Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wilcox of Newport) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 21st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lord, these regulations use powers contained within the Agriculture Act 2020 which enable the Government to address power imbalances within agricultural markets. These fair dealing powers allow for regulations that impose obligations in relation to the contracts of those businesses—usually larger businesses—that purchase from smaller producers. The fair dealing powers in the Agriculture Act, and their first use in the Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024, have previously been debated in this House, with important contributions made. I therefore know that many noble Lords will agree that these powers can play a significant role in promoting fairness in this sector and beyond.
I should first say that the pig sector is a British success story, characterised by effective relationships between producers and processors. It is a sector that delivers high-quality products, enjoyed across the UK and around the world. However, where power imbalances exist, relationships are not always as fair as they should be. As a result, farmers have too often felt that they bear a disproportionate share of the risk when market challenges arise.
A public consultation in 2022, seeking views on contractual practices in the sector, highlighted several challenges faced by producers. Defra has developed these proposals in response to the concerns raised and in close collaboration with industry, aiming to ensure fairness for producers while taking account of the practical concerns of processors. I am pleased to report that many stakeholders believe we have struck the right balance—protecting farmers while supporting existing good practice.
There will be opportunity for detailed discussion, but I would like to begin by outlining some key provisions. First, I will say a word on existing structures that already serve to protect farmers. We heard from many producers that the collective negotiation undertaken through marketing groups is highly valued. These regulations preserve this arrangement, allowing collective sellers, who purchase pigs from more than one farmer without processing them, the same protections as individual sellers.
At the heart of the regulations is the principle that written contracts should be the norm. While many transactions already use written agreements, this is not consistent across the sector. Establishing written contracts as the default provides a vital safeguard for farmers’ rights and promotes greater transparency in commercial relationships. Although industry supported this approach, it was also clear that not every transaction requires a protected contract. The pig sector includes a functioning spot market, where pigs are traded off-contract, an important mechanism for managing supply. In these cases, and others, the regulations allow producers to issue a notice to disapply the requirements for certain purchases. However, in most cases, both farmers and processors benefit from certainty. When no notice to disapply is given, farmers must be offered a fully compliant written contract, which cannot be varied without their consent. We heard clearly that farmers often felt that changes were imposed on them unilaterally, and this is not in the spirit of an open and balanced relationship.
One of the key priorities raised was the need for clarity around agreed volumes of supply. Clear terms in this area will support better planning and ensure that both parties fully understand their responsibilities and the consequences if those commitments are not met. In the pig sector, pricing is already often linked to published data or other shared information, offering a level of transparency that benefits both parties. The regulations encourage this approach by placing fewer obligations on processors who base their prices on such information.
At the same time, we were clear that flexibility must be preserved. It is for producers and processors to decide together how prices are calculated, reflecting what works best for their commercial relationship. However, when pricing mechanisms use data or factors which are not clearly accessible to producers, it is right that contracts include provisions to allow farmers to verify that pricing is fair and consistent with the agreed terms.
In addition to volumes and pricing, the regulations require that contracts clearly set out all terms relating to the purchase, as well as essential elements of the agreement that define how the relationship will operate in practice. These include matters such as payment terms, delivery arrangements, and how and when the contract can be terminated. While the specific details of these terms can be negotiated between the parties, this clarity helps protect farmers by reducing the risk of sudden or unfair changes, ensuring that both sides understand their rights and responsibilities throughout the contract. Importantly, all contracts must include a dispute resolution procedure. This will promote dialogue and help sustain the successful relationships already present in the sector.
The regulations extend the enforcement powers of the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator. The ASCA will investigate complaints about compliance with these regulations, as it already does in the dairy sector, on behalf of the Secretary of State.
Before I conclude, I should note that these regulations make an amendment to the Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024. After those regulations came into force, the Government were made aware of unintended consequences regarding tiered pricing in exclusive agreements. We received representations from businesses with shared ownership structures, explaining that exclusive supply is central to their model, and that the prohibition on tiered pricing was inadvertently penalising arrangements that actually benefit producers. These regulations therefore introduce a limited amendment to allow such practices in cases where a shared ownership structure is in place.
In summary, I hope I have demonstrated to noble Lords that these regulations represent a significant step forward for fairness in the UK pig sector. They respond directly to producer concerns, protect practices that work well, and will promote more balanced and transparent contractual arrangements. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the regulations before us this afternoon and thank the Minister for giving us the outline. It is an interesting backdrop, in the sense that pig prices seem to have been at their highest for a while now. I have come straight from a meeting with some Danish businesses—none of them farmers. While I am half-Danish, I wish to help only the British farmer, I should explain.
I am a big supporter of auction marts. How will this provision impact on sales through such marts? Will they be left pretty much as is allowed at the moment? Presumably, the regulations will come into their own at a different time, when the prices are particularly low and when the farmers, or pig producers, are not covering the full costs of their production.
Having been an MEP in an area with intensive pig farming and then having gone on to be an MP in another area with equally intensive pig farming, it was very sad to see the impact of foot and mouth disease on pig production. Many farmers will simply not go back into pig production again. Anything that we can do, like the content of these regulations, is very helpful indeed.
The Minister referred to the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, and I pay tribute to it. I still believe that we should go further and allow the adjudicator to look at the market and at particular supplies off its own initiative. If there is an imbalanced relationship that it is there to resolve—and overwhelmingly it has worked well—there is no way that someone is going to jeopardise it. That perhaps relates more to different sectors than to pigs, such as the dairy sector and fruit production. If you are in a contract and you are being unfairly discriminated against, it is difficult for you to jeopardise that contract by being identified as a complainant with the adjudicator. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether the Government will continue, please, to keep that under review.
Mindful of the fact of movement—which I do not think is covered by the regulations, but perhaps the Minister could write to me about this—we have a number of agricultural shows coming up at this time of year, right through to the autumn, and they are immensely important to the agricultural sector. Again, this probably covers sheep and lambs—I have not seen too many pigs at the Great Yorkshire Show, I have to say. Will the department give advice on movement of animals? I know it is on the case as regards avian flu, but some imports have already been banned because of foot and mouth existing in parts of the European Union. Will she make sure that the department gives advice at the earliest possible opportunity, well in advance of the shows taking place? That would be very welcome indeed.
I cannot let this opportunity go without singing the praises of the Malton pig factory. Again, while not directly within this remit, we have a bed and breakfast for pigs in North Yorkshire, and they are just as well looked after as we are at the famous bed and breakfasts that many of us stay in. One of the outlets for the bed and breakfast pig industry is the Malton Bacon Factory. It exported a huge amount to China, which takes pig’s trotters and other parts of the anatomy that I will not go into, which we do not enjoy in this country. That was a multi-million pound contract, and that might have gone by the wayside. The regulations focus probably more on those that do not necessarily have an initial contract.
One thing that struck me in the regulations—I am very grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s 21st report—is that it seems very odd in this day and age that many contracts are still not made in writing. Will the Government insist on that through the course of the regulation? The committee highlights in paragraph 44 that the requirements will
“include that all contracts are made in writing, contain clear pricing terms and set out how the price is determined”.
That relates to my initial question about how this will impact—presumably, the auction marts will be left alone and this will relate just to those contracts that are done individually. I would be very interested to know what proportion of the market is intended to be covered by the regulations. I welcome the regulations this afternoon and the opportunity to raise those issues.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, it is always instructive to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I thank the Minister for her persuasive, well-informed introduction. I do not quite know how George Orwell—Mr Blair—would view these regulations, because he had it in for Napoleon. But the Explanatory Memorandum is very helpful, and clearly Mr Andrew Powley has played a blinder in the department.
In another place, for some 31 years, I visited perhaps six farms a year, and one was hospitably received—bacon sandwiches were often on the farm menu. Indeed, I was once an Agriculture Minister in the lovely land of Wales. I cannot be the only one of your Lordships who regularly tunes in at 5.45 am to Radio 4’s informative farming programme. Pigs feature therein, and I am sure our Minister listens quite regularly to that programme—after prayers, of course.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I support these regulations but I have a few questions about them.
First, I give credit to the Government for bringing them forward. The gestation period of a sow is three months, three weeks and three days. This issue was first raised with me as an MP back in 2021 and the announcement was made in 2023, so heaven knows how many piglets have been born while we have been getting to this stage.
I want to get a sense of aspects of the contract and enforcement. So that noble Lords know, this came about during the Covid times, when we started seeing a shrinkage in the number of abattoirs. Farmers were starting to be constricted in which abattoirs were open. It was largely the large abattoirs, although not exclusively. As a consequence, farmers saw that, all of a sudden, prices changed, and it was take it or leave it.
There were further issues, and I will ask a question about size. Contracts were being written in a different way about the size of the pig that was being taken into the abattoir and whether it was slightly over in weight—obviously, while you are waiting for the pigs to go into the abattoir, they keep being fed. Farmers I knew were getting 10% of what they had expected, never mind the cuts that were being brought in.
I am conscious that it is very difficult to write the contract; we can see how long this one SI is in trying to reach the principle. On the review that is set out in the regulations, will the Minister perhaps share with the Farming Minister some thoughts on how the contracts are formed at the moment, to see how we start to accommodate for that? If we are getting into a particular situation, we might end up with the cancellation of the receipt of the pig in a way that forces a different way in which farmers are not properly compensated.
The first person who brought this up with me was the marvellous Jimmy Butler of Blythburgh Pork. I see my noble friend Lord Deben is here—we both know Jimmy well. Of course, there are other great pig farmers. On the Suffolk coast, there is Dingley Dell, with the Hayward brothers, and there are many more around the country, as we have already heard. The threat of blacklisting was very real, and it is why we went to Victoria Prentis—who will soon be introduced to this House—which brought about the July 2022 consultation.
Who will undertake enforcement of the regulations set out today? The powers are attributed to the Secretary of State, but, as the Minister will know, we have seen, sadly, breaches of animal welfare just in the last month in an abattoir the name of which I have forgotten, and in other abattoirs as well. Often, these abattoirs want help from the Government, who are not always listening when we go to them for help for farmers. Will it be the Food Standards Agency, which probably has more interaction with abattoirs than any other part of government, bearing in mind the regulations and the listening? It would be useful to understand who is lined up to do that.
I am also quite keen to understand this: at one point, there was consideration around referring the number of abattoirs that were there to the Competition and Markets Authority. I am sure that this will have been considered, bearing in the mind the regulations laid out today. I appreciate that the Minister is not formally responsible for farming but, if she has anything on that, I would be grateful to hear from her now or by letter.
I have a final point. The concentration of abattoirs has happened, as I say, for a variety of reasons, and I do not want to get into the animal welfare issues in that regard. It meant that the previous Administration set up a small abattoir fund. That came to an end in September last year. I would be grateful to have an understanding of that. Again, I appreciate that this is not directly in the regulations, but it could inform in due course the review that is under way on effectiveness of the provision of that funding. I am conscious that it was a difficult decision for the Farming Minister today, in an announcement made in a Written Ministerial Statement, to reopen SFI 24 for farmers who had started their application. I think that, in the review, it would be useful to consider whether the expansion of abattoirs has actually happened. It is vital that, whether mobile or small, we try to make sure that there is a healthy market in this country.
As I say, I applaud the Government for finally bringing these regulations forward. They will be much welcomed, but there are still a few details on which I would be grateful to hear from the Minister.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, my thanks go to the Minister for her explanation of this statutory instrument, which we in the Liberal Democrats support. It represents a positive and necessary step towards addressing the deep-seated issues of fairness and transparency that have plagued our vital, world-leading pig sector. It is a welcome change in the wake of the painful crisis that gripped this industry from 2020 to the spring of 2023—a period marked by, as we have heard from other noble Lords, the Covid period, acute Brexit-induced labour shortages at processing plants, and soaring feed and Putin-induced energy costs outstripping farm gate prices and pushing producers to the brink. The statistics are stark, with losses exceeding £750 million collectively, as well as that awful period when more than 60,000 healthy animals were culled because they could not be processed.
Although the pig sector has a history of volatility, that particular crisis exposed a critical weakness at its heart: a risk/reward imbalance underpinned by commercially unclear and potentially harmful terms, especially for smaller producers, hindering their ability to budget, manage price fluctuation or invest for the future. These regulations are rightly designed to address this imbalance. They mandate written pig purchase contracts between buyers and sellers, setting out clear rules for pricing, contract duration and dealing with market fluctuations. This framework is crucial in rebuilding for them security, clarity and fairness.
The instrument makes necessary amendments to the Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024, addressing the unintended consequence described by the Minister that impacts on businesses with an internal democratic structure—typically co-operatives—and allowing for volume-based or tiered pricing in that specific context. We urge Defra and the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, which will enforce these regulations, to monitor this amendment closely to ensure that it is applied in the true spirit of internal democratic structures. I thank the National Farmers’ Union’s dairy team and the National Pig Association for their valuable briefings on this issue, which have informed our understanding of it. They have asked for specific reassurances on this issue.
While these regulations are welcome and necessary for the pig sector, they highlight a broader need. The Groceries Code Adjudicator was introduced—we are very proud of this—by the coalition Government. It was taken directly from the Liberal Democrat 2010 manifesto, but we regret that its powers to enforce were not sufficiently established when we left Government in 2015, and it still comprises only a handful of people.
Given the clear and continuing power imbalance between producers, processors, supermarkets and the food service sector, does the Minister have any plans to enhance the enforcement powers and capacity of the GCA, given that it is the potential referee in the supply chain? Indeed, will she consider the need for the GCA to be able to intervene in deals between farmers and processers, not just those directly linking to retailers? Producers must be able to raise issues, and we believe that anonymity is vital, given the potential fear of repercussions. We believe that third parties such as the NFU should be empowered to raise concerns and truly hold the more powerful parts of the industry accountable, so the adjudicator therefore needs some more effective tools.
As ever, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its scrutiny of these matters. It would be interesting to get some clarification from the Minister on an issue raised by my noble friend Lord Pack, which was also in the committee’s report. It said:
“Defra has used a specific definition of what constitutes an electronic signature, rather than using or cross-referencing to what we understand is the more standard definition under section 7(2) of the Electronic Communications Act 2000”.
In other words, there is some kind of different use of electronic signature here. That is a technical query that it would be great to understand. The committee continued, saying that:
“The Department was unable to explain … the rationale”.
I am having a second go at that question, and I thank the Minister in advance for even struggling to find the answer.
Finally, we must avoid simply passing this SI and then moving on. Regulations such as these need to be subject to regular review to ensure that they remain fit for purpose. The flexibility within this SI must not be abused, and the Government must ensure that these regulations genuinely work for an industry of which we can rightly be proud.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to these regulations, made under Section 29 of the Agriculture Act 2020, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests, in particular as a dairy farmer and landowner. This is the second use of these powers following last year’s regulations in the dairy sector, and I am most grateful to the Minister for introducing this SI today.
These regulations represent a step towards rebalancing commercial relationships in the pig sector. For too long, small and independent producers have operated under contracts that lack clarity, fairness or enforceability. Many have found themselves at the mercy of buyers wielding considerable market power and facing reductions in volume, unilateral contract changes and dishonoured pricing agreements. These practices have created uncertainty and risk at the farm gate, and undermined confidence across the supply chain.
As the Minister outlined, the instrument requires that all contracts between qualifying sellers and business purchasers be in writing and include transparent pricing terms. It prohibits unilateral changes to contracts, mandates dispute resolution mechanisms and sets clearer parameters around termination clauses. These provisions will enable producers to request a written explanation of how prices are determined if not based on objective and accessible criteria. The Minister also highlighted the usefulness of the notice to disapply in agreed circumstances.
The need for such reforms has been well evidenced. Our previous Government’s 2022 consultation received 374 responses, of which 89% supported mandatory written contracts and 64% said existing agreements were not consistently honoured. These regulations reflect this feedback and follow a constructive sector-specific approach.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the broad support for the regulations and for the contributions that have been shared on this instrument. There seems to be consensus that, even in a market that often functions well, as we have heard, it is essential to protect the smaller producers in the supply chain, so I welcome the support.
The specific requirements that are set out in the regulations—on volumes of supply, pricing, contract variation and termination—represent a significant step forward for the pig sector. Dispute resolution provisions will also support continued dialogue and collaboration across the supply chain. At the same time, the regulations are designed to protect and support existing good practice. I am confident they will strengthen the many successful relationships that already characterise the industry.
I turn now to some of the specific points that were raised. Some noble Lords talked about the different flexibilities that we have built into the regulations. I want to be clear that we are confident that they will not be easily misused. The reforms deliver a real and meaningful improvement in transparency for pig producers, which has often been lacking in the past. If the reforms are to be effective, they have to be proportionate and reflect the realities of how the sector operates, which is why we have built in flexibility. That does not mean we are going to be hands off in the approach to it.
I assure noble Lords that implementation is going to be closely monitored. If we find that the flexibility is such that the notice to disapply is being abused, or if the behavioural changes we expect do not materialise, we will not hesitate to revisit our approach and take further actions. The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked if we are going to be keeping an eye on it, and the answer is yes.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked about auction marts. First of all, pig sales through auction marts are quite limited but they will not be impacted. This is one area where the notice to disapply may be appropriate to use. If a notice to disapply is given to the business purchaser by the producer, the regulations do not need to be complied with for that specific purchase. I hope that helps to clarify that.
The appalling pig crisis of 2021 and 2022 was mentioned, particularly by the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Grender. Everyone in the sector wants to make sure that that does not happen again. As we have heard, at the time, there were a number of related factors, including the Covid pandemic, a lack of skilled butchers and declining export demand, and we ended up with a backlog of pigs on the market, which is why we had the awful cull that we witnessed. That was quite unusual, though, and it was quite difficult to avoid what was almost the perfect storm that built up at that time. We need to learn from it, which is why these regulations will make sure that farmers do not bear any disproportionate levels of cost when market challenges come up in the future.
The regulations outline that both producers and processors need to be clear about the levels of supply that they can expect in advance. That will be subject to negotiation between the parties, to maintain flexibility, and those agreeing a contract would be able to agree any tolerances for over and under supply levels. The new rules outline that contracts should say in advance what the remedies would be for either party when agreed levels of supply are not met by the other party. This could be a financial remedy, a change in future volumes that would be supplied, or a suspension of existing penalties; we need to look at each individual situation. What is important is that it will be open for negotiation between the parties, written down in advance and subject to change only by mutual agreement of both the farmers and processors alike. The whole point is to ensure certainty and transparency across the marketplace.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, referred to the Cranswick incident and the difficulties around animal welfare and the breaches at that particular abattoir. The Animal and Plant Health Agency is investigating—it investigates every allegation that is reported to it. Obviously, I cannot comment on that because it is ongoing, but I reassure the noble Baroness that APHA is looking at that.
Lord Deben (Con)
Should we not be extremely pleased at the immediate steps taken by supermarkets and others when they heard about this allegation? And it is an allegation at this stage. It shows that we now have a very much more acute understanding of how animals should be looked after and what welfare really matters, which is crucially important for those of us who believe that eating meat is a satisfactory and proper thing to do.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right to draw attention to the work the supermarkets did. They do not always get the credit that they should. That swift reaction was really important. It shows the industry coming together, right across the board, when something really appalling happens that is breaching regulations. I absolutely agree.
There were a number of questions about the Groceries Code Adjudicator and the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator. The noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Grender, and others mentioned that. For those covered by the groceries code, the GCA has prioritised communication of the statutory requirement to maintain supply confidentiality. The GCA has relaunched the Code Confident campaign, launched a confidential reporting platform called Tell the GCA, and published a code compliance officer commitment to confidentiality, which we hope will help. The GCA’s fourth statutory review is currently ongoing. That is being led by the Department for Business and Trade and will also allow for feedback to be provided in this area and in others.
For those covered by the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, a complaint does not need to be made from a producer for ASCA to investigate and perform enforcement functions where necessary. The current Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator has confirmed that it will always seek confirmation from the producer that they are content for a complaint to be formally investigated before contacting a purchaser and sharing any information. It has also recently launched the Contact ASCA in Confidence service, learning from the GCA’s Tell the GCA scheme; this allows producers and anyone else to raise issues with ASCA confidentially. Although ASCA will not be able to open a formal investigation without an actual complaint, the information provided will help inform its activities.
On who will enforce this, which a number of noble Lords asked about, the option to expand the remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator was explored in a formal call for evidence back in 2016. This concluded that the extension of the GCA’s role further along the supply chain would not be appropriate. Part of this is because the Groceries Code Adjudicator has a very specific remit: regulating the relationships between the largest grocery retailers in the country and their direct suppliers. These regulations focus instead on the contracts that pig farmers hold directly, which are almost exclusively with the processing companies. We are therefore confident that the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator—obviously, it also handles enforcement for the dairy sector, as noble Lords will be aware—is the most appropriate means of enforcing these regulations. It will continue to focus on regulations made under Section 29 and this first important stage of the supply chain.
I mentioned dairy sector enforcement. The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked whether this will be sector by sector. It will be introduced sector by sector going forward.
I was asked whether the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator has sufficient resources. ASCA was relatively recently established. Enforcement for the dairy regulations began only in July 2024—less than a year ago—and existing contracts are not being covered until July this year. Currently, the office is sufficiently resourced to fulfil its remit of enforcing the regulations in the dairy sector and, soon, in the pig sector. However, we will monitor resourcing requirements as the regulations take effect, so that we can respond accordingly if need be. Similarly, we will continue to do so as further reviews are conducted and as more sectors come into scope.
Why did we choose this route instead of reforming the GCA? We have talked about the fact that we did the consultation but, particularly for pig producers, this is a highly consolidated part of the supply chain. Just four processors account for the vast majority of pig purchases. We believe that, to deliver the greatest benefits in fairness and transparency, it is right that we focus on this primary relationship between producers and processors.
