Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber, we will adjourn immediately and resume after 10 minutes. However, when I last looked at the Chamber, it was happily busy with the Renters’ Rights Bill, so we need not expect a Division at all.
One Hundred Year Partnership Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Ukraine
(2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I am moving this Motion on behalf of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, chair of the International Agreements Committee, who sadly is unavailable today.
The International Agreements Committee, of which I am a member, took great interest in the UK-Ukraine 100-year partnership agreement. We welcome the Government’s extension of the CRaG period for scrutiny of this agreement, which has allowed time for this debate. We think this is a useful window and believe it is an appropriate acknowledgement of the high level of interest in this agreement across both Houses.
The agreement has been laid in the context of a rapidly changing geopolitical environment. As noble Lords will appreciate, the situation has developed significantly even in the period between taking evidence and publishing our report, and has continued to change since the report’s publication. Amid these changes, the Government’s ongoing support for Ukraine remains firm, and the committee welcomes the Government’s resolution. It is in this context that we sought to assess this agreement.
We heard that this agreement seeks to put in place a long-term framework governing future co-operation between the UK and Ukraine across a range of areas and sectors. The Minister, Stephen Doughty, told us in evidence that the agreement reflects a fundamental change in the “context and depth” of the bilateral relationship. Hanna Hopko, co-founder of the International Center for Ukrainian Victory, told us that the agreement represents a “historic milestone” in our relationship.
Notwithstanding this rather dramatic framing, the aspiration to provide stability and structure to the UK- Ukraine relationship is laudable. However, as we note in the report, the title of this agreement, the 100-year partnership, raises expectations while distracting attention from the vital matter of the substance—or, in some cases, the lack thereof—contained in this agreement. Indeed, given that the agreement may be terminated with six months’ notice from either party, the title and stated duration of the agreement could be described as somewhat illusory.
The agreement itself is broad. Detail is included in the accompanying and non-binding political declaration. This declaration spans a range of areas including defence, security, maritime co-operation, co-operation on the economy, trade and investment, energy, justice and combating disinformation. We heard that this declaration is intended to evolve over time.
Our report focused on the areas it covered that we felt were significant to the national interest or had the potential to deliver tangible benefits for the United Kingdom. I turn first to the defence and security provisions. The agreement commits the parties to develop joint defence-industrial capabilities and to strengthen Ukraine’s defence procurement. The accompanying political declaration envisages creating
“rapid response mechanisms … and joint use of military formations and other specialised structures to provide … mutual defence and security services”.
It sets out ambitions jointly to produce and develop
“advanced weapons and ammunition manufacturing capabilities”,
to
“deepen cooperation on long-range strike capabilities”
and to integrate
“air and missile defence and complex weapons stockpiles”.
Your Lordships should note that it reiterates the Government’s previous commitment to provide Ukraine with £3 billion in annual military assistance
“until 2030/31 and for as long as needed to support Ukraine”.
I note that this is a very long-term and substantial commitment of taxpayers’ money.
Leaving the financial commitment to one side, in our report we considered the merits of this kind of co-operation. We heard of some opportunity costs to the UK’s military readiness but also of benefits both to the UK’s international reputation and, potentially, to our future defence and security capabilities and industrial base. Ukraine has developed modern military capabilities from which the UK stands to learn—for example, in AI-assisted drone technology. Yet it is impossible to truly assess how future benefits to the UK will be realised without greater detail on how these aspects of the agreement are to be implemented. In our report, we stress the need for the Government to develop more concrete plans as to how defence-industrial projects might be carried out under this agreement, to set out some indicative timeline and to provide assurance as to how these projects will benefit the United Kingdom.
In view of current events, our report also considers the important question of the relationship between this agreement and security guarantees to Ukraine. In doing so, we considered whether an agreement of this nature could possibly offer a deterrent to future Russian aggression in Ukraine. This is not a binding security guarantee of the type sought by Ukraine from its allies. As such, in and of itself, it likely will not offer a deterrent of this kind. However, witnesses told us that the agreement could help to
“maintain, increase and improve, through co-operative agreement, Ukraine’s ability to defend itself”
and that it facilitates the co-operation and action needed to underpin a future security guarantee. Were this to occur, we would welcome this outcome.
The agreement establishes a maritime partnership between the United Kingdom and Ukraine. The political declaration tells us that it is the aim of both parties to ensure the
“speedy restoration of Ukraine’s control over all temporarily occupied territories and strengthen its potential as a powerful maritime and riverine state”.
For my part, this is perhaps the crux of the overall partnership, as currently envisaged by this agreement. The Minister told us in evidence that this aspect of the agreement is about
“equipping Ukraine to protect its own assets and operations in line with international law”.
He highlighted that, in the short term, this partnership will involve “providing force-generation training” for the Ukrainian mine countermeasure task force to support Ukraine in dealing with mines in the Black Sea and other risks to future civilian and military navigation. Force generation in the NATO context refers to the process by which allies resource the personnel and equipment needed to carry out operations and missions, so perhaps the Minister can confirm whether this will mean Royal Navy personnel on board Ukrainian naval vessels in the Black Sea.
I turn to other aspects of support. As the committee understands it, the UK has to date provided £265 million in support of Ukraine’s maritime capabilities. It was not clear to us where the partnership proposed in the agreement departs from or builds on this existing practice. In order to assess the depth of the proposed maritime partnership, it would be helpful to hear from the Government exactly what additional support will be offered to Ukraine under the maritime partnership, and in what way this would complement existing arrangements.
Looking forward, I trust that when the strategic defence review is published it will explain how the Royal Navy will balance this currently open-ended commitment with a range of other needs, such as the UK’s recent accession to the Bahrain-US Comprehensive Security Integration and Prosperity Agreement, C-SIPA; an expanding need to protect subsea assets locally; and a likely need to expand operations in the Arctic. How will it achieve this while simultaneously maintaining the Navy’s other activities?
Returning to this report, the committee urges the Government to ensure that any maritime partnership as envisioned by this agreement contributes to the overall stability of the region. As such, we have recommended that the Government review the agreement in general, and the maritime partnership in particular, in the event of a peace settlement between Russia and Ukraine. This should also take into consideration the increased territorial claims made by Putin on the Black Sea area since this report was published, so we have asked the Government to keep Parliament informed of any such review.
I now turn to the economic, science and technology co-operation set out in the agreement. The Government’s evidence stressed that, beyond the immediate security needs of Ukraine, the priority of this agreement lies in securing growth, innovation and economic co-operation between our countries. The Minister told us that this included fostering business-to-business links and encouraging mutual investment and joint ventures. Our report welcomes the aspirations set out in the political declaration to support the development of Ukraine’s financial centre and business environment through sustained UK market access and the proposals to develop Ukraine’s public procurement regime. We note that this will not be a one-way process as the UK stands to learn from Ukraine’s experience—for example, in the development of critical technologies.
In this vein, we draw the attention of the Grand Committee to subsequent correspondence we received from the Government—it is available on our website—which outlines the sectors in the UK that stand to benefit commercially from co-operation under this agreement, including via UK Export Finance support for contracts in the defence, infrastructure and construction sectors. In view of the importance of securing stable market access for UK companies, we were pleased to hear that the Government are seeking to deepen co-operation on the crucial issues of the rule of law, good governance, anti-corruption and transparency. These are vital ingredients of a stable business environment and, accordingly, of the UK’s national interest in this agreement.
Our report calls on the Government to continue to work closely with Ukrainian counterparts to support governance reforms and strengthen the rule of law, including by structuring funding to encourage this outcome. We view this activity as vital to the success of this agreement and accordingly have asked the Government to keep Parliament informed on their work in these areas.
To sum up, the committee supports the underlying aims of the agreement, although we have concerns about the lack of substance and detail. Accordingly, we ask the Government to provide Parliament with a clear and realistic road map of how and when the activities on defence co-operation and maritime security will be undertaken. We have asked that the Government formally review the arrangement in the event of a settlement between Russia and Ukraine, with a particular focus on the maritime security partnership, and that they keep Parliament abreast of updates. We welcome the reports by the Minister that the UK continues to work with Ukrainian counterparts on governance and rule of law issues. We hope that this work can bring about a closer economic and investment relationship between our two countries.
To finish, I draw noble Lords’ attention to our final conclusion, which considers the ongoing work at an international level to bring Russian aggression in Ukraine to an end. The committee welcomes the Government’s ongoing support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, their position on security guarantees and a US backstop and their commitment to future domestic defence spending. We believe that these steps will be vital to achieving successful implementation of this agreement. I beg to move.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on his admirable opening and on the way in which he chaired the International Agreements Committee as a great substitute. I was musing that, had that committee not examined this agreement, no other committee in either House would have done so—neither the Foreign Affairs Committee in the other place nor the International Relations and Defence Committee here, both of which have dealt generally with Ukraine although not in this sort of detail.
I shall make one or two rather critical comments on the agreement. Before doing so, it would be appropriate for me to set out my broad position. I yield to no one in criticising the illegal Russian invasion and in admiring both the courage and the national resilience of the people of Ukraine. I fully support the leadership response of the Government and the Prime Minister on both the military and civilian sides; it has broad support in the country. I share the Government’s readiness to stimulate further bilateral co-operation with Ukraine but I question certain elements of the agreement. Be ambitious, yes, but to fix a timescale of 100 years is somewhat absurd, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said. Why not 1,000 years, which would be even more absurd? Even a timescale of 10 years would raise questions, given the volatility of the international situation. Each day, when we turn on the news, we get some new utterance from President Trump that may alter substantially the position in Ukraine.
The stated 100 years lacks a sense of history. Think of the way in which borders in central and eastern Europe have changed over the past 100 years or so, albeit with two world wars. Whole regions have changed. Ruthenia, Silesia, Galicia and Sudetenland no longer exist, at least not as they were. People have stayed in their village but changed their nationality. I recently read with interest Professor Philippe Sands’ book, East West Street, which gives some indication of the way in which frontiers have been so indistinct and changed so much over the years. No one can be confident, therefore, as to what the configuration of central and eastern Europe will be in time. I lived in Hungary for two years and imbibed the treachery of Trianon, with the loss of Transylvania at that time; it is very much a theme of the Hungarians.
The Government’s defence is that this is only a symbolic commitment, but the realities are more important: the speed of geopolitical change; the capricious policies of the Trump Administration; the ultimate ceasefire; the nature and composition of any security or reassurance guarantees; and the new borders of Ukraine, as President Zelensky himself has conceded that there will be territorial concessions. What will Ukraine’s relationship with the European Union and, more problematically, with NATO be? The aims of the agreement are worthy but the substance is very sketchy indeed. A road map is not included and there is no mention of priorities in the agreement. If everything is a priority, nothing is a priority.
I say this in general but take an example, such as the inclusion of the Sea of Azov. After the Russian invasion —or takeover—of 2014, there is no serious prospect of Crimea returning to the sovereignty of Ukraine. The Sea of Azov is part of that, in effect, yet it is included in the agreement. Does anyone seriously expect Crimea, including this sea, to return to Ukrainian sovereignty?
NATO membership in Article 2 is aspirational, but there is no serious prospect of it, so far as we can plan, knowing the position of the US Administration. On maritime security, 75% of Ukraine’s navy was lost in 2014. I visited Odessa three years ago and saw the fleet, which was one rusty Soviet-era ship, lots of locally produced small patrol boats and, happily, one junior officer who had spent a period at Dartmouth. That was my impression—it had great morale but was rather irrelevant. Where there have been successes in the Black Sea, they have not been due to the navy itself but to missiles that, for example, have led to the sinking of the “Moskva”, the flagship of the Russian fleet, and to the Russians moving their major ports further east in the Baltic.
There are references to critical minerals. This has been largely overtaken by the soon-to-be agreement between the US and Ukraine. I accept that this is a bilateral treaty. There is no mention of other allies or of our attempting to broker agreements with the EU and helping and encouraging others to join the coalition. The truth is that we should have considered a more limited and realistic agreement based not on lofty aspirations but on practical assistance to Ukraine, which is much needed and welcomed, recognising the mutuality of benefits. Ukraine had done remarkably well in adapting to the local production of drones, for example, and mastering AI. We have much to learn from it on this. The UK could draw on our own successful experience in the 1990s and beyond of the Know-How Fund for countries in the Balkans.
It is no wonder that the committee in paragraph 34 calls for a “review” of the agreement in the event of a peace deal in the reasonably near future. An early revision is therefore likely—much earlier than 100 years.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his excellent standing in as our chairman when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, was not around. I pay tribute to both chairmen and colleagues on the committee for their dispassionate and open approach to this agreement. It was everything a committee should be. I also thank the officials, who were quite terrific in getting us through the business.
I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, said about the lack of substance and the curious nature of a 100-year agreement that has a six-month period of notice. It has defence and security provisions at a time when the position is very volatile. It includes territorial boundaries, the Sea of Azov and NATO membership. All these defence questions, which the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has taken us through, are very much in the air.
I would like to ask the Minister about the background to the agreement and the timing. The 100-year partnership was signed in January this year, in the same month that the new US President Donald Trump was inaugurated on a manifesto that included ending the Ukraine war rapidly—I think at one stage it was in a day—and stopping the dispatch of what he called US treasure. Thus, when this agreement was signed, the context was that the current and future circumstances were and would continue to be fluid. A peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia would potentially render parts of the UK-Ukraine 100-year partnership out of date. Therefore, I would like to probe the Government further on whether the timing of the agreement may add to the doubts about the agreement’s value lying primarily in its signalling rather than its substance, to which the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Anderson, have already alluded.
Our report welcomes the
“efforts to contribute to a secure and peaceful Ukraine”
but notes that the value of the agreement
“appears to lie primarily in its signalling function, and we are concerned by the lack of detail on the substance of the Agreement”.
We add, in paragraph 21, that
“we heard from witnesses that the title is rather meaningless, and risks distracting attention from the substance of the Partnership”—
the stated aim being
“to provide stability and structure to an enduring … relationship”.
Can the Minister therefore explain the Government’s thinking as they went ahead to sign a 100-year agreement, parts of which might need immediate revision in the event of peace being reached? I know that these conversations are secret, but it would be very helpful for Parliament to know whether the Cabinet considered these rapidly changing circumstances at the outset. Did it discuss the wisdom of proceeding with the agreement we now have? Were there reasons to do so? If so, what were they? Can the Minister explain whether there was a desire to rush things through and, if so, why? Did the Government take into account the implications for Britain’s international standing of making commitments to Ukraine under an international agreement parts of which were potentially unlikely to prove durable in the short or long term?
I turn to the economy and the economic implications of this agreement, on which our report has some things to say. One matter highlighted by the IAC report is the lack of detail on the potential economic implications. The Explanatory Memorandum is not short on aspiration. It says that the agreement
“provides a framework to build enduring links in support of the UK’s growth, development, and security objectives”.
That was confirmed by the Minister, to whom I am very grateful for being so generous with his time, coming along to discuss the Government’s position. Giving evidence, he said that his main priorities, beyond the immediate security of Ukraine, lay in the “growth and economic space” to build “business-to-business links” and investment, to create a “better climate” in Ukraine for UK investment and joint ventures.
Our report, however, addresses the articles on the economy and trade. Paragraph 44 refers to
“articles … which deal with economic and trade cooperation (Article 4), cooperation on energy and climate (Article 5) and on science, innovation and technology (Article 8)”.
Our committee stressed that
“there is a need for further work to ensure that the necessary legal and commercial architecture is in place to support these activities”.
Can the Minister tell us what steps are being taken, or have been taken, to ensure that the legal and commercial architecture needed is in place to support these activities, as the report asks in paragraph 44? What do the Government believe should be tackled exactly, and what would make things better?
I refer now to the three articles. Article 4 of the agreement, to summarise what we say in the report, requires that the parties strengthen conditions for investment and co-operation across a range of sectors. The report indicates that this will involve improving the use of the 2020 treaty and the digital trade agreement that came into force last September, which is for free trade, without duty,
“removing barriers to trade, establishing business-to-business partnerships and supporting the development of Ukraine’s financial centre and business environment through sustained … business access”.
The political declaration also
“proposes using UK Export Finance to support priority infrastructure and defence projects”,
such as building bridges in the capital, co-operating on food security and agricultural development, as well as co-operating to develop a database to verify grain shipments
“to identify grain theft by Russia”.
That is in paragraph 46 of the report.
The report outlines that Article 5 of the agreement says that
“the Parties will co-operate on clean energy transition”.
The suggestion in the political declaration is that there will be collaboration on renewables to attract UK investment, and it explores collaboration on low carbon and supporting critical minerals.
Article 8 refers to co-operation in the field of science, technology and innovation—and here the explanation in the political declaration is that this will involve
“developing capabilities in the use of critical technologies”
such as the digital infrastructure, communications and so on, building on Ukraine’s expertise in the area of AI activities, which the report records
“are to be supported … in the field of research and innovation … delivering ‘mutually beneficial’ joint programmes between commercial bodies, universities and research centres”.
That is all very aspirational. We have here a commitment on economic and trade co-operation that sounds very aspirational. If there is evidence that it will work, it is something that we would wholeheartedly support. However, our report stresses that a stable environment for mutually beneficial innovation and growth is contingent on good governance and the rule of law, as well as well-policed public procurement. Although the Minister’s reassurance that work on governance reforms and strengthening the rule of law was encouraging, more detail is needed on how the Government intend to continue the work and whether initiatives will depend on progress. Our report suggests that aid and co-operation under this should be subject to the strengthening of the rule of law and good governance, which is a recommendation that I strongly support and emphasise.
The partnership agreement raises a number of very serious questions, some of which have already been raised by the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Fox. I close by emphasising the questions about the economic and fiscal implications for the UK economy and for taxpayers who will foot the bill of government commitments; as well as for businesses that may be encouraged to invest in what so far seems to be a one-way agreement in which the UK gives and Ukraine takes, without there being in place the legal, economic and commercial structures to guarantee any return for those footing the bill and investing. Therefore, I probe further on the evidence for any benefits to the UK economically and fiscally.
Since 2022, the UK has given £12.8 billion to Ukraine, £7.8 billion of which is in military support since the invasion and £5 billion in non-military support. The political declaration indicates a further UK commitment of £3 billion a year in military aid until 2030-31 and for as “long as it takes”. That commitment was announced on 10 July last year. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in saying that this is a very significant commitment.
The political declaration also proposes using UK Export Finance to support priority infrastructure and defence projects. The Government explain that UK Export Finance has already committed £3.5 billion of financial support for critical reconstruction. This, we hear from the Government, has enabled bridges et cetera around the capital to be rebuilt and mine countermeasure vessels to be provided. What evidence is there that there will be a return from this finance to a war-torn country, which as yet does not have the basic legal, commercial and other building blocks in place for sound business, contracts and investment? In respect of UK Export Finance, the Government say quite clearly on their website that this finance will help businesses that could not get private sector money. I am concerned that there will be pressure by Ukraine and businesses to get hold of this UK Export Finance for projects that have not been considered sound by the commercial sector and that we will be indebting the country unnecessarily with projects that, as yet, have no evidence of any return.
I welcome the committee’s thorough examination of this treaty. Like it, I support the Government’s general aim and their proposals, but I am concerned about commitments made in a 100-year partnership that may not be able to be met. Indeed, they may not be able to be met because of circumstances beyond our control, not least the fluid and volatile situation.
Lord Marland (Con)
My Lords, I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has scratched because he is a valuable member of our committee and always has plenty to say on this subject. However, he has chosen to do that and the Floor is therefore mine. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the members of the committee who are here for the valuable contributions they make and, in particular, the officials who spend hours slaving over and listening to our every word—if indeed they do; they are probably asleep most of the time, but I want to thank them.
I fully endorse the Government’s position and the previous Government’s position on Ukraine, which was brave and showed real leadership. The current Government have done the same. I will leave the geopolitical aspects to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, who understand these things far better than I do.
Let us face it: this is a poor treaty. The name gives it away: a 100-year agreement with Ukraine. Seriously? The evidence has found that there has been only a one-way agreement. There has been nothing for the benefit of British businesses in Ukraine. I found myself wondering why we were looking at this agreement at this time. Perhaps it was a trick carried out by civil servants before the Government got their feet under the desk properly. The very idea that it is a partnership when everything has been one way strikes me as utterly absurd and uncharacteristic. I am not going to repeat the various items in the tour de force by my noble friend Lady Lawlor, but will stick to a couple of points that she made and perhaps invite the Minister, who I hold in the highest regard, to respond to them.
The basic truth is, if this was about football teams, the score would be 12.8 billion to the Ukraine and nil to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom taxpayer has suffered huge increases in energy prices as a result of this war. The UK has had to pay more for its grain and bread, and for its crops and harvests through the cost of fertiliser. We have to understand what the benefit is for the British taxpayer and the British citizen.
We read that, in return for their support, the Americans want a minerals deal, so perhaps the Minister could let us know what this Government’s policy is for creating a positive framework for British business, trade and involvement in the future of Ukraine. What practical steps will the Government take to ensure transparency and the reduction of bureaucracy so that there is a framework for British business? We all want the best for Ukraine but, at some point, we want the benefit for British business. We know that growth is at the heart of this new Government’s philosophy. Creating a framework where Britain can do business and trade with Ukraine properly can only be of benefit for that growth agenda.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Marland, and have this opportunity to make a small and relatively brief contribution to this debate. I do not have anything to add to the International Agreements Committee’s excellent observations on the agreement itself. I agree with the prevailing view expressed so far that the partnership agreement does not present any specific new obligations; there are no specific deliverables and there is no measurable or accountable substance to what is being offered.
I recognise that one of the principal purposes of the treaty is, therefore, purely its symbolic signalling of enduring support to Ukraine. However, I find this lack of definition in respect of deliverable substance somewhat disconcerting, especially in the area of hard and tangible military support. I say this because we are enjoying—if that is the right word—unusual levels of geopolitical uncertainty at the moment and it is very difficult to understand how our assessed national security policy objectives are being prioritised in order to inform the optimum use of the very welcome uplift in defence expenditure that the Government have recently announced.
To expand on this further, I offer at least six national policy objectives that are potentially vying for military resources at the moment. The first, obviously, is the need to make our national contribution to re-establishing conventional deterrence against Russian expansion in Europe. I say this in the context of our extremely poor national record of meeting our NATO targets over the last 15 to 20 years. The second is the need to enhance the resilience of our own domestic critical national infrastructure against conventional and increasingly hybrid threats. The third is the need to support Ukraine either in continuing to fight Russia or, in the context of a potential ceasefire, to enhance rapidly its fighting power and deterrent capability.
The fourth is the potential requirement to lead and significantly contribute to an enduring operation to oversee a potential ceasefire agreement in Ukraine—the nature, demands and risks of which are yet far from clear. The fifth is the emerging requirement to refashion the delivery of European security in the context of the United States of America withdrawing its security guarantees to Europe. The sixth is something of a catch-all: to meet whatever residual global security role the Government believe we should retain the national capacity to fulfil. I include in this such diverse commitments as the security of the overseas territories, South Korea, AUKUS, the evacuation of citizens from danger overseas and so on.
I fear that we face at least two significant challenges in meeting the demands of these six potential policy requirements. First, we simply cannot meet them in the context of any current projection of defence expenditure, so we have to prioritise. The second is the hard reality that the capability demands of each policy requirement are to some extent either marginally or completely different. The choices to be made are not so much ones of where to use capability as what capabilities we invest in to optimise the reduction of strategic security risks.
I suggest that, as of today, the policy decision over which we have the least control—the one that is infinitely the most worrying and would result in the most expensive capability deficiencies—would be the removal of the current US security guarantees to Europe. This scenario underpins my concern about entering into partnership agreements with countries without being absolutely clear about the defined extent of our military commitment. I would extend my concern to the need to be even more careful about committing forces to a ceasefire monitoring role without an absolutely clear understanding of the associated risk, and in the context of a partner to that ceasefire that is now proven to be wholly malevolent—in this case, Russia.
In closing, will the work of the strategic defence review, which feels increasingly overdue, provide the capability recommendations needed to meet these various policy objectives? What priority is being applied to them? Does the Minister share my concern that the affordability considerations might result in the need to take intolerable risk?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I, too, thank the committee for its report and thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his masterly introduction of it. I cannot live up to the advance billing that I was generously given by the noble Lord, Lord Marland, I am afraid.
I do not intend to say very much but I would like to comment on the slightly mechanistic, transactional view of UK interest that I derived from the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and the noble Lord, Lord Marland. Fifty years ago, if you travelled in Spain and someone wanted to wish you good luck, they would wish you war in Crimea, because war in Crimea blocked the grain exports from the breadbasket of Europe—it is now called Ukraine—and raised the price of grain in rural Spain, thus making rural Spain prosperous. Ukraine is a phenomenally rich country, potentially. Its mineral wealth is largely concentrated in the Donbass. The President of the United States may not have noticed that, actually, it is in the bits he seems content to see given away, rather than in the north or the centre. Its agricultural land is the best in Europe for cereals—except, possibly, that of East Anglia and the San Juan Basin. So investment in Ukraine’s stability is investment in the future. It is a bit transactional to score it—12, was it?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
It is an investment in both liberty and the values in which we believe. It is also, if you want to look at it transactionally, an investment in a potentially strong economic partner for the United Kingdom.
I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that the title of this treaty is a little pretentious. I can think of only one precedent for as hubristic a title of a treaty signed by Brits. In 1809, the East India Company signed a treaty of perpetual friendship with Ranjit Singh, the then leader of the Sikh community in India. Neither the East India Company nor the separate Sikh state survived 100 years after their perpetual friendship treaty. I also agree with those who say that the content of the treaty is a little thin, but it is very important that, unlike the East India Company and the Sikh state in India, Ukraine should survive. It is important to both our security and the security of all of Europe.
I would like to make one macro point and one micro point. My macro point is that Putin says that Ukraine is not a legitimate state; that, therefore, its national sovereignty cannot exist; and that it is Moscow’s mission to obliterate it. We should take him at his word. He would not be satisfied with a settlement that gave him the Donbass. I think that the correct analogy for today is 1938. At Munich, Hitler got one-third; six months later, he was back for the other two-thirds. He was not satisfied then, and I do not believe Putin would be satisfied now. Hitler came back for Poland nine months later; the Poles, the Finns and the Baltic states are quite right to be worried now. So, despite the thinness of the content and the hubris of the title, I welcome the treaty as an additional confidence-building measure for the Ukrainians and a framework for future co-operation with us. All the detail still has to be filled in, but that is a job worth doing. It is strongly in our interest.
My micro point is about the preambular reference in the treaty to the
“United Kingdom being dedicated to supporting Ukraine’s irreversible path to NATO membership”.
“Irreversible” is quite a strong word. I was not altogether sure of the wisdom of NATO’s 2008 offer of membership to Ukraine and Georgia—nor, indeed, of the Vilnius 2023 or Washington 2024 language, which introduced the concept of irreversibility—but it is out there now and President Zelensky will no doubt want it repeated at the June NATO summit. Given President Trump’s clear scepticism—I use no stronger word—about Ukraine’s NATO membership, pressing for it at the NATO summit would be all too likely to lead him to denounce it, so disproving irreversibility at a stroke.
The drafting of the report’s paragraph 28 is a little obscure—particularly the last sentence—but paragraph 29 is judiciously silent on irreversibility. I hope that the Government are following its example and advising President Zelensky that the least said about irreversibility at the NATO summit, the better: no repetition, no denunciation. Let the summit instead concentrate on the immediate and manifest need for Europe to up its game, spending more on defence and spending it better; building up its support for Ukraine; and ensuring that the United States does not withdraw its support. If you want peace, prepare for war.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I add my thanks and congratulations to the committee. I have said previously, when we have debated reports from the International Agreements Committee, that I believe it is the most significant of all the committees of this House. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, said, no other committee in either House would have studied such an agreement and come up with a constructive report. That fact gives testimony to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, his colleagues on the committee and the committee staff, who managed to communicate in very clear language and to report on what can well be very detailed treaties. This is not one of them when it comes to detail but, nevertheless, the consequences are considerable.
I saw that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was to speak before me and knew that he would have looked back, with his diplomatic experience, at previous times when we have signed treaties of friendship or perpetual amity. I found ones with regard to our treaty of friendship with Tonga in the 1950s and a treaty of peace, friendship and commerce with Costa Rica in the 1850s; there have been others. Most of our treaties of friendship or perpetual relationship have the common characteristics of being one-sided friendships—in the interests of Britain—and of not having a duration of perpetuity. One of note is the Treaty of Perpetual Peace between England and Scotland of 1502; it fell short of perpetuity because 11 years later, in 1513, there was the bloodiest battle between England and Scotland not far from where I live in the Borders.
So, on one look at it, 100 years is a relatively modest period given what has been signed with regards to aims for perpetual relationships between countries, but, as my noble friend Lord Fox pointed out, the committee noted that
“the value of this Agreement appears to lie primarily in its signalling function”,
with little detail of substance. Given that, as my noble friend said, it can be ended with six months’ notice by each party, the century-long lasting partnership may be somewhat illusory. However, the question we have to face is whether the signalling is of importance in its own merit, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said; I will close with my own remarks about that.
The committee asked us to move on from the perhaps “meaningless” title and not to be distracted from the substance. We have had a good debate on the substance of it so far. It is also worth noting that, although this is a bilateral treaty, Ministers have been at pains to say to me at the Dispatch Box that we are working hand in glove with the United States on our Ukraine policy. It is worth considering that, as we debate a UK agreement for 100 years, our main and apparent ally, the United States, barely has a Ukraine policy that lasts 100 hours. Therefore, our ability to see through the unpredictable nature of the Trump Administration—to put it at its kindest—presents us with challenges. As members of the committee have noted, the political landscape has changed even from the time when it was agreed and when the committee took evidence on it. All that said, there is merit in the substance of what is included in the pillars and the articles of co-operation on defence, industrial capabilities, joint production, procurement and transferring technologies.
