Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 259) in light of the 10th Report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (HL Paper 42), published on 23 July.

Relevant document: 10th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, before proceeding with this take-note Motion, I thank Freedom from Torture for its help. Together with the Helen Bamber Foundation, it has drawn attention to the issues raised by this statement of changes in Immigration Rules. They have since been joined by a number of other expert stakeholder organisations. I also note the assistance I receive from RAMP, as listed in the register. I welcome my noble friend the Minister to the asylum brief, which I suspect will keep him pretty busy in the coming months. I thank noble Lords who are attending. I know my noble friend Lord Dubs has to leave at some point, so he may just be here for moral support, but moral support from him is always very welcome.

I am drawing the statement of changes to the Committee’s attention following the SLSC’s 10th report, which recorded a number of weaknesses in the explanatory material provided by the Home Office—not for the first time. The statement involves the introduction of what is now being called a “single protection interview”. It was originally called “merged registration”, but while I am glad that the Home Office appears to have taken SLSC’s advice to change the name, calling it a single protection interview, given the concerns raised, does seem rather Orwellian.

The new approach will, in the words of the Explanatory Memorandum:

“Involve one interview, covering the registration of the asylum claim, screening of the individual, and the establishment and assessment of the basis of claim. The interviewing officer will ask relevant and appropriate questions to establish whether an individual has protection needs and, if not, whether they can be removed from the UK without the need for a further asylum interview”.


Although the Home Office suggests that only a minority of cases will be treated in this way, and that it constitutes only a minor change, the SLSC notes that the submission from Freedom from Torture and Helen Bamber warns that it represents “a substantial shift” in the asylum procedure. While the SLSC accepted the Home Office’s argument that only a small proportion of asylum seekers is likely to be affected and that the change did not alter the substantive criteria in the rules, it did not consider that this constituted an adequate justification for the Home Office’s failure, once again, to consult on the matter.

The report states:

“it is precisely in the operational implementation where consultation can often be the most productive; we have previously highlighted numerous examples of instruments where consultation could have improved operational policy design, including in relation to changes to immigration rules”.

Then, in bold, it states:

“The Home Office has therefore not provided a valid reason for the lack of consultation in this case, which we regard as unacceptable”.


Strong words indeed. I would welcome my noble friend’s response to them and ask whether he accepts the criticism, which clearly has implications for future changes to the rules. Will he give a commitment now that any further changes to the policy will be subject to consultation with expert stakeholders and those with lived experience of the asylum process?

The SLSC was also critical of the fact that the guidance which puts the flesh on the new rules was not published alongside the statement to illuminate how the change will operate in practice. Again in bold, it notes:

“As we have stated before, and including in relation to earlier changes in immigration rules, where guidance is important to understanding the effect of a change in the law, it should be published (in draft, if necessary) alongside the instrument to enable scrutiny. We are firmly of the opinion that the Home Office should adopt this as the default approach for future Statements of Changes”.


Once more, I would welcome my noble friend’s response to that.

It should also be noted that, although the guidance has now been published, there was no consultation on it, despite a written request to the Home Office from four organisations in the field. Will my noble friend the Minister at least agree to the Home Office sharing the SPI interview script with expert stakeholders for consultation, so that they can assess and advise on how effectively it will serve to identify vulnerability and safeguarding concerns?

It is to these substantive concerns that I now turn. Although I am sure we all applaud the general attempts to speed up the asylum process, they should not come at the expense of the quality of decision-making. I was rather concerned about the Home Office’s response to one of the SLSC’s questions, which said that the primary purpose is not to improve the identification of trauma but to ensure that clearly unfounded claims can be considered more efficiently where appropriate.

At the heart of the sector’s concern is the fear that trauma will not be identified but overlooked, because the eligibility criteria and case selection process do not clearly exclude cases that raise safeguarding concerns and vulnerability indicators. These may not be identified during an SPI’s accelerated process. They point to evidence of the current failure at screening to identify and respond to indicators of vulnerability, trafficking and safeguarding concerns. Although the guidance allows for rerouting back into the standard asylum process, it would seem that the onus is on the asylum seeker to make any vulnerability clear during the SPI. However, the guidance does not make it clear what criteria will be applied and how such rerouting would be decided, nor how a claimant will know and understand that possibility. If my noble friend could clarify this, that would be very helpful.

This raises the other main related concern. Research and the Home Office’s own earlier guidance identify the many barriers to early disclosure of vulnerability, trauma or sexuality. Torture survivors could find it very difficult to talk about their experience. Similarly, LGBTQI+ people often delay claiming asylum on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and expression or sex characteristics due to, among other things, their feeling unsafe, a history of trauma and a lack of understanding that oppression due to sexual orientation constitutes an accepted ground for asylum.

That said, where someone has already disclosed trauma of some kind or is making an LGBTQI+-related claim, can my noble friend give a commitment that they will not be subjected to the SPI process? This is more likely in the case of an in-country claim, but it is not clear from the guidance whether the SPI process will apply to both in-country and at-border claims, although I understand that officials have indicated it would apply to only in-country claimants. Can my noble friend please clarify this point and, if that is the case, ensure that the guidance is amended to make this clear?

The Home Office countered fears about disclosure with reference to the training of decision-makers, but a UNHCR study found that most staff had no or very limited training on how to spot vulnerability when it was not freely disclosed. Although training may have improved since that study, the most recent report from the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration on asylum casework was pretty damning on the quality of both training and decision-making. What, if any, further training is envisaged?

