Renters’ Rights Bill

Earl of Leicester Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 64, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, to which I have added my name. They have both spoken with immense good sense and from knowledgeable positions. I am sorry that I was not present at Second Reading, but I believe that it is essential that the Bill allows a landlord to seek possession of a property where it is needed to house a carer or carers for the landlord or his or her family.

I will illustrate the problem with a case study of my own, and in so doing declare an interest. My husband and I own a house close to our own in a small Wiltshire village which we bought for use by a carer as and when we reach that stage. We usually let it out, in the meantime, to local people, and it appears in my register of interests, to which I refer the House. With the demise of shorthold tenancies, we face the prospect of not being able to get it back once let again. Moreover, even as and when we do offer it to a carer, if the appointment does not work out, we lose the property.

We have discussed in other debates the importance of carers, the problem of supply of beds in old people’s homes and support for the elderly. This is a particular problem in rural areas like ours, making it all the more important to encourage independent provision. I urge the Government to think again on this and return on Report with a suitable amendment.

I am glad that the Government more generally are increasingly realising the bad effect of too much regulation on growth and competitiveness, which is well documented now in academic literature. Coming to this Bill, and indeed this group, cold from my common-sense ex-business perspective, I felt a chill down my spine. Most landlords, in my experience, are reasonable, but there are several well-intentioned amendments before us today seeking to tighten regulation and add further detail and impractical conditions. These could have a profoundly perverse effect and put more pressure on the overworked courts. For example, the amendment on discretion would certainly increase their workload, and, in practice, these would further reduce the supply of rented property.

We heard this week at Questions that this had collapsed as a result of this Bill. An overheated market, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is thus being fired up further. This is what we need to work on together to reverse and keep good landlords in the sector, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, explained, saying that Savills thinks landlords will need 1 million more rented homes by 2031. That does not now look possible. I just hope that the Government will think again, resist burdensome additions and consider some sensible lightening of the burden of the kind that I and my fellow Peers propose in this amendment. Other examples would those given by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in Amendment 60 and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, in Amendment 142.

[The Earl of Leicester (Con)]

My Lords, I refer to my declaration of interests with respect to this Bill, including a large portfolio of residential property in north Norfolk, 93% of which is let out to local people, key workers and direct agricultural workers, with only seven holiday lets and seven lets to family members.

This schedule is on grounds for possession, and some excellent amendments have been put forward, to which I urge the Government to give serious consideration. However, as a generality when talking about grounds for possession, as a landlord, I do not want to lose tenants. I hate voids. As an example, I have 47 tenants who have been my tenants for between 21 and 40 years, and 45 who have been my tenants for between 11 and 20 years. These are people I know. They are my friends, they are in the community, they are contributing to the community and they, of course, live in it. Many noble Lords have spoken about the importance of not losing good landlords, and this Bill, as it is currently written, is very much in danger of creating that reality.

I turn now to Amendment 63 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to which I have added my name. It is essential that we allow a property owner to manage his or her property for change of use to commercial, whether that be retail, office or industry.

Let us assume a farmyard with a cottage that has a sitting tenant. The landowner gets planning permission for a block of offices or retail. Those offices and retail are going to produce a huge kick to the economy, jobs for the builders and groundworkers, and then, once they are occupied, jobs for the people working in them. So it would not be right that a single person or a family living in a cottage could stymie that development. The reality is that a landlord who is sensible—which most landlords are—would have open communication with their tenant, explain what is going to happen and try to offer them a different property. If a tenant refuses to move, that will have a real effect on the economy. This Government—who talk about growth—really need to understand that, by not accepting this amendment, they will very much be stymieing growth.

I will give another example, again I am afraid from my own playbook. It is an example of planning permission—albeit for residential, which does not necessarily refer to this amendment, and on green belt land. We are building 23 houses at the moment. Eight are for private sale, four are for affordable rent, two are for shared ownership with Broadland Housing Association, four are for intermediate rent with Homes for Wells, which is not really a housing association, and five will be retained by us for private rent. If this Bill goes through as it is proposed by the Government, why would I bother? It is really important that the Government listen to all these sensible amendments being proposed and I really hope the Minister will do so.

