Retirement of a Member: Lord Maxton
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement with effect from 5 May of the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his much-valued service to the House.
Police: Stop and Search
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Paddick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that the police act proportionately in stop and search.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interests as set out in the register.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
Stop and search is a fundamental tool for tackling crime, including knife crime in particular, but it must be used fairly and effectively. The Government support the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s Police Race Action Plan, which commits chief constables to identifying and addressing disparities in the use of stop and search.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as the Minister said, stop and search is a valuable tool in taking weapons off our streets, but Home Office figures show that 86% of police stop and search is on suspicion of possession-only drug offences, and you are four times more likely to be stopped and searched if you are black than if you are white, even though Home Office research concludes:
“It is not clear from the evidence whether ethnicity is a predictor of violent offending”.
What can the Government do to get the police to carry out more stop and search on violent criminals?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord will know that it is for the police themselves to determine whether they undertake stop and search. That was a particular judgment for police officers rather than for Ministers. He will know, in the Metropolitan Police area in particular, 26% of all stop and searches were taken by the Metropolitan Police overall, resulting in over 21,999 arrests—from 16% of those stop and searches.
We have signed up and supported the Metropolitan Police and others included in the Police Race Action Plan, and the Metropolitan Police has signed up to that plan. It looks at how stop and search is being used by police on black and ethnic minority individuals, and at involving black and ethnic minority representatives in monitoring the use of stop and search. The noble Lord is right that stop and search should be used for serious crimes. That also requires strong training and support to police officers, to ensure their safety also.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, how wise is it to put off the introduction of biometric ID cards?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Well, my Lords, I was in the Home Office when we had ID cards, which were abolished by the then Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition. The noble Lord has made his point. I wish that they had not been abolished, but we are in a position now where, 15 years ago to the day, the party that he supports, with Liberal Democrat support, came to power and, as a result, abolished the ID cards that he now seeks to reintroduce.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, every 14 hours a child is strip-searched in England and Wales by the police. Black children are four times more likely than white children to be targeted and most of the searches—at least 50%—result in no further action. It is a legal requirement for an appropriate adult to be in hand and on side when the child is searched, but there is clear evidence of widespread non-compliance with this. Despite the fact that the previous Government did a consultation last June and that the current Home Secretary has said that tighter safeguards are an urgent priority, no action has been taken. Can the Minister tell us when the Government are going to resolve this appalling situation?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. The Government hope to introduce new safeguards on her very point about the strip-searching of children via amendments to statutory codes of practice and will be bringing those forward in due course.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister, and the Home Secretary in particular, on the pre-emptive action taken over the weekend to arrest a number of threatened terrorists, including seven Iranians who had, I understand, specific targets in mind. Is the Minister able to give the House any more information regarding this?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Unfortunately not. I am very grateful to my noble friend for his question. He may be aware that very shortly—which I do not wish to pre-empt—a Statement will be made in the House of Commons by the Security Minister, which I suspect I will be repeating in due course in this House. I hope that he will be patient for both the Statement and for any repeat requested by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister will know, stop and search removed over 3,500 dangerous weapons from the streets of London and still retains a high level of support among Londoners. What assessment will the Government be making of the Metropolitan Police’s use of the new stop and search charter? Do the Government believe this will lead to better stop and search or will it reduce the number of weapons removed from the streets?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is important that we note and support the Metropolitan Police signing up to the charter which monitors how stop and search is used and sets down some basic tenets that underpin the use of it with checks and balances and by monitoring disparity on the basis of race. But it is equally important that the Metropolitan Police has the power to undertake stop and search, because it has resulted in 21,999 arrests, 12,391 community resolutions, 4,150 penalty notices for disorder and 119 seizures of property in the Metropolitan Police area. The Metropolitan Police is obviously making an impact on elements of criminality, but a large proportion of people are still stopped where no action is taken and no offence has taken place. That is why the measures the Metropolitan Police has put in place are so important.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, there are two things that the Government might consider to help police improve the efficacy of stop and search. This relates also to the next Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, about the use of knives on our streets. First, it is no surprise or secret who carries weapons. The mothers of these kids know it, as do their brothers and the people that they go round with. But will they tell the police and will the police do something about it immediately? Could something such as Crimestoppers—which I tried to get going before I left, but could not—act as a good portal to make sure that the information is passed to the police about who is carrying knives and when and get the police out within minutes to go and find them on the Tube, in taxis or wherever they happen to be travelling? Secondly, there is the use of technology. At the moment, we are relying on officers’ intuition to decide where and who they search, when surely technology by now should be helping them in that vital task.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right that intelligence-led policing is critical to making the best use of stop and search. That includes methods where individuals who have information can pass it in confidence to the police. The suggestions the noble Lord has made are important ones. It will also be helpful that we will have over this Parliament an extra 13,000 neighbourhood police officers, with neighbourhood police officers allocated to each community area. It will build confidence and trust to report those matters.
The noble Lord mentioned technology. It is no secret that the Government have been looking at the question of facial recognition and other technologies along those lines, which can spot and analyse the use and carrying of knives. That is something we are working on, although I cannot give him definitive answers today.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, as has been said many times, stop and search is a vital part of the police toolbox to tackle crime. The 2023 review by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, highlighted several areas of concern in how these powers were used. In my years of policing, I always maintained that it is vital that all officers are properly trained in how to use these powers and that they know their limitations within the law. Could the Minister update the House on how the Government are working with the College of Policing to deliver the updated national policing curriculum to ensure that guidance for stop and search is properly understood and implemented on the ground?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right; it is important there is training in the use of stop and search by police officers and that it is updated. It is important that the outcomes of stop and searches are monitored for both the impacts, which the noble Lord mentioned earlier, and to see whether racial disparities are taking place. Those should be fed back to both the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. This is why the National Police Chiefs’ Council is issuing and regularly updating information on the race action plan, both monitoring it and examining its impact.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
There is plenty of time for both questions if noble Lords are quick.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, the Minister was talking about increased numbers of police. Are the Government supportive of neighbourhood policing?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We are so supportive of neighbourhood policing that we have put an extra £1 billion into that fund this year. We are employing around an extra 3,000 neighbourhood police this year and will employ 13,000 more over the course of this Parliament.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister gave us a series of statistics about the successes of stop and search in terms of items seized, charges made and so on. But, of course, the other element of stop and search is its deterrent effect. Could he tell us what work has been done to quantify whether stop and search has a deterrent effect and what its extent is?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I cannot give my noble friend a qualitative answer to that at the moment. However, I will say that visible policing and the visible nature of being able to stop and search an individual who is suspected have resulted in a significant number of hauls of drugs, knives and other material. That should on its own have a deterrent effect. I cannot give my noble friend an analysis that we have measured, but I welcome his contribution and I will certainly look at that.
Knife Crime
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Brown of Silvertown
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to tackle knife crime.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The Government are taking a number of steps to halve knife crime within a decade as part of the safer streets mission. We have created the Young Futures programme, the coalition to halve knife crime, the knife-enabled robbery task force, and we are bringing in new and stronger legislation to crack down on the sale of and access to dangerous knives.
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)
Much of the knife crime in my former constituency in east London was fuelled by county lines drug gangs. I worked with some amazing mums, who were desperately trying to rescue their children who were ensnared in the pernicious clutches of these gangs. Parents facing these circumstances need real support to help them navigate not only the violence and menace of the groomers but the criminal justice system, in which they can be both victim and perpetrator. Do the Government agree? If so, what action can we expect?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I pay tribute to my noble friend for the work she did on this very issue as a Member of Parliament in the House of Commons. She has pressed very hard for an offence to try to break up criminal gangs luring young people into violence and crime. I am pleased to tell her that, as she will know, there is a new child criminal exploitation offence in the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently before the House of Commons and will come to this place shortly, to ensure we can take action against exploiters and deter gangs, and have some prevention orders in place. I hope that she will also welcome the Young Futures prevention partnerships, which we have put in place to help guide families and young people through moving out of gangs and criminal behaviour. Additionally—and I know this will be of specific interest to her—the Metropolitan Police has been allocated £8.1 million via the hotspot action fund to include Metropolitan Police officers on the ground in neighbourhood police officer mode.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will know that there are reports of a dramatic increase in young people carrying knives on a regular basis. This generation of young people has had a really hard time. First, there has been a major increase in the break-up of parental relationships in their young years. Secondly, their schools were closed during the pandemic, and then they have had to cope with the effect of a lot of social media. Would the Minister agree that we really ought to think about returning to some of the preventive and support services that we lost some time in the last decade?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I mentioned the Young Futures programme to my noble friend. That is designed to ensure that we intervene early with children and young people who face poorer outcomes because of factors in their lives that have led them to carry knives. These could be gang related, the result of poor parenting or just from contact at school. It is very important that we get that support for them. It is also important that we tackle the sales of knives, the ability to buy a knife online and the criminality of carrying knives, which we have now done in the Crime and Policing Bill. Those measures will be before this House shortly, and I look forward to cross-House support to pass them.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, last month I had the great pleasure of meeting with Mark Prince, who started the Kiyan Prince Foundation after the murder of his 15 year-old son in 2006. Can the Minister say what money is available for these small, community organisations, which are doing this vital, pre-emptive work to keep children away from knife crime and gang crime?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The main focus of the Government’s new investment on preventing knife crime is the Young Futures hubs. We are starting to experiment with a couple of pilot schemes, which will draw in voluntary organisations and others around them to look at how we can best intervene on young people and their families accordingly. Those pilots will be undertaken very shortly, and I hope that we will roll out a number of Young Futures hubs nationwide once the pilots have been operational. Those hubs would then be the best opportunity for other organisations to work with them to secure resources and contribute to reducing knife crime.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, youth offending teams, which are funded through the Turnaround early intervention programme, do excellent work with children at risk of entering the youth justice system, including those vulnerable to knife crime. However, consistency is vital in youth work, where success relies entirely on building trust. The problem is that funding for these teams is guaranteed only until March 2026. Could the Minister say whether there are plans to introduce some long-term funding to ensure that these teams can continue to do the excellent work they are currently doing?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will draw the noble Baroness’s comments to the attention of the Minister for Justice, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson. Youth offending teams are the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice. But, as I mentioned, the Home Office is trying to invest in the Young Futures programme. Those initial hubs will not replace other types of activity, such as youth offending teams; they are there to generate a collective response from organisations to look at what is needed most to reduce knife crime. So there is new funding going in from the Home Office, and I will raise her point with the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, on her behalf.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, a few weeks ago, the Minister said he was looking at the possibility that the police might be equipped with handheld metal detectors as a way of stopping people in the street and seeing whether they had metal weapons on them. Has he made any progress in that direction?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Yes, I have. We are working with industry partners to develop the very systems that my noble friend has raised previously and again today. The work is part of an innovation competition that was launched last year. Phase 1 is expected to be delivered by the end of May, resulting in the first prototype systems, so I hope my noble friend will recognise that there is action this day.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
My Lords, given the importance of young men needing positive role models in their lives, and of these being people they actually know and can talk to consistently, have His Majesty’s Government considered—as part of their Young Futures programme—how the PSHE curriculum in schools can be tailored more to facilitating these opportunities, taking note particularly of the excellent work of charities such as Kick, which are providing more and more mentors to primary and secondary schools?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Education and contact in schools is probably one of the key issues that need to be challenged to give young people the skills and confidence to play a role with their friends in a way that is not in a gang—where they are not drawn into criminal activity and have the confidence to resist those temptations when they are put in front of them. The right reverend Prelate’s point is vital, and it lies with the Department for Education in England and with the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is key to driving up individuals’ confidence to tackle knife crime at source.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
Last year, there were around 50,500 recorded offences involving a sharp instrument. Knife crime, of course, terrifies communities and can have lethal consequences, and it is very worrying that the numbers are heading in the wrong direction. The Government reported in February that 17% of knife crime offences related to children, and over 99% of these were for possession alone. One of the great issues around this is the glorification of carrying knives among some young people, so what might the Minister have to say about tackling this glorification?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a valid point, and I look forward to him joining the Government in supporting the measures in the Crime and Policing Bill, which will come before this House, that tackle the promotion of knife crime on social media, the sale of knives on social media, and his point about the glorification and promotion of knife culture. We are trying to undertake a range of measures, some of which go back to direct interventions—such as the Youth Futures programme—some of which go back to issues to do with better policing and neighbourhood policing, and some of which are around stop and search. But a big proportion is about the ban on zombie knives, the ban on sales of knives and the ban on social media promoting knife culture. Those things will come before this House very shortly, and I look forward to his support.
Artificial Intelligence: Public Services
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to use artificial intelligence to improve public services.
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
Public services are of course central to the AI Opportunities Action Plan, which outlines how we will improve these services to drive growth. We have announced £42 million for three frontier AI exemplars, driving departments to use AI to boost productivity and citizen experience. We are adopting a flexible “scan, pilot, scale” approach to AI adoption in public services and, just this week, the NHS published guidance on ambient voice technologies, which can transcribe patient-clinician conversations and more.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his reply. Could we bring this a little nearer to home? Perhaps he might say what we can do, if there is the need for it, to improve our performance and the efficiency and effectiveness of both Houses of Parliament. If so, what plans do we have to seek those objectives?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. It is in the Government’s interest to help here as much as we can. However, as the noble Lord will know, that is a parliamentary accountability, not a government one. The Parliamentary Digital Service has issued guidance for Members and their staff on the use of AI, which is going to be updated regularly as required—and, of course, as the understanding around AI improves. Seminars on how to use generative AI effectively are available to all Members and their staff, and the Parliamentary Digital Service is looking at opportunities to apply AI safely to support the work of Members in both Houses.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that caution is needed if public services, in an attempt to be inclusive but also to save money, convey information in languages other than English that has been produced by machine translation? That works pretty well for standard Romance languages and for German, but it is much less effective for languages with many dialects, such as Arabic, and it is currently virtually useless for Asian or African languages because they have not been used in AI training data. Is all this being fed into emerging AI policy and prospective regulation?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. This is an incredibly important point. As the noble Baroness rightly says, the AI training datasets are often not on the right things, and this is an example where there is a need for training of models in different languages and dialects. It will be very important as part of public service improvements. I thank the noble Baroness for raising this issue—and yes, it is something that is being looked at.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
This Parliament and our Governments have a chequered history of procurement of software to be used in various government departments. Can the Minister kindly confirm that we will be more rigorous whenever we are procuring services to assist us in the deployment of AI in the public service?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
As I mentioned, there are three AI exemplars being used at the moment. They are: future customer experience; citizen AI agents —so starting with an AI agent to help young people to find a job or an education pathway; and the government efficiency accelerator. In all these examples, procurement is exactly one of the things that needs to be looked at. I have mentioned previously in this House that AI assurance services are part of this as well. The point raised, which is that it is easy to get the wrong thing, is right, and we need to look very carefully at this.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Back in January, the Blueprint for Modern Digital Government stated the intention to establish
“an AI adoption unit to build and deploy AI into public services, growing AI capacity and capability across government, and building trust, responsibility and accountability into all we do”.
How will this new AI adoption unit ensure that ethical principles, safety standards and human rights considerations are embedded from the very beginning of the AI adoption process throughout the public sector rather than being treated as a secondary concern after deployment?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The deployment of AI has started, as the noble Lord recognised, and I have given the three headline exemplars—and others are being put in through the incubator for AI that sits within DSIT. He raises a crucial point, and that is why the responsible AI advisory panel is being set up, which will include civil society, industry and academia to make sure that this is looked at properly. An ethics unit is already looking at this, and there are many diverse groups across government. What the Government Digital Service is trying to do is to pull it together into something more coherent, of which I think the responsible AI advisory panel is an important part.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, a slogan from the early days of computing is, “Rubbish in, rubbish out”. Biased historic training data can bake discrimination and historic bias into the system, whether on stop and search, which we have discussed, or whether on insurability or employability, and so on. To flip my noble friend’s very positive and commendable Question, what are the Government going to do to ensure that there are safeguards to ensure that historic bias is not baked into the system?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
Once again, that is a very important question. The noble Baroness is absolutely right. It is as true for AI as it is for other systems: rubbish in, rubbish out. Well-curated, properly understood datasets are crucial. It is one of the reasons that where there are well-documented, well-curated datasets that can be used to train models for government purposes, we will be pursuing those. We will use the AI assurance mechanism that I discussed previously to try to make sure that we identify where there are systems that carry risks such as the one the noble Baroness raises.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will know that the US and China are currently responsible for the 80% of the world’s largest AI models. Does he agree that in an increasingly unstable geopolitical environment, and with clear evidence of diversions on values, Europe’s dependency could quickly become a vulnerability, in terms of not just public services but the upholding of our democratic values? Given that the EU and UK have complementary strengths and values in common, will he persuade the Government to pursue, with the EU, a shared attempt to close the competitive gap? Might this be on the agenda at the EU-UK summit in May, given that the trade and co-operation agreement is totally silent on AI?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
We are working closely with our friends in Europe on AI, both at the safety and security level through the AI Security Institute and more broadly. We have a bilateral meeting with France coming up in July, where this will be discussed. There is a need for all of us to think about which models we want to rely on and become dependent on and, indeed, where models can be made that are not general-purpose, wide, generative models but narrower models that can answer the questions we need to answer. Not everything comes down to broad, generative AI.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s plan to drive tens of billions in productivity savings in the public sector with AI is, of course, welcome. But does the Minister agree that any success here will depend on the effective measurement and reporting of progress? If so, what can he tell us today about how progress is going to be measured and what progress has been made so far?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
As the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, rightly suggests, between 4% and 7% of public sector spend could be reduced with a mix of digitalisation and AI. Both those things become important; it is not all AI, a lot of it is digital change. I have indicated the exemplars that are being piloted at the moment, both at a cross-government level and the ones being led out of DSIT as part of the incubator for AI. These are being assessed and evaluated. For example, programmes that look at the responses—sometimes tens of thousands—to consultations are being evaluated not only for the answers they give but for the time that might be saved by using them. So a series of metrics will be developed to understand the impact of these measures.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are to be congratulated on seizing the opportunity that AI presents to improve our public services; it is a great example of how it can be a great servant to humanity. Is the Minister aware, though, of concerns in the creative industries about it becoming a master rather than a servant of human activity? What measures are the Government taking to ensure that those concerns are met?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
Like almost every technology that has been introduced, this can do good and harm. The noble Lord is quite right to raise the question of where it is going to cause more harm and, indeed, where it does something that is not in the interest of the community. That is something that is being looked at; it is one of the reasons that the AI Security Institute was set up—to try to understand what these models will do and where we need to have particular concern for risks. He is also right that one of the aims that should be there for any AI is to free up time for humans to do the things that only humans can do. It is a very important principle, whether for application in the NHS or across the public sector.
Climate Change: Progress
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Krebs
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the publication on 30 April of the report by the Climate Change Committee Progress in adapting to climate change: 2025 report to Parliament, what plans they have to increase efforts to adapt the United Kingdom to the effects of climate change.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are committed to strengthening the nation’s resilience to climate change. We welcome the Climate Change Committee’s latest report and are carefully considering its recommendations. We will respond formally in October, as required by the Climate Change Act. In the meantime, we are working to strengthen our objectives on climate adaptation and to improve the framework that supports departments and communities in managing the impacts of a changing climate.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. The report from the Climate Change Committee points out that there has been no progress in adaptation to climate change since the previous report. During the eight years that I chaired the adaptation sub-committee, we said exactly the same thing. As Yogi Berra would have said, “It’s déjà vu all over again”. The report also says that the Government have no specific measurable targets or objectives for adapting to climate change. I will ask the Minister about just one area. The report estimates that by 2050, approximately one in four properties in this country could be at risk of flooding if there were no adaptation to climate change. My question is: is this an acceptable level of risk? If not, what level of risk do the Government think is acceptable?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, first, on the substantive point that the noble Lord makes about progress, he will know that we are not yet halfway through the national adaptation programme 3. Therefore, the response to the Climate Change Committee, which is due by October, will very much reflect the work in progress in terms of what we need to do to beef up the current plan and implementation and to look forward to the NAP4, which starts in 2028. We are not complacent; we take the committee’s report very seriously, and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and her committee for the work they have done. On the noble Lord’s substantive point on the issue of objectives, I very much accept that that is one of the matters we will be considering over the next few months. Secondly, on flooding, of course the report of the committee and the prediction it has made about the 8 million properties that are at risk of flooding by 2050 is something that no Government could take complacently. He will know that we have already committed £2.65 billion to repair or build flood defences, and of course we will look further into this matter in light of the committee’s report.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Will the Government rule out any new development on functional flood plains, particularly in zone B, which is the most at risk of flooding? If the Minister rules that out, he has a good chance of having more resilient houses in other places. Will the Government undertake not to build on functional flood plains?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am not going to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that we are going to rule this out completely. The noble Baroness will know that flood-plain building is possible in the UK at the moment. It is a heavily regulated process with significant planning requirements. We will obviously continue to look very carefully at these issues and whether the requirements are sufficient, but we do not think that a blanket ban is appropriate.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, how much influence can the British Government have on climate change, when many countries are still pumping out more and more gases that will damage the climate? How do the Government assess what we are doing and what other countries are doing?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I recognise the argument, but if every country that emitted the same emissions as the UK does took action, we would have a critical impact on reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. Obviously, we negotiate within the COP process to encourage multilateral agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but I think that the real lesson of this report is that it sets out in detail the risk to this country and the world of the climate change that will come unless we act towards achieving net zero and reducing our greenhouse gases. This is a very stark reminder of why we should not detract from our pathway to net zero.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, the hottest day, the second wettest winter and the second worst harvest on record have all been in the last three years. Given that this report did not find evidence for scoring a single outcome as “Good” in terms of adaptation delivery, and little evidence of change, can I seek the Minister’s reassurance that the Government have heard the very urgent calls for action without further delay, and that the Minister accepts that this must serve as a turning point in our approaches to adaptation delivery?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Earl is absolutely right. The Committee on Climate Change said:
“There is … unequivocal evidence that climate change is making extreme weather in UK, such as heatwaves, heavy rainfall, and wildfire-conducive conditions, more likely and more extreme”,
and the points he raised are absolutely right. We take this report very seriously. We have been in office 10 months, and we are reflecting on the specific points that the committee has made, area by area. By law, we have to respond by October, and I assure the noble Earl we will take this seriously and give a serious response. As I said earlier, this will lead into the work that we need for the NAP4, starting in 2028.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, the report points out that one area in which we have actually moved backwards is the resilience of our water system, not least the atrocious situation that we still have in terms of water leakage. Is this not an example of Ofwat and the water companies letting us all down yet again? What will the Government do about it?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right to point out issues in relation to water, water leakages and the performance of water companies. He will know that the Government are engaged in considerable discussions about the future of the industry. I have noted that the Committee on Climate Change in its report says:
“Through the reforms to the public water sector, currently being considered by Defra and Ofwat, the next water regulatory settlement … should fund and encourage more ambitious options to get the sector back on track for its demand and leakage reduction targets”.
We will obviously look at that very carefully.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. The impacts of climate change and the need for adaptation are often seen in terms of physical structures and infrastructure, but would the Minister agree with me that there are important effects on health and that it is very central that his department talks to the Department of Health about the effects of, for example, the heatwaves, to which reference has been made, and the effects of changes in our and other countries’ climates that mean that we may see diseases that we do not think of as being relevant to the UK here in the very near future?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
The noble Baroness will be aware that the committee’s report refers to heat-related deaths rising in the UK as a result of what is happening to our climate. Since publication of the national adaptation plan 3 in July 2023, we have taken on board that point. The last Government published the fourth Health Effects of Climate Change (HECC) in the UK report in December 2023, detailing the risks. We have updated the NHS Green Plan Guidance in February 2025, setting out key actions each integrated care system and trust should undertake to strengthen their resilience to climate impacts, and we are very much on the case on this.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, surely in relation to climate change we must be pragmatic in this area and not dogmatic, so my question to the Minister is simply: why do he and his boss, the Secretary of State for Energy, refuse to listen to their closest advisers? Dr Fatih Birol, head of the IEA, says now that investment in oil and gas is required to support global energy security. Tony Blair says net zero is doomed to failure, and Gary Smith of the GMB says the transition to net zero has
“cut … emissions by decimating working class communities”.
Why does the Minister continue to focus on international gas markets when we have an abundance of domestic, cheap, accessible and clean gas under our feet, both onshore and offshore, that would allow us to be energy independent once again and reindustrialise our working-class heartlands? Surely now is the time for the Minister to go back to his boss and tell him to “Drill, Mili, drill”.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, if I may say so, that sounded like a very dogmatic question. The noble Lord would be forgiven for not thinking that, in government, his party passed legislation committing us to net zero in 2050. As for the points he makes in relation to jobs, he will know that, in February, the CBI published a report showing that the big growth in the economy in the last year or two has been in the net-zero green sector and that there are nearly 1 million people now employed in that sector—it is the fastest-growing part of our economy. On the Tony Blair Institute, I am a great admirer of Tony Blair, but I have disagreed with him on one or two issues. The report was a global assessment, and it recommended a particular emphasis on nuclear, carbon capture usage and storage and reform of the planning system; we are doing all of that.
Arrangement of Business
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thought it would be useful to the House to set out the plan for proceedings this Thursday, which are slightly different to usual to enable us to mark the 80th anniversary of VE Day, paying tribute to those whose service we honour this week.
The House will sit, as usual, at 11 am but for Prayers only. We will then adjourn at around 11.05 am to allow noble Lords with tickets to attend the service at Westminster Abbey and for the Mace to process to the abbey. That service will start at noon. Noble Lords attending should make their way to the Chamber for Prayers or by 11.05 am to join the procession. Black Rod will give everyone a short briefing before setting off. The House will resume shortly before noon for the national two-minute silence to mark VE Day. This will be broadcast, and noble Lords who wish to join should be in the Chamber by 11.55 am. The broadcast will begin just before noon and the beginning of the two-minute silence will be announced by the Deputy Speaker on the Woolsack and the Division Bells will ring for those outside the Chamber who also want to observe the silence.
Once the silence is finished, we will proceed immediately to the first Oral Question—that will be around 12.02 pm. The first Question will be asked by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and answered by the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley. After Oral Questions are finished, we will move straight on to the main business, which will be the Employment Rights Bill. I hope that assists noble Lords and clarifies how business will work on Thursday. I have arranged for an email explaining this further to be sent to all noble Lords.
Energy Prices: Energy-intensive Industries
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, the UK has the highest industrial electricity prices in the OECD. We have discussed this many times in your Lordships’ House. Our prices are 45 times more expensive than in the USA and seven times more expensive than in China. Without cheap energy we are deindustrialising through the back door. Just last week, on 1 May, the Times reported that:
“Three in five British companies have said that ‘rising and unstable’ energy costs are undermining growth plans”.
So will the Minister please listen to the advice of industry, and reconsider this accelerated plan to decarbonise the grid at any cost to prevent more British jobs being lost in our flagship energy-intensive industries?
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath)
My Lords, I of course recognise the challenge that high energy prices pose for UK businesses. I am very well aware that the Urgent Question in the Commons related to a ceramics company in the potteries, Moorcroft. Let me say at once that my thoughts are with all those workers affected, and I know that Ministers are working very hard with the company and the industry to talk through some of those issues.
I say to the noble Lord that the structure we have in relation to energy prices is the same as the one his Government left when they left office last July. We know that the main reason why we have high energy prices is our reliance on international gas and oil markets, which related back to the shock to the system from Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. We believe as a Government that the faster we move to decarbonise, the more we can provide energy security and cheaper energy, and that this is the best way to go forward. If anything came from the previous Question about the advice of the Climate Change Committee, it is that we cannot afford to let go or slow down in relation to climate change. We do not have that luxury; we need to press on.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, our industrial energy prices are too high and our transition to net zero must not come at the cost of specific industrial sectors. The Minister has noted that the original Question in the Commons was in relation to our pottery industry. It is clear that the energy supercharger is helping, but what more can be done to make sure that it is helping all our industries? It is also no secret that the Government are looking at energy market reform in our domestic sector, so can the Minister say what action is being taken to help with industry’s energy costs? What thoughts have the Government had about setting up a permanent independent body to advise the Government on the complex matters involved in the energy market reform policy?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord is of course right to refer to the energy supercharger: £470 million is being contributed towards helping companies which are major energy users. Obviously, we look at the scheme and at whether any changes should be made, but as regards energy market reforms, we are certainly looking at a number of issues in relation to the electricity market. We are looking at issues to do with zonal pricing and the rebalancing of the cost of electricity and gas. But these decisions are not easy and there will be gainers and losers, so we have to take this very carefully. The ultimate answer to the noble Earl’s question is that we need to decarbonise as quickly as possible. That will give price stability and certainty to industry.