The concern raised by the SLSC is on whether claimants will have the opportunity to provide additional evidence, such as medical or legal reports, following the SPI. In fact, that has since been clarified in the guidance, but it is still not clear why it was deleted from the actual rules. Moreover, Freedom from Torture believes that the five days’ additional time specified is likely to be sufficient only in the most straightforward cases; much will depend on whether the claimant has been able to get legal representation. Again, I would be grateful for my noble friend’s thoughts on that.

--- Later in debate ---

My noble friend asked whether this process applies only to in-country claims. The answer is yes. This change applies to those individuals who have sought asylum in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom does not accept asylum claims from anyone who is outside the United Kingdom. The refugee convention contains no obligation for signatory states to consider claims made outside their territory. Our policy is consistent with the requirement of the convention. We will not consider asylum claims made abroad, and there is no provision in the Immigration Rules for someone to be allowed to travel to the United Kingdom to claim asylum. The single protection interview is not part of the process for those who come to the United Kingdom under a resettlement scheme. Instead, the policy concerns the structure of the interview process and does not change the legal test for asylum, humanitarian protection or certification. The Home Office will consider as part of its review what updates to the guidance may need to be made.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend the Minister, but I do not think that I was clear enough in putting the question. Regarding what is meant by “in-country”, I am not suggesting that we are talking about people who try to claim asylum from somewhere else, because I am aware that that is not possible. The question is: when someone arrives on, say, a small boat, could they be shunted immediately into this process? Or are we talking about people who are already in the country, having been here a few days or whatever? That is the distinction I was trying to make—not the one that I think my noble friend understood me to be making.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The answer is that it is about the reasons that people give for their asylum claim and where they are from in relation to that. We are talking, as I think noble Lords have acknowledged, about a small cohort of people. We are not changing the basis for people claiming asylum; we are making it clear that there is a process for a very small cohort to have a much more speedy and efficient way of dealing with their claims.

My noble friend and others asked whether further training is envisaged. As the published guidance makes clear, claimants are interviewed by a trained decision-maker, and, as I said, claimants will be given the opportunity to explain the reasons for their claim, to provide relevant information and to answer questions about their circumstances. Decision-makers receive specialist training on identifying and assessing vulnerability in the asylum system, as well as on assessing all claims using detailed country policy and evidential guidance, ensuring that protection is provided where it is needed and that unfounded claims are identified and refused.

My noble friend asked about how claimants will have the opportunity to provide additional evidence; a number of noble Lords referred to the fact that this information was deleted from the rules. The published SPI guidance states:

“Claimants must be given at least 5 full working days following their Single Protection interview to submit any further representations before a decision is made”.


Under this process, individuals remain responsible for providing evidence in support of their protection claim. Moreover, the single protection interview does not alter the legal framework for considering asylum claims or the evidence that may be submitted in support of them. Decision-makers will consider all relevant information and available evidence when assessing a claim. Where further information is required or it becomes clear that a case requires more detailed consideration, it may be routed out of the single protection interview process and considered through an alternative route.

My noble friend and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford asked about access to legal advice and representation at the point of referral into the SPI process. To be clear, the changes do not alter a claimant’s entitlement to legal advice or legal aid. The published SPI guidance says that claimants having their claim considered under this process must be given

“the opportunity to be accompanied by a legal representative”.

The legal framework governing asylum decision-making remains unchanged. Claimants remain able to provide additional information and evidence in support of their claim. The policy concerns the structure of the interview process rather than access to legal representation. The SPI is an asylum interview. It does not remove or reduce procedural safeguards that apply to the consideration of protection claims, including access to legal representation and claimants being able to submit information that is relevant to their claim. The reported concerns around access to legal aid are not unique to this change and should not be conflated with it.

Noble Lords have raised what the Home Office said to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—that the initial cohort of cases will come from a limited number of countries. My noble friend suggested that the implication is that the process could be extended to other countries and involve further selection criteria. The single protection interview is suitable for only a limited cohort of cases. The process applies only to a narrowly defined cohort of claims from countries that have been assessed as among the safest in the world: EU and EEA states, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, Switzerland and the United States.

Additionally, the guidance states:

“A case may be considered for the Single Protection Interview where … The available information indicates that the claim appears to be clearly unfounded … There are no indicators suggesting that a fuller examination of the claim is likely to be required … It is likely to be unnecessary to test the credibility of any claims made as they can be considered at their highest … The claimant is fit to be interviewed … There are no safeguarding concerns or vulnerabilities that would make the process inappropriate”.


I also want to be clear—this was raised by the noble Lord, Lord German—that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and age-disputed children do not fall into the cohort and so do not qualify for the single protection interview.

My noble friend’s final question related to how the process can be monitored and how we can give an assurance that there is no extension of SPI until there is clear evidence about how it is working. The Home Office will carefully monitor the conduct of this process, including interviews and decisions. There are no plans to extend SPI without carefully considering the evidence of how it works in practice, and I am sure that the input from external stakeholders will be part of that consideration.

I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that this is not about cost—it is about efficiency and fairness. It represents a measured and targeted reform. These changes do not alter the United Kingdom’s protection obligations, do not remove the requirement to consider claims individually and do not apply to vulnerable or complex cases. Instead, they are designed, as I said, to deliver a more efficient asylum system by enabling clearly unfounded claims from a limited cohort of claimants to be considered more quickly, while ensuring resources remain more focused.

I thank noble Lords for their time. I am sorry I have gone over time a little bit.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate, and I thank my noble friend for very patiently dealing with all our questions. I shall have to read the Hansard afterwards, but I suspect that we may have subsequent questions to raise. I very much welcome his emphasis on the general principle of fairness, and his saying that this applies to people whatever their means of coming here. They may be coming here by irregular means, but they are not illegal; they have a right to have their asylum claim treated fairly. I am glad that that is, in effect, what my noble friend was saying.