I will now ask the Minister my first question on transferring technologies. In principle, the UK-Ukrainian relationship could well be developed in a deep way where we have no qualms about the transfer of technologies from Ukraine to the UK and from the UK to Ukraine. However, given the fluidity of the situation—we are still in a conflict and we do not know, if there is a ceasefire, what the terms of peace may be—there is a degree of uncertainty when it comes to protecting UK intellectual property in some regards.
Just 10 years ago, I was in the Maidan in Kyiv, where the buildings were still charred after the peaceful Maidan revolution—the orange revolution. The previous Ukrainian president had fled to Russia with a lot of his people’s money and with the oligarchs who own much of the industrial complex of Ukraine around him. So, if we are to have a deep commercial relationship with much of the private sector in Ukraine, are there any guard-rails when it comes to how we monitor how that will be taken forward?
I am very pleased that we are committed to supporting the liberal democratic leadership of President Zelensky; he leads one of our sister parties in Kyiv. I hope that our defence industrial strategy will have more detail on how the operation and transparency of the relationship will go forward. We can only hope that there will be a sustainability of liberal democratic leadership in the country. That is why they are fighting, and they are sacrificing their lives for it. But given that this is a 100-year timeframe, more detail on how we can see this operating would be beneficial. I hope that, as we are anticipating the Government’s defence industrial strategy, we will have more details in that.
That said, I am in awe of the resilience of the members of the Ukrainian Parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, a democratic parliament that is still functioning in incredibly difficult circumstances. They are still carrying out parliamentary functions long after they were due to be either assassinated or held hostage by Putin’s regime in the first 48 hours of the Russian attack. They are a testimony to every country in the world when it comes to how a parliamentary system should operate in incredibly difficult circumstances.
Therefore, I was repulsed by President Trump declaring that Ukraine started this conflict and repelled by JD Vance when he ignored the UK personnel, who have paid with many of their lives, alongside US allies in conflicts over the last 30 years. I will say to the Minister that I wish our Government had condemned the US envoy for Ukraine; he demeaned the work of our Prime Minister, who is working with a coalition of the willing and allies in support for Ukraine. Given the suspension and re-establishment of US military intelligence support—the kind of support that was used so deftly by President Biden and Secretary Blinken and which, probably more than anything else, thwarted the success of the Russian attack in the first few days—how reliable is the United States as a partner when we embark on our first elements of this 100-year partnership?
As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, indicated regarding the irreversible nature of NATO membership, in this agreement we are committed to the interoperability of capabilities with Ukraine. How valid will that be if the United States is a reluctant partner—not just a reluctant one, but potentially a blocking one? Will it be problematic for the defence co-operation partnership if the United States becomes an obstructive element to it? In this context, paragraphs 34 and 43 of the report have great significance; they ask for an update to be provided to Parliament if there is either a ceasefire or some form of agreement for peace. A full parliamentary debate on when we receive this would be welcome.
The committee was right to call for more practical information on the type of the economic and commercial relationship, which has also been raised in this debate. If the sum of the agreement is simply going to be the promotion of economic co-operation, we should see more information about what joint delivery vehicles there will be for that. Is it the Government’s intention that there will be shared capital investment? Will there be UK-Ukrainian entities to deliver some of the infrastructure, which the Government have said is one of their priorities? How do the Government anticipate these operating in practice?
Is it the Government’s intent that we will move from the continuity agreement that we already have with Ukraine, from 2020—which this Parliament approved as part of the legacy of the European Union relationship —towards a comprehensive deep and free trade agreement with Ukraine? One reason why I ask that is that, having looked again at the continuity agreement of 2020, I notice that there are some suspicious areas where the language is the same. If the purpose of this agreement was to build on the continuity agreement, take it to the next stage and develop it, then cutting and pasting is not the way to do it. I simply refer to Article 10, with regard to migration co-operation and support, which uses the same language as Article 15 of the continuity agreement of 2020. What does it mean if we are moving ahead in a more comprehensive way, if we are simply restating the continuity agreement that we had previously with the European Union?
This leads on to the second question on working with our European allies. Are there any parts of the agreement that are exclusive? I do not think that the UK alone will seek agreements for the reconstruction of Ukraine—for infrastructure, technology and research and development. The European Union and European partners are well developed in those relationships. Are any of these elements in any of these pillars anticipated to be uniquely UK-Ukrainian elements, or will they all be part of working with our allies? Unless there is a degree of exclusivity, I am not certain why this particular agreement for 100 years is any different from a commercial relationship where the UK could be part of consortia with other European partners.
Little is said about the situation that we may well face: the growing of trade that starts from an incredibly low base. With the greatest respect, if I had to choose between the perspectives of the noble Lords, Lord Marland and Lord Kerr, with regards to the investment opportunity, on balance I would settle with that of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. But, in 2019, when building on trade in a peaceful situation, total UK exports were just £0.7 billion, or 0.1% of all exports; Ukraine was 71st in the list of our export partners. If we are to see rapid growth of UK economic partnership in reconstruction, rather than out of peace, there needs to be more detail about how it will be driven forward, rather than it being simply aspirational.
I wish to ask one further question and make an appeal to the Minister. The question relates to what the committee considered on the impunity and aggression of Russia. I commend the Government on continuing support for seeking justice for the crimes committed by the Putin regime, and I commend them on moving ahead on seeking penalties under the crime of aggression—but these are two areas where the United States is now a block. The United States believes that there was no aggression and has halted evidence-gathering for the very type of justice that we want to see. Is the UK committed to continuing to do this alone, if the United States is seeking to be a block?
Finally, we will most likely be in a situation where there will be an ongoing debate about whether Russia or Ukraine has lost or won. Indeed, there will be lots of academic debate about the definitions of not losing compared to not winning. We may well be in a situation of both sides not losing and not winning. However, what does a type of victory look like, when there is security but also sustainable reconstruction? Ukraine has reliable allies and many of the developing economies in the wider region, and the Middle East and Africa, see Ukraine as a success story for reconstruction to partner with—but they are also not drawn within the sphere of influence of the Putin regime.
My final appeal before I close is that it is not too late for the Government to reverse their decision to slash overseas development partnership dramatically. If there is any lesson from the war in Ukraine, it is that the consequences have been far wider than simply the territorial border of that country. Given the impact on developing economies in the wider region, including neighbouring countries such as Moldova, which continue to see Russian interference attempts, cutting back on UK technical assistance for resilience against Russia and development partnership unfortunately sets us in a narrative that makes us more like the Trump and Putin regimes rather than the Zelensky and Verkhovna Rada regime. Ultimately, I hope that this proposal will be a success, but more detail and more development partnership will be required.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the International Agreements Committee and its work examining this treaty. It is right that it has an impressive amount of detail, probably more detail than the treaty actually requires, but it is nevertheless important work and it was ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, whom I thank for that.
The decision by the Government to enter into this partnership with Ukraine further demonstrates the strength of the relationship between our two countries. I understand the comments from many noble Lords about the nature of a 100-year partnership and the many examples that have been quoted. Who knows whether the borders will still stay the same in six months or 100 days never mind 100 years? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that it is a little bit pretentious and probably symbolic, but my view is that it is importantly symbolic. Ukraine stands for the shared principles that underpin our whole way of life—democracy, liberty and the rule of law—and it is right that we support our ally in the fight against Putin’s illegal invasion of its sovereign territory.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about the capricious nature of the current US Administration. We hope only that there is a change either in the attitude of the current leadership or in new leadership to restore the US to the right side of the fence on this issue. I am proud that the UK’s world-leading support has made a material difference, which has been acknowledged by so many Ukrainian interlocutors, to Ukraine’s capacity to combat this invasion. I am proud of the work that the previous Government did, and I am also proud of and support the work that this Government are doing. The UK was the first to provide Ukraine with vital lethal aid, such as Challenger 2 battle tanks and Storm Shadow missiles, and this Government have, to their credit, remained committed to supporting Ukraine with arms, as reflected in the announcement to provide it with Altius drones in conjunction with many excellent British defence companies.
I also welcome the UK Government’s commitment to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2027. It is right that in a world of increasing uncertainty Ukraine can continue to count on British support. That is a valuable feature of our democratic system, and all three main parties that have supported Ukraine deserve our thanks and our support.
I also support the commitment to reach 3% by the mid-2030s, in the light of what we all recognise are uniquely dangerous and challenging times on the world stage. I think it is perhaps too late, but I understand the financial pressures on the Government. I certainly hope that they will look towards accelerating to reach that 3% target by the end of this decade, although I know that that is challenging in current circumstances. Translating words into action should not be subject to delay. Will the Minister say what discussions the Government have had with regard to possibly meeting this commitment by the end of the 2020s? We can support our allies effectively only if we make spending decisions responsibly, and it is imperative that these spending commitments should be based on growing the economy and spending restraint in other areas.
In addition to marking the UK’s long-term support for Ukraine, this 100-year partnership agreement, as many noble Lords have pointed out, offers British firms the chance to contribute to the Ukrainian war effort. Can the Minister provide any update on the discussions the Government have had so far with UK defence companies regarding ways in which they can help to advance and enhance Ukraine’s manufacturing capabilities—helping them to help themselves? Can he elaborate on what specific advanced weapons capabilities the UK and Ukraine might work together to develop?
It is vital that the Euro-Atlantic community continues to be intensely robust in the face of this completely unjustified Russian aggression. The lesson that we have surely now learned over the past 20 years, to our cost, is clear: Putin only comes back for more. The Minsk agreements of 2015 failed to stop Russian aggression and ultimately did not return any of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Any peace must fully protect Ukraine’s sovereignty, and I very much suspect that it can be done only with military support. Can the Minister confirm that it is with this resolve and commitment that the Government engage with allies on the subject of the mooted ceasefire?
I know that noble Lords across the Committee will have noted the talks due to be held tomorrow with allies including the US, France, Germany and Ukraine itself. I hope the US proves to be an ally in this respect. Will the Minister be able to keep the House updated on the outcome and progress of those discussions? Finally, can he provide us with any updates on the assessment the Government have made about the ongoing reliability of US support and the steps that the UK and European partners are making to ensure that any change in US objectives does not undermine overall support for Ukraine?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for introducing this debate. I pay tribute to his work on the International Agreements Committee, and to the other committee members who have contributed to this afternoon’s debate—my noble friend Lord Anderson, the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and the noble Lord, Lord Marland.
I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Callanan —not for the first time—that this is an example of all three major parties being absolutely committed to support for Ukraine. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, summed it up: this is about our collective security. Our response has to be on that basis. This is not simply about defending a country that has been illegally invaded. It is fundamentally, as the Prime Minister made clear in his statement about defence spending, a generational change. The strategic defence review will address all the issues that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, has raised. I will not go into the details of it, because I do not know them yet, but I am sure that when the report is finally published we will be able to have detailed scrutiny on how we will be able to respond to this threat. It is absolutely about our collective security.
The 100-year partnership agreement and political declaration signed by the Prime Minister and President Zelensky is a signal of long-term commitment to Ukraine. I hear my noble friend Lord Anderson and other members of the Committee on this timescale—but sending a clear signal to the world that we are in this for the long run and that our commitment is generational, far beyond the end of hostilities, is important. That is a clear, important signal.
The agreement focuses on shared interests and a common vision with three main aims: to enhance military and security capabilities in order to counter future attacks; to strengthen Ukraine’s economic development, reform, resilience and growth, benefiting both Ukraine and the United Kingdom; and to deepen UK support for Ukraine’s shift to the West through partnerships in education, health, justice and culture. I assure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, and others that the agreement builds on existing co-operation in areas such as military and fiscal support, recovery, reform and humanitarian programmes. It reaffirms the UK’s ironclad support for Ukraine and respects Ukraine’s request to make the document legally binding.
Many noble Lords have expressed concern about the lack of a road map. Clearly, a road map for a 100-year agreement is difficult to predict. On the one hand, we want to show a clear signal of long-term commitment; on the other hand, we know that we must respond to shifting tides of technology, culture and economics. That is why there is greater emphasis on these issues in the political declaration supporting the treaty’s implementation, with commitments reflecting current realities, for example, to co-operate on demining, green steel production, stronger health systems and more. The whole of government is working to drive these initiatives forward and show early results. However, many objectives will be realised over a long timeframe, with Article 11—I do not say this as a criticism; it is a positive thing—providing flexibility for review as needed.
Noble Lords have raised the question of maritime. Black Sea security is, of course, crucial for Ukraine and the United Kingdom. Much Ukrainian trade, including 90% of its pre-war agricultural exports—the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred to this—went through this route. The war has disrupted these exports, causing food prices here and around the world to shoot up. As Minister for Africa, I know the impact that this has had on food security in that region.
We are taking forward the commitments under the maritime pillar of the agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to the letter from my honourable friend Minister Doughty of 25 March. I will not go through all the details in it because the committee has seen it and responded to it. The capability coalition, co-led by the United Kingdom and Norway, is delivering boats, landing craft, drones, outboard engines and short-range air defence to Ukraine. We will deepen co-operation with Ukraine’s maritime force to secure naval routes further.
Besides military support, the United Kingdom will work more closely with Ukraine on overall security. This includes fighting hybrid threats, such as foreign information manipulation and interference, through co-operation between institutions. We have regular discussions to track threats and responses, share research and deepen links between experts in order better to understand Russia’s malign activities. We are also supporting the Ukrainian Government to act against harmful networks.
I remind the noble Lords, Lord Marland and Lord Purvis, that the 100-year partnership agreement builds on the strategic partnership agreement of 2020 to enhance trade and investment in Ukraine. It focuses on sectors such as energy, defence and infrastructure—this was highlighted in my honourable friend Minister Doughty’s letter—by improving governance, financial systems and anti-corruption measures. These are vital components to delivering the growth that we expect. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that this will attract global capital and create opportunities for UK businesses. As part of this, we are supporting public procurement reforms in Ukraine to improve market access for United Kingdom businesses and aid Ukraine’s reconstruction. Our trade mission programme is fostering international business relationships and opening new markets for United Kingdom companies.
Again, to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and the noble Lord, Lord Marland—and to address the specific question of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan— I note that the partnership is already strengthening economic ties. For example, on 2 March, the Prime Minister announced a £1.6 billion order for a Thales missile factory in Belfast to supply 5,000 air defence missiles to Ukraine, supporting British jobs. The agreement will also enable UK businesses to support Ukraine’s reconstruction, estimated to cost £524 billion over the next decade. The Department for Business and Trade cochairs an infrastructure task force, with Ukrainian Ministers supporting UK industry involvement in Ukraine’s reconstruction, benefiting both Ukraine’s recovery and United Kingdom growth.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, mentioned something that I hold dear to my heart too: accountability. Ukraine wants those responsible for terrible atrocities in Ukraine to be held accountable. We are supporting Ukraine’s prosecutor-general and the International Criminal Court to ensure that this happens. Last month, we agreed on the legal details to set up a special tribunal on the crime of aggression against Ukraine. We are working closely with Ukraine and the Council of Europe to move this forward. We are also trying to create an international mechanism to secure compensation from Russia for the damage caused by the war.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked about ODA cuts. The Prime Minister made clear in his announcement his commitment to increase spending on defence to 2.5% from 27 April. This increase will be funded by reducing ODA from 0.5% to 0.3%. As I have repeated to the noble Lord before, the impact on specific programmes is being worked through, following this decision, but I have reassured noble Lords that Ukraine remains a priority.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and other noble Lords that we are absolutely committed to securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine and engaging with key allies in support of this effort. The ball is now in Russia’s court: President Putin must prove that he is serious about peace and sign up to the ceasefire on equal terms.
I again reassure the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that, on Wednesday, the Foreign Secretary is bringing together the United States, Ukrainian and European Foreign Ministers and national security advisers to discuss next steps, including what a ceasefire might look like and how we might make sure that any peace leaves Ukraine secure for the long term. The Kremlin’s dithering and delay over President Trump’s ceasefire proposal and Russia’s continued barbaric attacks on Ukraine run entirely counter to President Putin’s stated desire for peace.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, mentioned the 2008 NATO commitment to ensure that the NATO alliance has made a long-term commitment to Ukraine that is on an irreversible path to membership, and we stand by that. But I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is repeating advice I have often given: it is often better not to ask a question you do not know the answer to.
The important thing is to build a strong consensus among all our allies about how we can build a consensus, rather than focus on areas of potential disagreement. When, how and on what terms this war comes to an end can be decided only by negotiations with Ukraine at the heart of them. Our focus until then is on ensuring that Ukraine is in the strongest possible position. Certainly, President Putin must stop delaying and playing games, and he must agree to a full and immediate ceasefire without conditions, as Ukraine has done.
I conclude by reflecting that, for centuries, this House has witnessed passionate debates during pivotal moments in our nation’s history and, no doubt, 100 years from now, Peers will celebrate the enduring Ukraine-UK relationship, forged in the fight for liberty, sovereignty and democracy. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, it is about our values, and that is why it will endure. Our friendship is deep, and the United Kingdom will always stand with Ukraine—today, as we strive for peace, justice and accountability, and in the years to come, as our countries work together to build a much more secure and prosperous future. Slava Ukraini.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this has been an important and valuable debate. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and the Minister for his considered response. I will not try to summarise the debate, but I will make a few comments and points on it—perhaps abusing my position here. Noble Lords not on the committee may have detected the varying tones of its members, which speak to the challenge not just of chairing the sessions but of writing the report. You get a sense of that balance from the committee report, which was highlighted by some of the comments today.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, rightly pointed out the gaps in the CRaG process. Were it not for this report and the Government extending the deadline for us to have this debate, there would have been absolutely no parliamentary scrutiny of this at all. Frankly, a treaty or agreement of this nature should have more, not less. Those noble Lords not on the committee will be interested to know that the CRaG process itself is the subject of its latest inquiry.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, raised some important questions about Ukraine’s future relationship with NATO and the EU, which also came up later. This is a big issue. We talked a lot about NATO, but Ukraine’s potential EU relationship may be even more important because it may be more tangible. It will be interesting to see how the United Kingdom contributes to that, given our position outwith the EU.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and, to some extent, the noble Lord, Lord Marland, set out a number of concerns around how this will go forward, which points to what I raised earlier. Many of those concerns might have been dealt with had there been more detail. I understand the Minister’s dilemma in setting out detail for 100 years, but he could have started with the first two years, or perhaps three, of that 100, and set out some milestones. There is still time for the Government to look at that and come back to Parliament to explain how we are taking this forward piece by piece. If we dissect elements of the Minister’s speech, there were milestones in it. Frankly, if they had been made available in a more palatable way when we were considering the report, some of those reservations might have been less strident.
The noble Lord, Lord Marland, raised the issue of a critical minerals deal. That was spectacular by its absence in the evidence, the debate and otherwise, given the high-profile nature of this, so it remains something of an enigma. Again, there is more work to be done on how that fits into the overall frame.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, gave a tremendous strategic overview. I suggested that the strategic review had a lot of ground to cover, and I think the noble and gallant Lord really gave a sense of the huge nature of the challenge that this country, the defence establishment and the Government have to cover at least some of his six pillars, if not all of them. We absolutely need the strategic defence review, and the military industrial strategy that follows it, because we have to understand how we are going to move forward. Time is not on our side.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, clearly paid attention in his geography lesson back in the day, when he was looking at the industrial capabilities of Ukraine. It was helpful to pull us back to look at the economic value that Ukraine can generate. If there is a strong partnership, those partners will benefit from the economic power. However, I think the noble Lord’s warnings about Putin’s ambitions were starker. We should all take that seriously, and I do not think any of us trust what is going on. We must be vigilant and not start pulling back. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, I do not think we should start ticking off things that should not be in a peace agreement; everything has to be on the table at this point, rather than saying, “not Ukraine” or “not this or that”. We have to be firm now because—as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out—in the mind of Putin, some territory will not be sufficient until it is all territory. I do not think we should pander to that.
My noble friend Lord Purvis made one of his characteristic speeches, and the history lesson was important. However, I pull out of it his reminder that we need commercial guard-rails. The report is very clear, some of your Lordships were clear and I was clear that a commercial environment is needed where British companies can safely go and collaborate with Ukrainian ones and not be fearful of their IP, money or other commercial things being stolen. If this partnership does nothing else but drive that business culture into Ukraine, it will have been a resounding success, so I endorse that.
My noble friend Lord Purvis also raised the exclusivity, or otherwise, of this agreement. I think we have to assume it is not exclusive so, in some sense, what we get back will be a function of what we put in and the way we do it. He suggested that other countries will be circling, and I add to his observation that Turkey has very strong hopes on the reconstruction contracts that will come out of Ukraine eventually. They are positioning themselves very meaningfully.
The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is clearly very supportive of the current policies and where we are going forward, as are the Liberal Democrats. The unanimity in the approach to this is an important part of your Lordships’ House. I observe somewhat wryly that it is easier to be a hawk on the defence budget when you are on His Majesty’s loyal Opposition Benches than when you are on the other side of the Chamber.
As I said, the Minister gave a strong speech; if we pick out the bones, we have got quite a lot of detail of what we asked for. He did not speak to coming back to Parliament as matters change. I am sure, however, that the Minister meant to commit to that. I am also sure, without speaking for the committee, that in the event of things happening, we will be chivvying for the opportunity to come back to that.
The Minister framed this as collective security and shared interests, and that is the strength of this. Putting aside the hubris of the 100 years in the treaty title, I can understand how it sends a signal. Sometimes I think that people have to look past that at the practical and look at the next two, three, four or five years on the way to 100. However, I think we all agree that keeping Ukraine strong has to be a priority, because it is only from a position of strength, or relative strength, that we can move in the right direction.
In closing, I thank fellow members of the committee, the secretariat of the International Agreements Committee, our expert advisers and all those who gave evidence in the short time we had available. Once again, I thank all contributors to this debate, and I beg to move.
Arrangement of Business
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we start Oral Questions today, I thought that it would be a good opportunity to remind Members that the House wishes questions asked to be short, sharp, succinct and to the point. As I have said many times before, it is called Question Time for a reason. There is no greater favour that a noble Lord can do for a Minister than to make a speech before asking their question. Equally, the House expects Ministers when replying to questions to be short, sharp, succinct and to the point. If we do this, we will have greater scrutiny at Question Time of Ministers and the Government, and more Members will get the opportunity to ask a question.
When questions are asked, we move around the House, enabling Members from different Benches to get in, but it is unlikely that we will get back to the Bench of the Member asking the first Question before other supplementaries from other Benches have been asked. For example, the first Question today is from the noble Baroness, Lady Elliott of Whitburn Bay. After the noble Baroness has asked her supplementary question and it has been answered, we will move to other Benches. I would not normally expect another Labour Member to get in until we have heard from the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, the Cross Benches and maybe even the Bishops’ Benches.
I would also ask all Members not to have conversations in the House, as this disrupts other Members in listening to contributions to the business. I hope this is of assistance and clear for all Members.
Local Authorities: Temporary Accommodation Costs
(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the level and costs of temporary accommodation provided by local authorities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government recognise that homelessness levels are far too high and that this can have a devastating effect on those involved. It also places a huge financial strain on councils providing temporary accommodation. We have allocated an extra £233 million to councils directly for homelessness, taking total funding to nearly £1 billion this year. The Deputy Prime Minister is chairing an interministerial group to develop a long-term strategy to deliver the long-term solutions that we need.
Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that reply. What are the Government doing to address some of the underlying drivers of the huge increase in the financial costs to both local and central government on this issue?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. A number of factors are driving the high level of temporary accommodation costs, such as Section 21 evictions, which we are addressing through the Renters’ Rights Bill—there will be plenty of discussion on that later today. There is also the cost due to supply issues. We have a target of 1.5 million homes, which is a stretching target but achievable. There is the lack of social housing, to address which we will have the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. Some £800 million has already been allocated for the affordable housing programme and £2 billion for future years. There is also not enough homelessness prevention work. We have increased the homelessness prevention grant for 2025-26 to the highest level it has ever been, meaning that almost £1 billion is allocated for homelessness.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, one reason for homelessness that the Minister mentioned is Section 21. Some 41% of private landlords are now planning to sell their property and many of them are issuing Section 21 notices, which are now the biggest cause of homelessness. On top of that, there are 35,000 asylum seekers in hotels whom the Government wish to move into rented accommodation. Will the group to which the Minister referred look at persuading the financial institutions to invest serious long-term money in good-quality accommodation to relieve the pressure on local authorities and to make good the shortfall?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord is quite right to highlight the importance of attracting funding into housing. I recently attended a session in the City to encourage that, and there was a lot of interest in investing in the housing sector. We are also determined to restore order to the asylum system so that it operates fairly and properly, and we recognise the importance of a smooth transition out of asylum support accommodation for individuals granted refugee status. We are working with the Home Office to ensure that those individuals can successfully integrate into local communities.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned a welcome increase to the homelessness prevention grant. However, does she agree with the latest statistics from the District Councils’ Network that the Government’s new formula for allocating that grant has meant that some of the councils worst hit by homelessness will lose up to 39% of their homelessness prevention grant? Will the Minister commit to looking at those cases individually and reviewing the formula to ensure that it does not reduce for those areas experiencing the greatest challenges?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Baroness referred to the homelessness prevention grant. The overall increase to that fund—the largest since the grant began—is important. It will be allocated to all local authorities in England based on their homelessness pressures. I will talk to the District Councils’ Network to see what it has found, because the grant is supposed to be allocated to meet the homelessness pressures of individual local authorities.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister ensure that when government funding is given to local authorities to deal with the problem of homelessness, the standard of provision will be adequate? We are particularly concerned about the number of families with young children who are in accommodation with excessive dampness.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a key point: it is very important that temporary accommodation is suitable for the needs of the household, and councils should keep the suitability of accommodation under review. Through the Renters’ Rights Bill, the Government will introduce powers to apply the decent homes standard to the private rented sector. Included in that provision is the power to bring temporary accommodation into the scope of the decent homes standard, as it is the Government’s intention that the decent homes standard should apply to temporary accommodation.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the party across from the Government Benches introduced a policy to sell council houses without replacing them? Does she agree that it was a disaster and has cost billions of pounds to the taxpayer?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As the leader of a council that lost thousands of our homes to right to buy, I believe that the scheme needed reform. We are reforming it to deliver a fairer and more sustainable scheme, reducing the maximum right to buy cash discounts to pre-2012 levels. This will allow councils to keep 100% of the receipts generated by right to buy sales. If we had that right from the start, we would not have had the significant loss we have had. We are also increasing protections for newly built social homes by raising the cost floor period, during which discounts can be reduced, from 15 to 30 years. I hope that will make a big difference.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, I declare an interest as patron of Asylum Welcome, which works with asylum seekers and refugees in Oxford and Oxfordshire. What proportion of temporary accommodation provided by local authorities is used to house refugees who are assessed as priority need after having been granted refugee status? What steps are being taken to identify more suitable long-term accommodation for this cohort?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not have the exact figure for the right reverend Prelate, but I will write to him with it if it is available.
I mentioned earlier the huge pressures we inherited in the asylum system. We are working hard to make sure that asylum seekers get a decision quickly and that we help local authorities plan more effectively as we reduce the number of asylum seekers waiting for the decision. Support is available through Migrant Help and its partner organisation, including advice on how to access universal credit and the labour market and signposting to local authorities for assistance with housing.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that having a broad, dynamic and successful private rented housing market is crucial to providing much needed housing that reduces homelessness pressure and, as such, that the Government should ensure that the ability of renters in the private rented sector to obtain secure, fairly priced and decent-quality housing is not negatively impacted by changes to legislation?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord, as I assume he will do with the Bill that we are bringing forward today, because it is similar to the Bill that his own party put forward. However, it is not right that renters should be subject to no-fault evictions at no notice or that they should not have access to the secure tenancies which we all know make for safe, secure families, communities and individuals. That is what the Renters’ Rights Bill will do. I am sure we will have plenty of debate on that in the next couple of weeks.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the best and quickest way to reduce the cost to the taxpayer of temporary accommodation is to enable housing associations and councils to acquire and modernise those same properties and to stop paying exorbitant rents for rubbish property?
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?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend; this is an important issue. We currently spend around £30 billion annually on housing support. The April 2024 one-year local housing allowance increase cost an additional £1.2 billion in 2024-25 and will cost £7 billion over five years. We appreciate the importance of increasing the availability of affordable housing, which is why we will publish a long-term housing strategy this spring—I use “spring” in the Civil Service sense, which is any time from now until July—that will set out a plan to reform the housing market so it works better for communities and builds 1.5 million high-quality homes, the biggest increase in affordable housing for a generation.
Cambridge South Station: Car Parking
(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Balfe
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they have had discussions with Network Rail about the provision of car parking spaces at the new Cambridge South station.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the answer, at least recently, is none. From the first design of Cambridge South in 2016 by AstraZeneca, the station has never had a car park due to lack of space. It has been designed as a sustainable transport hub to provide direct access to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus while respecting the surrounding green belt. The station will have 1,000 cycle spaces, pedestrian access and strong connections to local transport networks, including nearby park-and-ride sites.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer and point out that, as he says, this is next to the medical campus, which is an ever-expanding area with an ever-expanding need for transport. At the moment, there appears to be no parking provision for disabled people and, despite a multiplicity of local authority involvements, there is still a lot of frustration locally that, apparently, we are going to have a station without any car park. Can the Minister look yet again —I do not blame him, because this problem has been there for years—at calling the different parties together to see whether a more acceptable solution can be found?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I say to the noble Lord, first, that there will be disabled car parking spaces, and, secondly, that the Cambridge Biomedical Campus executive director said, and stands by this today:
“Currently, there are around five times as many visits to the site as there are car parking spaces. We have to find ways of making it easier for the thousands of staff, NHS patients and visitors arriving daily to get here without needing to use a car”.