These regulations were developed with extensive engagement with industry, and stakeholders were invited to comment on detailed drafting—including the text of the statutory instrument itself—to confirm that they found the whole approach workable. We are committed to using the fair dealing powers wherever they are needed. We are now working with industry on the proposals for fresh produce and the egg sectors, which will be the next areas that we look to bring in. We will continue to work with stakeholders as we do that.
My noble friend Lord Jones asked about the size of the pig herd. We do not actually know how many pigs there are, but we know that the UK pig industry is worth £1.6 billion at the farm gate and £5 billion at retail. Considering food service, external sales and export values, we think it is worth over £14 billion in total. I hope that that helps him to understand the size of the industry.
Forensic Science Regulator Draft Code of Practice 2025
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Forensic Science Regulator Draft Code of Practice 2025.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, forensic science is an integral part of delivery of the criminal justice system in the 21st century. I am a devoted fan of television programmes on real crime in the evenings, and I can honestly say that I have not yet seen one where DNA, drug analysis, mobile phones, photos, messages, health apps or emails have not brought the criminals to justice. Bringing people to justice is absolutely central to what we do. I put on record my thanks to the police and forensic scientists in this country for all they do in delivering these crucial services.
The Government’s mission is to halve violent crime, halve violence against women and girls, and increase confidence in the police and criminal justice system. We are also consulting on a new national centre of policing to bring together crucial support services, including forensics, that local police forces can draw upon to raise standards and improve efficiency.
None of this can be done without access to high-quality and cost-effective forensic science. The Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021 was a significant milestone for forensic science in England and Wales. It established the Forensic Science Regulator as a statutory officeholder, giving it power to take action when it has reason to believe that forensic science activities are being conducted in such a way as to create a substantial risk to the course of justice. More pertinent to this Committee’s work today, the Act requires the regulator to produce a statutory code of practice. This code will formally define which forensic science activities will be regulated and set out the standards that forensic practitioners must meet.
The very first version of that code came into force under the previous Government in October 2023 following parliamentary approval. It was the first such statutory code anywhere in the world. We recognised that, due to the novelty of those statutory requirements, the regulator would have to examine a second version of the code in due course.
We have undertaken a consultation on version 2 of the code, which was launched in early 2024. This resulted in 1,230 comments from 96 respondents from a range of organisations and sectors, including law enforcement, academia and commercial providers. Policing and wider law enforcement constituted 64 of the 96 respondents. The regulator also held extensive discussions with specialist groups from across the forensics community. The result is that version 2 of the code is laid before us today.
Most of the changes are minor or technical and clarify existing provisions. Some practical issues that arose only when the first version of the code was implemented have now been addressed and rectified. The most significant change in version 2 of the code relates to the regulation of incident scene examination. For some time, concerns had been raised with the regulator by policing concerning the effectiveness of the incident scene examination requirements set out in version 1 of the code. Version 2 streamlines that process and will now require a corporate approach by each police organisation, and eliminates the need for individual assessments across 149 different sites. The regulator believes that this will save significant police staffing hours and should therefore be welcomed.
The new requirements set out in version 2 of the code have widespread support among forensic practitioners, forensic leaders and chief police officers, and should lead to significant savings for the police. Overall, version 2 of the code has been designed to continue to protect the integrity of the criminal justice system and to help guard against miscarriages of justice.
Finally, I put on record my thanks to Gary Pugh, the Forensic Science Regulator, who will be retiring towards the end of this year. During his term he has overseen the transition of the role to that of a statutory officeholder and produced the code of practice before us today. I commend this instrument to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wilcox of Newport) (Lab)
My Lords, it is of note that the Minister, both opposition spokespeople and the chair are all Welsh, as we talk about forensic science. I wonder how often that happens.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, it seems as though the Taffia are taking over.
I begin by saying what a pleasure it is to see the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, in the chair of this Committee. This is the first time I have seen her in her new role, and I congratulate her and wish her well. I know she will bring the same high level of professionalism to this role that she does to every other role she holds.
I welcome very briefly these updated provisions, which offer much-needed clarity and a more streamlined approach to compliance in incident scene examination. A consistent corporate framework is a sensible step forward in reinforcing accountability across the sector. In a field that plays such a critical role in the justice system, clear standards and effective oversight are essential. However, I would be grateful if the Minister could provide further details on two points.
First, how many small and micro businesses are currently involved in commercial forensic work? Have they all been made aware of the need to comply with the updated code? How will their compliance be monitored to ensure that standards are met across the board? Secondly, the code mentions that it will be reviewed at regular intervals. Can the Minister clarify what that means in practical terms? Certainty around the timing and process of review would help build confidence in the regulatory framework. It is essential that we ensure that all providers, large and small, are held to the same high standards to maintain the integrity of forensic evidence and the public’s trust in our justice system. This statutory instrument has the support of these Benches.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, like the Minister, I too am a fan of forensic science. I well remember the introduction of DNA evidence during my police service in the mid-1980s, and of course some very challenging crimes have been solved by scientists using forensic science.
I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument. This measure brings forward version 2 of the statutory code of practice, as required under the Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021, legislation introduced by the previous Conservative Administration. These provisions marked a significant step forward, placing the regulator on a statutory footing for the first time and mandating the creation and upkeep of a code to govern forensic science activities across England and Wales.
Version 1 of the code, which came into force in October 2023, was the first statutory code of its kind anywhere in the world. It represented an important milestone in improving the quality and consistency of forensic science. Version 2, which we are considering today, introduces a series of technical and procedural amendments aimed at improving clarity, efficiency and regulatory consistency. Many of these changes respond directly to issues raised during the early implementation of the original code, such as simplifying the accreditation process and refining standards around scene examination and other forensic practices.
We welcome the introduction of a transitional period, extending to October 2025, to support providers, particularly small businesses, in adjusting to the updated requirements. We note that changes were made following a broad consultation process, which received strong support from across the forensic science community. We support efforts to strengthen forensic standards, particularly where they serve to uphold the integrity of the criminal justice system. None the less, we believe that it is right to raise several points for consideration.
First, on the question of regulatory burden, have the Government undertaken a full and transparent assessment of whether these revised provisions meaningfully reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, especially for smaller providers? Will a formal post-implementation review be carried out to ensure that the intended efficiencies are being realised without compromising quality?
Secondly, we would welcome clarity on how the regulator intends to remain responsive to future developments. Forensic science is a rapidly evolving field and it is essential that the regulatory framework remains adaptable. Can the Minister confirm whether there is a rolling review process for ensuring that the code is kept up to date in a timely manner, rather than relying solely on periodic revisions?
Finally, on stakeholder engagement, while it is encouraging that the initial consultation involved a wide range of voices, can the Minister explain how the Government intend to maintain ongoing dialogue with front-line practitioners as the code is implemented in practice?
In conclusion, this revised code of practice represents a constructive step forward in refining and strengthening the regulatory regime for forensic science. While we support the direction of travel, we will continue to monitor implementation closely and encourage the Government to remain responsive to ongoing feedback from across the sector.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for their contributions. As a relative newcomer to the House, I had not realised that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, had not chaired the Grand Committee before. I wish her well. I note also that all of us speaking in the Committee today have been Welsh by election—if not in my case by birth.
Lord Deben (Con)
Just in case anybody misses me out, I am Welsh also, but I am not actually speaking in this debate.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My knowledge broadens daily. In all the years I have watched the noble Lord from a distance, I had never realised that—we learn something every day.
The points raised were valid points. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, I do not have a figure for the number of SMEs but there has been wide consultation. This is not a new requirement: version 1 has been in place and version 2 is a slight update with some slight tweaks. I hope noble Lords are aware of that. To minimise the impact of the requirements, including on small and micro businesses employing up to 50 people, the regulator is allowing a transitional period from the date that the version 2 code of practice comes into force until October 2025, for all providers to become compliant with version 2 of the code. There is a learning space for small businesses.
Investigatory Powers (Codes of Practice, Review of Notices and Technical Advisory Board) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Investigatory Powers (Codes of Practice, Review of Notices and Technical Advisory Board) Regulations 2025.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be here today to bring forward these regulations. The Government have published an Explanatory Memorandum alongside them, and I shall begin with some brief background as to how we have got to where we are.
The Investigatory Powers Act 2016, known as the IPA, provides a framework for the use and oversight of investigatory powers by the intelligence services, law enforcement and other public authorities. I recall it well, having served on the Bill, in both draft and original form. It never fails to surprise to me that it is almost 10 years ago since the Act came into being. It helps to safeguard people’s privacy by setting out stringent controls over the way in which the powers are authorised and overseen. The IPA is considered to be world-leading legislation that provides unprecedented transparency and substantial protections for privacy.
The IPA was intentionally drafted in a technologically neutral manner, to ensure that public authorities could continue to acquire operationally relevant data as technology evolved. While this approach has largely withstood the test of time, a combination of new communication technologies and the changing threat landscape continues to challenge the effective operation of the Act.
The Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024 was introduced by the previous Government and received Royal Assent in April last year. To ensure that the legislative regime remains fit for purpose, the 2024 Act made a series of targeted changes to the IPA to enable our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to tackle a range of evolving threats in the face of new technologies and increasingly sophisticated terrorist and criminal groups.
That gives rise to the purpose of these regulations. The regulations before us bring into force three new and five revised codes of practice, which provide operational guidance for public authorities to have regard to when exercising their functions under the IPA. As well as including minor updates and changes to ensure consistency, the codes of practice have been revised to reflect various changes made by the 2024 Act under the previous Government.
The new codes on bulk personal datasets with a low or no reasonable expectation of privacy and third-party bulk personal datasets relate to new regimes introduced by the 2024 Act. The new code on the notices regime consolidates guidance from various existing codes into one place. The regulations also contain several provisions relating to the IPA’s notices regime, including defining “relevant change” for the purpose of the new notification notices. They also introduce timelines for the review of technical capability, data retention and national security notices, and amend existing regulations in relation to membership of the technical advisory board.
The regulations and code of practice have been informed by a 12-week public consultation which closed in January 2025. The Government received responses from a range of stakeholders, including interest groups, public authorities, technology companies, trade associations and members of the public. We made several changes following that consultation, including stylistic changes, further clarity on processes and changes to the technology advisory board’s membership requirement. A copy of the Government’s response to the consultation has been published and, should Members wish to see it, is available online or it will be at a future date.
To sum up, these regulations are a crucial step in implementing the 2024 Act. They will ensure that the UK’s investigatory powers framework continues to protect our national security and to prevent, investigate, disrupt and prosecute the most serious crimes. I commend the SI to the Committee.
Lord Deben (Con)
I wonder whether the Minister would be kind enough in his reply to give us some idea of the ongoing arrangements for the updating of this kind of material. He has shown that the constant need for this is because of the speedy change of the world outside. Who is responsible for it? How are they able to keep up to date and how regularly do we think we are likely to have statutory instruments updating the material that we have? We are dealing with an ever-changing scene which is changing ever more quickly. I would like to understand the government structure that enables us to make satisfactory changes rapidly enough to see that we are fully in control.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. These regulations implement key provisions of the Investigatory Powers Act 2024, which was passed by the previous Conservative Government. These regulations introduce three codes of practice and revise five existing ones.
The new codes provide a framework for two regimes introduced by the 2024 Act— the treatment of bulk personal datasets where there is a low or no reasonable expectation of privacy, and the authorisation of access to third-party datasets. A third new code consolidates guidance on the notices regime, including the operation of notification notices and what constitutes a relevant change—a key test for when telecoms operators must inform the Secretary of State of technical updates.
The revised codes also enhance oversight and safeguards by clarifying the conditions for lawful access to data, strengthening protection for journalistic material and requiring notification of serious data breaches where it is in the public interest. These regulations also make important structural updates to the technical advisory board, expanding its membership and adjusting its quorum rules to ensure it can operate effectively when dealing with complex or concurrent reviews.
We welcome these provisions and, with that in mind, I raise several broader points. First, on legislative responsiveness, these regulations reflect the speed at which both threats and the technologies behind them are evolving. The 2024 Act rightly introduced flexible tools for handling internet connection records and bulk data. But agile legislation should not rely solely on periodic amendments. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government plan to conduct regular reviews of the framework and whether a structured timetable has been established to ensure that the legislation continues to meet operational needs?
Secondly, on stakeholder engagement, the Government’s consultation included contributions from technology companies, civil liberties organisations and public bodies. Although this engagement is welcome, several respondents raised concerns, particularly regarding the practical implications of notification notices and the definition of “relevant change”. Given that, can the Minister outline how the Government intend to maintain an open and ongoing dialogue with stakeholders as these codes are implemented?
Finally, on oversight and accountability, the powers under discussion are significant. Their legitimacy depends on effective safeguards; this is especially true for third-party bulk datasets, where individuals may not reasonably expect their data to be protected. Can the Minister confirm that the revised codes provide the Investigatory Powers Commissioner with the necessary clarity and authority to ensure that these powers are exercised lawfully and proportionately?
The 2024 Act was designed to safeguard national security in a rapidly evolving digital world. However, the use of investigatory powers must always be lawful, properly overseen and proportionate in its impact. Although these reforms offer practical steps to modernise the existing framework, we must ensure that these powers are used responsibly, reviewed regularly and held accountable, balancing security with our democratic values.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for those two contributions. First, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned again how the Government will keep these matters under review. He will know that, basically, the 2016 Act was passed on the basis of cross-party support. The 2024 Act was a review of whether the 2016 Act needed to be amended further, while the regulations before the Grand Committee today are the outcome of some of the changes to that 2024 Act.
The Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act made a series of targeted changes to ensure that the regime was fit for purpose but, self-evidently, the Home Office will keep under examination the new technology and the need to make any further amendments. I cannot give the noble Lord an assurance as to when and how that will be done, but he can rest assured that if amendments to the 2016 Act, which was amended in 2024, are required, they will be brought to the House as a matter of some urgency.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, also mentioned public consultation; I very much welcome his welcome for of these regulations today. The responses that the Government received included various suggestions for amendments to the draft codes of practice and the regulations. We have made changes as a result; these are quite wide but include changes to the Technology Advisory Panel’s membership requirement. I know that he mentioned telecommunication companies in particular. Again, we are satisfied that there was sufficient input from them during the passage of the 2024 Act and that the points they raised were taken into consideration when preparing the codes. Obviously, again, we need to examine the wide space between telecommunications companies’ powers and responsibilities, including their responsibility to protect the individual and the consumer. I think that we have got the balance right here.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked about oversight. Strong safeguards are in place to ensure that investigatory powers are used in a necessary and proportionate way. There is independent oversight by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the right of redress via the Investigatory Powers Tribunal for anybody who believes they have been the victim of unlawful action by a public authority using covert investigative techniques. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner independently oversees the use of investigatory powers and will ensure that they are used in accordance with the law and in the public interest. Several other powers—I hope this also reassures the noble Lord—are subject to the double lock, where warrants must be signed by the Secretary of State and an independent judicial commissioner. These powers are deployed only in connection with the most serious of crimes or national security.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wilcox of Newport) (Lab)
My Lords, the Committee stands adjourned for a couple of minutes until we find the Opposition spokesperson.
Health and Social Care Information Standards (Procedure) Regulations 2025
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the Grand Committee do consider the Health and Social Care Information Standards (Procedure) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 25 March 2025. If approved, they will make provision about the new procedure that must be followed by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and/or NHS England when preparing and publishing information standards. Information standards relate to the processing of health and adult social care information. They can facilitate information to be shared easily, in real time, between health and adult social care organisations, providing a common set of requirements that must be followed. They are fundamental to ensuring interoperability and delivering a more integrated system in health and social care.
Currently, the health and adult social care system lacks a joined-up approach to technology and data solutions. This is in part due to low compliance with information standards, which are not yet mandatory. This makes it hard to achieve change or deliver improvements that are consistent across health and adult social care. For the health and adult social care system to work effectively, data needs to be processed in a transparent and standardised way, using common specifications, so that it can be understood and used by health and care professionals across different settings. To be effective, standards should be mandatory, as they will be in the near future, following commencement of the relevant provisions in the Health and Care Act 2022.
Noble Lords will appreciate that this was legislation made under the previous Government. I would hope that the current Government, in taking this forward, indicate a degree of unanimity on the need for a good system of standards, which support interoperability. Existing standards have not undergone a standardised approach to their preparation or review. This inconsistency has contributed to low compliance with information standards, which has made it harder for health and adult social care providers to understand what they are being asked to do and for data to be easily shared between different services.
Building on the provision in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, the Health and Social Care Act 2022 makes compliance with information standards mandatory. These procedural regulations that we are considering today set out a specific process that must be followed in developing and publishing all information standards going forward. Parliament permitting, once the Data (Use and Access) Bill becomes law, they will be mandatory for not just providers of health and adult social care services but the IT providers with which they contract.
I draw noble Lords’ attention to the element of consultation that the regulations would require. This has also been part of the process of developing these regulations, as there has been a public consultation and extensive engagement with stakeholders to ensure that we get this right; an impact assessment has also been published. The procedures outlined in this instrument have therefore been carefully considered and developed, taking into account views from stakeholders across the health and care sector. They will ensure that information standards are fit for purpose, kept up to date and reviewed regularly as needed; and that they keep pace with technical developments and evolving priorities. I beg to move.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, although we recognise the ambition behind these regulations to foster better integration and data sharing across health and social care, we harbour some reservations regarding their scope. We are deeply concerned about their implementation, including the costs there, and the potential impact on individual liberties.
We understand that the need for seamless information flow to improve patient care and service delivery is undeniable. We as Liberal Democrats have long championed a more joined-up approach—one that empowers professionals with the right information at the right time. However, as always, the devil lies in the detail. This statutory instrument, while aiming for laudable goals, raises several critical questions that demand thorough scrutiny.
First, we are concerned about the breadth of the data being mandated for collection and sharing. Although the consultation response attempts to address concerns about proportionality, the regulations still appear to cast the net very wide. We must ensure that the data collected is strictly necessary and proportionate to the intended purposes; and that robust safeguards are in place to prevent mission creep and unwanted intrusion into individuals’ lives. The potential for sensitive personal information to be accessed and shared across numerous entities requires the highest level of scrutiny and ironclad guarantees against misuse.
Secondly, the consultation response highlights ongoing concerns regarding interoperability. It is worth noting at this point that there were only 132 responses to the public consultation. That is rather worrying considering that we are talking about nearly 2,000 private sector entities involved in providing the type of health and care about which we are talking.
There are real issues around the technical capability of various organisations, particularly in the social care sector, to implement these standards effectively. Many providers, especially smaller ones, lack the digital infrastructure and resources to integrate the new data systems seamlessly. Without adequate financial and practical support, these regulations risk exacerbating existing inequalities and placing undue burdens on already-stretched services. We need assurances that the implementation will be phased and adequately resourced, ensuring that no part of the health and social care system is left behind.
At this point, it is worth pointing out that, if the impact assessment were in a kitchen, it would be a colander: it has so many holes and assumptions that it is not worth the paper it is written on. I have read many impact assessments but never have I read one that says, basically, that, because we do not know the standards, we have not spoken to the IT suppliers and we do not really understand what it is we are asking to be implemented, we cannot make a real, positive determination of costs. In paragraph 24, it says:
“In brief, as future information standards remain an unknown, the costing has had to be based largely on a set of informed assumptions”.
However, when you read the informed assumptions, you see that they are not informed—they are just assumptions.
The impact assessment goes on to say that it has not really been appropriate to speak to IT suppliers as it is too early to have an indicator of the compliance costs. It also makes it very clear that the way in which small social care providers will potentially have the ability to implement this cannot be guaranteed; and that there could be market fragmentation. I have some questions for the Minister about the impact assessment and the robustness of the assumptions made. When the Minister read the impact assessment, what concerns were raised to her? What assurances have been given to her, particularly regarding small social care providers’ ability to implement what is being asked of them?
On costs, what assurance has the Minister been given with regards to the quantum of costs? The impact assessment makes it clear that these costs cannot in any way, shape or form be guaranteed to be the total cost, particularly for small to medium-sized enterprises. What assurances can the Minister give the Committee that, if certain costs go beyond a certain ceiling, the implementation period will be either extended or paused? This is an important point, particularly when many social care providers are already on the brink of financial instability; many talk about not being able to absorb further costs. If the Minister cannot give me assurances, I will probably raise this matter on the Floor of the House; it may be that, because of the details that I require, the Minister offers me a meeting to give me reassurance before this is discussed in the House.
We also note the continued ambiguity surrounding the explicit consent mechanisms and the rights of individuals to control how their data is used. Although the consultation touches on these matters, the regulations themselves lack the clarity and strength needed both to guarantee genuine informed consent and to provide individuals with meaningful choices regarding their data. We believe that individuals must have a clear understanding of what data is being shared, with whom and for what purpose; and that they must possess the right to object in appropriate circumstances.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I therefore wish to pose the following extra questions to the Minister. My first is on the timescale of and reasons for bringing this statutory instrument forward. Based on the fact that the impact assessment says that,
“despite best endeavours to collect and draw upon strong evidence, cost and benefit assumptions remain uncertain and based on limited evidence availability in places”,
why has this statutory instrument been brought forward? Why could it not have been brought forward when there was more certainty and understanding of the implications of its implementation?
Secondly, given the breadth of data mandated for collection, what specific purposes will the Government put in place to ensure strict proportionality and to prevent the collection and sharing of information that is not absolutely necessary for the stated purposes of these regulations? Also, how will the Government guarantee that these measures will be actively monitored and enforced?
Thirdly, acknowledging the significant disparities in digital infrastructure across the health and social care landscape—particularly in the social care sector—what concrete financial and practical support will the Government provide to ensure the equitable implementation of these standards? What is the projected timeline for achieving full interoperability across all relevant organisations? How will the cost implications of this implementation mean that that timescale could be flexible? Considering the fundamental importance of individual autonomy and data privacy, what further steps will the Government take to strengthen the explicit consent mechanisms in these regulations, ensuring that individuals have clear, accessible information and meaningful control over their own health and social care data when it is shared and used?