I shall not go into any detail now, as I am conscious that time is moving on. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who contributed.

Motion agreed.

Representation of the People Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 14th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome this Bill, which should help strengthen our democracy at a time when it is under some strain. The extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds, following Scotland and Wales, represents an important step in recognising the contribution many of them already make as citizens and in enabling them to contribute to political decisions that will help determine their futures. However, as I know from my own earlier research as an academic, some young people do not feel prepared for this new responsibility.

The Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement, of which I was a member, emphasised citizenship education’s

“crucial role to play in helping to build active citizens”.

It deplored the way in which the previous Government had allowed it

“to degrade to a parlous state”

and expressed concern that, in emphasising individual character, it was failing to develop much-needed political literacy. It is welcome that the Government will make citizenship education mandatory in primary as well as secondary schools, but the Association for Citizenship Teaching has warned that some of the proposed curriculum changes risk weakening the contribution it can make to

“preparing young people for participation in democratic life”.

I therefore encourage my noble friend the Minister, if she has not already done so, to read the very useful recent report from the APPG for Schools, Learning and Assessment Empowering Students as Democratic Citizens: How Schools and Colleges Can Prepare Young People for Votes at 16. The report cites studies which demonstrate that

“effective democratic education in schools can positively impact young people’s intended political engagement as well as perceptions of political efficacy, confidence, interest and trust in politics—all important factors associated with voting in elections”.

Yet access to such education is generally poor and inconsistent, with more marginalised groups likely to lose out. A year 8 student who gave evidence said:

“Equipping us with political education is … a democratic necessity”.


The Bill’s provision for automatic voter registration is of particular importance to young people—and to private renters—but it needs strengthening so that it becomes a duty and has a clear, speedy timeline.

The Women’s Democracy Group emphasises the need to improve the diversity of political candidates, including through the implementation of Section 106 of the Equality Act, which would require parties to publish data on the protected characteristics of candidates standing for national elections. The Government are committed to commencing Section 106, but have refused to provide any kind of timeline for doing so or for the prior consultation process. Centenary Action argues that Section 106 is a vital tool for helping to move the dial on diversity of representation by bringing greater transparency, and that it is essential that it is enacted as soon as possible in time for preparation for the next election, which could well occur during the centenary year of equal franchise. Can my noble friend give us some idea of when action will be taken on this?

If we are to come into line with Scotland and Wales, we should also extend the franchise to foreign residents, as argued by my honourable friend James Naish MP, drawing on the work of the Migrant Democracy Project, which I met earlier this year. The project argues rightly that

“democracy works best when it is inclusive for all who it serves. All those who call the UK their home have vested political and social interest in how their communities and country are governed”.

Back in 2022, the now Justice Secretary, Alex Norris MP, tabled an amendment which would have achieved just that. Surely an inclusive Representation of the People Bill should not exclude this particular group of people. I therefore ask my noble friend whether she will look at the case for their inclusion.

In conclusion, I support those arguing for stronger limits on political donations and for the establishment of a commission for electoral reform. The widely supported amendment on the latter was deemed out of scope in the Commons, with Minister Eshalomi arguing that

“it is premature to legislate now for one approach”—[Official Report, Commons, 2/9/26; col. 342.]

to electoral reform. But the whole point of a commission is to examine a range of approaches, ideally drawing on the wisdom of a citizens’ assembly. That said, I welcome her willingness to discuss next steps and hope that my noble friend will say the same; in her opening remarks, she implied that she was open to discussing anything with Members of this House. Of course, a commission does not require legislation, but it would mark an important step towards what my noble friend Lord Kinnock recently described as a “profound act of democratisation”.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

I appreciate the work that the Minister is leading to ensure that new statutory guidance is sufficiently robust to achieve the results we are all looking for. I would also welcome a commitment to secondary legislation in the form of regulations if, as I strongly fear based on experience, even statutory guidance is not enough to ensure domestic abuse survivors can access their rights. Will the Minister also commit to ensuring that the guidance is clearly and comprehensively communicated to all social landlords and to introducing it as soon as possible so it achieves the ends we seek more quickly than my amendment would do? That would be an outcome to this debate that would transform the lives of domestic abuse survivors and their children.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to add my name to Amendment 76 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, who has made a very powerful case indeed, and I will not repeat what she has said. She emphasised that my noble friend the Minister is extremely sympathetic—she made that clear in Committee. She also said that she thought statutory guidance was the answer but that if it proved not to be sufficient, then, in effect, we have the necessary primary powers to take action.

I simply want to ask my noble friend whether she could give an assurance that, in the event that the guidance proves insufficient as the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, has warned it might do, the Government will use those powers. Can she say what steps will be taken to monitor compliance with the guidance? What does she consider a reasonable period to assess the effectiveness of the guidance? Can she also say—and this echoes the noble Baroness—what steps will be taken to ensure local authorities are aware of the guidance and what is expected of them under it?

[Baroness Teather (LD)]

My Lords, I too was very pleased to add my name in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neate. I want to also say a few remarks about the other amendments that we support in this group, and I will turn to them in a moment. Again, I will not repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, has so ably laid out, but I want to follow up the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, that we would be pleased to hear a commitment from the Minister about what the Government will do if the guidance proves to be ineffective, how they will monitor whether it is effective and what the back-up plan is.

I think we are all of one mind that we want to see action on this point. Without action on it, that risks undermining the good work that the Bill lays out on support for victims of domestic violence. To leave one huge hole in the Bill would be very disappointing, and I know that the Minister is very committed to tackling this issue of financial abuse.

