wait for a scandal. Any organisation that lobbies should register. It is not difficult. It is the right thing to do. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not know what flatters me most. I think it is the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, moving from Madonna to myself—which I think is the biggest vote of confidence I have ever had from anyone.

I am delighted by those who have come today. I do not know whether I would call the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, one of the “guilty men” for having put through a Bill I think we now agree was perhaps a little too modest. In fact, even the Bill today is being called too modest. The noble Lords, Lord Norton and Lord Pack, and my noble friend Lord Brooke, all called it modest, which is a good start from where we go.

I thank the Minister, my noble friend Lady Anderson. She said this is unfinished business. I am going to take that as a very positive statement that she is promising the Government will do a little more—because what we all know is that it is time for change. I am not going to try to answer all the points she has so nicely dealt with, but it is important to note the breadth of support we have had. The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, also pointed not just to transparency but to the responsibility of lobbying: that it should be in the public interest. The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, also expressed how transparency itself can enhance trust, which my noble friend Lady Carberry also said.

I think we all agree that lobbying is good and we do not want it to be in any way diminished by this. However, there is issue of sunlight, which I mentioned, and my noble friend Lord Stansgate reminded us that it was Justice Brandeis who first used that phrase. As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said, this is timely, but we also know what needs to be done. My plea to the Minister is not to delay. My noble friend Lord Brooke mentioned the Covid inquiry, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned Greensill. We cannot wait for another scandal; let us get this right and let us do it quickly.

Issues were raised about cost. I have to say that that is a bit of red herring. I am very sympathetic, having run very small charities, but if you go to a consultant lobbyist, it costs you much more than £1,000 to get their advice. If you happen to be based in Manchester—I do not know why I mentioned Manchester—and you bring three of your people down to meet a Minister, that is going to cost you more than £1,000. So, let us not use this as an excuse for not bringing a bit more sunlight into this.

There are some other issues about administration and determining what is a private conversation. I have to say, I think the example of the cabbie was a bit OTT. What is a private conversation? Is it meeting? That is all covered in the Act now, because if a consultant lobbyist has a brush by or happens to meet someone at a school, a pub or anywhere else, the issue of what counts as a Minister is dealt with in the current law. So perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, ought to be asking, “What exactly did it mean by a meeting?”, because that is the current law. All we are saying is that it is relevant whether it is a consultant lobbyist or the chair of a PLC having a formal conversation with a Minister.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne, that we do not want this to have a chilling effect, but we need to know who is talking to Ministers about what. The problem at the moment is that the ministerial declarations are nowhere near detailed enough. So, they may meet a publican, but they do not know whether that meeting is about alcohol pricing, the general age at which you can drink, or whether pubs should stay open until 5 am for a football match. Those are general policy issues, but if a publican saying, “I need something for my pub or brewery”, Ministers need to know whether they are being lobbied, in which case they should have a civil servant there, and they know what they should do. Let us not pretend that this is a new issue.

There is a difference between lobbying and general discussion. The Public Bill Office, when it helped me with writing the Bill, talked me through this. A headteacher meets a Minister and talks about general education. Is that an issue? No. They talk about how they find young people today. Is that an issue? No. If they ask for planning permission to extend their playground, that is lobbying. Ministers know it, and lobbyists know it.

I have left the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, until last. I have to say that I was very disappointed. I was disappointed yesterday, when we had a general discussion about the funding of political parties. Her answer seemed to be, “Don’t interfere with the size of donations given to political parties”. This does not seem a very good approach to these issues. One of her big questions was, “Is £1,000 too much for an organisation?”—

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I find it rather disappointing that she is conflating today’s debate with a debate we had yesterday on political party funding, when I raised some serious concerns about the asymmetry of the Government’s approach. I did not necessarily want to go any further on the size or otherwise of donations, but I do not think it is relevant to the conversation today and why that was a disappointment.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

The issue is whether we want greater trust in democracy. That is what the Bill is about. The idea that we start putting technical and administrative difficulties—

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness again for giving way. If we are talking about trust in democracy, the point I was making yesterday was that if the Government of the day inflict substantial damage on opposition parties in terms of political party funding, that will call into question trust in democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I disagreed with what the noble Baroness was saying yesterday, but we do not need to go into the details of that. The point I am trying to make is that the Bill is about the core issue of enhancing trust in democracy, rather than constantly being concerned with how to get there, the cost or the administration. It may be too modest a Bill and it may not be the right Bill, but we are talking about enhancing trust in democracy. It is a shame that that attitude of the Official Opposition, whom the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, is speaking on behalf of, is all about the problems and not the great steps forward we could make.