In addition, the green belt adjacent to the site of the new station is Hobson’s Park and the planning inspector who conducted the inquiry said that, in the event that the design had taken in space in the park for car parking, it is highly unlikely that the station would have received planning permission at all.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with the recommendation of the Climate Change Committee in its seventh carbon budget that, by 2040, all diesel freight and passenger trains should be phased out? If he does agree, could he confirm that east-west rail, which is due to be completed in the mid to late 2030s, will not run any diesel-powered passenger or freight trains?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The length of life of railway rolling stock is between 30 and 35 years, so proposed dates for the elimination of diesel and other forms of traction have to respect the economic lives of the rolling stock that is currently running on the railway. In respect of east-west rail, the non-statutory consultation which has currently gone out is proposing discontinuous electrification, so that the rolling stock to be operated on the east-west railway when it opens would be a combination of electric traction and battery operation.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
While the new station at Cambridge South is welcome, there are some concerns about the layout for passengers using the station, particularly around buses, as the bus stop is some distance from the station entrance. Will the Minister commit to review how the layout is working once operational and agree to make any adjustments to improve the passenger experience?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I respect the noble Baroness’s views—she has had a more detailed view of the design of the station than I have—but that will alter as a consequence of her question. I thought I might have got away from that sort of thing after my last job. But, of course, it will be reviewed, because if you have no car parking, access via public transport is completely essential.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum, and, of course, Cambridge South Station is in my former constituency. Does the Minister agree that the object is that Cambridge Biomedical Campus is a major destination, we want people to get there by public transport and we want to reduce traffic congestion in south Cambridge and not see it increase with cars trying to park at the station? What is key is to continue the investment in sustainable transport in south Cambridgeshire. To that effect, will the Government look at approving the second gateway review for the Greater Cambridge Partnership for projects such as the Cambridgeshire south-west and the Cambridgeshire south-east travel hubs?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I certainly agree with the noble Lord that good public transport is vital for a growing, developing city such as Cambridge. But, of course, he will not expect me to endorse any particular use of public money in advance of the current spending review.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend raised a very interesting question about Cambridge South, which is more Hobson’s choice than Hobson’s Park as far as motorists are concerned, but there is a general question about railway stations around the country. In York, the long-stay car park is now closed permanently. It is more and more difficult for people to have access to collect passengers from trains—or, indeed, to travel. Would the Minister comment on the general approach that we should take about getting a proper balance between those who travel by rail and those who travel to rail by car?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I completely agree with the noble Lord that access to the station is just as important as railway travel from the station. In respect of existing stations, the Office of Rail and Road has specific powers to protect car parking space. I know a little bit about the situation in York, where the previous long-stay car parking will be replaced by new long-stay car parking. The noble Lord will also know that there is a development outside the station to make all interchange easier at the station for all passengers who want to use trains.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, in his initial response, my noble friend mentioned the relationship between Cambridge South and the local park-and-ride facilities. As somebody who once used those park-and-ride facilities frequently and found them very effective, perhaps I might ask: what are the links between the nearest park-and-ride facility and the new station, and how are they maintained?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I clearly should have gone to the site in preparation for this Question. The station will be adjacent to the Cambridgeshire guided busway, which is the one that gives access to two nearby park-and-ride sites, so I think this has been quite carefully thought through by the combined authority, by the City of Cambridge Council and by the Greater Cambridge Partnership.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is all a bit of a shambles, really, is it not? It is perfectly obvious from what the Minister is saying that a great deal of buck-passing is going on between too many different authorities having their say and nobody being able to agree, which makes me think that he should be saying yes to the question from my noble friend Lord Balfe when he asks, “Will you pull things together, actually take an interest in this and get everybody around a table?”
I have a brief question following up on what my noble friend Lord Kirkhope said, which is that the Government go on a great deal—very correctly—about the importance of intermodal transfer at transport hubs. Is the Minister effectively saying that the private motor car is no longer a mode that should be taken into account in intermodal transfer policy?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Much though I respect the noble Lord, almost everything he has just said is wrong. There has been a remarkable consistency of view among all the partners about Cambridge South, from the combined authority, which used to have a Conservative mayor and currently has a Labour mayor, from the Greater Cambridge Partnership, from the City of Cambridge itself, and from the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, AstraZeneca and the other big employers represented on it. They all agreed that a station without a car park was what was both feasible and wanted. There has been no dissent from that. The only dissent recently has been in the media, and it does not respect the fact that providing a car park would be impossible. I also say to the noble Lord that this is an exception, and I think I just answered the question by saying that, in respect of existing stations, the Office of Rail and Road has a responsibility to ensure that there is always station car parking space respected, even when the proposal is to develop public land and replace it in such a fashion.
Electrocardiogram Screening
Lord Aberdare
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to widen the availability of electro- cardiogram screening to detect potential heart problems in young people engaging in sporting activities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
The safety and well-being of everyone taking part in sport are absolutely paramount. The UK National Screening Committee ran its annual call for proposals last year. I understand that it has received a submission through this process about sudden cardiac death screening in young people engaging in sport. The committee, an independent body which advises Ministers and the NHS about screening, is considering the proposal and will make a decision in due course.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, 12 young people die every week from sudden cardiac arrest—80% of them with no prior symptoms and no family history. Taking part in sport or exercise increases the risk by three times. A simple electrocardiogram, properly interpreted, can detect many of the life-threatening conditions. It is good news that the UK National Screening Committee is looking at this, but what can the Minister tell us about what the Government will do to promote greater awareness of the need for such screening and much wider availability for active young people, not just those who are engaged in elite sports?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
There are differences between different bodies as to the exact number, but every death of a young person from sudden cardiac death is clearly a tragedy which takes them too early. The Government are supporting greater understanding in this area by listening to the UK National Screening Committee when it comes up with its suggestions, and ensuring that, through bodies such as Sport England, which has guidance for sports clubs, and through funding for defibrillators, there is greater awareness of the risks of this.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, “If there is anything I can do to save anyone else’s life, I really want to fight for that”—those are the brave words of Hilary Nicholls just weeks after her daughter, Clarissa, passed away aged 20. Hilary is in the Chamber today. Together with Hilary, Ambassador Lambertini of Italy and I put on a symposium for Italian and UK cardiologists on 28 January, where we learned that, since the introduction in 1982 of Italy’s pre-participation screening programme of anyone engaged in organised sport, there has been a reduction of 89% in sudden cardiac arrests. I ask the Minister whether, irrespective of screening committees, she will undertake to sit with the Italian Sports Minister and learn what they have done to implement a similar programme of testing to help avoid another parent like Hilary grieving for their fit and young children.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I pay tribute to Hilary and all parents who, at the worst moment in their lives, campaign to ensure that nobody has to go through a similar situation. Obviously, I, or another more relevant Minister, would be happy to sit down with Italian counterparts to discuss what more we can do. I will say, however, that we are awaiting the findings of the UK National Screening Committee, and it is right that we go through these proper processes.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister look to use the structures that are already there to get this screening process under way? Will the Government make sure that the academies for football and rugby, which prepare young people for intensive physical activity, take the lead on this? We proposed in the football Bill that we should look after player welfare; this might be an interesting first step down that path.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am pleased to be able to tell the noble Lord that Sport England and others are already working with charities such as Cardiac Risk in the Young to make sure that screening takes place at a local level. There are additional things that can be done. Buddle, which is Sports England’s site for clubs and community organisations, is looking to further increase the profile of organisations, such as CRY, which organise screening locally in the next refresh of the safety, welfare and well-being section of its website, which should take place imminently.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, in one study of over 600 patients, the false positive results of screening of this kind were as high as about 70%, and the negative results were about 7%—there probably would have been more had there been longer follow-up. The risk, of course, is that vast numbers of false positives cause massive anxiety, and considerable expense to the health service, with further testing that is completely unnecessary. This happened in my own case over 20 years ago—finally, my heart decided that I was still alive. This is a real issue in this era of preventive medicine: we have to choose the right test, and I doubt the electrocardiogram is accurate enough.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My noble friend makes a really valid point, and it is exactly that sort of issue that the UK National Screening Committee needs to take into consideration when deciding a way forward. To give more information on its process, it is going to undertake a mapping exercise, and, when this is completed, the evidence map will be sent out widely for consultation, so there will be opportunities for people to take part in that.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, at the very effective seminar that was arranged, it was clear that the screening of high-performance athletes is the area where benefit has been found. I wonder whether the Minister agrees, following on from the very perceptive comment from the noble Lord, Lord Winston, that the complexities interplaying behind sudden cardiac death in the young must be better understood. AI may come forward with a way of screening without this enormous number of false positives, because the danger of false positives is that young people avoid sport and exercise and then develop worse health outcomes in the long term, rather than actually finding ways of coping better for those who do need an intervention to sort out their cardiac abnormality.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I could not agree more with the noble Baroness on that point.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I took part in a parliamentary rugby game with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, at Twickenham a couple of weeks ago, where, unfortunately, one of our players collapsed on the pitch with a heart attack. He would not be with us today if there were not someone who was able to use a defibrillator to bring him back around. When I was Health Minister, I saw some very low-cost portable defibrillators —under £100—which I think we should be looking to put in place, with training, in all our sports facilities. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
That is a really good point. The use of automated external defibrillators or the mobile defibrillators that the noble Lord referred to can make a huge difference. In preparation for this Question, I asked how many clubs apply for them through the Sport England funding. It is possible for people to do so, but the numbers are relatively low, in my view. Other organisations and charities fund defibrillators as well. From a DHSC perspective, I understand that the department has put forward funding of £500,000 from August last year to help facilitate the further rollout of defibrillators. They are a vital tool in saving lives in this area.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on adding heritage and libraries to her ministerial responsibilities. Clearly, widening access to testing equipment, as well as to resuscitative equipment and properly trained people who can interpret the results, is important in preventing the sorts of sudden bereavements that the Nicholls family sustained, sadly. Will the Government continue to work with organisations such as Cardiac Risk in the Young to help them form partnerships with sports organisations, both amateur and professional, to identify where this testing and resuscitative equipment is, and make sure there are no gaps for young people who take part in sport?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Absolutely. Again, when I prepared for this Question, I asked whether Cardiac Risk in the Young had met a Minister since the election and was told that it had and that it had also had engagement at official level. We are keen to work with a range of organisations, including charities, to learn from them, as well as from health professionals, about what works in practice.
“Hillsborough Law”
(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chakrabarti
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they intend to introduce the ‘Hillsborough Law’ as set out in the Labour Party Manifesto 2024; and what steps they are taking to ensure any such legislation will meet the objectives set out by the bereaved families.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hillsborough disaster is one of the greatest stains on British history, and the families of those who lost loved ones have shown endless determination to get justice. Having consulted with these groups over the past few weeks, we believe that more time is needed to draft the best version of a Hillsborough law. We remain fully committed to bringing in this legislation at pace.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful, as always, to my noble friend the Minister for his compassion. As far as the families are concerned, the Hillsborough law is the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill, which received a First Reading with cross-party support in 2017. They worry that starting from scratch will lead to a dilution of its vital protections. Will the Government please show them any new draft in advance of introduction? There is considerable irony in such a secretive process over a new duty of candour.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I understand there have been multiple meetings between Hillsborough Law Now and the Government, Andy Burnham, Steve Rotherham, Liverpool MPs and my noble friend Lord Wills. I also understand that the Prime Minister is taking a personal interest in this matter. I know that the Government have undertaken to look very seriously at all the questions raised and will come forward with legislation at pace, as I said in my original Answer.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights carried out an inquiry into the proposed Hillsborough law, unanimously coming out in its favour having heard evidence from, among others, victims of the Hillsborough disaster, the Lord Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones, who chaired the independent inquiry, and Andy Burnham? In a letter dated 12 April, the Government did not say which of the three provisions—the duty of candour referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, equality of arms or the independent advocate—now requires more delay and further consideration. Do we not owe it to the 97 who lost their lives in 1989—including children, some of whom were my constituents in Liverpool at the time—to say why a promise made as a manifesto commitment is now a promised that has not been kept?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the Prime Minister is painfully aware that he made a promise and yet that date has slipped. Regarding the specific points made by the noble Lord, the Government have undertaken to look at this very closely and come up with legislation. I also am personally affected by this matter—a friend of my brother died in the disaster—and everyone I know who is involved in this is very seized of the matter and wants to get the answer right as quickly as possible.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, after the lies of the police at Hillsborough, embellished by the infamous front page of the Sun, why would the Government not insist on an enforceable duty of candour? Would that not reduce the costs of many millions of pounds in other inquiries concerning the police where the culture of secrecy and cover-up still persists?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
The Government have said that they want to introduce a duty of candour, with criminal consequences for those who do not live up to that standard. But it is part of a greater whole, which is the reason why the legislation has not come forward as we would have liked and why we are undertaking further talks with the parties I have mentioned.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in 2021, following a very lengthy process, which was exacerbated by prevarication, obfuscation and failure to deliver materials to the panel, the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel, which I chaired, recommended the creation of a statutory duty of candour, to be owed by all law-enforcement agencies to those that they serve, subject only to the protection of national security and relevant data protection legislation? The response of His Majesty’s Government, in June 2023, was that the Home Office was reviewing this recommendation and working with HMICFRS on the introduction of a statutory duty of candour. Will the Minister please tell your Lordships’ House the current position of the Government?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
Yes, the Government are very clear: we remain fully committed to bringing legislation forward at pace, which will include a legal duty of candour for public servants and criminal sanctions for those who refuse to comply with that duty of candour.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, many truth and justice campaigns, from Orgreave to Grenfell as well as Hillsborough, have faced that culture of state defensiveness and denial. In addition, working-class communities also face an unequal battle for justice because of legal aid and resources. Can my noble friend the Minister guarantee that the new law will right that wrong and give working-class communities real access to justice?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
Yes, I can give my noble friend the reassurance that she is looking for. It is about looking at the extent of the legal aid that will be available to those families as they go into these types of large-scale litigation. It is precisely those issues that are being looked at. There will be further discussions with the groups that are affected.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, Hillsborough was, of course, a disaster with tragic consequences. It evinced a disgraceful response from many public servants, public authorities and, indeed, in some instances, the police. It is rather depressing to find that we have to legislate to impose a duty of candour on such public servants when we already have a law with regard to misfeasance in public office and, surely, a failure of candour amounts to misfeasance in these circumstances. When the Government eventually come to legislate, will they ensure that they have effective means of enforcing the duty of candour—not imposing it but enforcing it—and ensuring that there will be punishment for those who fail to display such an obvious duty in public office?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I take the point that the noble and learned Lord has made. It is regrettable that we need this duty of candour, but we do need it. We have seen what has happened in events over the last 20 years or so. As I have said in answers to other noble Lords, it is the intention that there will be criminal sanctions in the duty of candour when it is brought forward, and that is the firm commitment of the Government.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister explain how the duty of candour—notable in its lack at Hillsborough, and not only at Hillsborough —can still be made compatible with the need to protect secrets, which we need to address the complex national security threats that we face? This was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan; it is a critical part of getting this legislation right, I suggest.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
The noble Baroness has made a very good point. I will write to her on that matter; it is clearly a sensitive matter, so I think it is more appropriate to write.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I am a very strong supporter of the duty of candour; nothing should hinder the Hillsborough law from coming on to the statute books as soon as possible. However, does the Minister understand that, to make it fully effective—this could be done in a further process—there has to be protection for the people who speak out, who are very afraid of the detriment that they will experience, as well as a system that ensures there is investigation when the issues are raised?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
The noble Baroness has made a very good point in raising the issue of whistleblowers, which I have heard her raise in many other contexts as well. It is worth making the point from this Dispatch Box that the duty of candour is itself a piece of legislation, but a range of measures needs to be taken and behaviours inculcated into our public service to address the wider issues which have been revealed—if I can put it like that—through past behaviours over the past couple of decades.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I am sure the whole House will share the Minister’s admiration for the steadfastness of the Hillsborough victims and his horror at the police cover-up, but will he take this opportunity to say a hard thing which none the less needs saying? After a disaster of this kind, although victims deserve our sympathy and support, they do not become experts on the law or the ultimate arbiters of what should change. Indeed, our criminal justice system and our political system depend precisely on those decisions being made by cool-headed people who are at one remove because they are not directly involved with the horror.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
Yes, I think I agree with the point that the noble Lord has made. Victims are not arbiters of the law. However, it is incumbent on anyone in government to be as sympathetic as is practical to the victims. As I said in answer to an earlier question, the Prime Minister is taking a personal interest in this matter, and if anyone will know the limitations of where sympathy is appropriate, but where the law is also appropriate, he will. It is our firm intention to bring forward legislation as soon as possible.
Renters’ Rights Bill
(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, before we start the debate on the first group, following a number of questions, the Chief Whip has asked me to remind the House of the protocol on declaring interests. Noble Lords should declare any relevant interest at each stage of proceedings on a Bill. This means that, in Committee, relevant interests should be declared during the first group on which a noble Lord speaks. Declarations should be specific and brief. Members should briefly indicate the nature of their interest and not simply refer to their entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests.
Amendment 1
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Purpose(1) The purpose of this Act is to improve the ability of renters in the rented sector to obtain secure, fairly priced and decent quality housing.(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Act, namely, improving the ability of renters to obtain secure, fairly priced and decent quality housing.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 1 and to speak to Amendment 261 in my name. I am delighted to be opening the first day of Committee on the Renters’ Rights Bill and declare my interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The clause I am proposing would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Bill when exercising powers under this legislation. In debating this amendment, we seek to test and clarify what the Government are attempting to solve and to understand more fully whether the measures that will be implemented by this legislation will achieve the Government’s intended results.
The “purpose” clause narrows how the Minister can use the discretionary powers afforded by the Bill. The clear benchmark set out in this clause would ensure that the Government must have regard to improving the ability of renters to obtain secure, fairly priced and decent quality housing. We believe the Government must be clear on the Bill’s purpose, and this amendment gives Ministers the opportunity to provide that necessary clarity.
Renters and landlords alike are following the Government’s planned changes very carefully, so it is crucial that Ministers are clear from the beginning of Committee on what they intend to achieve with this Bill. Clarity from Ministers will enable us to scrutinise the Bill much more effectively as we test each part of it against the Government’s intentions as we progress with Committee stage.
This group of amendments also gives us an opportunity to debate the Bill’s impact on the rental sector. Noble Lords across the House agree that we must protect tenants and ensure that they enjoy security, stability and decent housing conditions at a fair price. In order to achieve this, we need a functional market with sufficient supply of good quality homes to meet the growing demand for secure housing.
Ensuring the availability of homes will underpin the obtainability of accommodation and ensure that rents are affordable. Any legislation in this area must tread a difficult but essential line between these interests. Only by striking the right balance with this legislation can we hope to achieve an efficient and effective rental market that delivers the safe, secure, decent and affordable homes renters need. From these Benches we regret to say that the Bill does not achieve that balance. It has become increasingly clear that it will not serve to enhance the availability of homes but risks the supply of rental properties in the market, driving up costs for renters at a time when we have already seen significant increases in the cost of renting.
The surge in rents beyond inflation has been driven by limited housing supply, and rising mortgage costs, maintenance expenses and property taxes. We on these Benches sincerely hope that the effects of this Bill do not add to that list, further exacerbating the challenges faced by renters. Rather than making houses more affordable, this legislation risks increasing burdens on landlords, discouraging them from remaining in the rental market and ultimately reducing supply at a time of rapidly growing demand. In economic terms, this can only mean one thing: higher housing costs for renters.
A survey by Paragon, based on responses from over 500 landlords it works with, paints a clear picture of the real-world consequences of this Bill. A striking 65% of landlords said that they were more likely to reduce the size of their portfolios. An overwhelming 79% said that they were likely to increase rents. Why? Not out of preference, but as a direct response to the pressures introduced by the Renters’ Rights Bill. This is not speculation; it is data-driven and must give us pause for thought.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I remind the Committee that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. I can see the merit in a clause defining the Bill’s purpose, and Ministers will advise us on that—except that the whole Bill defines its purpose.
I noticed that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, used the word “secure” several times in her speech, confirming that:
“The purpose of this Act is to improve the ability of renters in the rented sector to obtain secure, fairly priced and decent quality housing”,
as in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 1. I do not understand how the noble Baroness can propose an amendment that talks about the security of decent-quality housing at the same time as Amendment 8 proposes that small landlords—that is, those having fewer than five properties—could continue to be able to issue Section 21 no-fault notices.
I have to assume that it is now the Conservative Opposition’s intention to withdraw Amendment 8, for otherwise I do not see how, in all honesty, a statement can be made in Amendment 1 that the objective is for secure, decent-quality housing in the private rented sector when for many properties no-fault evictions would be allowed to continue under the Conservatives’ Amendment 8.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My noble friend Lord Shipley has eloquently kicked things off for our Benches. I will make a few general comments about how we will conduct ourselves during the course of the Bill.
We do not agree with the assertions made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. We think that the intentions in the Bill are perfectly clear. Whether it will live up to those intentions only time will tell, which is why we too would be looking at reviews. In fact, the noble Baroness’s Amendment 261 is very similar to my own Amendment 263, so I will reserve comments on reviews until we discuss that group.
I say to the Minister that we really want the Bill to go through, and for that to be done professionally and swiftly, in a well-scrutinised way, so we will not be making Second Reading-style speeches or commenting on every single item and amendment. I would therefore like the Minister to take it that silence means we agree with the Government’s position. However, we will probe, challenge and seek evidence and reassurances, and I think the Minister would expect no less from us.
We all know that the main problem is the shortage of homes, particularly social homes. The Bill is not intended to solve that problem. It has to be seen as part of a suite of policies that the Government are trying to bring in—and, to use the same phrase again, only time will tell. However, landlords have cried wolf before—over the Tenant Fees Act, I believe—and Armageddon did not happen. That is not to say we should not take their concerns seriously, nor that the Government should not monitor and review, but the most important thing in the Bill is the abolition of Section 21. That was promised by the noble Baroness, Lady May, when Prime Minister, back in the mists of time, so it is long overdue. It is time that we cracked on with this, and we will do our bit to ensure thorough scrutiny but swift passage.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association and as part owner of rented properties in Bingley, West Yorkshire. I support Amendment 261, tabled by my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, with its proposed new clause:
“Review of the impact of the Act on the housing market”.
Specifically, I welcome the proposed addition of a review of the impact the Bill will have on requests for social housing. The vast majority of landlords in this country are good, honest people who do a real service in maintaining Britain’s housing supply and providing decent homes to people before they start the journey of getting on to the property ladder, but the reality is that, with the ever-increasing regulation placed on landlords, not least the abolition of Section 21 no-fault evictions, which has already been mentioned, the signing of tenancy agreements will become more of a risk.
In reality, landlords will no doubt be more reluctant, under the new burdens placed on them, to take on more vulnerable tenants—for example, those who enter the market for the first time, without references, and those in receipt of housing benefit. Amendment 261, on reviewing the impact the Act will have on social housing, is necessary because local authorities and housing associations are going to come under pressure as never before to provide social housing, either because supply in the private rented sector will become more challenging to access or because rents are likely to spiral out of control under these proposals. I therefore support fully the amendment tabled by my noble friend.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her Amendments 1 and 261, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Eaton, who have spoken in this short debate. I will keep my response to Amendment 1 short, as the purpose and aims of the Bill were debated in full at Second Reading. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that the Bill is perfectly clear in what it sets out to do.
The private rented sector has grown significantly over the past 20 years and is now used by over 11 million renters in England, with the support of 2.3 million landlords. I should say that most of those landlords are very good landlords who look after their tenants very well. Despite this growth, it still provides the least affordable, poorest quality and most insecure housing of all tenures, and that just cannot continue. A functioning private rented sector can provide a secure stepping stone for aspiring home owners, as the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, said, and flexibility for those who want it, but the chronic insecurity embedded in the current tenancy system fails both those tenants looking for a stable home for their families and those landlords who are undercut by the rogues and the chancers who we know are there—they may be few, but we know they are there. This is a drain on aspiration. Reform of the sector is central to our opportunity mission, so that all have the chance to achieve their potential.
Although I understand the aims of the amendment, I do not believe that it is necessary. The Government made a clear manifesto commitment to transform the experience of private renting by levelling the playing field decisively between landlords and tenants—the very balance that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, was talking about. This Bill delivers that promise. As I outlined at Second Reading, the Bill will strengthen the security of tenure for tenants, ensure that they are paying a fair rent, guarantee a minimum standard they can expect from a property, provide new robust avenues to redress, and much more. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to the attempts in later amendments to reintroduce Section 21 evictions. We will debate those when we get to them but I will say that 83% of landlords have five properties or fewer, so those amendments would be significant and really take the guts out of the Bill. The aims I set out align with the purpose in the noble Baroness’s amendment and lie at the heart of all our current and future decision-making.
The Government also recognise the work done by the majority of landlords, who provide safe and decent homes for their tenants. Both these issues of balance were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, but I was surprised at her assertion that the Bill would not achieve that balance. It is a very similar Bill to the one which she herself brought forward a few months ago.
We have been clear that good landlords have nothing to fear from these reforms. The Bill will bring much-needed certainty to the sector after years of inaction and delay. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, commented on the Armageddon that we hear about; I remember hearing something similar many years ago during the discussions on the minimum wage. I understand landlords’ concerns and I hope we can address them as we scrutinise the Bill, but I am sure we can continue to debate the aims and impacts as we make our way through the 300-plus amendments tabled for debate.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for contributing to this group. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that we will debate my Amendment 8 later. I particularly thank the Minister for her reply. While the Government’s ambition to improve outcomes for renters is a worthy goal, and one that I was proud to champion during my time in government, we feel that this Bill fails to account for the serious consequences the measure will have on those who provide the much-needed homes. The fact is that renters need a market that encourages landlords to enter it, not leave it.
These concerns, as I have said before, are not mine alone; they have been echoed right across the industry. From Savills to Propertymark to UniHomes, all have highlighted significant issues. We on these Benches will emphasise in the days ahead the need for balance—one that ensures that tenants are properly protected, while keeping the sector attractive enough for landlords to continue providing homes to rent, as my noble friend Lady Eaton clearly communicated. The recent survey by Paragon highlights just how far this Bill falls short of that balance. It found that only 4% of landlords support the proposed changes. Perhaps more strikingly, 73% of landlords believe the legislation will do more harm to renters than good.
It has become increasingly clear that, in the Government’s ambition to strengthen tenant security, they have been blind to the implications for those who provide the rental homes this country so desperately needs. The Government should think hard about this balance and consider what these reforms will do to the market on which millions rely. This Bill piles unprecedented pressures on landlords, fuelling concern, uncertainty and a fear of financial burdens. Simultaneously, these changes are likely to make it even harder for tenants to find accommodation. The selection process will become more stringent, and the grounds for possession are weakened. The availability of homes will decrease and, in turn, rent will take a larger share of tenants’ income. The Government would do well to remember that the rental sector exists only because individuals are willing to invest in property and make those homes available to others. The strength of the rental market rests on keeping these people in the market.
Landlords are not just participants; they are the backbone of the rental market. Their voices must be heard as part of this conversation, as they will provide the homes our tenants need into the future. If this Bill is to protect tenants, we must ensure that we have the landlords to supply them. By piling on excessive regulation, we are in danger of pushing good landlords out and empowering rogue landlords who simply ignore all our rules. We recognise that reform of our rental market is necessary to protect tenants from abuse at the hands of these rogue landlords. This was made clear in the previous Renters (Reform) Bill, but it was always important to us that we balance the rights of tenants to live safely and peacefully in the homes they are renting with the rights of landlords, particularly their property rights. If that Bill did not quite balance the seesaw, this Bill tips it right over. This is not the same Bill that the last Conservative Government introduced, and the Government are rushing it through without any care for the repercussions that will reverberate throughout the sector.
I urge the Minister to listen carefully to the concerns raised throughout Committee to ensure that we can enhance the availability of homes, alleviate the burden of unaffordable rent and deliver security for our tenants. Members across the House agree that renters need a better deal, but we do not believe that the Bill is the answer to this. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Truscott
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to allow fixed term tenancies of up to 12 months, as an alternative to the abolition of fixed terms.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I come to improve this Bill, not to bury it. In doing so, I declare an interest as a landlord and a former private rented sector tenant of a combined 40 years’ standing. The Bill’s intention is laudable: to provide more security for tenants, to abolish arbitrary evictions under Section 21, to deal with the minority of rogue landlords, to establish an ombudsman and a useful database, and to introduce the decent homes standard and Awaab’s law to the PRS. I support all these measures. However, His Majesty’s Government should beware of the unintended consequences of the application of parts of the Bill, which would lead to less, not more, security for tenants, and higher, not lower, rents.
Before I expand on this, I make no apologies for my amendment. Your Lordships’ House is a revising Chamber; our job is to revise and improve Bills which come from the other place. To broadly paraphrase the late noble Lord and MP Francis Pym, large majorities do not always get things right. Your Lordships’ role is, rightly, to use your collective expertise to point out where a Bill has gone wrong and where it can be bettered.
My amendment argues for fixed-term tenancies of up to 12 months; they could then revert to rolling, periodic tenancies, or another 12-month tenancy could be agreed. This would give tenants more security than the current Bill does, not less. Under the Bill, tenants will have no security after the first 12 months. They could be evicted for a whole host of reasons, including the landlord re-occupying or selling the property. However, if a landlord and tenant were free to agree annual 12-month tenancies, the landlord would not be able to regain possession over this period, so the tenant could have security for many years, renewable annually. This suits both tenants and landlords.
A majority of tenants actually want longer fixed-term tenancies in order to have more security, to allow their children to attend local schools, to be near to work and to build links within a community. So, why are the Government so adamant that fixed-term tenancies should be banned, and assured shorthold tenancies, which normally have a six-month break clause, abolished?