Briefly, we on these Benches also support Amendments 28 and 29 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. I note in particular on Amendment 29 that it is not just a nice to have. The point is that there really is legal ambiguity; housing associations say that, without this legislation, they are in a difficult position if they are to be able to fulfil their legal obligations. The noble Lord indicated that the Minister has said that she is very sympathetic to this point, and I really look forward to hearing what she says on how she will meet the requests of housing associations there.

Finally, we welcome the expansion of scope in laying out and making sure that these provisions apply to other forms of abuse including, for example, sibling abuse or child-to-parent abuse. These are made available by the amendments that the Government have tabled here. We really welcome that change.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 65, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, who has brought to this amendment her considerable experience in dealing with domestic abuse and homelessness.

It is not that long ago that the expectation was that, when somebody was the victim of domestic abuse, they had to leave their home and the perpetrator could be left in possession of the home. Thankfully, we have, in a number of ways, changed that thinking. Domestic abuse protection orders and domestic abuse protection notices in the Domestic Abuse Act have given powers to ensure that it is the perpetrator who leaves. I welcome Schedule 1 to the Bill and the efforts that the Government are making to provide greater stability and security to the victims of domestic abuse.

It is also not that long ago that we thought that domestic abuse was purely domestic violence and always had a physical violence element. As we know now, there is complexity to domestic abuse, which can include coercive control and economic control. It is in that sense that Amendment 65 is so important. It recognises that there are victims of domestic abuse who may be victims of economic coercive control and find that debt has been racked up by their perpetrator, unbeknown to them. When they are trying to leave, and trying to secure social housing for themselves, they find that that debt is against their name as well, perhaps as having been joint tenants, and find themselves in an impossible situation that has been created because they were a victim of the actions of the perpetrator.

I hope that the Government are going to look favourably on the amendment. An effort is being made by the Government through this Bill to change the scenario for those who are the victims of domestic abuse, but there is this loophole. The Government need to look at this element, given the knowledge we now have of the forms that domestic abuse can take and the greater understanding we have of the circumstances in which people can be left that are nothing to do with their behaviour, but purely because they have been the victim of a perpetrator.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I apologise that I was unable to contribute at Second Reading, but I am pleased to speak now in support of Amendment 65 and to follow the noble Baroness, Lady May, who made such a strong case. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, for tabling the amendment. Given her experience at Shelter and Women’s Aid, I can think of no better person to take up this important issue.

The relationship between homelessness and debt resulting from economic coercion and abuse, which we have just heard about, was brought to my attention last year in a briefing on a book by Professor Katherine Brickell and Dr Mel Nowicki, Debt Trap Nation. This provided evidence on the general problem of domestic abuse survivors unable to qualify for housing because of restrictive housing allocation policies. They found that fewer than one in five local authorities specifically exempts survivors from housing-related debt rules. Indeed, significant housing-related debt is sometimes bracketed with being a perpetrator of domestic abuse under the rubric of unacceptable behaviour that provides grounds for exclusion from housing. Some debt is what the researchers called coerced debt, generated through financial transactions that the victim is told to make or is aware of the abuser making in their name. They cite the organisation Surviving Economic Abuse, which discovered that victims of economic violence were at high risk of having rent arrears. As Brickell and Nowicki note, debt chips away at women’s autonomy to make decisions in their own interests.

Moreover, as the Chartered Institute of Housing points out, children suffer as a result of these exclusionary policies. The researchers observe that adult and child domestic abuse survivors subject to them are, in effect, left in limbo in temporary accommodation until they can reduce or clear rent arrears. The effect on children can be traumatic. Reducing the number of children living in temporary accommodation is one of the main aims of the child poverty strategy as well as of the homelessness strategy, so the amendment would contribute to both. The institute explains why it believes action should be taken in this legislation, rather than await the statutory guidance promised in the announced allocations review, as legislation would be more appropriate and there is a strong case for not delaying the matter. This very much accords with the strong argument put by the noble Baroness, Lady Neate. A few local authorities already pursue this policy; for example, Bedford Borough Council states:

“A blanket policy will not be operated in relation to housing debt and each case will be considered on its own merits ...Where a housing related debt has arisen as a direct result of a person being a victim of domestic abuse the debt will be disregarded for the purposes of assessing the application”.


This is to be applauded, but survivors should not have to rely on the discretion of individual local authorities.

The Bill is so positive when it comes to the position of domestic abuse survivors that it would be a real shame not to include this amendment, or one that achieved the same aim. At Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister made it clear that this Bill should not be viewed as a Christmas tree Bill. That is understandable, but I believe that this amendment is no bauble to add to the tree but rather that it would strengthen the very roots of the Bill. It is totally consistent with the existing welcome provisions, as the noble Baroness made clear. Therefore, I hope my noble friend will be able to look upon it favourably before Report.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, Clause 12 and Schedule 1 introduce important new protections for social housing tenants experiencing domestic abuse. I welcome these measures, which will help ensure that victims can leave unsafe accommodation or remain in their homes safely without losing their tenancy rights. I also support Amendment 61, tabled by my noble friend Lord Best, which seeks to guarantee continuity of secure tenancy where a tenant’s safety is at risk. No one should be forced to forfeit their secure tenancy as a result of violence or intimidation.

It is the case that the availability of adequate social housing is often a critical determining factor in cases where a victim of abuse or intimidation is unable to access a new secure tenancy. A lack of safe, secure, high-quality housing can put people experiencing domestic abuse at risk of homelessness and can therefore make them hesitant to speak out. Improving partnership working and best practice between housing associations and local authorities, as well as clear guidance for social housing staff, will be vital for these important new protections to work effectively.