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, I firstly declare an interest as a private landlord of residential properties in Hampshire.

I support Amendment 60, to keep the rent arrears landlord legal action limit to two months rather than four. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, said, landlords are not charities, and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, agreed with this. I also support Amendment 63 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, which also seems very sensible.

Local authorities are already reluctant to sanction a change of use from residential to commercial, so they exercise careful control over this. As the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, said, money from permission to convert residential properties to commercial can be used to pay for and improve properties, and something that has not been mentioned much so far is the EPC problem that a lot of these cottages have, and the extra money that needs to be found to pay for this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I already declared my interests earlier in the debate.

I will speak to Amendments 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58. Some of these amendments have been kindly supported by the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and the noble Lords, Lord Colgrain and Lord Roborough. The objective of Amendment 48 is to broaden the definition of “agricultural worker”, regardless of the worker’s employment status to cover not only a direct employee but a self-employed person or contractor, as this reflects modern farming employment practices.

In my meeting with the Minister, to whom I am most grateful for her attention, I learned that she was worried that this could open up an exemption for a wider group of workers, but I hope that I have reassured her that this specifically covers only agricultural workers. Her suggestion that the same could be achieved by allowing self-employed workers to occupy a property under licence would not be appropriate for longer-term workers, which this amendment seeks to address.

We believe that a ground for possession should be available where there is a need to house a non-employed agricultural worker; for example, a self-employed party to a share-farming arrangement on the farm or a self-employed shepherd or cowman. It is quite common in the agriculture industry for workers to be self-employed, but, given the nature of their work, especially if it is with livestock, they need to live on the site.

Currently, ground 5A provides a means of getting possession where the dwelling is required to house someone who will be employed by them as an agricultural worker. However, it does not cover the situation where the worker is self-employed. Similarly, ground 5C does not adequately provide for possession where a self-employed worker has been provided with a dwelling, but the work contract has ended. It applies only when the tenant has been employed directly by the landlord. We would like to see extensions to grounds 5A and 5C to cover situations where the worker/tenant is self-employed as well as employed. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this amendment, which purely reflects current employment practices in the farming industry and is certainly not designed to cover non-agricultural workers.

I turn now to Amendments 50 and 53 in this group. By way of background, in the rural private rented sector the average length of a tenancy is around seven years, so there is little churn in view of the long-term nature of accommodation in rural areas. Combined with the shortage of rural affordable housing, which I hope will be addressed in the Planning and Infra- structure Bill, the availability of housing to support rural growth, particularly that driven by the increasing need for farm diversification due to lack of profitability in farming, is a clear and continuing problem. This diversification is being encouraged by the Government through schemes such as the Rural England Prosperity Fund. However, this diversification will be held back if it involves the necessity to house an employee on site and there is no availability of housing.

Rural landlords in the private rented sector have traditionally been the employer of their tenants. Historically, they have primarily housed agricultural workers, but with mechanisation, fewer mixed farms and employment costs, these cottages have been rented to others. At the same time, legislation governing the private rented sector has evolved to give extra statutory protection to agricultural workers. However, as farms have modernised and have been encouraged to diversify, many farmers and landlords have businesses which employ staff to operate in non-farming sectors but still need to be housed by the landlord for the better performance of their duties. The system of assured shorthold tenancies has allowed farmers and landowners to recover cottages at the end of the fixed term and thereby house the employee for the new enterprise.

In a situation of assured tenancies, this option will not exist, so the prudent owner may well take the view that he cannot risk an assured tenancy and therefore keep the house unoccupied. This could affect supply in an already-stretched private rented sector. While it remains very important that rural landlords are able to house incoming agricultural workers—new ground 5A —it is increasingly important that they are able to gain possession from a non-employee PRS tenant in order to house an employee of their diversified business.

This amendment would allow possession where the property is required for housing a person who, for the better performance of their duties, is required to be, or is by custom, housed by their employer. In order to conform with an assured tenancy, this circumstance could be made a prior notice ground in an assured tenancy if a fixed-term tenancy is not allowed. The possibility of registering such properties would allow an incoming tenant to be aware that such properties can be let only on fixed terms. Examples of such employees include security personnel, housekeepers, catering staff, wardens and groundsmen.