Let me be clear: I opposed the ending of fixed terms and the abolition of ASTs under the last Government and remain consistent in opposing them under this one. I have been at a loss to discover who came up with the idea of moving exclusively to periodic tenancies with two months’ notice. As the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, who is in his place, said at Second Reading, it is a batty idea. Incidentally, taken together, we have almost 100 years’ experience of the PRS, so we know of what we speak. Another Peer with many years’ professional experience of the PRS asked the Minister in a briefing meeting why the Government were moving to periodic tenancies with no fixed terms and two months’ notice on the tenant’s part—they found it inexplicable.
I thank the Minister for her engagement on the Bill. I am aware of her extensive experience in and leadership of local government. However, the Minister’s lines to take, both here and in the other place, do not hold water. First, there is the often-quoted example of domestic abuse. This is a very serious issue. However, to say that two months’ notice is required if someone is facing domestic abuse is simply not the case. It is the victim who flees, often with no notice at all, and the abuser who stays put, as domestic violence charities will confirm. The abuser will hardly make themselves homeless by giving two months’ notice, so the type of tenancy in these circumstances is irrelevant.
Secondly, the Minister has opined that fixed tenancy must go so tenants are not trapped in unsuitable or hazardous conditions, or if their circumstances change—but this is one of the main points of the Bill. The database should show the history of the property and the landlord, whether it is safe and well-run. A decent homes standard and Awaab’s law will be imposed and regulated. If any landlord is reckless enough to provide substandard accommodation, they can face fines of up to £40,000 and rent repayment orders of up to two years—enough to bankrupt most landlords. If properly regulated, such behaviour would be extremely rash and worthy of action. Very few, indeed, would risk it.
Under current assured shorthold tenancies, as I mentioned, there are usually six-month break clauses, which allow for most changes of circumstances. There is thus no logical reason to abandon fixed-term tenancies. From the tenant’s point of view, it will make their tenancies less secure and more expensive. From the landlord’s point of view, it will increase costs and uncertainty. We have heard before how a lot of the landlord’s costs and time are front-loaded into new tenancies. Landlords will have to factor this, and the fact that a tenant can give notice at any time, into rental prices.
What will this mean in practice? First, if a tenant moves in, they can give notice on day one and move out in two months. You may ask, “Why should they?” At the moment, short lets can be four times more expensive than long lets. For example, anyone moving to a city centre or coastal resort will be able to move to a form of Airbnb at a fraction of the present cost. Rentals for local residents will become even more expensive and rarer than they are already. The line between short lets and long lets will be blurred and, in effect, disappear. Many landlords will gravitate to ultra-short lets, as they are more profitable and virtually unregulated. According to Foxtons, there are already 150 pieces of legislation covering long-let homes but virtually none for Airbnb.
Secondly, those landlords who stay in the dwindling long-let business—and it is a business—may find that tenants move out over the winter, when properties are traditionally harder to let, and will face higher voids as a result. To cover the risk of higher turnover and the expected voids, rents will have to go up.
In answering why fixed terms, even with a break clause, are anathema to the Government, I ask that the Minister does not roll out the same stock answers on domestic violence and flexibility in the case of unsatisfactory accommodation. That is a non-answer. The Norman Lamont MP puppet in “Spitting Image” said, unfairly lampooning the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, “If you repeat things often enough, people will believe it”—but not in this House, I hope. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendments 4 and 5 in this group, which are purely probing amendments to enable the Minister to explain clearly the Government’s rationale for abolishing fixed-term tenancies. In Amendment 4 I lit on a six-month period and Amendment 5 relates to two months, and I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, has a period of three months in this group.
The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, warned of unintended consequences, and it is almost inevitable with a Bill of this kind that there will be unintended consequences almost whatever we do. However, in this situation we have to avoid it happening unnecessarily. I can envisage that there may be situations where a very short tenancy is wanted by both tenant and landlord. As I said, I have proposed two-month and six-month periods and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, has proposed three months. The reason is that it would reduce paperwork and the procedures would become much easier. However, in the context of periodic tenancies—which is what the Government are doing— I understand that it is actually quite difficult to fit in a very short-term system such as that, even though it might be in the interests of the tenant, with the agreement of the landlord, to have that kind of tenancy. So I hope that the Minister will explain clearly why that should not be permitted under this Bill.
I will add one further factor that we will debate on a future day: the issue of paying rent up front. There are those who have real difficulty in securing the credit rating necessary to persuade a landlord to give them a tenancy. In some cases, it is very much in the interests of the tenant to be able to pay more than one month up front. I understand how the Government have finally decided not to have two months as a limit on upfront payment, plus a deposit, and have brought it down to one month. However, I think, as the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, advised us, that we have to be very careful about unintended consequences.
We need to think carefully about the wish of a tenant to pay for a short-term rental up front at the start of the tenancy. Can the Minister see any means whereby the Government, through this Bill, could be more flexible in situations of that kind?
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Truscott. I must declare my interest: I am a Suffolk farmer and have been for 50 years and I have seen quite a lot of changes during that time. Historically, there have been ups and downs, so in recent years I have turned increasingly to the private rented sector as a means of diversifying from agriculture when agriculture has been in such difficulties.
I can remember the days when there were rent officers and the whole system was gummed up. Now, assured shorthold tenancies are—lamentably—being abandoned in the Bill. Under that system, there was a resurgence of interest. I, for example, have converted redundant farm buildings into houses. I have fitted houses into spaces where there were no houses, but they fitted well into the particularly attractive and beautiful village which I am fortunate and privileged to live in. All these things are a very important part of the overall scene.
I warn the Government that there is a danger of them proscribing or prescribing practices in the private rented sector that are the practices that make it work. It is a very flexible sector. It is a vulnerable and fragile sector and, when we debate these issues in Committee, we are going to find cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that provisions in the Bill should be modified to avoid the danger of reducing the supply of privately rented accommodation.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, for leading this group and all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. My amendment aims to probe the Government on the proposed abolition of all fixed-term tenancies and to strike a fair balance between the rights of tenants and the legitimate interests of landlords.
While the Government’s desire to strengthen tenants’ security is, of course, a commendable objective, we must take a moment to reflect on the variety of tenancy arrangements that currently support different groups within the sector. In light of that diversity, it is reasonable to ask why the Government has chosen to pursue a one-size-fits-all approach through the proposed abolition of all fixed-term tenancies.
I have listened to contributions from the Committee and there is obvious and widespread concern about this element of the Bill. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Truscott and Lord Shipley, for their thoughtful amendments. Taken together, they seek to challenge the blanket removal of fixed-term tenancies and reintroduce much-needed flexibility into the current very rigid clause. In our opinion, the proposal to allow fixed terms of up to 12 months presents a pragmatic middle ground, maintaining a degree of security for tenants while giving landlords the certainty needed to plan for their future use.
Amendment 6 focuses specifically on protecting very short-term lets of up to three months. These arrangements are critical to people on, for example, probationary employment contracts, to vulnerable individuals in temporary relocation and to professionals on short-term placements. We should not be undermining access to housing for those who rely on flexible short-term arrangements. In removing fixed terms entirely, we risk cutting off access to the rental market for these groups—precisely the kind of unintended consequences this House should seek to avoid. I have also tabled this amendment to give Ministers the opportunity to indicate whether they would be willing to take a more limited step of retaining the current arrangements for very short tenancies.
Industry stakeholders have all echoed these concerns. Propertymark has warned that the removal of fixed-term tenancies could have a destabilising effect on tenants with lower incomes or poor credit histories, many of whom rely on guarantors, who in turn require the certainty of a fixed term. Without that structure, such tenants might find themselves excluded from the market altogether.
What does the future look like for these tenants? These are students without parental support, young adults leaving care, or individuals with health conditions whose employment is irregular. These individuals rely on guarantors to secure housing, but those guarantors require a legal assurance of a fixed term. Without that, the door to a rental home quietly shuts behind them. Imagine a single mother working two part-time jobs, trying to secure a home close to her children’s school. With no guarantor willing to sign an open-ended agreement, she is told again and again, “Sorry—no fixed term, no tenancies”. These are not hypotheticals. These are people who will be locked out of the system, possibly entirely.
Propertymark notes that fixed terms provide security for tenants and a guaranteed rental income for landlords. These arrangements are often actively sought by tenants, including nurses on temporary hospital placements, families wishing to remain in a school catchment area, and individuals from overseas needing time-limited accommodation. The Government will argue that tenants will still have flexibility because they can terminate their rental agreements at will. However, this misses the point. Flexibility is not the same as stability. Tenants need the assurance that their home will not be taken away at short notice, especially when they are in transitional stages of their life.
For landlords, the certainty of a fixed term allows them to plan and manage their properties effectively. Without it, many will choose to exit the sector, once again reducing the overall availability of rental homes. The supposed flexibility of a non-fixed-term tenancy could ultimately leave both tenants and landlords with far less stability than they need.
The abolition of fixed-term tenancies could provoke many landlords to reconsider their position in the market altogether. For home owners who currently rent out their properties on a fixed-term basis, this change in policy, which removes the ability to offer a defined tenancy period, will reduce landlord confidence. As a result, some home owners may choose to leave their properties vacant rather than face the uncertainty of an open-ended arrangement.
Why are the Government not listening to landlords, the very individuals who are primary maintainers of the private rented sector? Landlords are not just participants; they are the backbone of the housing market. Their voices must be heard in this conversation. There is a growing sense that these concerns are being overlooked, and one must ask whether this stems from a principled policy position or from a deeper ideological reluctance to recognise the legitimate role that landlords play. Without the ability to plan for future use or to rely on a defined tenancy period, landlords may well choose to exit the market. If this happens, we risk not only reducing the supply of homes but destabilising the rental sector as a whole, undermining the very intention of the Bill.
Taken together, these warnings from industry stakeholders should give the Government pause for thought. They remind us that while reform is necessary, it must be proportionate and carefully balanced to deliver a market that ultimately benefits renters. The Bill gives us the opportunity to modernise our rental system but, in doing so, we must take care not to discard what works. In removing fixed terms altogether, the Bill risks sweeping away short-term lets that serve a very specific and vital purpose.
These are not theoretical cases; they are everyday realities for many people navigating work, family or education. If we are to build a fairer rental system, we must ensure that it remains flexible and accessible to all, including those whose housing needs are necessarily short-term. That is what Amendment 6 in my name seeks to protect. I hope the Minister listens to voices across the House and calls from industry experts to recognise the diversity of the rental market and to support my amendment, which offers the necessary flexibility and common sense.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 173 in this group. I declare my interest in the private rented sector, with cottage lettings in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, for tabling Amendment 173, and I am very keen to support it.
The reasoning behind my support is twofold and comes from the desire, which is shared by most, that this Bill be an opportunity to make sizeable reforms to the PRS—not only in tenant security but in improving housing and its management. This is predicated on the need, first, to encourage private long-term institutional investors into the PRS and, secondly, to differentiate between the private rental sector and short-term holiday lets, typified by Airbnb.
The Bill’s proposal that tenants should be able to give notice after only two months of occupation, rather than the four proposed in the amendment, severely limits these objectives as the addition of a two-month notice period means that a tenant might be in residence for only four months, rather than six months, which is the key to bank finance and institutional investment. It is also a question of the balance of fairness between landlord and tenant, as the costs of establishing a tenancy, renovation and redecoration need a longer timeframe for payback than that which the current suggestion would provide.
This is also an important financial point: lenders to the PRS are concerned that mortgage payments will be missed if the revenue stream ends in under six months and will therefore be wary of lending to the sector. The downside to this, over the longer term, is the risk of tenants being trapped. To deal with this issue, a tenancy agreement should include exceptions for mis-selling, poor or unsafe living conditions, breach of PRS ombudsman regulations, death, domestic abuse, et cetera, during the first four months.
It is very important to use this opportunity to increase the supply of housing in the PRS and, at the same time, to increase the standard of the product to conform with the decent homes standard and to raise the standard of management. The key to this is encouraging institutional investment and build-to-rent investors.
BTR—build to rent—is distinct from the broader PRS because BTR homes are new builds which have been constructed specifically for the rented sector, reflecting the priorities of modern renters and funded by institutional investors. BTR results in rental-focused developments that are owned and managed by a single, professional, accountable landlord. This mitigates against many of the issues plaguing the PRS, such as poor-quality homes, unscrupulous landlords and poor value for money. Bringing in private sector institutional investors will increase the rental housing stock and provide high-quality, energy-efficient homes available for long-term rent at affordable cost. However, long-term institutional investors such as pension funds are looking for predictable returns over the long term and are therefore anxious to avoid the risk of short-term tenants, which the Bill may encourage.
The second major issue that arises from serving a two-month notice on the landlord from day one of the tenancy agreement, rather than after a four-month period, as suggested, is that it risks opening a back door to misusing rental homes for short-term two-month lets. If a renter can sign their tenancy and submit their notice on the same day, tenants will be able to use a property meant for long-term rent for short-term purposes. This loophole risks undermining the work done to reduce short-term lets and their social consequences. Legally, a landlord would have no ability to prevent abuse or to prefer a long-term renter and their family. The result would be the loss of rental homes, with fewer local homes available for local residents.
The risk of this misuse is particularly high in the institutional and build-to-rent sector, because of the turnkey attractiveness of these homes. They are built so that they are easy to move into and out of, with good furnishings, free wifi and high-quality facilities.
With this loophole, a landlord could not be sure if their tenant proposed to stay for two months or a significant period. The short-term letting problem represents a barrier to investment in the delivery of new rental homes, as lenders, institutional investors and developers would have no certainty about the occupancy levels and revenue base underpinning the scheme. To address this, in 2023, the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee recommended this same amendment that we are suggesting now.
Failure to address this issue will result in a significant loss of investment in new rental homes, as well as an inadvertent upward pressure on rents, particularly in cities, making it harder for people to find homes that they can afford. For the sake of an expanding and healthy PRS, which satisfies a clear market demand for the rental sector, I urge the Minister to consider and accept this amendment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, before I speak to these amendments, I should have, at the beginning of the debate, thanked all noble Lords for their engagement in the work that we did before we got to Committee. I have been very grateful for the attendance at drop-in sessions and for the one-to-one meetings that we have had with different Members from across the House. The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, referred to the value of scrutiny in this House; I truly value that scrutiny and engagement, which have been a great help in the early stages of the Bill. The comments that I make are made with due and careful consideration of what noble Lords say in the Committee today and what they have said to me in our meetings prior to that.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lords, Lord Truscott, Lord Cromwell and Lord Shipley, for the amendments, and the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford and Lord Carrington, for their comments on them. These amendments all seek to introduce fixed terms into the Renters’ Rights Bill.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
The Minister namechecked me. I did not have an amendment in this group. My amendments are in the next group and are not about fixed-term tenancies.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
That is my mistake, and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell.
Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, would allow landlords to create fixed-term assured tenancies of 12 months or less. As I set out during the debate at Second Reading, our Government are clear that there is no place for fixed terms in the future tenancy system. Landlords and tenants all want the same thing in the private rented sector: long-term tenancies, well-maintained properties and the rent paid —on time, we hope. That is the balance that we seek to strike.
A core principle of the future assured tenancy regime is that all tenancies will be periodic. As the previous Government also advocated, the removal of fixed terms is fundamental to improving tenants’ rights and ensuring that they can hold their landlord to account. Fixed terms just do not offer the best outcome for renters. They can oblige tenants to pay rent for substandard properties and restrict them from moving house if they need to. All the examples that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, gave are of those who need secure tenancies—they need them for themselves and their families, and for the communities that they live in.
The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, mentioned that I have been a local government leader. My experience with social housing tenants who have long-term secure tenancies makes it clear to me that they help them to stabilise life for their families and to develop the communities we know that people prefer to live in.
I was not going to mention domestic abuse, but I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, and his dismissal of it has provoked me into doing so. Domestic abuse is just one reason to not have this type of tenancy, and I may come back to that later. Just this lunchtime, I met the person I set up the Stevenage domestic abuse service with, and that situation is getting worse, not better. We do not want people to be trapped in properties that they do not want to stay in.
I do not believe that this amendment would offer tenants more choice. In reality, initial fixed terms would become just another way that tenants would be forced to compete in a difficult market. I understand that there are concerns from landlords about the impact of removing fixed terms. However, the move to periodic tenancies does not pose a threat to good landlords—in fact, it will make it easier and simpler for them to operate by preventing them being locked into a fixed term.
Amendments 4, 5 and 6, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would allow for short fixed-term assured tenancies. The amendments would allow assured tenancies to contain a two-month, three-month or six-month fixed term. As I have set out, the Government do not believe such changes are necessary. Where a tenant wishes to live somewhere for a short period of time, the Bill allows them to serve notice at any point as long as they provide two-months’ notice. If one of these amendments were accepted, it is likely that short fixed-term tenancies would become the market norm, forcing fixed terms on to tenants who may not be looking for a short-term let and reducing flexibility for all tenants. In addition, tenants already need to give two months’ notice to landlords. Having two-month or three-month fixed terms would not add anything meaningful to this position, and would be contrary to our aims to simplify an overcomplicated system.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to the issue of rent up front, which I am sure we will debate under future amendments. The point is that it cannot be required as a condition of taking on the tenancy. If, once the tenancy is in place, the tenant chooses to pay rent in advance—and it is their choice—they will be able to do so.
Amendment 173, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, would prevent tenants serving notice to end the tenancy within the first four months of a new tenancy. This, coupled with the two-month notice period, would effectively lock renters into tenancies for six months. I have been clear today that the Government will not support any amendment that seeks to lock tenants in for any period of time. Tenants must have the flexibility to end tenancies when they need to. The noble Baroness referred to people whose jobs change; that might be the case, and to be locked into a fixed term would prevent them doing that. The Bill still requires tenants to provide two months’ notice when ending an assured tenancy, which will give landlords time to find new tenants.
I heard the points from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about build to rent. I do not think there is a case for treating that differently, but no doubt we will return to this in future debates. I look forward to meeting with the noble Lord tomorrow to discuss his concerns in more detail.
It is very unlikely that tenants will move unless they absolutely have to. Moving house is costly and comes with significant upheaval. In practice, tenants will usually be asked to complete a series of steps in order to enter into an assured tenancy, and that will include referencing checks, committing for two months and paying up to five or six weeks’ deposit, none of which they are likely to do if they are looking for a very short-term tenancy.
Finally, I turn to the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to oppose the Question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill. Clause 1 will prevent the creation of tenancies with a fixed term under the future assured tenancy regime. As I have already set out, the Government do not support the retention of fixed-term assured tenancies under any circumstances. The move to fully periodic tenancies is critical to strengthening tenants’ rights and enabling them to hold landlords to account.
To be clear, fixed terms force renters to pay rent regardless of the property’s condition. This disincentivises landlords from resolving repairs and can force tenants to remain in poor-quality housing. They also reduce flexibility for tenants to move when they need to—for example, if they have had a relationship breakdown or because they need to take up a new job. I am sorry to the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, for coming back to it, but they can prevent tenants leaving potentially dangerous situations such as domestic abuse.
Clause 1 will therefore ensure that all assured tenancies are periodic in future. The tenancy will roll from period to period until either party ends it. It will be prohibited to include a contract term that tries to create a fixed term, and any such term would be legally unenforceable.
As I have already explained, good landlords have nothing to be concerned about with these changes. They will not have to wait until the end of a fixed term to access some of the possession grounds, and a simpler set of rights and responsibilities will also make it easier for them to understand and follow the rules. The removal of fixed terms was the policy position of the previous Government, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, served, and it is the policy position of this Government.
Clause 1 is essential to delivering a strengthened and more secure tenancy system. It will improve the ability of tenants to move house and challenge poor practice. For all the reasons I have set out, I kindly ask that noble Lords do not press their amendments.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
Will the Minister deal with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about institutional investors and their reluctance to invest when there is a minimum tenancy of only two months, and about lenders who are not prepared to lend to the sector? Does she feel that the institutional investors are an important part of the sector or are they not relevant?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I responded to that in an answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Young, at Question Time. Yes, institutional investors are important, but it is important that we do not create an idea that these are two-month fixed tenancies; they absolutely are not. They are assured tenancies with a two-month notice period on the part of the tenant. Most tenants will not want to take up a tenancy and go through all the procedures they will need to—as I set out—just to have a tenancy for two months and then leave it. Most tenants want a long-term tenancy where the landlord maintains their property and they pay their rent on time. That is how the system works. I do not think it will deter institutional investors from having the confidence they should rightly have in investing in build to rent, or any other form of rental investment, as a good investment. It is a steady source of income and, with a tenant with an assured tenancy, they will be more assured of that, not less.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
I apologise; I failed to declare my interest as a private landlord of rental property in Hampshire.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Coming back to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, I am still concerned about the unintended consequences of parts of the Bill. I am not sure the Minister entirely convinced me on that, particularly on issues such as, for example, the move towards ultra-short lets that is taking place before our eyes. Some blocks of flats in London are 90% Airbnb. There is a big shift in the professionalisation of ultra-short lets. That is one impact of ultra-short periodic tenancies of two months that will be more or less impossible to police in large cities and resorts.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, gave us the benefit of his 50 years’ experience in the PRS and expressed similar concerns. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked the Minister what the rationale behind abolishing ASTs is. We heard some of the familiar arguments but, again, I was not entirely convinced. Domestic abuse is an extremely serious subject but I cannot imagine anyone who is in fear of their life checking their tenancy agreement before fleeing their abuser. I know the Minister mentioned one case, but the domestic abuse charities I spoke to say it is the abused person who flees, more or less at the drop of a hat, and the abuser who stays in situ.
A number of noble Lords expressed their disquiet about the abolition of fixed terms, not just in terms of flexibility—although there is an argument that asks whether we are saying that six months’ flexibility is so awful that we must have two months’ flexibility instead. Under assured shorthold tenancies, people can have a break clause of six months and can move out, which suits most people and has certainly been my experience. I am sure we will come back to this at a later stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, made some strong points about fixed terms as well, and made a powerful case for a six-month minimum, rather than two months, to give stability to both landlords and tenants. We should think not just about tenants’ rights, which are very important and an important part of the Bill, but about the impact on the market of introducing two-month tenancies. It is undoubtedly the case that, in a number of areas, people occupy what were previously long-term rentals for short-term purposes. We will come on to discuss Airbnb later but, for example, 40% of the properties in the village of Salcombe in Devon are Airbnb or equivalent. If you ask the people of Cornwall, you will find that they are losing a lot of long-term rentals to short-term holidaymakers, and all the rest.
The two are linked. This Bill will be linked to what is already happening to the housing market and what will happen in the future. Once you introduce two-month periodic tenancies, it will be almost impossible to police. How will you know whether someone takes on a tenancy in a city centre—for example, a tourist—stays for a month, not two months, and then moves out? Who will police it? I am concerned that there will be a huge shift to ultra-short tenancies, which will undercut the long-term rental market and impact primarily on people who need long-term rental homes.
We have had a good debate. No doubt the Committee will come back to this issue in future amendments but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Cromwell
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and another in the name of Lord Cromwell seeks to ensure on the face of the Bill that the tenant is able to request (after four months of occupancy) a voluntary extension agreement with a specified term. The tenant would retain the ability to leave on two months’ notice, and the landlord would voluntarily limit rights of recovery to the anti-social behaviour and not paying rent grounds, thereby incentivising an uninterrupted occupancy.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, if I may coin a phrase, now for something a bit different. My Amendments 3 and 12 act together. They initially caused some bafflement—even suspicion—among other noble Lords, the Minister, and tenant groups with which I have discussed them. I am grateful to all of them for the opportunities this provided to look at my amendments for hidden or unintended consequences. I will therefore take a few minutes to explain what Amendment 3 is not, and then what it would achieve.
The amendment is not about creating a fixed-term tenancy, which some initially seemed to suspect. I know that several amendments in the previous group were put down with that intention or effect, but this is not one of them. It would not create a fixed-term tenancy as the tenant would not be required to stay for a fixed term. This would be in harmony with the Bill, one pronounced—one might say red line—objective of which, as we heard just now, is to prevent tenants being trapped in a fixed term. Nothing in the amendment would diminish that. In fact, it explicitly states that the two- month notice period by the tenant would apply.
That explains what the amendment is not. So, what would it achieve? When this Bill becomes an Act, where landlords and tenants have good relationships, as many do, and wish these to continue in the form of longer-term agreements, that will no longer be possible to achieve with a fixed-term tenancy. This amendment therefore starts from the perspective of a tenant who wishes to increase their security of tenure over a longer period while retaining their right to leave on two months’ notice.
The amendment would work as follows: a tenant in occupation for, say, four months—by which time they should have had the opportunity to assess the property, the landlord and any other arrangements—could propose to the landlord an extension of the tenancy for a period that the tenant suggests. However, and this is crucial, the tenant would retain the right to leave on two months’ notice, thereby avoiding being “trapped” and remaining compliant with the Bill. As I hope is now clear, this is therefore not a fixed-term tenancy in disguise.
Under such an agreement—and this is the greater security that the tenant would obtain—it is the landlord who would limit their right to take back their property only to cases of non-payment of rent or anti-social behaviour, not to cases where the property is being sold or the accommodation is required for a family member. The landlord would thus forgo two of the four grounds for recovery set out in the Bill. The landlord could decide to agree to this request from the tenant and, if so, it would be put in writing.
Colleagues have asked me why any landlord would sign up to such a tenant-favourable agreement. That is why I would like to clarify the benefits of this extension arrangement. As mentioned, the tenant would not only benefit from the greater security of tenure but would retain their right to depart after two months—a double benefit. The landlord would be giving the tenant an incentive to remain for the extension period they have requested. Why would the landlord want this? It is because a change of tenant almost inevitably involves a period without rent and a range of associated costs, including fees for letting and inventory agents, possible disputes about damage, deposits, redecoration, et cetera. In short, landlords hate voids and disputes, all the more so as the Bill now means that they are likely to have to go to the overburdened courts system in order to obtain their property, with all the antagonism, delay and expense that that involves.
To be clear, an extension agreement as per this amendment would not guarantee the landlord an income stream over time—that would get us back into trapping—but it would increase the probability of a tenant remaining and, therefore, a regular flow of income from a long-term tenant. While both could benefit, crucially, the power would remain in the tenant’s hands rather than in the landlord’s.
I invite noble Lords to stand back and recognise that this Bill creates a new landscape, one in which the rights and options available to landlords and tenants are rebalanced in favour of tenants. In that context, this amendment would enable in the specific—and indeed common—circumstances where landlord and tenant objectives were aligned the landlord to incentivise a tenant to remain as in the interest of both parties. I underline again that such arrangements would be at the tenant’s initiative and that neither tenant nor landlord could apply any compulsion on the other party.
As I mentioned at the start, this amendment caused some initial suspicion. Representatives of landlords, who like fixed-term tenancies and initially thought that I was seeking to retain them, soon backed away when they saw that the amendment would retain the two-month notice period for tenants. Tenant representatives —and, I have to say, the Government—have had the reverse reaction: initially suspicious that this might be some kind of loophole to create a fixed tenancy. I am sorry to labour the point, but I hope that it is now clear that it is no such thing. It would reflect the new balance of power that this Bill introduces to residential lettings. It would be a win-win opportunity, mainly for tenants but also for landlords seeking to retain tenants. I am much encouraged by tenant groups who have written to me on reflection to confirm that they think this amendment has the potential to help tenants gain greater security in the context that I have described.
In conclusion, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the arrangement I have outlined is made possible without interfering with any other aspects of this Bill. It would apply only in some positive landlord-tenant circumstances, but the Bill needs to make such agreements possible. It has no reason to block them. If it does—and this is important to note—informal or verbal agreements will develop outside the regulations, and these tend to end in tears.
Landlord and tenant bodies alike understand the new landscape being introduced by this Bill and recognise the benefit of this amendment. Further, I have been encouraged by legal advice that it should be included in the Bill so that it is confirmed as an available and legal option for relevant landlords and tenants.
I apologise for this quite lengthy exposition of the amendment, but I hope it has been helpful both in explaining the mechanics and in allaying misapprehensions about what should be a valuable addition to the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I have to confess to the noble Lord that I had written down exactly what he said—that these are not two nice amendments to bring in fixed tenancies by the back door—but then I thought, “He’s actually just creating a new ground for repossession”. What I am concerned about from the previous debate and this one—and I urge the Minister to clarify this—is that there seems to be an idea that rolling tenancies are unstable. I have several friends who are landladies, and we have had discussions about this over one or two glasses of wine and—believe it or not—they are not fazed by this. They have not reacted hysterically, because their attitude is, “My tenants like to stay long term; I’m a good landlady”; they do not see that that is a problem. But clearly there is a problem because we have had the reaction. I say to the Minister that the messaging has somehow got lost that this is not a less secure tenancy and that, in fact, the expectation is that the tenancy will roll on, and I believe the Government have tried to make the paperwork and things easier for that to happen.
If that messaging was correct, I do not see why a tenant would need incentivising to stay if everything was going okay. So forgive me if I sound perplexed: I thought I had a clear view about this, but the noble Lord has kind of knocked me there. I think it is because of the messaging that we have had about the instability of rolling tenancies, whereas I believe that that is not the case. I would be very interested in what the Minister has to say on that. I appreciate that the noble Lord’s speech was not long; it was engaging oratory and got the little grey cells going.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Perhaps the noble Baroness and I should discuss this over a few glasses of wine also, although I do not drink—but she can have the wine. I do not think the amendment creates a new ground for repossession; it gives the tenant greater security of tenure by removing half the causes for which a landlord could serve notice—I think that is what we will have to discuss over the glass of wine. It applies in special circumstances, where a landlord does not anticipate the need to sell or the wish to move in a family member but wishes to incentivise their tenant, who could leave at any moment on two months’ notice, to stay longer. So they say, “I’m prepared to give you greater security of tenure as an incentive to remain and continue paying the rent”. It is not more complicated than that, but I am glad that I managed to lift the bafflement and look forward to a chat afterwards perhaps.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, before I start, I ask the Committee to note that I am a councillor in central Bedfordshire and therefore have an interest. I welcome the opportunity to speak to this group and to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for raising this amendment and explaining it so carefully. I am quite grateful that I understood all along that the tenant was still eligible for the two-month notice period.