I am also speaking in support of Amendment 62 in the name of my noble friend Lord Best, relating to access for safety, to which I have added my name. I welcome the broad support for this amendment from the housing sector, including the Chartered Institute of Housing, the National Housing Federation and the National Federation of ALMOs. Housing associations are spending more each year to invest in existing homes but report increasing difficulty in securing access to residents’ homes to carry out essential inspections, repairs and safety works. This reflects a growing mismatch between duties and powers. Providers rightly face stronger statutory obligations to identify and remedy hazards, yet they lack clear and consistent legal routes to gain access in the small number of cases where residents just do not engage.

National Plan to End Homelessness

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the welcome national plan identifies newly recognised refugees leaving asylum support accommodation as being particularly vulnerable to homelessness, yet says nothing about the 28-day move-on period, although local authorities and voluntary organisations have criticised it as a key cause of homelessness because it does not give newly recognised refugees long enough to find independent accommodation. Will my noble friend therefore impress on the Home Office the importance of reverting to the 56 days it piloted and emphasise the importance of this to the Government’s homelessness strategy?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

What my noble friend says is indicative of the issues we have in this area of making sure that we work across government to solve some of these problems. The Home Office has committed to strengthening data-sharing processes with councils for 100% of newly granted refugees at risk of homelessness within two days of a discontinuation of asylum support notification. This supports early intervention by enabling councils to commence homelessness assessments. We will continue to monitor the impact of all the policies, including refugee move-on, hotel occupancy, asylum accommodation costs, local community impacts and pressures on local authorities and public services. It is important that we work across government and with our partners to improve that move- on support and reduce the risk of homelessness.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 15th July 2025 Lords Chamber

The Home Office cannot show that this policy has reduced illegal immigration, nor that it improves enforcement, but it has created fear, suspicion, and exclusion in housing, with no clear reason why. It has divided communities and made racism easier to justify for those who want to justify it. I have spent my life working in local government, dealing with housing, real families and real issues, as has the Minister, and I can tell you this. When people have a safe, stable home, they can thrive. They can contribute, and they belong. Right to rent does the exact opposite, and it should be repealed—if not now, when? I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for taking over this amendment, to which I was pleased to add my name. I assure her that I am as committed as ever to opposing this policy. Given the widespread support for the repeal of this discriminatory legislation, including among landlords’ organisations, I had hoped the Government might consider accepting the amendment in Committee. I made then what I believed was a strong case for repeal. I will not repeat that now, especially as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has made it so powerfully, but I will make just two points.

First, since Committee, a new research report into race, ethnicity and homelessness has been published which underlines the racism all too often faced in the housing market by racially minoritised tenants, especially refugees and other migrants. I am indebted to the lead researcher, Professor Suzanne Fitzpatrick of Heriot-Watt University, for sharing some of the findings with me. Although the research was not specifically into the right-to-rent scheme, a substantial number of participants have faced private landlords who clearly did not want to let to racially minoritised tenants. Practitioners repeatedly flagged up a reluctance to enforce housing rights among this group, even when they 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 policy. In its recommendations the report thus argues that ending the right-to-rent policy, which has been shown to drive racial discrimination, would demonstrate the Bill’s commitment to addressing anti-discrimination practices.

Secondly, I was left somewhat bemused in Committee. Speaking for the Opposition, the noble Lord, 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 when they do not fully understand the legislation in front of them. When I pointed out that many people, including my noble friends Lady Smith of Basildon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, highlighted the potential problems at the time the legislation went through Parliament, I was grateful for his acknowledgement of 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:

“This is one of our major concerns with this legislation”,—[Official Report, 12/5/25; col. 1987.]


apparently forgetting that it was his party that introduced it.

I would say that it is never too late for a sinner to repent, but I am sat behind the right reverend Prelate. However, we are now saddled with this unfair legislation, which all too easily leads to the kind of discrimination uncovered by the Heriot-Watt 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 minoritised communities.

It was described by Wendy Williams in her Windrush Lessons Learned Review as one of the “most contentious aspects” of the hostile environment. It saddens me that, despite the evidence to the contrary, my noble friend the Minister, for whom I have the greatest respect, rejected the amendment in Committee on the grounds that, as we have heard:

“The right-to-rent scheme is capable of being operated proportionally by landlords and letting agents in all cases”.—[Official Report, 12/5/25; col. 1989.]


I disagree and therefore believe that it really is not compatible with the aims of the Bill.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I added my name to this amendment. I am grateful for the powerful speeches from the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Lister of Burtersett. They have left me with little to say, except that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has given me a cue with her words about the repentant sinner. I will take us even further back in history to the book of Genesis and the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham argues with God against the destruction of the cities, and God agrees that he will not destroy the cities if only 10 people can be found who are righteous. The principle that established, which passes down into our present law, is that it is better to let the guilty off than for the innocent to be punished.

That is what this particular amendment is about, because the people who are suffering are not the guilty few who may be here illegally and should not be here; they are the many people from minority ethnic backgrounds who just do not get a look-in because landlords play it safe. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to that when she introduced the debate. That is the problem. If we do not get rid of this pernicious bit of legislation, we will continue to see innocent people who, just because they have a different skin colour to my own, suffer because landlords will not let them properties just on the off-chance that there might be something not quite right in their paperwork. So I do not believe that the right-to-rent Act can be reformed, and I support this amendment.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 7th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly against Amendment 61. It is well-meaning, but I am afraid it is a blunt instrument full of unintended consequences. I do not deny that to require a guarantor for most tenancies is disproportionate and unnecessary, and the Bill makes welcome provisions to regularise what has become standard practice for the most part. However, I want to alert your Lordships’ House to some perverse consequences for three particular types of potential tenant who are among the quietest voices: the foreign student; the groups of students; and those with impaired reputation or difficult personal circumstances. Guarantees make the unrentable into rentable, in some cases. It makes opportunities exist when refusal would otherwise be the only other choice.