I urge the Minister to favourably consider this amendment, in light of the real needs of the rural economy, where housing is in very short supply and the need for rural diversification from farming is paramount. The Bill is currently geared toward the urban PRS and does not take sufficient account of the different challenges in the rural sector. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Leicester (Con)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on Amendments 48, 49 and 51 and, subsequently, 50 and 53. On the first ones, the noble Lord is absolutely right that, in the 21st century, the terms of employment in agriculture have moved on: they are not based on the old direct employee relationship. There are increasing numbers of self-employed people—the noble Lord mentioned stockmen and stockwomen, and many stockmen will be self-employed and work for two or three farmers, with two or three herds. Obviously, it puts you at an advantage if you can provide them with a house.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Leicester (Con)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on Amendment 65. I take this opportunity to apologise that, sadly, I was not able to attend the first day of Committee on Tuesday, when, had I been able to, I would have supported the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester in his Amendment 62, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, noted, is reasonably similar to this.

I shall embellish what the noble Lord has said clearly with two examples. One example is a house that has been lived in by a protected tenant family but, 30 or 40 years on—that is the reality of protected tenancies—the house might need serious refurbishment, which after 35 years may cost north of £100,000 to comply with EPC or MEES, and will take nine or more months to complete; and the need to find a house to put said old and retired couple in more suitable accommodation while retaining their protected tenancy status. That accommodation might be an almshouse or a bungalow.

The second example is a protected tenant family that may have been a large family, with three or four children back in the day, occupying a four-bedroom house. The children have married or moved away. The father is deceased and the widow is knocking around in a large four-bedroom house that is expensive to heat and manage; perhaps it has a dangerous old staircase, with a bathroom downstairs and the bedrooms upstairs. One has to think about this, because that is denying a large house to a young, growing family who may themselves be in a two-bedroom flat or house. A simple solution—which, again, would come through negotiation, but I am sure would be welcomed by a widow—would be a house swap, with the widow retaining her protected tenancy. That would mean evicting the small, growing family, but offering them the opportunity to move into a larger house.

There are quite a few examples in the rural tenanted sector—and, I suspect, in the urban sector—where families have stayed in houses for many years, but then the family, having grown for 20-odd years, starts reducing in size but they remain in a big house. So it is important that protected tenants can be housed in smaller houses and that the tenants of those smaller houses are moved out, to allow the churn of housing as families grow and then reduce in size.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for speaking prematurely. I speak as someone—I should declare this interest—who has a small farm, as I said earlier, which is very small in comparison with those of some of the noble Lords who have spoken. However, I have seen at first hand some of the problems that have been described. In particular, I remember one old lady who carried on in a house where she simply was not able to manage the property and its upkeep. What I think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Lord opposite are suggesting would help to avoid very painful, costly legal cases where people have to try and get somebody out, which causes enormous bad feeling and cost.

I am in favour of this amendment and would have been in favour of previous ones because I think in farming at the moment the difficulties that landlords face are so immense—I will not go through them all now—that the ability to keep a farm going, which is the interests of tenants and future tenants, is prejudiced if they cannot get back suitable accommodation. I completely understand the desire, which I am sure the Government have, to offer security to tenants. In fact, that is an extremely important part of the fabric of our society, but we have moved on in some ways and what has happened in farming and what I have observed around me in mid-Wales is that there is a need to be able to get back certain properties to bring in younger people to farm.

I broadly support these amendments and suggest to the Government, with great respect, that if there is any way that they can move to accommodate them, I would very much support them.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Earl of Leicester Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Leicester (Con)]

My Lords, I refer your Lordships to my property interests as set out in the register, specifically a large and historic portfolio of houses in Norfolk, 93% of which are leased to local people and key workers, all living in and contributing to the local community year-round. I say this because it is really important—due to its popularity as a holiday destination, North Norfolk District Council lies third in the rankings, behind Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea, for second home ownership. I could increase my income, like many of my neighbours do, by renting these out as holiday cottages, but I do not because I am acutely aware of how crucial they are to maintaining the social fabric in a rural community where property prices and demand are sky high and where there is very little public provision.