These amendments offer a clear and practical framework for tenants to request a voluntary extension agreement after four months of occupancy with terms that, as the noble Lord said, provide greater certainty and predictability for both parties. This would allow people the freedom to make a mutual agreement and choice that benefited both sides. As Conservatives, we believe that the Government’s role is not to overregulate or restrict but to create the conditions for stability, co-operation and choice. The amendments do exactly that: agreements built on mutual respect rather than compulsion.
Under the proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, tenants would enjoy security of tenure for an agreed period. Landlords in turn gain the reassurance of occupancy, with their right to recover their property during the term limited to cases of anti-social behaviour or non-payment of rent. These are reasonable safeguards that encourage constructive relationships and stability in the rental market and will benefit both tenants and landlords.
This approach complements the amendments in my name and the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, which we will discuss in due course. Together, they reflect a shared principle that flexibility, where it is entered into freely and transparently, strengthens rather than undermines tenant protections. We often speak in this Chamber about empowering tenants, but that empowerment must include the ability to make informed choices and enter into arrangements that suit tenants’ lives, reducing the risk that they will be forced to move. Voluntary extension agreements offer a proportionate and sensible way of achieving that aim without diluting the core purpose of the Bill. I hope the Minister will give these proposals the thoughtful consideration they deserve as we continue to shape a Bill that is fair, flexible and fit for the realities of today’s rental market. We look forward to working constructively with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, as he considers his approach ahead of Report.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for his amendments relating to mutually agreed voluntary extension agreement in tenancies and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their contributions as well. Amendments 3 and 12 would allow a form of agreement where tenants can leave the tenancy by providing two months’ notice and landlords could gain possession only for rent arrears or anti-social behaviour. Tenants would be able to request this after four months of the assured tenancy and the landlord would have to agree in writing.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for meeting me to discuss his proposals. No wine was involved, but other beverages are available. I have considered his amendments carefully and the points he made about their potential efficacy. One of the reasons the Government do not want to reintroduce fixed terms or anything like them is that they add complexity into the system. Having a simple, single system of periodic tenancies will make it easier for both parties to better understand their rights and responsibilities.
Having looked at the noble Lord’s proposal, I say that it is not clear that it will be of much benefit to either party. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, rightly referred to the nature of assured tenancies, and I think there has sometimes been a misunderstanding—perhaps concocted—of what an assured tenancy is. It is a permanent tenancy unless the landlord uses the grounds included in the Bill or the tenant gives two months’ notice. It is not a two-month tenancy; it is a permanent tenancy with two months’ notice on the part of the tenant. If both parties wish the tenancy to sustain for a certain period of time, nothing in the Bill prevents this. The Bill already prevents landlords using the key possession grounds for moving and selling within the first 12 months of a new tenancy. This provides tenants with additional protections for a period of time. Landlords can also communicate their plans to tenants if the tenants need that additional reassurance. It is also unclear what this model would offer to landlords, given that the tenant could still leave at any point, so it is very unlikely landlords would agree to it. For the reasons I have set out here and in previous debates, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I thank the Minister for her comments and for the very helpful meeting we had about this amendment. I have tried to strike a balance in my amendment between not going near a fixed-term tenancy and producing something that is of benefit to landlords. I can only tell her that, from my experience of talking to people, they are often keen to find incentives for a tenant to stay, because it is a costly and time-consuming business to change them. Therefore, I do not think one should dismiss too lightly the idea that landlords might forgo some rights in order to encourage a tenant to stay on: in fact, I have seen that in practice.
One should never drink alone, so if the noble Baroness opposite is going to have a glass of wine, perhaps the Minister would like to join in and the three of us could have a useful chat about this. I think there is something here that does not undermine the tenant’s ability to get out in two months but gives an incentive in that marketplace for the landlord to encourage a tenant to remain for the long term. The tenant will decide how long that term is, because they will be the one requesting an extension. It could be 10 months or two years: that is entirely a matter for them. So, I do not want to give up on this at this point. I will withdraw the amendment, but I suggest that we have a further chat to see whether there is something that can be worked up from this particular nugget.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
(1A) For the purposes of this section, a tenant who meets the student test when a tenancy is entered into has the same meaning as in Ground 4A.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow student tenancies to remain as fixed tenancies to provide the certainty that both student tenants and student landlords require.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 44, 45 and 46 in my name.
Although it may have been some years ago, and not all Members of your Lordships’ House chose to go to university, many noble Lords will no doubt recall their own experiences as university students. For those whose memories may have begun to fade, it is likely that a son, daughter or even grandchild is at university today or has recently been at university. I raise this point because those of us who fall into this group will recognise that students have distinct and unique housing needs that set them apart from all other groups. Most students rely on a combination of maintenance loans, part-time jobs and, increasingly, the support of the bank of mum and dad—or even granny—to meet their costs during their studies. Proximity to campus is essential both for academic engagement and to reduce the burden on transport costs. Students typically require leases of nine to 12 months, aligned to the academic calendar. I stress flexibility as an increasing number of tertiary education providers are now offering 18-month courses, moving away from the traditional three-year model. For many students, this marks their first experience of independent living. They are often unfamiliar with housing laws and lack the knowledge that only life experience can bring.
Although the exact legal framework for the exemption requires further clarification, the Government, by virtue of attempting to exclude purpose-built student accommodation from the ban on fixed-term tenancies, have accepted the unique position of students, and we welcome that. However, we feel there is more work to be done.
The Explanatory Notes assume that purpose-built accommodation tenancies are not assured. StudentRent puts this drafting down to a confusion with university halls, which use non-exclusive licences. In reality, most PBSA providers issue exclusive assured shorthold tenancies, meaning that, unless the Bill is amended or exemptions are extended, the agreements will become invalid once the new law takes effect. Could the Minister please use Committee to clarify this? If we cannot reach a reasonable position in Committee, we will have to return to the issue on Report.
In their drafting of the Bill, the Government have missed the opportunity to exempt all types of accommodation. As noble Lords will know, it is common that, after the first year, students often move out of purpose-built student accommodation and into HMOs or other types of property in the private rented sector. Amendment 7 in my name would ensure that student tenants could keep their desirable fixed-term tenancies, no matter what type of accommodation they find themselves in. We must not allow a two-tier system to emerge, where only those who can afford the most expensive purpose-built accommodation are granted the stability of fixed-term tenancies; that would be a perverse outcome from this legislation. It is vital that we resolve this as soon as possible.
Fixed-term contracts provide students with clear start and end dates that not only make financial planning more straightforward but ease the burden of day-to-day administration tasks that can be particularly challenging for those experiencing independent living for the first time, all while managing the demands of their academic studies. Perhaps most importantly, fixed-term agreements provide rent certainty for the entire duration of the contract. That certainty is not only reassuring for students but essential for their families, who rely on clear and predictable costs in order to budget effectively and support their children through higher education. Furthermore, knowing precisely when a tenancy will end helps students avoid disruptive mid-semester moves, which can have a detrimental impact on their studies and exam preparation.
While stability is vital, so too is flexibility. It is on this point that I wish to speak to Amendments 44 and 45. The current provisions acknowledge in part the need for student landlords to regain possession by the end of the academic year, under ground 4A. However, this fails to take into account those students whose studies do not follow a traditional academic calendar. It is important to stress that, under the current model, it is exceptionally rare for student landlords to need to resort to eviction proceedings. In practice, the challenge is far more likely to arise when students wish to leave their tenancies early. The proposals as they stand do not fully address the consequences of such scenarios.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 40 in my name. This is the moment when students and higher education enter the housing and rental market debate. I am never totally sure whether the department responsible for housing welcomes this interruption from the higher education sector, but I hope the Minister will accept it in the spirit in which it is meant. I declare an interest as a visiting professor at King’s College London, and a member of the council of the University of Southampton.
I understand the arguments that the Minister makes about the need for tenants to have security and be able to put down roots in the long term, but so many of her arguments for this legislation do not apply to students who are seeking reliable accommodation for an academic year. The model that she proposes is clearly not in their interests.
If I may say so to the Minister, the link between housing policies and higher education is very important. The previous Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair, set a target of 50% of people going to university. There are different views about the target; I do not personally believe in targets, but nevertheless that 50% target was achieved and it was achieved only because of the use of the private rented sector. It is impossible to have imagined that that target would have been secured without the way in which the private rented sector has developed for student accommodation. This is not just a historic achievement; if the Government have opportunity as one of their core objectives, it is surely important that students who could benefit from higher education have that opportunity, and that includes being able to access accommodation that meets their needs.
The Government have clearly accepted that there is a need for some special arrangements for student lets. The exact form they take is open for discussion. My noble friend Lady Scott made very powerful points in support of her proposed amendments, which try to secure that. The Government have made some concessions to recognise the student market. There is already one exemption from the legislation, which is for purpose-built student accommodation. That tends to be high-cost and involves students making a very early commitment. It is possible almost at the beginning of the previous academic year for the student to enter into a special academic year contract in this high-cost, purpose-built accommodation. To put it crudely, the Government are looking after the elite: the students who plan a year ahead, can afford the high rents and go into the —by and large—very high-quality purpose-built accommodation, which often has business investors behind it.
There is now a second category that has been added, and that is ground 4A, which is essentially for HMOs with three bedrooms or more in the private rented sector. They are also now going to be exempt from the burden of the legislation, with a different start date for making a commitment—about January before the academic year starts. That is the next group— I feel it is a bit like that famous “three classes” sketch, since we have got a second group that will now be looked after.
But that leaves a third group for whom the Government are not currently providing any exemption. These are students in smaller accommodation, maybe one or two-bedroom properties, for whom none of the special exemptions are going to apply. It is therefore very odd that, in the Government’s model to tackle this problem, you could have three university students who are friends and are in three totally different rental regimes because of the structure of the exemptions which the Government are trying to offer.
What I am attempting in the amendment in my name—I welcome the support of other noble Lords—is to say that these smaller rented accommodations of one or two bedrooms should also be exempt from the general provisions of the Bill and instead be recognised as academic accommodation, with its special needs. What do we know about these students in one- or two-bedroom properties? The evidence is limited. There seem to be quite a few of them. There are different estimates as to how many students in the rented sector are in these smaller accommodations. One estimate is 24%; another is a third. Several hundred thousand students are currently in this sector. So, if landlords pull out from it because there is no way they can be confident of being able to offer a tenancy for an academic year and the accommodation enters the mainstream market, several hundred thousand students currently renting in this sector will lose out.
One view is that they may be students who go for particularly low rents. I do not know. An alternative account of these students is that this smaller accommodation is basically for students who wish to live more quietly. It is less social. One suggestion is that it tends to be final-year students who move out from the bigger, more crowded accommodation so that they can properly study and revise for their final year. The Government’s education policy appears to be, “It is okay to have a special arrangement if you are going to be in a large, sociable environment, but if you want to move into a studious, quieter environment, we are ceasing to recognise that you are a special student and your kind of accommodation is going to go”.
I very much hope that the Minister will recognise, as the Government have already made concessions, that we need a wholehearted attempt to preserve an academic year student rental market. My attempt to extend the exemption on ground 4A to one- and two-bedroom accommodation is an attempt to do that. The interesting proposals from my noble friend Lady Scott are an ingenious attempt to do that.
Finally, and briefly, I will refer to another amendment that attempts to do that: Amendment 189, in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who is in the Chamber but currently appears unable to participate in this consideration of his excellent amendment. It is another attempt to resolve this issue with an ingenious proposal that there should be a special code of conduct for private sector residential landlords letting to students. If landlords sign up to that code of conduct, they would then be exempt.
To be honest with the Minister, I do not have particularly strong views about exactly which mechanism should be used but I hope that at the end of the consideration of these amendments, she will accept that there needs to be a wholehearted recognition that the student academic market is different and, instead of slicing it into these particular sectors—some parts of it to be recognised and others not to be—there needs to be a complete solution for students renting for academic terms because, otherwise, the Government’s commitment to opportunity will be in jeopardy.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
I have added my name to Amendment 40 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and declare an interest as an academic employee of King’s College London. As such, I am acutely aware of the accommodation and living costs that students face if they study away from home. London is particularly expensive, as I am sure noble Lords have noticed, and the level of maintenance loans available and the total absence in England of maintenance grants mean that many UK students conclude that a London degree is simply out of reach.
At King’s, we manage to offer first-year undergraduates a place in hall and we have an affordable accommodation scheme that helps a subset of students obtain accommodation at below market rates, and other universities are similar. However, over time we have seen our student body change. On the one hand, we have far more international students, many of whom are able to afford the rents charged in high-end, purpose-built student accommodation or to pay market rents in the private sector; on the other hand—this is far less well known—we have seen a strong growth in the proportion of our UK students whose families live in or close to London who live at home, and a corresponding decline in the number of UK students who are in student accommodation in London.
If your family lives in the London area, you can live at home and be a commuter student and still have access to a huge range of institutions and degrees, but that is not true for people in a very large part of the country. You do not need to believe that young undergraduates should all go away to do their studies to be aware that for many people, it is absolutely central to social mobility and to their future. If it is only wealthy students who can move geographically, our best faculties and specialist degrees will not be able to recruit the best students.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, briefly, I support Amendment 40, to which I added my name. I am concerned to ensure that we do not inadvertently damage further the student accommodation market. There is already a very severe shortage in student housing. The proposal to end fixed-term tenancy agreements could have such an impact. I have received very detailed briefings from UniHomes—supported, I know, by Unipol—Universities UK, HEPI and other organisations intimately involved in student housing.
Purpose-built student accommodation will be exempt from this decision, but student accommodation provided by the private rented sector is not offered that exemption. I know that the government objective, which I fully support, is to deliver security and stability to tenants, but I do not believe that the Bill, as it stands, will deliver that for all students. As the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, pointed out, on average, private sector accommodation is cheaper than purpose-built accommodation, so it is an important source of housing for domestic students who are economically disadvantaged. I hope that the Minister will recognise that possibility and not jeopardise such provision, as many think this might. It would be worth considering granting the exemption granted to purpose-built student accommodation to the student private rented sector in total. Other suggestions have been made and I hope that the Minister will consider them all to ensure the stability of student accommodation.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, along with the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Wolf and Lady Warwick, I have signed this amendment. I spoke about this issue at Second Reading.
The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, reminded us that there are three totally different rental regimes for students: purpose-built accommodation, including large blocks; the HMOs, which are larger properties in the private rented sector; and the smaller private rented sector accommodation. The noble Lord was absolutely right to say that the achievement of so many young people in going to university has been dependent on the availability of accommodation in the private rented sector. From my time in Newcastle upon Tyne, I know how fundamentally important the PRS was to the growth of the universities in the city. I think the Government accept that a special arrangement is needed for an academic-year contract, but that has to include those in one-bedroom or two-bedroom properties; they also need to be exempted as part of ground 4A, which currently restricts the exemption to houses in multiple occupation.
The Government have Amendment 202 in this group, and I am keen to hear what the Minister will say about that and to what extent she feels it will help us solve the problem. There is a danger that unscrupulous landlords will define properties as being for students when they are not, in order to bypass the impact of this Bill when enacted. I thought a lot about that and believe that the Government can mitigate that possibility. It might be done through the register; there may be ways of delivering a solution by that means. It occurred to me that it may be possible to use non-liability for paying council tax as the basis for a system for identifying those who would qualify for Ground 4A. It would require local authority co-operation and proactive management of the private rented sector, but it can be done—and it needs to be done because students are very important to the lifeblood of many cities and towns across the country. Having a vibrant private rented sector for them to use matters.
If the Government decide that the smaller private rented sector properties do not need additional help, the likelihood, given that students would be able to give two months’ notice under the revised terms of this Bill, is that landlords will decide to stop letting properties in the private rented sector to students, or to reduce their exposure to the student-letting market.
It is a complex area. I recall the Minister saying when she summed up at Second Reading that there are difficulties and issues that have to be considered. I hope that, once she has replied and we better understand the intention of Amendment 202, we can produce something much better when the Bill is on Report.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 266 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. This is my first intervention in Committee, so I declare my interests: my wife owns privately rented property; I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association and of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute; I am currently chairing an inquiry into intergenerational housing, and I am on Business in the Community’s Blackpool housing advisory board.
My Amendment 266 in this group concerns student housing, but it is on a slightly different tack. While there are strong grounds against a general option of fixed-term tenancies, separate arrangements are justified for student accommodation, as indeed the Government acknowledge. My amendment is a modest tweak to the change already made by the Government to exclude student housing, except in smaller accommodation, from the prohibition on fixed-term tenancies. It would address a rather different issue. It would exempt certain purpose-built student accommodation from the private rented sector licensing schemes of local authorities, which enable councils to inspect and enforce standards for private rented property. This exemption for PBSA accommodation is justified because these schemes are already subject to high levels of scrutiny and compliance through government-approved codes of management. I am grateful to the British Property Federation for bringing this issue to my attention.
As the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and many others have eloquently explained, purpose-built student accommodation is an important part of the rented market. It provides 724,000 beds throughout the UK, split between university owned and privately owned. There are nearly 200,000 more beds, mostly privately provided, in the pipeline. Without this sector, students would have to rely on, and would put more pressure on, the wider private rented sector, where satisfaction levels are rather lower. Lack of suitable accommodation is a major problem for students and for universities. Removing barriers to tackling the undersupply of student housing is also important in easing the strains on the rest of the private rented sector.
Local authority licensing can definitely help raise standards for the PRS, but its value does not extend to that part of the PBSA sector, which is already heavily regulated. The sector has government-recognised codes of practice under which members are inspected on a regular rolling programme, which covers the property’s condition, management and regulatory requirements. Because of the level of scrutiny required by these codes, a 2019 government-commissioned independent review found that licensing was not required for purpose-built student accommodation. It said:
“This accommodation, as a normal condition of operation mandated by the attached University, is required to implement a strict, Government recognised code of management practice … Such a code holds the accommodation to much higher standards of management and condition than any licence conditions could reasonably achieve. Properties are rigorously inspected on a regular basis (typically three times per year)”.
This MHCLG review concluded:
“Given that these properties are already highly regulated, and equivalent properties managed by Universities (to an almost identical code of practice) are exempt from licensing, licensing of such properties is manifestly redundant and extremely expensive for the operators”.
In relation to the expense for operators, local authorities can operate a licensing scheme charge on average of £700 per license, but they can charge up to £1,200, and since these fees are often charged per unit, not per scheme, not per building, a scheme of several hundred units—for example, studio flats—can incur costs in excess of hundreds of thousands of pounds. While some local authorities already offer exemptions or discounts for PBSA providers that adopt these codes of practice, this is not standard practice, and many local authorities do not offer any reduction in licensing charges. This is not really fair. PBSA was never a target for the licensing scheme, and the cost and time incurred by the licensing process does not add any benefit for students. Exemption from licensing would remove an unnecessary expense for providers, saving some of them hundreds of thousands of pounds and improving the viability of PBSA schemes.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest in a family business that rents properties in Norwich in some small way to students. I suppose I ought to declare that I have been a student in both houses and halls, albeit more than 40 years ago.
This is a well-intentioned Bill—indeed, the Conservatives introduced something thematically similar in the previous Session—and it includes some modernisations to rebalance the relationship between the landlord and tenant, and particularly to regulate agents who act as intermediaries between the parties, but this is not the same Bill we encountered before, and in respect of students—I am bound to say of all students, including apprentices—it is pregnant with unintended consequences.
As it relates to students, it denies the obvious fact among the cohort of potential tenants that there is an annual rhythm to the demands and needs that runs from December to August annually. I was particularly taken with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, who has just left his place, and I was going to offer to buy him a drink in that round in the bar with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. He tells me he does not drink, so it would have been a cheap round, but there we are. As a principle, efficient markets exist to align with consumer needs, and this Bill will disrupt the ability of the market to satisfy those needs of the many hundreds of thousands of students, not all of whom are fresh out of sixth-form college, to align the certainty of their living arrangements with the reality of their daily lives and particularly with their friends.
The consequence of the Bill, if enacted, is that students will pay more because the supply of rental properties will reduce by discriminating against private landlords. It will reduce the choice of landlord because it lays down in statute the sole type of landlord counterparty that students can contract with if they wish to have the certainty of an annual let, and thus it reduces the competitive pressure among landlords to keep prices down, so students will pay more.
By restricting the student let to a certain class of building, it creates monopoly powers for that expensive specialist provider that my dear noble friend Lord Willetts mentioned, so students will pay more. It will also create an overheated market in September every year because the landlord can guarantee the availability of his house only if the previous people have given notice. So, in that overheated September market, guess what? Students will pay more.
It is not just cost; the consequence of the Bill means that students will be more inconvenienced. It means that second and third-year students, the sort of people who do not necessarily want to live in hall, must fly back from a world trip, working abroad or whatever to sort out a house they could have done earlier. It is harder for friendship groups to get the certainty of a house with their friends. I do not believe that in this debate thus far we have considered the importance of cohorts of friends, who are not related and do not have the family ties that you often get in most tenancies, so you are at the mercy of the person who just wants to cut and run. If there is a joint tenancy among six friends, for example, in a larger house, and one of them wants to go, what does that do? Does it break the tenancy? How does that work? It disrupts the whole group. I believe that in the case of students, the discipline of a group of friends coming together has some value to the market.
Of course, by focusing everything in September, it makes the chaos of clearing even more chaotic than it already is. It prefers the established students from good backgrounds, with parents with sharp elbows as a means to execute draft contracts more quickly; those sorts of families also make it easier to provide the guarantor. I remember when my daughter was at Newcastle. She had taken up with a group of friends who were going to live in Jesmond, and there were six of them in the house. The landlord sent round a contract that made me jointly and severally liable for the entire rent for all of the people, none of whom I had met. Fortunately, I was last on the list. I noticed that Viscount Boyne, a former Member of this House, had signed before me; it gave me a certain comfort to know that we were going vicariously to rely on each other.
Although this Bill introduces protections for current students, it disadvantages people in the second or third year who are not yet in houses but might want to be. Not everybody wants to live in halls, particularly PhD or mature students. I have been there: you tire of the freshers running up and down the corridor in the night because they have come back late from the pub. If you want to have that quiet enjoyment of a property, you should not be forced into a student block with added charges and expensive rents.
This Bill, if enacted, will also introduce new discriminations that have not been mentioned thus far. I am thinking about foreign students. Let us not forget that foreign students underpin the university sector; at the moment, they are keeping our universities afloat with their extra fees. Foreign students who do not have a credit history, for whatever reason—there are cultural reasons that I will dwell on in a moment—will be prevented from paying up front. They will become unrentable; they will find it very difficult to get a place. Of course, these are the people whom the universities need to balance the books. The difficulty of getting guarantors and the right-to-rent checks are in and of themselves sometimes a barrier and a discrimination against foreign students.
I am thinking in particular of women students from Arab countries. I have two tenants in our own business whose mothers have come from those parts of the world in order to live with their daughters for cultural reasons. They want the annual tenancy agreement to give them in certainty their own way, so they can sort it out once then have the comfort of leaving their daughters—they tend to be daughters—while knowing that they can come back. It is an irony that, later in the Bill, Amendment 190 has a huge amount about discriminating against pets while here we are allowing discrimination against the cultures of women and girls from other parts of the world.
I regret to say that all this in aggregate means that the landlords who have specialised in renting to students, many of whom add pastoral care to the portfolio, will fall away. My wife has acted as a mother, so to speak, to many of our students, helping them with council tax bills and acting on their behalf with utilities—especially those students for whom English is not their first language and who are trying to make a way in a foreign country. All this will go because you cannot have the certainty of a contract between landlord and tenant. Why should it be for the state to determine a narrow monoculture of what constitutes acceptable student accommodation? What happened to the ability of consenting adults to work out their own decisions?
Government Amendment 202 has the absurdity of defining a building that is “occupied by students”, which excludes dwelling houses that are occupied by students. It then it requires halls specifically built for students and meeting the Unipol code of standards to be licensed even though they exceed the standards. How does this pettifogging bureaucratic interfering help the people whom it purports to assist?
When I explained to my daughter last weekend what I was going to say, it took her about 10 seconds to realise that a complicated secondary market will now develop between potential students and landlords, with informal, unregulated contracts and options—as well as fees to secure tenancies in the most desirable households with the most commodious landlords— in a way that harms exactly the sort of people the Government are trying to help: the ones who are the first in their family to go to university. By preventing more than one month being paid at a time, you will end up with more complicated escrow arrangements, fees, more expense, delay and obfuscation, as well as all sorts of connivances between cohorts of outgoing tenants with incoming tenants—on risk, of course—lining up the next year based on good friendships this year. We are formalising in statute nepotism between years to the exclusion of those who are trying to make their way.
The student market is complex, and it should reflect the world as it is. For many students, that is not the monoculture of catered halls of residence. They prefer to be in the town, close to pubs and universities. Destroying this market does not help anybody. It is full of the law of unintended consequence—a law that makes it harder and worse for the brightest and best people who want to get on, and difficult for anyone in higher education to know where they stand. They will all pay more, and this will make it easier for landlords to exploit a hot market every September.
It is just another example of Labour preferring big business, the operators of these large student schemes, over the nobility of the small family business. There is one silver lining, however: teaching students at a formative moment in their lives the adverse effects of the dead hand of the nanny state telling them what they can and cannot do is more likely to drive them to and promote the cause of capitalism than it is socialism.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 42 and 43 in my name. These amendments probe why the Government believe six months is a suitable cut-off for 4A, the new ground for possession, being available to landlords.
Unlike my noble friend, I declare I did not go to university, so I am not familiar with freshers running down corridors. However, I have three children, two of whom have gone to university—the first people in my family to go to university. They tell me that their experience of the accommodation was very straight- forward and it was of good quality in their eyes. I also declare an interest in that I have a third child who is currently studying for her A-levels, so I am hoping that she will go to university. I look forward to a similarly straightforward situation in terms of accommodation.
Students like to get their accommodation sorted at the beginning of the year, away from the exam period. If tenancies cannot be agreed early on, this will lead to uncertainty on living arrangements and add to the stresses that students face. Most tenancies begin in July, and therefore the hunt for student accommodation will begin during exam periods. Can the Minister tell the Committee whether the Government consulted students and, if so, to what extent? Have the Government even considered the impact on students? It is very important that, at exam time, they are focused on their exams. Landlords like the certainty that their accommodation will be filled. Have the Government consulted landlords and, if so, to what extent? As my noble friend just said, the larger organisations that run this are one thing, but have the many family-run businesses also been consulted?
More broadly, the combination of ending fixed terms, introducing a two-month notice period and restricting rent payments in advance could disrupt the traditional student housing cycle, making it harder for students to secure accommodation early and reliably. We argue that the student model does not fall comfortably within this Bill, and that the student model is one that existed for some time for many years—successfully, in my experience. This change aims to discourage landlords from signing up students for tenancies months in advance, which is currently common practice, and I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could reassure me on those points.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lords, Lord Willetts, Lord Evans, Lord Young—albeit that his amendment was very ably proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts—and the noble Lord, Lord Best, for their amendments, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Wolf and Lady Warwick, and the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Fuller, for their comments during this debate. All these amendments seek to revise or introduce provisions in the Bill related to students, and I say well done to King’s College for having its team approach to this Bill in the Chamber today.
We do not expect that removing fixed terms will have a destabilising effect on the student rental market. New possession ground 4A will give landlords confidence that they will be able to regain their property to move in other students in line with the academic year. If tenants leave a tenancy early, the landlords will be able to find new tenants to take their place. The end of a fixed term does not automatically give the landlord possession. Landlords still have to follow the correct possession procedure. If fixed terms remained in the future, landlords would still need to follow the correct possession procedure.
Amendment 7 would allow fixed-term assured tenancies if the tenant was a student at the beginning of the tenancy. It would not be either right or fair for students to have less flexibility than other tenants just because of their educational status. Students who drop out of university could be required to pay rent for the rest of the fixed term, which could potentially reach thousands of pounds. All renters, including students, should have access to the benefits provided by the Bill.
The opportunity referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, is, as he rightly said, the meeting between housing and higher education. As someone who undertook a degree as a mature student with three children and a full-time job, I say that we simply must not assume that all students are the same. This is the opposite of elitism. It is ensuring that all student circumstances are taken into account and that those who need the greater stability that assured tenancies offer can have that option.
We have introduced a new possession ground to allow the cyclical nature of the student market to continue and provide landlords with confidence. This strikes the right balance and, in our opinion, is the much better approach. Referring to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about tenancies in halls, the Government intend that any new purpose-built student accommodation tenancies created after transition will be exempted from the assured tenancy system following transition, as long as the landlord is signed up to a government-approved code of conduct. I hope that answers her question. For these, reasons I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 40 seeks to expand ground 4A, which allows student tenants living in HMOs to be evicted in line with the academic year. It would allow students living in self-contained accommodation—one-bedroom and two-bedroom properties for example—to be evicted each year, and it seeks to address the concerns of some noble Lords that the existing scope of ground 4A does not cover all student properties. We have thought very carefully about the design of ground 4A. Limiting it to HMOs captures the bulk of typical students—that is, groups living in a house share. Meanwhile, students who need more security of tenure, such as single parents living with their children, postgraduate couples living together who have put down roots in an area, or families containing students, will be protected.