Lord Harrington of Watford (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am chairman of Make UK, which represents 27,000 manufacturing businesses in the UK, which I think by mutual acclaim amount to between 10% and 15% of GDP. Our members are extremely worried because they face a 50% premium—at the absolute minimum—on the price of the electricity they have to pay compared to their competitors in Europe and elsewhere. The question to the Government is that industry prices are unregulated compared to consumer prices, and they are therefore much more open to the vagaries of the market. The Government have the industrial strategy, which, I hope, will be published in the next few weeks. Can the Minister reassure us that high energy prices and the uncompetitive nature that they provide for most of our members trying to export products and therefore grow the economy will be assisted in the industrial strategy?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and thank him for the work he does on behalf of so many important industry companies. He will know that we are in discussion with organisations such as his own and many other business and industry interests. As he said, we hope to publish the industrial strategy within the next few weeks. I cannot give him any guarantees as to what will be in it, but I assure him that I understand the pressures on our industries, and we are considering those very carefully in government.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
But, my Lords, the fundamental flaw in the pricing system introduced at the time of privatisation is that the average price of electricity was determined by the marginal price of the last kilowatt, which is normally produced by gas and, as the Minister rightly said, is therefore driven by international gas prices. That is not a law of physics or engineering but a political decision. Should we not be examining that to rebalance the pricing system to the benefit of industry and indeed consumers?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the electricity market operates on the principle of marginal pricing, whereby the wholesale price of electricity is set by the last technology needed to meet overall demand. That is why gas tends to set the price for the market. We are of course looking at this as part of our REMA review that I have referred to. But the faster we decarbonise our energy and move towards clean power, the less gas will have the influence it does in the current system.
Lord Teverson (LD)
What lessons has the Minister’s department learned from looking at our competitors, particularly in Europe, which seems to manage this aspect of its energy markets rather better? What lessons have we learned from across the channel?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, we have to look at each country, and some subsidise business costs from the Exchequer. There is no easy way through here; one way or another, there are variations in what Governments do, but we have a very tough public financial situation bequeathed by the last Government, in the form of the black hole they left us, so our options are inevitably constrained. We are not complacent; that is why we have this review of our whole energy pricing structure, and we will look at these matters very carefully. I still maintain, and I think the noble Lord would agree, that the best way to energy security and stable prices is to go towards clean power as quickly as we can.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, the Minister was absolutely clear that these are not easy decisions, and I think we all understand that. But the high price of electricity affects not only industries but consumers, so they are decisions, however difficult, that have to be taken. We have been tremendously damaged by the system that we have at the moment, so can the Minister be a little more specific about when we will have the results of the REMA review and when we can change the current perverse system of pricing?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I hesitate to answer the noble Baroness by saying “in due course”. Clearly, these matters are being discussed very fully in my department, and we want to reach a conclusion as quickly as possible, but I cannot give her a date.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, if the Minister is correct in his economic theory about gas and electricity prices—frankly, I am not sure that he is—why is the lower price of oil, which is now getting quite low, not bringing down the price of gas as well?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, it is because of marginal pricing, whereby gas is the most predominant, and it tends to set the price. As my noble friend said, this system has operated for many years, but we are looking at it very carefully.
Energy Grid Resilience
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I begin by expressing my sympathy for all those impacted by the recent blackouts in Spain, Portugal and beyond. This blackout should serve as a stark reminder of the consequences when the power grid fails. Prolonged blackouts are devastating. The collapse of the grid in Iberia highlights the vulnerability of our complex, interconnected systems that underpin modern life, as well as the profound human impact that such failures can have. We must ensure that this does not happen in Great Britain, as the economic and social consequences would be catastrophic.
The Government’s plan to rapidly build a grid that is dependent on naturally unreliable and intermittent renewables in just five years will severely compromise the reliability of our electricity supply. The stability of a grid depends on what physicians know well as inertia—the ability to resist destabilising fluctuations in frequency. This has been a key factor in the security and resilience of our grid over the years. Inertia is provided by turbines in nuclear, hydro and gas power stations, but it is not provided by solar and wind farms. Without sufficient inertia to buffer against sudden frequency shifts, the grid risks destabilisation, potentially triggering a domino effect of system failures that culminates in widespread blackouts.
The most recent annual report from Spain’s equivalent of NESO highlights the risk of relying too heavily on renewables. It concluded that the closure of conventional power plants such as coal, gas and nuclear has diminished the grid’s balancing abilities and inertia. What is deeply concerning is that the same trend is occurring here in the UK. Data from NESO has shown a steady decrease in grid inertia as gas and coal plants are replaced by wind and solar. The transition carries a significant cost, which exemplifies the flaws in much of this Government’s accelerated energy security strategy.
The imposed targets are burdening the British public with escalating costs as the Government push forward with a power system dependent on weather conditions rather than reliable, consistent baseload energy. Billions of pounds are being spent subsidising wind farms, expanding the grid and providing backup through reliable gas plants, yet the Government remain determined to meet the accelerated 2030 clean energy target without being transparent with the public about how this will be achieved.
The lessons from the Iberian peninsula’s experience are clear. We must maintain inertia in our grid to ensure its stability and resilience. Gas and nuclear power are essential for providing reliable baseload generation and inertia. I look to the Minister to provide clarity and assurance. Can he confirm NESO’s and the national grid’s preparedness for a blackout? Will he recognise the role that inertia plays in our power system and the impacts of declining inertia on grid stability? Finally, will he recognise that it is not a reliance on, to quote him, “international gas markets” that puts the UK at risk of blackouts? That lies squarely at the foot of renewables, which cannot provide reliable baseload electricity.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement on the power outages across the Iberian peninsula. Our thoughts are of course with the 55 million people across Spain, Portugal, Andorra and parts of France who were affected.
The Statement rightly highlights the highly resilient nature of Great Britain’s energy. I welcome that we will continue to improve our resilience and ensure that our energy systems are robust and that we have the proper exercises in place. We note that a similar event in Great Britain—a total loss of power—is listed on the national risk register as high impact but very low likelihood. It is reassuring to hear that the Minister has been in regular contact with the National Energy System Operator and is working closely with industry to maintain the resilience of our energy infrastructure.
I also welcome the Government’s taking forward recommendations from previous exercises such as Mighty Oak. As the Minister has noted, the exact reasons behind the power failure remain uncertain. We note that independent examinations are going on and that the Spanish and Portuguese Governments and the European Commission are all examining the causes.
The truth is that there are probably several interlinked events that caused this power outage. Sadly, despite the fact that the causes are at the moment unknown, a “firestorm of disinformation” has already erupted, with some attempting immediately to blame the use of renewable energy. We echo the Spanish Prime Minister’s call for caution against misinformation and disinformation. Energy experts have been quite quick to dismiss renewables as the primary cause.
On disinformation, Carbon Brief notes that UK newspapers have already launched more incorrect editorials attacking our net-zero policies in the first four months of 2025 than they did during the whole of 2024. So I take this opportunity to ask the Minister, what actions are the Government taking to improve government communications and actively counter disinformation in this area?
What this incident does highlight, however, is the critical importance of investing in and upgrading our national grid. As we transition to clean energy, a closely synchronized dance has to happen between building grid capacity and developing clean power. The grid must be designed and invested in adequately, at the right time and with the right volumes, as renewable energy is added and demand for electricity grows. Significant investments are needed: some £77 billion over the next five years to increase electricity levels.
The UK is lagging behind, with grid infrastructure spending being only 25p for every pound spent on renewables. What measures are the Government taking to make sure that investment in our grid is keeping pace and meeting the investment we require?
I also want to ask the Minister about transformers. Following the fire at Heathrow, it has come to my attention that only one factory in the UK produces these bespoke bits of kit, and there are 12 to 24-month waiting times. These are crucial for upgrading our grid and making sure it continues to work, so can the Minister have a look at the transformer capacity issue?
We must learn any lessons, but a baseless rush to blame renewables as part of a culture war helps no one at all. Enabling the resilience and security of our energy grid is paramount. We must focus on the facts, invest strategically in our infrastructure and counter harmful disinformation to deliver a secure, affordable and clean energy future.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments, and I join them in expressing my sympathies for those affected. I am glad to hear that power has been fully restored across the region.
As noble Lords have suggested, the Spanish Government are undertaking a review. We do not yet know the outcome, and I suggest that it is best to await the review before we can look properly at any potential lesson or impact on our own system. Clearly, it is entirely understandable that noble Lords should raise the question of the resilience of our own grid. The Secretary of State has been in regular contact over the past week with the National Energy System Operator, which has provided reassurance that there is no increase in risk to our energy supplies from that incident.
The intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Offord, did not come as a surprise to me. We still believe that the best way to secure energy independence is through clean power. The Office for Budget Responsibility has assessed that responding to future gas price shocks could be twice as expensive as the direct public investment needed to reach net zero.
I hope I can provide some reassurance on the issue of inertia. NESO continuously monitors the condition of the electricity system to ensure that there are sufficient inertia reserves to manage large losses. System inertia is the kinetic energy stored in the spinning parts of the generator connected to the electricity system. If there is a sudden change in system frequency, these parts will carry on spinning and slow down that change. System inertia behaves a bit like shock absorbers in a car’s suspension, which dampen the effect of a sudden bump in the road and keep the car stable and moving forward.
In the context of renewable energies, NESO has introduced new technologies such as flywheels to increase inertia and establish new commercial mechanisms to procure these on the GP system as more non-synchronous generation is built and makes up a large proportion of the energy mix. It has also introduced innovative new approaches to manage system stability and the system is designed, built and operated in a way that can cope with the loss of key circuits or systems, minimising the risk of significant customer impact.
As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested, a similar event impacting Great Britain would be a national power outage, with a total loss of power across the whole of Great Britain. This is listed on the national risk register as a high-impact but low-likelihood event, as the noble Earl said. The Great British national electricity transmission system has never experienced a complete shutdown, or anything on the scale seen in Spain over the past few days. None the less, I accept that, as a responsible Government, we must prepare for all eventualities.
On the issue of transformers, I take the noble Earl’s point. Clearly, they are an essential part of the supply chain for our energy sector. We are due to receive an interim report from the review by NESO of what happened at Heathrow—indeed, I think it is due today. We will obviously study that carefully and, if it has implications in relation to transformers, we will consider them very carefully.
The noble Earl also mentioned Exercise Mighty Oak. This was clearly a valuable exercise undertaken by the last Government and we are committed to continuing the work to implement the actions that came from it.
As far as the grid is concerned, I very much take the noble Earl’s point. We know that it needs extending. In the first instance, we are reforming the prioritisation of connections to bring forward projects that are absolutely thought to be able to come forward immediately, rather than applications that will not go anywhere. We also recognise that connection reforms are a critical enabler for our clean power 2030 ambition, and we expect that this will bring forward about £200 billion of investment in network and project build by 2030.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that an essential tool in balancing UK electricity network capacity is the availability of a significant additional number of pumped storage hydro schemes? Will he urge GB Energy to accelerate the pumped storage projects currently under consideration and reconfigure grid capacity to facilitate this?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. I certainly accept that pumped storage energy has a role to play. I shall make sure that Great British Energy is apprised of the views he has taken. He knows that we wish them to operate independently within the strategic framework, which we have debated extensively, but it is a very apposite point, which I will pass on to the chair.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, as was recognised in the other place, reports suggest that Programme Yarrow and Exercise Mighty Oak yielded useful insights and made a valuable contribution to our preparedness in the event of a disruption to the UK’s power supply. However, as proven by the previous Government’s failure to act on the findings of Operation Alice, resulting in a lack of planning for track and trace, border security and lockdowns consequent on the arrival of a pandemic, such diagnostic exercises are only as useful as subsequent actions taken to recommend identified shortfalls in resilience. With this precedent in mind, is my noble friend able to reassure your Lordships’ House that the findings of Programme Yarrow and Exercise Mighty Oak are under constant review and, importantly, that we continue to account for advances in capabilities among those strategic adversaries who might seek to target our critical energy infrastructure?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, Mighty Oak was a successful programme to test plans for full electricity restoration in the event of a national power outage. It was very successful and generated a number of learning points, and we now have a strong governance framework for oversight of the implementation of those recommendations. That work will also feed into the resilience review that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced in July 2024.
I assure my noble friend that there is absolutely no complacency whatever, and nor is there any in relation to the energy security system and cybersecurity threats he referred to. It is certainly a key priority for the Government. We work closely with the National Protective Security Authority and the National Cyber Security Centre and we are certainly not complacent on this.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I can reassure the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that I do not wish to denigrate the contribution of renewables but, with the increasing electrification of heating and transport, can the Minister explain how the grid can remain resilient without more reliable baseload power, such as that provided by nuclear?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that the baseload that nuclear provides is very important indeed. She knows that we are rapidly approaching the final investment decision on Sizewell C, and the conclusion of the current work of Great British Nuclear in relation to small modular reactors. We are very keen to see the contribution of nuclear recognised. I agree with her that it provides an essential baseload to the system.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, one of the contributors to clean power, which the Government are quite rightly promoting, is solar panels on the roofs of new houses. I commend what the Government are trying to do, but has my noble friend not seen all the opposition from the housebuilders, who say it is too expensive, it will not work, it will make them fat and everything else? Will he keep going with this programme? It is local and very good and will give extra alternatives to all the other types of power that have been discussed this afternoon.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My noble friend will know that my colleagues in the MHCLG are discussing these matters at the moment. I, of course, very much understand the contribution that solar on rooftops can make. We are taking this forward and I am sure we will make announcements as soon as possible.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
Is the Minister able to tell us what proportion of our annual electricity comes from undersea cables, whether from abroad—France, Norway or eventually, possibly, Morocco—or from our own offshore wind farms? Because we know what President Putin has his eye on.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I do not have the exact figures, but I will certainly find them and send them to the noble Lord. Clearly, protecting the offshore infrastructure is a very important issue for the Government. We are working with subsea and offshore operators, including the Joint Maritime Security Centre, to enhance our domestic maritime awareness. I very much take the point and will find the information and send it to him.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, the Government have a key meeting coming up with the European Union and, as part of the trade and co-operation agreement, there is, next year, a revision of the energy relationship. With regard to the resilience of our national electricity and energy systems, what do the Government expect to get out of the meeting next month, particularly on interconnectors and a more efficient form of trading between us and our European partners?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord can hardly expect me to go into the details of what we expect out of such discussions. He will know that we are embarked on resetting the relationship between ourselves and the EU. There is to be a summit between the UK and the EU on 19 May and, of course, we have been in discussions with the EU about a number of energy issues. Clearly, what we want is a co-operative relationship that recognises that there is an interrelationship between ourselves and the mainland of Europe. I cannot go into any more detail than that.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interest in the register as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. My noble friend the Minister is quite right to highlight the fact that our grid is recognised as one of the more resilient around the world. However, noble Lords have already indicated the number of threats and the changing way in which the grid is operating, with more suppliers and so on coming on stream. Can my noble friend reassure the House that enough consideration has been given not so much to all the things that we are doing to prevent an outage, but all the things that we should be doing to make sure that the public and industry are prepared for those, I hope, rare or even non-existent occasions when the power does go off and for more than just a very short period?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I very much take my noble friend’s point; I will certainly take it on board and discuss it with colleagues. In relation to energy security, I have already said that we must maintain a resilient and secure electricity system. It is a key priority for us. We work closely with the National Protective Security Authority. I pay tribute to my noble friend for the contribution that he has made to these discussions. We are providing extensive advice and support to industry on what measures it should take to protect itself, but I take the point about communication with the public and it is something that I will reflect upon.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
I want to reinforce the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. He is right, and the Minister is right, that in the past we did indeed have resilience. In this sort of case, resilience means bringing in a large amount of extra supply at very short notice, such as could be performed at Dinorwig, the pump storage station, which I was told could bring in several gigawatts at two minutes’ notice and, furthermore, that even if it was never used, the entire system would allow other plants to run at a higher margin, with a higher inertia factor, and, therefore, provide even more resilience and effectiveness for the whole system. In this age, as we move into reliance on renewables on a massive scale, are we providing extra support of that kind—rapid resource mobilisation—which will give us the modern and reliable system that we are going to need to compete in the modern world?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
Yes, my Lords, we are. It is a very relevant point. Clearly, we are looking for a balanced energy mix for the future. We see nuclear as being an essential baseload. We will have renewables, but we are looking at hydro storage, as the noble Lord reflected in his own question. The whole point is that we will have a balanced system, but one that is heavily decarbonised. That is exactly the aim of what we seek to do.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, the Statement says that the GB system is “highly resilient” but, in reality, has that not eroded over recent years, as was demonstrated recently at Heathrow, when we have known for some years about capacity problems in west London? The Minister will also be aware of the bottlenecks on the high-voltage national grid, not helped by the current long lead times—around four years—for high-voltage cable and transformers. Even without the rising threat of sabotage, has the network provider not been far too complacent about the threats to the resilience of our electricity network? Finally, he mentioned in a reply about small modular reactors that the industry has been waiting for too long for a decision while our competitors are moving rapidly ahead. Is it not now time for action to get on with building this industry of the future?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, in relation to SMRs, I agree with my noble friend that we need to get on with it. I hope and expect that we will have some decisions very soon. I hope that that will set the foundation for future investment in the SMR programme.
As far as west London is concerned, my noble friend is absolutely right to point out the challenges there, and the fact that we basically inherited a system where there had not been sufficient investment in the grid and local distribution network. In relation to Heathrow, let us await the interim and final reports of the review that we have established to see what lessons can be learned. As I said earlier to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the fact is that we expect there to be a major investment in our whole grid system between now and 2030. It will be essential to meet our clean power targets. I think that will give industry the confidence to invest in the areas where we wish it to do so.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about solar panels on the roofs of new houses, will the Minister also look at prioritising solar panels on the roofs of shops, supermarkets and warehouses? Quite often one goes on to an industrial estate and sees a lot of flat roofs but no solar panels and surely that is a much better option than locating solar arrays on top- class agricultural land?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Lord’s substantive point, and these matters are being discussed in government at the moment. On the use of farmland, he knows that if we were to achieve the whole of our solar ambition, we would not use more than 1% of agricultural land. We will continue to see solar projects on agricultural land, but I want to see much greater development on industrial premises and in domestic houses.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I repeat my declaration of interests. Spending the morning with my newly born grandson has left me in the mood to emphasise the positive, so I can say that I did actually agree with one thing that the noble Lord, Lord Offord, said, and that was that we need to be transparent with the public. There will be difficult decisions to be made and balances to be struck when we build the new infrastructure necessary for the grid. What progress is being made in the public engagement strategy the Government have undertaken about achieving net zero? As we heard earlier today, there are many misapprehensions and mistruths being peddled about the situation in regard to renewables.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on being a grandmother—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
—again. I think that is absolutely right. So much misinformation about energy policy appears in social media and in the media generally. We are doing our best; sometimes Governments are not listened to as much as we would wish. There is no question that, for instance, some of the criticism in relation to energy prices is put at the door of net zero when actually it is because of the uncertainty and volatility of international gas markets. There is a lot that we need to do collectively to get over the reality of why climate change presents such a threat, why, unless we can tackle these issues, we will probably continue to have high energy prices, and why we need to adapt and mitigate as fast as we can. I do not have any easy answers, but it is a matter we are giving great consideration to at the moment.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, resilience is something which is always in the process of being made. It requires embracing emerging technologies. Thorium-based nuclear energy is much safer and cheaper than uranium- or plutonium-based nuclear energy. China and India are leading the race, and I have never seen “thorium” in any UK policy document to do with long-term energy supply. Can the Minister say what investment the UK Government have made or intend to make in thorium-based technology?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
No, my Lords, I am not aware of any investment, but I will double-check. I am very happy to discuss this with my noble friend. We should also mention nuclear fusion as having great potential. The previous Government invested, and this Government are investing, considerable amounts of money in it. The UK has a huge potential lead in this exciting area and there are real signs we may see some positive outcomes in the next few years. I am certainly prepared to engage with my noble friend on this.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I return to a question that was at least implicit in the question from the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, on the national grid and possible cyberattacks. We are all aware that there has been a massive cyberattack on Marks & Spencer and one on Co-op Group. No organisation, however large, is immune from the possibility of attack and obviously the national grid is particularly vulnerable. Is there anything the Minister can do to reassure the public and give them confidence that every possible step has been taken to avoid this?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, as I think I have already said, the security of our energy system is clearly critical. I take the point the noble and right reverend Lord raised about cybersecurity. Noble Lords will have seen the devastating impact that this has had on retailers in the last few weeks. We work with the National Cyber Security Centre. We are very exercised about this. I can assure the noble and right reverend Lord that we are not at all complacent.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My noble friend the Minister has already referred to the fact that the system operator is introducing innovative new approaches. Might that involve the application of AI to managing the grid? Looking further ahead, and in the light of the report from your Lordships’ Science and Technology Committee on long-duration energy storage, could the Minister indicate whether or when the Government might take the type of strategic interest in long-duration energy storage that we will need?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My noble friend is right about AI; that was one of the main points raised in the Tony Blair Institute report, which was raised earlier. We are giving long-duration energy storage a great deal of attention.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, according to National Grid: Live, we are currently relying on interconnectors from Europe for 25% of our energy. Apart from the cost of importing that energy, how much assurance do we have that that electricity comes, and will come, from decarbonised generating capacity?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, interconnectors are very important for our energy security. As we move towards a low-carbon world, we will wish for that supply to be as low-carbon as possible. This will reflect on progress made in other countries, but it is also in relation to the alignment of carbon trading systems. I hope we will be able to make progress on that in the next few months.
Renters’ Rights Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text 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, I remind the Committee again of the protocol around declaring interests. As I mentioned last week, noble Lords should declare relevant interests at each stage of a Bill’s proceedings. That means that, in Committee, relevant interests should be declared during the first group in which a noble Lord speaks. If a noble Lord declared an interest during the previous two days in Committee then that is sufficient, but if they are making their first contribution today then any relevant interest should be declared.
Clause 12: Right to request permission to keep a pet
Amendment 118
Lord Black of Brentwood
“(d) the landlord may not review or withdraw consent once given.”
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to introduce this important group on pet ownership, which is a subject of real concern and interest to hundreds of thousands of families that live in rented accommodation and desperately want to share their lives with a pet. I will speak to Amendments 118 and 125, which are also supported by my noble friend Lord Lexden and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to whom I am very grateful. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Coffey for adding her name to Amendment 125. She brings great authority to this debate as a former Defra Secretary of State with a long-standing interest in and commitment to animal welfare.
I also support Amendments 119 and 126, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, to which I have happily added my name. I declare my interest as a patron of International Cat Care. I am very grateful to Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, Cats Protection and other charities in the sector for their support and the excellent briefing they have provided us, as well as to other organisations, such as Mars Petcare, which has shared crucial research on the benefits of pet ownership and does so much for animal welfare.
I will set out the background to these amendments. We are a nation of pet lovers. Around 13.5 million homes in the UK include a dog and 12.5 million—mine included—are graced by a cat. Unfortunately, however, pet ownership is all too often limited to those who own their own home, causing huge anguish to the millions of families that rent but also want to share their lives with a pet. In 2024, Cats Protection found that over half a million households that would like a cat do not have one because their rental agreements forbid it. Research from Battersea Dogs & Cats Home shows that only 7% of private landlords list their property as pet friendly—an incredibly low number when we consider that, according to the same survey, 76% of tenants already own or aspire to own a pet.
Correcting that imbalance is so important for a number of reasons. There is the obvious link between rental restrictions and pet homelessness, with housing issues cited as the second most common reason that pets are relinquished to Battersea. Last year, Cats Protection took in the equivalent of three cats each day due to landlords not allowing them in their properties—part of a wider crisis of pets having to be given up. At Second Reading, I told the story of Zeke, a cat that arrived in Battersea just 24 hours before his first birthday after his owners faced the heartbreaking choice between finding an alternate rental property or giving him up to a shelter. His story is far from unique: across the UK, thousands of animals urgently need loving homes, yet countless responsible would-be pet owners in the private rental sector are being unfairly prevented from adopting or finding suitable housing due to overly restrictive tenancy agreements.
It is not just our pets that suffer as a result; public health is impacted too. Research conducted by Mars Petcare has found that pet ownership saves the NHS approximately £2.5 billion per year, with pet owners making 15% fewer visits to a doctor. The physical benefits of taking a dog for a walk or a run every day are obvious, but those of us who own pets know it is the mental health and well-being aspects that have the greatest impact. Pets provide people with companionship and loyalty—particularly for those who live alone—help them to meet new people, add structure to their day and offer unconditional love and support. Children also benefit from understanding the responsibilities of caring for a dog or cat and learning how to interact safely with animals. Pet ownership is also often an indicator of a responsible and reliable tenant, which is very relevant to this debate. Research from Battersea showed that three-quarters of landlords surveyed did not observe any discernible increase in wear and tear to their property due to pets.
For all these reasons, I am delighted that the Government are committed to encouraging responsible pet ownership across the private rented sector and I strongly support the ambition of this section of the Bill: providing tenants with the right to request a pet—a request that cannot be unreasonably refused by a landlord. My probing amendments today seek simply to tighten up certain aspects of legislation to guarantee that the pet provisions in the Bill are as effective as possible and that the laudable ambition and clear intention of this legislation is fully realised.
But we are not quite there yet. As it stands, I fear that there are loopholes in the Bill and that landlords will have too much room to deny most requests, risking a serious and unnecessary burden on tenants, the ombudsman and, ultimately, the courts. The amendments I have tabled will provide certainty for tenants and clarity for landlords, and will ensure that the Bill is not a missed opportunity to unlock thousands of homes for pet owners across the country.
Lord Lexden (Con)
I am always glad to support my noble friend Lord Black, with whom I have worked closely on many subjects over many years. Long ago, when we were both in the Conservative research department during a general election campaign, we circulated a briefing note to the party’s candidates telling them what they would need to do to win the support of animals great and small if these marvellous creatures had the vote. I cannot remember whether we included rights for pets in rented property, but it would have been a grave lapse if we had omitted them.
My noble friend’s amendments do not contain a hint of opposition to the Government’s proposals relating to pets; they seek to make the good relevant elements of the Bill even better. The amendments have two objectives: to strengthen the legal protection that the Bill confers on pets and to increase the well-being of people in rented accommodation who want to keep and cherish a pet. These two objectives, as my noble friend has explained, are intertwined. All the research carried out by the wonderful charities devoted to the welfare of pets shows that their owners in rented property not only enjoy greater contentment but lead healthier, better-disciplined lives. The upshot is that tenants who keep pets are likely to seek longer-term tenancies—something that benefits landlords by increasing rental income security.
Surely, through the Bill, we should do all that is possible to prevent responsible people in rented housing being denied unreasonably the opportunity to have a pet or pets, which those who own their homes enjoy automatically, particularly at a time when successive Governments have failed to ensure the provision of sufficient new housing for private ownership.
It is a sad and deeply regrettable fact that a significant proportion of landlords, as my noble friend has explained, are resolutely opposed to the presence of pets in their properties. A 2021 survey by YouGov, on behalf of those excellent charities the Dogs Trust and Cats Protection, found that one-third of private landlords who currently refuse to allow pets in their properties are not prepared to reconsider their opposition. They must be expected to go to all possible lengths to try to flout the pet ownership provisions of this Bill.
Nothing could illustrate more clearly the need for stronger legal protection than the Bill currently provides, which could be achieved through my noble friend’s amendment to define more firmly and tightly the circumstances in which a request to have a pet in rented property could be rejected. In the absence of a more precise definition of what would constitute acceptable grounds for a landlord’s refusal, disputes will inevitably proliferate. A lack of clarity and certainty in the law always leads to problems, as we have seen in various contexts recently. Opaque law cannot be satisfactory law.
I hope that the Government will give very careful consideration to these important and constructive amendments.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 119 and 126 in my name, to which the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, has added his name. The provisions of my two amendments simply mirror the provisions that are in Amendments 118 and 125, so that they will apply to superior landlords as well as landlords. A superior landlord is a person who, for example, owns the block of flats and has a greater interest in the tenants than does the immediate landlord. I declare an interest as I have been affected twice recently by the superior landlord being in a position to deny any pet ownership.