I think that most people who spoke today were in favour of the Bill’s direction of travel, which is that we should not just regulate or register 5% of lobbying, as now, but move towards the other 95%. I think that is what we all want to achieve. I hope my noble friend the Minister will move more speedily than perhaps sometimes happens in government, for understandable reasons, and that we will soon move forward on this. For the moment, I beg to move.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Donations to Political Parties

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord—and not for the first time. It is important that people are not only able to donate to a political party if it meets their values, principles and objectives for our country but that they can be absolutely reassured that that money is used in a legitimate way by political parties for their aims and can have confidence in the system that that is the case.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I am in favour of the legislation that we will be planning. Does the Minister think that it would be a good idea to look at the PPERA and ensure that the rules are strict enough that every party’s accounts are properly audited and are accurate?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with my noble friend. I am sure that Mr Rycrotft, in his extensive review of the electoral system, took that into account. Having been a member of a political party for a long time, I know that the auditing process is an important part of the system. We all want to make sure that that works properly for political parties, as it should do in all parts of public life.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Tope (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as one of the co-presidents of London Councils. Since the previous two speakers gave their entire London political history, I cannot resist the temptation to do the same.

I was a London borough councillor for 40 years, and leader of that council for 13 years. I cannot resist saying that it has been under Liberal Democrat control for 40 years already and is now no doubt well on its way to 44 years. I am looking forward to it reaching 50 years, by which time I shall have just about reached my century. I stood down as leader of the council to fight the GLA elections, and was elected for its first eight years, along with the noble Lord, Lord Harris. At the beginning, we had many happy meetings trying to work out what on earth we were there to do, how on earth we should do it, whether we really needed committees and, if we did, which committees—and so on.

I spent some not so happy and very long nights in this place working on the GLA Bill, which took a lot of time and consideration. I have had a long interest in London and its governance. I was briefly even a London Member of Parliament, before all those other things. I always felt that that was the best apprenticeship for being a London borough councillor, but nobody else tried it that way round.

I came here at the request of London Councils to express support for the six amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. My name is attached to one of them but should have been attached to all six, as they are a package, and I certainly support them all. They propose sensible arrangements to enable London Councils to distribute government grants, which it is unable to do at the moment. I do not need to go into the details of exactly how it would work, but the proposal to have a statutory joint committee seems entirely sensible. That is the real point of it: the mechanics of exactly how it would work are not for us to determine, as long as there is an ability to make those arrangements. I am strongly in support of that.

I had not intended to join the discussions on the other issues that have been raised today. I noted, not for the first time, the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to get rid of what he calls small London boroughs. I suppose that that is the only way Labour would ever win most of them. I do not agree with that, not surprisingly.

I suspect that a review of London governance is not likely to happen, but I think it should. I was not entirely happy with the one that happened just before 2000, which resulted in the arrangements that we have now. If we are to have a serious review of London governance, I would welcome it, but I reserve my welcome for whatever its results may be. I would greatly welcome a proper consideration of the role of the borough councils, the Greater London Authority and particularly the London Assembly.

As I said, my main purpose for being here is to support the proposal for a London joint committee. I had understood that it has all-party support; it certainly has the support of the Liberal Democrats, for whom I can speak, as co-president. I am pleased, therefore, to support those amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Harris.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley, I have added my name to Amendment 72 and the others already spoken to by my noble friend Lord Harris.

I have to say only two things. These amendments would provide the appropriate vehicle, as some of the tasks that fall within London are cross-borough. A lot of tasks and responsibilities fall to the GLA, and some fall quite clearly to the boroughs, but some are cross-borough. It is important that we have the correct vehicle for that to happen, both for statutory consultations and, as has already been mentioned, to make it possible to spend money in that way, rather than it having to be funnelled through a particular lead borough. It is therefore useful and probably necessary.