Let us dwell for a moment on the case of the foreign student. The foreign students come from far away; they have no reputation, there is no covenant strength and they may not even have arrived in the United Kingdom. They certainly do not have a UK bank account at this point and they probably do not have a UK mobile phone either. In many cases, the only way in which they can secure a property to live in before they arrive is to have the support of a guarantor; a guarantor allows them to have a roof over their head.

Then we have the groups of students. I refer to the case of my daughter, when she went off to Newcastle. There were seven students who were friends, although none of them really knew each other that well; they certainly were not related to each other, and there were no family bonds to tie them, whereas the Bill contemplates that the tenant is a single tenant. It is quite reasonable for a landlord renting to students, if they cannot have payment in advance—I will not talk about that because we discussed that on day one of Committee—to require some sort of guarantor so that the downside risks can be compensated. Not all students want to live in expensive halls of residence; they are disadvantaged at an early part of their lives.

Let us think also about those with an impaired reputation—people who may have left prison or are suffering from domestic abuse or family breakdown. I have been a guarantor for hundreds of families in these sorts of situations, but the Government seek to make my well-meaning interventions unlawful. Let me explain. Sitting in your Lordships’ House, I see the Minister and my noble friend Lord Jamieson who, like me, have been leaders of councils. We know that councils, in certain circumstances, have to step in to avoid homelessness. We know there are not enough registered social landlords and that the private sector landlords are our friends—they are part of the solution, not the problem. However, we cannot expect the private sector landlord to be the only one who takes a chance to get that person, who may have become homeless, a roof over their head.

In common with many other councils, my council—and I am proud that we pushed this hard—went for guarantees. We stood as guarantor for somebody in difficult circumstances so that the private sector landlord, who was prepared to take a chance with us, could provide a home. This is an essential part of managing a housing market. It is all about supporting the most vulnerable. It works; it is a success. If you have been a council leader—I am sorry that I failed to identify the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who has also been a council leader in these circumstances—this is about helping families get back on their feet.

In considering Amendment 61, I ask noble Lords: in what universe can this misdirected, misguided and counterproductive amendment help those with the quietest voices get a roof over their heads? Providing a guarantor is the way in which the unrentable can rent, and there is nothing fair about keeping people in bed and breakfasts if they could, via a guarantor, be housed. I cannot support this amendment.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to support my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley, and I am grateful to her for taking over the amendment. She is much better placed than I am to speak to it, and has done so very persuasively. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, called it a blunt instrument and was hyperbolic in his description of the amendment. According to Shelter, the Bill and this amendment would restrict the scenarios in which a landlord can legitimately request a guarantor to those in which a prospective tenant cannot prove that the rent is affordable to them.

So it does not seem to me that the amendment excludes the groups that the noble Lord described. If it does so, then perhaps we can have a refined version of it, but the fact is that there are problems without an amendment of this kind. My central argument in Committee—

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

The noble Baroness talks about the burden of proof. In the three examples I gave, proof is not available. I can understand the intent and the well-meaning behind Amendment 61, but if it is to form part of the Bill, noble Lords need to ask themselves how those people in difficult circumstances are going to demonstrate the proof. They cannot, so a guarantor is the only way forward.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

This amendment does not preclude the use of guarantors; it just limits their use. I will leave it at that. As I said in Committee, if there is a better way of doing it, then fine—perhaps the Government could bring forward an amendment that ruled out any unintended consequences. I am not convinced that there are any—but anyway.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

The amendments before us—the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Best, for rent smoothing and my own call for a comprehensive affordability review—are not mere embellishments; they are essential to ensuring that the Renters’ Rights Bill delivers on its promise of security, fairness and genuine affordability. Without them, we risk replacing one set of insecurities with another and failing the very people that the Bill is meant to protect.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, in my Second Reading speech, I drew attention to the role played by high housing costs in driving poverty. I was thus pleased to add my name to Amendment 114, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, although I am supportive also of the other amendments in this group and hope that what I have to say will add to the case for them too.

Evidence from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation illustrates the extent to which high rents in the private sector are associated with poverty. Shockingly, it points out that around

“half of private renters were only in poverty after their housing costs were factored in”.

Two more reports specifically on child poverty, published this year, reinforce the point. The first, by IPPR, argues that:

“Housing costs are core to understanding child poverty”.


It notes that the number of children counted as in poverty is about a third higher when housing costs are factored into the measure, and that the private rented sector has become increasingly significant in the lives of children.

The second report was co-published by IPPR together with CPAG—of which I am honorary president—and Changing Realities, which involves people with lived experience of poverty. The report observed that rent increases are

“stressful for families to manage, and … the Renters’ Rights Bill as currently drafted will continue to enable large increases in rent … providing they are deemed to reflect ‘market rents’”—

a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Best. It suggests that this

“risks exposing tenants to sudden and unaffordable hikes in housing costs, undermining the Bill’s stated aim of providing greater security and fairness for renters”.

The report quotes one tenant:

“I’m getting really worried about my rent going up this year. It keeps rising every year yet the local housing allowance is frozen for this year! … It’s frightening”.


Both reports underline how the situation is aggravated by freezes in the local housing allowance and by the operation of the benefit cap, which hits larger families and/ or those paying higher rents in particular. As the amendment states, any review of rent affordability must include in its remit the effectiveness of policy interventions to improve affordability relative to incomes. I would argue that this would need to include policies on the incomes side, which are making it impossible for some families to meet their rent commitments alongside other essentials.