I fully agree with the excellent introduction to this issue from the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, and all the points that he made, but, if this provision is not added to the Bill, I fear it will completely undermine the Government’s very good intentions, which we support, in bringing forward Clause 12, because the position of the superior landlord will almost always override that of the landlord.
The interests that I quote I will give as examples. The first was from when, during Covid, I rented out my flat. The family who rented it wanted to adopt a cat. The rules applying to the block of flats state that pets may not be kept, so although I as a landlord was happy that this family adopted a cat, the superior landlord rules for the block forbade it. More recently, this year, my husband and I have bought a flat, but even as owners we are subject to a rule that the superior landlord has to give permission for a pet. This means a lot of uncertainty for the vendor and for us, while the superior landlord decided whether we could keep our 15 year-old dog.
If the Government succeed in changing the position for renters, they must also address the issue of superior landlords and their ability to block any pet ownership. If the Government do not address this, the likelihood is that the good intentions behind this clause will fail because of the legal limitations for subtenants. Usually, they do not have a direct contractual relationship—that is, in legalese, no privity of contract—with the superior landlord, unless there is a direct agreement. This can mean that enforcing rights or obligations becomes very difficult if the issue lies with the superior landlord rather than with the immediate landlord.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply to this issue, because I fear that, otherwise, as I said, the good intentions of Clause 12 will be totally undermined.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I am not quite sure what the Minister said earlier, but I would like to declare interest as an owner of rented property.
I shall speak to Amendments 120, 122 and 123 in my name in this group. All these amendments seek to highlight where pets could be unsuitable in a rented property. Although, as I have already said earlier during this Committee, as a landlord I have never refused a pet, a blank cheque for pets is not practical. Amendment 120 would allow landlords to reasonably refuse their consent to a pet if the allergies from that pet would have a negative impact on the landlord’s employees, their managing agents or other related persons, including future tenants. For those who suffer with allergies, this is a very serious matter and can have a debilitating effect, and it is not always possible to remove allergens through standard cleaning. We have all read and heard about the allergies from peanuts et cetera that can kill; well, the allergies from pets are not so serious, but they are very serious for people who suffer.
Amendment 122 would allow landlords to reasonably refuse their consent to a pet if they reasonably believe it is unsuitable for the property, may cause a nuisance to neighbours or may damage the property or place an unreasonable burden on its upkeep. Wooden floors get scratched and carpets get stained—if they are still there —when pets are involved, so flooring almost always needs to be replaced when a tenancy ends. Some may consider this reasonable wear and tear, and others may not, but it is certainly a much greater cost when there have been pets in a property, and it is an important factor to consider. Not every landlord is in a position always to replace everything every time there is a new tenancy. Of course, some pets are capable of causing more damage than others, and some properties are easier to upkeep than others. I think there should be some leniency and some leeway for landlords who know their properties to make a judgment on this.
Amendment 123 follows on from this and seeks to exclude pets which are inappropriate or disproportionate in size or number. I realise there will be difficulties in defining this. Are five Dobermann pinschers more or less suitable than 25 fox-terriers? Nevertheless, as the Bill stands, I am not clear whether a landlord would be free to make a judgment, which most noble Lords would agree would be very sensible, that a Great Dane could not be housed in a studio flat, or that 50 cats could not be kept in a small terraced house. Given the difficulties, will the Minister consider making it clear that the landlord has, or should have, discretion to make sensible decisions for the benefits of residents, neighbours and the pets themselves?
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 124 is in my name, and I declared relevant interests earlier. The amendment is very simple: it is about putting social housing tenants in the same place as those in the private rental sector after the Bill has become an Act.
I received a copy of a letter that the Dogs Trust sent to the Deputy Prime Minister in March this year in which it proposed exactly the same thing. Looking at the crib sheet for the answer that came back, I see that the first part is commendable in that it says: “The Government understands that pet ownership can be hugely beneficial, bringing joy to owners and supporting mental and physical health”. I can only agree with that. At Second Reading and in various parts of the process of this Bill, it has been eloquently and frequently said how important pets are and—speaking as a Scottish landlord, both personally and as a charitable trustee— I very much believe that and strongly support the concept of there being a rebuttable presumption that pets are allowed where people are renting properties.
The letter went on to make two points. The first point was that the Government did not feel that what amounted to Amendment 124 was correct, because social housing tenants was a separate policy area. Of course, it is all still MHCLG, and I do feel that someone standing at a bus stop in middle England would scratch their head about that particular one: why on earth should someone living in social housing be in a different place to someone living in the private rental sector? It is a distinction without a difference.
In the second part of the letter, it went on to give various reasons why it might be reasonable, within social housing, to say no to a tenant who wanted a pet. It all amounted to a series of reasons why it might not be reasonable for a pet to be allowed in a particular property, but of course that is already how the Bill is drafted: it is possible for a landlord to say that a particular pet or series of pets should not be allowed in rented accommodation, as long as that is reasonable. It is reasonable for a landlord to say no, so I do not quite see what the logical force of that is, because the social housing sector would retain that right to say no. I therefore urge the Minister to reach across the corridor at MHCLG and accept what has become a very popular amendment.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I have close connections with various animal charities, in particular as a vice-president of the RSPCA nationally and as president of one of its branches.
I too want to speak to Amendment 124, eloquently introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I see no logic whatever: to make a distinction in the way that apparently has been done is what I call Civil Service short-sightedness, and I strongly disapprove of it. I can see no logical reason whatever for treating people who are renting their properties differently simply because they live in a slightly different type of property. I hope that the Minister will look very carefully at this and come to a different conclusion.
I will broaden this out slightly to look at the various amendments in this group. It seems to me that while the heart is in the right place—and I give due credit to the Government for introducing this general right to have a pet, for which I have long campaigned—the Bill fails slightly in not laying down the circumstances clearly enough, so that it leaves the opportunity for some landlords to squeeze past what is clearly intended. On the other hand, it could make for some difficulties if the tenants themselves are unreasonable.
I suggest that the Minister look at bringing forward a code of conduct that would act as a guide for all the varying points which have been made hitherto—if you like, a “highway code”, not necessarily having the force of law, to which one could look for guidance where these tricky problems arise. I hope that this will commend itself to the Minister.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 124A in the name of my noble friend Lord Leicester. He apologises to the House for not being here. He had hoped to be here, but a long-standing commitment has prevented him from being so.
Of course, my noble friend Lord Black is absolutely right that pets can be extremely beneficial and are a great asset in many households. However, my noble friend Lord Howard is also right in saying that there needs to be a balance; there cannot just be an open door for tenants to have a pet as and when they want, however badly or well that pet behaves.
Amendment 124A refers especially to cats. I was actually quite surprised that my noble friend Lord Black did not mention cats. He mentioned dogs—he gave them a good write-up—but he did not mention cats because he probably knew that I would make the point that cats are killers. They have many assets and I love them dearly, but let out of a house and loose, they are killers. They kill between 160 million and 270 million animals every year, a quarter of those being birds.
I wonder how many of your Lordships woke up early on Sunday morning and listened to nature’s greatest symphony, the dawn chorus. It was International Dawn Chorus Day. We like small birds—songbirds. They are hugely under threat from all sorts of areas, but they are also under threat from cats. There are certain measures that cat owners can take to make their pet less harmful to other species, but the Brits are not terribly good at doing that. In fact, in Germany they have found that some of the Germans are not terribly good at that, either; they have actually made an order in some parts of Germany that during the summer, you have to keep your cat indoors all the time.
Amendment 124A is very tightly drawn. It allows a landlord to say no to a tenant having a cat if the property is in an area designated by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—I remember speaking quite a lot during the progress of that Bill through Parliament—or close to a designated area. In other words, what we are really talking about here are key nature sites: the SSSIs and national nature reserves. The amendment is also carefully worded, in that one is not allowed to have a cat if the property is within a mile of one of those sites. Why a mile? The reason is that the research undertaken by the University of Reading and the University of Exeter at the request of SongBird Survival has found that cats can roam up to roughly 1,400 metres, which is just about a mile. Through their research, they also found that urban cats behave differently from what they call “peri-urban” cats, which are much more likely to stray further and have a different attitude and natural instincts from cats in urban areas, because of the restrictions of such areas.
It is entirely reasonable to encourage landlords to say yes, but equally, it is entirely reasonable to allow them to say no in certain circumstances. Nature in this country needs not only protecting but encouraging. One of the small ways to encourage nature is to say no to a tenant having a cat in an area that is very close to or part of an SSSI or a national nature reserve. That is the right step: protection of nature rather than the will of an individual.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 124 in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and others. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and the noble Earl, I am at a loss to understand why potential tenants in social housing are not included in the Bill. I would have thought that those seeking social housing are likely to be unable to afford to buy their own home, in which case they would not have a problem with having a pet. Why does the Bill not enable such tenants in social housing to enjoy the rights afforded to tenants in private housing? I cannot see the distinction, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply to this question.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I am afraid I have none of the expertise of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who spoke about cats with intimate knowledge. At this stage I should redeclare an interest that I declared in the early days of this Committee. For the last almost 30 years my wife and I, by accident, in fact, have been the landlords of five one-bedroom flats in the house next door.
While households normally have as their pet either a dog or a cat, there are some extraordinary households that have a string of other sorts of pet—for example, a snake, monkey or parrot. Looking at page 21 of the Bill, we find that a “pet” is described as “an animal”. On that basis, a talkative parrot or indeed a snake does not fall under these provisions. The assumption therefore is that the landlord is entitled to say no to snakes and, if he needs to—although one hopes it is hardly necessary—no to a talkative parrot. It is important to establish the reasonable grounds on which a landlord can refuse to permit a tenant to bring a pet into the property.
Amendments 120 to 123, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, are very helpful. If they are going to be pressed on Report, I suggest they be condensed into a single amendment.
My wife and I have always refused to permit tenants to have a pet such as a dog or a cat, because we have been concerned about the disturbance of other tenants—a dog barking, for example—and the damage a pet can create in the household.
With that background, it has been very helpful of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, to identify circumstances in which it is reasonable or unreasonable for a landlord to refuse a pet in the premises. That continues to be a very interesting debate. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is going to educate us further on cats, but may we go on?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly, because the noble Lord, Lord Black, covered his two amendments very thoroughly. I do not have pets myself, but I declare that I have a daughter who has recently taken the tenancy of a house, and she has children, a dog and two cats. It was quite difficult for her to make sure that they could all live together, so I understand that a lot of people would have to lose their pets, and I think that is an incredible shame.
I thank the Dogs Trust, Mars Petcare and Battersea Dogs & Cats Home for their briefings and work on this, which were very thorough. Amendment 118 would provide security for pet owners in rented accommodation —knowing that, once granted, consent cannot be withdrawn. If this was tabled in the other place by the current Minister, I assume that he is going to accept this amendment, and that the noble Baroness the Minister will tell us that today.
Amendment 125, which I have also signed, would go a long way towards ensuring that blanket no-pet policies cannot continue. Battersea Dogs & Cats Home has described the second most common reason that pets are given up to it as because of rental restrictions. That seems extremely hard. Although I do not have any pets, I understand the value of pets to people in all sorts of ways, and I hope that we can have some success with these amendments.
Lord Carrington (CB)
I shall speak to Amendment 126A and to support the noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Leicester. I had not intended to speak on this, but it is a point that there is a big difference between pets in rural properties and pets in urban properties. Speaking as someone who lets rural properties, I have never had any problem with stopping tenants bringing their pets, but I would mention that cats are a particular problem in certain areas. I think that the very carefully drafted amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, makes a great deal of sense in this respect.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as entered in the register and apologise to the House for not having spoken before in Committee. I spoke at Second Reading, but the combination of the west coast main line and prior commitments has made it impossible in Committee until now.
Briefly, I make just three points, in no particular order. First, in respect of Amendment 118, the nicest, cutest little puppy can turn into a horrible adult dog, and if it is impossible for the landlord, having given consent, to change that if the cute little puppy turns into a dog from hell, that would be a very great mistake. It is a matter of balance, reasonableness and judgment. Secondly, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, because that seems to be elementary sensibleness—nothing more. Thirdly and finally, having heard the very persuasive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Black, I suddenly wondered: were they asking the Government to make it compulsory for tenants to have pets? I ask the Minister what her view about that would be.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I speak on this group mainly in support of Amendment 124 in the name of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. I wish the Committee to note my entry in the register of interests: that I am a part-owner of a large independent veterinary practice, with a significant proportion of our turnover generated from pets.
I welcome Clause 12 as it will increase the number of properties that tenants can keep pets in. With the growing number of pet owners in the past five years, it is certainly welcome. How we care for pets and how we value their companionship has changed significantly in society in the last 10 years, and that is why this clause is so important. But we must be aware that there are many in society who are allergic to pets, who find them scary and who are made nervous by them, especially children, and those who just do not like pets. Therefore, somehow, through this amendment, we need to ensure a balance between landlords, tenants and their pets, and others in society.
As previously spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, the amendment gives access to all tenants, regardless of whether they are in the private rental sector or accessing social housing. This gives tenants the right to request permission to keep a pet, regardless of their landlord.
The Bill is also about improving opportunity for tenants to keep a pet; surely this simple amendment will create a level playing field between the social housing sector and private landlords. Social housing is probably the most likely first place to go for individuals on low income or who are homeless, seeking to find a home for themselves and their families, which often include a pet. This has been drawn to my attention recently by a TV advert for a homeless charity. Its website says:
“New polling from homeless charity St Mungo’s reveals new extent of the housing crisis and its impact on people sharing their lives with a pet. 50% of those surveyed reported being placed in situations where they were forced to choose between remaining with their pets or accessing housing. This situation is ever present, within the last 12 months, 43% of respondents experienced challenges in finding housing that allows pets. This is amplified for those between the ages of 18-24, where 70% experienced this”.
Therefore, to ensure that the private rental sector is not forced to take up all the housing needs of pet owners, I hope that this amendment will be considered by the Government. Surely the reasons for not allowing a pet in the home are the same for private landlords as for social housing landlords.
On the other amendments in the group, I support Amendment 118 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, which would ensure that a landlord cannot withdraw consent. If a pet is causing an issue for a landlord, that will surely be covered by other provisions in the Bill. The landlord could terminate a tenancy using anti-social behaviour as a reason, whether it was caused by the tenant or the pet. The amendment would ensure that the tenant, once the pet is allowed in the home, cannot be forced to remove the pet unless the tenant has breached a term of the tenancy agreement.
I also support Amendment 119 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, which would ensure that a tenant in all properties, regardless of who the landlord is, can ask for the right to keep a pet at their home. Like the social housing Amendment 124, this amendment seeks to increase the number of properties available to tenants, but also ensures that all landlords, regardless of their position in the rental housing sector, are obliged to consider the request of a tenant to keep a pet.
Amendments 125 and 126 provide some clarity for landlords and tenants, with definitions of when it is unreasonable for a landlord to reject a request for a tenant to keep a pet. This clarity can only help with negotiations between landlords and tenants with regard to keeping pets, and solutions will be found more quickly, I hope, and with less bad feeling between the two parties. This clarity will reduce the number of cases that can be referred to other authorities to decide whether a landlord’s reasons for rejection are in fact reasonable. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest, having a young grandson who had an affinity with snakes. When he was very young, living in central London, he had several, one of which was quite large and called Wilberforce. Wilberforce used to do what snakes do—rear up and sway when anyone came in the room, so he was quite intimidating. One day he—we think it was a he—disappeared and has never been found. I mention this as a cautionary tale, as he may one day turn up somewhere where he is not quite as welcome as he was originally.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, the provisions relating to tenants keeping pets may seem a small aspect to some, but their impact on the well-being and lives of millions of renters cannot be overstated. We on these Benches warmly welcome the Bill’s intention to make it an implied term in most assured tenancies that landlords cannot unreasonably refuse a tenant’s request to keep a pet.
We support many of the amendments in this group, with the exception of Amendments 120, 122 and 123. For too long, a blanket ban on pets has been a source of needless unhappiness and stress for renters, compounding the sense that this large and ever-growing group are often treated as second-class citizens. This includes social renters, and we commend the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on that issue. Indeed, research estimates that pet ownership contributes considerable savings to the NHS each year, as an example, potentially as much as £2.45 billion annually across the UK through reduced doctor visits. It is simply wrong that the joy and benefits that a pet brings should be restricted to those who are fortunate enough to own their own home.
We have heard compelling evidence illustrating the scale of this issue. Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, which I thank for its briefing on this issue, has highlighted that housing concerns are the second most common reason why dogs are relinquished to its care. Even though I am here in fear of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on this issue, I add my thanks to Battersea Dogs & Cats Home for the rescue cat that we got from Battersea, who brings us daily joy and, I reassure the noble Earl, kills a lot of rats. Despite 76% of UK private tenants owning or aspiring to own a pet, only 8% of landlords currently advertise properties as allowing pets. This creates immense difficulty for renters, forcing them into heartbreaking decisions, as we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford.
Clauses 10, 11, 12 and 13 introduce the right to request a pet and allow landlords to require insurance, but we feel that they still leave further questions about the practical implementation. Sources currently suggest that there are no readily available insurance products for tenants to cover potential pet damage. We welcome some of the probing amendments on this issue and look forward to hearing from the Minister about any clarification on that. Organisations such as Generation Rent argue that the existing tenancy deposit should be sufficient to cover those damages. We must ensure that the Bill does not disadvantage the most deprived renters, perhaps by exploring alternatives such as allowing for a higher deposit or different insurance mechanisms such as the Scottish model of an additional deposit. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on this issue.
Crucially, the Bill states that consent cannot be unreasonably refused. However, what constitutes unreasonably withholding consent is not yet clearly defined. We need the reasonable grounds for refusal to be set out with more clarity, ensuring fairness and consistency in decisions, especially if the proposed ombudsman service or the courts are involved.
A particularly troubling aspect is the exemption allowing superior landlords to override a landlord’s approval for pets. This risks undermining the spirit of the legislation, especially for tenants in blocks of flats or leasehold properties where management companies or freeholders might maintain blanket bans. We on these Benches support my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer in her Amendments 119 and 126 which seek greater clarity on this issue. This exemption should be removed to ensure that the right to keep a pet applies consistently across all types of rented homes. Other practicalities, such as the proposed timeframe for landlords to respond to pet requests, also may need some scrutiny or flexibility. Battersea Dogs & Cats Home has suggested that a shortening of this time might be an idea.
The intention behind these clauses is commendable, reflecting a much-needed shift towards acknowledging the important role pets play in many people’s lives. There is evidence that renting to tenants with pets can be commercially beneficial for landlords, with pet owners tending to have longer tenancies, averaging 24 months compared with 21 months for those without pets. Pet owners are also often willing to allow more regular inspections or consider covering additional costs. While concerns about damage are understandable, most evidence suggests that these fears can be exaggerated. In our view, and as other noble Lords and contributing organisations have highlighted, some refinement is needed. We must ensure that these provisions are not only well- intentioned but genuinely effective in practice, providing clear rights for tenants while addressing some of the legitimate concerns. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these amendments.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I will very briefly intervene. I agree that people who like pets benefit from having them, and I guess that landlords who do not like pets are going to have to put up with it, which seems fair enough. But—no pun intended—what a legal can of worms we are opening here. What is a pet? I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hacking: snakes are animals, as are alligators, rats, goats, snakes, and even fleas, which some people keep as pets. That is going to cause a great deal of stress and redefinition at some point.
Listening to the very interesting speech by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, we heard that we are also going to introduce a category called an anti-social pet. That is going to be very hard to define and prosecute, and I suspect the unreasonable grounds for refusal will, again, cause interesting legal conundrums. So this amendment will go through, and I am happy to support it, but I wonder what legal can of worms we are opening for the future.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this section of the Bill is set to introduce some significant changes affecting the rights of renters, the rights of landlords and the nature of the relationship between those two parties, and we need to consider these provisions and the amendments to them with particular care.
Amendments 118 and 119, tabled by my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, seek to prevent consent from being withdrawn by a landlord once it has been granted. This proposal presents some challenges, as far as we can see, and may benefit from a more considered approach. It poses a risk to landlords when taking on a new tenant, because it raises the prospect that they could be tying themselves into a contract whereby they would have no right to remove, in future, a dangerous, aggressive or damaging animal from their own property.
In our opinion, these amendments also suffer from the way that they have been drafted. If a tenant acquired a new pet, would they be obliged to seek consent again from their landlord, or would the one issuing of consent cover all future acquisitions? If a tenant was granted consent for a goldfish, does this amendment really seek to assume that the consent is also automatically granted if the same tenant decides to buy an Irish wolfhound?
Amendment 120, tabled by my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, seeks to address that fundamental question of proportionality, which I have referred to several times throughout my remarks on the Bill. This amendment rightly seeks to protect the landlord beyond the immediate term and ensures that they will still be able to make full use of their property after a tenant has left. If a landlord reasonably believes that a pet could limit their use of their property into the future and thus reduce its utility and value, it is surely reasonable to allow the landlord the discretion to protect their asset and the health of their family and future tenants.
My noble friend Lord Howard of Rising takes this responsible approach further in Amendments 121, 122 and 123, which would provide the landlord with the capacity to refuse consent if a pet was a dangerous wild animal, if a pet risked causing damage or disruption, or if a tenant wished to keep an inappropriate number of animals or an inappropriately sized animal in their property. These amendments would not only preserve the balance of the renter-landlord relationship but help to ensure the safety, protection from damage and the well-being of the landlord and tenant alike. As it stands, the Bill creates a huge risk for landlords: they could enter a contract with a tenant who could bring an unsuitable, untamed or even dangerous animal into their property without the capacity to refuse. These amendments are a sensible opportunity to redress this risk.
Amendments 124, 125 and 126, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, seek to clarify unreasonable circumstances for pet refusal, including in social housing —Amendment 124 is an extremely interesting amendment from that point of view. In our opinion, outlining these conditions could make the law clearer in application, although it is right that this should not come at the expense of the right of the landlord to safeguard and utilise their property. For instance, these amendments attempt to prevent a landlord refusing to consent to a pet on grounds of pre-emptive concerns. For this demand to balance out with respect for the rights of the landlord, it is surely reasonable to support a further amendment that would allow a landlord to withdraw consent once provided if their pre-emptive concerns turn out to be valid.
We also have some concerns about the vagueness of the language used throughout these amendments, for instance the references to
“a generalised fear of damage to the property”
and to “generalised” animal welfare concerns. The Committee would benefit from further clarification about the specific steps a landlord would need to take to move from “generalised” to what would be considered a valid concern under the text of this amendment.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 126A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Leicester and introduced by my noble friend Lord Caithness. This is a very sensible proposal that is designed to build consensus and clarify points of concern over the scope and definition of the terms used by the Government in the Bill.
I think that Amendment 124A is for national, if not international, debate. Although I understand my noble friend’s concern, I think that debate probably goes wider than this Bill.
We must always remember that this Bill will be used to govern a series of relationships that involve possibly millions of people throughout the country. We have a duty in this place to make sure that the law is as clear as possible and that the relationship we create between a tenant and a landlord is fair and mutually beneficial. We need to make sure that we create market conditions in the rented sector that ensure a steady supply. If landlords start to pull out because of vague and overburdensome regulation, prices will go up and the choice for renters will go down. This is not an outcome that the Government want, nor one that will promote and protect renters’ rights.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I also thank all the animal charities and organisations that have helped us with this clause. I know that other noble Lords have really appreciated the briefings that those organisations have sent out. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Black of Brentwood and Lord Howard of Rising, the noble Earls, Lord Kinnoull and Lord Leicester —whose amendment was ably moved by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness—and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for their thoughtful amendments in relation to pets, and all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
Before I go into the detail of the amendments, I reassure noble Lords how much I truly realise the incredible importance of pets to people’s lives, and I confirm that the Government have included provisions on pets in the Bill in recognition of that. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, just mentioned that balance: we have tried really hard to get the balance right between wanting tenants to have the right to have a pet and making sure that landlords can have their responsibilities and property recognised.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Black, the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and other noble Lords, for their recognition of the intent of pet provision in the Bill. No one wants people to have to give up precious pets just because of the tenure of their housing.
To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, I would not make it compulsory to keep pets, although I took on board the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Black, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, about the impact on people’s health. If you were allergic to pets, making them compulsory might be a different issue, but we have no intention of doing that.
Amendment 118, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, seeks to ensure that once a landlord has granted consent for a tenant to keep a pet, that consent cannot later be withdrawn. Noble Lords have mentioned my honourable friend Minister Pennycook’s advocacy of this issue. I reassure noble Lords that when a landlord gives permission for a tenant to have a pet, that consent is binding and cannot be revoked, with the exception of the very rare occasion when that becomes an anti-social behaviour issue, which it might. Apart from that, it cannot be revoked. That is because, once permission is given, it forms an implied term of the tenancy agreement. This is an unwritten contractual term that tenants can rely on, as it is legally binding. Any attempt by a landlord to withdraw consent once given would therefore be unenforceable. This principle will be clearly outlined in the accompanying guidance to ensure clarity for both landlords and tenants.
Given this, I do not believe it is necessary to add further provisions to the Bill, as doing so would introduce unnecessary complexity into legislation that is already clear on this point. The Bill is designed to create a fair and workable system for both landlords and tenants. Adding an explicit provision where the legal position is already established would have the potential to risk confusion and unintended consequences. In the light of that, I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for her Amendment 119, which seeks to ensure that a superior landlord “cannot unreasonably withhold” consent when a request is made to allow a tenant to keep a pet. Although I understand and sympathise with the intention behind this amendment, I have some concerns about it. If accepted, it could lead to significant legal uncertainty.
Many superior leases include absolute prohibitions on pets, and introducing a reasonableness test in those cases could create confusion and conflict with existing contractual terms, which are legally binding on both parties. I intend to look at any data that might be available on the extent to which this might have an impact, but it could place a considerable burden on immediate landlords who would be required to engage with those superior landlords—who are often based overseas or are difficult to contact—before responding to a tenant’s request. That could cause delays, additional legal costs and the kind of practical difficulties the noble Baroness outlined herself in her own case—I hope permission is forthcoming for her dog. For those reasons, the amendment is not proportionate or necessary, and I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Black, will not press this amendment.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, for Amendments 120, 122 and 123. Amendment 120 seeks to allow landlords to refuse a pet request where they reasonably believe that the pet may have a negative impact due to allergens on a range of individuals, including themselves, their employees, agents, neighbours and even future tenants. Although I understand the intention behind the amendment, I must express concern that it would significantly broaden the scope on which landlords could refuse consent.
The Bill already allows landlords to refuse permission where there is a legitimate concern, and guidance will make it clear that health-related issues, such as severe allergies, can be taken into account where medical evidence supports this and there is a genuine and ongoing concern to health. However, this amendment would go much further. In particular, the inclusion of future tenants introduces a highly speculative element, allowing landlords to refuse a request based on hypothetical scenarios that may never arise. That would give landlords an effective veto, entirely undermining the legislation, which aims to strike a balance between landlords and tenants. For these reasons, the amendment is not necessary or proportionate, and I hope the noble Lord will consider not pressing it.
Amendment 122 seeks to allow landlords to
“reasonably withhold or withdraw consent”
for a pet introduced mid-tenancy, where it is deemed
“unsuitable for the property, … may cause a nuisance”,
or may risk property damage or unreasonable upkeep. While I understand the noble Lord’s intention to provide clarity, I respectfully say that this amendment is not required. The Bill already permits landlords to refuse their consent on reasonable grounds, which are best judged on a case-by-case basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Black, recommended some guiding principles around this and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, called for a “highway code” of guidance. We will be providing guidance alongside the Bill to give examples of the types of situations in which it may be reasonable for a landlord to refuse or withdraw their consent to a tenant’s request to keep a pet. This will support both landlords and tenants without restricting flexibility in legislation. There is also a risk that listing specific reasons in the Bill may unintentionally narrow the interpretation of what counts as reasonable, excluding other valid concerns not explicitly named.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. I would like to give her a bit more ammunition. I am looking at a website to do with MHCLG that talks about the “one team” approach in which MHCLG is very sensibly engaged. The first key principle in this approach is joined-up delivery. I feel there is a strong case here for a one-team approach and joined-up delivery.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for those further comments. As I said, I will be happy to have further discussions with him and to take this important point back.