The core principle of the Bill is that tenants should have more security in their homes, and we think it is right that these groups should not be exposed to potential eviction using ground 4A. Self-contained one-bedroom and two-bedroom homes are also easier to let to non-students than student HMOs are, so, if a landlord cannot gain possession in line with the academic year and the tenants leave in the middle of the next one, the landlord is highly likely to be able to let the property out to non-student tenants. The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, referred to student accommodation in London, and I imagine that there are other places where costs are prohibitive, such as Cambridge and Oxford. However, the Government’s action to increase supply is critical here. It is only by increasing supply that we will be able to stabilise rents. I do not think that the action proposed in the amendment would have that effect.
Amendments 41 and 45, taken together, seek to remove the requirement for a landlord intending to rely on ground 4A to give prior written notice to the tenants. This would mean that landlords renting to students in HMOs who satisfy the student test would be able to rely on ground 4A without giving tenants written prior notice, before the tenancy was entered into, of their wish to be able to recover possession using ground 4A. We cannot accept these amendments. The core aim of the Bill is to enhance the security of tenants in the private rented sector, including students. The prior notice requirement in ground 4A is key to this. If tenants are liable to be evicted through no fault of their own simply because of their student status, they must be informed of this reduced security before entering into a tenancy. Amendment 45 is purely consequential on Amendment 41, removing a later reference to the paragraph that Amendment 41 removes, and I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, not to press these amendments.
Amendment 42 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, seeks to allow the use of ground 4A in student tenancies agreed up to nine months in advance, rather than the six months in advance limitation that is currently in the Bill. Noble Lords will be aware that we introduced this measure in response to engagement with stakeholders and Members in the other place—I hope that answers the noble Lord’s question about consultation. They were concerned that students are often rushed into important decisions around accommodation before they have formed friendships or had time to properly judge a property’s condition or location.
This measure was intended to act as a strong disincentive to landlords who seek to sign students up to contracts early in the academic year. Increasing the time limit to nine months will push early sign-ups to too early in the academic year—before Christmas for a tenancy beginning in July. This entirely undermines the point of the deterrent. Six months strikes the right balance, allowing those who want to to agree a tenancy well in advance before exam season, but not too early before students have formed firm friendship groups, for instance.
Amendment 43, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, goes even further and would extend the time limit to 12 months. For the reasons I have highlighted previously, we are of the view that six months is the right balance. Very few students sign contracts more than a year in advance, and this amendment would essentially destroy the entire premise of the provision, which is designed to prevent students being pressured into contracts too early in the academic year. For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to move these amendments.
Amendment 44 seeks to remove the restriction on the use of ground 4A to the summer of the traditional academic year. This would mean that students on a traditional term date, who are the majority, could be evicted in the middle of the academic year through no fault of their own. We recognise that the intent of the amendment is to ensure properties are available for students starting their courses on non-traditional dates, such as in January. However, we are content that supply will be available for these groups as previous groups on the same cycle would leave at the end of their courses, so there will be students leaving in January and students starting could take those properties. It would be wrong to expose all students to eviction in the middle of their academic year simply because, for example, a landlord found a group with different term dates who were willing to pay more. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness not to move this amendment.
Amendment 46 would allow landlords to evict approved English apprentices, as defined in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, using the student possession ground 4A, provided all conditions for relying on that ground were met. Ground 4A was designed to capture the most typical students, such as those living in groups and away from home, on an annual letting cycle. Apprentices tend not to live that way, as they earn an income and are much more likely to live in a home they expect to stay in. I am therefore of the view that apprentices should enjoy the same security of tenure as other tenants and not fall under the scope of possession ground 4A. For that reason, I ask that this amendment not be moved.
Amendment 189 seeks to remove the private rented student tenancies from the assured tenancy system. I know there has been a lot of concern and debate over this at Second Reading and today. It would achieve this by allowing the Secretary of State to create or approve a code of conduct for student landlords and then allow landlords signed up to the code to offer tenancies that are completely removed from the assured tenancy system. This is the wrong approach: it would be wrong for students renting off-street housing, often indistinguishable from the property next door, to have an entirely different set of rights from their neighbours.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Young, is seeking to create consistency between private student landlords and landlords of purpose-built student accommodation, which we will exempt from the assured system through regulations. However, these are very different types of accommodation. Purpose-built student accommodation can often be rented only to students due to the nature of the property, and to be exempted in the future a private PBSA landlord will need to be signed up to the government-approved code of management practice. This code is managed by Unipol, an established organisation.
Other private rented accommodation let to students is significantly more diverse and often indistinguishable from other houses in the area. It would be wrong to remove the protections of the assured system. Other students renting privately should not be locked into fixed-term contracts or open to eviction without good reason. In addition, there currently exists no government-approved code that is relevant to such accommodation. Developing this would take a great deal of time and is likely to delay implementation of the Bill. We recognise that the student market has a cyclical business model and have therefore introduced ground 4A, allowing landlords to evict full-time students from HMOs in order to house incoming groups in line with the academic year. Ground 4A addresses the issues that the various amendments tabled by the noble Lord are, in effect, seeking to address. As such, I ask him not to move this amendment.
Amendment 266 seeks to exempt private purpose-built student accommodation from discretionary licensing where the landlord has signed up to a code of practice for managing such accommodation. Although codes of practice offer students assurance that a good standard of management is being met by their landlords, they are not tailored to addressing local issues in the way that licence conditions under licensing schemes are. Membership of the codes is voluntary, and members have an incentive to comply to ensure they can continue to present an attractive offer to students. While a failure to adhere to code standards can result in a landlord being removed from a code, licensing allows for stronger action to be taken where necessary. For example, local authorities can issue a financial penalty where there has been a serious breach of licence conditions.
We recognise that licensing can place a greater burden on landlords with large portfolios, such as those operating private purpose-built student accommodation. That is why local authorities already have discretion to streamline licence application processes and fees for such landlords. We trust local authorities to take a proportionate approach and work together with code operators and providers of these types of accommodation to make sure that licensing schemes remain focused on tackling the issues they were designed to address. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Best, not to move his amendment.
I turn to government Amendments 47, 188 and 202. Currently, university-managed accommodation is exempt from the assured tenancy system, while private purpose-built student accommodation usually is not. Government Amendments 47, 188 and 202 would allow private PBSA to be subject to the same exemption, recognising that the two share many similarities. Students do not move into their accommodation expecting long-term residence, and it is right to ensure that this accommodation is available to new cohorts of students each year.
We intend that the exemption will apply only to private PBSA that is a member of the government-approved code of practice, which sets vigorous standards for the management of property and the relationship between managers and student tenants. If their membership of the code ends for any reason, so does their exemption. There will be no delay in requiring them to provide assured tenancies to new tenants. Although there is an existing power in the Housing Act 1988 to exempt PBSA landlords, it would have required government to frequently update secondary legislation with a list of landlords, causing a duplication of work between code administrators and officials and a lag in the link between code membership and exemption status.
We are also proposing an amendment to an existing power in the Housing Act 2004 that clarifies that educational establishments exempt from HMO licensing can be specified by reference to code membership and that the power can be exercised in the same way for private purpose-built student accommodation in future. The amendment also allows the scope of an exemption to be narrowed to certain groups of building, or building manager, within the membership if required.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in what I consider an extremely important debate and contributed thoughtfully and constructively with their insights.
First, I would like to recognise the contribution by my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow, who tabled Amendments 42 and 43. On these Benches, we believe the limitation may, as my noble friend said, inadvertently push the hunt for student accommodation into the January exam season and disrupt a vital time for many students up and down this country.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow small landlords, who are less likely to have capacity to fund legal proceedings, to continue to be able to issue Section 21 notices.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 8, standing in my name. At its core, the private rented sector exists only because individuals are willing to invest in property and rent it out to others. The rental market depends on landlords, many of them small-scale, independent operators who choose to let their homes to others. These are not large corporate entities with huge legal teams and financial buffers; they are ordinary people with one or two properties, often let out to supplement their pension or as a long-term investment for their families.
Let us be clear: the most recent English private landlord survey shows that 45% of landlords own a single rental property and a further 38% own between two and four. That means that over four-fifths of landlords operate on a very small scale, far from the image of large institutional landlords. These landlords form the backbone of the rental sector. Yet, under the proposals in the Bill, particularly the removal of Section 21 without sufficient alternative safeguards—this is to answer the question by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley—we risk driving them out of this market altogether.
That is why I rise to speak to Amendment 8, standing in my name. This amendment proposes a targeted and reasonable exception that landlords who let fewer than five properties—those very small-scale landlords we have spoken of—should retain the ability to use Section 21. This is not about denying renters their rights or undermining the central aims of the Bill; rather, it is about recognising the limitations that smaller landlords face. Unlike larger letting organisations, smaller landlords do not have the resources or the legal support to navigate complex procession proceedings. For them, the loss of Section 21 without workable and efficient alternatives could be and will be the final straw. These individuals are not villains of the piece; in many cases, if not most, they are providing much-needed homes in areas of acute shortage. They do not have the resources to engage in lengthy legal proceedings every time they need to regain possession of their property, whether due to personal financial need or a change in family circumstances or to exit the sector entirely. If the Bill removes Section 21 without offering small landlords a workable alternative, the risk is clear: many will simply choose to leave the market. They are already, altogether.
We know this is already happening: the National Residential Landlords Association found last year that one in four landlords were planning to sell at least one property, many citing rising regulation and uncertainty about future reforms. As these landlords exit, we are left with fewer homes to rent, and the tenants feel the consequences most sharply.
The experience in Scotland offers a sobering lesson. There similar reforms were introduced with the intention of improving tenant security. Yet, as we have seen, they had the opposite effect: a sharp increase in landlords exiting the market and the highest rent increases in the United Kingdom as demand rapidly outpaced supply. Research from the Nationwide Foundation has found that 70% of landlords and letting agents lack confidence in the future of the market. The evidence from Scotland demonstrates that the type of over-regulation proposed here will drive landlords out of the market, reducing housing supply and ultimately leaving renters worse off.
Amendment 8 offers a simple, balanced solution. It allows the Bill to move forward with its tenant protections intact, while acknowledging the distinct position of small landlords and giving them the breathing room that they need to continue letting their homes. If we are serious about building a rental system that is fair, functional and fit for the future, we must ensure that it works for tenants and landlords alike. Amendment 8 does not undermine the principles of the Bill; it strengthens it. It recognises the diversity within the landlord community and offers a sensible, proportionate safeguard for those who make up its majority by allowing small landlords to continue using Section 21 when and where no viable alternative yet exists. We protect not only their role in the market but the long-term interests of renters themselves. I urge the Government to take this amendment seriously and consider whether the future of the private rented sector truly lies in squeezing out the very people who keep it afloat.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this very important debate in Committee and to support my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook on this amendment. The amendment is about fairness between tenants and landlords, and practicality. It is about the alternative that the Government are offering smaller landlords who are in the situation where they feel it prudent to give notice and seek possession of their own property under Section 21 and Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988. In particular, it is about the bureaucratic and onerous burden and court costs that will fall upon smaller landlords.
Let us look at the figures. Almost half of landlords—45%—own only one property. For the avoidance of doubt and for full transparency, I declare myself to be a landlord; I own one property, which was my matrimonial home, as listed in the Register of Lords’ Interests. Some 83% of landlords are small landlords, and so would be covered by this amendment, in that they own fewer than five properties.
We understand the proper commitment by the Government, as outlined in the manifesto, to abolish Section 21 no-fault evictions, for laudable reasons. We are all committed to the same thing—that good-quality private sector housing should be available in a fair way, to as many people as possible— and we accept that the Government have a mandate to make tenancy reforms. Notwithstanding that, unfortunately, as the previous Administration found, much of the efficacy of that policy will fall upon the reliability or otherwise of the court system and its ability to expedite possession claims in a timely and efficient way.
His Majesty’s Government’s own figures, as at quarter 4 of 2024, show that seven months is the average time taken to process and enforce a Section 8 possession case—especially around the thorny issue of rent arrears and anti-social behaviour. The LGA and the Law Society have raised this issue. The Law Society in particular notes the potential
“increase in contested hearings in the short term, as landlords that would previously have used”
Section 21, because it was less costly and less onerous, will now
“have to show good reason for eviction”.
On page 65 of the impact assessment, the Government, rather elliptically, reference “non-legislative changes” to improve the court system, but they do not give any detail. That is an important issue, as we are being asked to support the Government’s proposals. How do the Government intend to manage the increased demand? The Housing Minister in the other place used the word “ready”, saying that the Government would not take any precipitous action until the court system was ready. What does “ready” mean? This is a problem the previous Government faced and, as the Minister knows, they resiled from going ahead too fast with this policy because the court system was not fit for purpose. What specific measures will be used to deal with the existing backlog in Section 8 claims arising from landlords seeking to take possession? Let us make no mistake, the failings of the court system have the potential to undermine what would be laudable reforms and could have the perverse effect of encouraging landlords, especially smaller landlords, to exit the private rented sector.
Tenants themselves do not have much faith in the court system. Figures provided in 2023 by Citizens Advice show that only
“23% of tenants feel confident applying to court. 99% of tenants whose landlord has taken an unreasonably long time to complete repairs did not bring a claim for disrepair to court … 54% … said they did not … because of the complexity of the process … 45% … said they were put off by the length of time involved”.
It is also the case that the abolition of Section 21, particularly in respect of smaller landlords, will have an impact on the hitherto good relationship between many tenants and landlords, turning it into a much more litigious and disputatious situation. Many of those landlords will not be prepared to give tenants the benefit of the doubt if they fall on difficult financial times or have less benign economic circumstances. Those are the real-world consequences of this policy and one of the issues that this amendment seeks to address and ameliorate.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I declare an interest on the register in regard to this matter.
The Government cannot take this legislation in isolation. As a country, we are taking policy actions that diminish supply and increase demand. Our population is increasing—and that is a deliberate decision. The net effect of that, of course, is that, with local authorities not building properties in the manner and at the rate that they used to, we are creating circumstances where we have a perfect storm of increased demand and reduced supply. The supply is reducing, and the Bill will have the perverse effect of reducing it even further.
We have to take a holistic view. It is not simply a question of dealing with tenancies in isolation; we have to look at the big picture. As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in her proposal, the vast majority of these people are small-business people. Most people in the sector have these properties as part of what they deem to be their pensions. But equally, we all want to see fairness. We know that “landlord” is almost a dirty word. Historically, we have had Rachman and suchlike tainting the whole sector. There has been a steady drip of measures over the years mitigating against provision in the rented sector, such as interest no longer being offset against tax for people who are doing buy-to-lets and so on. Regulation has increased—some of it very necessary for health and safety, but the burden is going up.
Clearly, in places such as London, there is massive demand that is basically impossible to meet. Unlike countries such as Germany, where the rented sector is totally different—in many cases it is the norm that people rent properties and do not own them—we are in a different place. We concentrate on private ownership of our own properties, so rental is different. Reference was made to assessment. I ask the Minister: has an assessment been made of the impact on the supply of properties?
The number of properties will, I expect, continue to diminish, and that puts extra pressure on local authorities. The LGA has been explicit about that. This is increasing homelessness, and we have the pressures there and the pressures from immigration and from asylum seekers. Yet we are taking measures—whether in this sort of legislation or others—that mitigate against people taking on a private property to rent. Unless somebody can make a profit out of renting, why would they bother? Then you have all the hassle of going through the courts, not getting paid, et cetera.
On the other side of the coin, there are properties that are in a very poor state. We have seen examples of landlords who do not maintain them properly. Nobody wants that, and the Government clearly have a mandate to make change. However, I am far from convinced that the fairness that we all want to see, and which the Government have a right to insist upon, is necessarily achieved by the measures in this Bill. While the proposal from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, may or may not be to the Government’s liking, at least one can see where they are coming from and why they are doing it.
If the Government are not prepared to adopt that, let the Minister come forward with a coherent mechanism that a landlord can use if they happen to have a tenant who is not abiding by the rules. It does not have to be Amendment 8; it could be something else, but let us see it, get it on the table and discuss it, so that the consensus whereby we all wish to see improvements can be achieved. There is no point having a Bill the perverse effect of which will be to reduce supply. Nobody will gain from that. I ask the Minister kindly to address that in her summing up.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I too support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. I should say that my wife owns a one-bedroom property which she is in the process of selling, in part because of the potential effects of this Bill and the reasons so eloquently outlined by the previous three speakers.
As a young barrister, I used to practise landlord and tenant. I used to go around the country defending and prosecuting cases of repossession or otherwise, or resisting possession claims for properties. I know how long and painful the process is to try to repossess a property in circumstances where a tenant has not paid rent. I also know the pain that that can inflict on a small landlord who is using the rent to pay the mortgage and to pay the maintenance on that property.
As the noble Lord made abundantly clear in his speech a moment ago, not all landlords are of the Rachman ilk, with thousands of properties under their belt, and out to do down the tenant. As the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said, in so many cases, this is a relationship of happiness and contentment. The landlord looks after the property and uses the rent money to pay the mortgage on the property and maintain it for the tenant. The tenant has the flexibility of being able to leave that property when they wish, and they do not have the burden of maintaining it. It is an important flexibility within the labour market.
The abolition of Section 21 will have a very damaging effect on our housing market. I say that because the court system is simply not ready for a situation where the only grounds upon which you can take back a property in a circumstance where a tenancy has failed would be by bringing proceedings for non-payment of rent or for some other breach of the tenancy. Those sorts of proceedings take a very long time to work their way through the court system. I recall, as a young practitioner, there still being cases under the 1977 Rent Act where the rent had stayed the same as it was in the 1970s and the tenant was effectively irremovable. It was a nightmare for the owner. It was a rigidity in the housing system, which was ended by the use of Section 21 notices.
To describe those notices as being no-fault evictions is very much only half the story. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, pointed out, the purpose of Section 21 notices is to enable an agreement to rent a property to come to an end, perhaps because you want to live in the house yourself, or you want to sell the property because you need the money for some other purpose. Section 21 serves a vital role in the housing market and its abolition is something we would all come to regret.
I therefore strongly urge the Government to consider carefully an exemption for small landlords of the type suggested by my noble friend in this amendment. This is worth very careful consideration. We have not heard enough about the readiness of the court service to implement this abolition.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
Before I comment on the noble Baroness’s Amendment 8, I would like to apologise for my cough, which laid me low for most of the recess. I am conscious that, especially when my noble friend Lord Shipley was speaking, I was struggling. I offer my apologies for that.
Would it be impolite to call this a wrecking amendment? Yes, it would be impolite, but, from our Benches, it certainly feels like one. As was mentioned previously in an earlier group, if this amendment were accepted, it would affect around 85% of rented homes. In effect, it would completely gut the legislation of one of its key objectives. We on these Benches cannot agree with that. We entirely support the abolition of Section 21.
That said, I have listened to the many reasoned and reasonable responses, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, clearly believes, as do many others, that the provisions of this Bill will involve more landlords and tenants going to court. The readiness of the courts for this legislation was one of the reasons why the previous Government rowed back on that. It is reasonable to ask the Minister for the Government’s assessment of the readiness of the courts and for the impact assessment that has been made. We are concerned that failings in the courts will undermine the main principles of the Bill.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, first, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that this is not a wrecking amendment. It is trying to find a solution which does not potentially destroy the private rental market. If it is destroyed in any way, only one group of people will be affected, and that is the tenants.
I am grateful to noble Lords who—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My apologies, but does the noble Baroness not want to hear first from the Minister on the amendment?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Well, the noble Baroness knows what I am going to say, so that is that.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for moving Amendment 8, and the noble Lords, Lord Jackson, Lord Empey and Lord Murray, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their comments. This amendment would allow fixed-term initial tenancies where the landlord lets fewer than five properties. As I am sure the noble Baroness would expect, the Government cannot accept this amendment. It would be neither fair nor justified for some tenants to have fewer rights, simply because the landlord happens to have a smaller property portfolio at the point at which the tenancy is entered into. All tenants must enjoy the benefits of the new system and the flexibility that periodic tenancies provide.
I have already commented on the likely impact on the market under Amendment 1. As I mentioned earlier, the noble Baroness referred to changes to the law in Scotland, which was very different in the important matter of rent controls. I met with the Scottish Housing Minister during the recent British-Irish Council and discussed this with him in order to learn lessons from what happened in Scotland.
The English Private Landlord Survey shows that 83% of landlords have four properties or fewer. Accepting this amendment would mean fixed terms remaining available for half of all tenancies. This would clearly fly in the face of what this Bill is trying to achieve. It would definitely break the manifesto commitment that we have already clearly set out and which we stand by.
It is also important to clarify that retaining fixed terms would not preserve the Section 21 eviction process, although this is a common misconception. Nor would it automatically retain the accelerated court procedure used for Section 21 claims, which allows cases to proceed without a hearing. If this amendment were accepted, landlords would still be required to seek possession using one of the grounds in Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988, for which the accelerated court procedure is not available. The removal of Section 21 evictions is the cornerstone of this legislation, and the Government will not accept its reintroduction to reduce court costs or for any other purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, was a Minister in the last Government. I remind him that his Government also had the policy of removing Section 21 evictions. The noble Lord must have had a memory lapse in the Chamber this afternoon.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, referred to the cost of court possession hearings for smaller landlords. We are confident that the Bill does not levy unfair new costs on landlords. However, it is reasonable to expect landlords to ensure that their business model covers the possible cost of possession cases proceeding through court. The current accelerated court procedure is not a guarantee of avoiding court proceedings or the associated costs.
I will comment briefly on the points made by the noble Lord—
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Can the Minister give us a rough estimate of the legal costs of repossessing a flat on the grounds of non-payment of rent, from beginning to end of the proceedings?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sure the noble Lord has a figure in mind. I will write to him; as he would expect, I do not have that figure at my fingertips.
The availability of court hearings is vital for tenants’ access to justice, especially in the new system whereby landlords must always evidence that grounds are met. We are working closely with our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts & Tribunals Service to make the possession process more efficient and easier to understand. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, made a very good point. It can be difficult for both landlord and tenant to understand the process. They may be deterred from accessing the legal redress to which they are entitled because of difficulties in understanding how it works.
We are also committed to digitising the process. I can reassure the noble Lord that we are working closely with the MoJ to make sure that the justice system is fully prepared to implement the Renters’ Rights Bill once enacted. I am not going to guarantee end-to-end digitisation of the whole court system—that is way beyond my remit in this Chamber—but we are working on it in relation to renters’ rights. This includes a commitment to digitising the county court possession process to create a modern, efficient service for court users. I was reassured to find that this is being built on to an existing system, rather than being created from scratch. Work is proceeding at pace on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Will all these changes to the court system, and digitisation, be totally in place before this part of the Bill is enacted?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I was just about to respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, which may answer that question. As usual, we are working with the Ministry of Justice to complete a justice impact test. This will identify the additional burdens on the justice system arising from new policies in the Renters’ Rights Bill, and it will ensure that the system is fully prepared for any increase in workload. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness.
Lord Empey (UUP)
The Minister made the valid point that tenants with different landlords should not be treated differently. If a landlord owns 30 or 40 properties, and one or two are caught in a dispute and no rent for them is coming in, that is manageable; but if they own only one or two properties, 100% or 50% of their income goes. I accept that the Minister has a valid point about the treatment of tenants; but given that the majority of landlords own single or small properties, there is a specific issue. Can the Minister say whether she has had any communication with local authorities? They are the people who would have to pick up the pieces if there is a diminution in supply. Has the Minister given any consideration to that?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will respond to that in two ways. First, the work that has been done on the court system is both for landlords and tenants. We want it to work for both sides, so that when a landlord needs to seek possession they can do that quickly. I think any landlord’s business model should account for the possibility of a slight break in rental payment, but obviously we want to resolve these issues as quickly as possible, and to do the same for the tenants. There needs to be quick access to recourse if they need it, and we will do that.
Secondly, in respect to the point about local authorities, I have covered extensively the Government’s assessment of whether this will have an impact on supply issues. I reiterate that the Bill’s impact assessment has received a green rating from the Regulatory Policy Committee. We do not believe there will be a sustained or significant impact on supply, but we will monitor that very carefully once the Bill is passed.
I hope I have answered all noble Lords’ points on this but, for the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Again, I apologise to the Minister. First, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that it is not a wrecking amendment but one trying to find a workable solution that does not potentially destroy the private renters’ market as the only people who will suffer from that will be tenants in the future.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and to my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Murray of Blidworth for their thoughtful and constructive insights into how we deal with this issue. Across the Committee there is clearly a shared ambition to improve the private rented sector for tenants, and I believe today’s discussion has shown that doing so must include supporting the landlords who make the sector possible.
As I set out earlier, Amendment 8 is a carefully considered proposal aimed at safeguarding the position of small landlords—those who let fewer than five properties and who make up the overwhelming majority of the sector. These are not large-scale investors or corporations. They are individuals, often couples, pensioners or families, who rent out a single property or two as a way of securing long-term stability for themselves. This amendment is not about undermining tenant protections. It is about recognising that those protections will be meaningful only if the rental homes remain available in the first place.
The removal of Section 21 without adequate alternatives risks pushing small landlords out of the market. As we have heard, this is not hypothetical, it is already happening. Once again, I will talk about Scotland, because I do not believe—and nor do the people in the industry who I have spoken to—that this was just about rent control. In Scotland, it has been made clear what can happen when reforms are introduced without properly accounting for market balance. There has been a sharp reduction in landlord numbers, escalating rents and a shrinking supply of rental homes. This is not the future we want in England for our tenants and is exactly what this amendment seeks to prevent.
Recent findings from the Paragon Bank, based on a survey of over 500 landlords, reinforce this concern for us. An alarming 65% of respondents indicated that they are now more likely to scale back their property holdings as a direct result of current and proposed reforms. This is a clear indication of the potential real-world consequences of the Bill if the needs of small landlords are not adequately considered. Amendment 8 offers a modest but vital safeguard. It enables the Government’s reforms to proceed while providing breathing space for the small-scale landlords who play such a crucial role in meeting the housing needs of this country.
To conclude, I urge the Minister to listen carefully to the issues raised in this group and to give serious consideration to Amendment 8, not as a dilution of the Bill’s aims but as a necessary and constructive contribution to its long-term success. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jamieson
(1A) During a fixed term tenancy agreed under subsection (1), the landlord shall not be entitled to increase the rent as provided for by section 15.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow fixed term tenancies to continue if both the landlord and the tenant agree.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 9, in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott, I will speak also to Amendment 13, in my name and that of my noble friend. These amendments are grounded in a very simple but important principle: when landlords and tenants reach mutual agreement they should be trusted to make arrangements that reflect their individual needs and circumstances. This debate is not about fixed-term tenancies for their own sake; it is about preserving the ability of landlords and tenants to enter into legitimate, mutually agreed contracts that reflect flexibility and choice. If both parties are in agreement, there should be a legal mechanism to support such tenancies.
Amendments 9 and 13 introduce a degree of flexibility into the framework of the Bill, without in any way undermining its core objectives to enhance tenant security and stability in the rental market. Without these amendments the Bill risks reducing the security of tenants. Amendment 9, tabled by my noble friend and supported by noble Lords across the House, would allow fixed-term tenancies to continue, but only where both the landlord and tenant have freely and mutually agreed to such an arrangement.
The Renters’ Rights Bill seeks to strengthen the position of tenants in the rental market. I support these aims but, in our efforts to provide stronger protections, we must also ensure that we do not inadvertently remove tools and options that serve tenants well, particularly where those arrangements are entered into voluntarily and in good faith. Under this proposal the landlord would agree to suspend certain grounds for possession and refrain from rent increases during the fixed term. It strikes a careful and fair balance, giving tenants greater security and predictability while allowing landlords to plan ahead with confidence.
Amendment 13 in my name would ensure that landlords and tenants retain the ability to vary terms of the tenancy by agreement. This is a modest but important provision ensuring that necessary flexibility is not lost under what would otherwise become a rigid and inflexible structure. We cannot predict the future and need to allow scope to enable a tenant and a landlord to mutually agree changes to their agreement to reflect this; for instance, where they both wish to see modifications to the property or to enable a temporary subletting where a tenant is going to be away for a time.
Beyond the immediate relationship between landlord and tenant, this also speaks to something bigger. A modern, dynamic workforce depends on geographic mobility. Working-age adults must be able to move for the opportunity, whether it is a job, an academic course or to support a family. Scrapping the option of a mutually agreed fixed-term tenancy risks restricting that movement and, in turn, limits potential.
We believe that flexibility drives productivity. The economy cannot flourish if people are locked out of areas of opportunity simply because the housing arrangements no longer accommodate short-term needs. This is not just about following a job, it is about making it possible to succeed, wherever life takes you. When we support mobility through flexible, fair rental agreements, we open the door to a future where success is not defined by the postcode of your birth but by your ambition, determination and ability to seize opportunity.
These amendments do not seek to weaken tenant protections—quite the opposite. They create opportunities for tenants to request greater security and encourage landlords to provide it willingly and transparently. In a rental market as diverse and complex as ours, this kind of voluntary flexibility is not just welcome, it is essential. If the Bill is to be a true Renters’ Rights Bill, it must include the right to choose through mutual agreement the housing arrangements that best work for each individual and their family. That is what these amendments seek to enable, and I hope the Minister will give them careful and serious consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my direct interest in the private rented sector with lettings in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire. I am pleased to support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lords, Lord Truscott and Lord Jackson, and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, on her damascene conversion following the previous Renters (Reform) Bill. I hope we will achieve the same with the current Minister. I will not repeat their well-argued points in favour of the amendment but will make the following additional points and reiterations.
I approach the PRS from a rural background, where the average length of a tenancy is around seven years. There is little churn, in view of the long-term nature of the accommodation in rural areas. As a result, assured shorthold and fixed-term tenancies are popular. This is somewhat different from the urban PRS to which this Bill is largely directed. I cannot understand why the Government would object to the continuation of the freedom to contract for a fixed term if both parties agree, particularly as it provides flexibility and certainty to both. The landlord gets his guaranteed rent and the tenant can negotiate additional conditions such no rent reviews for a certain period, improvements and security for the term.