I do not agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, said about it being another level of government. That is absolutely not the intention. There is a non-statutory vehicle there, which is immensely useful, but there are a couple of things that it cannot do. It seems to me that defining it in statute would fill a gap and would be better for the people and boroughs of London.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I am not a London councillor, nor am I a vice-president of the Local Government Association, so I suppose I have a bit of an independent view here. I am just a provincial councillor from Norfolk. However, I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. It is time to have a look at governance in London, because 32 plus one is quite a lot. There is also an assembly and a mayor—arguably, London is over-governed.

It is time to have a look at this, because it is out of kilter with elsewhere. Outside the M25, the Government are proceeding on the basis that all local authorities must be half a million people or more, covering huge territories. Norfolk, where I come from, has over 900 parishes. It is 85 miles wide and 40 miles long. If you were to start here in Westminster and then travel down to the south coast, the width of Norfolk would take you 30 miles past Brighton and out into the English Channel before it ran out. That is the size and scale of the territories we have in the shires. In Norfolk, over 9,000 electors are needed to elect a councillor. In Essex and Kent, it is between 12,000 and 15,000. In London, just 3,108 electors are required to elect a borough councillor—and of course there are other representatives too. These London boroughs are much smaller territories and much more tightly defined—they do not have 900 parishes. As a result, not only is democratic representation diluted to an unacceptable extent outside the M25, but we end up with the nonsense of the borough bike wars. If you ride a Lime or a Forest, there is an inexplicable invisible line in the middle of the road that applies the brakes as you ride up the King’s Road.

London is overrepresented; there are more councils and more councillors. In fact, there are more councillors within the M25 than in all the county councils of England. This review should happen. I associate myself with the remarks of the London councillors who have spoken. You cannot reorganise local government everywhere else and leave London to sit it out. That is not good for democracy, councils, governance or the country, and it certainly is not good for the principle of equality of democratic representation.

In the other place, all the constituencies have been equalised, plus or minus 5,000, so that there is an equality of representation. The value of everybody’s vote is the same, wherever you are in the United Kingdom. In London, because of the excess number of councils and councillors, the vote representation is up to five times greater than it is outside the M25. That alone should be an example and a reason to go into a governance review. London cannot just sit it out any more while, elsewhere, there is wholesale reorganisation.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly. It is interesting for how many of us Belsen was part of our lives. I was born in Celle, after the war, my father being in the BAOR and working with what were called DPs—displaced persons. He arrived not on the first day of the liberation of Belsen but soon after. I grew up, albeit with a very different background from that of the noble Lord, Lord Howard, with that experience. I think those of us who were brought up in that childhood have commemorated almost every day of our lives what happened. For those of us who believed in the European Union, it grew from the same basis—I know not everyone took the same view on Europe—of “never again”. This is a part big of my life.

The desire for commemoration does not mean that one has to support the particular proposal here, with the learning centre. I thought the reference to the Cenotaph was very moving. When one walks through the park—those of us who work in Millbank use it a lot—one stops at the Burghers of Calais. I think I am right in saying that the only time Rodin came to London was to discuss and choose the site of the Burghers of Calais, one of the most memorable statues or memorials in the country. Care was taken with the story he was trying to portray, albeit a much older story.

Yes, there should be a commemoration with a statue or equivalent, but there is this idea of millions of people coming. How are we going to deal with the traffic? I think we will deal with that in a later amendment. Before we come to that amendment, which will deal with a proper assessment, let us say yes to a commemoration, but that does not mean that we have to take over the whole of that garden and put in what would be a very small learning centre, with all the disadvantages that come with that.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as being on the Chief Rabbinate Trust and the Jewish Leadership Council, and as someone whose family was mostly wiped out by the Holocaust. My parents escaped and came here, and have always been hugely grateful for the protection of this country. I am deeply saddened at the controversy created by this proposed memorial and learning centre to support the promise to remember, which I have always believed is so important and so valuable.