Amendment 124A would introduce specific grounds for landlords to refuse consent for a tenant to keep a cat where the property is located within, or within one mile of, a protected site under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The Government fully recognise the importance of protecting biodiversity and environmentally sensitive wildlife areas. However, we do not believe that such a blanket provision is necessary or proportionate in the context of this legislation. Nor is it fair on tenants, given that there is no similar restriction imposed on home owners in such environmentally sensitive areas.
The framework set out in Clause 12 already allows landlords to refuse consent where it is reasonable to do so. The amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, would in effect create an automatic exemption covering a significant number of properties near protected sites across England and Wales, regardless of the tenant’s circumstances or willingness to act responsibly and, as I said, would not affect any private owners in that area. It risks introducing an overly rigid restriction, undermining the Bill’s aim of promoting fair and balanced access to pet ownership in rented homes.
Tracking devices, which are sometimes put on cats’ collars, show how extensive cats’ daily travel can be— I think the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, referred to the extent of cats’ wanderings. It would be very difficult to keep a track on that for different places in different areas. It also places an unreasonable burden on landlords, requiring them to assess environmental designations and the distances between a property and a protected site—matters which are outside their typical responsibilities. For these reasons, I do not believe the amendment is necessary, and I hope the noble Earl will consider not pressing it.
While I understand the intention behind Amendment 125 from the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, I do not believe it would be practical for the Government to specify every scenario in which a landlord could or could not reasonably refuse a request to keep a pet. There are simply too many variables to account for, including the type of property, the nature of the pet and the specific circumstances of both the tenant and the landlord. This amendment seeks to outline certain, though not all, circumstances that may be deemed unreasonable when a landlord refuses a tenant’s request to keep a pet. However, its inclusion could inadvertently lead to any circumstance not explicitly included on this list being presumed reasonable by landlords. This could create unintended consequences, limiting flexibility and making it more difficult to fairly assess individual cases.
The question of whether it is reasonable for a tenant to have a pet in a rented property is, as I said before, best determined on a case-by-case basis. In most instances, this will be agreed on between the landlord and the tenant. As I said, there will be guidance available on this. Where disputes arise, they can be appropriately resolved by the ombudsman or the courts, which will be better placed to consider the individual facts of each case. It is also important to note that landlords will always retain the ability to refuse permission where a superior lease prohibits pets. This ensures that landlords are not placed in a position where they are forced to breach their own legal obligations.
Given these safeguards, I do not believe it is necessary to introduce additional legislative provisions that could add unnecessary rigidity to what should remain a flexible, case-by-case approach. In light of this, I hope the noble Lord will consider not pressing his amendment.
Amendment 126 from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, seeks to define specific circumstances in which it would be considered unreasonable for a superior landlord to refuse consent for a tenant to keep a pet, such as personal opinions, general fears about the risk of damage caused by pets, or past unrelated experiences. While I understand the intention behind this amendment, I must resist it on the grounds that it could complicate the existing proposals unnecessarily. The Government’s position is that superior landlords should retain the ability to refuse consent without needing to justify their decision, particularly given the practical challenges involved in engaging with them.
In many cases, superior landlords are not based in the UK or are part of complex ownership structures and that can make communication slow, difficult and costly. Requiring them to provide reasons for refusal risks drawing immediate landlords and their tenants into prolonged and expensive legal or administrative processes. The Bill is designed to improve fairness and clarity in the tenant-landlord relationship without overburdening parties with obligations that may be difficult or unrealistic to meet in practice. That is why I said I will look into the quantum that might be involved here and come back to the noble Baroness on that, if that is okay. For these reasons, I do not believe the amendment is proportionate or necessary, and I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will consider not pressing it.
I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for bringing forward Amendments 126A and 124A. Amendment 126A would place a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance on what constitutes a “reasonable refusal” of a pet under Clause 12, and would require consultation with landlords before they do so. I recognise the intention behind this proposal, which is to provide greater clarity and assurance for landlords when they consider tenant requests. As I have said, the concept of reasonable refusal is, by design, flexible. It allows landlords to take account of the specific circumstances of each tenancy. What is reasonable in one case may not be reasonable in another.
That said, I can assure the Committee that we will publish guidance to help landlords and tenants understand how these provisions should operate in practice. However, guidance of this nature cannot and should not seek to cover every possible circumstance. It will provide helpful principles and examples, but it is vital that landlords retain the ability to exercise reasonable judgment based on individual cases. For these reasons, I do not believe the amendment is necessary, and I hope the noble Earl will consider not moving it.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I am glad she will produce the guidance, though perhaps not in the form I would have liked. Can I clarify one issue I am now confused about? If a tenant wants a pet, there has to be a written agreement. Does there have to be a written agreement for every pet, or does “a pet” cover a multitude of pets?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My assumption had been that it was for a pet, but I will come back to the noble Earl with a written answer.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I think it is relevant. If I rent a property in which I am allowed a dog and I have a bitch and she has puppies, I would then have perhaps 10 dogs in the house, although the agreement was that I should have one dog. Do I have to go to the landlord and say that I have nine more dogs, but that it will be on a temporary basis? How does that work?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand the issue and I will respond in due course.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all who have taken part in this debate. I always knew it would be an interesting debate, and so it has proved. I did not know until we had the appearance of Wilberforce the snake that it would be quite so wide-ranging, but that has certainly been the case.
One of the interesting things about this debate is that normally in Committee there is some disagreement with what the Government are trying to do. There has not really been any disagreement today with what the Government are seeking to do here; we are just seeking to make their noble intentions as effective as possible. I am very pleased the Minister responded constructively and positively.
As my noble friend Lord Lexden said, opaque law can never be satisfactory law. The speeches from the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Grender, the noble Lords, Lord Howard of Rising and Lord de Clifford, and others have underlined that there are too many uncertainties as things stand. In that most precious of relationships between a human and a pet, there needs to be certainty. This debate has brought that out.
My anxiety is that some of the amendments, including those from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, seek to import more loopholes into the Bill and to give landlords greater powers of veto. I am disappointed that my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook has fallen into that trap as well.
I thank the Minister for her comments, which were very constructive and positive. She spoke a number of times about guidance, including on consent and withdrawal of consent. I am not a lawyer and I do not pretend to understand the intricacies of the contractual obligation she talked about, but I am pleased to hear that they will be spelled out in accompanying guidance. Would she be prepared to talk to the animal charities involved in this sector about the drafts of that guidance and, similarly, about the guidance on the refusal of consent? Those will clearly be very important documents and those with day-to-day practical experience of the problems that arise in this area would be very good people to consult.
We will all be grateful to the Minister for saying, on the issue of superior landlords, that she will look at the quantum of data. Perhaps she could do that before we reach Report and let the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, have it so we can discuss whether there is any need for further amendments.
Finally, the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has strong support from all sides of the House, and he is absolutely right to bring it forward. The right to own a pet should be universal and not in any way dependent on the type of property someone lives in. I am very grateful to the Minister for saying that she will look further at this and give it consideration before Report. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Howard of Rising
“(5A) Where a landlord has given their consent under subsection (1) they may withdraw their consent at any time if they become aware that the pet in question is a dangerous wild animal under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 or in breach of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to enable landlords to refuse pets on the grounds that they are a dangerous wild animal.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 121 seeks to probe and address the inadequate definition of “pet” in the Bill, which has already been mentioned by a number of noble Lords during this debate. Part 1, Chapter 1, Clause 12(2) inserts the following definition into Section 45(1) of the Housing Act 1988:
“‘pet’ means an animal kept by a person mainly for … personal interest … companionship … ornamental purposes … or any combination”
of those. My Amendment 121 seeks to probe whether pets that are considered dangerous and/or wild animals under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 or the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 should be counted as pets. This might sound like common sense, but I am not convinced that, under the current drafting of the Bill, landlords would not be forced to consider giving consent for unsuitable and, in this case, dangerous animals. These Acts already govern the keeping of dangerous animals, but it is good practice to ensure legal consistency, and it is not clear how they will interact with the Bill before us today.
For example, the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 requires accommodation to be
“suitable as regards construction, size, temperature, lighting, ventilation, drainage and cleanliness”.
If a landlord’s property happens to fit the definition in that legislation, does that mean that an animal included therein would be considered a pet by the definition of this Bill? As we will hear in the next group, damage insurance is problematical, as it is for standard pets. Will any insurance provider give cover for the damage that could be caused by a dangerous animal? If the fact that an animal is dangerous and wild, or falls outside the definition of a pet, can be a reasonable ground for refusal, would it not be simpler to make that explicit by reference to an existing definition and list already in legislation? Why should landlords be required to make independent assessments to justify their refusal?
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is another example. It bans the keeping of specific breeds without an exemption certificate and creates offences for dogs that are out of control or that cause injury or death. Again, it is unclear how this existing legislation interacts with the Bill. If the owner of a banned breed has an exemption certificate, would a landlord be able to refuse the animal in their property? Likewise, if a dog had been deemed dangerously out of control or had injured someone, what risk would this pose to the landlord, their property agents and others who need access? What risk would be considered acceptable, if any?
I hope that the Minister can answer these questions and clarify this matter. If she needs to write to me on any of them, I would be very happy to receive her letter, but I would like to be reassured that this amendment and others we will debate today are being considered as they should be. I beg to move.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, what is a pet? That is a central question to everything that we are discussing. Some noble Lords will remember that there once was a parrot—a Norwegian Blue, to be precise—that was very sick. In fact, he was so sick, he was a deceased parrot—at least, that is how his new owner perceived it—and no amount of nailing that dead polly’s feet to the perch could change that. How we miss Monty Python.
Perceptions, rather like recollections, may differ, yet this Bill’s definition of a pet depends almost entirely on perception, and I suspect it is likely to cause quite a few ruffled feathers. Therefore, I have put down two amendments—Amendment 131 and the consequential Amendment 132—to prod and probe a little.
First, as the Chief Whip instructed, I declare my interest as a pet owner. Percy is our rescue cat—a very happy puss that has trained my family exceptionally well. So well that, if ever I were to ask my family who they love more, me or Percy, I would soon be looking for lodgings.
As the Explanatory Notes set out:
“The Bill requires landlords not to unreasonably withhold consent”
for tenants to have pets. Despite the split infinitive, I would have thought that that was the right target area: legislation based on what is reasonable. But the Bill goes further and howls at the moon in trying to define a pet. It does this in a very peculiar manner, by defining a pet not by what it is, but by how it is perceived. It offers three definitions, as my noble friend has already pointed out. A pet is defined as an animal kept, first, for mainly personal interest, secondly, for companionship, and thirdly—it is this that my amendment mostly concerns—mainly for ornamental purposes. That is a definition we should consider getting rid of.
What is a pet kept for ornamental purposes? I will take a calf as an example. Currently, the beautiful pastures around my home in Wylye are filled with any number of calves. They are so cute and cuddly, and my grandchildren always want to take one home. But I think we can agree that a calf is not really a pet; it is a would-be cow. Except, it would seem to fall directly under the Bill’s definition of a pet: first, it is personally interesting to my grandchildren; secondly, it is companionable, particularly so long as one has a bottle of milk handy; and thirdly, it is ornamental. A triple whammy.
I remember Margaret Thatcher once cuddled a calf. I was with her in Suffolk on the election trail in 1979 when she picked up this terrified young animal and embraced it. Did the fact that she found it personally interesting or exceptionally ornamental—and, as it happened, amazingly photogenic—make it a protected pet? Could she have taken it home? Apparently, the Daily Mirror paid the farmer £50 to let it know if the poor thing died before polling day. Can you imagine the headlines? “Maggie Thatcher, calf basher”—but I digress. The problem is that once we try to define what a pet is or is not in the way the Bill attempts, we start with a cat’s cradle of confusion and end up with a dog’s dinner. People nowadays get very protective about their pets, and very litigious; we need to take care.
Traditionally, working animals and pets have been regarded as separate categories, but it is not always clear cut. Take Larry, the Downing Street cat: is he not a working animal that is supposed to keep the place free of vermin? Good luck with that. Ever since the Prime Minister’s claim at his party conference that his main mission in life was to free the sausages—Remember that? It was a magical moment—I suspect that Larry has been working even harder to try to track down all those missing sausages.
However, it is the third category that really has me wondering. Clause 12 defines a pet as an animal that is kept for “mainly … ornamental purposes”. Forgive me, but what on earth does that mean? I am confused. Does it mean, for instance, an XL bully dog? I am told that many owners regard them as extremely attractive. It must be the way they smile, or drool. But does that give a tenant an unequivocal right to keep them? I ask the Minister: does the landlord have no grounds to refuse—even if keeping such animals might well cause fear for others, such their neighbours who have children or who own a small dog or cat? As my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising so eloquently pointed out, one pet owner’s rights can become another pet owner’s nightmare.
I should perhaps whimsically point out that for, the purposes of the discussion, I have decided this week to self-identify as a Chihuahua. So, hand on heart and paw on prostate, I say: these definitions are barking mad. I really do not want to end up as breakfast for next door’s bully dog, no matter how cute he looks.
Would it not be enough simply to require both tenant and landlord to be reasonable in the specific circumstances? The Minister keeps coming back to the concept of people being reasonable. That is a much stronger concept, it seems to me, than tying ourselves in knots trying to define what a pet is in the ways that the Bill currently attempts.
Our laws should offer clarity, not confusion. But, no matter how hard we try to nail these definitions to the perch, they will make about as much sense as a dead parrot. So their proper place is not in the Bill but in that great parliamentary litter tray in the sky. I request the Minister to go back and have a much closer look at the definition of a pet.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a landlord of private property. It is becoming clear that the Bill will be a beanfeast for lawyers in the area of landlord-tenant disputes. As my noble friend Lord Dobbs implied, it could well happen with regard to landlord-tenant disputes over pets. My noble friend Lord Howard’s amendment is eminently sensible, and his points about overriding current legislation are very important, as are those on insurance problems in this area.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, was as entertaining as ever in speaking to his amendment. But none of us was here in 1990—here in your Lordships’ House, I mean; obviously, we were around. In 1990, this discussion took place on the definition of a pet under the Environmental Protection Act, which chose not to define a pet specifically. Instead, it focused on the nuisances and environmental harms, regardless of the type of animal. That approach was probably safer because, obviously, for some people a praying mantis could be a pet, and it is certainly a very ornamental creature when you look at it closely—as would be a butterfly.
I have a lot of sympathy with the Government, and I think that we should stick with the idea of companionship, which is in the Bill. But the Environmental Protection Act offers a lesson from that time, one concerned with the effects of an animal’s presence or behaviour and not with whether the animal is defined as a pet. I do not feel very strongly about this issue, but that lesson is there should the Government choose to take it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who took part in this engaging debate. I thank particularly my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising for moving Amendment 121, and my noble friend Lord Dobbs—as always, he has such a wonderful way of speaking in this Chamber. I cannot add much more to what he said. He is absolutely right.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Howard of Rising and Lord Dobbs, for their amendments relating to the definition of a pet. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Scott, for their comments on this debate. Even in these two short debates this afternoon, we have seen the benefit that our House can add to legislation, including probing very intensively a definition but also the entertaining nature of the speeches we are privileged to listen to. So I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, for his entertaining intervention.
Amendment 121 from the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, seeks to allow landlords to withdraw consent for a pet if it is later found to be a dangerous wild animal under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, or in breach of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Although I of course fully support the principle that animals posing a serious risk to safety should not be kept in rental properties, this amendment is not necessary. The keeping of dangerous wild animals without a licence is already prohibited under the 1976 Act, and the 1991 Act imposes strict controls on specific dog breeds—I presume that includes the XL bullies that were mentioned by the noble Lord. These laws already provide local authorities with sufficient powers, and we would expect a request for a pet that falls foul of that legislation to give landlords a strong case for refusing consent. Local authorities have the powers to act, and the amendment would therefore duplicate existing protections and introduce unnecessary complexity into the Bill. For these reasons, we do not consider the amendment necessary, and I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing it.
Amendment 131, from the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, seeks to remove the line in Clause 12 that includes keeping animals for “ornamental purposes” within the definition of a pet. Amendment 132 is consequential to Amendment 131. I understand that these are probing amendments, intended to seek clarity on the scope of the term “pet” as used in the Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, I miss Monty Python—I have watched them over and again, I must admit—but I must respectfully resist these amendments. The line in question, referring to animals kept for ornamental purposes, is a deliberate and important part of the definition. The noble Lord will be pleased to learn that it does not refer to dead parrots, but it ensures that the Bill captures a broad and inclusive understanding of what a pet may be, reflecting the wide range of animals that people may choose to keep in their homes for companionship or decorative enjoyment. I am not sure whether Wilberforce the snake was decorative, ornamental or a pet, but he is obviously now enjoying somebody else’s company than his original owner.
Removing this provision could risk narrowing the scope of the definition, creating legal ambiguity and potentially excluding animals that are commonly accepted as pets, such as fish and birds—live ones. To support implementation, the Government will provide guidance, setting out examples of instances where animals are likely to fall into the definition of a pet. I hope that that will help to ensure consistency and clarity for both tenants and landlords, without placing restrictions on primary legislation. It is important to repeat that landlords are required to agree only to reasonable requests; a calf that may grow into a cow is unlikely to be reasonable in a small flat, for example. For these reasons, I do not consider these amendments necessary, and I hope the noble Lord will consider not pressing them.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
As my amendment alluded to, the Government’s definition of a pet is very broad and open to debate, although I believe that the Minister’s remarks were helpful. As we have heard from my noble friend Lord Dobbs, the definition could be stretched to the extreme. How is a landlord or tribunal expected to understand its meaning?
To summarise, the definition of a pet in this Bill poses more questions than it answers, and I hope that the Government can offer some much-needed reassurance on this. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Kinnoull
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to remove a requirement on tenants to have pet damage insurance.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 127, I shall speak also to Amendments 128, 129 and 130. I remind the Committee of some different interests this time, in that I am a director of Alpha Insurance Analysts, which operates around £1 billion of premiums at Lloyd’s, and I have share ownership in Hiscox Group.
The thrust of everything in this bit of the Bill is all about pets. I am very keen on pets in general being in houses. As I pointed out, pets are usually allowed in my Scottish interest. When I looked at the insurance provisions, I was looking very carefully with a professional eye, and I wanted to try to tweak four separate areas that all needed something. First, there was the proposition that the tenant would buy insurance, then that would be all right. Secondly, there was the proposition that the landlord could buy insurance and bill that back to the tenant. Thirdly, there was the possibility of aligning the England and Wales law with what happens in Scotland, where, of course, I have a lot of experience. Fourthly, there was the knotty issue of the definition of “premium”, over which I have had many arguments in many jurisdictions over many years—and I apologise in advance for disagreeing with counsel on that.
Amendment 127 is on the first of those things in my list. There is no market today for insurance where a tenant goes out privately to buy insurance. There certainly will not have been a single cent of premium written in the UK market up to 31 December last year nor in any of the continental European non-life insurance markets, with which I am extremely familiar. One or two products have appeared on the market that provide some sort of partial cover—and I shall try to describe some of that.
I am very grateful, in saying this, to the department and the people supporting the Minister, because we have had a funny tour around this issue. We even had one exciting moment when an insurer that I had never heard of, which turned out to be an insurance company based in Anguilla, of recent formation, was keen to sell insurance to British people, although of course there would have been no protection under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme or from the insurance ombudsman, let alone all the tax and regulatory problems with an Anguilla insurer trying to settle a claim in the UK.
Leaving aside that exciting insurer, one or two insurers have come along, but they want to insure only against accidental damage, however it is dressed up. When talking about insurers, it is important to understand the difference between the insurance carrier, which takes the bet, and the insurance intermediary, which puts exciting things on the web to try to entice you. These are all insurance intermediaries, and there is only one carrier that is identified at the moment, which is under half the size of the legal minimum for an insurance carrier, if you are forming a new one, and does not appear at all on any of the lists of allowed insurers that major brokers have. It is exceptionally small and very weak.
The problem with the cover of the three policies that appear online at the moment is that they are limited to accidental damage. In one of them, accidental damage is defined as
“unexpected damage which happens suddenly and has not been caused on purpose or inevitably”.
I immediate think that that does not sound like very good cover. The other one goes a lot further. It says that the policy is
“not for damage caused by everyday wear and tear. For example, if a dog scratches at your door every day, this is not covered, while if a pet pulls down curtains that causes damage to a wall this would be covered”.
Of course, that is a vanishingly small percentage of the loss costs likely to be caused by a pet. Most of the losses from pets will be to do with chewing or infestations—I look at my noble friend Lord Trees in the hope that he will tell us all a bit more about infestations later on.
The difficulty of trying to legislate so that a landlord can say to someone, “You can have a pet as long as you buy an insurance policy”, and there being no actual policy of insurance that exists, or no reasonable one, is that it is what is sometimes called an Italian torpedo—a legal trick whereby you started a case in a different jurisdiction to slow everything down, and the initial case never gets decided. It would mean that the landlord could ask the tenant to find insurance that he knew did not exist and the pet would never be allowed into the property. That is not the intention of this Bill, so it would be quite wrong to let this option go forward. That is why Amendment 127 seeks to get rid of that option. It is not a probing amendment—it is a real amendment.
I turn to Amendment 129 next, only because the amendments have appeared a bit out of order. It is a probing amendment, and it covers the second issue on insurance, which is whether the landlord could buy insurance. Here I am much more hopeful. I should point out that this type of insurance also does not exist at the moment, but I have spoken to the underwriting managers of at least two of the big players in the UK markets and left those conversations feeling that it was quite possible that this type of insurance could come into existence—in fact, in reviewing the internet, there is some evidence that it might. It will start with this accidental damage problem, so it is not a complete cover; therefore, landlords might not choose to exercise that option because it does not really exist.
Therefore, I feel it is unfair to ask landlords to go to the market to buy insurance, and they might not want to. The insurance would therefore be a terrible situation, where a landlord is being asked about a pet and the tenant cannot buy the insurance because it does not exist—at least not in a reasonable form—and nor can the landlord because it is at a very early stage. But I felt that should stay on the statute book because I believe that something helpful might come along. I believe also that the type of insurance that will come along will be a small layer just above the deposit that people pay anyway; at the moment, it is a five-week deposit.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, when the Renters (Reform) Bill was originally proposed, Battersea asked landlords what policies or incentives would make them more likely to consider offering pet-friendly properties—that is an important point to bear in mind—and out of all the different policies and incentives, the two most popular were requiring tenants to hold insurance to cover any damage, or changing the Tenant Fees Act to allow the landlord to charge for a deep clean and fumigation at the end of the tenancy. I acknowledge that there are concerns regarding availability of insurance to cover pet damage in line with the requirements currently set out in the Bill. However, having talked to those with expertise in the sector, I believe the insurance market will adapt to new legislation, as it has in the past with cyberinsurance under the Data Protection Act 2018 and professional indemnity insurance for cladding remediation under the Building Safety Act 2022. I think there is already evidence of insurers responding to market demand, with the letting insurance providers Paymentshield and Addept Insurance updating their tenants’ content policies to include pet damage cover. I am aware of other providers that are in the process of—
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
One of the things I read was that Paymentshield is offering accidental damage only; I read out the definition of accidental damage and that is not really any cover at all. I am sorry; I do not know whether the noble Lord was talking to insurance underwriters or brokers, but I can tell him that the underwriting community in the insurance world is absolutely solid on this.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, my general point was that I believe the market would adapt in time, because that is the purpose of legislation—to push that market on. I know there are other insurers that are looking at pet damage insurance products to bring to the marketplace. We will have to see if it happens, but I very much hope that it would. I understand the fears from landlords that pets may damage their properties, but I also do not believe that pet deposits are the solution to this area, because they are unevenly applied and unaffordable to many.
Finally, I just want to make the general point that research has shown that fears around pet damage are often largely unfounded. Again, research that was commissioned by Battersea with the University of Huddersfield showed that more than three out of four landlords did not encounter any damage caused by pets in their rental properties. So there is very low risk, and, alongside evidence showing that pet owners tend to stay longer in their properties, this demonstrates that renting to pet owners can be financially beneficial to landlords in the long run.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
I put to the noble Lord this point about the Italian torpedo. I hope he will accept that there is currently no reasonable insurance solution available for a tenant—there is none. So, if a landlord says, “I need you to go out and buy a tenants’ insurance policy”, thinking, sneakily, that as one does not exist, the tenant will look forever and will never be allowed a pet, would that be an acceptable solution for the noble Lord?
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
I go back to the point that the market may not exist at the moment but the legislation is designed to push this market along. I very much hope that by the time the Bill becomes law, that market will have adapted.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
But if the market does not come into being—I made the point about insurance not being available for inevitabilities—we will have created through the Bill a route for landlords to quite simply prevent tenants having pets.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
That is probably a bridge we ought to cross when we come to it.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Black, quoted from the University of Huddersfield’s excellent research, The Financial Impact of Pet Ownership in Rental Properties, which I have read in detail. One of the most surprising things is that there is more non-pet-related damage to properties from non-pet owners, which averaged at £215, than there is pet-related damage from pet owners. But perhaps the more relevant thing to this particular debate is that when there was damage: the tenant’s deposit fully covered the cost 38% of the time; the repair costs exceeded the deposit and the tenant covered the additional costs 18% of the time; and the repair costs exceeded the deposit and were covered by insurance 13% of the time—which is surprising given what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, told us. So, more than 60% of the time, there was no problem at all. Only in a very small percentage of the time did the landlord find themselves out of pocket. The overall findings from this study were that it is a much-exaggerated fear rather than an actual problem.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendments 127, 128 and 129 in the name of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and others. With regard to pets, the main purpose of the Bill is to make it more likely that landlords will accept tenants with pets. That is its purpose, surely, and it is an objective that I fully support, as a veterinarian, particularly for elderly and lonely people, as well as others. The benefits of pet ownership are very well known, with a strong evidence basis. Amendments 127, 128 and 129 would ensure that the purpose of the Bill with regard to pets is not confounded by unintended consequences. The current reality—and we cannot ignore realities, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, does—is that 40% of landlords are currently unwilling to accept tenants with pets.
Another survey that the noble Lord, Lord Black, quoted showed that 27% of landlords who do accept tenants with pets—that is, one-quarter—have experienced problems. So, in order to boost the market for pet-friendly rentals, it is important that landlords are assured that, were there to be negative effects due to pets, there is adequate legal recompense. The Bill recognises this, and the solution it proposes is that the landlord can require a tenant to provide appropriate insurance. But the problem, clearly articulated by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, who is, of course, an expert in insurance, is that it appears extremely unlikely that there will be a product on the market which a tenant could buy to insure against the problem—relatively unlikely, perhaps —of damage. If that were the case, as my noble friend started to explain, a landlord could debar a tenant by the simple act of requiring that they provide insurance to cover pet damage, their failure to find which would legitimately allow a landlord to bar them access with a pet to rental accommodation. So it would conflict with the objective of the Bill.
Amendment 127 would remove that possibility. Instead, Amendment 128 would allow an increased deposit arrangement to enable landlords to permit pets, confident in the knowledge that, in the unlikely event of damage, it will be covered by the deposit. Amendments 128 and 129 would ensure that the level of recompense is likely to adequately cover relatively costly measures, such as deep cleaning to remove allergens, referred to earlier, or the elimination of infestation with fleas, which can be a significant problem if it occurs and expensive to remove. I would love to say more about fleas—they are remarkable creatures that can jump amazing distances compared to their size—but I am aware of the constraints on repeating Second Reading speeches, so I will not. I also make the point that a deposit is likely to be a fairer and more acceptable arrangement to a tenant than paying for an insurance policy, because obviously there is no cost unless there has been a problem.
To conclude on these three amendments, I strongly support them and I think they would make it more likely that landlords could be persuaded to offer their property for rent to tenants with a pet than any alternative. I shall just make an additional point that I did raise at Second Reading but which is pertinent to this issue and has wider implications, and that is on assistance dogs. We know that having a pet is very valuable to many people’s physical and mental health, but the case of assistance dogs is very special. These are incredibly valuable animals that can alert to medical emergencies of all sorts, as well as providing physical support for disabled people, hearing support and other things. Yet assistance dogs are not actually officially recognised—there is no list or register of them—and I understand that people with assistance dogs sometimes have problems finding rental accommodation. I raised this at Second Reading, but I hope the noble Baroness will excuse me mentioning it again. She said she would discuss it with officials, and I ask her to consider that again. I strongly support Amendments 127, 128 and 129.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
I am delighted to have added my name to Amendments 127, 129 and 130 in this group. I thank my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for leading on this section with regards to pet insurance and respect his deep knowledge of the insurance market. Amendments 127 and 128 seek to provide an alternative to the pet insurance route for protecting landlords from pet damage, as there is still uncertainty at present as to whether the insurance market will provide a policy that is fit for purpose, as described in the Bill. Amendment 128 would allow for an additional three weeks of deposit to be paid and held. I listened to the Government saying that finding a deposit can be challenging for tenants, especially the low paid. Therefore, these insurance policies, if they can be developed, could be an accessible and appropriate product for tenants.