In Germany there are two types of tenancy: indefinite and fixed-term. Fixed-term tenancies have move-in and move-out clauses and neither party is obliged to renew. Minimum rental periods in Germany, whether indefinite or fixed, can be up to two years. The German system shows that the assured and fixed-term tenancies can work well together. The ability to contract for a fixed term also has the effect of reducing rental pressure in the overall market as longer-term tenancies act as a natural brake on rising rental costs as there are fewer opportunities to increase the rent.
Another major advantage of retaining fixed-term tenancies is that it gives confidence to buy-to-let lenders and to institutional investors, because mortgage payments are more secure, as is the financial return to the institutional investor. These are the types of landlord we should now be encouraging if the PRS is to grow and the problems of bad individual landlords are to be minimised, because they tend to employ professional management and to produce a better product. I urge the Government to look again at this matter.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the erudite speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I remind the Committee of my interest as a long-standing landlord and former tenant in the private rented sector.
Why do the Government insist that they know best when a majority of both tenants and landlords want fixed tenancies? That is a fact. The Minister quoted surveys earlier, but opinions have been sought and that is the case for both tenants and landlords. The Minister has never really explained why the Government think they know more and better than the people primarily affected. Is it a case of groupthink? I support Amendments 9 and 13, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. The Government should not, in my view, interfere in an agreement between two or more consenting adults.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, to which I have added my name. I will make some general observations. This amendment is helpful because it encourages a mutually agreed arrangement, where appropriate, between landlord and tenant, in order to avoid disruption, delay or litigation where they might otherwise arise, to the mutual benefit of both parties.
The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, is right to say that the wider philosophical argument is that the abolition of fixed terms will provide greater security for tenants and retain flexibility, but it is a surprising one, because a number of key issues undermine it. The abolition of a contract of a particular type in this way is an obvious infringement on the freedom of parties to agree such terms as they wish. On principle, it should be implemented only on the most cogent and urgent grounds, and no such grounds exist across the whole private rented sector.
There are also some situations in which tenants as well as landlords clearly benefit from fixed-term tenancies. Examples are student lets, lets related to fixed-term job postings or projects, and moving to be within a particular school’s catchment area. It obviously does not help tenants in these situations to be prohibited from obtaining the security of a fixed-term let. And landlords who are inflexible in their approach to the term of a tenancy and who are prepared to offer only a fixed term will do so at their own cost, as they will find that there is a smaller pool of potential tenants than for landlords who are flexible in their approach. This market-driven discouragement to fixed-term tenancies already exists and will continue to do so.
The stated aim in this legislation of enabling tenants to leave poor-quality properties is poorly thought through. The first point to make in this regard is that it will usually be apparent to a tenant before moving in whether a property is of poor quality. If a tenant moves in full knowledge of that want of quality, the fairness of allowing them to move out mid-term is not obvious. It may be true that, sadly, tenants often do not have a choice, but if it is, leaving mid-term is unlikely to be an option, for the same reason. It is better to find ways to coerce landlords into making living conditions better. However, such cases can be legislated for by the simple expedient of implying into a lease a warranty that a property is fit for habitation—a test already enshrined in statute in the Defective Premises Act 1972. If a tenant can show that that warranty has been breached, he or she may terminate immediately and leave, free of future liabilities.
In any case, parties can and already often do agree break clauses in fixed-term tenancies. There is no reason why they should not continue to do this, particularly if changes in circumstances, such as a job not working out, can be anticipated. This is also fairer to the landlord, since it alerts the landlord to a possible change in circumstances in advance.
Secondly, although circumstances sometimes change unexpectedly, that is true for both sides and giving tenants free rein in this regard while landlords have none is inherently unfair. In practice, if circumstances change unexpectedly—for example, a tenant loses their job or an income-earning partner ceases to be able to work or passes away unexpectedly—few landlords would be likely to insist on a tenant seeing out their term. It is not in their interest to have a tenant who cannot pay the rent. Most will be prepared to negotiate an early exit in such circumstances and instal a tenant who can. The rare residue of cases where a tenant has suffered a change of circumstances and wishes to leave but a landlord is unwilling to allow them to do so can be met by legislation stopping far short of an outright ban on fixed-term tenancies where hitherto there has been mutual agreement between the parties.
Finally, there is a point to be made about the concept of seeking to protect the rights of tenants in residential tenancies without regard to the wider context of how the legislation impacts on the pool of properties available for tenants. The abolition of fixed-term tenancies means that many landlords in the PRS will prefer not to let at all rather than be limited to letting on a periodic tenancy. Preparing a tenancy for a let involves a considerable amount of time and effort. If tenants can simply come and go on a whim, that time and effort will go unrewarded and fewer people will undertake it. That will reduce the size of the sector and so drive down tenant choice—to the detriment, rather than the benefit, of tenants. Tenant protections are worth obtaining only if the sector remains attractive to both landlords and tenants, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said earlier. The proposed abolition of fixed-term tenancies fails to achieve that balance, particularly if there was agreement previously.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for moving the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and I thank the noble Lords, Lord Carrington, Lord Jackson and Lord Truscott, for their thoughtful interventions in this debate.
Amendment 9 would retain fixed terms in the future assured tenancy system. Landlords and tenants would be able to agree to include a fixed term in tenancy agreements under which the landlord could not use the grounds for selling, occupation or redevelopment or increase the rent during the fixed period. Amendment 13 would remove the restriction on varying or adding new tenancy terms covering fixed terms or rent periods. I have already set out today why the Government will not accept amendments that would reintroduce fixed terms. I hate to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on the Damascene conversion front, but that is not for me today. Allowing the option of fixed terms only creates the illusion of choice for tenants. In an oversubscribed market, tenants often feel they must sign what is required of them by landlords.
The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, referred to groupthink, with reference to fixed-term tenancies and the purpose of the Bill. I prefer to refer to democracy. We set out an intention in relation to renters’ rights and received a strong electoral mandate for that, which we are now putting in place. So it is not groupthink; it is a democratic mandate that we have to deliver what we have set out in the Bill.
Fixed terms do not place equal requirements on both parties. In reality, landlords retain the ability to end the tenancy when the tenant is at fault, but tenants cannot leave the tenancy for any reason, even if the property is not safe to live in.
The amendments would also create a legal ambiguity about what new contractual terms could cover. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, raised the issues of rural tenancies—I know we will return to that in future groups—and investors, on which I have already commented so I will not repeat my comments around that. For the reasons that I have set out here and in previous debates, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the thoughtful contributions made by my noble friend Lord Jackson and the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Truscott, and for the response from the Minister.
What has emerged from this discussion is a shared recognition that flexibility and tenant protection need not be opposing forces. That is a view held not just within this Chamber; across the housing sector, there is broad concern that eliminating the ability for landlords and tenants to enter fixed-term agreements by mutual consent risks overlooking the real-world complexities of today’s rental market. Propertymark has warned that fixed-term tenancies—when agreed freely—offer tenants a sense of security and help landlords to plan with certainty. It notes that these arrangements are particularly valued by renters with lower incomes, as they offer both predictability and peace of mind.
However, we must not overlook that predictability is just as important for landlords. When there is a clear start and end date, both parties benefit from a secure timeline. For tenants, that means a guaranteed period of stability. For landlords, it means reliable income and the ability to plan financially without the fear of an abrupt vacancy. By contrast, rolling tenancies without the option of a mutually agreed fixed term introduce a level of uncertainty. Tenants may leave with just two months’ notice, potentially leaving landlords with no income and limited time to find a new occupant. This kind of unpredictability is not just inconvenient; it undermines the landlord’s confidence and may discourage future investment in the sector, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, mentioned, given the difficulty of getting buy-to-let mortgages.
These concerns are not hypothetical. In a recent survey of more than 900 landlords, nearly two-thirds said they planned to leave the sector, reduce their portfolio or shift towards short-term or holiday lets, citing this Bill as a central reason. A key concern on this side of the House is the availability of rental property. We remain concerned, and we have not received assurances from the Minister on that score. Many feel that their voices have not been heard during this process and their legitimate concerns have been too easily dismissed.
Of course we must listen to those who raise valid concerns about the historical misuse of certain tenancy models, but these amendments are not about reinstating the past. They are about creating a future where arrangements are respected and supported. This is not about rebalancing the system in favour of landlords but about recognising that trust and stability can emerge where both parties are empowered to agree terms that reflect their own needs.
We cannot afford to ignore the very real concern that excessive rigidity will push landlords out of the market and make it more difficult for tenants, leaving behind a smaller, less responsive and more expensive private rented sector. If a student, contract worker or family navigating a temporary relocation agree on a fixed term that suits both parties, should we really prevent that flexibility? That is precisely what Amendments 9 and 13 in my name seek to preserve. The ability to fix a term by agreement, or to vary the terms of a tenancy, where both parties consent, reflects the real needs of the modern, mobile and diverse rental landscape. It ensures that, where there is mutual understanding, the law does not become an unnecessary barrier.
I say again that this is not about exceptions to the Bill’s purpose but about contributions to it. The right to housing includes the right to enter into fair agreements that are mutual, transparent and freely chosen. That is also why I have included a probing amendment on why the Government are seeking to end certain types of assured tenancy. I hope the Minister will give these proposals the careful consideration that they deserve. There will still be time for a Damascene conversion as the Bill proceeds. I thank all noble Lords for the richness of today’s debate. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower
“unless the tenant holds a rank under Section 13 of the Police Act 1996 when the tenancy is entered into.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow fixed term tenancies for all ranks in the police to continue reflecting the fact that the police are often deployed away from their usual place of residence.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my entry in the register.
There are situations where both tenants and landlords would benefit from a fixed-term tenancy, as the amendments with numerous exemptions set out. Examples include families seeking stability in a school catchment area or workers on long-term contracts. If all parties agree, there should be a legal provision for such tenancies, providing clarity and peace of mind.
This is not about fixed-term tenancies for their own sake; it is about maintaining a legitimate contract that reflects openness and flexibility. Enabling the mobility of working-age adults across the length and breadth of the nation is essential for economic growth. A modern, dynamic workforce needs the freedom to move, to adapt and to pursue opportunities wherever they may arise. Scrapping mutually agreed fixed-term tenancies will hinder that mobility, as has been acknowledged right across your Lordships’ House.
In this amendment, I seek to demonstrate that police officers often need to move right across the country and, like those in many other occupations, would benefit from a fixed-term tenancy. Relocation can provide officers the chance to expand their skills. I was speaking earlier to my noble friend Lady Manzoor, who pointed out that junior doctors and nurses, for example, rotate for specialist training. In respect of police officers, sometimes officers are moved to work on high-profile cases—if they possess particular qualifications, for example. Specialist skills are needed right across the country and need to remain fluid. Officers move to new roles to expand their own personal experience, and we need this mobility. This should apply to police officers of all ranks, of course. I am thinking particularly of provincial officers who come to London, for example, to work on the national units that are based here, such as counterterrorism. I ask the Minister to give due consideration to this amendment, which is vital if we are to maintain a flexible, experienced and, indeed, rounded police service. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 11 in my name would allow fixed-term tenancies for professional sports athletes to continue. The Minister who has come in to take the Statement knows well that I view all proposed legislation through the lens of somebody passionate about sport and promoting the best interests of sport and recreation. I declare my interests as a former Minister for Sport in another place, as chairman of the British Olympic Association during the run-up to London 2012 and during 2012 and, possibly most importantly, as a Leeds supporter still celebrating the success yesterday of our promotion back into the Premier League.
Mention of Leeds is relevant, because the many professional sports men and women to whom my amendment refers include our professional footballers. They include professional rugby union players, many of whom are on contracts that run, in effect, from July through to the following June, so their housing is critical in that context. Professional athletes and their coaches, and people on the contracts that I mention in my amendment, are concerned about the ending of fixed-term tenancies, due to the potential for disruption and uncertainty in their professional and personal lives. Disruption and uncertainty, to all of us who are keen on sport, are the enemies of performance, and one thing that we really need to do and concentrate on in promoting our professional sports men and women and their interests is to ensure that that is not the case in their domestic arrangements and in their housing.
Fixed-term tenancies provide a degree of stability. They give the mobility often required by sporting careers. Ending these fixed terms, particularly with shorter notice periods, will be challenging for athletes and professional coaches who need to adjust quickly to new locations and potentially face difficulties in finding suitable housing, impacting their overall well-being and their performance. This applies not just to footballers, rugby union players or rugby league players, but to all professional sportsmen, all professional coaches and their entourages. The theory of marginal gains comes to mind: it is very relevant in this context. This is where you get small yet very significant improvements which can lead to substantial results, and one of the key points in that is to have a stable arrangement, a fixed-term tenancy, for housing that lasts throughout that contract; namely, in this case, a year.
In summary, my concerns are, first, about mobility and career. Professional sport is often characterised by frequent moves, and fixed-term tenancies provide a framework for a predictable schedule, allowing athletes and coaches to establish roots and plan their lives in a stable environment. Secondly, there is the uncertainty and disruption. The prospect of ending fixed-term tenancies, especially with potentially shorter notice periods, will create uncertainty and disruption for professional sportsmen, and this can be particularly challenging for athletes and coaches who need to adjust quickly to new locations, potentially facing difficulties finding suitable housing. Thirdly, there are the financial implications. While a fixed-term tenancy may provide a degree of stability, the costs of moving and finding new accommodation can be significant, and the uncertainty of ending fixed-term tenancies could also impact financial planning. Finally, there is the impact on performance, which I have mentioned, where the stress and disruption associated with moving can affect an athlete’s or a coach’s performance. Finding suitable housing, especially in new areas, can require time and effort, potentially impacting training and preparation.
There are clearly benefits from periodic contracts, but in professional sport, such a move can and will be disruptive. I argue that we must protect the unique needs of professional sports men and women. These are the reasons why I have tabled this amendment, which I hope will have the support of the Committee and the Government.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, Amendment 62 in this group, in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, is also about a particular form of occupational housing. I need to declare an interest: I own one small apartment in the West Midlands which has been let out to a tenant for a long time, but, according to some of the media, that makes me a kind of Rachmanite landlord who is trying to destroy the Bill. I can assure your Lordships that that is the last thing I have in mind.
This is about people who live in tied accommodation. As a Church of England bishop, I live in what I suppose we should call a tied palace rather than a tied cottage, but it is accommodation that I inhabit only for as long as I exercise my current office. That is the situation for the vast majority of stipendiary Church of England clergy, many other ministers of religion, and also for farm workers and estate workers who are required, for the better performance of their duties, to live where they actually work. It is a category that is accepted by HMRC, in terms of taxation legislation, as a special form of tenure. A large proportion of those who live in tied accommodation do not have the capacity during their working lives to save up and be able to provide for themselves in retirement, when they eventually have to move out of their tied dwelling.
I will not benefit from the amendment I am proposing to your Lordships today, because I will be able to accommodate myself by other means, but the Church of England Pensions Board lets out 50 or so properties each year—that is the average over the last few years—to retiring clergy, or sometimes to the spouse or surviving civil partner of a member of the clergy who has died in office, usually at about 60% of what the market rent would normally be in those circumstances. These properties are made available for clergy to look at any time up to about five years before they retire. The importance of that is we know that when people retire and move out of tied accommodation, they need time to think about where they are going to live, what sort of community they will want to settle in and put down roots in, because it is probably where they will stay for the rest of their lives.
At the moment, what the pensions board is able to do, and what other landlords who are used to accommodating people in tied accommodation can do, is to reserve a property for some period of time in advance and let it out in the meantime, but that will not be possible if the Bill passes in its present form. All that my amendment seeks to do is to make a small change that will allow an extra ground for granting possession where it is to accommodate somebody who is moving out of tied accommodation and the person who is providing their accommodation in retirement is somebody who is closely connected with who they were working for. It may be a former employer. In the case of clergy, who are officeholders rather than employees —a bit like police officers, we are officeholders—it will be an appropriate charity that provides accommodation in retirement.
This would make very little difference to the availability of rented housing overall—it would not make it impossible for other people to find properties to rent—but, as we have already heard several times today, there are people who wish to rent for a shorter period of time. It would be known that these properties will be subject to that clawback when the person who has earmarked them retires. If this amendment is not accepted, I fear that what will happen is that properties will simply lie empty for several years until the member of the clergy or the farm worker is ready to retire into them, and thus take properties away from the rented market, which I do not think is the aim of the Bill at all. I think this is a rather modest, quite niche measure, which would affect only particular categories of labourer, but for them it would make a huge difference to be able to identify where they are going to live when they retire a few years ahead of retirement and to know that that property will be available for them on the day of their retirement.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly from these Benches, in part to spare my noble friend’s voice—I assure noble Lords that no wine has been taken this evening.
I will stress something that is beginning to cause confusion on these Benches: the suggestion that an assured shorthold tenancy is in some way secure. It has been well documented over many years that huge insecurity is attached to an assured shorthold tenancy. Everything that we have learned about the huge turnover has for so many tenants been attached to the fact that ASTs are sometimes down to six months. A periodic tenancy—which has no end—is surely more secure than these fragile assured shorthold tenancies, which are often for only six months and cause huge insecurity for so many tenants. For that reason, these Benches are extremely concerned about the current direction of travel.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. Indeed, it follows on very neatly from our earlier debate on fixed-term tenancies. My noble friends Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Moynihan made compelling arguments for why we should permit fixed-term tenancies for both professional athletes and police officers. The benefits were set out with conviction and clarity, and I hope the Government Benches have listened. Of course, I would prefer that fixed-term tenancies continued to be available for everyone.
I will not rehearse the arguments made earlier, but does not the growing list of amendments seeking exemptions highlight the real value that fixed-term tenancies offer, supporting people from all walks of life, from athletes to police officers and everyone in between? Nurses, doctors, students, military personnel and even performers can all benefit from a fixed-term tenancy. The Government should consider these benefits. In removing fixed terms altogether, the Bill risks taking away short-term lets that serve as a real benefit for many thousands of people.
I turn to the Minister’s Amendment 59, which expands ground 5C to account for police officers. These Benches understand the importance of an employer’s need to regain possession of rented property if the tenancy is linked to a tenant’s employment. I thank the Minister for setting out details of the amendment.
Finally, I wish to note Amendment 62, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I thank him for the chat we had about it, because I had no idea that this happened within the Church of England. Enabling a debate on possession for the purposes of housing a person leaving tied accommodation is most welcome. This is an important issue, as it ensures that a landlord, who is often also the employer, can regain possession of a property when it is needed to house a new employee, but also—as in the case of the Church of England—allows the Church to regain a property that is required for the retiring employee. We must recognise the value of maintaining the availability of essential employment-linked housing, and consider how best to safeguard it in practice. Additionally, we must not discourage landlords from helping tenants by giving them extra time to move out, providing references or offering alternative housing, especially in sectors such as education or farming—or, indeed, in the Church.
This debate has encapsulated the depth and breadth of the Bill, and the numerous areas that it covers. A modern, dynamic workforce needs the freedom to move, adapt and pursue opportunities wherever they arise. We must have a laser focus on occupational needs when considering any changes to the rental market.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, before I respond to these amendments, I congratulate Leeds United on their promotion to the Premier League. They are not my team, but what an achievement. We were all shouting when they got through the other day, so well done to Leeds. I have several close friends who are Leeds supporters, and they will be listening to that with interest.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Moynihan, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for their amendments, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Scott, for their comments. These amendments are on fixed terms and occupational possession grounds. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, is quite right to highlight the insecurity of assured shorthold tenancies. They are not secure tenancies, and I do not accept that it is better for tenants to have a fixed-term tenancy than a periodic tenancy, which is theirs until they decide to end it and give the necessary two months’ notice.
I will start with Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. These would retain fixed terms where the property is let to any ranking serving police officer and to professional athletes. As with Amendment 7, the Government believe tenants should not have reduced flexibility and greater financial obligation because of their personal circumstances. I am not convinced there is any case for police officers, who put themselves on the front line in the service of others, to benefit any less from the new tenancy regime. I do not think the case for that has been made.
We have heard concerns about ensuring provision of housing for the police, and that is why government Amendment 59 amends possession ground 5C to ensure it is available to police forces and others who provide accommodation for their officers. This will allow landlords to take possession where a tenancy was granted to an officer in relation to their service in the office of constable, and the tenancy is no longer required for the purpose for which it was granted. I do not consider it necessary to retain fixed terms in addition to this.
Needless to say, we all want to see the UK’s excellent professional athletes succeed in their endeavours. The whole Committee is aware of the sporting achievements of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and his advocacy and service on behalf of British sport. However, it would seem a shame to lock athletes into fixed terms, which might prevent them moving around the country in pursuit of sporting greatness. We would not want to do that. However, if an athlete is in accommodation provided by their employer, then ground 5C would apply and the tenancy could be ended, as necessary.
Amendment 62, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, seeks to create two new grounds for possession. The first, new ground 8A, would enable a landlord to seek possession from an existing tenant in order to re-let that dwelling to a former employee—of the landlord, we assume—who was housed in accommodation tied to their role. It would also apply to other types of workers, such as officeholders. I appreciate the aim of the right reverend Prelate’s amendment and, following engagement with bishops, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, we are sympathetic and understand that the Church wishes to house retired clergy. However, after very careful consideration, I genuinely believe this should not be at the expense of existing tenants. We have already created expanded or strengthened possession grounds to cover situations—such as housing employees or evicting tenants to use the dwelling as supported accommodation—where we believe that the needs of those involved can be deemed to overrule the general principle that renters deserve security of tenure and should be able to put down roots in their long-term homes.
We are not of the view that housing a former employee of the landlord meets the bar to overrule the general principle that private renters should have secure homes. In order to house the former employee, another tenant would need to be evicted, through no fault of their own, placing them in the position of needing to find a new home. This simply moves the problem around. As such, we are content that the current grounds strike the right balance.
The second proposed ground, 8B, seeks to enable possession of a tenanted property so it can be relet to a surviving spouse, civil partner or dependant of a person described in the previous proposed ground who died before being required to vacate the accommodation linked to their role. Although I appreciate the reasons behind wanting to help people in these circumstances, again, this proposed new ground would mean an existing tenant could be evicted through no fault of their own, simply moving the problem around and creating more insecurity for more tenants. For the reasons I have set out, I ask that noble Lords not press their amendments.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for his contribution on sport and to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for his remarks on the clergy. I am disappointed, indeed a little surprised, that the Minister does not agree that police officers fall into a particular category, but, for the time being anyway, I shall consider what she said and therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Tackling Child Sexual Abuse
(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the issue we are debating is incredibly serious and we should always remember that, at the centre of this debate, are hundreds, if not thousands, of victims, and children at risk of becoming victims, of the horrific crime of child sexual abuse. It is vital to remember that the discussions we have on this issue should focus on justice for victims of sexual abuse, urgent action to prevent further abuse, and the steps we can take as a country to safeguard members of our community and communicate in no uncertain terms that we will never tolerate these crimes.
The Statement delivered in the other place before the Easter Recess by the Safeguarding Minister has raised several questions. One point of concern held by many across both Houses is the decision to reject calls for a national statutory inquiry into rape gangs in favour of five local ones. The detail on these inquiries is vague. It is deeply concerning that, months after they were announced, we still know almost nothing about them, with only one having been announced.
The Government’s decision to undertake numerous localised inquiries means there is a risk that the local authorities that presided over these crimes are not held to account, as they should be. In their Statement, the Government said that they would
“adopt a flexible approach to support both full independent local inquiries and more bespoke work”.
Certain local councils, such as Bradford, where the abuse was at its worst, are refusing to participate in local inquiries. How will the Government ensure that all local authorities, including those in Bradford, participate fully in these inquiries?
We welcome that the Government have decided to continue our policy of a mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse. Children who are abused need to know that if they come forward, they will be heard. Adults that children trust, such as teachers and healthcare workers, have the capacity to act on behalf of victims to make sure that their abuse can be stopped and those responsible brought to justice. However, it is important to recognise that we need to support those adults who will hold these new responsibilities. By nature, the situations they will be helping to resolve will be highly emotional, stressful and dangerous. I therefore ask the Minister how the Government will make sure that those adults are supported in their important work of reporting child sexual abuse and how those adults, like the children they are supporting, can be sure that their reports will be taken seriously and their well-being supported.
The national audit on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, was announced on 16 January. The Government gave assurances that the report would be concluded within three months. People across this country have had their faith in the system shaken by stories of this abuse. It has now been more than three months since the report was announced. I must therefore ask the Minister as a matter of urgency: when will the report be published? Can he please name a date on which the final report will be released in writing? Can the Government show that they are acting in good faith by producing this report as soon as possible? It is now overdue.
Finally, I want to touch on the point of aggravating factors in some instances of abuse. It was disappointing that the Government did not engage properly with this issue in the debate that followed the Statement in the House of Commons. It is clear from the patterns of abuse we have observed, often connected with co-ordinated abuse undertaken by grooming gangs, that ethnic and religious factors play a key role in characterising the nature of these crimes and who the victims are. I therefore close by asking the Minister whether he accepts that, in many cases, these crimes were racially and religiously aggravated, and how, without a national inquiry, we can understand what part those factors played. Understanding why these crimes were committed, which groups are particularly at risk of abuse and the various factors that motivated abusers to perpetrate these abhorrent offences, is fundamental to making sure that our next steps to prevent further abuse are as effective as possible.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Brinton should be speaking on this Statement on our behalf, but, unfortunately, she has been unwell and so cannot be with us.
From these Benches, I begin by paying tribute to the victims and survivors of child sexual exploitation—individuals who, for far too long, were not only ignored but actively failed by the very institutions meant to protect them. Many were treated as offenders rather than as victims and retraumatised by police, social services and others in power. Their courage in continuing to demand justice, even after being silenced for years, is nothing short of remarkable.
We welcome the Government’s Statement before Easter updating the House on their actions to tackle child sexual abuse and exploitation. It is right that we now see momentum after years of delay. The grooming gangs task force is making arrests and a national audit by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is under way. These are important steps. But this update also highlights how much time has been lost. It has now been over two years since the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse was published, drawing on over 2 million pages of evidence and testimonies of more than 7,000 victims. Yet the previous Government failed to implement a single recommendation. That was a catastrophic failure, for which survivors have paid the price.
We welcome the progress now being made on the independent inquiry’s key proposals, particularly the creation of a new child protection authority and the commitment to mandatory reporting. We also support the proposed criminal offence of obstructing someone from making a report, but how will that be implemented? Who will be held to account? Crucially, will this reporting duty extend to all relevant institutions —faith settings, private schools and voluntary groups—where abuse has so often been hidden?
On mandatory reporting, while the Government now promise legislation through the Crime and Policing Bill, questions remain. The duty must be clear, enforceable and properly resourced. Professionals and volunteers need legal protection when they report, and we must see firm consequences when people deliberately obstruct such reports.
Support for survivors also remains a concern. We welcome the commitment to double funding for national support services in this financial year, but this must be part of a longer-term plan. Survivors live with this trauma for life, and they deserve continuity of care, access to therapeutic support and a clear, properly funded path to justice and recompense. Therefore, we on these Benches were disappointed by the delay in progressing the national redress scheme recommended by the independent inquiry. The scale of this proposal is indeed significant, but so too is the suffering it seeks to address. I ask the Minister, why must survivors wait yet again until the spending review later this year? Surely, they have waited long enough.
While we welcome steps to remove the limitation period for civil claims, we must be vigilant that the shift in burden of proof does not get lost in procedural detail. Victims must not have to endure fresh ordeals simply to secure the justice they were denied as children. So I ask the Minister, will all of the independent inquiry’s 20 recommendations be implemented in full? Will the newly proposed child protection authority serve not just as a symbolic body but as an authority empowered to enforce, investigate and hold failing institutions to account?
Survivors have done their part. They spoke their truth, often at great personal cost. Now it is time for us to show that we are finally listening, and that their suffering was not in vain. We must ensure that this renewed energy leads not only to new laws and frameworks but to a culture that puts children’s safety before institutional reputation.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments on the Statement. I begin by wishing the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, well; I look forward to seeing her back in her place shortly.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, is right: this is a very serious issue. There are some 500,000 victims of child sexual abuse each year, and that is an enormous number of victims who carry that with them for a considerable time. The duty of government is to ensure that we protect those victims, that we put in place preventive measures where possible, and that we hold to account people who have committed those crimes. I hope that the Government’s response to date has shown that this is the direction of travel we are trying to undertake.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, that this is a positive series of actions after a period of delay, for which I do not hold the shadow Minister accountable but which I think needs to be reflected upon. We have tried to take strong action since 4 July last year. That has been indicated by the response to the IICSA recommendations, of which we have accepted the bulk. We have also put in place mandatory reporting measures and other measures in the Crime and Policing Bill, which the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, mentioned. We have put in place a response to the grooming gangs issue, which we were planning to do before Christmas but which was speeded on by events. I think it has been a positive response.
To the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, one of the responses that we have put in place is the fund of £5 million for local authorities, wherever they may be, to bid against that. We have established a framework for those bids to ensure that authorities can undertake inquiries or provide support for victims in their local area. The noble Lord will know that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary indicated in January that Bradford would be a priority for that expenditure, but all local authorities will shortly be able to bid against that fund. That, I hope, will help to put in place some preventive measures in areas where local authorities feel that they have failed in their duty to date, or where they need further support or local inquiries accordingly.
We have put in place the mandatory reporting measures as well as the measures that the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, mentioned, in relation to support for victims. For example, there is now therapeutic support for the lifelong impacts of child sexual abuse, and we are committed to improving victim-centred therapeutic support as a whole. We have also undertaken particular support to ensure that the child sexual abuse review panel can now look at closed cases, even if they happened after 2013, which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will welcome.