I would like to put on record my gratitude for the support for this important project from both the previous and the current Government, and for the work put into it by so many Ministers, noble Lords and people who, as we have heard, have no direct interest and are not Jewish themselves. I recognise that we are a tiny minority of the population, but the work that has gone into this by so many is something that I am most grateful for. I understand the many objections and concerns that have been raised by noble Lords. I know that they are deeply and passionately held, and I do not believe they stem from antisemitism in any way, but this amendment would undermine the vision and purpose of this project.

Both the memorial and a learning centre are essential and are part of what this original project envisaged. Without the learning centre, I do not believe that it would achieve the aims. Noble Lords may or may not like the design, and I have enormous respect and admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Blackstone and Lady Deech, all of whom I know have good intentions.

The Berlin museum is underground and actually, that subterranean environment contributes in some way to the power of the horrors portrayed. Not everyone will agree, but that is how it struck me. All the elements outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, can and will be incorporated into the learning centre—and she is right: they are all so important.

The bottom line is that at this stage, after so many years of such regrettably bitter controversy, I sincerely believe that if this project as proposed, with the support of both the current Government and the Opposition, does not go ahead now, there will be no memorial and no new visitor or education centre to explain what happened. In the context of Parliament, of democracy, and of moral and historical issues, the siting next to Parliament is important. I hope that noble Lords will be able to accept this now.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I put my name to these amendments. I must confess I did not quite understand Amendments 193 and 198, so I did not put my name to them, but I am grateful for the explanation that my noble friend has given. There is no doubt that the availability of private rental in having pets is considerably smaller. I am conscious that when I moved to Suffolk, I think it was back in March 2010, when I was looking for places to rent—not to holiday rent, but to rent properly as a home—had I not had my dog Rizzo at the time, more than 200 properties would have been available, but when it came to any landlord that would even encounter having a dog, the number was reduced to four, and this in an area of 300 square miles.

It gave me a clear insight into the restrictions placed on people who want to move with their family—and pets are considered often part of that family. As has been mentioned elsewhere, there was certainly a premium to pay, as a consequence of what property was available, for the opportunity to have Rizzo come and visit on a regular basis.

I was struck by one issue in the amendments that my noble friends have tabled, to do with mortgaged premises. I have been pretty horrified to learn, in the variety of casework that I have undertaken over the years, about the artificial restrictions placed on mortgages that people have taken up. They have simply told me, “I’m not allowed to do this”. I felt that this was too good an opportunity to miss; that is why I signed my noble friend’s amendment.

As my noble friend Lord Lexden said, this is plain discrimination against people who have not yet been able to secure a home in a particular area. These are sensible additions to the Bill. I am aware that your Lordships have, overall, welcomed the opportunity to try to remove these exclusions on keeping pets in homes that people are renting. I hope the Minister will look kindly on these amendments to make sure that this part of the potential loophole is addressed and filled.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I do hope that the Minister will not agree to this. I have a flat that I live in part-time but sometimes rent, and I am allergic to animals. The idea that I would have to consider and take an application from someone with a pet, when I could not possibly have them living there because of my allergy, seems to me quite unfair. They would come to see the flat and waste their time when there is no chance in the world that I could let it to someone with a pet. I do hope that we will not go the way of forcing somebody like me to waste someone’s time in going to see a property. There is no way that I would be able to have an animal in the flat that I live in at other times.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood for his amendments. I also thank my noble friends Lord Lexden and Lady Coffey for their contributions, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who makes it very clear that we need to have a balance.

This group seeks to address the growing concern among renters, but we must also consider the valid and practical concerns of landlords. Although these proposals aim to prevent blanket bans on pets in rental properties, it is essential to recognise that there must be legitimate reasons for any restrictions. Many tenants may view their pets as family members, as we have heard, but we must also acknowledge the potential challenges and consequences of allowing pets in rental properties. These are challenges that can affect property maintenance, insurance costs and, as we have heard, the well-being of other tenants. A balanced approach is needed, one that considers the rights of tenants and the legitimate concerns of landlords and property owners.

Landlords are often responsible for the upkeep of the property and ensuring the safety and comfort of all tenants. Allowing pets may also complicate insurance policies, leading to higher premiums or even exclusions in certain cases. These concerns are not trivial and must not be dismissed lightly, but rather addressed in a way that is both fair and proportionate. The amendment in this group recognises the need for a balanced approach that takes into account the rights of those tenants and the legitimate interests of landlords.