This seems to me a very modest amendment that would complement the Government’s welcome commitment to an ambitious child poverty strategy. I know that the Child Poverty Taskforce is aware of the importance of housing to the strategy, but it is unrealistic to expect it to carry out the thorough review of rent affordability proposed in the amendment.

I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will be able to give a more positive response than the one she gave in Committee, which I found rather disappointing. What is needed is something more robust and holistic than the regular monitoring to which she referred, important though that might be. A review of this kind would be in the spirit of the Bill and would help to ensure that its impact is not blunted by the continued damage created by excessively high rents in the private sector.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to try to understand what the definition of rent is if we are going to control rents or somehow curtail them or attenuate the increases.

One can see the base rate just by googling property websites. It is a good idea to get a feel for the cost of a basic, low-cost, unfurnished property in the worst part of town, but that is not necessarily the market price, which is determined by a number of factors: the property may be furnished; it may be serviced accommodation; there may be porterage; there may be other benefits— I am not going to go as far as swimming pools and gyms, but I know they are available in some circumstances. Parking would be another one. All these different elements have different cost pressures and inflationary increases, which may be determined by factors outside the landlord’s control. A property that has inclusive parking may become significantly more valuable, one could anticipate, if the local council applies permits on the streets around it.

I am tempted to support Amendment 25, but I am reluctant to do so because at the moment all these extras are rolled into the single price. The logical conclusion of where this debate is going is that we will get menu pricing, rather as we see on low-cost airlines. There may be an attractive flight—£5.99 to fly to Spain or whatever—but by the time you add in the baggage, the booking fee and everything else, it rolls up to a significantly higher value. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham made the point that the risk of the price going up over the four-year period may be somewhat attenuated, but those extras amounting to what I would call the landed price, or total cost of ownership, could vary accordingly.

Another significant point that we need to take into account is that there may be Section 20 repairs or improvements, particularly in the case of furnished accommodation where the landlord is prepared to improve and upgrade the fixed furnishings, such as tables and chairs and possibly soft furnishings as well. All of this complicates what is a rolled-up figure at the moment. The logical conclusion is that all those extras are going to be disaggregated and obfuscated, so it is going be harder to compare for the potential tenant. But it is going to be essential for the landlord to obfuscate in this way in the circumstance of a First-tier Tribunal appeal, which is really concerned with the underlying rent—that £5.99 figure. It is very difficult.

I have a huge amount of sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, but I cannot support it because I think the logical conclusion of it will be that we will get a fragmentation of the landed rent so that the tail wags the dog. The landlord will be so focused on restricting the base rate that those other things will get lost.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

170: After Clause 21, insert the following new Clause—
“Restriction on landlord’s ability to require tenant to provide guarantor(1) A relevant person must not, in any of the circumstances set out in subsection (3), require a person, as a condition of the grant of a relevant tenancy, to provide a guarantor in relation to the observance or performance of the tenant’s obligations under the tenancy.(2) For the purposes of this section, requiring a person to provide a guarantor includes accepting an offer by that person to provide a guarantor.(3) The circumstances are—(a) that the person has paid a tenancy deposit or has been assisted under a deposit scheme,(b) that the person is required to pay rent in advance of one month’s rent or more, (c) that on a reasonable assessment of their means the person’s income (including state benefits received and any other lawful source of income) is sufficient to enable them to pay the full rent due under the tenancy,(d) that arrangements will be made for housing benefit or the housing element of universal credit to be paid directly in respect of rent to a relevant person,(e) that the relevant person has entered into a contract of insurance under which they are insured against non-payment of rent, or(f) such other circumstances as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State.(4) In any other case where a relevant person lawfully requires a person, as a condition of the grant of a relevant tenancy, to provide a guarantor, the sum for which the guarantor may become liable under the relevant guarantee may not exceed a sum equal to six months’ rent.(5) In any case where a relevant person lawfully requires a person, as a condition of the grant of a relevant joint tenancy, to provide a guarantor, the sum claimed under the guarantee may not exceed such proportion of the loss as is attributable to the act or default of the individual tenant on whose behalf the guarantee was given; and if such proportion cannot be proved, may not exceed the sum obtained by dividing the total loss by the number of tenants.(6) In this section—a“guarantor” is a person who enters into a guarantee in relation to a relevant tenancy;a“guarantee” is a contractual promise to be responsible for the performance of an obligation owed by the tenant to a relevant person under the tenancy if the tenant fails to perform the obligation;a“deposit scheme” includes a scheme whereby a sum payable by way of deposit or a bond or guarantee is provided by a local authority, registered charity or voluntary organisation for the purpose of providing security to a landlord for the performance of a tenant’s obligations under a tenancy;a“tenancy deposit” has the same meaning as in section 212(8) of the Housing Act 2004;“relevant person” has the meaning given by section 16M(1) of the 1988 Act.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would restrict the circumstances in which a landlord can request a guarantor.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 265. Both amendments aim to strengthen the very welcome anti-discrimination provisions in the Bill. I am grateful to colleagues who have added their names and to Shelter for its help.

Amendment 170 sets out the circumstances in which a landlord may not require a tenant to provide a guarantor, a practice that has increasingly become a precondition of a tenancy for certain tenants—namely, those in receipt of social security, black renters, women, families and disabled renters—and one that could therefore be used as a way of circumventing the Bill’s anti-discrimination clauses.