We believe in the transformative potential of data to improve health and social care. However, this transformation must be built on a foundation of trust, transparency and respect for individual rights. I therefore urge the Minister to carefully consider the concerns and ensure that these regulations truly serve the best interests of the individuals they are intended to benefit. I remind the Minister that it might be useful to meet before this goes to the Floor of the House, in particular with regard to some of the issues in the impact assessment.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a rather disrupted session, to say the least; I will do my very best to keep some continuity. I start by offering the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, reassurance that we are happy to meet, and we recognise the detail of issues that he has asked for. I will not be able to give a response now, but if he will bear with me, we will write to him to take the issues forward.
In summing up, I emphasise that the procedures set out in the instrument are a crucial pillar in the design of a robust information standards framework to cover health and adult social care. I believe they give a clear process for consulting to ensure that mandatory standards are appropriate, while avoiding cumbersome procedures. They will ensure that the appropriate procedural rigour is consistently applied—a major concern of the noble Lord—particularly while the information standard is being developed, and will make sure that the standards are all fit for purpose.
The noble Lord raised concerns about potential creep resulting from the regulations. I assure him that, where data is used for purposes beyond direct care, only data necessary to meet the specific purpose will be made available. Where data is used for purposes beyond direct care, it is normally anonymised, and patients are entitled to expect an obligation of confidence for the health and care services they receive. A number of safeguards ensure that data is used for the purposes for which it was shared. These include provisions of the Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK general data protection regulation regarding limitation of purpose, the Caldicott principles, security standards and toolkits, independent advisory bodies and a national data opt-out. These ensure that health and care data is used in a safe, secure and legal way.
The noble Lord also raised concerns about the burden of these procedures, particularly on social care, and specifically referenced small providers. I know that he is very active in this space and will be talking to people out there.
We need to make sure that mandatory information standards introduced as part of the staged process beginning later this year focus initially on those that are critical or most beneficial to improving integration of care. We need to remember throughout the ultimate purpose of this: to bring a better service to patients or users of services.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I fully understand and respect that answer, but it does not answer the question that I asked. I did not at any point in my intervention undermine why this was needed, and I actually said that we on these Benches are supportive. I asked why it is coming now and why it could not be delayed until we have further information. The Government’s own impact assessment says that,
“despite best endeavours to collect and draw upon strong evidence, cost and benefit assumptions remain uncertain”.
It is not just the cost and benefits; the assumptions remain uncertain and based on limited evidence. My question was why this needs to come forward now. What is the key issue that means this has to be debated and go through Parliament now? Why can it not come forward when some of those assumptions, and the uncertainty about the assumptions, are stronger?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I must admit that I had hoped that I had answered the question on the sequence of the processes. All I can say, again, is that it is about the whole process going forward, and obviously the costs and benefits will depend on the information that is gathered as we move forward with these principles. If the noble Lord is still not satisfied, this can of course be part of the information that I share with him going forward.
Moving on, the regulations set the process that will be followed in preparing and publishing information standards. Following on from that, it is absolutely appropriate for the Government or the body that they designate—such as NHS England—to set information standards for the health and care system to ensure that we have interoperability. As I have said before, we have run a public consultation and published its findings. NHSE has undertaken extensive stakeholder engagement, which will be ongoing. The last thing anyone wants to do is make the changes opaque and difficult to understand. Of course, we have to keep all of this in proportion, given the amount of information we are talking about, and make sure that it is completely relevant and fit for purpose.
The overriding conclusion is that we need to create a modern health and adult social care service where systems are integrated and staff have quicker access to patient data, freeing up time that could be spent with patients. Ensuring that information flows between services in the NHS and social care is a prerequisite of a responsive and effective service that meets people’s needs. Mandated information standards will set the technical means to ensure that this happens. I hope the Committee as a whole will recognise that setting these standards to ensure that IT systems and services can share data easily is fundamental to delivering the most effective health and care systems, and will agree that these regulations are practical and proportionate.
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington
That the Grand Committee do consider the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 24th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations amend the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. This instrument was laid on 23 April under powers in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. The measures in this instrument, subject to the “made affirmative” parliamentary procedure, entered into force on 24 April.
Sanctions are a powerful tool in our armoury. They play an important part in promoting peace and security abroad, upholding international rules and norms, and protecting our citizens at home. Since coming to power, this Government have ramped up action with our partners. This includes leading the way on targeting Russia’s revenues, bearing down on its military-industrial complex, and deterring and disrupting Iran’s support to Russia. Just last Friday, the Prime Minister announced a major package of sanctions to target the decrepit and dangerous shadow fleet carrying Russian oil. This is the largest package of sanctions against the shadow fleet, with 110 targets. According to some estimates, sanctions have crippled 200 ships—almost half of Putin’s dedicated fleet.
The Government’s support to Ukraine remains steadfast. Our total support for Ukraine now stands at £18 billion, including £3 billion a year of military aid, as well as our £2.26 billion contribution to the G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration loans scheme. Two-thirds of our extraordinary revenue acceleration scheme funding has now been disbursed and will support Ukraine to obtain vital military equipment. We are absolutely committed to securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, and maximising economic pressure on Russia is key to securing this. That is why we are continuing to introduce sanctions.
The UK has now sanctioned over 2,400 entities and individuals under our Russia regime, and international sanctions have deprived Putin of $450 billion since the invasion began. UK sanctions have also frustrated Russian trade. Russian imports into the UK have fallen by more than 98% compared to pre-invasion levels, and UK exports to Russia are down by more than 80%. We will maintain this relentless pressure on Putin, alongside our allies, to force him to the table and ensure that he engages seriously in negotiations.
We reiterate our call on Russia to accept a full, unconditional ceasefire in Ukraine to create space for talks on a just and lasting peace. We commend President Zelensky’s commitment to peace by expressing his openness to direct talks with Putin. That is why the Foreign Secretary is hosting the Weimar+ meeting in London with partners from across Europe at what is a key moment for Ukraine and the collective security of our continent. The time is now for Putin to come to the table and for Russia to show that it is serious about ending this war or face the consequences.
The UK stands ready to ratchet up the pressure on Russia so that it ends its brutal war of aggression. This instrument allows us to go even further in our efforts to target Russia’s revenue streams and prevent the Kremlin from building its military and industrial capabilities. It introduces a package of over 150 new trade sanctions. This includes new, innovative measures that will prevent UK expertise being used in Russia’s defence and energy sectors. It will deny Russia sophisticated UK technology and software, and it will expand our prohibitions with the aim of further constraining Russia’s economic growth.
I now turn to each measure in this instrument. First, the instrument introduces new export prohibitions on a wide range of goods, including chemicals, plastics, metals, machinery and electronics. These prohibitions will deny Russia the means to procure products that have military and industrial uses. Secondly, we are extending our prohibitions on the transfer of technology, applying the prohibitions to a broader set of technology related to goods that are important for Russia’s military-industrial sectors and for its economic development. Through these measures, we are removing UK expertise, whether that is contained in intellectual property, blueprints or industrial know-how, from critical supply chains.
Thirdly, the instrument will ban the transfer of software relating to business enterprise, industrial design and oil and gas exploration and production. Putin relies on energy production and exports to fuel his war economy. Therefore, the aim of these sanctions is to make key sectors of the Russian economy less productive.
Fourthly, we are banning the import of Russian synthetic diamonds that have been processed in third countries, and helium. These target future funding sources that Russia is developing, as well as potential circumvention routes.
Finally, this instrument clarifies the enforcement responsibilities for a small number of trade sanctions on Russia. This will enable DBT’s Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation to enforce certain trade sanctions offences and refer serious offences to HMRC for criminal enforcement consideration.
To conclude, the Government remain committed to European security, and committed to standing up for the values of democracy and the rule of law, values which continue to be attacked by Russia. Sanctions, including this trade package, are a key part of our efforts. I beg to move.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining in clear turns what the Government are doing. We support these measures. The Government are rightly continuously moving to ensure that any previous omissions are corrected, as these instruments do, that new and emerging technologies are covered, as these instruments do, and to ensure that there is a watching brief on the circumvention and operation of third countries, as these instruments also do. I will ask the Minister a couple of questions, but I think we all hope that the diplomatic work being done at the moment will bring about a ceasefire on terms that benefit Ukraine, its integrity and sovereignty.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, it will come as no surprise to the Minister to know that we on these Benches continue to support strong, targeted sanctions in response to Russia’s illegal and brutal invasion of Ukraine. Since 2022, the UK, alongside our allies, has imposed an unprecedented range of sanctions to weaken Russia’s war machine. There are clearly some concerns; we would like to see further action taken, with regard to enforcement and the shadow fleet, et cetera—I agree with the previous speaker.
Despite these efforts, Russia has continued its aggression, often working through third countries and illicit networks to bypass existing sanctions. The persistence of these efforts underlines the importance of closing loopholes, keeping sanctions up to date and aligning with our international partners.
As the Minister set out, these provisions aim to tighten and expand the existing sanctions framework. One key element is the expansion of export-related goods, including chemicals, plastics, metals, machinery and electronics. It is clear that these have potential military applications, and we support their inclusion. Notably, even items such as video game controllers are now being restricted, due to their reported use in piloting drones. I suspect Russia probably will not have difficulty in obtaining those from other sources, but nevertheless it is important to make the effort. Can the Minister clarify how these additions were identified? How often is the department reviewing product categories to ensure that sanctions keep pace with technological adaptation?
The instrument also brings in new restrictions on the transfer of software and technology, not only physically, but through intangible means such as downloads and cloud access. This is an important evolution of the regime, particularly as cloud-based platforms become more central to global business and infrastructure. However, it does again prompt the question of how we are going to enforce such sanctions when there is no physical movement of goods. Does the Minister have confidence that our enforcement bodies have the technical capacity to monitor compliance with these intangible software restrictions? Are businesses being given clear guidance on what is now prohibited?
On import bans, we note the Government’s decision to sanction synthetic diamonds processed in third countries, building on the ban already in place for natural stones. While I suspect that Russia is not a major producer of synthetic diamonds, this appears aimed at closing a circumvention route. What evidence does the Government have that synthetic diamonds are being used to sidestep the existing sanctions on natural stones? How are we working with allies to enforce traceability and verification?
We also note the inclusion of helium and helium-3 in the list of banned imports. This, too, is framed as a pre-emptive step, anticipating the growth of helium as a potential revenue stream for Russia in future. Will the Minister please confirm whether there is current evidence of Russia scaling up helium exports, or is this purely a precautionary measure?
There are also some important technical clarifications in the SI, including the correction of omitted offences and clearer enforcement responsibilities across government departments. Although these may seem fairly minor, such details are vital to effective enforcement. Will the Minister please confirm whether further regulatory gaps are under review, particularly given the pace at which circumvention technology is evolving?
With those few questions, we support the intent behind these measures. They reflect an ongoing commitment to tightening the UK’s sanctions regime and maintaining pressure on the Russian Government. But sanctions can be only as effective as the enforcement and adaptation measures. As Russia continues to develop complex workarounds—from third-country trade to its unregulated shadow fleet—we, the sanctioning countries, have to be equally agile. That includes reviewing measures regularly, ensuring that departments have the capacity to act and strengthening international co-operation. In that spirit, will the Minister please say more about how the Government are assessing the real-world impact of sanctions—not just in terms of goods restricted but in terms of their broader economic and strategic effect on Russia’s capacity to wage war? We believe that these regulations are a step in the right direction, but they must be part of a broader, joined-up and rigorously enforced sanctions strategy.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions and broad support for these measures. The measures introduced by this instrument show how the UK continues to use its powers to apply further pressure on Putin, to help secure an enduring peace and to show that we remain fully behind Ukraine.
This instrument is one part of a broader cross-government effort on sanctions. We are leading the way on sanctioning Russia’s shadow fleet and continue to target Russia’s military suppliers and kleptocrats. We are going after those who support Russia in circumventing UK and partner sanctions, using all the tools in our arsenal to stop the supply of critical military equipment to Russia. This has included designating bad actors re-exporting sanctioned Western goods to Russia and working with our allies to crack down on the illicit trade of advanced machine tools.
We will continue to engage with our financial institutions and businesses so that they have the information they need to comply with our sanctions. The Government are committed to ensuring robust sanctions enforcement. To this end, with the support of ministerial colleagues, we launched a cross-government review of sanctions at the first small ministerial group on enforcement in October. The review concluded in April and—I think this will be of interest to noble Lords opposite—Parliament will shortly be updated on the review conclusions, alongside publication. I think that will involve a Statement to Parliament; I am not completely sure but, if it does, perhaps we could get into those issues a bit more at that point.
On the issue of the OTSI and HMRC, and how that operates in practice, I am very happy to organise another briefing for any noble Lords who are interested; that is a really good suggestion. I expect that it will be quite in-depth and technical; I know the noble Lord would like nothing better than that, so we will make sure that it happens as soon as we can arrange it.
We work very closely with partners on the shadow fleet. The noble Lord alluded to diplomatic efforts. We raise these issues constantly; I myself have raised them with partners who have had vessels involved in this, and they have taken action as a consequence of that. Sanctions are an important tool that we have, but they are far from the only tool.
Both noble Lords were quite right to remind us how important enforcement is. Although we do not comment on future designations, clearly, we keep all of this under review. We are looking at any regulatory gaps that there may be, and we will continue to take further measures as and when we need to; I do not anticipate that this is the last time we will stand here introducing these sorts of measures. I thank both noble Lords for their consistent support on these issues. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said on the issues of the ceasefire and the behaviour of Putin. I thought that his remarks about Zelensky were well made, and I agree with them.
The UK has transformed its use of sanctions. The Government are committed to continuing to strengthen the effectiveness of our sanctions regimes, their implementation and enforcement; and to reviewing their ongoing appropriateness in changing foreign policy contexts. We will continue to put pressure on Russia, as it is now time for Putin to come to the table and for Russia to show that it is serious about ending the war—or face the consequences. Once again, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and for the continued cross-party support for the sanctions regimes.
Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington
That the Grand Committee do consider the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 24th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations amend the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Five months after the fall of the brutal Assad regime, Syria stands at a crossroads. The country and its economy have been decimated by more than 13 years of conflict. Vital infrastructure has been destroyed. Some 90% of Syrians live below the poverty line. They desperately need support to recover and to rebuild their country.
On 24 April, this statutory instrument was laid, amending the Syria sanctions regulations, to promote and support Syria’s economic recovery. That instrument revoked specific UK sanctions measures on some sectors of the Syrian economy, including transport, trade, energy and finance. We have taken this action to help open up the Syrian financial system and to support the flow of essential investment in energy infrastructure—above all, in the electricity generation sector, which is vital for Syria’s recovery and reconstruction.
This is the latest step in a series of gradual actions designed to aid Syria’s recovery. On 12 February, the Treasury’s Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation issued a general licence allowing for payments to be made to support humanitarian delivery. The Statement made by the Minister for Europe in the other place on 13 February indicated the direction of travel for our Syria sanctions regulations. Following this, on 6 March, we announced the delisting of 24 Syrian entities that were previously used by the Assad regime to fund the oppression of the Syrian people, including the Central Bank of Syria, Syrian Arab Airlines and several energy companies.
Reflecting the momentous changes that have taken place in Syria since December, these amendments, as well as supporting the Syrian people in rebuilding their country and economy, bring the regulations up to date. In light of the fall of the Assad Government, the purposes of the regulations now prioritise the promotion of peace, stability and security in Syria, while encouraging respect for democracy and human rights. At the same time, they provide accountability for gross violations of human rights carried out by or on behalf of the Assad regime.
Alongside laying this instrument, we delisted a further 12 government and media entities that were previously sanctioned due to their links to Assad, and which we judge to no longer have an association with the former regime. These include the Syrian Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Interior. The Government remain determined to hold Bashar al-Assad and his associates accountable for their atrocious actions against the people of Syria. As such, we will ensure that sanctions imposed on 348 individuals and entities linked to the former regime remain in place.
A number of members have rightly raised deep concerns in the past about the horrific violence that erupted in coastal areas of Syria in early March, on which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Middle East updated the other place in his Statement on 10 March. We have also seen violence in southern Syria at the end of April. Members may ask why we are lifting sanctions at this time. I reassure noble Lords that we will keep all our sanctions regimes under close review to ensure that they are used as a responsive tool, targeting those who bear responsibility for repression and human rights abuses. The revised regulations give the UK scope to deploy future sanctions should that become necessary.
The violence we have seen has given us an image of Syria’s future if the new leadership chooses the wrong path. They must protect the rights of all Syrians, to ensure that they are included in the political transition taking place. Without meaningful representation of Syria’s diverse communities, there can be no lasting peace and ultimately no better future for the country. This is a message we consistently emphasise in all the UK’s engagement with interim President al-Sharaa and Foreign Minister al-Shaibani. But there have also been some positive developments that suggest Syria could choose the right path towards peace and stability. The president’s actions in the aftermath of the violence in March, announcing the formation of a fact-finding committee to investigate those found responsible for crimes committed during the violence, are welcome.
We also welcome the formation of a new Syrian Government on 29 March and the commitment of the president to hold free and fair elections. We expect those appointed to the new Government to demonstrate a commitment to the protection of human rights, unfettered access for humanitarian aid, safe destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles and combating terrorism and extremism.
Further, we welcome the provisions made in the constitutional declaration on 13 March on freedom of expression, freedom of belief and women’s rights. It will be vital to ensure that Syria’s diverse communities are consulted as future iterations of the draft constitution are developed, so we will continue to call on the Syrian Government to prioritise inclusivity and representation in the building of state institutions and in further appointments, including to the legislative committee, and to set out a clear timeline for the next phase of the transition.
We are encouraged too by the positive and constructive engagement Syria has demonstrated with the UN Human Rights Council’s new resolution on Syria, which the UK co-tabled, and which renewed the mandate of the commission of inquiry for a further 12 months. The UK will continue our commitment to supporting accountability and human rights in Syria, including the right to freedom of religion or belief, and to advocate for their foundational place at the centre of the transitional process in Syria.
The appearance of the Foreign Minister at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons’ executive council on 5 March was an historic moment, and we welcome commitments by the Syrian Government that they will protect chemical weapons sites and will not use chemical weapons under any circumstances. The OPCW’s two visits to Syria are also important steps forward. The OPCW reported that the Syrian Government extended all possible support and co-operation, including access to sites and people. We call on Syria to now move quickly towards declaration.
The agreement made by the president with the Syrian Democratic Forces on north-east Syria on 10 March was also a welcome development. We will continue to engage with all parties in support of an inclusive process as implementation of the agreement progresses.
Beyond our action on sanctions, we remain committed to helping meet Syria’s humanitarian needs. We have pledged up to £160 million of UK support in 2025, providing life-saving assistance to millions of Syrians inside Syria and across the region, as well as agriculture, livelihoods and education programmes to help Syrians to rebuild their lives.
To conclude, Syria’s transition remains delicately balanced. A step in the wrong direction could lead to instability and ultimately a collapse that would benefit Iran and Russia. It would have wider ramifications for our efforts to counter Daesh—we remain a member of the Global Coalition—and illegal migration, and risk destabilising the wider region. Promoting stability and prosperity in Syria through economic recovery is firmly in the UK’s national interest. It will bolster regional and UK security in line with the Government’s plan for change. The UK remains committed to the people of Syria and will continue to stand with them in building a more stable, free and prosperous future.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I thank the Minister for her balanced and nuanced tone on these measures. These measures, unlike the previous measures, give me a bit more concern. I agree with the Minister that we want to see a Syria at peace within its borders and beyond. There should be restraint from neighbouring countries in acting within its sovereign borders. The Minister was absolutely right that there are positive signals, signs and actions. But there are also those which have provided some worry in recent weeks.
When we previously debated measures that allowed humanitarian licences to be issued, my party supported them. That is fully justified; the humanitarian situation within Syria remains grave. The Government are to be commended for the humanitarian support that they are providing with our partners. That is especially the case when we are working with local civil society groups, which are working extremely hard. It is the best means by which we can avoid facilitating those who do not share the overall ambitions of the Government for civil rights, human rights and humanitarian needs.
This is one area where the structure of doing this through statutory instruments prevents, for example, probing amendments on areas we would like some further clarity on. The Minister referred to the recent attacks on the Druze and the concerns about the restrictions of rights for minorities. The Government were right to condemn these, and the Minister is right to do so. As she alluded to, this is the second set of incidents; it could highlight that these are not isolated incidents. There needs to be action as a result of the fact-finding inquiries to ensure that they are prevented from happening again.
The Minister will recall that I separately raised concerns in the Chamber about the work being done on the national curriculum. It seems to be reflecting sectarianism, continuing antisemitism, extremist language and violent content, and erasing women and minorities. This is in clear contradiction to the last bullet point in the Government’s ambitions for Syria, for
“the enjoyment of rights and freedoms in Syria without discrimination, including on the basis of a person’s sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion”.
The probing amendment I would seek to bring would ask for a report on the implementation of some of the policies and how they interact with the new liberties that the UK is providing, especially for financial services, financial markets and the operation of the private sector at the direction of those who, while they may not be part of the proscribed terrorist organisation, are working with them. The proscription in UK law is not only for the organisation itself, but those that facilitate, finance and support it. The catch-all is quite broad. I would hope that we would also have a report on what the ongoing assessment is on proscription. When will it be the time that there is a view that that proscription should be lifted overall?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing this important statutory instrument. I share some of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. The legislation before us amends the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to reflect the developments following the fall of President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December last year. The stated intention is to support Syria’s recovery while maintaining pressure on those responsible for past atrocities.