We on these Benches have made our position clear on previous days in Committee. We continue to advocate for a balanced solution that respects the needs of both tenants and property owners. Ultimately, these amendments contribute to a more equitable housing market, where tenants with pets are not excluded from their right to live in a home that suits their needs. They also ensure that the landlord can continue to manage their properties responsibly with the appropriate protections in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, once again I follow in the slipstream of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and have added my name to one of his amendments. I commend the work that he has done on this particular subject.

The only point I want to make is to draw attention to the growing gap between the qualifications that are needed to manage a block in the social sector as against those needed to manage a block in the private sector. I take the view that, whether you live in a block managed by a social landlord or a private landlord, you are entitled to the same quality of management, professionalism and competence.

Two years ago, we had the then Social Housing (Regulation) Bill. That set out requirements of qualifications for those in the registered social landlord sector, and it required some 25,000 people to go out and get qualifications. Senior housing managers have to have a level 4 housing qualification and senior housing executives need level 5. One could make the case that requirements are even more necessary in the private sector, because it does not have the overall protection that the social housing sector has with either local authorities or registered social landlords.

There is now a growing gap between the relative qualifications you need, depending on whether the block is in the private or public sector. Although some progress has been made in driving up the standards of lettings agents, there is still some way to go. I hope the Minister will be able to express some sympathy for these two amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, indicated, if we do not make any progress with this Bill, we will be back with the leasehold Bill later in the Session.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I have also put my name to Amendment 203 and I declare a non-financial interest as chair of the Property Institute, which favours regulation of all property agents, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, has said. Amendment 203 is about safety, security and the good management of people’s homes. I think we all agree that residents deserve to be safe in their homes, but in rented accommodation it is impossible for residents to do everything themselves, because the building and the environment are actually owned and managed by the landlord.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, intimated that, in the case of social housing, it actually took the death of Awaab Ishak to bring forward mandatory qualifications for those who manage social property. As he said, however, there is no equivalent for private property, where unqualified and even rogue agents take responsibility for vital parts of the building’s upkeep, its safety, its access, its insurance and its legality. Unlike other professions handling legal and financial transactions, most of which are regulated, there are no mandatory qualifications or any minimum requirements for property agents, even when they are managing the money of assured tenancies. The absence of regulations clearly can lead to the mismanagement of deposits and rents and legal non-compliance, very often through ignorance rather than wickedness.

Managing shared buildings, particularly tall ones, is extremely complicated and demanding, and growing more so. There are a lot of new energy-efficient rules, quite rightly; there are increasing tenant demands for involvement, quite rightly; there is the rising cost of insurance; and there is more focus on legislation on health and safety, particularly after Grenfell. All these are complicated issues that need to be handled by a professional in the private rented sector, which houses, of course, many vulnerable people.

The private rented sector is often the home of people who can least afford to pay for any additional services, and, if they are paying too much in rent, they cannot even heat the property, and that can be because of mismanagement. It should be obvious without, I hope, having to wait for a death in the private rented sector, that all managing agents looking after homes should be properly competent and qualified. It is a job for professionals, not amateurs.

This amendment is a way forward. We are not talking about an expensive thing to run; it is not asking for very much. It asks simply that those who are paid to manage rented properties know what they are doing and have the qualifications to prove it, so that landlords would employ only agents capable of managing homes legally and honestly. Let us not wait for a tragedy: let us do it now. We owe it to all residents to make sure that the state requires those managing their homes to know what they are doing.

[Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 203 and 204, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and others. I declare my interest as a leaseholder, as well as a landlord and former PRS tenant. Noble Lords supporting these amendments have already made a cast-iron case for requiring property-management agents to have relevant training and qualifications, and for these requirements to be legally enforced.

I have dealt with a number of property management agents. Some have been excellent and others have been appalling. It seems extraordinary to me that property agents who may deal with millions of pounds of property and revenue are currently not required to have any professional qualifications or training whatever. Some agents I have dealt with in the past have no property qualifications and had little or no understanding of property law or lease enforcement. There is no other sector that I am aware of where individuals dealing with such large amounts of money and such valuable assets can be wholly unqualified and virtually unregulated.