The spirit of the amendment is the same as that behind the government amendment in the Commons which will prevent landlords demanding multiple months’ rent up front. To quote Independent Age, which is among the many organisations supporting our amendment,

“this is a sensible measure that safeguards against the risk of solving one problem (excessive rent in advance demands) only for it to be replaced with another (excessive reliance on guarantors)”.

Already, over the last five years, 550,000 private renters were unable to rent a home that they wanted because they did not have a guarantor that met the landlord’s requirements.

I know and respect that the Government do not want to prohibit the use of guarantors altogether, and my noble friend the Minister explained why in her helpful post-Second Reading letter. However, the amendment would not do that. It simply sets out the circumstances in which a landlord could not ask for a guarantor, and those circumstances reflect the National Residential Landlords Association’s guidance on appropriate guarantor use—that is, where a tenant cannot prove that they can afford to pay the rent. However, recent research by Shelter has shown that in practice guarantor requests often do not follow that guidance. Thus, the amendment is not radical but merely serves to ensure that guarantors are used as intended.

The case for ensuring that the use of such requests is limited is a strong one and is very much in line with the aims of the Bill. First, as noted already, it would help to safeguard the Bill’s anti-discrimination measures. Requests for a high-earning or home-owning guarantor are too often used in a discriminatory manner. Renters who receive social security, have a disability or are members of a racialised minority are all significantly more likely to be asked for a guarantor. Similarly, as Independent Age notes,

“requiring a guarantor can be a way for landlords to discriminate against older renters”.

Secondly, and related, the groups most likely to face a guarantor request are also those least likely to be able to meet one. Some 45% of benefit recipients and 43% of families struggle to provide a guarantor, compared with just 24% of those not receiving benefit or without children. The NUS believes that the amendment would make a huge difference to student renters, especially working-class, international, estranged or care-experienced students, who are likely to face difficulties finding a suitable guarantor. Become has highlighted the problems finding a guarantor faced by care-experienced young people more generally; its FoI research found that only around two in five local authorities provide a guarantor scheme for them.

Thirdly, in practice, fewer than 3% of landlords have attempted to pursue a guarantor for unpaid rent in the past two years. Moreover, insurance offers a sensible option for covering that risk.

Fourthly, the argument that the unfettered freedom to request a guarantor provides an essential lifeline for tenants with poor credit and/or problem debts is, Shelter argues, “a disingenuous one”, because there is evidence that landlords already avoid such tenants because of the manner in which tenant referencing is done. Those are not the tenants who are most likely to be able to find a suitable guarantor.

As well as the Renters’ Reform Coalition, of which Shelter is a member, and Independent Age, those calling for limitations on the power to require guarantors include the Mayor of London and Unison. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will be willing to discuss what is possible between now and Report and that if she cannot accept this amendment would consider proposing an alternative. Otherwise, I fear that some of the good intended by the Bill’s anti-discrimination measures will be undone in practice.

Amendment 265 would repeal the right to rent provision introduced in the Immigration Act 2014. It requires landlords, including those taking lodgers, and letting agents to check prospective tenants’ immigration status to confirm they have the right to rent in England before granting a tenancy. Letting a property to someone without the right to rent can now be punished with a fine of up to £20,000 or a five-year prison sentence.

--- Later in debate ---

There is a generous list of documents available that tenants can provide to prove their right to rent. Codes of practice required under right-to-rent legislation set out what landlords are expected to do and how they can avoid unlawful discrimination. We have made it easier to carry out checks digitally and this simplifies the requirement for landlords or letting agents to understand the types of documents that renters have. I simply add that there are no current plans to end the right-to-rent scheme. I am happy to discuss that further with my noble friend but, for these reasons, I would ask that she withdraw this amendment.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to everybody who spoke. I will not go into any great detail in response, given the late hour. I do not think that my noble friend the Minister answered the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, which was on whether the right to rent has had any effect in reducing illegal migration. I do not know if she would care to answer that question now.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I do not have any statistics in front of me, but I will come back to noble Lords on that point.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. I am grateful for the support that I received. I was slightly confused, I must admit, by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, because I was not sure whether he was supporting my amendments or not. He said that they were ambiguous, but I think his approach was perhaps a bit ambiguous—and I cannot resist pointing out that right to rent was introduced by his Government, and we are now saddled with it.

I am disappointed, but perhaps not surprised, that my noble friend said that there is no plan to be shot of it especially, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, in the light of today’s White Paper. It is not exactly conducive to it, but it is important still to come back to the point.

I was also a bit disappointed that my noble friend did not feel able to give a bit more on the question of guarantors. She said that the proposed amendment would inadvertently block certain groups and could have unintended consequences. Everyone who spoke to this amendment accepted that it may be that it is not quite right, but that it is aiming to do something that in fact supports what the Government are trying to do.

Although she very kindly said that she is willing to discuss it, I did not get the sense that there is a willingness to discuss it in terms of perhaps bringing forward a government amendment that would achieve what we are trying to achieve but without the unintended consequences. Given the late hour, however, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 170 withdrawn.

Local Authorities: Temporary Accommodation Costs

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The provision of affordable housing is vital, and that is why the Government have made a huge commitment to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing, including in the social housing sector through housing associations. Since taking office, we have announced a number of changes in planning policy which will support the delivery of affordable homes, including the new “golden rules” for grey belt land release and two immediate one-year cash injections of £800 million to top up the existing affordable homes programme. That will deliver up to an extra 7,800 homes. I hope that will start to make a difference, but we have a long way to go.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the HCLG Committee’s recent report on temporary accommodation highlighted the impact of refreezing the local housing allowance. It warned that this is a “false economy” because it will increase the risk of homelessness and reliance on temporary accommodation among families. What assessment have the Government made of these risks?