For some tenants and landlords, the option of paying a three-week deposit could be an alternative, as both parties would know where they stand from the beginning of the tenancy, or when a pet moves into a property. There are further advantages, as the tenant would get their money back if no repairs were required at the end of the tenancy, thereby rewarding tenants for looking after the property. As my noble friend Lord Trees pointed out a minute ago, if tenants pay for an insurance product, they are not rewarded for being good tenants, and the premium paid benefits neither tenant nor landlord. The deposit scheme is allowed in Scotland, so there is some real-life data that can be drawn on to see whether it works for both tenants and landlords. From my noble friend Lord Kinnoull’s experience, it appears to be working.
The deposit option gives flexibility for landlords and tenants in choosing the most appropriate protection for themselves and their circumstances in covering the possible extra costs of housing a pet in a rental property. This is a challenging issue for some landlords and very few currently accept pets. That is why Clause 12 is welcome: it will increase the number of landlords accepting pets—surely giving two methods by which they can protect themselves can only ease the fear and reluctance in accepting a pet.
Amendments 129 and 130, which I also support, would bring clarity on the detail to be included in the proposed insurance products and would clear up some of the confusion with these amendments. Therefore, I hope the Government will listen to these speeches today and consider adding a bit more flexibility to the Bill by accepting these amendments on Report.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support Amendment 128 and declare my interests as a landlord and a former PRS tenant. I support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on pet deposits. First, I want to state that I am a dog lover and had dogs as pets in my youth. I was, however, horrified by the description by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, at Second Reading of the potential cost and sustained effort required to deal with flea infestation, and there is other damage that cats and dogs in particular can cause. Carpets, for example, may need to be wholly replaced after some pet tenancies, as I have experienced at considerable additional cost, which was not met by the deposit. As your Lordships have heard, insurance products are currently non-existent or very unsatisfactory, so it makes sense, in my view, to introduce a pet deposit scheme which would make the whole process a lot simpler.
The main point I wish to make is that where a lease bans pets, particularly dogs, this should be respected. As we also heard earlier, not all properties are suitable for dogs, especially large dogs. There has been an exponential rise in dog attacks in the country, especially since the pandemic. In total, there were 31,920 dog attacks in England and Wales over the last year alone— 87 a day. Since 2022, 31 people have been killed by dogs, and there were almost 11,000 hospital admissions for dog bites in England between 2023 and 2024. These figures are truly horrific and are growing. I do not claim to be an expert on this rise, but many have put it down to the surge in dog ownership since the pandemic, poor dog training and an inability of inexperienced owners to control their powerful dogs.
If you had been the victim of a dog attack, you would understand why some seek protection in their home environment, especially blocks of flats. My wife was attacked by a dog in our open gardens. Although dogs are banned under the lease, we made an exception to allow a family with a dog. At the time, my wife was wearing a back brace, having recently fractured her spine. I placed myself between the dog and my wife, while the neighbour took five minutes to come outside and struggled to restrain the aggressive dog. Incidentally, it was not a banned breed.
Those five minutes felt like a long time. Although our neighbour was red-faced and apologetic, it was a serious and frightening incident. For months afterwards, my wife had flashbacks, as it could have been a life-altering experience, like the ones you read about in the newspaper or see on television. In conclusion, where dogs are banned under leases, those leases should be upheld, and where dogs are allowed with discretion, that should also be upheld.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the matter of pet damage insurance is an extremely important one, as it directly addresses the responsibility of the tenant in conjunction with the increased rights that they may be granted under the Bill.
In all our discussions on this question, we have acknowledged that allowing pets into rented properties brings with it a series of risks. There are risks to health in questions around allergies and dangerous animals, risks of damage to the property and risks to the well-being of neighbours and other tenants.
Given this, we believe it is reasonable to grant the landlord the capacity to require the tenant wishing to bring a pet into their property to have pet damage insurance. I have listened very carefully to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and I thank him for all the work he has done on this—which I think is really important work—but I am disappointed that there does not yet seem to be a product in the market for this.
However, we have to continue down the insurance route as well as down the route of having deposits. It is important, as is in my amendments, that before this section of the Bill comes into effect, there is a final decision from the Secretary of State on an insurance product that is available. If that is not going to come forward, we will have to relook at the issues that have been brought up by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, in Amendments 127 and 128, which, as we have heard, provide an alternative avenue for redress should any damage be caused. This is a flexible addition to the Bill, and discretion is going to be important, but it is important to give people the option here, whether it be through a deposit or through an insurance product which is on the market in the future.
There is concern over the deposit, because it is there for very specific reasons, and when you add a further reason—damage by pets—the amount of deposit may have to be looked at again. The noble Lord opposite brings up the idea of a pet deposit along with the deposit. The principle behind this is that when you have a right to have a pet, you also have responsibilities for that pet. It is correct that landlords should be permitted the ability to claim redress when their properties are damaged, and tenants should be responsible when choosing to have pets.
It is important that we make sure that there is some form of redress for any damage caused, if the landlord wishes. Some landlords will welcome pets without any further insurance or deposit, but where the landlord wishes it, there must be some way for the tenant to have some form of redress at the beginning of the tenancy, in case there is any issue with their pet’s damage or anything else concerning that pet.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their amendments relating to pet insurance and deposits. The noble Lords, Lord Black, Lord Trees, Lord de Clifford and Lord Truscott, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, have all contributed to the debate.
Turning first to the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I thank the noble Earl very much for his constructive engagement with me and my officials in the department in recent months. The benefit of the noble Earl’s expertise in this area has been very valuable and very much appreciated, so I am grateful to him.
Amendment 127 seeks to remove the requirement for tenants to obtain pet damage insurance. While I completely understand the concerns behind the amendment, respectfully, I disagree with its approach. One of the key barriers to renting with pets is landlords’ concerns over potential property damage, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, outlined. Requiring tenants to have pet damage insurance provides landlords with the reassurance they need and helps foster a more positive attitude towards pet ownership in rental properties—that is the balance between rights and responsibilities that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned. Removing this requirement risks undermining the balance of ensuring that tenants have a fair opportunity to rent with pets, while also protecting landlords from unnecessary financial risk.
It is also important to note that we are seeing some signs that insurance products designed specifically for pet-related damage are emerging in response to the Bill—not just from Anguilla, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said. As the noble Lord, Lord Black, said, these products will develop, meaning that tenants should have viable options available. This requirement is therefore both reasonable and practical, ensuring responsible pet ownership without placing an undue burden on either tenants or landlords. I emphasise in response to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—
Lord Marlesford (Con)
I will just raise one very simple point, which I thought the Minister was going to deal with. I declare my interests as a Suffolk farmer with houses to let. I am unclear, not being a lawyer: in terms of the liability of a tenant whose premises, or the premises which they occupy, are damaged during a tenancy, is there a distinction between the liability for something that they have done and for something that a pet has done? If there is not a distinction, then presumably the landlord does not have to worry too much about how the damage was done. All that is at stake is what the damage is and what it is going to cost to remedy it.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. The distinction in this case is just trying to encourage landlords who have previously been fairly resistant to tenants keeping pets that they are able to give that concession to pet owners.
In response to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I emphasise that we continue to engage with the insurance industry, and we remain open to further information about the market and views on how it might develop. I apologise that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, has not yet had a written response to his query about assistance dogs. I will follow that up and get a response for him.
In terms of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, I want to clarify a point I made in my previous speech. Landlords cannot withdraw their consent to keep a pet in case of anti-social behaviour. However, there are other steps they can take. Landlords can seek to evict anti-social tenants for a broad range of anti-social behaviours under ground 14, which could include behaviour related to noisy, disruptive or aggressive pets.
Landlords can also contact their local council’s anti-social behaviour team and the police if behaviour persists, which can culminate in anti-social behaviour injunctions being granted by the courts. In that instance, that could then ban the tenant in question from keeping a pet. The incident that the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, described was really frightening, and I understand why he would have concerns about that. I hope the action I have described helps to respond to his points.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am a little bit confused as to where we go on this. We are hearing that there is no product at the moment, and there are differing views as to whether there will be a product. The Government are not interested in looking at extra deposits, and I understand the reasoning for that. But if we do not have extra deposits and there is no product, where do we go with this? When does this come into effect if there is no protection for the landlord in the future? I am just confused about the timescale. How long are the Government going to wait for a product to be available?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand those concerns. As I have already mentioned, the department is talking to insurers all the time. We are looking at the messages from them that they are developing new products in anticipation of the Bill going through, and we will keep monitoring that during the passage of the Bill. We do not want to create a delay in one of the Bill’s key objectives, which is facilitating pet ownership. We do not want to put a block or barrier in the way of that, but we understand that we need to keep this dialogue going with the insurance industry to see where we are as the Bill progresses.
Amendment 285 seeks to ensure that tenants have access to specific insurance products to cover pet-related damage before landlords can require such coverage. This is a similar point: the amendment would similarly create an unnecessary delay in giving landlords the confidence to rent to tenants with pets. The insurance options tailored specifically for pet damage exist in limited numbers at the moment. That is because landlords have had the discretion to refuse pets, so they have used that as a way of getting around the insurance issue, and it has led to low demand for such products. We believe that the Bill will change that by providing tenants with a fairer opportunity to rent with pets and giving landlords the reassurance they need. We do not believe that a mandatory delay should be made law, as we hope those new products are coming forward with the Bill.
If Clause 13 is postponed, tenants’ struggle to secure homes just because they have a pet will continue. Once the law is in place and landlords begin accepting more tenants with pets, we think the insurance market will adapt to meet the demand, and delaying Clause 13 would only prolong the struggles of responsible pet owners. Given these reasons, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, will consider not pressing these amendments. We will continue to monitor this situation and carry on our dialogue with the insurance industry.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am sorry to ask the Minister further questions, but is the Minister saying that landlords will be required to take pets without insurance or any further deposits if there is no product available? If that is the case and a product comes in six months to a year later, will the Bill then allow landlords to ensure that tenants get that insurance product? I am not quite sure how that will work.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
We will be amending the Tenant Fees Act so that landlords will be able to require the tenant to obtain insurance to cover the risk of property damage caused by a pet. Landlords will be able to require tenants to have that insurance.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
The Minister has again referred to my point that we need to change the Tenant Fees Act. Is she saying there is in law a difference in liability for damage done to a rental property by the tenant or their pet? We know that, if they get struck by lightning, it is not their fault, but do they not have a liability for any damage done as a result of their tenancy anyway? In which case, why does any of this matter?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have already answered the noble Lord’s question: the idea of this specific pet insurance is to encourage landlords to accept tenants with pets. That is what the clause is there to do: to try to incentivise and encourage landlords to accept pets as part of the tenancy.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, it has been a very interesting debate. I thank those who have contributed to it all round, and I will try to mention everyone. I thought I should start by answering the question of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, about whether there is a difference in the insurance policy between a pet and a human being. The answer is yes, because the provisions of a standard insurance policy in the UK would present two problems for the pet. The first is a total exclusion for infestation and insects—so the sort of problems the noble Lord, Lord Trees, was talking about would be taken out straight away. Secondly, there is usually a heavy exclusion for gradually operating causes, so that would take out chewing and other things pets might do. For centuries, or at least a century and a bit, there have been policies that are aware of pet damage issues. It is not just a landlord and tenant issue; it is a first-party issue that someone might start claiming for a dog chewing a Sheraton chair. Is that a thing you can claim for on insurance—yes or no? The answer has always been no.
This is the core of the problem, which I will finish on. I did not have the good grace to speak to Amendments 284 and 285, but they are in fact good ways of getting at the very problem I have been describing. I am not sure that I have been clear enough; it is not a question of the market eventually creating something, because it is not insurance if it is inevitable. The difficulty of “first dollar in” protection for a dog chewing something is that it is inevitable that there will be a loss. It is not something that any proper underwriting manager will ever say yes to. Lots of brokers will be very interested in saying yes, because they will see premium volumes and commissions to be earned as well, but underwriting managers will not, and I am therefore extremely negative on the prospects of there ever being a comprehensive policy for a tenant to insure against their pet damaging a flat. That is why I have been concentrating on trying to find other ways of doing this—that are going to be the enabler, which I want, of pets coming into flats.
On Amendment 130, what the Minister has just said is very helpful, in that that can at least be referred to. Although people in the insurance market will carry on knocking spots off each other about the definition of “premium”, the Minister’s helpful words at the Dispatch Box will settle that issue, and we can leave Amendment 130 to one side.
Amendment 129 tries to add something currently missing from the Bill, which is a better definition of what the landlord is able to buy and give the bill to the tenant for. It seems that, at the moment, the landlord could buy £5 million-worth of cover and ask the tenant to pay for it, which would be very expensive. There is more to be discussed on that, and I hope the Minister will agree to meet with me to carry on going through these various insurance issues.
On what the Minister said about the complexities of administering an eight-week deposit versus a five-week one, the great thing about having Scotland next door to us is that we can look over the border and see how complex that has proved to be. In fact, it is perfectly easy to handle. All the various agents who are active in Scotland—the big ones, anyway—are also active in England. I assume that they already have the systems to manage this. I do not feel that the deposit system, which is so successful in Scotland, could not be applied and be successful in England and Wales.
Finishing on Amendment 127, my advice to the House is that we will not get there by having this type of insurance. It would be very unfortunate if this went on to the statute book and it was possible for a landlord to use what I have described as an Italian torpedo approach to prevent people who want to have a pet in their home from doing so, simply by asking for the impossible. Therefore, I look forward to engaging with the Minister and her excellent team again, in the hope that we can find a way forward.
In the absence of anything else, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Janke
“Permission for home adaptations(1) The Housing Act 1988 is amended as follows. (2) After section 16 insert—“16A Home adaptations(1) It is an implied term of every assured tenancy that a landlord must give permission for adaptations where a local council has carried out a Home Assessment and recommends adaptations which constitute reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.(2) A tenant may appeal a landlord’s refusal to give permission for such adaptations.””Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would ensure that landlords of private and social tenancies provide permission for home adaptations for people who have disabilities where a Home Assessment has been carried out.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 133 in my name and that of Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. This amendment would require landlords to grant permission for home adaptations that constitute reasonable adjustments where these have been recommended by local authority assessments.
Disabled individuals in the private rented sector often face significant barriers in accessing essential adaptations that allow them to live safely, independently and with dignity. According to the English Housing Survey for 2022, 21% of private renters live in homes that fail to meet the decent home standards and 16% of private renters with a long-term illness or disability are in homes with at least one category 1 hazard, such as the risk of falls or inadequate heating. These conditions are not only uncomfortable; they can actively endanger health and undermine independence. The Family Resources Survey for 2022-23 reports that 24% of people in the UK are disabled, amounting to approximately 16 million individuals. With such a significant proportion of the population affected, the case for making housing adaptable and accessible is both moral and practical.
We know that many disabled renters face long delays, refusals or restrictive conditions when requesting simple modifications. Even small adjustments such as installing grab rails, ramps or stairlifts can make the difference between a person being able to remain in their home or being forced to move, rely on care or live in unsafe conditions. This amendment seeks to remove those barriers by ensuring that tenants can make necessary changes, subject to the existing checks and balances of local authority assessments. It offers a proportionate, workable solution that respects landlords’ rights while upholding the basic needs of tenants.
The amendment would also help to reduce demand on already stretched social housing by enabling more disabled people to remain in private accommodation that suits their needs. Given that nearly a quarter of the population is disabled, the need for accessible and safe housing is clear and pressing. This amendment offers a practical step to ensure that those who need adaptations are not denied them by process, delay or indifference.
I urge noble Lords to support this amendment in order to make real the promise of equality under the law and to ensure that disabled renters can live in homes that support their independence, health and dignity. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, my Amendments 178 and 191, along with Amendment 133 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, highlight some of the challenges that disabled people face living in rented accommodation. Life is hard if you have to live with a disability, and it makes sense if where you live can help you have as much of an active life as possible. When we talk about disabled people, we are not just talking about wheelchair users; we are talking, for example, about people who might react badly to certain colours or intensity of lighting. Step-free access these days ought to be almost automatic, given our ageing population.
The sad reality is that Britain’s housing stock has not been designed with disabled people in mind, and the provision of adaptations for disabled housing is quite scarce. My Amendment 191 would give people reassurance that they can ask about and discuss disability adjustments when looking for somewhere to live, without being disadvantaged. Amendment 178 would take this further and give tenants a right to make minor adaptations for disabilities without needing consent from the landlord.
Taken together, these amendments would support people with disabilities to live healthier, happier lives by ensuring that they have specific rights to meet their needs. I hope that the Minister can take this issue away and look at it, as there are some simple ways forward that will have a huge beneficial impact on disabled people and their families.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I think the objective of the noble Baroness’s amendment is commendable. I worry, however, that if a property is altered, it will be limited by the assessment made by occupational health, within the limitations of local authority budgets and what the cost is estimated to be. In some properties, particularly older ones, these alterations can be very substantial.
The question arises: what happens if the tenant leaves the property and it has to be reinstated? That would be a relatively simple operation for a straight stairway, but not all properties are like that. Installing a lift would be a major structural operation. I wonder whether the noble Baroness could assess what the implications would be when someone left a property and how it would be reinstated. Reinstatement can often be more costly than the installation.
With regard to undertaking minor amendments, it depends on what we mean by minor. If building control consent is not required and people alter a property, they can undermine the structure very simply. It is not difficult—a lot of older properties may not have the same structural integrity as more modern ones. If people can say that a change is only minor, what is the boundary and what are the limitations if we have no definition of what a minor alteration is? If someone starts interfering with the structure of a property without the requirement of building control consent, there will be difficulties ahead, as there can be implications for the adjacent property. If various adaptations are needed in a terraced house, it can affect properties on either side.
Who would pay for the removal of the adaptations in the first place? Although the noble Baroness has tabled a very well-meaning amendment, I fear that, if given an inch, people would take a mile because they would not want to bother with getting the various consents. People could undertake quite substantial and perhaps even risky amendments to property without consent. Again, the question arises: how do we reinstate them afterwards?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for their important amendments on disability adaptations. This is a crucial issue, and the Government have a duty to find the correct balance again between ensuring that disability adaptations are available to tenants and considering the significant impact that some provisions could have on our landlords.
Amendment 133, which proposes an obligation for landlords to grant permission for home adaptations following a local authority assessment under the Equality Act 2010, rightly highlights the importance of accessibility. However, we must also consider the practical and financial implications. Landlords, particularly those with smaller portfolios or those who operate on very tight margins, are already contending with a range of rising costs and regulatory pressures. Although the amendment’s intention is clear and commendable, the Government, we believe, must ensure that any new duty is accompanied by adequate support mechanisms so that landlords are not forced to absorb potentially substantial costs that could threaten the viability of their business or the quality of their housing stock.
Amendment 178 would allow tenants to undertake minor adaptations without seeking landlords’ consent. This is not merely a modest proposal—it raises some serious questions. Although “minor adaptation” may sound innocuous, this interpretation is highly subjective. One tenant’s minor change may in reality be a significant alteration that affects a property’s structure, aesthetics or marketability.
We must be clear that even small, cumulative changes can lead to a loss of value, future repair costs or regulatory complications for the landlord. Properties not designed or built to accommodate such modification may be especially vulnerable. This amendment risks creating confusion, undermining landlord confidence and ultimately reducing the availability of homes to rent, particularly in lower-cost segments of the market. Landlords must have clarity, and they must be protected from unintended consequences. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, what happens when the tenant leaves, and who pays for reinstating the property?
Amendment 191, which seeks to prohibit discrimination against prospective tenants requiring adaptations, addresses an issue of genuine concern. We support the principle of tackling discrimination wherever it occurs; however, we must also recognise that landlords will reasonably assess the suitability of their properties and the cost implications of meeting specific needs. To avoid placing landlords in an impossible position, any new obligations must be underpinned by clear guidance and, where necessary, financial support.
I urge the Minister to bring forward some proposals before Report that genuinely balance the rights of disabled tenants with the realities that landlords face. If we are to ensure that homes are both accessible and available for disabled people, we must avoid shifting the full cost burden on to landlords, particularly without due process, oversight or compensation. The aim should be a system that is fair, proportionate and sustainable for all the parties involved.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for their amendments relating to home disability adaptations. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their comments.
Amendment 133 seeks to require landlords to permit home disability adaptations when these have been recommended in a local authority home assessment. The Equality Act 2010 already provides protections for disabled tenants, but I recognise that such rights are not always easy to enforce in practice. I therefore agree with the noble Baroness that we should take steps to remove barriers that unreasonably prevent disabled renters getting the home adaptations they need.
However, I do not consider this amendment to be the right way to achieve that. In particular, there are significant risks to introducing a new requirement linked to home assessments. These assessments are carried out by local authorities as part of the means-tested disabled facilities grant process. The amendment would therefore create a two-tier system and could make it harder for people who are not eligible for the disabled facilities grant to access adaptations.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that we recognise how important those home adaptations are to make sure that older and disabled people live as independently as possible in a safe and suitable environment. I have seen at first hand, as I know she has, the real difference that these adaptations can make. That is why the Government have awarded an £86 million in-year uplift to the disabled facilities grant for 2024-25, bringing the total funding to £711 million.
That increased funding will allow more eligible people to make vital improvements to their home, allowing them to live more independent lives and reducing hospitalisations. The Government have also confirmed that amount for 2025-26. To ensure that the disabled facilities grant is as effective as possible, we also continue to keep different aspects of the grant under review. For example, we are currently reviewing the suitability of the £30,000 upper limit. I have known cases where, because of the scale of the adaptations that are necessary and the impact of inflation on construction work, that needs to be reviewed. The Government are also reviewing the allocations formula for DFG to ensure that funding is aligned with local needs. We will consult during 2025 on a new approach, with a view to implementation as soon as possible after the consultation.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
That is a very positive response. Can we have that in writing, please, to save us from going through Hansard, as to those further measures that the Government intend to take? Will they be in the Bill or in guidance?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will provide in writing all that I have just outlined.
Amendment 178 seeks to allow private rented sector tenants to carry out disability adaptations to their homes without first obtaining consent from their landlord if the cost of these adaptations is below a threshold set in regulation. I agree that the Government should seek to address barriers preventing disabled tenants getting the home adaptations that they require. However, this amendment is not the right way to achieve it. The amendment defines which disability adaptations are classed as minor solely by reference to cost. This would not capture a range of other factors—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott—that a responsible landlord would need to consider when deciding whether to permit alterations.
These factors could include interactions with building regulation requirements—a very important set of requirements on landlords—the need for consent from third parties and how easy it will be to return the property to its original condition. As many of these factors will be dependent on the features of each individual property, it would not be possible to define “minor adaptations” in a way that works effectively for all housing in a private rented sector as diverse as ours. Given the challenge in defining which adaptations are minor, it is likely that some disabled tenants would make genuine mistakes, for the best reasons, and carry out adaptations that were not in scope of the legislation. If successfully challenged by landlords in the courts, this could result in negative consequences, such as being ordered to pay damages to remove the adaptation. The risk of this happening could deter tenants from exercising such a right.
This amendment would also create a new right for tenants alongside the existing obligation on landlords under the Equality Act 2010 not to refuse consent for disability-related improvement. That could make the system more confusing and more difficult for tenants to navigate. Therefore, the amendment would not be an effective way of supporting disabled tenants and could even make things worse. The Government are already taking strong action on this through the existing measures in the Bill and the further commitments that I have set out.
Amendment 191 seeks to extend the rental discrimination measures in the Bill to persons requiring home adaptations. We recognise very much the important issue that this amendment raises and agree strongly that people with disabilities should not face discrimination when accessing the private rented sector; nor should they be unreasonably refused the adaptations that they require. We hope that the transformative reforms to the private rented sector delivered through the Bill will make a substantial difference to support disabled tenants. The abolition of Section 21 and the new PRS ombudsman address the two key barriers identified by the 2024 report of the former Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee: retaliatory eviction and access to redress.
Disabled people are, however, already afforded the full protection from discrimination by the Equality Act 2010. As part of this, landlords and agents are forbidden from victimising or discriminating against a person based on a disability in relation to the offer of a tenancy, the terms on which a tenancy is offered or their general treatment of that person. Expanding the Bill’s rental discrimination provisions in this manner would create an unnecessary dual system, increasing complexity and causing confusion, leading to an overlap of responsibilities between local authorities and the courts.
Lord Empey (UUP)
Can I just come back on the reinstatement issue? Perhaps there was something in that response in the other place that the Minister referred to which would have covered this. Everybody is at one in wishing to provide people with the best possible circumstances to enjoy their tenancies; if that requires adaptations, so be it. Statistically, it is very important. However, some of these adaptations can be very substantial. If you have a lift, you have to cut the floor out from ground floor to first floor to take the machinery out; structurally you have to leave the lift shaft. That is one example. Bathrooms and stairlifts are others. If you take them away, they leave huge holes. Does the Minister have a response to that? How will it be repaired so that a landlord can resell or relet the property?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand the noble Lord’s point about reinstatement. However, the property being adapted will usually extend the length of the tenancy, which is one of the initial objectives. This already happens where a tenant asks for a home adaptation to be carried out. That will usually mean that they will extend the length of their tenancy. If the tenant does decide to move out, the landlord can seek someone else who would benefit from that adaptation. I will come back to the noble Lord regarding his point about any necessary reinstatement costs. Normally, landlords will be able to find another tenant who would benefit from the adaptation that has been made to the property.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister, and I look forward to seeing her letter and the various assurances that she has given us today. This amendment stemmed from the fact that refusal by landlords has been a major obstacle in the private sector to disabled people who are trying to get adaptations, and it seems that there are a number of measures within the Bill that will really start to tackle this problem. The Equality Act requirements have not prevented landlords refusing tenants who have requested adaptations.
As the Minister says, the business of reinstatement is not always necessary. I admit that some hoists might need to be reinstated, but there is a huge shortage of rental places available for people with even minor disabilities. Bathroom improvements and stairlifts can be a great benefit and make the property much more in demand, because they are in very short supply. I accept that some reinstatement may well be necessary at some stage, but you need only to look at how much demand there is for these properties before you think that you would necessarily have to reinstate them after somebody with a disability has left. The fact that the tenants have a longer period of tenure as a result is also an important factor.
The point of this amendment was that getting it under the disabled facilities grants, meaning that local councils would have their inspection under some form of supervision, was meant to be a safeguard to ensure that things were not being done in an ad hoc or an unsafe way. I am very pleased to hear that disabled facilities grants are being boosted, because the fact that there has been so little money in them for so long has been a major impediment to getting these improvements. I look forward to reading the Minister’s assurances in the letter, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Janke
“Right to request Fibre to the Premises (FTTP) installation(1) It is an implied term of every assured tenancy to which this section applies that— (a) a tenant may request the installation of Fibre to the Premises (FTTP) at the dwelling-house if the tenant asks to do so in accordance with this section and the landlord consents;(b) such consent is not to be unreasonably refused by the landlord;(c) the landlord is to give or refuse consent in writing on or before the 28th day after the date of the request, except as provided by subsections (2) to (5).(2) Where the landlord reasonably requests further information from the tenant about the proposed FTTP installation on or before the 28th day after the date of the tenant’s request the landlord may delay giving or refusing consent until the 7th day after the date on which the tenant provides any further information that the landlord requests where the following circumstances apply—(a) the installation of FTTP at the dwelling-house would require the landlord to obtain the consent of a superior landlord under the terms of a superior tenancy, and(b) the landlord seeks the consent of the superior landlord on or before the 28th day after the date of the tenant’s request.(3) The landlord may delay giving or refusing consent until the 7th day after the date on which the landlord receives consent or refusal from the superior landlord.(4) Where the landlord and the tenant agree that the landlord may delay giving or refusing consent, the landlord may delay until whatever date is agreed between the landlord and the tenant.(5) Where more than one of subsections (2) to (4) apply, the landlord may delay until the latest date to which the landlord may delay giving or refusing consent under any of the subsections.(6) This section applies to every assured tenancy other than a tenancy of social housing, within the meaning of Part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment introduces a right for tenants to request Fibre to the Premises (FTTP) installation, similar to the right to request keeping a pet, by ensuring that landlord consent for FTTP installation cannot be unreasonably refused and that decisions are made within a specified timeframe. This provision is intended to reduce delays in broadband infrastructure improvements in rented properties.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 134, I will also speak to Amendment 135. Both are also in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Black of Brentwood and Lord Best. I am grateful to Openreach for raising this issue with me, and to Generation Rent and the Good Things Foundation for their support. These amendments would introduce the right for tenants to directly request a full-fibre broadband installation. Tenants would be able to request from their landlord directly, who would have to decide within a specified timeframe. Landlord consent would not be able to be unreasonably refused.