The Labour Government intend to transform the experience of private renting through introducing reforms that level the playing field between landlords and tenants. For them, abolishing Section 21 and restricting the use of Section 13 notices, while increasing many other safeguards for tenants, will allow for the growth of communities and reduce the risk of homelessness. Clearly, from what I have just said, I too am pro-community and anti-homelessness, which is where the Government and I are aligned. Where we differ, however, is in our understanding of the true effects that these reforms will have on the private renting market, particularly in rural communities.

In the rural private housing sector, this Bill will lead to a decrease in the number of properties available in an already struggling market. The Country Land and Business Association has surveyed its membership and found that 44% of rural private landlords are planning to sell or change the use class of their properties in the next two years. During that same period, only 21% are planning to build new properties. I am no economist, but I understand supply and demand. A diminished supply of properties will inevitably lead to a price increase for consumers. In fact, that has already been occurring. Since April 2018, there has been a net loss of properties in the rural private rented sector. In a poll, nearly 90% of rural private landlords gave changes to PRS tenancies as a cause for their decision to change use class. More specifically, 57% of CLA members cited the removal of Section 21 as the reason for the net loss, as did a greater number in Scotland, where it has already happened.

Despite my talking predominantly about rural areas, these same issues will also develop in urban regions. Not only will these changes lead to supply issues and thus price rises but the lack of supply will ultimately add strain to housing associations and municipal housing.

The rural economy differs from that of other sectors. Rural business owners commonly offer accommodation within their employment packages. It is a vital part of their ability to attract staff in—let us say—the tourism or hospitality industries. Following the passing of this Bill, especially with the absence of Section 21, I fear for the crucial ability of landlords to remain flexible and adaptable to their ever-changing business needs. Specifically, I am adamant that the new grounds for possession that refer strictly to “agricultural” landlords and workers must be broadened to include the 85% of rural businesses which are not involved with farming or forestry. If accommodation cannot be recovered quickly from previous employees, this economic system will break, but I wonder whether this Government care or even understand this. They have not shown a great understanding of the rural economy thus far.

I want to mention the provision to allow tenants rights to keep a pet. I wholly understand the benefits a pet can bring to family life, enhancing the mental health of those who are lonely, for example. Indeed, we benefit from having three family dogs and, I joke not, a recently deceased parrot. He died three weeks ago and, coincidentally, was called Basil.

I should mention, as set out in the register of interests, that I am a trustee of SongBird Survival, a charity that funds scientific research identifying the reasons for declines in the number of songbirds. The charity has funded work with Reading University’s Dr Hugh Hanmer showing that cats can travel long distances and can affect the natural environment beyond their home range. It also funded work with Exeter University’s Professor Robbie McDonald and Dr Sarah Crowley in 2019 and 2020 studying the drivers and facilitators of hunting behaviour and options for management of said cats. Conservative estimates ascribe 90 million deaths of songbirds to cats per annum. As a result of this real threat to biodiversity, landlords should be allowed to ban cats from some of their properties which are in particularly sensitive rural areas; for example, near SSSIs or NNRs.

There are also very serious issues with the Bill related to student accommodation, but I will let others speak more eloquently on that. 

Present, chronic court backlogs, along with the generally underresourced judicial system, will cause a crisis in people’s access to justice. Dispute resolution firm Excello Law said that in this Bill:

“The risk to both tenants and landlords is the existing backlogs in the court system. Trying to obtain possession orders will be protracted, causing uncertainty and delays for both landlords and tenants”.


More than 4.5 million households will need tenancy agreements updating; letting agent staff and landlords will need to undertake training, and insurance and mortgage providers will need to adjust policies and rates. I hope the Government pay attention to that and allow time for it to happen before the Bill becomes law.