As the Minister outlined, the instrument revokes several key sanctions that were originally imposed to constrain the Assad regime. These include restrictions on aircraft operated by Syrian Arab Airlines, prohibitions on investment in Syria’s energy sector and bans on trade involving aviation fuel, crude oil and related technologies. The rationale is that lifting restrictions will facilitate economic recovery. Crucially, prohibitions remain in place on military goods, chemical weapons and surveillance equipment, signalling continued vigilance on matters of security.
These are indeed sensitive and consequential decisions. Although I think we all recognise the goal of supporting Syria’s reconstruction, the question must be asked: on what grounds have the Government determined that the time is now right to lift these specific sanctions? Syria remains an unstable, fractured state, and many individuals and networks once aligned with the regime retain significant power—as, of course, do several elements of al-Qaeda.
Accountability must also remain at the forefront. The UK has rightly condemned the human rights violations committed under the Assad regime, which was truly awful, but how does this instrument ensure that those responsible are prevented from benefiting from sanctions relief? What mechanisms are in place to pursue justice and guard against the erosion of international human rights standards?
We also seek clarity on the broader strategic approach. The US and the EU have taken carefully calibrated steps in adjusting their sanctions—some temporary, some conditional. Have the Government engaged in consultation with our international partners? Are these measures aligned with a co-ordinated international effort, or do they mark a unilateral shift in approach?
Given that the instrument follows earlier amendments that eased restrictions to facilitate humanitarian aid and adjust financial services, will the Minister clarify whether we are now entering a broader phase of graduated sanctions relief? If so, what specific benchmarks have been put in place to justify this latest easing of measures, and under what conditions do the Government foresee making further changes?
There is also the role of Iran to consider. The Assad regime did not fall in isolation. Iranian military and financial support helped sustain it, and Iran continues to exert influence across Syria’s political and security landscape. Does this statutory instrument reflect a broader diplomatic position towards Iran’s activities in the region? What role does the UK intend to play in countering destabilising external actors?
Finally, we must ask who will benefit from these changes. If the goal, which I share, is to support ordinary Syrians—those who have borne the brunt of over a decade of war—how will the Government ensure that economic relief does not simply entrench new elites or resurrect old networks under new names?
If the sanctions regime is to evolve, it must do so with clarity, caution and accountability, guided by the principle that peace cannot come at the expense of justice. I am sure the Minister will tell us that these matters are always kept under review. I have sat in her chair in the past and have been passed notes by officials which tell me that everything in government is always up for review and kept under review, and can always be changed. That is a truism, so I hope the Minister will not revert to telling us that again in response to these questions.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
How can the noble Lord read from that distance?
I thank noble Lords for what they had to say; it is completely understandable, and both noble Lords are right to raise their questions and concerns. I accept that this is a judgment that we have made. Both noble Lords indicated that they understand that we made it because the best prospect for the people of Syria, and to deliver the stable peace and the inclusive and representative democracy that we wish to see, is through economic growth and stability. It is just not possible for the fledgling Government in Damascus to be able to deliver that while these sanctions remain in place.
Of course, we work closely with our international partners. I would not say that we co-ordinate as such, but we work very closely. As noble Lords said, the EU has eased some of its sanctions; we have gone one step further today. We think that this is the right approach. We have the flexibility to be able to keep this under review, as noble Lords knew I would say. It is perfectly right for the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, to say, “Yes, but these are different, so there needs to be a different exercise of that constant reviewing as far as these sanctions are concerned”. I think that is right and I commit that we will do that.
As regards future opportunities to discuss this in the House, I do not know if I can instigate that—my Whip is sitting here thinking, “Don’t you dare”—but I think it would be a good thing to have a debate on Syria generally in the near future. I know that noble Lords are wily enough to figure out how they could bring about such a thing.
Some of the sanctions that we had were specifically tied to Assad, so, given that he is no longer there, we needed to take a fresh look at this. Now that we have that in these regulations, we are able to make further designations—although obviously we do not comment on that or make any predictions. However, that capability is there.
As noble Lords said, it is true that there are other states who wish to exert influence and bring about instability in Syria. That is our strong view and that of regional partners who are hosting a large number of Syrian refugees at the moment. They have some support from the international community but nevertheless, it imposes a huge strain on them. In Jordan, I met Syrian refugees who desperately want to go home and they asked us about our sanctions regime. They know that the only way that they are going to be able to safely return is if there is a stable Government in Syria, and that requires the ability to grow a stable economy. They know that cannot happen quickly. They know that their children’s education, their healthcare and their ability to support themselves depend on it, and they want to see the international community stepping up and being active in its support for the new Cabinet and Government in Syria.
That is not without qualification, and noble Lords must hold this Government to account on that—I am glad that the noble Lord has indicated that they will do so. It is a precarious time for Syria, but I believe this is the best hope and may be the only chance we get to build the stable country that the Syrian people need and so deserve. If we do not do everything we can to support them at this moment, we may well find ourselves looking at a bigger disaster than we have seen in the region for a very long time, and wishing that we had been a bit more proactive at this point. That is why the Government are taking those decisions, while accepting what noble Lords have said and the legitimate questions that they put to me.
To conclude, I thank the noble Lords for their insightful contributions, and for the continued cross-party support for the sanctions regime more generally. The Government are committed to keeping our sanctions up to date and supporting Syria as it takes steps towards a more peaceful, more prosperous and more hopeful future. I know many noble Lords will agree that this is the future that the Syrian people deserve. I beg to move.
Introduction: Lord Jack of Courance
Autism Employment Review
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Touhig
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in implementing the recommendations of the Buckland Review of Autism Employment, published on 28 February 2024.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the National Autistic Society. That is an honour I share with my friend—the noble Baroness, Lady Browning—from the Opposition Benches, who is not with us this afternoon as she is in the Select Committee looking at the working of the Autism Act.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, the independently led Buckland Review reported to the previous Government with recommendations aimed primarily at employers. This Government are committed to raising awareness of neurodiversity and have launched an independent panel of academics with expertise in and experience of neurodiversity to advise us on boosting neurodiversity awareness and inclusion at work. The panel will consider the reasons why neurodivergent people have poor experiences in the workplace and a low overall employment rate, and will make its recommendations to employers and government in the summer.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, when asked in the other place about progress in implementing the Buckland Review of Autism Employment, my honourable friend Alison McGovern said that she preferred the term “neurodiversity” as it is “more inclusive”. Neurodiversity is very broad, whereas autism is a specific condition. Will my noble friend the Minister think again and perhaps reassure the House that this umbrella term will not be used when responding to the review? There is a danger that the needs of autistic people will be overlooked, and I have the permission of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, to tell the House that she shares that concern. Robert Buckland’s review is specifically about the employment of people with autism—full stop.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question and commend him for his work in this area. The Buckland Review reported to the previous Government, who did not formally respond, but most of the review’s recommendations were to employers. Several recommendations relating to government are being progressed, including working with employers to reform Disability Confident.
I think my honourable friend the Minister for Employment was signalling that this Government have broadened their focus to address employment barriers for all neurodivergent people, specifically including those with autism, while recognising that many people have more than one condition. Our academic panel is reviewing the evidence, recommendations and insights from the Buckland Review, so that they do not get lost. I understand the fear that my noble friend is expressing, but it might reassure him to know that the panel specifically includes expertise on autism. Although this Government will not respond specifically to the previous Government’s report, the Minister for Employment, Alison McGovern, alongside the Minister for Social Security and Disability, met Sir Robert Buckland to discuss his work. Professor Amanda Kirby, chair of the academic panel, recently met Sir Robert to discuss its scope and plans, and he was supportive of the way that the panel would build on the work he initiated. I hope that reassures my noble friend.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, first, I have an autistic grandson. He is at a very difficult period of life. I know from old that the Minister has a deep feeling for and understanding of the problems of it. The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and I have worked together for many years and there are two things I want to make quite clear. First, autism is not a “neurodisease”, autism is autism. Secondly, from my own experience, autistic people have the most brilliant minds when they have the opportunity to be cared for correctly. Will the Minister, as usual, throw everything behind what is needed to help autistic youngsters?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. His grandson has a good champion in him, and I hope he can understand that. The noble Lord makes a really important point. The employment rate for people with autism was 31%. If you compare that with disabled people across the board at 55%, it is not good. That shows the extent of the problem. We recognise that this is extremely serious. Nothing in the way this Government are going about this is trying in any way to minimise the challenges faced by people with autism.
I take the noble Lord’s point: autism is not a disease, but it is a different way of learning and looking. That is true of many neurodivergent conditions, and there are things that can be learned. We have pulled together a panel with different kinds of expertise, not to create some generalised view on what it feels like to not think in the way that some other people think but to enable us to look at all the evidence and work with employers to try to make a better place for everybody to go out there and work. I hope the noble Lord will be reassured by that.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister give us a further assurance that when the Government use the term “neurodivergence”, it is a broad spectrum, and you cannot help somebody with neurodivergence? You might be able to help somebody with dyslexia, autism or dyscalculia, for instance. I remind the House of my interests. There have to be specific help pathways for those conditions. If we start trying to be too general, we will end up helping no one.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for highlighting some of the conditions. It may reassure him to know that the academic panel we have pulled together is looking at a number of specific neurodivergent conditions. Those include ADHD, autism spectrum condition—with the acknowledgments made—dyslexia and dyscalculia. They also include DCD—developmental co-ordination disorder, also known as dyspraxia—and developmental language disorder, among other conditions. The noble Lord is absolutely right. The job of the panel is to review what is known and then to look at what can help. There will be some things, some steps employers could take, which may be of benefit to people with more than one condition, but there are some that will be quite specific, and we need to understand the evidence before we can make good recommendations.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Touhig in his entire assessment of how different it is for autism and neurodivergent issues. I declare that I have an autistic son who is 44 years old. I just came back from a meeting chaired by Samantha Niblett MP on this specific subject of underemployment and employment of people with autism. I agree with the Minister that the gap is unacceptable, but what are the Government doing to ensure that job coaches, in particular those of the DWP, are attuned to their needs and directing them properly?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a really good point. There are a number of different forms of support available to people with a range of disabilities or other conditions, if they come forward. Our job coaches have extensive training in a wide range of conditions to work with people who come in who need help, but there are also all kinds of schemes available. We can refer people to different kinds of help, to programmes where they can get voluntary support and work with whatever their particular needs are. We are trying to make our service out there increasingly tailored. There is not a generic range of barriers to employment. People often need quite specific understanding of what is getting in their way and help to overcome it. I hope that, in time, if the noble Baroness’s son ever comes to a jobcentre, he will find the help he needs, if, indeed, he needs it.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I declare I have a great-nephew, Ollie, who is autistic and in a special school, and we love him to bits. Every grandparent, every parent, every great-aunt, worries about how their relative is going to get a job. I recently visited Project SEARCH run by the DFN Foundation, and I can tell the House that it has a 70% success rate of getting autistic young people into work, and 60% of them are in a full-time job. Are His Majesty’s Government going to set ambitious targets such as that, so that we get as many people into work as possible and they can lead productive lives? If the Minister would like a day out of the office, I will take her to Project SEARCH myself to see it in action.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
Well, that is an offer I cannot refuse. When I used to work with families with children, there was a saying that every child deserves to have at least one adult unreasonably committed to their flourishing. In this House, I think those adults are particularly ever-present, and I can imagine that Ollie is not only being loved to bits but supported.
I completely agree with the noble Baroness. One of the challenges for us in supporting people who have disability barriers to work is that we have to have confidence that people can be supported and helped to get work, because if we do not believe they can, why should anyone else? If we do not believe it is possible, why should employers take a chance on people and why should individuals have confidence in themselves? We have seen great results with supported employment. Start where somebody is, look at the barriers, think about what they might be able to do and support them into it. Some people will be happy with supported employment. Either someone is at risk of falling out of a job or we can get them into it and, once they are in, can we help them to stay there? I would be delighted to go with the noble Baroness to visit that project but let us talk about this some more.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, I recognise the danger that has been pointed out. If you move from the specific to the general, you often lose focus. But do we not have a broader problem? Millions of our fellow citizens are unemployed or underemployed. Meanwhile, we have a load of artificial barriers in not just the private sector but local and national government departments, about people’s conditions, previous criminal records, often from decades past, irrelevant qualifications and boxes being ticked—with employers therefore not looking at people’s potential. Is that not the broader issue and one that the Government need to take on, for individuals and the wider economy and wider society?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, those are excellent points. We want to help individuals see their own potential and help employers see the potential in everyone who comes in. I am answering questions today, but I am also the Minister in the DWP who is responsible for working with ex-prisoners, ex-offenders and people who have experience of homelessness. Similar patterns happen across the piece. Some of our programmes addressing people’s challenges if they have disabilities or health conditions are also available to people with other barriers, such as having been an offender or having been homeless. The first step is to help people overcome those. We do a lot of work in this space already. I have visited some fantastic programmes which have great success rates. We are committed to doing this. Let us all have confidence. People can achieve anything if someone gets behind them.
UK-US Trade
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what further action they plan to take to protect and increase trade between the United Kingdom and the United States.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade and HM Treasury (Baroness Gustafsson) (Lab)
My Lords, on Thursday 8 May we were delighted to announce the agreement of a landmark economic deal between the United Kingdom and the United States, making the UK the first country to get an agreement with President Trump. It was the second major trade announcement of the week, following the India free trade agreement on Tuesday 6 May. What we have agreed will provide the foundation for a new reciprocal trading partnership between the US and the UK and secure actions that will protect jobs across the country and protect British businesses.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
I thank the Minister for her reply, but after all the self-congratulation has faded away, is it not clear that this agreement is very far from being a comprehensive trade agreement of the type that ought to be possible in this post-Brexit world? Is it not the case that British firms are now worse off than they were before 2 April—so-called “liberation day”—because of the 10% tariff? Although it is welcome that the worst draconian tariffs have been reduced on motor cars, British firms are worse off than they were before. If the Government regard this as just a transition to a more effective, more comprehensive deal, is it not important that they give that priority and do away with thinking about dynamic alignment with the EU market?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that there is still a lot of work to be done. But having spent time with the many very capable and hard-working officials who have been part of this deal, it is worth acknowledging the hard work that has gone into this, which we are very appreciative of. The reality of this situation is that it has lifted some of the barriers to trade for many of our industries and some of the key sectors that we really value—for example, the automotive, steel and pharmaceutical industries. The noble Lord is right that there are still a lot of industries that have not been covered by the scope of this agreement. We are just starting on our journey, making sure that we can build on the strong trading relationship between the US and the UK and continue this approach of removing the onerous tariffs and supporting the people, industries and sectors supported by this.
The areas that have been covered by this agreement employ over 320,000 people within the UK, with a further 260,000 jobs within the UK supporting these sectors. Yes, it is just the first step in negotiating the fuller economic situation with the US, but I think the noble Lord will agree that it is a very powerful one.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that no matter how good a deal we do with America, Europe is our most important trading partner and the one that we should concentrate on and get the most out of?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend that our trading relationship with the EU is incredibly important. I do not believe in the premise of false dichotomies or that we are picking between one and the other. This is a continuing relationship and dialogue. I note that there is a very important EU summit coming up in May, which should really endorse and build on our relationship with the EU.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, if this is a first step, was the Minister not as confused as I was yesterday to hear our ambassador to the US say on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that this was a finalised agreement? There is no impact assessment that we have been presented with in Parliament, so when is that impact assessment going to be laid before Parliament? He also said that film and technology were included, but there is no reference to that within the text of the announcement last week of the framework to start negotiations. Is it the Government’s intent that this will not be laid as a treaty that would then be ratified by Parliament? If it is not, and it is not a preferential trade agreement, does the Minister agree that we will have to apply all the terms in this framework to all other countries under WTO rules?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
To clarify, a lot of key sectors are covered in this framework, and this framework is a final decision on how those key sectors will be treated when it comes to trading between the UK and the US. Those sectors are things such as automotive, steel and pharmaceuticals, but also beef and ethanol, which we have heard so much about. But they are not all the sectors where trade is a part of the UK-US relationship; it could be areas such as technology and how we think about the relationship with that. So yes, this is a final agreement for the sectors that have been covered, but it does not necessarily cover all the sectors. There is still work to be done to understand what those future trading relationships look like with respect to those other sectors.
With regard to how this will be treated within Parliament and whether it will be ratified as a treaty, forgive me—I could not comment on that specifically. I would very quickly run shallow of my parliamentary journey of knowledge, which is still at its earliest stages, but I will be sure to write to the noble Lord on the specifics.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I refer to my declaration of interests. Does the Minister believe that British agriculture’s profitability will be increased or diminished by this arrangement?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
What we see in this relationship with the US is an opportunity to think about the opportunity it presents to all our British industries and how we can open that up to best effect. When we think about farming, the key area of the trade in beef is a real opportunity here. For the first time, the US ban on importing British beef has been lifted, and 13,000 tonnes of British beef can now be exported to the US. That is a real advantage for UK farming.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, it is delightful to hear the Minister extolling the real opportunity that comes from a future deal with the United States. Last week I asked the Front Bench to confirm that none of this would be possible if we were still in the European Union. I was told that was a matter of opinion. Can the Minister confirm that this is a fact?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I will offer up that I agree that that would be a matter of opinion.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, is the Minister, like me, fed up with the moaning coming from the Opposition? Does she agree that they had 14 years and did not negotiate any trade deal with the United States, so they are the last people who should be critical?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I would be very delicate about suggesting such a thing, but one of the things that we do really well within this nation is that, whichever side of the House we are sitting on, we all want to see the opportunity to trade and understand the value that it contributes to the UK economy. I think we can all agree that this is a really powerful first step that supports the great nation that we all operate within.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
The noble Baroness will be aware that one of the reasons we were unable to negotiate a trade deal with the EU was that we did not wish to introduce hormone-produced beef. If the animal is fed with hormones, it does not show up. How can she reassure the British consumer that we will not import any beef produced with any hormone whatever?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. It is an important point that we have been able to open up such trading opportunities while protecting our incredibly powerful and well-respected food standards. I am not necessarily familiar with the specifics of how we can detect whether those standards have been complied with, and I will endeavour to write to her to follow up on that matter.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I give some credit to the Government for signing a damage-limitation deal with the US, for that is what it is, but this five-page agreement does not actually constitute a legally binding document. Can the Minister confirm that, currently, it can be terminated at will by either side? If so, what longer-term assurances can the Minister offer to UK exporters, given the erratic nature of US trade policy?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
We are operating in incredibly fast-moving times. This agreement lays down those anchor points and principles to allow our great industries to be able to continue to trade, but there is more work to be done in fleshing out the specifics and making sure that this is enacted and is something that people can use day to day in their trade. Our brilliant team of officials are working very hard on ensuring that this gets done within the coming weeks.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Following on from the Minister’s last answer, can she say what steps the Government intend to take to address the continued imposition of the 10% baseline reciprocal tariffs on most UK goods entering the US?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
For the remaining areas of trade that are not covered by this agreement, where there still are reciprocal tariffs, there is a number of industries that we identify as key and there is an ongoing dialogue and conversation. It is important to note that this agreement is not an end. It is not a conclusion of all the conversations. Those negotiations are happening all the time, and we should anticipate seeing more agreements of this nature.
Doncaster Royal Infirmary
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the conditions at Doncaster Royal Infirmary on patient care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, Doncaster Royal Infirmary has a backlog maintenance bill of approximately £114 million, and serious infrastructure issues are indeed presenting challenges to delivering high-quality patient care. Repairing and rebuilding our healthcare estate is vital in creating an NHS fit for the future. South Yorkshire ICB has been provisionally allocated more than £150 million in capital investment for 2025-26 to begin to tackle estate challenges, including the condition of DRI.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
I thank the Minister for her Answer. She may be aware that one recent estimate of the costs involved in bringing the infrastructure of DRI into good repair came to an eye-watering £478 million. In 2021, a water ingress into the electrical circuits in the maternity ward caused the evacuation of premature babies in incubators and women in labour. In 2023, the collapse of a significant portion of plaster work in a hospital corridor ceiling resulted in no human injury only by the providence of God. How does the Minister intend to monitor the conditions at DRI to ensure that any future deterioration does not put the safety of patients and staff at risk?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am very aware of the unacceptable situation that the right reverend Prelate describes. I can confirm that, in terms of capital commitments, in 2025-26 the Government are backing NHS systems with over £4 billion in operational capital, £750 million of targeted estate-safety funding, which will be crucial to DRI, as well as £440 million to tackle crumbling RAAC. Why is this all so important? It is all about keeping staff, patients and their families safe, and it is also about providing the best possible care. I should say that the Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which DRI comes under, is discussing—indeed, it absolutely should be discussing—options with the ICB to steer the programme allocations towards DRI.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, system allocation guidelines of January this year state that systems will receive at least 80% of their 2025-26 core operational capital in each year of this Parliament, relative to their 2024-25 allocation. With many hospital buildings in serious financial capital backlog, why have the Government put in a system that could see some areas’ day-to-day capital allocation cut by 20%?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I can tell your Lordships’ House that we have inherited an undercapitalisation over the past few years, and it is essential—including to cut waiting lists and provide proper care—that we provide resources. However, the noble Lord is very aware of the extent of the backlog; it stands, according to the latest NHSE figures for 2022-23, at £13.8 billion. Even more worryingly, the critical infrastructure risk within that, which the highest-tier hospitals are wrestling with, is £7.6 billion. We have had to find the best route forward to be fair and efficient. Is it a major mountain to climb? Yes, it is. Are there various options for doing it? Yes, there are, but we believe that we have been as transparent and fair as we can be.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, I know that Secretary of State Wes Streeting is determined to increase NHS productivity. DRI’s bid for urgent work to the tower block would do just that; for example, by stroke services having a same-day emergency care centre linked to the in-patient ward with a knock-on effect on vascular services. That is all impossible with the current state of the hospital. Will my noble friend the Minister ensure that Ministers, officials and, crucially, the Treasury not only are aware of the patient safety concerns raised by the right reverend Prelate, but know that the DRI bid will increase productivity and efficiency, as well as improve patient care?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend is right about the effects of a poor estate. In addition to productivity, it very much affects safety, staff working conditions and capacity. The benefits are considerable, as she identifies—and indeed as the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, identified. I assure my noble friend that we are working across government—including with the Treasury and, to the right reverend Prelate’s point, with the local ICB and trust—to tackle this. My noble friend is aware that this Government committed nearly £20 million from the critical infrastructure risk fund to the hospital’s NHS foundation to move a section to the ground floor—not the part to which my noble friend referred, but it shows the seriousness with which we are taking this.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, the injection of capital to Doncaster Royal Infirmary is welcome. When the CQC inspected DRI in 2024, it found that the hospital
“did not have enough maternity staff with the right qualifications, skills, training, and experience to keep women safe from avoidable harm”.