Broadband was historically delivered through electrical signals in copper phone lines, but this technology faced limitations, including vulnerability to weather and limited information-carrying capabilities. A demand for connecting multiple devices grew. Copper networks have increasingly been replaced with fibre-optic cables, enabling more reliable broadband and faster download speeds for households and businesses across the UK.
Four years ago, less than a quarter of British homes and offices could access full-fibre broadband. Today, around seven in 10 premises, or 20.7 million, have access to full fibre, and gigabit-capable network coverage has increased from 40% in 2021 to 83% last year. This progress has been commendable, but there are still challenges to building this vital infrastructure, which is why I tabled these amendments to resolve an increasingly pressing matter.
Although the provision of ultrafast broadband has been mandated in new builds since 2022, tenants in older residential properties have to rely on freeholder permission to upgrade existing copper to full fibre. This can pose significant challenges to the provision of gigabit-capable broadband to residents, if landlords are difficult to identify or are unresponsive to requests for access.
It is estimated that there are hundreds of thousands of multi-dwelling units across the country whose tenants could be disfranchised from the benefits of gigabit-capable broadband. Although there are existing rights to enter communal areas in flats to repair the ageing copper network, providers cannot use these same rights to upgrade tenants to the latest technology, despite the benefits it brings.
Although the telecommunications code was amended in 2022 to help broadband providers get access to multi-dwelling units by providing a tribunal process, this route is often very ineffective, takes a great deal of time and cost, and results in properties still being bypassed. The law also allows providers to apply to the tribunal only when a tenant has asked for a broadband service, but if the building does not already have a fibre network in place, there is no service available for the tenant to request. As a result, tenants, often in lower-income areas, will be left with slower, outdated broadband options, restricting their ability to access vital public services, work remotely, and access online education.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 134 and 135, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, as has the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood. The amendments seek to address a very real problem, as the noble Baroness described. Some renters are being prevented from getting advanced broadband because their landlord has not given consent for the installation of fibre to the premises, or FTTP. Openreach, by far the biggest provider, estimates that over 900,000 households in private rented accommodation are affected.
Access to fast, reliable broadband is vital to make a GP appointment, to use a bank account, to communicate with friends and family, and to shop online, and it is essential for home working. Today, adequate digital connectivity is almost as important a service as water or electricity. My home was upgraded from a hopelessly unreliable copper network to FTTP broadband, with greatly improved access to all the wonders of the internet. Why would any landlord fail to approve the installation of the necessary digital infrastructure? After all, better broadband would make their property easier to let and increase its value at no cost to the landlord.
It seems that this is not a problem of landlords rejecting requests—for example, because they wrongly fear the process will be disruptive. Rather, it is because the landlord is hard to identify or simply fails to respond. The landlord may be based overseas. They may simply not be bothered. The amendment would overcome this problem by giving the tenant the right to make a request for fibre to the premises—a request which must be considered within a fixed timescale and cannot be unreasonably withheld, just like the new renters’ right to request permission for keeping a pet.
Full-fibre broadband is mandatory for new homes. Landlord consent is likely to be obtained relatively easily from social housing providers, but some private sector renters are missing out unnecessarily. This needs to change.
Meanwhile, as well as representations from Openreach on the need for this amendment, I have heard from two other installers of fibre and the Independent Networks Cooperative Association—INCA. These have expressed some concerns. They fear that avoiding the need for the landlord’s participation in the installation process would give unfair competitive advantage to Openreach, which already has an engagement with the premises through its provision of the old copper wire system from yesteryear. The SME network providers are worried that, because Openreach is best able to install fibre without landlord consent, the amendment could give it more of a monopoly. The smaller providers point to the value of their approach, which involves them forming good relations with landlords: bringing the landlord on board ensures they know where best to drill holes for new cables, install wires across common areas, satisfy building safety regulations, et cetera.
While not addressing the problem of digital exclusion caused by unco-operative or absentee landlords, the case for ensuring a level playing field for competing providers also deserves attention. If the Government are minded to accept this amendment—I hope they will, for the sake of the tenants who can otherwise be denied all the huge benefits of fibre to the premises—new regulatory measures to accompany the amendment need to take on board the SME providers’ perspective.
With these comments, I am delighted to support the amendments.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I also support these amendments. I have one small niggle, which I will get to, but I live at the end of a very ropey copper wire system, so I yearn for the day when broadband reaches up into the Midlands—or, as it is known down here, the north.
My understanding is that Openreach, in the areas where it is installing, currently includes a building free of charge in its rollout programme. That could change, and it is not clear whether alternative network providers may charge for installing. The situation is not clear at the moment and is, of course, subject to change. Therefore, would the Minister consider it right to oblige landlords to take on the cost if one is imposed?
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I rise to give my support for Amendments 134 and 135 in the names of my noble friend Lady Janke and the noble Lords, Lord Black of Brentwood and Lord Best, who, in his usual style, has added some quality dimensions to this discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has given his usual nudge about something we might have forgotten.
In short, these amendments offer a simple, cost-neutral solution to a growing problem. Too many renters are still denied access to fast, reliable broadband, and there is a real risk of growing the digital divide as a result. The ability to work remotely and to access education and vital public services are basic needs in the modern world. Reliable broadband is not a luxury; it is a necessity as fundamental as water or electricity in our lives today, yet over 900,000 households are being left behind. This is often simply because, as has been said clearly, landlords are hard to reach for requests for fibre installation or are just not bothered. These amendments would introduce a clear, fair process, ensuring that tenants could request full-fibre broadband and receive a timely response. This is not about forcing landlords to pay but removing a passive barrier that is harming renters’ access to full-fibre broadband.
It is good to know that these measures are backed by many organisations, such as Generation Rent and the Good Things Foundation, and offer a cost-neutral way for the Government to improve digital inclusion, particularly for low-income renters. Importantly, yes, landlords benefit too, with fibre infrastructure clearly adding a long-term rental value to their properties.
This is a fair and practical step to connect more people and strengthen our digital infrastructure, so we strongly support these amendments—no surprise there—and urge colleagues to do the same. We look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I will say a few words, particularly in response to the comments of my noble friend Lord Cromwell about loading costs on to the landlords. The problem is that, if you are in the countryside, they want to charge a huge amount to get it to you. We have one or two cottages and, to get a fibre cable out to us, we were being quoted £15,000 at one point. We would be connecting about five properties at the end of it—rented properties and another house. The other complication is that, if one of them is a business, for example, there are different rules on what they are allowed to charge. A lot of this is in the original regulations telling BT and the other networks what they had to do, particularly when BT was trying to block other people having access to the houses. There are a lot of unfairnesses in the legislation, which Ofcom never dealt with properly. I am not sure where it has got to now, but there are lots of little wars going on.
It can be very expensive: it is not just a matter of connecting something to a roadside, as it is in the city. If you are going to be running it half a mile or so, you will find that you can be loaded with enormous costs, and that they want five-year leases and so on. Sometimes, you can tell that the price will be slashed soon, because they suddenly make a big sales pitch, trying to get you to take on a five-year commitment to five grand a year; that is the best sign that they are about to roll it out in a couple of years’ time. So things are not quite as simple as they seem.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for bringing Amendments 134 and 135 to the attention of the Committee today. These rightly highlight the growing importance of fibre-to-premises broadband and the many benefits that come with high-speed internet connectivity.
In today’s world, where remote working has become increasingly common and where online applications are used to complete everyday tasks such as banking, a fast, reliable internet connection is essential. Applications that require real-time communication, such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams, not to mention watching the odd video, depend on high-speed connectivity to function effectively. For the working day to run smoothly, a strong and stable connection is essential.
We are all familiar with the dreadful “buffer face”, that puzzled expression we adopt as we wait for our devices to respond. What should be a simple task can become an exercise in frustration, all because of poor internet infrastructure. As many noble Lords have mentioned, a large group of people are excluded because of a lack of fast fibre.
Fibre to the premises is a significant step forward. It is far less susceptible to weather-related interference, and it offers future-proof capabilities. We are supportive of ensuring everyone has access to such high-speed broadband, and it is essential if we are to have a successful, dynamic and modern economy.
However, there is a need to consider some of the complications, as the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Cromwell, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, have pointed out. As the noble Earl said, rural broadband is a big issue: while many broadband providers offer contracts with no upfront installation fees, the reality is that some properties require additional work, such as laying new ducts or trenching. For some home owners, this may lead to excess construction charges, which can range from a few hundred to several thousand pounds. How will this be addressed?
While installing in a stand-alone dwelling may be relatively simple, there is the issue of multi-dwelling units such as blocks of flats, which a number of noble Lords have raised. There are significant additional complexities there, such as the potential logistics if every single flat tenant could claim to have their own separate installation; ensuring that the building’s integrity and things such as fire safety are maintained in that building; and the impact on other flat owners and so forth. For multi-dwelling units, this needs to be done on a system basis, working with the owners and the tenants. There is a need to make the process simpler and to ensure landlord engagement.
It is essential that the Government look to address these issues, ensuring that unaffordable costs do not fall unfairly on landlords or tenants and that the complexities of installation in multi-dwelling units are addressed. The Government should actively promote awareness of initiatives that may help to offset these costs and find solutions to complexities. Clear communication and guidance can also help property owners better understand their existing infrastructure and anticipate potential expenses.
The Government should consider how best to promote fast-fibre internet with affordable, practical solutions, looking to address potential costs and to deliver those practical solutions to the more complex multi-dwelling units.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for her amendments regarding the right for private rented sector tenants to request the installation of telecommunications apparatus, and the noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Cromwell and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their comments on this group. I completely understand the reason why the noble Baroness raised this important issue.
Digital infrastructure absolutely underpins the UK economy. It is a key driver of productivity and will only grow in importance over the coming decade—there is definitely no going back on this. That is why the Government are committed to delivering nationwide gigabit coverage by 2030, reaching a minimum of 99% of premises in the UK. No one can now deny that digital infrastructure is as vital as all the other utilities we expect to have access to.
As of March this year, just under 87% of premises in the UK can access a gigabit-capable connection. But the Government are very aware of concerns around the speed of deployment in the multiple dwelling units, such as blocks of flats, that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, just referred to.
Amendment 134 would introduce an implied right for tenants to make a request in writing for the installation of fibre to the premises—fibre optic cables. These cables are capable of providing gigabit broadband directly to the home. The amendment would provide that landlords may not unreasonably refuse such a request and that they must respond to the request within 28 days.
Amendment 135 sets out the formalities of such a request and provides circumstances in which it is reasonable for a landlord to refuse it, including where the landlord would be in breach of an agreement with a superior landlord. It also sets out how these provisions may be enforced.
These amendments are intended to reduce delays in deploying broadband infrastructure improvements in rented properties. However, the Government are aware that issues with the speed of deployment in urban areas have related to multiple dwelling units in particular, such as blocks of flats, rather than the rental sector in general. The amendments may not address the problem of slow deployment in multiple dwelling units. For example, leasehold flats in multiple dwelling units that are not rented, which outnumber rented flats within those units, would not be covered by these amendments. Further, leasehold flats in multiple dwelling units that are rented would not necessarily benefit from the right to request fibre to the premises because of the requirement for superior landlord agreement.
We therefore believe that further consideration of how such an intervention should be targeted is required before any intervention is undertaken. We understand that network operators have strongly differing views on whether and how government should intervene here—points mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Cromwell—and they have concerns that any such intervention could have unintended consequences. In particular, there are concerns that intervention without proper consideration may impact the telecoms network operator market in such a way that could harm competition and investment and, in fact, slow down deployment rather than speed it up.
Given these matters, we do not consider the amendments to be appropriate. However, I assure noble Lords that that is not to say the Government are turning a blind eye to the issue. We recognise that more could be done to ensure that residents living in blocks of flats are not left behind as the rollout of gigabit broadband continues at pace across the UK. We are receiving positive responses to our work with local authorities and housing associations to facilitate deployment in social housing multiple dwelling units. Officials are also actively considering options to identify what would be the best interventions to facilitate gigabit broadband deployment in privately owned multiple dwelling units. We are actively working on that.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the noble Earl, Lord Errol, about the cost to landlords and the potential costs in rural areas of implementing this, I do not have an answer. I will talk to my colleagues in DSIT and come back to the noble Lords on those important points.
I hope that my words provide reassurance to the noble Baroness that the Government are seriously considering what we consider to be a very important issue. I therefore ask that the noble Baroness withdraw her amendments.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
The Minister said, significantly, that the Government are going to connect 99% of premises. That is not enough, looking forwards, because a lot of people sometimes move around, travelling. Nowadays, when you are not in a premises, you rely on broadband connections for satnavs and perhaps doing something remotely because you are travelling but need to connect with work over broadband. We need to cover the whole country, not just premises. That was the big flaw in the earlier work by these operators. I ask the Minister not to make the same mistake again. We should not forget that BT still owns Openreach. Even though it has been legally separated, it is not completed yet. So the Minister should beware of what she is told.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Earl makes an excellent point. Anyone who has travelled on the east coast main line will be incredibly frustrated about the dipping in and out of the broadband signal, and if you go through the Hatfield Tunnel on the A1, you will lose your broadband there as well. So he makes an important point.
The Bill is of course about housing, which is why we are considering the housing aspects of it, but I am sure my colleagues in DSIT are very aware of the absolute need to make sure that we have good broadband connection wherever we are in the country.
Baroness Janke (LD)
I thank the Minister for her comments, and I am very interested to hear how the Government will move forward on this. As they have rejected this amendment, I would be very interested to see what measures will be taken. Whatever reassurances we have in here, there are still large numbers of people who are digitally excluded and, as other Members have said, they are entirely reliant on broadband connection for so many things, whether it is medical appointments, work or for economic reasons. It is a real inequality and a great exclusion if they cannot have reliable connections. I hope that this will be a priority and that the Minister will inform us—perhaps in a letter—about what developments are taking place and by when. She mentioned some dates and I should be interested to see them. With those reassurances, I withdraw the amendment.
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 25 February be approved.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations implement the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 for precision-bred plants in England. They provide the practical and technical detail to implement a new science-based and proportionate regulatory system for precision-bred plants, as set out in the Act.
The territorial application of these regulations is England only and covers the environmental release and marketing of precision-bred plants as well as their use in food and feed in England. This includes a process administered by Defra to confirm that plants are precision bred—not genetically modified—before they can be marketed. It also establishes a food and feed marketing authorisation process administered by the Food Standards Agency which allows products to be placed safely on the market. The regulations also outline details for public registers and enforcement.
The Government recognise that concerns have been raised in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report and in the regret amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, most notably around provision of information and the impacts on the devolved Governments. We agree that these issues are important, and our work to understand and mitigate implications is ongoing. The department recognises that transparency is important and will be establishing public registers to ensure that information about precision-bred organisms authorised for marketing and for use in food and feed is available to consumers, farmers and landowners. We are also looking at ways to enhance this further and have recently closed a public consultation seeking to gather views on how to improve the accessibility of information on these precision-bred plant varieties, including through the labelling of seed and plant reproductive material.
We are also continuing to engage regularly with the devolved Governments on today’s legislation. In addition to monthly meetings at official level and regular ministerial engagement at the interministerial group, Minister Zeichner, as Farming Minister, is organising discussions with his counterparts in the devolved Governments to consider any concerns in more detail. Some of these talks have already begun and we value the progress that is being made. We also note that discussions are now taking place between devolved Governments and key stakeholders across industry on this policy area, and we look forward to hearing updates as this develops.
I believe that we have struck the right balance with an enabling regulatory framework that is proportionate and evidence-based, while providing measures for transparency and regulatory oversight. Today, by passing this secondary legislation, I believe that we have the opportunity to transform and modernise our food system —to make it fit for the future.
The 21st-century agricultural system faces significant challenges. It must provide enough food to meet growing demand while at the same time becoming more sustainable. It must also survive the threat to productivity posed by climate change. Food security is national security. To help us achieve this, we need innovation in fundamental sectors such as plant breeding. Precision breeding would be transformative for this sector, enabling innovative products to be commercialised in years instead of decades—and we do not have decades. Through precision breeding, crops can be developed that are more resilient to climate change, more resilient to pests and diseases, and more beneficial to the environment. In turn, this will increase food production, reduce the need for pesticides and fertilisers, lower emissions and reduce costs for farmers.
However, to capture these benefits, we need a regulatory framework with a sound science base that encourages innovation. The scientific consensus, across key advisory committees and institutes, is that precision-bred organisms pose no greater risk to health or the environment than traditionally bred organisms. The existing legislation carries a significant burden. According to the AgriFood Economics Centre, current regulations add a stifling 74% to the cost of marketing for businesses. This deters investment and limits the type of companies and products that can be brought to market. Countries that have kept pace with the science and introduced regulatory reform have seen significant investment. The Americas have attracted over 80% of venture capital investment in the sector, while only 5% comes to Europe. It is paramount that we act to change this.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
At end to insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations fail to provide consumers, farmers and landowners with sufficient information on genetically modified precision bred organisms, and fail to allow devolved authorities to implement their policy choices in areas where responsibility has been devolved to them.”
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, for clarity, I express that this is a regret amendment, not a fatal one. That is due in part to an error of mine, but I am choosing to regard this as an opportunity. I know that many Members would not vote for a fatal amendment, but here is an opportunity for noble Lords to show their concerns about this deeply flawed instrument before us. I will listen to the debate before deciding whether to divide the House.
Your Lordships do not have to take my word for the statement that this is a flawed instrument. I am sure that many Members of the House have already seen the 15-page—yes, 15-page—report from our hard-working Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, to which the Minister referred. It contains a great many concerns about the basic workability of what is here before us today; these are issues that I will get back to.
In bold on the front page of the committee’s report is a suggestion that
“The House may wish to question the Minister further”
on the concerns raised about
“about the lack of labelling requirements despite apparent strong consumer preferences for mandatory labelling”.
The committee also says that Members may want to ask about the impact on trade and on organic producers. I would also add—and we may hear more—about the impacts on Scotland and Wales.
I am confident these issues will be at the centre of our debate and that the Minister will be pressed on them. Trust in our food system, and trust that the label will tell you what you want to know about what is in the packet, is clearly crucial. We have seen in the US —and, yes, I will use the phrase—“Make America Healthy Again” deployed very often. This is what happens when trust breaks down.
There are already signs of growing concern here in the UK. I point noble Lords to an article in the Independent published yesterday, headlined:
“A mobile app told me my kids’ food isn’t healthy—now I am emptying out my kitchen cabinets”.
The writer comments:
“Like many other mums, I’ve become hooked on it”—
the app—
“mainly to check if the food I feed my kids is any good for them”.
Before I get back to that, and in deference to the fact that many new Members have joined your Lordships’ House since we debated the legislation behind this statutory instrument, I will explain the background. Many will remember, I am sure, the public reaction, the concern, which started in the 1990s, about the possibility of genetically modified organisms getting into the food system in the UK. Public concern here and around the world has not faded. Courts in the Philippines and Kenya, to take just two examples, have recently ruled against GM foods. In January, responding to a Trumpian push to force GMO crops on his country, the Mexican President said:
“We do not want GM … We are a sovereign free country”.
We were told that what is being proposed under the legislation was different and rather than introducing genes from other species, the gene-edited organisms that this covers would allow only genes from other organisms that would have interbred naturally or genes that had been deleted from the original organisms. But that is not really what is happening.
Handily, Rothamsted Research released news in the past month to help me illustrate the point. It had proclaimed success in gene-editing a wheat variety low in the amino acid asparagine, which on cooking can be converted to acrylamide, about which there are concerns. This wheat might be handy for the manufacturers of processed snacks since it is classed as a processing contaminant that legally needs to be monitored.
As with so much of this regulation, we are talking about benefiting biotech companies and food manufacturers, not consumers. But Rothamsted acknowledged to Euronews that it had encountered a snag. Foreign DNA it had introduced into the wheat, not wheat DNA at all, had proved impossible to breed out so this wheat cannot meet the definition of gene-edited and very clearly remains a GMO.
That lines up with an informative—rather technical, I confess—slide that I would be happy to share with any interested noble Lords that Dr Vladimir Nekrasov from Rothamsted presented at a Westminster Forum event on gene-editing that I chaired last week. It identified challenges to gene-editing, including limits to the understanding of the genetic networks controlling key traits in crops, the recalcitrance of some crops to gene-editing, the difficulty of changing multiple genes at the same time, and the difficulty in ensuring that the result is free of transgenes; that is, foreign genes.
In summary, this is not a simple or predictable process. It is not a precision process. As I said in Grand Committee last week, putting the terms engineering and biology together reflects a profound misunderstanding of how life works. Engineering is fine for machines but not for biology. In that debate I pointed to the astonishing new discovery that mitochondria can migrate between cells. In another new discovery this week, phys.org reports:
“Scientists make discovery that upends our beliefs about how cells divide”.
We are messing with systems we do not understand, like a child dismantling a clock and throwing the pieces into a microwave to see what happens.
I hope that explains the legislation—which, unfortunately, already exists—so I turn now to the practical problems of this instrument, many of which were outlined so clearly by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. In the interests of time, I will be brief; I believe other noble Lords will be picking up some of the points I am making. I have already referred to the failure to require labelling of gene-edited crops. The Minister spoke about a register that you might be able to look up online—I think the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee sets out how utterly inadequate that is for the consumer, that mum such as the Independent writer, who is there in the supermarket, wondering what to buy for her children that night.
Method-of-production labelling is common in our food system. It is what allows us to choose free-range eggs, organic milk or fairtrade coffee or tea, or which items are halal or kosher. Indeed, we still do not know how these certifications will regard this gene-editing. Labelling allows consumers to meet their own personal food needs and to shop their values, which is surely the cornerstone of a democratic food system. The other issues—some of which the committee has already covered—for organic farmers and food producers include that gene-edited organisms remain GMOs and must be excluded from their supply chain. This regulation does not allow them to do that.
The Minister spoke about implementing the legislation, but the Government still have not solved the issue that none of these organisms can be sold commercially unless it is first on the national seed list. Will they be a separate listing on the list? This is very much unclear.
I will briefly mention the devolved nations because I have confidence that this issue will be covered very strongly by other noble Lords. I will set out where we are at. An English producer can sell a bag of gene-edited grain or a tomato into Scotland and Wales and the internal market Act means that that cannot be stopped. But once those commodities undergo further processing and become flour or tomato sauce, under Welsh and Scottish law they have to be labelled as GMOs. I really do not see how that is going to be solved.
Going beyond the other nations, in terms of trade issues, a new legal opinion published in the European Union says that not labelling what we are calling PBOs directly contravenes the obligations under the Cartagena protocol—which aims to prevent potential harm to biological diversity caused by the movement of GMOs across international borders—to which the UK is a party.
We could see the EU lay down a phytosanitary marker that says that unlabelled English PBOs will be rejected at the border. It is considering the possibility of bringing in something like these rules—its labels are NGT 1 and NGT 2. I will not go into the details of all of that here, but it has an entirely different classification system from what this regulation introduces. The complications—and I am happy to talk to any noble Lord who would like to discuss this later—are very high.
Finally, I note that while everyone in this legislation and regulation is talking about food crops, we are in fact talking about regulations affecting any plant, including ornamental and wild plants, and how we could be messing with our already much-depleted natural systems. But we are going to hear, and have already heard, from the Minister about feeding the world. I am going to go to Katja Tielbörger, a professor of plant ecology at the University of Tübingen in Germany, who spoke to Euronews about the Rothamsted difficulties. She said:
“We don’t need any new varieties to feed the world. Food security is not an issue of which varieties we have. It’s an issue of how the food is distributed and what is happening with it”.
I am pro food security, pro agroecology and pro working for farmers and consumers and not for multinational food companies and giant agrochemical companies. I am pro a healthy food system, and so I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, it will be no surprise to anyone in the House that I strongly support this statutory instrument. Precision breeding as a method of plant breeding is safer and more precise than the random selection methods of existing traditional breeding. Above all, it is the speeding up of the process of developing new and urgently needed varieties that makes it so important in today’s world.
If you have 15 to 20 years to spare and are dogged enough to pursue your single-issue target with the millions of options available to you from the 200 or 300 hybrids you are breeding every year—95%-plus of which you destroy—you might eventually be able to produce a variety with the vital characteristics you want. But we do not have the time for the 20 or so harvests needed for the random-chance mutations that such traditional breeding provides. We urgently and desperately need to make multifaceted improvements to a whole range of crops.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, just said. I do not intend to repeat the technical aspects of it, but I hope I can deliver the lay man’s common-sense view of it—backed by the science, because that is what we are about.
Precision breeding is not genetic modification, whatever anyone might say. In 1998, I was the Food Safety Minister before the FSA existed, when the campaign was laid against GM foods. In fact, this technique was not available then; if it had been, we would probably not even have tried to go down the road of GM. The American population has been the sitting duck sample of GM food technology for 30 years and, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever died from any of the food.
I am also quite critical of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I feel really sad about this, because its report is biased and does not take a full range of evidence. I am not going into further criticism, but I think this report deserves criticism. It is a shame, because they are normally incredibly good.
It is just as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said. It has been a long time since I went to Norwich to the John Innes Centre and the other laboratories and saw the amount of time spent on traditional breeding. If you look at it fully, traditional breeding is gene editing, but they did not know that they were doing it. That is the problem: it is randomised, so they are not certain about it. But the products that come out are safe; the science says they are safe and the FSA says they are safe, and that should be good enough for most of us.
I do not hide behind organics. Anyone would think that organic farmers do not use antibiotics or medicines for their animals. They do. The idea that they are completely natural, with no scientific input at all, is absolutely preposterous.
We basically had this debate when we put the legislation through in 2023. The other place probably has not spend as long on it as this House, from the experience I have in both Houses. Most people—including me, before I went into MAFF—are completely ignorant about the breeding of plants: the technology, the randomised nature of it and the hit-and-miss view of it. The time spent on it is enormous, and is happening all the while. The fact is that breeding is taking place on a regular basis, and we do not worry about it. The products are safe. They are not labelled. That is my criticism of the report: if you cannot check that it is different, how can you label it? I would be much keener on having the methods of slaughter of animals labelled, but everybody is against that. That is more practical. In this case, if you cannot tell the difference, how can you possibly label it? It is scientifically preposterous.
I do not deny that there are scientists who take an opposite view. We had this happen 20-odd years ago, when a scientist told us that something was wrong with potatoes and GM technology. He was checking raw potatoes. I think the advice is, basically, do not eat raw potatoes because the chances are they will kill you. There is a real problem here with some odd scientists. The general scientific community—I hope I am not going to be contradicted in a moment—is generally in favour of this system. It is safe, it is an advance on the science, it helps consumers and it helps the environment. I cannot see what the problem is or the need to slow it down.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the published register. I am torn on this matter. I am a scientist by background and, as such, I have welcomed progress that has been made by science, but I believe that, with the immense impact of that progress, we have a responsibility to be extremely careful and to take steps forward only when we are absolutely certain we are doing the right thing.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, took me back to the early days of devolution in 1999, when the question of GM products was very controversial and caused immense difficulty—not least across the England-Wales border, in north-east Wales and in Cheshire. These are matters that need to be thought through in advance, otherwise we could once again get ourselves in the same sort of mess as we did around that time.
In responding to this debate, can the Minister clarify where exactly the discussions with the devolved Governments have gone? The responsibility for these matters lies with them, in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Minister indicated that discussions were taking place, but by putting it in those terms the implication is that they have not reached a conclusion. Should we in this House be steamrollering an order like this through when that conclusion has not been reached, and many aspects of it may not have even been discussed at all? Why are the Government bringing this before the House before concluding the procedures to which they themselves have signed up—in the context of Wales—with their own Labour Government in Cardiff, who want to have the time to discuss this and come to a conclusion?