Overall, rural or not, I stand by the fact that landlords want to keep tenants. They do not want voids, which are very expensive. I balk at the sentiment brought by this Bill, which assumes that private landlords in this country are, on the whole, bad. They provide a very valuable service which often—through mere geography —housing associations or councils are unable to provide; indeed, they complement them. The vast majority of landlords are excellent people, who are human and want to develop a relationship with their tenants. I have concerns that provisions in the Bill pertaining to challenging rents at tribunal where there is no downside for the tenant could put pressure on those trying to foster positive relations as more vexatious claims are pursued.

This Bill will penalise the whole sector, and the ramifications will be felt across the country for years, putting extra pressure on already-struggling housing associations and the diminishing number of municipally owned council houses. It is not difficult to imagine a world in which, through this Bill, the Government exacerbate the problems of 11 million private renters, 2.3 million landlords and, ultimately, themselves.

Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill

Earl of Leicester Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 14th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I echo all that my noble friend Lord Hannan said, and I am delighted that we have reached agreement and a way forward on the Bill. I will just add a few words on why I added my name to opposing Clause 1 standing part of the Bill. This is not simply a free speech issue. Clause 1 amends Section 40 of the Equality Act 2010. A new subsection (1B) defines a third party as

“a person other than … A, or …an employee of A’s”,

which noble Lords will recognise as a double possessive. It has both “of” and “A’s”. While a double possessive can occasionally be used to avoid ambiguity, there is no ambiguity in Clause 1. Fowler’s Modern English Usage, which is my Bible, has it listed as a sturdy but indefensible “freak of idiom”. My own view is that when we legislate, we should use the best possible version of the King’s English that we can find. I tried to table a specific amendment on this, but the usually very helpful Bill Office refused to let me do so, even though there is no direct prohibition in the Companion. I have no idea how one is supposed to correct grammatical errors or poor use of language other than by an amendment—I shall have to fight that another day.

The wording is also found in the Equality Act 2010, in Sections 39 and 40, so I can celebrate that by removing Clause 1 from this Bill, the Bill has been saved from repeating that poor use of the English language. But the 2010 Act remains intact with its double possessives, and I hope that my small intervention today might someday lead to its rectification.

[The Earl of Leicester (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I employ over 350 people and in 30 years have been taken to an employment tribunal only twice. On both occasions the tribunal found in my favour. I hope that noble Lords see that as an indication of good management and of taking a responsible and caring attitude towards the workforce. Of course, there are bad employers, but I suggest that most employers care for and nurture their workforce, understanding that a happy and well-motivated team is a business’s greatest asset and will ensure better outcomes for the company.

It is for that very general reason, and for the reasons announced at Second Reading by my noble friends Lord Hannan, Lord Strathcarron and Lord Moylan, which do not need repeating now, that I oppose Clause 1 standing part of this Bill. I sincerely believe that it should be removed. Furthermore, I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, who is the Bill’s sponsor in your Lordships’ House, agrees that Clause 1 can be removed.

I thank the noble Baroness, and my noble friend the Minister, for our productive discussions on the Bill in recent weeks. While I hold reservations on the need for some of the specific measures and burdens that they place on employers, I trust that the amendments proposed today are a pragmatic way forward that allows the Bill to progress. The Bill, if amended, would retain the core purpose and send a clear signal that harassment is not acceptable in the workplace. It is right that employers take reasonable steps to prevent this, while balancing against the burdens on the business that the Bill, as originally drafted, could have imposed.

I have one point which I would be most grateful for clarification on, pertaining to Clause 2 and sexual harassment by a third party. If a company sends an employee away on a training course, having of course undertaken due diligence on said training provider, but while attending the course the employee is sexually harassed by someone from that company or another course attendee, in this example is the employee allowed to sue their employer—since the employer has very little control over what happens off their premises? I hope that my noble friend the Minister can clarify this.

During the progress of this Bill, I have learned a great deal about the consensual way in which this House undertakes its politics. Negotiations have led to sensible compromises, and I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, for their friendly and helpful guidance. I look forward the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt. I also thank the Minister for her ongoing engagement and steadfast resolve in seeking a way forward that the House can agree on. I hope that she can confirm that the Government are open to the proposed amendments.

Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill

Earl of Leicester Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Leicester (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my tourism and leisure interests—within those businesses, I have probably 250 employees. I am extremely concerned about the Bill, which will have grave implications for freedom of speech as well as imposing huge compliance costs on Britain’s 1.5 million businesses. It is not an exaggeration to say that it is the most momentous and far-reaching piece of legislation currently before Parliament—yet it has received very little parliamentary scrutiny and provoked almost no debate in the public square. If the Bill were merely concerned with sexual harassment, I would have very few objections to it. Indeed, when it was flagged up to representatives in the hospitality sector, their understanding, without exception, was that the only form of third-party harassment that employers will be liable for if the Bill becomes law is sexual harassment. So there is a lack of understanding because of the lack of debate.

Clause 1 will create liability for third-party harassment of all kinds, not merely sexual harassment. Just as employers are currently liable if they have not taken all reasonable steps to prevent an employee overhearing another employee saying something offensive that relates to a protected characteristic, so they will now be liable if an employee overhears a member of the public saying something offensive. This should alarm any of us concerned with free speech, regulatory overreach and the spread of compliance culture.

If the Bill becomes law, businesses will treat their customers in the same way that they treat their employees, at least in some important aspects. Therefore, just like employees, customers are likely to be bound by formal and binding HR-style rules that govern how they interact with employees, so that the employer can demonstrate that it has taken “all reasonable steps” to prevent third-party harassment and so it can begin to manage the multifarious risks that arise from a legal prohibition against unintentional offence. Being told to use your staff’s preferred gender pronouns would be the tip of the iceberg.

Just earlier this week, I saw on Twitter—and I do not go on there that much these days—an unsavoury incident of a young trans woman filming herself shouting at a young server in a fast-food store. That server was doubtless themselves on the minimum wage. She was accusing him of misgendering her by calling her “sir.” The trans woman had evidently taken offence, but rather than quietly and politely correcting the young server that “he” was in fact a “she”, she was screaming blue murder and making quite a scene. The young worker was certainly harassed and could have a case against his employer, but how could the employer have guessed that this might happen? If they had guessed that this might be an eventuality, they could have instituted some gender recognition training, doubtless at a large cost to the company—and the quality of the training out there is arguable. Witness our own Valuing Everyone equally training here in this House, which was frankly patronising at best. That might have placated 48% of the 18-24 year-olds who believe that people should declare or display their pronouns, but not the remaining 52%, or the vast majority of older people who do not see the need or point of such virtue-signalling.

It is hard to conceive how any Government, least of all a Conservative one, should conclude that the compliance culture of HR departments, with their dogmatic rigidity, unreflective worship of fashionable orthodoxy and complete deadness to nuance and complexity, should be expanded beyond the workplace and into pubs, shops, theatres and sports grounds. Yet that is precisely what this Bill will do.

The Equality Act has chilled the atmosphere in workplaces up and down the country with people living in fear of saying the wrong thing and being reported to HR. That chill is now going to spread beyond the workplace into those places where people spend their leisure time. Is that really what the British people want—to live in a society where, if they are overheard telling a saucy joke or expressing an incorrect opinion, such as saying that they do not think trans women are women, they could be permanently banned from their favourite pub or restaurant? Hugh Osmond, the head of Punch Taverns, said:

“How could we stop a group of people coming into a pub and having an offensive chat in the comer? You may even need extra staff walking around the pub policing conversation. You wouldn’t find rules this strict in China or Russia”.


I question whether the UK’s under-threat pub sector will be able to shoulder the compliance costs and liability that Clause 1 imposes. An industry predominantly made up of small owner-operators, who do not have the resources to deal with this, is already under threat. One reason I voted to leave in the 2016 referendum was that, when we joined the EEC more than 50 years ago, Europe had 33% of world trade. When we voted to leave the EU, its share of trade had fallen to 17%. My take on this is that the EU is effectively legislating itself out of business. Extra-burdensome legislation is the last thing that this country needs as we struggle with the cost of living crisis, the mountain of debt built up as a result of our handling of the Covid pandemic, and inflation. This Bill needs a huge rethink.