While the Government develop their 10-year and workforce plans, what action are they taking in the meantime to address safety concerns from a lack of adequate staffing in maternity services? While we are on the subject, given the recently announced crackdowns on immigration and that many people who work in our health and care system are immigrants, how do the Government intend to encourage more British workers to fill vacancies in health and social care?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
On that point, I feel that the Government taking the backlog very seriously, against the background of what we have inherited, will make conditions far better for staff, which will make it a far more attractive place to work. That will be reflected when we report on the workforce plan. To the point about maternity, we are recruiting extra midwives and we are looking extremely closely at how we can better support best practice—as I saw just last week—how we can extend that and how we can bring better patient safety measures into the system. I am afraid that it is another area that we inherited in a difficult position, but noble Lords can be assured that we are working on it. I look forward to updating your Lordships’ House.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I am going to come back at the Minister. I accept that the backlog is there. My question was: why have the Government put in a system that will reduce day-to-day capital expenditure, potentially by up to 20%, for some areas? That is this Government’s new plan. The Minister said at the Dispatch Box that the ICB in South Yorkshire has been allocated £150 million this year. It was allocated £161 million last year. How does this help Doncaster, Sheffield, Rotherham and Barnsley with their capital backlog?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I understand that the noble Lord is, as I am, very keen to resolve this situation, but the fact is that DRI is in an extremely difficult place, which was the reason for the right reverend Prelate’s Question. To pursue the particular point he made, I will be very pleased to come back to him. However, I emphasise that the Autumn Budget made exceptional support for capitalisation, which is not just for the physical estate but also the digital estate. DRI has, for example, been updating patient records on paper. That is not the way forward and they will now be digitally brought up to date. On his particular point, I will be very pleased to look into it further and come back to him.
Schools: Mobile Phones
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Laing of Elderslie
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure mobile phones are kept out of schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, mobile phones have no place in our schools. The Government’s Mobile Phones in Schools guidance is clear that schools should prohibit the use of devices with smart technology throughout the school day, including during lessons, transitions and breaks. We expect all schools to take steps in line with this guidance to ensure that mobile phones do not disrupt pupils’ learning. If pupils fail to follow those rules, schools have the power to confiscate devices.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
I thank the Minister for her optimistic Answer to my Question. I wonder how many noble Lords are at this very moment distracted by the smartphone that they have with them. I look around and I see quite a few. Imagine then what it must be like to be the teacher of a class of 11 year-olds and to try to hold their attention when they have their smartphones beside them.
The Minister has given an optimistic Answer and I had hoped for unanimity in this matter, because all the evidence, all the experts, agree, as I think the Minister has just agreed, that having a smartphone with them at all times causes harm, both educationally and socially, to children and young people. To bring about the change that is necessary, will the Minister show some leadership and agree to the amendment that my noble friends have submitted to the education Bill that is about to come to Parliament?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Well, my optimism is based not just on vain hope but, of course, on the most recent report from the Children’s Commissioner, which shows that the overwhelming majority of schools—99.8% of primary schools and 90% of secondary schools—already have policies in place that limit or restrict the use of mobile phones during the school day. There is ample opportunity, through both the guidance and the autonomy and wisdom of head teachers, to ensure that we make considerable progress on this issue, as we have already seen.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, school leaders, public health, Dan Tomlinson MP and the Smartphone Free Childhood campaign have come together in Barnet to become the first borough to ban smartphones in 103 primary schools, and 23 secondary schools are working towards removing smartphones entirely from the school day. This is ensuring that 63,000 students will enjoy a seven-hour window to learn, socialise and grow without a mobile phone. What assessment has my noble friend the Minister made of local initiatives such as this one in Barnet that we also find in areas such as Ealing and St Albans?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend identifies an important development, which is that, although schools can and do control the availability of mobile phones for children, children’s access to phones is much broader than that, and the support for children to be able to operate without their phones also needs a broader range of people than simply teachers and head teachers. That type of initiative demonstrates what is already happening under the current guidance. When people come together in that way to support each other, it is something to be recognised and on which they should be congratulated.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, as a teacher, I have never taught in a school that allowed mobile phones. The Minister said that mobile phones had no place in schools, while giving head teachers autonomy to make decisions. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is taking away autonomy from head teachers. Is it not time we just had a blanket ban on mobile phones?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an interesting point about those who argue that autonomy for head teachers is important—which the Government support. By the way, I dispute his interpretation of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which we will have plenty of opportunity to discuss in more detail over the coming weeks. It is precisely those who make that charge who now want to remove that autonomy by saying that legislation is the only way to make progress.
Lord Storey (LD)
I agree with what the Minister has said. One of the problems with mobile phones is to do with children’s mental health and well-being—and, of course, bullying. Mobile phones are often used to bully pupils. Does the Minister agree that it is important that governing bodies of schools, on which parents are represented, understand the issues and are able to discuss them and come to some conclusions?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point. I am sure that both the policies that schools are developing and have developed on mobile phone use, and the policies that they are required to have in place around bullying, for example, will benefit from well-informed governors, and input from parents and others on governing bodies, to make sure that they are effective and respond to some of the challenges that the use of mobile phone technology has brought.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the Minister rightly cites some of the evidence in this area, but I think it is becoming overwhelming. The Children’s Commissioner is right about the number of schools that have policies in this area. The question is: are they effective? The evidence from Parentkind and Policy Exchange is that only 10% to 15% of schools have a really effective ban on phones. The department’s own evidence shows that 50% of GCSE classes are disrupted by the use of phones, and we are hearing increasing evidence from healthcare professionals about the impact on our children. The Minister rightly says that we on this side of the House uphold autonomy in our schools and academy trusts, but this is about a precautionary principle, and protecting our children. What is stopping the Minister from moving on it?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness identifies the need for all of us to continue thinking about the best practice for schools to ensure that their classrooms are mobile phone free, and that they are working on the best evidence. There is a whole range of ways in which schools are responding to this, and it would be good for them to look at the very best practice across schools that are taking action. However, I am afraid that the noble Baroness’s point was that this is difficult and nuanced, that people are doing it in different ways, and that we need detailed consideration of how to do it best. None of those things would be delivered by a—I hate, in this place, to call legislation crude, but none of them would be delivered simply by legislating for something that, as she identified, is more complex than that.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, sometimes technology can help to deal with social problems. As a Faraday cage blocks phone signals, it would be appropriate to install those cages in all classrooms and prevent pupils being distracted by mobile phones. Will the Minister experiment with this technology?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I think I am right in saying that some schools already use that technology, along with a range of other technologies, such as keeping mobile phones in special bags that prevent them being used. Schools are making progress on this in a whole range of ways. The noble Lord is right that technology can sometimes be the answer to problems caused by other forms of technology.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise, however, that there may be reasonable exceptions to this, according to the particular circumstances of the student, which may or may not be temporary?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Yes, and that is one of the reasons why there needs to be some flexibility. I think the noble Earl might be referring to children who, for particular reasons related to the distance they have to travel to school or perhaps to special needs that they have, might well need to have adjustments that can be provided for them by a mobile phone. Those are circumstances in which schools should be, and are, thinking about the particular ways in which they think about the ban, to ensure that all children can achieve and have the support that they need.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, France has seen an improvement in school results and less bullying in schools since it introduced a national ban in 2018, seven years ago. Is it not time that we followed that example and had a national ban, as opposed to guidance?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
What both the previous Government and this Government have done amounts to rather more than simply guidance; there has been a very clear direction. But I am sure the noble Baroness will understand that the French education system is somewhat more directive than the British education system. If she and her party want us to go down that route, that is an interesting development—but I do not think that is what she and her party want to happen.
Armed Forces Commissioner Bill
Monday 12th May 2025
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberArmed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 View all Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 63-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (28 Apr 2025)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, I extend my thanks to all noble Lords who have contributed to the detailed and meaningful scrutiny of this Bill. Although it is, obviously, not possible for me to thank everyone who contributed to the Bill individually, which I hope Members will understand, there are a few specific thank-yous. First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for their co-operation and efforts to improve the Bill. I very much appreciated the constructive way in which His Majesty’s Opposition contributed. If she could pass that on to the noble Earl, I would be very grateful.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, of the Liberal Democrats for her discussions and contributions, which were very much appreciated. I thank all Back-Benchers who contributed, my private office and officials, the Public Bill Office and various other officials of the House, the current ombudsman and the German commissioner, whose example we have used. I express my thanks and gratitude for everyone’s hard work.
Finally, as a number of noble Lords will know first-hand, serving in our Armed Forces is both challenging and rewarding for our serving personnel and their families. On all sides of the House, we thank those men and women for their service and for working tirelessly to keep us safe. We owe our serving personnel and their families a commissioner with a single mission; namely, to improve service life. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, I extend our gratitude to the Minister and his team for the courtesy and time they have extended to discuss some of the issues that we raised at various stages of the Bill. In particular, it is appropriate at this time to welcome the role of the commissioner but also to note that one of the aims is to move on from the ombudsperson. At various stages of the Bill, we talked about different categories of service personnel who might have issues that the commissioner would look into. One set would be LGBT+ service personnel, and at this stage, I pay tribute to the late Lord Etherton for the work that he put in to reviewing the situation of LGBT service personnel in the past. We very much hope that the incoming Armed Forces commissioner, once this legislation passes, will not have to look at such difficult situations in the future. Again, I thank the Minister; I thank the Liberal Democrat Whip’s Office, including Mohamed-Ali Souidi, and wish the Bill well.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that it is in order to take 60 seconds to thank the Minister for the way he has conducted himself throughout the Bill. From the very beginning, it was clear that Members interested were invited to understand the nature of the Bill. I very much hope it will make a difference, but it is a very good Bill—and the fact that I grew to have a personal interest in it is neither here nor there. This is a very good step forward, and I wish it well.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for his very kind remarks, and I shall ensure that they are conveyed to my noble friend Lord Minto. I also thank him for the constructive manner in which he has approached the passage of the Bill. His Majesty’s Official Opposition have welcomed the Bill from the beginning, and it has been a privilege to participate in its passage through this House.
Not only will the creation of the commissioner strengthen the service complaints system by facilitating the investigation of wider welfare issues but I hope it will bolster the confidence of our Armed Forces personnel that this is a real voice of independence for them. Any steps we can take to improve the offering to our service men and women we should vigorously pursue.
In that regard, I endeavoured to bolster the Bill by introducing a new duty on the commissioner to investigate whistleblowing complaints. I thank all noble Lords who supported my amendment on Report. I particularly appreciated the contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Smith of Newnham, the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, my noble friend Lord Wrottesley and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and thank them for their words of support and encouragement and for delivering that support in a meaningful form in the Division Lobby. The resounding message your Lordships’ House sent to our Armed Forces personnel, especially service women who feel that their voices have not been heard, is that we are on your side. As this Bill now goes back to the other place, I entreat the Government to reflect carefully on how they address my amendment. This is not a time for ambivalence and uncertainty; it is a time for an unambiguous and positive message to our Armed Forces, and I hope the Government will accept, as this House overwhelmingly did, that the amendment enhances the Bill.
Finally, I thank Minister and all his officials for taking time to meet me and my noble friend Lord Minto. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has been exemplary throughout the passage of the Bill. I hope that whoever the Government appoint as the new commissioner will live up to the task that has been set. It is a high bar, and much work has still to be done, but I look forward to continuing to scrutinise the Government’s efforts to improve the welfare and the lives of our Armed Forces personnel and I wish the Government well in the creation of this new office.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone for their short contributions. I have made one catastrophic error: I forgot to thank the Whips’ Office. I hastily put that on the record.
On a more serious note, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Smith in her tribute to Lord Etherton. I am sure that there will be another time for us all to reflect more broadly, but she is perfectly right to point out the sad loss of Lord Etherton to this House and the contribution that he made to LGBT as well as more generally on a whole range of things.
I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, once again, on the forthcoming wedding that is happening—not his, I hasten to add. I look forward to that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, is right to point out that the whole point of the commissioner, and the success of the role, will be on how much we can generate trust and confidence in people to come forward should they be subject to inappropriate behaviour. I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government will, of course, consider carefully how we respond to the amendment that was passed in your Lordships’ House. With those few brief comments, I thank everyone again.
Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [HL]
Monday 12th May 2025
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberBank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 24 April 2025 - large print - (24 Apr 2025)
Lord Livermore
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will also speak to Amendment 2. I would like to thank noble Lords for their continued interest and engagement in this important legislation. I know that some noble Lords will be disappointed to see the other place overturn the amendment inserted by your Lordships’ House, relating to the scope of the new mechanism, but I hope that I can offer some reassurance today on this matter.
As noble Lords will know, this Bill is intended to enhance the toolkit that the Bank of England has to manage the failure of a banking institution. In particular, it seeks to provide a new source of funding to cover certain costs associated with resolution and, in doing so, to strengthen the protections for the taxpayer, given the importance of protecting public funds in the event that a bank fails.
That said, I do understand the concerns that noble Lords have about any potential costs that would be placed on the banking sector if the Bill’s mechanism were used to support the resolution of some of the largest banks. Here, I would reiterate that it is the Government’s strong expectation that this mechanism would not be used to support the failure of the largest firms.
Noble Lords will recall that the Government published draft updates to its code of practice in October last year, which contained important language clarifying this expectation. I also met with many noble Lords in person during the Bill’s passage to listen carefully to concerns and to seek to explain the Government’s views on this matter.
Ultimately, the other place has taken the view that the scope of the mechanism should not be limited. The Government continue to believe that it is important to retain some flexibility for the Bank of England. I would like to make three further points to help explain that position.
First, as I have mentioned, the Government published draft updates to the code of practice to clarify our expectation that the Bank of England would bail in all readily available MREL that a bank holds, on top of the regulatory capital that must be bailed in, before using this mechanism. The Government therefore envisage that the mechanism would only be used on larger banks as a backstop, and any funds required would be only a top up to these other sources of recapitalisation.
Secondly, allowing the Bank of England the option of using the recapitalisation mechanism on larger banks means that it will be more able to respond to unexpected factors when resolving a bank. While of course the Bank of England works hard to ensure that it is fully prepared for a failure scenario, the manner in which banks fail is always highly uncertain. It is therefore important to ensure that the Bill is not overly restrictive in curtailing the Bank’s ability to use the mechanism flexibly.
As we have discussed in previous debates, there are some circumstances where retaining that flexibility could help to protect public funds. Although unlikely, there are circumstances in which larger banks may not be sufficiently capitalised to self-insure against their own failure, even if the bank in question has been directed to maintain end-state MREL requirements. An example of that might be if the firm was subject to a large redress claim, resulting in larger recapitalisation requirements than envisaged. Similarly, changes in the market value of the firm’s assets over time could result in higher losses than expected at the point of failure, again resulting in higher recapitalisation requirements to manage the failure of the firm in question.
While unlikely, those examples demonstrate a clear benefit in having the flexibility to source additional resources from the mechanism, having already written down the firm’s available MREL. Restricting the scope of the Bill would prevent the mechanism from being available in such scenarios, leaving public funds and therefore the taxpayer exposed instead. The Government therefore consider the theoretical possibility of using the recapitalisation mechanism on a larger bank a prudent step, providing comprehensive protection for public funds.
Thirdly, any levying by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to recover funds provided to the Bank of England will be subject to an affordability cap set by the Prudential Regulation Authority, which is currently £1.5 billion per year. In line with its safety and soundness objective, the PRA carefully considers the affordability of the FSCS levy for firms, providing an important safeguard against the sector being hit by unaffordable levies to prop up the largest firms.
I hope those points will go some way to reassuring noble Lords, and that they will be able to support the Bill as it now stands. Noble Lords will note that Amendment 2 is a straightforward amendment to remove the financial privilege amendment that was inserted by this House at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I want to ask the Minister a question that arises from this change. First, though, it is over six months since we debated these amendments. That does seem like an awfully long time for the Bill to disappear into limbo and come back, particularly when other Bills are being rushed through this House.
I wanted to ask the Minister to explain more about whether the resolution process could be used for larger banks, but I think he has actually answered that question. I am not sure his answer gives me an awful lot more confidence or comfort, but I am not going to oppose the Commons amendments. However, in the last six months, various comments have come from the PRA or the Bank of England about the fact that this Act, as it will be, may allow them to take some banks out of the MREL process. I wondered if the Minister might wish to comment on that and whether there are any consequences the other way round.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I have to say that I appreciate the explanation that we have just had from the Minister, but I and others remain disturbed by the Government’s decision not to accept the amendment, which was not just rational but well crafted, introduced by your Lordships in this House. The underlying Bill was initially presented to the House as providing a mechanism to save significant small banks from failing by recapitalising them from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, rather than having to turn to the taxpayer. Regulated banks, as this House will know, are then required to replenish the FSCS when it is depleted for any reason, but, because the thrust of the language was around small banks—that was the intent, and that was the discussion that is in all the notes—this House very much agreed to it, with just a few probing points engaged with.
Thank goodness that we have a lot of very good brains in this House. The combination of my noble friends Lady Bowles and Lord Fox and the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Vere, realised that there was a significant loophole in the language. We did not realise in the beginning that any of this could be applied to the larger banks; that became clear only as those pursuing the legislation became more aware of the implications of its content. Now we have a Bill that permits the regulator to use the FSCS as its mechanism to rescue large banks. Let us be frank: it completely changes the whole profile of both risks and consequences. The amendment would have effectively closed that loophole.
The larger banks, as the Minister has said, already have their own dedicated process to recapitalise in case of failure, a process that was introduced after the 2008 crisis. The Bank of England requires each large bank to hold a tranche of MREL—in plain English, bail-in bonds—which can be converted to capital by the regulator in case of failure, with the consequence that the bank is thereby rescued. We need to understand why that is not considered by the Government to be an adequate system. The Minister has just said—if I understood him—that the regulators will always require that bail-in bonds are used first, and the FSCS is a resource of last resort. But that is not in the legislation. The legislation allows the regulator to turn first to the FSCS and ignore bail-in altogether. He will be very conscious that the Swiss regulator, with the failure of Credit Suisse, completely ignored the bail-in capability and chose other routes to manage the rescue of Credit Suisse.
Those who hold bail-in bonds—the investors who buy them—are extremely well remunerated for carrying the risk associated with a bail-in bond. I am trying to work out why they can now look at this legislation and begin to assume that they will have the benefits of receiving a risk premium for holding those bonds but never actually find that those bonds are forced into use in case of a failure. How can we rely on just a code to continue to determine that bail-in will be the first resort and not a later resort or no resort at all? Are the Government basically saying that there are now many circumstances they have identified in which bail-in is neither usable nor adequate? I refer to the Swiss example. What are the consequences for financial sustainability if we are saying that bail-in is a slightly busted system? Have there been blandishments from the various investors who have purchased bail-in bonds, trying to pressure the Government into creating an alternate route? What are the consequences for our small- and medium-sized banks if the FSCS is depleted by big bank failure?
The Minister says that the regulators will not ask for an unaffordable contribution from the various banks to replenish the FSCS, but it is our mechanism that ensures small depositors’ accounts. Who is going to do the replenishment if the number is too great to ask the banks to commit to it? I am quite troubled by this change in responsibility for where risk lies that is embedded in the Bill. If the Minister is so sure that the items in the code should be giving us reassurance, why have they not been introduced in this Bill as part of the legislation?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, this is an important Bill, which provides the Bank of England with extra flexibility to manage bank failures, particularly those of smaller banks, in a way that strengthens protections for taxpayers. It reflects proposals by the last Government in the light of experience with the demise of Silicon Valley Bank. As such, it had cross-party support and, starting in the Lords, was a good example of expert scrutiny across the House.
Special thanks go to my noble friend and predecessor Lady Vere, my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lady Penn, the noble Lords, Lord Vaux of Harrowden and Lord Eatwell, the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Bowles, officials on all sides—of course, not forgetting the Whips—and, above all, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore. I thank him both for the government amendments, notably that which was made to Clause 3 on the involvement of the Treasury Committee and the House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee, and for the timely publication of the draft code of practice, which helped us to overcome some substantial difficulties, as he has already mentioned.
Banking and financial services are very important to the success of the British economy. In 2022, the UK financial system held assets of around £27 trillion and in 2023 the financial insurance services sector contributed £208 billion to the UK economy. Legal regimes which govern how our banking and financial sectors operate need to promote growth and competitiveness and be easy to navigate and use. They must also balance ambition with prudence—an understandable driver of the Bill.
Noble Lords will recall the amendment we successfully added that was championed by my noble friend Lady Vere. This sought to prohibit the use of the funds from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to recapitalise large financial institutions, defined as those which had reached an end-state MREL. The object was to reflect in law the Government’s stated objective of using the resolution framework in the event of a smaller bank requiring intervention, thus preventing the associated risk of contagion. The truth is that the Banking Act 2009 provides a robust framework for dealing with the large banks that have achieved end-state MREL status. They and the Bank of England should not be taking comfort from the fact that they could fall back on an ex-post levy of the banking sector through the FSCS in times of trouble. Resources should be focused on the SME banking sector, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, reiterated.