The report from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, which has been mentioned, was a three-month report which will be reporting shortly. I cannot give the noble Lord a date as yet, but I hope that he will understand that, when we said we wanted a short, sharp report from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, we meant an early, quick review of existing evidence on grooming gangs. This point was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, as well. That will be brought forward in due course, in very short order, and I look forward to debating and discussing the outcome of that. It will be difficult for all involved, but it will be an important contribution.
There is also the independent review of progress on the policing response to grooming gangs by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, which touches on both Front Bench points. That is a very important issue. As I have mentioned, we have also put in place the victim-centred £5 million fund.
It is right and proper that we focus on some of the issues around grooming gangs and, as the noble Lord mentioned, the reasons why they happened. However, I do not wish to focus just on ethnicity; I wish to ensure that individuals who commit crimes are brought and held to account, whatever their ethnicity. I also say to the noble Lord, and I hope we share common ground on this, that we should not use the issue of political correctness to avoid attacking and challenging areas where there have been issues of concern raised about grooming gangs.
I would like to focus particularly on the fact that offenders must be pursued and tracked down whatever their race, gender, sexuality or religion, because offenders are offenders. The grooming gang issue has raised a number of other issues that need to be addressed, which is what we are trying to do with the measures we have brought forward. However, it is important that we do not just say that this happens in only one community, because it does not. Therefore, we need to hold all individuals to account for those issues.
I am trying to cover all the points that were mentioned. The criminal offences we have put in the police and crime Bill are important. We will discuss those in this House in June or July—certainly before the summer. That also gives power for the Home Office’s responsibilities on the IICSA report.
If noble Lords look at the nine months since 4 July —which is all that I can account for—they will see that we have implemented and put on the agenda legislation on IICSA responsibilities, established the fund, given powers to police to examine previously uncovered areas of abuse, given victims the right to challenge for the reopening of cases and put in place support for local authorities to undertake their own inquiries.
We could certainly have a national inquiry, as the noble Lord has mentioned, but this Government’s judgment is that we know what the problem is. We have had seven years of the IICSA report, leading to recommendations, and we have local challenges in certain areas that we need to examine. The way forward is to look at how to implement action on the recommendations, rather than to set up an inquiry that would last still longer and probably come to the same conclusions we can make now, having had the IICSA inquiry before.
That is the judgment of government. I sense that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, disagrees with that, but I hope that the answers I have given to both him and the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, are helpful. I will look in detail at Hansard to see whether I have missed any issues; if I have, I will respond in due course.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I had the duty to give evidence to IICSA while I was a Minister in the Department for Education, so I am grateful for the Government’s action on mandatory reporting. I am grateful to see in this Statement that the recommendation for a child protection authority is being taken forward and note that it will be sent out to consultation. I would be grateful to know from the Minister whether it is envisaged that that authority would deal with some of the gaps in DBS checks that still exist. For instance, as far as I understand it, if you are a private tutor not employed by a company, you cannot get a DBS check.
I would also be grateful to know whether, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, asked, there will be broad enough jurisdiction over charities and, in particular, faith institutions—which may be struggling with their safeguarding investigations—so that the authority would be authorised to intervene in those charities within the Church of England. There are many smaller charities with some kind of oversight function over faith institutions where there are vulnerabilities preventing them doing those investigations swiftly. Does the Minister envisage that the child protection authority would have that jurisdiction?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the work that the noble Baroness did on this issue while in government.
The new child protection authority will be established to prioritise vulnerable children by making the child protection system clearer and more unified and by ensuring that there are ongoing improvements. It will try to achieve the points that the noble Baroness mentioned. By the end of this year—which I know seems like a long time to noble Lords and Baronesses—we will consult on how we establish the child protection authority and what its functions and responsibilities will be in more detail.
We have responded to the IICSA recommendation to establish the authority, and therefore it will be done. However, it is important that we consult widely on what it is, what its powers are and what areas it covers, so I cannot pre-empt that in answering the points that the noble Baroness made today. There will in due course be opportunities for full consultation and, ultimately, for this House to determine, with the House of Commons, the format and responsibilities of that body.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, this problem has been going on for decades. I am really disappointed that my party did not do enough when we were in government, but those victims are not being well served. Having a national inquiry is absolutely a must. There are many areas that are still not being looked at with the sort of rigour that we should be looking at them with, and my noble friend Lady Berridge mentioned the example of charities.
At the end of it, there are big cultural issues in some communities that we need to address, but we also need to address why institutions were not coming forward to make sure that there was no favour against the victims. I think that victims will feel incredibly let down if we do not give them a rigorous inquiry. I do not have much faith in local inquiries; I come from a city where these issues have been going on for decades.
I hope that the Minister can take on board that some of us are really concerned about places that are not checked regularly, where this sort of behaviour is still going on, under the protection of saying, “Well, we did not quite get it because we did not understand the culture”—and that is regardless of the faith or ethnicity involved.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope that the noble Baroness will bear with me. I understand that there is a case to be made for a national inquiry, but the view that the Government have taken is that the IICSA recommendations, made over seven years—which were put to the previous Government and are now being implemented over the next 12 months by this Government —are the basis of what would come out of any national inquiry. There are issues to address, and we have tried to ensure that there is an independent review of the policing response in the areas that the noble Baroness has mentioned. If there are issues about the culture, or how those charges or investigations took place, they will be looked at.
There is the pot of money that we put aside for local authorities to determine a local response, if they wish, and they can apply for that. We are putting in place a framework that will made be public very shortly. We are trying to ensure that the victims, which the noble Baroness rightly put at the heart of her contribution to the House, are served well, which is why we want to ensure that we do not drag out, over a long period, things that we can do now.
The review of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, will report shortly with immediate responses about what happened in certain local authority areas; undoubtedly, it will be painful reading and will create further debate. There will be the police and inspectorate reports on the current positions that we have talked about to date. The legislation currently before the House of Commons, on the recommendations that will come forward shortly, will put in place, by the end of this year, a range of measures that will, I hope, prevent the creation of future victims.
I understand why both the noble Baroness and her Front Bench have called for a national inquiry, but I believe that the response needs to be made now. That is why we are trying to put some energy—through my ministerial colleagues in the House of Commons—into this area to deliver some urgent outcomes. We are always open to further lessons. This is not the end of a process; it is an ongoing process. The key thing should be to prevent future victims, to prevent systematic abuse and to hold those people who have abused to account.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister emphasised the importance of now, but I want to emphasise that these are not historic cases of grooming gang abuse. If you look, you will see that the rape and systematic sexual abuse of young women and girls is still happening. We sometimes talk about it as though it was in the past, but it is happening now. That is why some of us get frustrated at the rather slow response.
The Minister keeps saying—this was also said in the other place—that there is a £5 million fund that councils can apply for, as though it is something they would want to apply for. The frustration is that the councils do not want to apply for the money because they are the people who are being accused of covering up the abuse in the first place. So they are not exactly queuing up and saying, “Give me some money, so I can look into myself”. That is why so many of the victims, from Rochdale, Bradford, Huddersfield, Oxford and so on, feel so frustrated: they feel like they are banging their heads against a brick wall.
Although I have reservations about mandatory reporting, in the instances of the grooming gangs, reports were made. People knew about it. The reports were made to people in social services, education and so on, but they were ignored. They were covered up and people looked the other way. When the Minister says that we have immediate solutions such as mandatory reporting or a £5 million fund, it just sounds like he is talking about a different issue.
I will make one final point. These are gangs, not just arbitrary individuals. With child abuse in the Church, we did not shy away from recognising specific child abuse scandals, but it did not mean that I then thought that everybody in the Church of England or every Catholic was an abuser. We should not shy away from the particular ethnicity and religion of these gangs now, because it does not mean we are saying that all people of that religion or ethnicity are paedophiles or rapists—of course not. Do not let us be frightened to say the truth.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s contribution, as ever. Since the election, a new child sexual abuse police performance framework has been developed. We have put in place legislation, which will be before this House shortly, on online offending, abuse and grooming enabled by artificial intelligence. We have put in place new performance powers for Border Force to detect digitally held child sex abuse material at the border. We are putting new restrictions on sex offenders changing their names. We are increasing investment in law enforcement capability through police undercover online networks and tackling organised exploitation programmes. Those measures are before the House now.
The Government have had to both develop that at policy level and put it into legislation and are now taking those matters through both Houses of Parliament. Slow though it might seem, in my experience of nearly 14 years as a Minister over two sets of Governments, it is actually quite a speedy process. By the end of this year, we should have legislation in place to deal with a whole range of issues that are currently being recommended to us and are important areas which will help prevent abuse and support victims.
The noble Baroness mentions mandatory reporting. Yes, it is there and, yes, it was ignored. The difference now is that, in the legislation before the House of Commons which will soon be before this House, there will be professional sanctions against those who fail to undertake mandatory reporting. That is not the case currently, and that is why we are strengthening the regime on mandatory reporting to try to ensure that we beef it up to hold people to account if they fail to report incidences of sexual abuse that come before them.
The noble Baroness is right that we should not ignore where abuses are undertaken by particular ethnic minorities, but the simple point that I would make is that we should tackle the sexual abuse of children wherever it comes from. If there are particular lessons to be learned from the grooming gangs issue, that is what the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, will bring to us very shortly, that is what the police are looking at now through a historical reassessment of the cases and that is what we have asked HMIC to examine as well. I simply say to the noble Baroness that there are things that she thinks may not be happening, but I hope she can trust us that there are positive actions being taken by the Government on these issues and there will be further reports back and legislation in this House during the course of the next few months.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to have this short session this evening. I also gave evidence at IICSA in person: I was an expert witness on Anglican religious communities, because that was one of the guises in which Bishop Peter Ball had justified his abuse.
I want to pick up on mandatory reporting, which has been referred to already. For some in the Church of England, and for many in the Roman Catholic Church and some other churches as well, the tradition of the seal of the confessional has been honoured for many centuries and established in canon law in this land. There is an arguable case that the seal allows somebody—and it is more likely to be a victim or witness who comes to the confessional—to make a kind of protected disclosure, which then often would lead to them being helped to make a more public disclosure and allow a perpetrator to be taken to justice. I hope there will be careful discussions with religious bodies as to exactly where the seal of the confessional will fit in with this; I know my Catholic colleagues will particularly be concerned around that. We want what will produce the best safeguarding, but it is not simply that mandatory reporting or getting rid of the seal of the confessional will get better reporting at the end of the day.
On redress, I am vice chair of the Church of England redress board. We are setting up our own scheme because we just could not be bothered to wait for the IICSA recommendation on redress to come into force. But we also think it is important that we are the ones who will be paying out the money where we did wrong to somebody—whether it was in the original abuse, in colluding with a cover-up or in failing to take a disclosure seriously. I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on whether, if we do have a national redress scheme, there will be some effort to recoup the costs from the bodies that were responsible for the abuse, or covering up the abuse, in the first instance, rather than this simply being something that the taxpayer ends up picking up.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his approach to the issue. I hope I can reassure him that I have already had representations from churches, and I have received at the Home Office a delegation from a cross-religious group to discuss the very issue that he has mentioned about the relationship between the priest or vicar and the individual. I want to explore that and I have given a commitment to discuss that further with those from the churches who made contact with me, and we have had submissions on that. I cannot give him definitive, final positions today, but I hope that we can debate this during the course of the passage of the Bill in this House.
I recognise that the issue of a redress scheme is extremely important. I recognise that victims and survivors will probably be very disappointed that the Government are not yet able to commit to a redress scheme. For those who know the internal workings of government, there is a spending review in the current climate and we have to work through that spending review. I cannot give a commitment today on that issue, but I hope that the right reverend Prelate knows that it is certainly a recommendation to government, and we will examine and respond in due course.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I think that nothing short of an independent public inquiry should be required, but I would just like to touch on the role we play in the Department for Education, for example, because most of these victims were young children from the ages of 11 to even 13 or 14, and I think this is where schools come into play.
Unfortunately, I have recently been made aware that a council-funded sex education presentation shown in schools to young under-age children told them how to safely choke their girlfriends during sex, saying it must always be done with consent and suggesting that strangulation can be done safely, which of course it cannot. Official data shows an increase in reported cases for adults, which also link strangulation to cases of sexual assault, rape and even murder. Despite a new non-fatal strangulation offence being introduced in England and Wales in June 2022 by the previous Government, reflecting the dangers, this Act is clearly being ignored by those adults pushing this agenda who are literally breaking the law. Does the Minister and his colleague the Secretary of State for Education support these presentations being given in schools—which I hope they do not? Does he agree with me that those responsible, who knowingly have broken and are breaking the law, should be immediately removed from their posts and reported to the police?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing that issue to my attention. I hope she will understand that I am a Home Office Minister and have not seen, nor have I been given sight of, the issues that she has mentioned, but I am very happy to draw her comments today to the attention both of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and of the Minister for Education in this House, so that they are aware of that. I am sure that they will follow up with the noble Baroness to elicit details privately, outside of the Chamber, of the concerns that she has raised so they can examine them in detail. That may not satisfy the noble Baroness today, but, not having seen the material—it sounds horrendous —I cannot comment in detail on it, but I will make sure that it is referred to those who can.
Renters’ Rights Bill
(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would retain social landlords’ ability to apply for a demotion order in response to the anti-social behaviour of a tenant.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 14, 66 and 67 standing in my name.
Anti-social behaviour is a scourge on our communities but is particularly devastating from a housing perspective. Quite often, anti-social behaviour replaces productive community spirit with fear and tension, leading to residents feeling trapped and helpless. Anti-social behaviour strips away the very essence of what makes a house a home.
The consequences of anti-social behaviour are often forgotten. The costs of repairing damage, the need to enhance and increase security measures, and the day-to-day administration involved in responding to complaints from neighbours all place a significant and often unsustainable financial strain on housing associations, local authorities and landlords across the country.
As drafted, the Bill reduces the powers available to local authorities and social housing landlords in cases where tenants are responsible for anti-social behaviour. Amendment 14, tabled in my name, seeks to preserve the ability of landlords to demote tenancies in response to such behaviour. Loud noise, vandalism and intimidation leave residents helpless, and local authorities must have the power to uphold community stability without the detriment of demotion. How can the Government ensure that there are consequences for this ruinous behaviour?
Amendment 66, tabled in my name, probes the Government’s objectives in creating a duty on the court to consider any co-operation on the part of the tenant against whom an order is sought. On these Benches we wish to understand the real-world impact of this change. I ask the Minister: what constitutes co-operation? Is it replying to an email or answering a call, or does it require a tenant to display a serious and notable change in their behaviour? Is this simply a requirement for engagement or would there be a requirement to take practical steps to prevent anti-social behaviour in the future?
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 14, tabled by my noble friends Lady Scott of Bybrook and Lord Jamieson. Local authorities have a duty to ensure fairness for their social housing tenants, and I believe the steps taken in the Bill to restrict local authorities and housing associations in their use of demotion orders are wrong and unnecessary.
The reality is that a small minority of tenants cause misery to other tenants through anti-social behaviour. A report from Nottingham Trent University in 2018 suggested that 30% of social housing tenants are more likely to come across anti-social behaviour, crime and drug dealing. Likewise, a social housing residents’ survey report from 2022 found that 26% had been impacted by anti-social behaviour.
Local authorities and housing associations are already severely restricted in the action they can take against the small minority of tenants who cause misery for other tenants who are law-abiding and play by the rules. Withdrawing the ability for local authorities and housing associations to issue demotion orders will severely diminish their ability to combat anti-social behaviour. As far as I am aware, the Government do not even collect data on the number of demotion orders that are issued each year to social housing tenants, so one has to question how big an issue this really is at present. I hope that the Government will accept Amendment 14, given that it is an instrument used by housing associations as the treatment of last resort.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness earlier; she was on my blind side. She mentioned those of us who have been involved in local government. Well, I had the pleasure, I would say, of being in a beacon council under the Blair Government when the now noble Baroness, Lady Casey, was actually doing all the work with the then Labour Government on anti-social behaviour. We recognised that it was a serious issue on many of our estates—and a deeply challenging one at that. I would argue that councils are not necessarily restricted in what they can do, but it is very challenging. It is difficult, and we often found that the courts were very sympathetic to tenants while we were sitting there going, “But you don’t have to live next door to them”.
Very often, another issue that occurred was that neighbours, after months of ongoing, low-level, constant nuisance, retaliated in some way. Such incidents were then reduced to being 50/50, when in actual fact you had only to speak to the people around the neighbourhood to know that that was not the case. These things are difficult to prove and difficult to get evidence on. People do not always write the dates down—“Oh, please keep a diary”—you know. Sometimes, even that is quite difficult for people. This is an area, Minister, where we would like to explore more what the route is for proving and what the bar is, what the level is, that has to be satisfied.
I must admit that I did not read into the Bill that it was that much of a restriction or a difficulty, but perhaps I have missed something. The National Housing Federation certainly has not listed it as one of its key concerns. That, in itself, perhaps tells me how much of an issue it is, but I would support the noble Baroness if that proved to be the case. As I say, I know from very bitter experience just how difficult this area is, and it is most likely to be the one that would come up most in certain areas.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments relating to anti-social behaviour, and I agree with her powerful statement on ASB. As a councillor, I saw at first hand, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Eaton, did, the utter misery that is caused to individuals and communities through the irresponsible actions of others and I properly understand why it is important that we have provisions to tackle it.
Amendment 14 seeks to reintroduce social landlords’ ability to apply for a demotion order in response to the anti-social behaviour of a tenant. This amendment seeks to enable landlords to demote social tenants to a less secure form of tenancy because of anti-social behaviour. However, the amendment as drafted would not work; the Renters’ Rights Bill will move tenants to a simpler tenancy structure where assured shorthold tenancies and the ability to evict shorthold tenants via Section 21 are abolished. There will therefore no longer be a tenancy with lower security to demote tenants to. To work, it would require a reversal of measures in the Bill to remove demoted tenancies and assured shorthold tenancies; that is the issue with the amendment as drafted.
I reassure the noble Baroness that tackling anti-social behaviour is a top priority for our Government and a key part of our safer streets mission. The Bill will shorten the notice period for the existing mandatory eviction ground, with landlords being able to make a claim to the court immediately in cases of anti-social behaviour. In addition, the Bill amends the matters that judges must consider when deciding whether to award possession under the discretionary ground. This will ensure that judges give particular regard to whether tenants have engaged with efforts to resolve their behaviour and the impact on other tenants within HMOs.
As well as the positive changes that the Bill makes towards tackling anti-social behaviour within the rental sector, we will crack down on those making neighbourhoods feel unsafe and unwelcoming by introducing the new respect order, which local authorities will be able to apply for and which will carry tough sanctions and penalties for persistent adult offenders. Together, those changes will ensure that the needs of victims are at the heart of our response to anti-social behaviour—that is what is important. Too often victims have felt that the power is all on the side of those who are committing the anti-social behaviour and not on the side of victims—that cannot carry on.
In response to the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, about local authority housing tenants, the Bill introduces reforms to the assured tenancies framework, which applies to both the private rented sector and private registered providers of social housing. Local authority tenants are provided secure tenancies under a different tenancy regime. The vast majority of local authority tenants are secure lifetime tenants, and therefore they already enjoy a high security of tenure. Local authority landlords also have existing powers to tackle ASB, including eviction grounds similar to those in the Bill.
The point is taken from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, about the further information about evidence and where the bar is going to be set; I will take that back to the team and come back to her. For these reasons, we feel this amendment is not needed and kindly ask that the noble Baroness withdraws it.
I turn to Amendment 66, which seeks to remove the requirement imposed upon judges, which has been introduced by the Bill, to give a particular consideration to whether a tenant, against whom a possession order is sought under ground 14 for anti-social behaviour, has engaged with attempts by the landlord to resolve the behaviour. We believe this change represents the wrong approach, for two reasons.
First, the Government believe that landlords should attempt to resolve problematic behaviour issues with tenants before attempting to evict them. By directing courts to particularly consider whether a tenant is engaged with these efforts, landlords will be incentivised to make them. Secondly, it is right that the court should give particular consideration to whether a tenant has engaged with attempts to resolve the behaviour so that courts may be more likely to evict a tenant who has, for example, been obstructive throughout the process. Where a tenant has shown willingness to engage constructively with the landlord, it is right that the court considers this factor, and it is for those reasons that we introduced the requirement.
I turn to Amendment 67, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, which seeks to expand the factors that a court is specifically directed to consider when deciding whether to make an order for possession against a tenant in a house in multiple occupancy for anti-social behaviour under ground 14. Currently, courts will be directed to give particular consideration to the past impact of the tenant’s behaviour on their fellow HMO tenants. This is in recognition of the increased impact that anti-social behaviour can have when victims have to share facilities and live in close proximity with the perpetrator, as the noble Baroness mentioned. Judges will also consider all factors relevant to the case and will already be directed generally to have consideration of the future and ongoing impact of that behaviour. As such, we do not think this amendment is strictly necessary to achieve the intended effect, although we are very grateful to the noble Baroness for flagging up that point.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, first of all, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Eaton and Lady Thornhill, and the Minister. All are from local government and understand anti-social behaviour over many years and the effect it can have. We on these Benches recognise that what is often described as anti- social behaviour may indeed be a symptom of much deeper, complex personal struggles. Those underlying issues, of course, deserve serious compassionate attention. So it is important that the Government are looking at the issues surrounding anti-social behaviour. I am particularly interested—I do not need an answer tonight —in bolstering the capabilities of support services within local government, to ensure that intervention can give people a real chance to turn things around before they get to the stage of being evicted.
Baroness Grender
“Assured tenancy exemption: new build propertiesAssured shorthold tenancies are abolished except in relation to premises whose current tenants are the first tenants since the construction of the premises, and only for the period of six months beginning with the day on which the tenancy began.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow an assured short-term tenancy for six months after a premises is constructed.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, this is my first speech today, so I will take the opportunity to thank the Minister and her team for all the discussions so far. I support the fundamental principles underpinning this legislation, in particular the long-overdue abolition of Section 21 no-fault evictions—a change that, as we have heard, cannot come soon enough for countless renters across the country.
However, as we work to create a much fairer and more secure private rented sector, we on these Benches are also hugely aware of the pressing need to increase the supply of high-quality rental homes. For that reason, we have tabled Amendment 15, which aims to provide a very specific and targeted temporary exemption to the abolition of ASTs—assured shorthold tenancies. Specifically, the provision would allow assured shorthold tenancies for a period of six months for premises whose current tenants are the first tenants since the construction of the premises. This is a carefully considered proposal, designed to support the laudable aims of the Bill by incentivising the creation of much-needed new rental stock.
My honourable friend in the House of Commons, Gideon Amos, and noble Lords on these Benches have consistently championed the cause of increasing housing supply, particularly through new innovative models such as build-to-rent accommodation. This highlights the urgent need to restore hope to millions aspiring to a decent home after decades of decline in social housing provision. Indeed, ours was the only manifesto with a direct target of 150,000 new social homes to rent—a vital underpinning building block to change the lack of balance in tenures to match and accommodate the desperate need that has reached a crisis level today.
My colleague tabled an amendment in the House of Commons that would have specifically incentivised more build-to-rent accommodation by offering a degree of initial security for developers. Although that original amendment proposed a longer initial term of about two years, the underlying principle remains the same. New developments, particularly in the build-to-rent sector, require a degree of certainty.
We have heard directly from the British Property Federation, which is the representative body for the build-to-rent sector. It has expressed its support for measures that increase the certainty of rental income for institutional investors developing these new homes. It has engaged with us and our colleagues in the Commons on a similar amendment and explicitly stated support for its general thrust. The British Property Federation supports the new supply of rental housing and has said that six months would be an adequate period to incentivise investment in new construction and build to rent. I thank the British Property Federation for its engagement and advice, specifically on this issue.
In the previous group, I explained why I think ASTs are not very secure. This proposed six-month assured shorthold is a one-off exemption that would genuinely offer a limited period of certainty for developers to encourage them to build. That is what we are aiming for. It is a narrowly defined exemption that would apply only to properties being let for the very first time after their construction. It would not affect existing tenancies or undermine the core principles of abolishing no-fault evictions for the vast majority of renters, which we strongly support.
Indeed, by encouraging the creation of new rental homes, we believe the amendment would be a small, modest but useful way of ultimately expanding the options available to renters and contributing to a better balance in the market. The proposal is so modest, unlike other amendments that we have heard today, with build to rent currently estimated to be around 0.1% of the overall housing stock. We believe it would have minimal impact on the much broader move towards periodic tenancies. It may be appropriate at this point to say that we would not support removing Clause 2 from the Bill as we agree with its broad principles, but this approach would recognise the practical realities of bringing new developments to market.
In conclusion, while we rightly focus on enhancing security and rights for existing renters, we must not lose sight of the fundamental need to find ways to increase the supply of decent homes. That is what we are attempting to do with this amendment. We believe that it will act as a catalyst for increased investment in new rental properties, ultimately benefiting renters by providing more choice and contributing to a more sustainable and responsive housing market.
I urge the Minister and noble Lords to give this proposal careful consideration. We will be more than happy to do further work if it is not exactly to order. We believe that there is an opportunity to try to at least encourage a bit more supply in the market sector, even if we do not entirely agree with the suggestions that the whole market will suddenly disappear in the wake of this Bill. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for introducing an amendment that would allow short-term tenancies to continue for six months after a premises is constructed. The noble Baroness has highlighted the fundamental importance of increasing the supply of rented properties. Her case is compelling. This amendment would allow support for newly constructed properties by providing greater certainty for investors in that property. Additionally, it is often true that new properties have periods of vacancy while long-term lets are secured. We must consider, evaluate and listen to all solutions to ensure that liveable accommodation is not left empty and to help develop a stable and thriving community. I am thankful that the noble Baroness has brought this discussion to the attention of the Committee.
However, I wish to probe more widely why the Government are seeking to abolish assured shorthold tenancies, and therefore will speak to my opposition to Clause 2 standing part of the Bill. The short-term rental market supports job mobility, especially industries which require relocation or even temporary positions. Enabling the mobility of working-age adults to reach the depth and breadth of the United Kingdom is vital for economic growth. The modern workforce requires flexibility—the ability to move and adapt, and to pursue opportunities wherever they may arise. By discouraging the ebb and flow of economic activity, we discourage the labour market flexibility required for an expanding economy. Jobs must follow demand, not be restrained by the state removing the option of a short-term tenancy.
While the economic argument is compelling, so is the practical one. For individuals undertaking a home renovation or experiencing family breakdown, short tenancies provide not only a practical solution but an important reprieve, allowing people to escape the chaos of building works or to rebuild a new life without haste. Have the Government considered the benefits of shorthold tenancies for the tenant? Has the Minister considered both the economic and practical benefits of their existence?
With this Bill, the Government are overseeing a huge change to the rental market. Can the Minister please set out the impact on long-term housing pressures as a result of this ban? In markets with soaring demand and low capacity, is it not the case that short-term tenancies can alleviate some of the pressures that tenants face?
The Government have been consistent in highlighting the perceived drawbacks of short-term tenancies. Of course, as with any housing arrangement, there will inevitably be aspects that are less than desirable, depending on one’s individual circumstances. However, in identifying these challenges, it is only right that the Government also acknowledge and weigh the very real, tangible benefits that short-term tenancies offer to many others. As other noble Lords have mentioned, such tenancies expand the availability of housing which might otherwise remain empty. The decision to impose an outright ban is, in effect, the most extreme course of action—the so-called nuclear option. From these Benches, we cannot help but wonder whether sufficient consideration was given to alternative, more balanced solutions that might have addressed the concerns identified while preserving the flexibility and choice that short-term tenancies provide for so many.
I hope the Minister will carefully reflect on these benefits and acknowledge the convenience of shorthold tenancies, as well as the key role they play in enabling economic mobility and the use of homes which might otherwise remain empty.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for her amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for speaking to the opposition that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill on behalf of himself and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.
The assured shorthold tenancy regime and Section 21 mean that millions of tenants live with the knowledge that they could be uprooted from their homes with little notice. Some of them end up living in substandard properties for fear of retaliatory action and eviction should they complain.
This has embedded chronic insecurity in the private rented sector. It affects both tenants who want a stable home and the many good landlords who operate professionally but are undercut by rogue landlords. It is a drain on aspiration and prevents tenants having the chance to achieve their potential. Removing Section 21 is critical to giving renters greater security and stability. They will be able to stay in their homes for longer and avoid the risk of homelessness. They will also have the confidence to challenge poor practice and unjust rent increases. Clause 2 therefore removes the assured shorthold tenancy regime and in doing so abolishes Section 21 as well.
Baroness Grender (LD)
What we are trying to achieve with this amendment is a guaranteed fixed period for a developer. Authoritative bodies in this sector have suggested that some kind of guaranteed period does not necessarily mean that Section 21 has to remain. Or is it the Minister’s firm belief that you cannot give a fixed period to a developer in order to encourage construction without an element of Section 21 being there?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We do not want to see Section 21 in place for this. We are talking to the build-to-rent sector about the issues it believes it faces, but I genuinely believe that if somebody is going to be evicted from a property, there must be a reason why they are being evicted. We have provided in the Bill the grounds for why people can be evicted. When I come back to the House on this, I will update noble Lords on the work we are doing with the build-to-rent sector to increase supply. There are fairer ways of doing that than continuing to impose Section 21 evictions on people, just because they happen to have moved into a new-build property.
Baroness Grender (LD)
I thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for participating in this short but quality debate. We will go back to our drawing board on this because we think that it is a way of delivering construction. We believe that we can get to a point where this is done without Section 21 being part of it. That was the intention behind the amendment; if it would not achieve that then we will go back and look at it again, because we believe that there must be a way to provide some kind of incentive to increase supply. This is a very modest approach and not about wrecking the Bill or taking 85% of landlords out of the equation, so we will take another look at it. We believe that it can proceed without Section 21 being imposed; clearly the Minister does not, so we will go back to the drawing board. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.