Anyone can set themselves up as a property agent, with little or no knowledge of the sector. Many property agents are, of course, very professional, but the rogues and amateurs undermine the reputation of the whole property sector. This must end, as we have heard. For that reason, I wholeheartedly support these two amendments and urge the Minister to accept them.

Political Parties: Donations from Abroad

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I think it always good to have consensus across the House and in politics. On the noble Lord’s point about transparency, as stated, we are looking at strengthening the rules around donations. To do so, we will look at all the evidence and in due course we will set out our proposals.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I raised before the issue of permitted donors who live abroad being able to give to political parties. The last Government went ahead with that, despite opposition from this side. Similarly, they brought in ID for voting against our recommendations. I welcome the rather belated view that we should have a negotiation, and perhaps the Opposition would like to say that, this time, they will co-operate this time and not try to do something by themselves.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an excellent point. She is correct that overseas voters have the right to participate in UK parliamentary elections, and this includes the right to donate to parties or candidates they support. However, foreign money is not permitted, and it is a criminal offence to facilitate an impermissible donation. Those rules apply to voters abroad as well.

Political Parties: Funding

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises an important point. Political parties registered in Northern Ireland can also accept donations from Irish sources, such as Irish companies that meet prescribed conditions. Allowing Irish donations to Northern Ireland parties recognises the special place of Ireland in the political life and culture of Northern Ireland. The rules are consistent with the principles set out in the Good Friday agreement. Irish donations are subject to the same scrutiny by the Electoral Commission as donations from any other permissible donor and if there are any complaints about that, they must be referred to the Electoral Commission.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, the last Government extended voting to people who had been out of this country for more than 15 years. That in itself was not very problematic but it meant that they all became permitted donors. People who had not lived in this country for 40 or 50 years could become permitted donors and give money, with absolutely no ability to check on its source. Can my noble friend assure me that when this is looked at, that aspect introduced by the last Government will also be properly scrutinised?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My noble friend raises a very important issue. Political parties can accept donations only from registered electors but of course that now includes overseas electors. They are subject to the same counter-fraud measures as domestic electors, including having their identity confirmed as part of the registration process, but that very important issue will be looked at as we all look at all matters relating to elections.

Shared Prosperity Fund: Wales

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I have great admiration for and friendship with the noble Lord from the previous Government, when I was an Opposition Whip and he was a Whip. These are the conversations that my honourable friend Alex Norris MP is currently having, so I would not like to pre-empt them. I will also be visiting Wales to meet my counterpart in my portfolio, and I will raise that particular point.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

We look forward to welcoming the Minister to Wales. Can he say, more broadly than the fund, what action the Government are taking to spread growth and prosperity more evenly across Wales?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an excellent point. The UK Government are committed to addressing regional inequalities and supporting growth across the whole of the UK. Through the Council of the Nations and Regions, we will address this, working with devolved Governments. As well as the shared prosperity fund, we are taking other initiatives. For example, we will continue to support the four city and growth deals which cover the whole geography of Wales. Through the freeports and investment zones programme, we are delivering significant economic interventions into each corner of Wales, with freeports established in the north-west and south-west of Wales, and great progress has been made on establishing investment zones in north-east and south-east Wales. When I visit Wales, I promise that I will learn a few words of Welsh.

Leaseholders: Management Companies

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we have been very clear, and the Secretary of State was very clear, that we cannot support establishing a new regulatory body at this time and through this Bill. Measures in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill are there to protect and empower leaseholders, along with existing protections, and work undertaken by the industry will seek to make property management agents more accountable to leaseholders who pay for their services.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the Property Institute. The Government keep saying that they do not have time to implement RoPA; I do not believe it, and they could if they wanted to. In the meantime, at the request of people in the industry, I chaired the committee that set up a code of conduct; is there nothing the Government could do to at least endorse or make that code of conduct mandatory? That would help in making sure that all managing agents work to a high level.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Government welcome the ongoing work being undertaken by the industry, and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for the work she has done with her group on codes of practice. We have said that we will consider any code produced by her steering group, and come back to the House.