In view of this, I am joined by noble Lords across the House in expressing disappointment that Members in the other place voted to remove this amendment from the Bill. We are confident that it would have improved the Bill in meeting its objective and helped to embed the balance I spoke of. However, we must accept that Treasury Ministers, with their battalions of support in the other place, wish to maintain flexibility; for example, as the Minister explained, to deal with a large, unexpected redress claim leaving the taxpayer exposed, although this is very much a backstop arrangement, with a £1.5 billion cap, as the Minister confirmed. So I do not propose to test the opinion of the House again.
It was also disappointing to see the rejection of other prudent proposals put forward by colleagues in the other place in good faith. Regardless, I hope the Government will consider these proposals seriously as we try together to create a system which is balanced and simple and promotes growth—an objective that the Minister and I share.
We support the thrust of the Bill, which continues the work that we did in government to support our banking sector, protect consumers and safeguard the public finances. However, there are still outstanding questions which I hope the Government can address today or in writing. They are even more important now that the Vere amendment has been rejected.
The Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority have proposed an FSCS operating budget for 2025-26 of £109 million. This budget covers the FSCS’s administrative expenses and does not represent the total funds available for compensation payouts. Over the three financial years from 2021 to 2024, the FSCS paid just £10 million in compensation relating to deposit claims, due primarily to the defaults of 11 credit unions and one small bank. Will the Minister kindly outline the steps the Government are taking to minimise the operating costs of the FSCS?
The FSCS is a quango, which is overseen by a quango, in conjunction with another quango. The fact that it uses an industry funding model does not change this. The money in its operating budget is money that is not being utilised in the banking sector, which employs millions of people and contributes billions to our economy and to growth. Does the Minister agree that the FSCS should focus on efficiency and on keeping as much money as possible available to banks for their use and not tied up unnecessarily in its operating budget and that, like other regulators, it should have regard to the Government’s overall objective of growth?
I end by saying that this is a broadly sensible proposal designed to safeguard public finances, ensure the security of our financial sector and limit public risk. We will support the Government in their ambition to achieve the objectives of the Bill, but I hope the Minister will seriously consider the points that have been raised today and will take the opportunity to clear up some of the questions that have been asked.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I again thank all noble Lords for their efforts on the Bill since July last year, and all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate today. I am also grateful to all three noble Lords for indicating that they will not oppose the Bill further. I will briefly attempt to respond to the questions and points made in this brief debate.
First, I reiterate what the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Neville-Rolfe, said about the expertise in this House; I was on the receiving end of much of that expertise and it certainly tested me. However, to a large extent, the Bill was improved by the debates we had in this House, and I am grateful to all noble Lords for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, talked about the gap between Third Reading and us returning today for this ping-pong session. It is somewhat out of my hands, although I do agree that it feels like rather a long time since we last debated these issues. He asked about the circumstances in which this power will be used, and I hope, as he said, that I covered that in my opening speech. He also raised some other questions.
On MRELs, the Bank of England sets MREL requirements independently of government, as he knows, but within a framework as set out in legislation. The Bank of England has consulted on proposals which seek to ensure that the MREL regime remains proportionate and evolves over time. The Government are engaging closely with the Bank of England as it considers its responses to that consultation, and its engagement includes consideration of the impacts on economic growth.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, talked about MREL being used as the first resort. The Government believe there are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that shareholders and creditors are exposed to losses before the new mechanism is used. These include the principle in legislation requiring the Bank of England to ensure that shareholders and creditors bear losses when a banking institution fails. As set out in the draft updates to the code of practice, the Bank of England would first look to write down or otherwise expose to loss all readily available MREL resources before requiring a recapitalisation payment from the FSCS. Noting these points, the Government believe that specifying the extent of losses that must be imposed before the new mechanism is used would be an unnecessary restriction on the Bank of England’s flexibility.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about the FCSC budget and minimising operating costs. It is in fact a legal duty on it to minimise those costs, and I would expect it to adhere to that legal duty. The noble Baroness also spoke about the importance of financial services to the growth of the UK economy, on which I very much agree with her.
The Bill plays a vital role in upgrading the UK’s toolkit to manage bank failures, strengthening protections for taxpayers and financial stability which are, in turn, key to the Government’s number one priority of economic growth. I look forward to the Bill’s enactment and I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting the amendments made in the other place. I beg to move.
Lord Livermore
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2.
Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]
Monday 12th May 2025
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberData (Use and Access) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 100-I Marshalled list for for Consideration of Commons Amendments - (9 May 2025)
17:14 - Division on Motion 32A (Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 32) - Ayes: 200 / Noes: 183 - Motion 32A (Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 32) agreed.
17:28 - Division on Motion 43A (Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 43) - Ayes: 289 / Noes: 168 - Motion 43A (Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 32) agreed.
19:24 - Division on Motion 49A (Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 49) - Ayes: 272 / Noes: 125 - Motion 49A (Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 49) agreed.
19:37 - Division on Motion 52A (Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 52) - Ayes: 164 / Noes: 152 - Motion 52A (Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 52) agreed.
Lord Vallance of Balham
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1.
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to some of the amendments made in the other place, starting with Amendments 1 to 31. These will ensure that smart data schemes can function optimally and that Part 1 is as clear as possible. Similarly, Amendments 35 to 42 from the other place reflect discussions on the national underground asset register with the devolved Governments. Finally, Amendments 70 to 79 make necessary consequential updates to the final provisions of the Bill and some updates to Schedules 11 and 15.
I will now speak to the amendments tabled by noble Lords, starting with those relating to sex data. Motion 32A disagrees with the amendment to remove Clause 28(3) and (4), and instead proposes changes to the initial drafting of those subsections. These would require the Secretary of State, when preparing the trust framework, to assess whether the 15 specified public authorities can reliably ascertain the data they collect, record and share. Amendment 32B limits this assessment to sex data, as defined through Amendment 32C; that definition limits sex to biological sex only and provides a definition of acquired gender.
It is also relevant to speak now to Motion 52A, which disagrees with the amendment to remove Clause 140 and, instead, suggests changes to the drafting. Clause 140, as amended by Amendment 52B, seeks to, through a regulation-making power, give the Secretary of State the ability to define sex as being only biological sex in certain areas or across public sector data processing more widely. Let me be clear that this Government accept the recent Supreme Court judgment on the definition of sex for the purposes of equality legislation. We need to work through the effects of this ruling holistically and with care, sensitivity and—dare I say it—kindness. In line with the law, we need to take care not to inappropriately extend its reach. This is not best done by giving the Secretary of State the power to define sex as biological in all cases through secondary legislation without appropriate scrutiny, given the potential impact on people’s human rights, privacy and dignity, and the potential to create legal uncertainty. Likewise, giving the Secretary of State a role in reviewing how other public authorities process sex data in all circumstances based on that definition would be inappropriate and disproportionate, and I note that the Supreme Court’s ruling relates specifically to the meaning of sex in equalities legislation.
The driver behind these amendments has been the importance of sex data being accurate when processed by public authorities. I strongly agree with that aim: accurate data is essential. This Government take data accuracy—including the existing legislation that requires personal data to be accurate—and data standards seriously. That is why we are addressing the question of sex information in public sector data. First, the EHRC is updating its statutory code of practice to support service providers in light of the Supreme Court judgment. Secondly, the Data Standards Authority is developing data standards on the monitoring of diversity information, including sex and gender data, and the effect of the Supreme Court judgment will be considered as part of that work.
Thirdly, the Office for Statistics Regulation published updated guidance on collecting and reporting data and statistics about sex and gender identity data last year. Fourthly, the Office for National Statistics published a work plan in December 2024 for developing harmonised standards on data more generally. Finally, the department is currently considering the implementation of the Sullivan review, published this year, which I welcome.
On digital verification services, I reassure noble Lords that these measures do not change the evidence that individuals rely on to prove things about themselves. The measures simply enable that to be done digitally. This Government are clear that data must be accurate for the purpose for which it is being used and must not be misleading. It should be clear to digital verification services what the information public authorities are sharing with them means. I will give an important example. If an organisation needs to know a person’s biological sex, this Government are clear that a check cannot be made against passport data, as it does not capture biological sex. DVS could only verify biological sex using data that records that attribute specifically, not data that records sex or gender more widely.
I know this is a concern of the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and I hope this provides some reassurance. The data accuracy principle of GDPR is part of existing law. That includes where data is misleading—this is a point I will return to. I hope that noble Lords find this commitment reassuring and, as such, will agree with Commons Amendment 32.
Motion 34A on Amendments 34B and 34C address the security of the national underground asset register. Security has always been at the heart of the national underground asset register. We have therefore listened to the well-thought-through concerns that prompted the amendment previously tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, regarding cybersecurity. Following consideration, the Government are instead proposing an amendment we have drafted with support of colleagues in the security services. We believe this addresses the intention of ensuring the security of the national underground asset register data, with three key improvements.
First, it broadens the scope from cybersecurity only to the general security of information kept in or obtained from the national underground asset register. This will ensure that front-end users have guidance on a range of measures for security good practice—for example, personnel vetting, which should be considered for implementation—while avoiding the need to publish NUAR-specific cybersecurity features that should not be in the public domain. Secondly, it specifies the audience for this guidance; namely, users accessing NUAR. Finally, it broadens the scope of the amendment to include Northern Ireland alongside England and Wales, consistent with the NUAR measures overall. Clearly, it remains the case that access to NUAR data can be approved for purposes only by eligible users, with all access controlled and auditable. As such, I hope that noble Lords will be content to support government Motion 34A and Amendments 34B and 34C.
Commons Amendment 43, made in the other place, on scientific research removes the public interest test inserted in the definition of scientific research by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. While recognising the concern the noble Lord raises, I want to be clear that anything that does not count as scientific research now would not do so under the Bill. Indeed, we have tightened the requirement and added a reasonableness test. The Bill contains strong safeguards. Adding precise definitions in the Bill would not strengthen these protections but impose a significant, new legal obligation on our research community at a time when, in line with the good work of the previous Government, we are trying to reduce bureaucracy for researchers, not increase it with new processes. The test proposed will lead to burgeoning bureaucracy and damage our world-leading research. This disproportionate step would chill basic and curiosity-driven research, and is not one we can support.
I beg to move that the House agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1. I have spoken to the other amendments.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I first thank the Minister for his—as ever—clear and compelling remarks. I thank all noble Lords who have been working in a collegiate, collaborative fashion to find a way forward on the few but important remaining points of disagreement with the Government.
Before I come to the issue of accurate recording of personal data, I also thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for tabling the government amendments on the national underground asset register and her constructive engagement throughout the progress of the Bill.
As noble Lords will recall, I set out our case for stronger statutory measures to require the Secretary of State to provide guidance to relevant stakeholders on the cybersecurity measures that should be in place before they receive information from the national underground asset register. I am of course delighted that the Government have responded to the arguments that we and others made and have now tabled their own version of my amendment which would require the Secretary of State to provide guidance on the security of this data. We are happy to support them in that.
I turn to Motions 32A and 52A standing in my name, which seek to ensure that data is recorded accurately. They amend the original amendment, which my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Arbuthnot took through your Lordships’ House. My noble friend Lord Lucas is sadly unable to attend the House today, but I am delighted to bring these Motions forward from the Opposition Front Bench. In the other place, the Conservative Front Bench tabled new Clause 21, which would, we feel, have delivered a conclusive resolution to the problem. Sadly, the Government resisted that amendment, and we are now limited by the scope of the amendments of my noble friend Lord Lucas, so we were unable to retable the, in my view, excellent amendment in your Lordships’ House.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
My Lords, the Minister is right that it is essential that data collected needs to be accurate and that that applies to data on sex as well as on gender. He is also right that the passport does not contain reliable data on sex, and I am grateful to him for making that clear. I am also grateful to him for the discussions that he has had with me and for the discussion that the Secretary of State had with Sex Matters and me, but what is the solution to this? In the absence of any reliable document, how is a care home to ensure that a person who is to provide intimate care for an elderly woman, who has understandably demanded that such care be provided by a woman, will actually be provided by a woman?
In the absence of anything else, I suspect a care home will have to fall back on the passport, which, as we have all agreed, is unreliable. My noble friend’s amendment goes some way towards answering this, and I shall support it. It may have flaws. The Minister said in one of our meetings that it would invalidate our existing passports. I am not sure about that but, if it is right, can the Minister propose a minor amendment to my noble friend’s amendment to sort out that problem?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I too will speak to Motion 32A. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his confirmation of the Government’s welcome of the Supreme Court ruling and his welcome of the Sullivan report. I also very much welcome the words that he has used today and thank him for the discussions that we have been able to have.
Can he confirm that where the Equality Act allows for a women-only space, any digital IT system used for that purpose would refer to biological sex as the relevant information? With regard to public authorities, I assume that organisations such as Sport England and the GMC are counted as public authorities because they are statutory. At the moment the GMC does not record the biological sex of doctors, only the gender. When that also goes digital, will it be confined to biological sex so that, again, patients can know the sex of their physician, assuming that it will be digital? I think that the Minister understands the questions I am posing and that his wording does give that reassurance, but any clarity would be welcome.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I stand in support of my Motion 43A. I welcome so much of this Bill. I want this country to be a champion of technology and hope that it becomes a tech powerhouse, attracting hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of investment in the development of AI. I understand the concerns expressed by the Minister, but I am still pressing ahead with this amendment because I want the people of this country to have control of their data and how it is used.
This amendment is a push-back against the way the AI companies have been abusing the use of people’s data in training their AI models. Last year, Meta reused data from Instagram users without their consent to train up its Llama AI model. Once this was discovered, there was a huge outcry from the owners of the data and an appeal to the ICO. As a result, Meta stopped the processing and the ICO said,
“it is crucial that the public can trust that their privacy rights will be respected from the outset”.
I want to make sure that when the Bill becomes law, it reassures the people of this country that they can trust the new technology. The battle to stop the abuse of data is a central concern of my indomitable noble friend Lady Kidron, who is sitting beside me and whose amendment is in the next group. It responds to the theft of copyright belonging to millions of creatives, including authors and artists, by AI companies. As it stands, Clause 67 gives a powerful exemption, allowing AI companies to reuse data without consent if they can show that their work aligns with the definition of “scientific research” set out in the Bill. I fear that this definition is so widely drawn that it will allow AI models to reuse data without consent, claiming that they are carrying out scientific research when in fact they are using it for product development and their own profit.
I thank the Ada Lovelace Institute for its constant support throughout the lengthy progress of this Bill. I expressed my concern in Committee and on Report. Chi Onwurah, the very respected chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee in the other place, tabled a similar amendment. However, despite meetings with Ministers, they have offered nothing to assuage our concerns, which has forced me to push this amendment at this stage.
Proposed new paragraph 2A inserted by this amendment would tighten the definition of what counts as scientific research. It is taken from the Frascati manual, developed by the OECD in order to compare R&D efforts made by different companies and identify what key features underpin them. The Government support the Frascati definition. In Committee, the Minister said the research test set out in the Bill “will not operate alone”, and will
“be in the context of the Frascati definition and the ICO’s guidance”.—[Official Report, 21/1/25; col. 1637.]
He said that the Frascati definitions are merely guidance and that codification would bring burdens on scientific researchers, but this is not a new requirement: it is simply a codification of an existing standard set up by the ICO.
The central feature of this part of the amendment is that scientific research should increase the stock of human knowledge. The Minister has told your Lordships that not all scientific research will be new knowledge, that scientific research is often refuted or confirms previous findings, and that some scientific research will fail. But if there is refutation or confirmation of an experiment, that is an extension of human knowledge. Even if research fails, the researcher will know that the experiment does not work, and that is new knowledge. The requirement for scientific research to increase the stock of knowledge is a sensible precaution to preserve our data from abuse, and it will weed out the tech companies piggybacking on the clause for their own profit.
The purpose of this amendment is not just to tighten the definition. It is also to make sure that researchers have to consider it when they start to deploy the exemption for the reuse of data. The Minister has said it will lead to undue burden on scientists and stop research going ahead, but this definition is already being used by the ICO. The problem for a person whose data is being abused is that at the moment, if they want to appeal against its use without consent, they have to go to the ICO, which then has to apply the Frascati definition.
The ICO’s latest statistics show that only 12% of data protection complaints are dealt with within 90 days, compared with the target of 80%. Surely that means it is too late for the appeal against reuse of data without consent. The data will already have been absorbed into the AI training model and, as we have been continually told, it is hard for AI researchers to identify data once it is included in part of the model.
Proposed new paragraph 2A inserted by this amendment would stop this happening. By our putting a definition in the Bill, the AI researchers would have to consider it before reusing the data for their model, therefore saving data subjects having to appeal to the ICO if they are concerned about abuse.
Proposed new paragraph 2B inserted by this amendment responds to the Government’s claim that the “reasonably described” test in this clause is a tightening of the definition of scientific research. Over 14 of our leading law companies have looked at the Government’s test as set out in the Bill and described it variously as loosening, expanding or broadening the definition. However, Clause 67 asks the question whether the research can be reasonably described as scientific. The ICO or the courts will have to consider whether it is irrational to call this scientific research, but it is very hard to prove irrationality; it is a high bar.
I hope noble Lords will agree that the use of the usual reasonableness test asks, “Would a reasonable person conducting scientific research perform this activity in this manner?”. This test evaluates actual conduct against an objective standard of what constitutes proper scientific research.
The amendment seeks to realise what is already a requirement: that such research be conducted in line with standards based on the UK Research and Innovation Code of Practice for Research. It would ensure transparency for the use of scientific research. I am sure that during the course of the debate we will hear from scientists who will say that this debate will stifle research and stop new researchers undertaking work. However, this requirement is minimal, and the information required is that which researchers should already have to hand.
What I ask your Lordships to bear in mind when voting is that this amendment would give transparency into how people’s data is being reused. The new tests laid out in my amendment would be a powerful weapon in the fight against the abuse of people’s data. I want the new technologies to be successful, but they will be successful only if they have the trust of the people of the country. If people think that the Government have caved in to tech companies and allowed them to pillage our data for their own financial gain rather than for the progress of human knowledge, most will be outraged. I ask the Minister to assuage these fears and ensure that the Bill provides data in the people’s interests. Meanwhile, I will ask the opinion of the House at the end of this debate.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I am a latecomer to this debate; I have not participated heretofore. I am doing so only because of conversations I had over the weekend. They related to the amendment from my noble friend under Motion 32A. I am not going to oppose my noble friend’s amendment—it may well be right—but I do want to express my anxieties because they were anxieties expressed by my friend who came to see me.
On the judgment of the Supreme Court, I am pretty much in favour of it. I think it was wholly right and I am very glad that the Government are accepting its finality, but it raises problems which I do not think have yet been fully considered, and that is what makes me reluctant to support my noble friend. The friend who came to see me is someone who I have known for a number of years and was born a male. In fact, she married and had a child, and she then transitioned—and transitioned fully—to the female gender and she is fully certificated. We discussed the implications of the judgement for her, and although I strongly support the judgment of the Supreme Court, a number of the points that she made were very troubling, most particularly as regards people who have not fully transitioned and how they are going to be dealt with; for example, in prisons, in hospital wards and so forth.
She then came to a very specific point—which has been touched on by a number of your Lordships—regarding passports. This is a woman whom I have known for 10 or so years. In every material respect, she passes as a woman and that is what I have always treated her as being; she is a friend of mine. Her passport at the moment shows “female”, but where there is the requirement “sex”, she is deeply concerned that the passport may have to be altered to state “male” because that is her natal gender. She raises the question very clearly as to what happens when she goes to immigration control or passport control, either in this country or somewhere else, where there will be a manifest divergence of appearance. On the one hand, there is the passport, which says that she is male; on the other hand, there is what she appears for all purposes. The point that I took away from that is that there are still lots of things that we are going to have to address.
My suggestion to your Lordships’ House is that we should set up a Select Committee in due time—and this House is well versed to do that—to consider what the implications of the Supreme Court judgment are across a broad spectrum of consideration. Therefore, returning to Motion 32A, if my noble friend will forgive me, I am not going to support him today, not because I think he is wrong but because I think it is premature to come to statutory interventions when there is still a lot to be considered. I would be fearful that, if this House accepted my noble friend’s amendments—and they may be right—they would be treated as a precedent that it is at least conceivable we would come to regret.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I wonder if I could go back to the wording proposed under Motion 52A. The whole purpose of it is limited. From a very practical and basic point of view, once the Supreme Court has told us that biological sex is to rule, the points that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, makes, which I entirely understand and sympathise with, really do not arise in this issue. If we are to have data, the data must be accurate. The only point that I am asking your Lordships’ House to consider—this is what the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, is asking—is:
“For the purposes of this section, sex data must be collected in accordance with the following category terms and definitions”.
That seems eminently sensible. If we do not have it, I see real problems of a different sort from those that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has raised.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Motions 32A and 52A which, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, appear eminently sensible.
The Minister—to whom I am also grateful for the meeting that I was able to join—assured us that we can trust the digital verification services because they will be based on the data accuracy principle of the GDPR, but that principle has been in place for a decade during which, as Professor Alice Sullivan recounted in her important report that the Minister welcomed earlier, statistics have become utterly muddled and confused. That is particularly so in this area, because sex and gender identity have been collected and conflated in a single data field such that the meaning of sex has been obscured.
I welcome the Minister’s support for the Supreme Court judgment, but, as he said, that judgment confirmed that sex in the Equality Act can only mean and has only ever meant biological sex. However, that has been the case for 15 years, during which all this muddle has taken place. The Minister tells us that we can trust the Government to respect the judgment and to reject the amendments but, before considering that, can he answer a few questions?