Therefore, I welcome the fact that there is a regret amendment, because I believe that we should move down this road if that is the consensus and it is agreed that it is safe, but only when we have gone through the proper procedures. If we are not going through the proper procedures with regard to the constitutional realities in these islands, how can we be sure that we are also going through the other procedures that are vital to the consideration of the substance of these regulations? Therefore, I ask Minister to think again, at least about the timescale, until further thought has been given to this matter.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support these regulations. That should be no surprise to your Lordships, given that I was Secretary of State when we took the primary legislation through this House. I would just remind the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that this measure has already been through this House, during which time amendments were tabled on marketing, labelling and so on, to which this House did not agree. Therefore, noble Lords have already had a say in the decision on how to take this technology forward.
I am conscious that there will be challenges about things like the United Kingdom Internal Market Act. I remind your Lordships that in the days when we were part of the European Union, the UK Government certainly listened to the responses and views of the devolved Administrations, but ultimately made determinations based on what was determined across the European Union as a whole, as well as relying on its votes. As a consequence, all that regulation was applied without any say from the House of Lords or the House of Commons at that time. We are now in an odd situation where we are trying to redo the arguments from just a couple of years ago. Those debates were intense, and it was right that they be had; nevertheless, they were had in this place. I am grateful to the Government for taking this forward.
I remind the House that 40% of crops are lost globally every year due to floods, pests and other such events. That is why it is important that agriculture and food security make the best use of our science. Today, we had a Question about the report from the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Climate Change Committee. To my surprise, when it comes climate-resilient agriculture, the Adaptation Sub-Committee does not refer in any way to devices like this, or to how we could improve food security through this technology; it talks more about the use of land and so on. It is important that we embrace technology. The John Innes Centre in Norwich, which has been referred to already, is a particularly good example, but there are others.
As has been well said, gene editing is the acceleration of natural processes. We will see food productivity increase, which is particularly important given the climate incidents we have witnessed on our own shores in just the last few years. That is why drought-resistant and disease-resistant crops that reduce the use of fertilisers are an important part of what we need to do to help biodiversity improve across this country, instead of it remaining in current regrettable state. But it is also important that we respect the United Kingdom Internal Market Act.
I am very conscious there are 40 pages of this legislation. I appreciate that in my time as Secretary of State, I sometimes got a bit frustrated, once we had completed the primary legislation, with how long it took to get on with some of the detail. I commend the officials in the FSA and Defra for proceeding with this. It matters that we get sensible, science-based decisions right, and do not worry too much about—to be candid—the artificial concerns people have when those decisions are accelerated. We are already experiencing artificial intelligence in so many walks of life. There is a lot of concern about that, I accept that, but this is the scientists and our farmers speaking. That is why, if this is forced to a Division, I will be supporting the Government tonight.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support these regulations; I do not regret them. The UK is a leader in these technologies, and exploiting and implementing them will be an integral part of developing our biosciences expertise to help drive economic growth in the UK. But much more than that, critically, they will help us feed not only ourselves in the UK but the world, in the face of a growing population, constantly emerging disease threats and environmental challenges.
I would just like to point out the rather obvious: the fruit, vegetables and crops we grow and consume now are very different from their natural progenitors and have been subject to genetic changes by humans over hundreds of years, through selective processes involving no knowledge of what other genes might be affected. We have been eating genetically modified food for years and years.
Historically, the world, and especially populations in some of the poorest countries of the world, benefited from the green revolution in the decades after the Second World War, when varieties of wheat and rice in particular were improved such that many people could be fed adequately in those countries. Again, that was achieved by traditional methods. But the modern techniques enable us to make changes extremely quickly, and with incredibly sustainable and environmentally friendly means, to benefit humankind by reducing parasiticides, chemicals, fertilisers and even water—and by reducing food waste. So I find it difficult to understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and our colleagues in the Green Party oppose them.
I have confidence in our molecular biologists and our plant scientists—and these regulations. For these reasons, I support the Government strongly, but I urge them to press ahead with similar enabling regulations to permit precision-breeding technologies in animals. They offer, for example, the prospect of creating avian flu-resistant chickens, which would not only prevent disease in chickens but could reduce the possibility of spillover infections into humans of, for instance, the highly pathogenic avian influenza strain H5N1. Doing that has the potential to prevent the possible adaptation to human-to-human transmission. So I strongly support these regulations for plants, and I urge the Government to consider bringing similar enabling regulations for animals to this House as soon as possible.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, my career has been in the communication of science and evidence, helping to give people the information that they need and want to make decisions. There have been 25 years of studies on the communication of genetic modification and all these techniques. Some of them were done by the FSA, which neatly summarises the decades of research, saying that consumers
“saw a range of risks and benefits to PB food but on balance consumers thought the benefits outweighed the risks if properly regulated … they trust the FSA to regulate PB food”—
but they
“wanted labelling to enable them to make choices at the point of purchase”.
The FSA says:
“The power to decide on the mandatory labelling of PBOs for non-safety related purposes in England sits with … Defra. FSA officials have shared results of the consumer research and public consultation with Defra”.
I am really concerned about the lack of labelling here, not because it is a safety issue but because going against what consumers want carries risks. Defra responded:
“Based on the scientific advice that the risk associated with precision bred plants is no greater than for traditionally bred counterparts, we do not consider that mandatory labelling focused on the breeding technology or process used is appropriate”.
I have heard those arguments echoed by noble Lords today already. But the problem with this is that a lot of people’s concerns about this technology are not safety based, and ignoring the fact that people have other concerns, which they feel are not being listened to, might create a public backlash to this technology.
Often, people feel that something will not be fair here. They are worried about this benefiting the big players and the rich over the smaller players or the poor in the world. Defra’s response, focusing only on food safety, does not even make sense because, as we have heard, labels on food are often about things that are not direct food safety. Labelling of country of origin is mandated, for example. This allows consumers to make decisions on things they want to decide on when they are buying things at the point of sale.
I worry that, if the Government continue on this path of not having mandatory labelling, organic producers, who cannot allow gene-edited material into their supply chains, will have to take the responsibility to do all that tracing and labelling of products themselves. It will be very difficult, as we all know and have already heard, to trace a product all the way from a register—a variety—right through the supply chain. So, if people are not able to do that work or if it will be very expensive, how is the organic labelling supposed to work and how are consumers supposed to make a choice?
If we dig down into the FSA’s material on labelling further, we find a paragraph that says that labelling
“is likely to add extra costs. Providing this additional verification and assurance for all PB food would add extra cost to the whole PB food market, making it less affordable, reducing the incentives for food businesses to innovate and bring new products to market”.
That is the sort of phrase—“incentives for food businesses”—that is likely to trigger the sentiment that we have already experienced around genetic modification, and around the fear that the Government are pandering to big multinational companies, allowing their profits to override concerns about the environment or small businesses such as small farms.
I have a positive solution here for the Government. Rather than making organic and small brands, usually SMEs, label their products as “GM free” or choose whatever label they want—thereby causing resentment among the public about the costs to small businesses and worries about the lack of transparency—it would be far better for gene-edited products to be clearly labelled with what modification has been made to them and why. The Royal Society mentioned this in its consultation response. For example, labels could say: “Genetically enhanced to contain more vitamin C”. This would give people an understanding of the potential benefits and would let them know, and reassure them, that things have been traced through. To respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, if something has been edited and it has shown stability through the generations, it does not matter how many generations later you are: that edited gene is present in that product—and it is there for a reason. This is why people are doing this work: we want these beneficial genes.
Giving people that understanding, through labelling, that it has been enhanced to do whatever it has been enhanced to do allows people to make an informed consumer choice, and it minimises the costs and places them fairly on the people doing the gene editing. I beg the Minister to reconsider on this issue. She should listen to people’s concerns; they are not irrational or misunderstanding science—it is about establishing trust and about your priorities and ensuring that they are the same as the public’s priorities. If you do not act in a trustworthy manner, you cannot expect people to trust you. Once you have lost trust, we know what happens: we have been there before on this issue.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, given my experience with polling, I wish to focus on one particular statement made by Defra which underpins this Statutory Instrument. In the de minimis impact assessment, it says that polling commissioned by Defra, from YouGov in 2022, found that
“over half (57%) of respondents thought the use of gene editing in crops/plants for food production was acceptable, 16% were undecided, while 27% thought the use was unacceptable”.
It is a little unfortunate that, as well as initially not having published the impact assessment online but only making it available on request, the department also initially seemed reluctant to share further details of that polling. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report on this noted:
“Defra has not published the survey”,
and that remained the case even after the committee asked for information about it.
As a result, I contacted the pollster directly and pointed out that, under its own industry regulation, it appeared to be required to publish the poll, which I am glad to say that it did—and to be fair I note that Defra has since added a link to the details of the poll to the impact assessment. But this sequence suggests an unfortunate reluctance to be as transparent as possible about the evidence being used for decision-making. Why should the details of a poll, paid for by the taxpayer and being used to justify legislation being put to Parliament, be obscured in that way?
Now that we have the details of the poll, they pose further questions. In the poll, a full 52% said that they had not even heard of this technology. Moreover, of the 48% who had heard of it, only 3% said they were “very well informed” about it. As that is 3% of the 48%, it means that overall only 1.5% said that they were very well informed about the topic that they were being asked to give their views on.
The specific question which Defra cited, whose wording we now know despite that earlier reluctance, is not an awful question, by any means, but its wording is problematic, given how Defra has chosen to use its results. The question wording provides positives about PBOs without providing any mention of possible drawbacks. There is an obvious and clear risk of skewing answers, if you ask a question on a topic about which only 1.5% say they are well informed and in that question provide only benefits and mention no possible drawbacks.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will address both these points. First, why was there the initial reluctance to publish full details of the poll? Secondly, can I press the Minister on whether a question in a poll where only 1.5% of people say that they are well informed of the topic, and with wording that provides only positives for the policy, really provides the solid evidence that the impact assessment presents it as being?
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I would briefly like to support the statutory instrument before us. There have been very many good speeches and some that I disagree with, which are fighting battles that we have already fought, discussed at length and voted on—and here we are still raising them—and then people bring in the red herring of genetically modified foods, which is not what we are talking about at all.
There has been quite a lot about labelling. I repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said. All the food that we eat now has been genetically altered. It is not labelled—there was no labelling on Golden Promise, that wonderful barley in the 1950s. That started life in a nuclear reactor subjected to gamma rays; there has been no labelling about that. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said, by the time it gets into the food chain, it is a very different plant from what originally happened.
I believe that the Government have absolutely got it right and have struck the right balance. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, says that she wants healthy foods; we all want healthy foods. But the food that we are eating, which is healthy, is all genetically modified. If the noble Baroness wants really healthy food, she should go back to basics, when mankind first appeared on the planet—she would be dead of starvation. She would not have a hope.
I wish also to support the noble Lord, Lord Trees, in asking the Government to move forward on the animal front, too. These regulations are hugely important for farmers and consumers and for feeding the world’s population in the years to come.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I want to intervene briefly just to agree with my noble friend Lady Coffey and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I will not repeat their points, but I think it is important for us to ask the question of whether it is right to use a debate on statutory instruments to try to revisit arguments that were, as far as I am concerned, thoroughly discussed during the passage of the originating legislation. Likewise, perhaps the Secondary Legislation Committee should not have treated people raising concerns with the committee as a basis for asking questions to the Minister. The committee should have examined some of those questions itself.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly and in so doing declare my interest as a scientific adviser to Marks & Spencer. I do not want to repeat what has been said, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that much of the debate this evening has been a repetition of what we heard in Committee and on Report of the primary legislation.
However, I just want to recap on the question of mandatory labelling, which has cropped up in a number of noble Lords’ contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made the point that it would be very difficult to enforce mandatory labelling because you cannot tell the difference. That is the whole point: precision-bred organisms, as defined in the Bill, are organisms that could be produced by conventional breeding. So, if I were an enforcer, I would not know where to start. My noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington made the point that in due course, these gene-edited, precision-bred products will be pervasive in the food chain. Once there is a wheat that could grow without application of pesticides or could grow more effectively in our climate, it will become pervasive in the food chain. So where does the labelling start and end?
My third point, which was made by my noble friend Lady Freeman, is that it may be up to retailers, on a non-mandatory basis, to label the benefits. So: “Here is a tomato that is better for you”—and it may be labelled like that. It is not the process but the end product that matters. But if we insist on the process, and I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, we should be equally willing to put labels on conventionally bred organisms—apples, bread or other products—that says, “This product has been produced by bombarding gametes with nuclear radiation”. That is a process: it is the equivalent of gene editing but on the other side of the fence.
My final point is about cross-contamination. If I were a farmer producing gene-edited wheat, I would be really worried about cross-contamination from the neighbouring organic farmer. I would want guarantees that that organic farm was not going to contaminate my gene-edited crop. At the same time, the organic farmer is looking at me and saying, “I don’t want his stuff contaminating my crop”. It is in the interests of both sides to figure out ways of reducing or minimising the risks of cross-contamination. So it is not a one-way street, and I strongly support this secondary legislation.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I shall intervene very briefly on the issue that was highlighted in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report on the impact on the UK internal market. As we have heard, products of precision breeding that are approved for sale in England can be sold into Scotland and Wales, and we have had a bit of discussion on that, but at paragraph 47, the committee said:
“In relation to Northern Ireland, Defra explained: ‘Under the Windsor Framework, mutual recognition does not apply to precision bred organism legislation. Therefore, precision bred products must comply with GM legislation before it can be sold in Northern Ireland’.”
At paragraph 48, it said that
“because PBOs are currently not recognised in the EU and therefore in NI”—
since we are under EU law and jurisdiction, despite Brexit—
“producers with PBO authorisation in England will have to label their products as GMO for trade with NI or the EU. This is a matter of concern”.
It talks about the submissions that were made raising fundamental questions about the ability to trade with our EU neighbours. Therefore, I ask the Minister when she comes to reply just to explain and clarify the position of Northern Ireland. What is the impact on Northern Ireland of this particular situation that Northern Ireland finds itself in, compared even to Scotland and Wales?
The fact is that these issues, as the committee says at paragraph 49, could not be addressed in any detail whatever through a de minimis impact assessment. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, discussions are happening with the devolved Administrations. I would be very interested to hear what stage they are at. What discussion is happening with the Northern Ireland DAERA Minister? I have certainly not heard anything being reported in the Northern Ireland Assembly on this matter, so I would be grateful if the Minister could just clarify those very important issues, which have been highlighted in the report, with regard to Northern Ireland.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly on this issue, mainly because I followed the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, into that portfolio in MAFF, which was something of a poisoned chalice at the time, and lived through some of the very bitter and divisive debates around GMOs. I work often and very closely with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but I think I did not agree with almost anything that she said this evening. At the time, a quarter of a century ago, the debate was almost impossible to have with any clarity or without high emotion, and that was terribly destructive on all sorts of levels. In particular—the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said this, and I think he was so right—that somehow a technology in itself became something that people either believed in or did not believe in, instead of looking at the application of that technology, what its effects were, whether those effects should be allowed but people should be aware of them, or whether they had no traceable consequences, and therefore labelling was in some ways itself dishonest.
The noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, made a very interesting speech about trust, and I agree with her. However, there is a problem if we pretend that there is something that can be identified and that ought to be flagged up, against the advice of the FSA, the department and all those who spend years of their lives looking at these issues, because 1.5% of respondents to the survey, when asked specifically whether this is something they would like to be informed about, say that they think that is a good idea. We could put the most enormous list of things that 1.5% of the population would be interested in being informed about when they buy something. It is a really interesting and important debate, but I do not believe that it is relevant to this subject.
All I will say is that I formed my view on this issue not only on those rational, scientific grounds, but because I went to the John Innes Centre very early on in my ministerial job. There, I met young scientists and agronomists from Africa, who were so enthused about and grateful for the opportunity to spend time in that scientific institution, because they thought of the relevance that this work could have for their populations and their agriculture.
I went back to John Innes a few months ago with the Action Against Hunger group. That same commitment, not to the agro-industry conglomerates nor to business, but to the improvement of crops that will help the world—and help agriculture in this country—and which could have such potential, was still there. They had kept the faith over those 25 difficult years when we did not make progress, so I am absolutely delighted to support these regulations tonight.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I will make just a brief contribution. It is nice to be able to enter a debate where we are not confusing genetically modified organisms with gene editing; that has been the problem in the past.
I think the Government have got it right. We have been around the labelling track and seen how practically impossible that is. They have got it right because there is a balance to be struck, but if we are not careful, the perfect will be the enemy of the good, and we know this is good for so many different reasons—some of which were outlined by the previous speakers.
I welcome the Government’s approach. It is right, it is evidence-based and it is designed to take us on a path which will improve food security in this country and throughout the world.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches support the aims of this statutory instrument but welcome the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, in her regret amendment.
The Liberal Democrats have always made it clear from these Benches that we are not anti-science and support the idea of encouraging a science-based approach to technologies such as gene editing for precision breeding. We believe that such methods can be helpful in addressing challenges such as climate change, reducing the need for pesticides and fertilisers, and in mitigation against disease and pest issues for food and food crops.
We recognise, as has been mentioned by other noble Lords, the scientific consensus from bodies such as ACRE and the European Food Safety Authority—which has not been mentioned—that these organisms pose no greater risk to health or the environment than traditionally bred counterparts.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for their fascinating historical context and insight, and especially for the important information about when not to eat potatoes, which I will take with me.
However, the point of a regulatory process is to manage both the benefits and risks in an appropriate way. While the existing legislation carries a significant burden, these draft regulations raise some questions. They appear to take away some of the safeguards that apply to other genetically modified organisms, such as mandatory risk assessments, public notice, traceability, and environmental monitoring.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument enacts policy from the ground-breaking Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act, brought in by the previous Conservative Government in 2023. It is a fantastic innovation, which we should welcome. This legislation permits us to use safe science to speed up what nature has been doing for millennia and plant breeders for 100 years or so. Britain has used its Brexit freedoms to bring in the well-tried and tested procedure of gene editing, and we now see the EU considering following behind it.
I also commend my old friends from the FSA for their simplified regulatory regime for marketing precision-bred plants and a proportionate regulatory regime for precision-bred animals to ensure that animal welfare is safeguarded. I am proud to say that I was on the board of the FSA when we agreed the regulatory regime, and we took into account every representation made, including consumer concerns.
I think the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and a few others in the other place attempted to muddy the waters when the Bill went through by claiming that gene editing is the same as genetic modification, but that argument was overwhelmingly rejected as bogus by all major parties in the Commons and Lords, and by Cross-Benchers. Parliament, especially this House, debated this in detail and rejected the ideas produced by the noble Baroness tonight. I therefore deplore the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness —she is entitled to table it—in particular the completely misleading words
“genetically modified precision bred organisms”.
I do not want the Whip on duty to report this to the Chief Whip, but I am tempted to say that I agree entirely with every word of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that it is my policy as well, and sit down and say no more. But I had better stick to my script.
Gene editing simply makes changes that could occur through traditional breeding methods in plants or animals. It takes about eight years to produce a new variety of strawberry, 10 to 15 years for a new variety of potato, and about 25 years for a new variety of apple. Essentially, gene editing produces a natural but faster process. In precision breeding, there is no foreign DNA. All the genes being edited belong to the species.
I say to the noble Baroness that if Rothamsted has found a wheat with a GMO in it, that is its problem. It will not be approved by Defra or the ACNFP, so there is no threat to consumers. As Professor Cristóbal Uauy of the excellent John Innes Centre, has said, all crop breeding relies on the creation and selection of genetic changes to produce beneficial traits. Precision breeding is a way of creating the same genetic changes that could have been made through traditional breeding methods, but much faster and more precisely. All new varieties are subject to strict standards, and this will be the same for precision breeding. The new regulatory framework maintains protection for public health and the environment, allowing scientific advances that support sustainable agriculture to be brought safely to market with consumer confidence, offering enormous benefit to farmers, the public and the environment.
I reiterate that we warmly welcome the Government’s decision to follow Conservative policy and lay these regulations. We should acknowledge that genetic editing enables precise improvements to crops, making them more resistant to pests and diseases, reducing the need for harmful pesticides and increasing tolerance to extreme weather conditions such as drought and floods. These advances help ensure a stable food supply, despite environmental challenges. This increased resilience, as other noble Lords have said, is vital for enhancing food security not only here in the UK but in other countries where farming communities are especially vulnerable to challenging climates. With stronger, healthier crops, farmers can produce more consistent harvests with fewer resources, lowering their reliance on pesticides and fertilisers, which are often expensive and environmentally damaging.
As a result, gene editing supports more sustainable and efficient agriculture. By investing in this technology, we can help ensure that future generations have access to nutritious food. Genetic editing, particularly using tools such as CRISPR, involves making precise, targeted changes to an organism’s existing DNA without adding foreign DNA. It is often used to fix genetic defects and enhance natural traits.
I understand that some of the things being worked on are banana trees resistant to Panama disease and, as the Minister said, bananas which do not go brown in hours. Personally, I would love to find in a supermarket bananas which are yellow instead of the horrible bright green things we get these days, which are unripe and inedible—but that is an aside. People are working on strawberries and tomatoes which will be mildew resistant, wheat which will be able to grow in hotter, drier climates, and broccoli with enhanced glucosinolates —whatever they are—that help prevent heart disease, apparently.
Work is going on to eliminate magnaporthe grisea—rice blast disease—which destroys enough rice crops to feed 60 million people per annum. Gene editing will give us tomatoes with enhanced vitamin D. One day, I hope, we will get tomatoes which are properly ripe and sweet in the supermarket; they are picked when they are bright green and unripe, stored at 12 degrees and then zapped with ethylene, which turns them red. That is another benefit we may get in future.
Precision breeding is not an alternative to conventional breeding. We can get all the benefits I have just described with conventional breeding if we are prepared to spend 20 to 30 years tinkering about with cross-breeding techniques and rejecting 95% of the failures. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, these products will not be on our shelves next year or the year after, since they will have to go through the strict testing regime and the final Food Standards Agency regulatory regime. There are 55 clauses and five schedules—yes, the regulations are complex, but we have to demonstrate to consumers that we have built in all the necessary safety features, which I believe the Government have.
I understand that potential UK developers are taking it carefully and slowly, and that must be the right approach to reassure the public. I am also told that these developers are small start-up companies, not the huge agrochemical companies of the world—the Cargills or whatever. The FSA and its expert scientific committees always adopt a strict precautionary approach. If they are satisfied with the inherent safety of any gene-edited product approved and placed on the new register, you can bet your bottom dollar that it is very safe indeed.
Talking of dollars, I want an assurance from the Minister that if we do a trade deal with the USA and it involves food, we will not permit any product that is produced to lower welfare standards than ours or treated with drugs or chemicals that we have banned. That also means that we should not permit any US gene-edited products to enter our shops without their going through the whole safety and environmental testing regime we have invented in this Act and these regulations. No matter how safe the Americans may think they are, we have to reassure our consumers that we are checking them out too.
Since gene-edited species have genes that are no different from species that have been created slowly, labelling is also nonsensical, as nearly every other noble Lord has pointed out. When I cannot get English apples I buy those delicious Gala apples, which were invented by a Mr Kidd in New Zealand 90 years ago. Since then, Gala apples have been cross-bred and tweaked conventionally up to 36 times. If we label any new gene-edited version, logically we would have to label the other 36 variations as well. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is right, as is the noble Lord, Lord Rooker: Parliament rejected calls for labelling, and our expert scientists pointed out that it is impossible to label something as different if it is actually just the same as the other varieties of the same species. That was beautifully and bluntly put by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in his usual style. We all laughed.
Let us be honest: those who call for labelling simply want to discredit gene editing by trying to show that the product is somehow different; they claim that it is actually genetic modification by the back door and somehow dangerous. Labelling, rightly, will not happen. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was also right: if you ask consumers 100 questions on different things that they would like labelled, there will always be some who say, “Yes, we’d like that label”, and we would have to put 200 different things on the label. We all have our own personal fetishes about what we would like to see on food labels. If any Government tried to apply all of them, the label would be about 3 feet long.
I have more bad news, I am afraid, for the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. A survey conducted by the FSA showed that 65% of the population would eat a precision-bred product if it had health benefits, 64% would eat it if it was better for the environment, 64% if it was safer for people with allergies, 62% if it tasted better, 61% if it was cheaper and 60% if it was more resilient to changing climates. Consumers are onside, provided that we follow the safety regime in these regulations.
Ultimately, as was so neatly explained by Professor Stephen Penfield of the John Innes Centre:
“The resilience of the UK’s food supply depends on our farmers and growers being able to sustainably and reliably grow their crops”.
This legislation unlocks agricultural innovation, accelerating the development of new crop varieties with higher yields and enhanced pest and disease resistance, enabling farmers to reduce the environmental impact of their agricultural practices.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank your Lordships for your contributions and comments in what has been a very interesting debate and, in most cases, for your Lordships’ support for the regulations. We have covered a bit of old ground as well.
I want to take a moment to reflect on the importance of implementing this legislation. Without it, the potential of precision breeding cannot be realised. The existing legislation carries a significant burden, limiting which companies can bring products to market and which crop species and traits we can benefit from. Our understanding of the science has advanced. It is not proportionate to apply the existing legislation to plants produced by modern biotechnologies when the overwhelming scientific advice is that they pose no greater risk than traditionally bred varieties. The secondary legislation that we have been discussing today will change this, providing a science-based approach that is proportionate to the level of risk. As my noble friend Lord Young said, we are taking an evidence-based, balanced approach.
I recognise, however, that there have been concerns and issues raised, so I will turn to these now. Devolved Governments were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Dodds. We recognise the valid concerns that noble Lords raise on the issue of divergence within the UK, which is why we are continuing, as the noble Lord said, to regularly engage with the devolved Governments. My colleague in the other place, Minister Zeichner, has recently been speaking to our devolved Governments and has invited them to discuss the issues in more detail. This work will build on the regular monthly meetings that we already have with devolved Governments.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, raised the issues of progress and timing. We are making good progress in discussions. As I have said, the devolved Governments are considering their positions and holding discussions with the key stakeholders that are impacted. We wanted to crack on: we do not have the time to wait to realise the potential benefits. We have, as the noble Lords have said, gone through this in a very long debate on the legislation, but we recognise the importance of working closely with the devolved Governments.
On Northern Ireland, which the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, raised, I want to assure noble Lords that we recognise that this is an important issue, and we continue to engage with stakeholders and officials in Northern Ireland properly to understand the potential short-term and long-term impacts. That includes recent engagement with Minister Muir— Daniel Zeichner met him to discuss specifically the implications of precision breeding. We are also engaging with the EU at the UK-EU Agri-Food Structure Group on the potential implications of its proposed regulatory framework for Northern Ireland.
The impact on the organic sector was raised by a number of noble Lords. This is one of the areas where we have a lot of work ongoing. Our engagement with the industry has suggested that the first products that would come to market would not undergo significant further processing; so, they can be kept separate from traditionally bred material, which would mean that the exposure of organic production to precision-bred material would be very limited in the short term.
However, Defra is working closely with the organic sector to prepare for the medium-term and longer-term impacts by discussing non-legislative options for supply chain coexistence, including facilitating discussions to establish which measures currently used by industry could be used by farmers to enable coexistence between precision-bred and non-precision-bred crop production. That is in line with how things are approached internationally. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, talked about cross-contamination and the importance of getting this right. Defra is also working with the organic sector to look at any other further potential issues in the wider supply chain.
Labelling came up a lot; many noble Lords talked about it. Obviously, it was a key area of debate during the passage of the Act, and I felt that we were revisiting that to a certain extent. As noble Lords have said, the Food Standards Agency Board concluded there was no justification for the provision of labelling on grounds of consumer safety, since there was no scientific evidence that precision-bred organisms are intrinsically more hazardous than traditionally bred organisms. Because this was not considered to be a safety issue, mandatory labelling to indicate the process does not align with the principles behind the policy and would also raise costs for both business and consumers.
Methods of production are normally voluntarily labelled and can be catered for by the market if there is the demand; that follows the approach taken by many partners abroad, including the current EU regulatory proposal. However, I think we would support the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that voluntary labelling of benefits could well be very helpful. We have tried to get the right balance here. However, out of interest for your Lordships, there are discussions within Defra at the moment about how labelling for consumers could be improved. This is something we are looking at.
The noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, mentioned consumer views and transparency. The FSA regularly gathers consumer views on a wide range of topics, and the most recent data shows that the price of food remains the top concern for consumers, alongside food poverty, food inequality, sustainability and the healthiness of the food being eaten. The FSA continues to undertake regular polling and insights to track public attitudes. We know that public levels of understanding are low, but public sentiment is more in favour.
While I am on polling, the noble Lord, Lord Pack, mentioned the YouGov polling and why it was not published. It was carried out by YouGov to look at public perception. All three polls were designed for internal use to enable us to track whether our communications around the Act had been effective. It has now been published and can be found on the Government’s website.
Plant varieties and seeds were mentioned by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. Plant varieties of the main agriculture and vegetable crops must be registered on the Great Britain or Northern Ireland variety lists before seeds of the varieties can be marketed. To be listed, a new plant variety must undergo testing to confirm that it is new and an improvement on varieties that are already available to the market. As the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 removes precision-bred organisms from genetically modified organism regulations and requirements applicable in England only, a precision-bred plant variety list for England is proposed in addition to the existing variety lists.
The EU position was raised just now by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I am sure that he will not be surprised to know that I cannot comment on the EU reset discussions. Among other noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in particular, talked about the EU Commission’s proposal for the regulation of plants—the NGTs, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. We are monitoring the EU’s position closely and have noted that there has recently been progress in the European Council on the draft NGT proposal. It is quite similar in aim to the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 that we have been talking about today, but it is clearly going to take some time before new legislation is implemented in the EU.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that all products from the United States will need to go through the regulatory system in order to be placed on the market.
Environmental and health and safety risks were talked about. This is understandable given the controversy around genetically modified organisms in the UK historically, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and my noble friend Lord Rooker. This is why it is so important to take an evidence-based approach and to work with experts as we develop the policy. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, made the point so strongly in his contribution: the scientific evidence is clear. The risk that a precision-bred plant poses to the environment and health is dependent on its characteristics rather than the technique used to develop it.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, mentioned Africa and the impacts of climate change. The purpose of the Act was to encourage investment in research and development and innovation in agriculture, which has huge potential for climate change and for developing countries, such as those in Africa, which need to move forward in agriculture. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey —in her very important speech, with her experience from when this was first developed—talked about the importance of climate-resilient agriculture, which this will be able to support.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned safety of food and feed. I reassure Members that the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes advised that
“There is no evidence that precision-bred organisms are intrinsically more hazardous than traditionally bred organisms”.
The further movement of the Act towards including animals as well as plants was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Trees and Lord Blencathra, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. As noble Lords are aware, the scope of the regulations is just for plants, but we recognise that there is strong support in relation to animals and that Members are keen to know more about the Government’s plans and approach, and any potential timelines. To inform noble Lords, we are currently continuing research on this but, while it is going forward, we will not be bringing forward any further legislation on animals.
The final question was from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who talked about the Cartagena protocol. We remain committed to our international obligations and the protocol. Our proposal is consistent with our obligations as a signatory.
In my opening speech, I outlined the challenges we currently face in the food system, and recent world events really have shone a spotlight on the urgency of addressing these. We must take advantage of the opportunities presented by new technologies and advancements in scientific understanding, and we cannot afford to inhibit innovation through having outdated regulations. Harnessing innovation in precision breeding can help us to achieve several priorities: bolstering food security and championing British farming, helping to mitigate and adapt to climate pressures, and driving the Government’s missions on growth and health. The growth potential is evident, and we have the opportunity to be right at the forefront. Voting to approve the regulations today, if the noble Baroness decides to call a vote, is the only way to implement the Act in relation to plants and to realise the potential benefits of precision breeding for farmers, consumers and the environment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and, indeed, thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I apologise to those who said it would not take more than an hour—I am sorry about that.
First of all, I thank the Minister for saying that the issues around the organic sector need a lot of work. I am pleased that she has acknowledged that there is a real issue there and that work needs to be done.
I am also pleased that the Minister, reflecting on the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Dodds, acknowledged that there are big issues that need to be worked through with the devolved Administrations.
I make no apologies for returning to the issue of labelling, and I point out that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also returned to the issue of labelling. We heard, in a very powerful contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, that this is not just about issues of safety or the technology; it is about public confidence. That was one of the reasons why I led with that in my introduction to the regret amendment.
I note particularly the comment made by the Minister in response to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, that the Government do not have any plans to take this forward with animals. I point out that the Minister herself tabled an amendment when we debated this under the previous Government to take animals out of the Act altogether. I very much hope that she and the new Government will stick to that position.
I highlight in particular the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Pack. I am honoured that this was his first post-maiden speech. It will be considerably more significant than most such speeches because any government department will have to look very carefully at its future use of polling and the kind of transparency it uses in polling. In saying that, when I reflect on the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, I think he was using polling that the noble Lord, Lord Pack, had pointed out issues with.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and others—I give credit to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman —spoke of their concern about the situation of Africa, with its young and fast-growing population et cetera. But I point out that only 11 of 54 African nations have approved GM crops. For example, 2023 was the UN’s International Year of Millets. Many traditional existing crops in Africa that were swept aside in the colonial era have huge potential for public health, drought resistance and all the other characteristics that already exist.
The noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Blencathra, and others, said we are not talking about genetically modified organisms. The Act specifically defines precision breeding as genetic modification and then creates specific regulatory exemptions around it. There is no question, legally or scientifically, that PBOs are genetically modified.
With regard to identifying so-called PBOs, the FSA ordered a literature review by an adviser to the Government Chemist that made it very clear that it is possible—and it should be done—to create methods to detect organisms that have been genetically modified in this way. Since it has come up quite a lot, radiation breeding is not used anymore.
However, I can count and, on that basis, with reluctance, I have no alternative but to withdraw my amendment.
Renters’ Rights Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Member’s explanatory statement
This limits the exception to providing a written statement of terms to cases where there has been an implied surrender and re-grant of a previous assured tenancy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I will start with government Amendments 136, 138 and 139. These amendments make provision for the requirement to provide a written statement of terms for tenancies that become assured after they have begun. A tenancy may become assured during its lifetime for a range of reasons; for example, because it becomes the tenant’s principal home, or rent becomes payable on the property.
Where this happens, landlords should be able to comply with the requirement to provide a written statement of terms. These amendments will therefore require landlords to provide a written statement of terms within 28 days of the tenancy becoming assured. Without this, landlords would be left in limbo, unable to comply with the duties in new Section 16D of the Housing Act 1988 to provide a written statement of terms at the outset of a tenancy, leaving them liable to penalties. It would also leave a tenant without the written statement of terms, a key benefit of the new system, despite their tenancy having become assured. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
In view of the time that we have lost—and I must say publicly that I regret the pressure that we are putting ourselves under—I will just say that it is essential that written statements are mandated to help people resolve conflicts and provide evidence if disputes go to court. What these must contain, which is the essence of Amendment 140 from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is clearly important and needs to be widely known.
There is quite a lot in the Bill that we feel needs to be widely known, and we have all had concerns about the level of knowledge. All I will say, with my tongue in my cheek for things down the road, is that that is all the more reason to regulate those who act for landlords—such as letting agents—to make sure that they act professionally and inform their tenants correctly.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Clause 14 aims to strengthen the transparency of rental agreements by requiring landlords to provide written terms at the outset of a tenancy. This is a welcome step towards ensuring that tenants are fully informed about their rights and obligations, and that landlords are held to account for the terms they offer.
Amendment 140, in my name, recognises that legislation alone is not enough. We must ensure that tenants, landlords and, indeed, any third-party contractors involved are informed and empowered. By requiring the Secretary of State to issue clear, accessible guidance, we help to make these rights and duties real and usable in practice. Without such guidance, even the most well-intentioned legislation risks becoming an abstract concept rather than a meaningful tool for change. This is why it is crucial that the Government take proactive steps to ensure that everyone involved in the rental process understands their roles and their responsibilities.
Amendments 136, 138 and 139, tabled by the Minister, seek to refine the process through which written statements of terms are provided. The intention, as I understand it, is to ensure that landlords are held to account for providing these terms in a timely manner, which is certainly a step in the right direction. However, we must be careful to consider whether the amendments fully take into account the diverse needs and circumstances of both tenants and landlords.
The Government have a clear opportunity here to provide a system that is not only fair and transparent but also practical and achievable for all those involved. We must ensure that these provisions do not overburden landlords with an administration task but, at the same time, protect the rights of tenants by providing them with the necessary information to make informed decisions about their tenancies. While the intention is to create more transparency, it is equally important, we feel, that we do not add unnecessary complexity or red tape that could inadvertently discourage smaller landlords or make the rental process more cumbersome.
In light of these considerations, I would like to ask the Minister one or two questions. First, is the Minister confident that the 28-day requirement for landlords to provide written statements will not lead to confusion or delays? This timeline, while designed to allow time for landlords to issue the statements, may in practice create gaps in communication, potentially leaving tenants in a state of uncertainty about their rights and obligations. How do the Government intend to mitigate these potential delays?
Furthermore, how do the Government plan to ensure that smaller landlords, who may not have the dedicated administration teams, will be able to comply with these provisions without facing excessive burdens? Small landlords, who often play a crucial role in our rental market, could face challenges in keeping up with increased administration requirements without support or resources. We must be mindful not inadvertently to create barriers that make it harder for these landlords to continue offering tenancies.
In conclusion, while we acknowledge the Government’s intention to improve transparency in tenancy agreements and better protect tenants, we must consider the real-world impact of these changes. We must ensure that reforms are workable for both tenants and landlords, without increasing the complexities of the rental process or creating unnecessary barriers to housing. The amendments, while positive in some respects, do not fully address the practical challenges landlords and tenants face. Is the Minister confident that these provisions will not place undue burdens on landlords, especially those at the smaller end of the market, and that they will effectively protect tenants’ rights without creating new avenues for confusion and non-compliance? The legislation must strike a balance that promotes fairness and transparency while also being workable for all parties involved.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I have just a brief response to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott; I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her comments.
Amendment 140 would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the new duty to provide tenants with a written statement of terms before a tenancy is entered into. We are already committed to supporting tenants, landlords and agents to understand and adjust to the new rules. I accept the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, made about agents; I think we will come to that later.
We are engaging with stakeholders in developing the requirements for the written statement of term and are aware of how important it is for the sector to understand the duty. In response to the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about small landlords and whether the 28-day period is reasonable, I am sure that will come out during our discussions with the sector. Because we are working that way, I am confident that we will be able to work through any pressures it may be concerned about. To help landlords and tenants, we will be providing a full suite of guidance, so these groups know exactly what the changes mean for them. For those reasons, I ask that Amendment 140 not be pressed.
Lord Jamieson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on another amendment in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook seek to limit the financial penalties by local authorities and probe the process on which non-judicial process is sought. Although it is right that those who deliberately flout the rules face financial penalties, it is also right that these financial penalties should be proportionate and applied fairly. Are fines of up to £40,000 reasonable? In many cases, they could be the equivalent of several years of rental income. We need a system that is balanced and just for both the tenant and the landlord.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 153, 201, 217 and 241, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, who cannot attend the Committee today. I know the whole Committee will join me in wishing him well. These amendments seek to limit the financial penalty that local authorities can impose for offences under these clauses. In the absence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, I will briefly set out my reasons for supporting his amendments in this group.
I should declare an interest that, as a practising solicitor for over 50 years, I am always concerned about penalties that are outside the judicial process, but my concern increases when the level of financial penalty is as high as is proposed. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, that the level of financial penalty set by the Bill is extremely high. A financial penalty of £40,000 would be ruinous for most landlords. According to the Government’s own Property Rental Income Statistics: 2024, the
“average income from UK property remained relatively stable at around £17,000 between 2018 to 2019 and 2022 to 2023”.
Therefore, a £40,000 penalty would, in effect, represent more than double the rental income of an average property.
In certain egregious cases, a penalty of that severity may seem appropriate, but those cases can be dealt with by the courts. We must ask ourselves what effect this new level of financial penalty that can be imposed by local authorities will have on landlords today. We have serious concerns that the risk of a large financial penalty being imposed may encourage existing landlords to leave the sector and discourage new landlords from entering it. A more reasonable level of financial penalty would prevent that chilling effect.
I have carefully heard the words of my noble friend Lord Jamieson on the Front Bench, and I know that my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, also on the Front Bench, will surely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, on this and consider the warning that we have given. Of course we accept that the Government will have their Bill, which should be effective in delivering its objectives, but we are seriously concerned and worried about the impact that these excessive financial penalties will have on the rental market.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for introducing the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, so well. I spoke to the noble and learned Lord about these amendments before his illness, and I was going to pass on only two or three comments that I recall he made to me.
The £40,000 is a life-changing amount of money—I think that was the way he put it. The reason I have my iPad here is that he referred to the civil penalties under the Housing and Planning Act 2016, on which the MHCLG has issued a very helpful note. It is so complex that local authorities needed a 20-page note to tell them how to implement this. The maximum under that Act is £30,000, and I do not see why we have suddenly gone to a £40,000 world. The £30,000 was reserved for a relatively small number of offences, and each involved knowingly doing something truly evil and wrong. I feel that that, as a principle, is conceded, as it were, even though £30,000 is a bit rich. Therefore, I agree on the £40,000; I do not understand why we have had to go up from £30,000. With the next group, we will come to the issue of knowing and recklessness, which is deeply serious as well.
I will pause briefly on some of the amendments. Amendment 153 refers to a schedule. This is one of the ones where it is up to £40,000 currently. It refers to a very complex schedule—yet there is a recklessness trigger for a fine of up to £40,000. It seemed to me that that was not as serious as some of the things that are a £30,000 offence under the Housing and Planning Act 2016. So I was dubious about whether that was truly worthy of a £30,000 lump. I therefore agree very much with the £7,000, which is where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, had come to.
On Amendment 241, there are a couple of things here that trigger the £40,000. Again, recklessness is for mistakes made in giving data to the new database. When people give data to databases, it is inevitably quite boring, and things can go wrong. Recklessness is an incredibly difficult thing to cope with, as we will discuss next, no doubt. So I felt, again, that this was very different from the £30,000 triggers under the Housing and Planning Act 2016. I felt that there was a strong case for moving the maximum down to £7,000. I am going to stop there in the analysis, because it was better done by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but that line of thinking—bringing it down to £7,000 from £40,000—was intended to improve standards of justice because, if people have been truly evil and truly wrong, the courts are there for that. They are made for that, and they can be a lot heavier with people. But, for local authorities, roughly £7,000 per offence—it could be multiple offences, of course—or 50% of an average year’s rental income, would be proportionate.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I have spent some time looking at this and I have listened very carefully to the amendments in this clause from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, as well as listening to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.
I am neither a lawyer nor a solicitor, but we are troubled by Amendment 144 in particular, as it would in effect delete all of the new Section 16I of the Housing Act 1988, inserted by Clause 18. In doing so, it would remove the ability of local housing authorities to issue civil penalties for a range of offences, pushing them into the courts. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I think that there probably is a debate about what should be pushed back to the courts, but in general I see a legitimate role for local authorities to issue penalty notices. I also feel that in much of the Bill we have talked about the courts’ capacity to deal with things, so I would be a little reluctant to increase the burden on the courts, which we are already arguing are stretched.
I would also be interested in hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, why Clause 15 of the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill gave similar powers to the local housing authorities as in Clause 17 of this Bill, albeit with a much lower maximum fine. To us, the proposal undermines the regime in the Bill that empowers local housing authorities to issue civil penalty notices. It is part of the tools in the box to give local authorities more powers to enforce across the many and various sections of the Bill. If the one objective of the Bill is to raise standards and root out rogue landlords, the Bill is right to give greater powers to local authorities to do so and raise the level of fines that can be imposed to be an effective deterrent.
At this point, when the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, very nicely pointed out the one person who has inherited and the this and the that—I do not think that those landlords need to be worried at all about this measure, as they are not the people whom the Bill is aimed at. In fact, there is a tiny degree of scaremongering in this. As I understand the aim, and I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, we are looking at the bottom end of the market. The answer to the landlords mentioned in the list cited by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, is, “If it is so ruinous to you, don’t do it—don’t do the thing that will result in that fine being imposed”. I am absolutely certain that the majority of good landlords would go nowhere near it—but actually, as the noble Earl said, some of our worst landlords do terrible things. It is very often a shock to talk to the people who deal with bailiffs, evictions and all that, to actually see the conditions that some landlords will subject human beings to. But it is a legitimate argument to talk about what should go to the courts or not as a result of what we have been talking about.
Amendments in this group seeking to reduce the amount that a local authority can charge in civil penalties will be generally resisted by ourselves, precisely because this Bill enables these fines to be used as revenue to provide resources for a strong and effective enforcement service. The capacity and capability of local authorities to carry out positive enforcement is a serious matter—and, of course, we will cover that in the next group. Councils keep the fines that they impose, whereas fines from the courts go to the Treasury, although it must be said that the LGA is still concerned that there will be a funding gap, the amount of which is going to be fairly speculative at this stage, which makes the reasons for wide-ranging reviews, which we will discuss in later groups, to be imperative. Perhaps the Minister could give us some reassurances on funding.
Amendment 144 removes the power of local housing authorities to enforce several provisions in the Bill that we strongly agree with, such as purporting to end a tenancy by serving a notice to quit orally or serving a purported notice of possession—in other words, not using the Section 8 process. In other words, it is conning a tenant that they have to leave. Councils must have the right to enforce this, as it goes to the heart of the Bill.
Amendment 144 therefore reduces the powers of local housing authorities to enforce, and Amendments 146 and 154 go on to reduce the penalties that can be imposed, which we opposed. Amendments 147 and 155, as well as all the amendments from the noble and learned Lords, Lord Etherton and Lord Keen, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, are an interesting variation on that theme, using rental payment as a measure of the penalty. I can see some logic in that, given that rents vary enormously depending on the property. But two months’ rent in a small house in Lancashire might well be several hundred pounds, whereas a similar property in Hertfordshire might be several thousand. There is a fairness of argument there, which is probably why there is a range of fines the authority can use, and I am sure the noble Baroness will enlighten us.
Finally, we can agree on Amendment 157. The burden on local authorities cannot be understated, and therefore it should be contingent on the Government to specifically look at this aspect and not just rely on the LGA and others to point it out. We are not convinced that it needs to be in the Bill, but it should be a genuine commitment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for moving those amendments. I send my get-well wishes to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, as well, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for moving the noble and learned Lord’s amendments. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for taking part in the debate.
It might help if I start with a brief bit of context. We are taking a clear escalatory approach to civil penalties here. Across the Bill, less serious, one-off breaches will be subject only to the maximum penalty of £7,000. Only if landlords persist in not signing up to the database or the ombudsman will they become liable for a civil penalty of up to £40,000—and that is the maximum. Where landlords continue to fail to remedy unacceptable conditions in a property, they may be faced with a civil penalty of up to £40,000 or indeed criminal prosecution. Where there is evidence that landlords and letting agents continue to discriminate in the letting process, they can face multiple fines. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, good landlords—there are many of them—will not be subject to any of these fines because they do not commit the offences that would lead to those fines. The answer is to follow the outlines in the Bill and then there will not be any need for landlords to be fined.
Amendment 144 would remove the ability of local authorities to impose financial penalties for non-compliance with the tenancy requirements where this is not a criminal offence. Effective enforcement against landlords who flout the rules is a key part of ensuring that our reforms deliver their full benefits. Across the provisions in the Bill, as I said, we have taken a consistent, proportionate and escalating approach to penalties. The civil penalties of up to £7,000 for less serious or first-time non-compliance is an important part of that approach. Removing the ability of local authorities to impose civil penalties for non-criminal breaches of the tenancy requirement would create a gap. How would landlords who, for example, failed to issue tenants with a written tenancy agreement or ended a tenancy illegally be held to account? Transferring responsibility for determining fines for these breaches to the courts would be a poor alternative and, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, it would unnecessarily increase pressures on the courts. We have had many debates about that in this House in response to other areas in the Bill. In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about the capacity of local authorities to deal with this, local authorities have significant experience of imposing civil penalties. I do not see a good reason for excluding breaches of the tenancy requirements from this well-established practice.
Amendments 137, 141, 149 to 151, 156, 158 to 164, 293 and 294 are consequential on Amendment 144 and remove references to new Section 16I of the Housing Act 1988, which Amendment 144 would delete. Amendment 146 would reduce the maximum penalty for a breach of the tenancy requirements from £7,000 to £5,000. Amendment 147 would, in the alternative, set the maximum penalty for a breach of the tenancy requirements at two months’ rent. Amendment 154 would reduce the maximum financial penalty for tenancy offences from £40,000 to £30,000. Amendment 155 would set the maximum penalty for tenancy offences at 12 months’ rent. Amendments 153, 201, 217 and 241 would reduce the maximum civil penalties for offences in relation to tenancy reform, illegal eviction, the database and the ombudsman from £40,000 to £7,000.
Civil penalties need to be set at a level that provides an appropriate punishment and acts as an effective deterrent to future non-compliance. To respond to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about the level of the fines, we have set the maximum civil penalty for offences across the Bill at £40,000. This mirrors existing maximum civil penalties for offences under the Housing Act 2004, which are currently £30,000, but this takes account of inflation since those came into force. We intend also to increase the Housing Act 2004 maximum penalties to £40,000, via regulations, to reflect those changes in the value of money. The £7,000 maximum penalty for breaches represents a similar percentage uprating to reflect inflation, compared with a maximum fine level of £5,000 for less serious non-compliance in other housing legislation; for example, the Tenant Fees Act 2019.
Increasing maximum fine levels to reflect inflation ensures that the deterrent effect of the penalties is maintained. However, I emphasise that these are maximum levels: they will not be the normal penalty level. Local authorities will need to look at the particular circumstances of each instance of non-compliance. They will need to take account of aggravating or mitigating factors and arrive at the final penalty in line with their policy. When considering whether to issue a civil penalty, local authorities are required to issue a notice of intent, allowing time for landlords to make representations. The local authority will need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the landlord has committed an offence. If the landlord disagrees with the imposition or amount of the penalty, they will of course be able to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
On a point of clarification, if I may, the Minister has made it very clear that there will be a range of fines that a local authority will be able to impose, and, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, pointed out earlier, with the 2016 Act, there was—I am not sure that I would say very clear, but let us call it very extensive—guidance on what would constitute a fine, with what burdens of proof, and whether it was knowingly reckless or unintentional. Is it the intention of the Government to provide very clear guidance to councils as to what level of fines they should impose related to what level of offence and so forth?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. Of course, local authorities will need to have a clear rationale for why they have set a civil penalty at a particular level and apply aggravating and mitigating factors to that, but local authorities need to be able to pursue penalties that are high enough to deter landlords from committing offences, but not so high that they are unfair. I take his point about guidance, and I will come back to him on that point, if that is okay.
Setting maximum penalty levels by reference to rent received on a property introduces unnecessary complexity and runs counter to well established practice. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, asked whether it could be set at levels of rent. Local authorities may take account of local rent levels when arriving at the final penalty. It is clearer and simpler, though, for the maximum to be prescribed and be the same wherever in England the same breach or offence is committed.
Amendment 157 would require the Secretary of State to make an annual statement to Parliament of the funding provided to local housing authorities to support their enforcement of the tenancy requirements. To respond to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about the cost to local authorities, we recognise that the enforcement duties we are placing on local housing authorities in the Bill represent an additional net cost. In accordance with the new burdens doctrine, we will ensure that additional burdens created by the new system are funded. We will set out the funding we are making available to meet those new burdens in due course.
We expect enforcing the new tenancy requirements to be a significant part of the additional costs on local authorities. Local authorities will, though, have flexibility on how they use the funding provided—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill—and we do not intend to specify the detail of what it should be used for.
For the reasons I have set out, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this group. I owe a particular debt of gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for bringing amendments to this House. I also wish him all the best for his recovery. These amendments, while similar in spirit to ours, would go even further in addressing the limits placed on local housing authorities. The noble and learned Lord is right to highlight both the challenges faced by local authorities and the significant scale of the proposed fines.
As there appeared to be a little bit of confusion, let us be absolutely clear: we need powers to hold to account rogue landlords who deliberately and maliciously break the rules to the detriment of tenants. That is something we can all agree on. However, we need a system that is fair and proportionate and does not ensnare essentially innocent landlords who inadvertently —or not maliciously—fall foul of the rules. They need to be encouraged to stay in the rental game.
As my noble friend Lord Hunt said, we need more rental homes, we need people to stay in the rental market and we need more people to come into it. We need to be very wary of coming up with systems where they fear very significant fines that they may perceive as arbitrary. Hence, I was very keen to get clear guidance from the Minister about how these fines would be placed and at what levels. I look forward to hearing further from her on this. I also appreciated what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said around the 2016 Act and the importance of guidance on that.
I thank the Minister for her reply and the commitment to share some reasoning for the figures that the Government have arrived at and some guidance— it appeared she would, anyway. Without insight into the rationale for the figures selected and the thresholds imposed, we are left to critique in the dark. For scrutiny to be effective and informed, the Government must provide not just partial explanations but a full and transparent account of how these conclusions were reached. Only then can Parliament properly fulfil its role in holding the Executive to account. I hope that the Minister will enable us to do this by sharing some of the Government’s reasoning and further guidance on how those fines will be brought forward.
Getting penalties right is not a technical detail; it is fundamental to the fairness and effectiveness of a system designed to remedy an offence. Significant fines and penalties for rogue landlords are appropriate and proportionate. However, as I said earlier, significant fines for someone who unintentionally falls foul of the law would be inappropriate. We need to be careful and calibrated to ensure that they deter offences but do not distort the functionality of the housing market. Although we want to address rogue landlords, we also want a thriving rental market and to avoid deterring good landlords who might perceive a significant risk of large, arbitrary fines.
I will finish with this message: a well-designed penalty framework should uphold the law, encourage compliance and support the functioning of housing authorities. The success of this legislation depends not just on good intentions but on practical deliverability, balanced implementation and trust from those who must operate within it.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
Before the noble Lord sits down, can I just ask him: did he really feel, in his time as chair of the Local Government Association and leader of a reputable authority, that local authorities were dishing out fines willy-nilly or were disproportionate in their measures when they were considering things? I found the opposite—there were times when I wished we would be a bit tougher and stronger and go a bit further. I do not recognise this picture that the noble Lord is painting: that landlords might perceive that it is terrible and feel bad about it. I genuinely believe that most good landlords have nowt to fear—it is not those that the Bill is gunning for. We have a duty to convey that message and not to make good landlords feel threatened by the fact that there is an escalation in fees.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness very much. She is absolutely right: most councils in this country are very good and proportionate and do not levy fines—or whatever—willy-nilly. I absolutely agree with that. However, it is very much in the eye of the beholder, and we need to do everything we can to encourage a successful and thriving rental market with good landlords. Within that, one needs to think what that single-, two- or three-home landlord will look at. They will see the potential risk of £40,000, and it is perception. I absolutely concur that councils act appropriately in many instances, but if a landlord feels that there is a risk, and particularly when that risk can be two, three, or, in some cases in the north of England, four years’ rent, they may just say, “I do not want to take that risk, I will sell my property”. That is one less house for somebody to rent and one more person on a council’s housing waiting list.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I am sorry, but I have to challenge that because the opposite to that is true. I think most good landlords are actually waiting for this to come into place because it damages their reputation when we have rogue landlords who cause their tenants the sorts of problems we are talking about. You will not come across the penalty regime unless you are the sort of landlord that causes your tenant problems. It is those landlords we want the Bill to impact.
Just to clarify the point on guidance, we will be issuing revised guidance on setting financial penalties to provide a national framework for local housing authorities. That will help to ensure the consistent approach which takes account of the seriousness of the offence and harm caused to the tenant and will help reduce the likelihood of reductions on appeal.
I want to be absolutely clear that this whole enforcement regime is aimed at those bad landlords we have heard too much about. Landlords want us to do this: they want to see that those people who do not do the job properly get an appropriate penalty for it.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Can I just ask a point of clarification? The Minister talked about publishing guidance. Will that be available before Report so that we can consider the Bill in that context?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will come back to the noble Lord on that point.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to clause 14 in the Minister’s name amending section 16D of the Housing Act 1988 to insert new subsection (6A).
“(6A) In any other case where a tenancy becomes a tenancy to which this section applies, the statement under subsection (2) must be given within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the tenancy becomes an assured tenancy.”Member’s explanatory statement
Where an existing tenancy becomes an assured tenancy, this amendment requires a landlord to provide a written statement of terms within 28 days rather than being required to provide such a statement before the tenancy is entered into.