First, why is it not appropriate to ensure that in this Bill, on data use and access and which specifically talks about a digital verification system, unreliable datasets are not used for digital verification? If it is not in this timely data legislation, then when? The Minister referred to the forthcoming Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance, but I suggest that we do not have to wait for that guidance in this area. We have this Bill, this vehicle, and it is surely appropriate to enshrine everything that the Minister said in this legislation.
Secondly, have the Government considered how the digital verification system will work with regard to an estimated 100,000 people who have a different record for their sex across different public bodies—for example, the birth register, Passport Office, driving licence authority and NHS? How is that going to pan out? How will the Government ensure that this mixed data, such as so-called passport sex, is not relied on as an authoritative source to provide an answer to the sex question in the DVS? I respect the concerns that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, rightly raised; my point is how we will ensure that the data verified for the sex field in the DVS, irrespective of any other field, is accurate and corresponds to biological sex.
Will the Government publish clear guidance for data users so that they know which sources of sex data can be trusted and which remain conflated? How will they put technical measures in place to ensure that unreliable sources do not come through the information gateway? Is it impossible that a person who expresses themselves as gender fluid or non-binary could have two different digital verification services apps—one that shows them as female and the other as male, but both bearing the digital verification trust mark? That may not seem terribly common, but it is a possibility for which we need an answer.
Finally, the Government have argued that it is very unlikely that digital verification services will be used for applications such as single-sex services. The point was well made about a woman who wants a woman healthcare provider and health screening—by the way, that is also important for trans people to make sure that they are appropriately treated in services such as health. If the aim of the DVS is to provide trusted, interoperable, reusable digital identities that people can use to prove facts about themselves, is it not likely that this will be used in the services spoken about in the Supreme Court judgment and which advised should legitimately be kept as single sex and based on biological sex?
If the Government do not like these amendments from the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, but they agree with their aim, I cannot honestly see why the Minister should object to enshrining them in more than the data accuracy principle, which, as I have said, has been, in the last decade, respected more in the breach than in the reality. I am not yet reassured that his assurances, as much as I respect his personal sincerity and integrity, are enough for us to rely on, as opposed to having something on the statute book.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too will speak to Motions 32A and 52A. Just to follow on from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, I really appreciated that the Minister understood the concerns of those who moved these amendments. But, as the noble Baroness pointed out, reassurances have been given in this House, over many debates, that there was nothing to worry about in terms of confusion in relation to sex and gender. We have now ascertained via the Supreme Court that we needed some clarity and we have now got it. I do not want us to make the same mistake again.
I ask the Minister to clarify one thing he said in his opening remarks: that it would be overreach to ask the Secretary of State to declare biological sex as a material reality in all instances. I think that is what he said. I point out that biological sex is a material reality in all instances. Despite the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in relation to his friend, it is not, to clarify, about passing or appearances; it is about biological material reality. In that instance, the Minister called on us to have kindness. Of course, we should all have kindness all the time, in every instance. However, nobody here is trying to be unkind; the intent is to clarify. I liked something the Minister said in the past when he stated that
“we must have a single version of the truth on this. There needs to be a way to verify it consistently and there need to be rules”.—[Official Report, 21/1/25; col. 1620.]
I agree. It is not about kindness or unkindness; it is about clarification.
In addition to what has already been argued, this surely has to be about trust. I can tell the House that quite a lot of people I have spoken to are rather distrustful of digital ID of any sort. They are already cynical and anxious about what is going on with this data collection. I do not raise that point other than to say that the one thing you would want in order to counter such worries is that this particular measure should be trustworthy. Yet, to quote an article by Joan Smith in UnHerd, we are talking about “an officially sanctioned app” that will allow the falsification of sex, even if that is not its intent.
It would be a form of self-ID that appears to be endorsed by a government TrustMark based on documents that could be based on gender identity rather than sex. A government TrustMark ought to be trustworthy. It is supposed to guarantee that the data it contains is accurate, and that includes sex.
Something important happened with the Supreme Court’s clarification, but, of course, this is an ongoing discussion of the implications it has on a wide range of public policy. I understand that, but I fear that there are times when people suggest we should leave the Supreme Court to some kind of relativistic mishmash. People keep saying to me, “What’s your reading of it?” It is not about a reading; it is a clarification of the law. If this Bill inadvertently adds to that relativised muddle or is used as an excuse to dismiss the Supreme Court, that would be an unintended consequence of what the Government are doing. It could be simply sorted out by the Government themselves.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I want briefly to add my voice to that of my noble friend Lord Colville, to say that in Committee I asked a number of times whether the science of conditioning—that is, the science of persuasive design that would extend the use of children—could be considered science under the current definition, and I never got an answer. So, although I am very sympathetic to the idea that science must be possible, whatever we do with the Bill, I would like to ensure that it is not, as the noble Viscount says, an excuse for any kind of commercial activity that could be perpetrated on the user.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I sat through the Committee stage and did not speak, because I was so clear that the amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, was really inappropriate. Indeed, it was the speech by my noble friend Lord Vallance that made me feel that speaking was unnecessary. I regret that, because I should have pointed out something very important.
First, to come back to what the noble Baroness has just said, the definitions in the Bill are flawed to start with. Devising new applications of available knowledge is not the work of scientists; it is essentially the work of technologists—and there is a big difference between technology and science. Technology has all sorts of downsides that we do not expect. Science is simply knowledge and, as such, it does not have an ethical dimension. That has been stated by many distinguished philosophers in the past.
I suggest to noble Lords that every invention and innovation that we make has a downside that we do not expect. I would challenge the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. I have sat on a scientific committee with him and we have enjoyed each other’s company, but I would argue that there is not a single case where he could argue that there has not been an unexpected downside—as there is with every scientific invention. That, essentially, is why this is a flawed problem.
There are three problems facing humanity and the world at the moment. One, clearly, is nuclear war; one, clearly, is climate change; and perhaps the most important one is the risk of antibiotic resistance. It turns out that all these risks were completely unseen when those technologies were started. Marie Curie, working on pitchblende and radium, had no idea that the X-rays she was producing would be dangerous to her and would, unfortunately, result in her death as a result of cancer. She certainly did not recognise that there might be such a thing as nuclear explosions.
When it comes to, for example, climate change, it is obvious that we would not want to avoid having had the Industrial Revolution and all the things we got from it, just as we would not want to avoid having X-rays. But we must understand that the control has to come later.
Lastly, the most important thing for me is the possibility that infection is one of the greatest problems that humanity faces on earth at the moment. The invention of antibiotics has actually made that worse, because we now have a rising number of infections that are due to resistance. Therefore, I beg the noble Viscount not to press his amendment. I believe that it is absolutely well-meaning, and I understand what he is trying to say, but I hope that the Opposition, when they listen to this, will consider at least abstaining from voting on it, because the risk is that it might bring the House of Lords into disrepute as it stands.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
My Lords, I am authorised to speak on Motion 43A, as someone with regular day-to-day experience of scientific research. Since I started my PhD in 1981, I have had the privilege of spending more than half my working life doing scientific research in the UK—the last 20 years working with very sensitive patient data. Most of that research has been carried out in an academic setting, but some of it has been in collaboration with medtech, AI and pharmaceutical companies.
This research has required me to become familiar with many three-letter and four-letter acronyms. Noble Lords will know about DBS, but they might not know about RSO, TRO, HRA, LREC, MREC, CAG, and IRAS, to name just a few. I have spent hundreds of hours working with clinical colleagues to fill in integrated research application system—IRAS—forms. IRAS is used to apply for Health Research Authority—HRA—approval for research projects involving the NHS, social care or the criminal justice system. I have appeared before not only medical research ethics committees, or MRECs, which test whether a research protocol is scientifically valid and ethical, but local research ethics committees, or LRECs, which consider the suitability of individual researchers and local issues.
I was involved in a research project which reused data acquired from patients on a Covid isolation ward during the first two waves of the pandemic. That research project sought to understand how nurses interpreted continuous data from the clinical-grade wearables we used to monitor these high-risk patients during Covid. It took our research team more than 18 months to obtain the relevant permissions to reuse the data for our proposed analysis. Our application was reviewed by the Confidentiality Advisory Group—CAG—which provides independent expert advice on the use of confidential patient information without consent for research and non-research purposes. CAG already considers whether accessing the confidential data is justified by the public interest. Its advice is then used by the HRA and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to decide whether to grant access to the confidential data.
The existing provisions in this country to allow access to data for research purposes are stringent, and it is entirely right that they should be. The UK is respected the world over for the checks and balances of its research governance. The relevant safeguards already exist in the current legislation. Adding a further public interest test will only increase the amount of bureaucracy that will inevitably be introduced by the research services offices, or RSOs, and the translational research offices, or TROs, of our universities, which are very good at doing this.
The extra burden will fall on the researchers themselves, and some researchers may decide to concentrate their available time and energy elsewhere. This amendment, I am afraid, will have the unintended consequence of having a negative impact on research in this country, so I cannot support it.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, an onlooker might be forgiven for not perceiving a common theme in this group of amendments, but I thank the Minister for his introduction and the noble Viscounts for introducing their amendments so clearly.
I acknowledge that Motion 32A and Amendments 32B and 32C and Motion 52A and Amendments 52B and 52C from the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, are considerably less prescriptive than the Spencer amendment in the House of Commons to introduce new Clause 21, which seemed to require public authorities to comb through every record to rectify data, went significantly further than the findings of the Supreme Court judgment, and potentially failed to account for the privacy afforded to GRC holders under the Gender Recognition Act. However, the Liberal Democrats will abstain from votes on the noble Viscount’s amendments for several key reasons.
Our primary reason is the need to allow time for the EHRC’s guidance to be finalised. I thought the Minister made his case there. The EHRC is currently updating its code of practice, as we have heard, to reflect the implications of the Supreme Court judgment on the meaning of sex in the Equality Act, with the aim of providing it to the Government by the end of June. This guidance, as I understand it, is intended specifically to support service providers, public bodies and others in understanding their duties under the Equality Act and putting them into practice in the light of the judgment. The EHRC is undertaking a public consultation to understand how the practical implications can best be reflected. These amendments, in our view, are an attempt to jump the gun on, second-guess or at the least pre-empt the EHRC’s code of practice.
On these Benches, we believe that any necessary changes or clarifications regarding data standards should be informed by the official guidance and implemented consistently in a coherent and workable manner. We should allow time for the EHRC’s guidance to be finalised, ensuring that any necessary changes or clarifications regarding data standards are informed by its advice and implemented consistently across public authorities in a coherent and workable manner. We have concerns about workability and clarity. Although the amendments proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, are less prescriptive than previous similar proposals in the Commons tabled by Dr Spencer, we have concerns about their practical implementation. Questions arise about how public authorities would reliably ascertain biological sex if someone has a gender recognition certificate and has updated their birth certificate. I have long supported same-sex wards in the NHS, but I do not believe that these amendments are helpful in pursuing clarity following the Supreme Court judgment. We heard what the Minister had to say about passports.
I welcome the clarity provided by the Supreme Court judgment, but there are clearly implications, both practical and legal, to be worked out, such as those mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. I thought he put his finger on many of those issues. I trust that the EHRC will deliver the right result. I agree that data needs to be accurate, and I welcome the Sullivan report, as did my noble friend. In summary, we will be abstaining. We believe that the EHRC process needs to conclude and provide comprehensive guidance, while also reflecting concerns about the workability and appropriateness of specific legislative interventions on data standards at this time.
I move on to Amendment 43B, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. This amendment may not reinstate the precise wording
“conducted in the public interest”
that we previously inserted in this House, but it would introduce safeguards that seek to address the same fundamental concerns articulated during our debate on Report. It does two important things.
First, it provides a definition of “scientific research”, clarifying it as
“creative and systematic work undertaken in order to increase the stock of knowledge”.
This directly addresses the concerns raised on Report that the line between product development and scientific research is often blurred, with developers sometimes positing efforts to increase model capabilities or study risks as scientific research. Having a clear definition helps to distinguish genuine research from purely commercial activity cloaked as such.
Secondly, and critically, Amendment 43B would require:
“To meet the reasonableness test”
already present in the Bill,
“the activity being described as scientific research must be conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks, obligations and standards”.
This requirement seeks to embed within the reasonableness test the principles that underpinned our arguments for the public interest requirement on Report and is the same as the amendment put forward by the chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Select Committee, Chi Onwurah MP, which ties the definition to the definition in the OECD’s Frascati Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development:
“creative and systematic work undertaken in order to increase the stock of knowledge—including knowledge of humankind, culture and society—and to devise new applications of available knowledge”.
The Frascati framework is used worldwide by Governments, universities and research institutions to report R&D statistics, inform science policy and underpin R&D tax credit regimes, and it serves as a common language and reference point for international comparisons and policy decisions related to scientific research and innovation. These frameworks, obligations and standards are important because they serve the very purposes we previously identified for the public interest test: ensuring societal benefit, building public trust, preventing misuse for commercial ends, addressing harmful applications, and alignment with standards.
Amendment 43B in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, is a thoughtful and necessary counter-proposal. It is Parliament’s opportunity to insist that the principles of public benefit, trust and responsible conduct, rooted in established frameworks, must remain central to the definition of scientific research that benefits from data re-use exceptions.
I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Winston, had to say in his very powerful speech, but I cannot see how the amendment from the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, cuts across all the things that he wants to see in the outcomes of research.
Lord Winston (Lab)
As the noble Lord has mentioned my name, I simply ask him this question: does he recall the situation only some 45 years ago when there was massive public outcry about in vitro fertilisation, when there were overwhelming votes against in vitro fertilisation in both Houses of Parliament on two occasions, and when, finally, a Private Member’s Bill was brought, which would have abolished IVF in this country? Had that happened, of course, an amendment such as this would have prevented the research happening in England and would have made a colossal difference not only to our knowledge of embryo growth, but our knowledge of development, ageing, the development of cancer and a whole range of things that we never expected from human embryology. I beg the noble Lord to consider that.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I have had a misspent not-so-youth over the past 50 years. As a lawyer, when I read the wording in the amendment, I cannot see the outcome that he is suggesting. This wording does not cut across anything that he has had to say. I genuinely believe that. I understand how genuine he is in his belief that this is a threat, but I do not believe this wording is such a threat.
I also understand entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, had to say, but an awful lot of that was about the frustration and some of the controls over health data. That does not apply in many other areas of scientific research. The Frascati formula is universal and well accepted. The noble Viscount made an extremely good case; we should be supporting him.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, for his Motion 32A and Amendments 32B and 32C, and Motion 52A and Amendments 52B and 52C. I reiterate that this Government have been clear that we accept the Supreme Court judgment on the meaning of sex for equalities legislation. However, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, says, it is critically important that the Government work through the effect of this ruling with care, sensitivity and in line with the law.
When it comes to public sector data, we must work through the impacts of this judgment properly. This would involve considering the scope of the judgment and the upcoming EHRC guidance. Critically, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has indicated that it will be updating its statutory code of practice for services, public functions and associations in light of this ruling, which will include some of the examples raised this afternoon, including by my noble friend Lady Hayter.
Ministers will consider the proposals once the EHRC has submitted its updated draft. It is right that the Government and, indeed, Parliament fully consider this guidance alongside the judgment itself before amending the way that public authorities collect, hold and otherwise process data—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the EHRC ruling.
I set out in my opening speech that this Government take the issue of data accuracy seriously. That is why, as I outlined, there are numerous existing work streams addressing the way in which sex and gender data are collected and otherwise processed across the public sector.
The digital verification services amendments that we have discussed today are misplaced, because the Bill does not alter the evidence and does not seek to alter the content of data used by digital verification services. Instead, the Bill enables people to do digitally what they can do physically. It is for organisations to consider what specific information they need to verify their circumstances, and how they go about doing that. Any inconsistency between what they can do digitally and what they can do physically would cause further confusion.
While this Government understand the intention behind the amendments, the concerns regarding the way in which public authorities process sex and gender data should be considered holistically, taking into account the effects of the Supreme Court ruling, the upcoming guidance from the equalities regulator and the specific requirements of public authorities. It is very unlikely that the digital verification services would be used for many of the cases specifically raised by or with many noble Lords. We expect DVS to be used primarily to prove things like one’s right to work or one’s age, address or professional educational qualifications.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, rightly highlights that the proposals have the potential to interfere with the right to respect for private and family life under the Human Rights Act by, in effect, indiscriminately and indirectly pushing public authorities to record sex as biological sex in cases where it is not necessary or proportionate in that particular circumstance. I raise the example that has been brought up several times, and again by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox: it is not relevant for the French passport officer to know your biological sex. That is not the purpose of the passport.
We acknowledge, however, that there are safeguards that address the concerns raised by noble Lords, including those of the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, regarding information being shared under Clause 45 but without presenting issues that could cut across existing or prospective legislation and guidance. I remind the House that the data accuracy principle is already included in law. The principle requires that only data accurate for the purpose for which it is held can be used. Again, there are workstreams looking at data use to answer the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and indeed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked why it was not accurate for 15 years and what that means about our reliance on this accuracy. I am afraid the fact is that it was accurate for 15 years because there was a muddle about what was being collected. There was no requirement to push for biological sex, but that is the case now. In response to the question of whether you could end up with two different sources of digital verification showing two different biological sexes, the answer is no.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I beg the House’s indulgence and indeed the Minister’s for my interrupting him. The fact is that the Supreme Court has confirmed what was always the law: that the Equality Act meant biological sex. It is therefore not true that the data accuracy principle has ensured that the law has been followed for the past 15 years. I am sorry, I find that answer a little dismissive. I do not think we can rely on that sort of assurance, and I apologise for saying that.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I apologise to the noble Baroness if she found that dismissive. My point was to try to say that there is a clear imperative under the new situation to have biological sex verified as biological sex. As a result—though not in all cases; I have given an example where it would be inappropriate to have that information—where you need that, it would not be possible, to answer her second question, to have two different sources of verification that gave two different biological sexes.
When information is shared through the gateway, it will be clear what that information represents, including in relation to sex and gender. In the light of the Supreme Court judgment, I further reassure Members by clarifying that, before the information gateway provision is commenced, the Government will carefully consider how and when biological sex may be relevant in the context of digital verification checks, and will take that into account when preparing the DVS code of practice.
I hope that these commitments and the assurance about the EHRC will provide noble Lords with reassurances that their concerns will indeed be taken into account. The amendments proposed do not fully take into account the fact that the Gender Recognition Act gives those with gender recognition certificates a level of privacy and control over who has access to information about their gender history. It is essential that Government have the chance to fully assess the Supreme Court judgment and update guidance accordingly. Given the need to consider this area holistically to ensure alignment with existing legislation and upcoming EHRC guidance, the breadth of work already being carried out on public data standards and data harmonisation and statistics, and the specific reassurance on compliance with the accuracy principle under the UK GDPR, I hope the noble Viscount feels comfortable not pressing his amendments.
I turn to Motion 43A from the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. Scientific research is one of the UK’s great strengths. We are home to four of the top 10 universities in the world and are in the top three in scientific outputs. Today’s researchers depend on data, and the UK data protection framework contains certain accommodations for processing personal data for purposes that meet the definition of scientific research in Clause 67. I understand the noble Viscount’s intention to avoid misuse of these research provisions, but the Royal Society has said the reasonableness test in the Bill provides adequate protection against that. The Bill actually tightens the current position, with the ICO being able to use the reasonableness test. “Reasonable” does not mean the subjective opinion of an uninformed person; it refers to an objective, fair observer with good judgment and knowledge of the relevant facts. Such tests are well known to UK courts.
The Bill does not extend and expand that definition. If something is not considered scientific research now, it will not be under the Bill. Similarly, the Bill does not provide any new permission for reusing data for other research purposes. Moreover, further safeguards are provided in Clause 86 and the wider UK GDPR, including the requirement that processing be fair. The Bill clarifies that all reuse of data must have a lawful basis, putting an end to previous confusion on the matter. Adding further specific conditions to the definition in law will be unnecessary and impose a disproportionate burden on researchers, who already say they spend too much time on red tape. The previous Government rightly started to tackle the pernicious creep of increased bureaucracy in research. We should not add more. At worst, this could have an unintended harmful consequence and exclude genuine researchers.
The Frascati manual provides useful guidance; it is not, however, a legal definition. Requiring researchers to start complying with a new legal standard, and one that might change, would undoubtedly create more committees and more bureaucracy—the very thing that Max Perutz argued against in his guidelines on great research.
My noble friend Lord Winston and the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, have given powerful examples. Let me give two examples of where the proposals might cause problems. Does requiring research to be creative hinder the essential task in science of testing or reproducing existing findings? Does the Frascati manual definition of “systematic”, which means “budgeted”, exclude unfunded, early research trying to get a foothold? Let us not dampen the UK’s world-leading research sector for a protection that is already included in the Bill.
I sympathise with the intentions of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. I assure him that the Bill also contains a power to add to the existing safeguards and narrow access to the research provisions if necessary. The Government would not hesitate to use that power if it ever became necessary to tackle misuse.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
Moved by
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 2 to 31.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
Moved by
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 32.
Viscount Camrose
Moved by
32A: Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 32, and do propose Amendments 32B and 32C to the words so restored to the Bill—
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the Minister for his very able summing up of his position, but I am afraid I cannot get past the question in my mind of how existing legacy data, even if it is managed by a DVS system going forward, will suddenly be of high quality when it is currently, as we know from the Sullivan report, in a muddle. As a result, for all his eloquence, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 33.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 34 and do propose Amendments 34B and 34C instead of the words so left out of the Bill—
“106CA Guidance
(1) The Secretary of State must produce guidance for persons described in subsection (2) about how to protect information kept in, or obtained from, NUAR.
(2) The persons are persons who, pursuant to regulations made under section 106C, are able to access information kept in NUAR.
(3) The Secretary of State may revise or replace the guidance.
(4) The Secretary of State must publish the guidance (and any revised or replacement guidance) in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for bringing it to the attention of persons described in subsection (2).
(5) The same guidance may discharge the obligations of the Secretary of State under this section and under Article 45CA of the Street Works (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/3210 (N.I. 19)).”
“45CA Guidance
(1) The Secretary of State must produce guidance for persons described in paragraph (2) about how to protect information kept in, or obtained from, NUAR.
(2) The persons are persons who, pursuant to regulations made under Article 45C, are able to access information kept in NUAR.
(3) The Secretary of State may revise or replace the guidance.
(4) The Secretary of State must publish the guidance (and any revised or replacement guidance) in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for bringing it to the attention of persons described in paragraph (2).
(5) The same guidance may discharge the obligations of the Secretary of State under this Article and under section 106CA of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991.”
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 35 to 42.
“(4A) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the Welsh Ministers in relation to any provision that relates to apparatus in streets in Wales.”
“(A1) Before making regulations under this Order the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the Department for Infrastructure.”
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 43.
Viscount Colville of Culross
43A: At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 43B instead of the words so left out of the Bill—
“2A. For the purposes of paragraph 2, “scientific research” means creative and systematic work undertaken in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of humankind, culture and society, and to devise new applications of available knowledge.
2B. To meet the reasonableness test in paragraph 2, the activity being described as scientific research must be conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks, obligations and standards.””
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I listened carefully to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Winston and Lord Tarassenko, but I am not convinced that my amendment would stop the research as they suggested. However, it would protect users’ data as the technological revolution unfolds. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 44.
The Parliamentary Hnder-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will speak also to Amendments 45 to 51 and 78. There has, quite reasonably, been significant interest in the topic of AI and copyright. This is a hugely important issue, and a complex one. I hope that noble Lords will bear with me as I set out the Government’s position, which has been the subject of some misrepresentation in recent reporting. I make it clear that this Bill does not introduce any changes to copyright law or wider intellectual property regulation. It does not introduce an opt-out system, nor does it contain any delegated powers that would allow such a system to be implemented. All existing copyright rules continue to apply to the use of material for AI training in exactly the way it did before the Bill was introduced.
This Government recognise the enormous economic and social value of our creative industries. We saw that just last week, as the nation came together to commemorate the anniversary of VE Day. Our creative sector entertains and informs us. It is the best of us as a nation. Our manifesto quite rightly pledged to work with the creative industries to unlock their potential after years of neglect. As noble Lords will know, the creative industries are worth £124 billion GVA and support 2.4 million jobs. Since 2010, they have grown at 1.5 times the rate of the rest of the economy.
The creative industries are one of our eight priority strands within our industrial strategy. In January 2025, as a first step in delivering that strategy, we announced: first, that the British Business Bank will increase its support for creative industry businesses to help them access the finances they need to grow; secondly, that UKRI will strengthen support for the sector to drive R&D-led growth; thirdly, that shorter-duration apprenticeships as a first step towards a flexible growth and skills levy that meets creative industry employers' needs will be introduced; fourthly, a commitment to devolve funding to six priority mayoral strategic authorities to drive the growth of creative clusters; and, fifthly, a £19 million package of funding for programmes including the UK Games Fund, the UK Global Screen Fund, music export growth schemes and create growth programmes. The Government will build on this support through the upcoming creative industry sector plan, which we publish very soon.
Our manifesto also recognises both the opportunities and the risks of AI. We pledged to take early action, and one part of this was the launch of a detailed consultation on the future of copyright reform to ensure that protections are fit for purpose as technology evolves and its use becomes more widespread. That consultation closed earlier this year, and we are now analysing a large volume of responses—something in the region of 11,500—and assessing the evidence that we have received. Our proposals will be based on that evidence and what works, rather than any preferred option. This will take time to do properly and, as such, the Government did not and do not believe that this Bill is the right vehicle to make any substantial changes to the law on this issue. Yes, we must act quickly, but we must also continue our thinking and engagement to ensure that the policy outcome is the one that best balances the potential of AI and the need to support rights holders.
Although we do not believe that this Bill is the right vehicle for wholesale change to copyright law, we understand the need to demonstrate that this Government, unlike others, want to follow best practice, engage meaningfully with all sides and come to the right conclusions. This is why the elected House took the decision to remove the relevant amendments passed during Lords stages and insert new provisions to demonstrate our commitment to legislate on AI in a fair, evidence-based way.
Of course we agree that there should be greater transparency about the use of protected material to train AI models. We agree that there should be more work done to identify the technical solutions that will empower rights holders to decide whether and how their material is used. We must continue to talk to all sides and to ensure that a reformed copyright regime is carefully thought through, effectively and robustly supported by the evidence. As our amendments set out, we will report on four substantive areas within 12 months. These will clearly signpost what we want to deliver and how we propose to do so. We will also carry out an economic impact assessment of the proposed changes once we have come to a settled view.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the Government’s case so clearly. I will speak to my Amendment 46A, which seeks to improve the report that the Government brought forward in the other place. This issue is causing real concern for copyright owners and so many others in the creative industries. Let us remind ourselves that the creative industries contributed £124 billion in gross value added to the UK economy in 2023 and outperformed the UK economy between 2010 and 2023 in terms of growth. The Government are, wisely and rightly, prioritising growth over other concerns, and the creative industries will have to be an essential part of this—but only to the extent that they have a trusted and efficient marketplace for intellectual property.
Our amendment would improve the Government’s proposed report by adding consideration of extra territorial use of creators’ copyright works by operators of web crawlers and AI systems, as well as consideration of establishing a digital watermark for the purposes of identifying licensed content. I very much take on board the Minister’s point that this must be international to work, but few countries, if any, would have better or greater convening power to initiate the process of creating such digital standards. I urge the Government to pursue that avenue.
I pay tribute to all noble Lords who have raised the issue of copyright during the passage of this Bill. I am sure that I will be joining many others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who has led such a powerful and successful campaign on this issue. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have recognised the serious concerns raised by the creative sector and, on Report, we tabled an amendment seeking to create a digital watermark to identify this content and to protect copyright owners. I am very pleased that the Government have taken the first step by amending the Bill in the other place to put a report in it. That being said, the report needs to go further. If the Government are unwilling to accept our changes, I will test the opinion of the House when my amendment is called.
I turn briefly to Motion 49A, I the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I once again pay tribute to the work that she has done to make progress on this. While we had concerns about the drafting of her amendment on Report, I am very pleased that she has tabled her Amendment 49B today. With the additional parts of it targeted at supporting small businesses and micro-entities, we are delighted to support it. It is increasingly clear that the Government must do the right thing for our creative industries, and we are delighted to offer our support to Motoin 49A. I intend to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 46A when it is called.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Motion 49A and offer my support to Amendment 46A in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose. It is a sensible amendment and I hope that the Government find a way to accept it without challenge.
I start by rebutting three assertions that have been circling over the past few weeks. First, I reject the notion that those of us who have raised our voices against government plans are against technology. I quote the Secretary of State, Peter Kyle, who I am delighted to see is below Bar this afternoon. He said to the FT that:
“Just as in every other time there is change in society, there will be some people who will either resist change or try to make change too difficult to deliver”.
Well, creative people are early adopters of technology. Their minds are curious and their practices innovative. In my former career as a film director, I watched the UK film industry transform from working on celluloid to being a world-leading centre of digital production. For the past five years at Oxford’s Institute for Ethics in AI, where I am an advisor, I have been delighted to watch the leaps and bounds of AI development. Those at the frontier of AI development are creative thinkers, and creative people are natural innovators. The Government’s attempt to divide us is wrong.
The transformational impact of technology is something that all the signatories of this weekend’s letter to the Prime Minister understand. Creators do not deny the creative and economic value of AI, but we do deny the assertion that we should have to build AI for free with our work and then rent it back from those who stole it. Ours is not an argument about progress but about value. The AI companies fiercely defend their own IP but deny the value of our work. Not everything new is progress, not everything that already exists is without value, but we, the creative industries, embody both change and tradition, and we reject the assertion that we are standing in the way of change. We are merely asserting our right to continue to exist and play our part in the UK’s future growth.
Secondly, there is no confusion about copyright law in relation to AI, nor does the phenomenal number of submissions to the consultation prove anything other than the widespread outrage of the creative industries that the Government sought to redefine theft rather than uphold their property rights. In our last debate, my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss made an unequivocal statement to that effect which has been widely supported by other legal opinion. The Government’s spokesman, who has greeted every press inquiry of the last few weeks by saying that the Government are consulting to sort out the confusion in copyright in relation to AI is, at best, misinformed. Let me be clear: the amendment would not change copyright. We do not need to change copyright law. We need transparency so that we can enforce copyright law, because what you cannot see you cannot enforce.
Thirdly, I rebut the idea that this is the wrong Bill and the wrong time. AI did not exist in the public realm until the early 2020s. The speed and scale at which copyright works are being stolen is eye-watering. Property that people have invested in, have created, have traded and that they rely on for their livelihood is being stolen at all parts of the value chain. It is an assault on the British economy, happening at scale to a sector worth £120 billion to the UK, an industry that is central to the industrial strategy and of enormous cultural import. It is happening now, and we have not even begun to catch up with the devastating consequences. The Government have taken our amendments out of the Bill and replaced them with a couple of toothless reports. Whatever these reports bring forward and whatever the consultation offers, we need the amendment in front of us today now. If this Bill does not protect copyright then, by the time that the Government work out their policy, there will be little to save.
The language of AI—scraping, training, data modules, LLMs—does not evoke the full picture of what is being done. AI corporations, many of which are seeking to entrench their existing information monopolies, are not stealing nameless data. They are stealing some of the UK’s most valuable cultural and economic assets—Harry Potter, the entire back catalogue of every music publisher in the UK, the voice of Hugh Grant, the design of an iconic handbag and the IP of our universities, great museums and library collections. Even the news is stolen in real time, all without payment, with economic benefits being taken offshore. It costs UK corporations and individuals their hard-earned wealth and the Treasury much needed revenue. It also denudes the opportunities of the next generation because, whether you are a corporation or an individual, if work is stolen at every turn, you cannot survive. The time is now, and this Bill is the vehicle.
Motion 49A replaces the previous package of Lords amendments. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who wishes he could be with us; the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and his colleagues, who have been uncompromising in their support; and my noble friend Lord Freyberg, who were all co-sponsors of the original amendment.
Amendment 49B would simply provide that a copyright holder be able to see who took their work, what was taken, when and why, allowing them a reasonable route to assert their moral right to determine whether they wish to have their work used, and if so, on what terms. It is a slimmer version of the previous package of amendments, but it covers the same ground and, importantly, it puts a timeline of 12 months on bringing forward these provisions and makes specific provision for SMEs and micro-entities and for UK-headquartered AI companies.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group and chairman of the Royal College of Music.
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron; I strongly support Motion 49A in her name. All who value the creative life of our country owe her an enormous debt of gratitude for her doughty campaigning, and I agree with everything that she said in thanking all those who have taken part.
At the heart of this debate there are—the Minister made that point—two complex policy issues: the rapid development and regulation of AI and the operation of copyright law. Both can seem a bit daunting to those not directly involved. AI is scary, copyright law is highly complex and many would be forgiven simply for wanting to steer clear. But not one of us can turn our back today with impunity on this issue. We all have a responsibility because, if we strip this debate back to its basics, there are three very simple principles at stake that affect all our lives and are central to everything that this House stands for.
The first is the defence of property. For centuries, since the copyright Act of 1709, when an individual has created something—a book, a film, some music—they have retained ownership of it and earned a living from its use. It is their property and the law protects them. That centuries-old right is under threat for the first time because the Government refuse properly to apply the law to artificial intelligence, allowing it simply to plunder someone else’s work and profit from it. They are putting AI beyond the scope of the law by failing to give creators the transparency they need to inform it.
At heart, this is dead simple. Unless this Bill is amended, it is the equivalent of saying to a homeowner that, once they have bought a house and filled it with their possessions, the Government want them to leave the front door wide open, invite anonymous passers-by to come in, take anything they want for free and allow them to go away and sell it for their own profit, while the homeowner has no protection at all in law. It is legalising theft. This amendment simply seeks to allow those who create content in an age of rapacious AI to put a lock on their door and protect their property by letting them know when theft is taking place and giving them a form of redress. If this House stands for anything, it must stand for the protection of property.
The second is the nurturing of human creativity. It was Beethoven—the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will correct me if I have got this wrong—who once said that there is a “divine spark”, a creative genius, in all of us. Whether we paint a picture, take a photograph or write a piece of music, we all have something in us that allows us to express ourselves and enrich the lives of others in doing so. It is copyright that protects our ability to do that. That is why the creative life of the UK has always been so vibrant, so colourful, so entertaining and so powerful. It is why our creative industries flourish and play such a vital role in economic growth. If you take away copyright protection, you snuff out that divine spark and endanger the livelihoods of those who depend on their own creative ability for their living. If this House stands for anything, it must stand for nurturing creativity and the divine spark.
Finally, and most importantly, there is the defence of democracy itself. If it has been said once in this House, it has been said a thousand times: democracy depends on the existence of a free, independent press, empowering the electorate with reliable information and scrutinising those in power. That role is even more important in an age of disinformation and unverified, unregulated, AI-generated content, with editorial judgment and oversight overtaken by algorithms and the tyranny of recycled, distorted, circular information. But the provision of independent and verified regulated news will be among the very first victims of AI if this amendment is not passed and we do not act very soon.
I do not say this lightly; having spent almost my whole career in the media, I am choosing my words very carefully, but I have to give the House this warning. AI has the capacity utterly to destroy independent news organisations, because it feasts off millions of articles written by journalists without any attribution or payment, destroying the business model that makes the free press possible. Without action this day, news will die in the cold darkness of cyberspace, where no legal framework exists: the advertising which supports it taken by the platforms, its content stolen by AI. There will be only a husk left.
The answer is this amendment, which will turbocharge an embryonic licensing market to ensure fair payment for creators and access to high-quality information for AI models. If the AI developers are forced to declare whose content they are taking, they will know they will end up in the courts if they do not negotiate a licence. The term “existential threat” is bandied around too much, but this is not crying wolf. Unless we introduce transparency, control over content and fair remuneration within in a dynamic licensing market, the threat to free media is genuinely existential. As a consequence, the threat to democracy itself is also genuinely existential. If this House stands for anything, it must stand for democracy.
We have to act now. The Bill’s laissez-faire approach to copyright protection, in craven obeisance to the platforms, means that we will not get any action on transparency until well-nigh the end of this Parliament. For many publications, however, by that point, the end will already have come, and, once lost, there will be no way of recreating the plural, competitive media that has sustained parliamentary democracy for centuries. It is game over. That may sound alarmist, but it is absolutely what is at stake here. To any noble Lord considering voting against this amendment, I say this: it is already five minutes to midnight for our free press and our democracy. Unless we back this amendment today, history will damn this House with its most deadly words: “Too late”.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My noble Lords, friends and those of a creative disposition, lend me your ears. Even though I have come late to this Bill, I wonder what Shakespeare would have had to say about Al. Last night, I presented the special BAFTA award to ITV for commissioning the landmark drama “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”, which is British television at its best. I wondered whether AI would have had the intuitive instinct to create such an important drama, which brought about societal change. That is why I rise to strongly support my intrepid friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on her Motion 49A and declare an interest as per the register.
As this Bill has shown, we stand at a fascinating—and perhaps unsettling—crossroads in the world of creativity. The rise of artificial intelligence is no longer a futuristic fantasy. It is a tangible force, reshaping the very fabric of our creative industry and potentially stealing livelihoods and, most of all, our children’s future. Do the Government really want that to be part of their legacy?
For centuries, the essence of acting or singing has been a unique connection between a human performer and an audience. We pour our emotions, experiences and understanding of the human condition into convincing characters, telling stories that emotionally connect. Now, however, AI is stepping on to our stage, offering digital doubles, synthesised voices and the potential of entirely AI-generated programmes, including animated children’s programmes.
The immediate impacts are already being felt. AI tools can now replicate an actor’s likeness and voice, raising concerns about the unauthorised use of identities, both living and deceased. The ability to create digital doubles or stunts—or even entire scenes—will reduce the demand for human actors. Some argue that AI will be a tool to enhance our craft, aiding in voice training, accent work or even music and scriptwriting; but the underlying anxiety about job displacement is real and valid.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, this is my first contribution on this Bill, although I have sat in every debate on this issue going back to Committee. I do not have a creative nerve in my body—I have nothing to declare—but my life and those of hundreds of millions of others have been enhanced by writers, actors and music-makers across the world.
It is sad in a way—and this is not a criticism of anybody personally who is around at the present time—that the nature of Labour in Parliament has changed. When I arrived in the Commons 51 years ago, on the Labour Benches was Maurice Edelman, 30 years there from 1945, a writer of fiction and non-fiction of note. My near neighbour, parliamentary-wise, was Andrew Faulds, who was already in; he played Jet Morgan in “Journey into Space” and Carver Doon in the series of “Lorna Doon”. In fact, I have been wondering in the last couple of days, knowing I was going to refer to him, how the little people—the little helpers for the Prime Minister in the Whips’ Office in the other place—would cope with Andrew today. He was a formidable character who could scare the life out of his friends.
Thirty years after that, I joined this place. Ruth Rendell was on the Benches. David Puttnam, the world-renowned producer, joined some years later, and we have my noble friend Lord Cashman. I make this personal. I do not speak for any of them and have not spoken to anybody about what I was going to say, although I indicated my view to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, at the weekend. But I am being asked to deliver wholesale—I have to say that I have a bit of criticism about delivery—the work of these people to big tech. I am not doing it. I have not the slightest intention of doing it, which is why I shall vote for this amendment.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
I too support the noble Baroness.
As I said at the previous stage of this Bill, it surely goes without saying that our United Kingdom copyright law has to counter the increasing theft of intellectual property by artificial intelligence companies.
As the noble Baroness’s present amendment illustrates, we should provide transparency criteria that would allow copyright holders to identify when and from where their work has been taken. I am sure that all your Lordships will agree with that aim, as well as being well aware of the strong human rights back-up support to us from the 46 states’ affiliation of the Council of Europe, of which the United Kingdom remains a prominent member and of whose education committee I am a recent chairman.
As many of your Lordships know, first and foremost, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to privacy, including of personal data. Article 1 of its initial protocol protects property rights, including intellectual property rights and copyright.
Secondly, Article 5 of the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime prohibits system interference by, for example, the transmission of computer data, while its Article 10 stipulates
“Offences related to infringements of copyright and related rights”.
Thirdly, Article 11 of the 2024 Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law safeguards privacy and personal data.
Regarding copyright protection in recent centuries, and as emphasised at an earlier stage of our discussions on this Bill, we can be justly proud of our own United Kingdom record, beginning, as is well known, with the Statute of Anne 1710, which granted legal protection to publishers of books.
In the interests of those both here and abroad, we must now uphold the high standards of that tradition. The United Kingdom should guide the good practice. Here, today, supporting the noble Baroness’s amendment is a clear example of our ability so to do.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I will be brief partly because it is such a simple amendment: it would just put the principle of the transparency of these models in the Bill. We need to know what goes into these models for two reasons. The first is so that any form of copyright can be prosecuted. At the moment, how can we know that even our current copyright rules have been broken if we do not know what goes into these models? It does not matter whether the Government are thinking about changing the copyright rules. Whatever copyright rules we have, we need to know what is being used in the models.
The second reason is the outputs of these models. We need to know on what they were trained in order to know their strengths and weaknesses. The noble Lord, Lord Vallance, himself said this in answer to a question from my noble friend Lady Coussins during Oral Questions on Tuesday: if the data that has gone into the model is not transparent, we cannot ascertain its strengths and weaknesses without extensive proxy measurements and probing.
On these two principles, it is vital that this simple amendment goes through today. That it has some added benefits from being able to legislate separately for small and medium-sized enterprises, micro-businesses and UK businesses just adds to the fact that this amendment has been carefully crafted to give us exactly what we need in the Bill today.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, posed an appropriate question: what would Shakespeare make of AI? The answer is rather like the proverbial million monkeys on their typewriter: so far they have failed to produce a credible version of Shakespeare, but they have produced several improved versions of The Art of the Deal, as far as I can ascertain.
I too will speak to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the government amendments that came back from the House of Commons. I thank the Minister for her engagement on this and the briefing that she gave earlier today to noble friends, other colleagues and noble Peers across the House, and my very good personal friend Minister Chris Bryant, whose charismatic presence I felt around us earlier—almost as if he was observing our proceedings.
I also thank the Secretary of State for having confirmed, via a third party in last weekend’s press, that the Government have changed their position on having the opt-out in the consultation as their preferred position. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that on the Floor of the House today, because I believe that is an accurate position and an accurate assessment, even though it was delivered via a spokesperson rather than directly by the Secretary of State. It is a very helpful change, and I welcome the movement the Government have made in the amendments they put forward. I note that it is part of Motion 49A that we accept the government amendments to produce the reports that were mentioned.
I declare that I am a member of the Ivors Academy and the Musicians’ Union, and draw attention to my entry in the register. Creative remuneration was one of the central issues that I worked on as a parliamentarian for the 23 years I was in the House of Commons, certainly while I was on the Front Bench in opposition, as a member of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, as it was then, and as the sponsor of a Private Member’s Bill in the Commons. Although it did not get into law, the Copyright (Rights and Remuneration of Musicians, Etc.) Bill had a significant influence and led, for example, to the creation of the remuneration committee, which is currently sitting within the offices of the Intellectual Property Office. Strong efforts are being made, with very strong engagement from Minister Chris Bryant, to hold to account everyone concerned in the music industry to improve remuneration for creators, and particularly for musicians, which is my interest.
This is not just about rights holders. I have never understood why anybody in the creative industries could, for example, start off with a love of music and creativity but become an executive in the creative industries and think that they are worthy of being paid more than the people who actually create the wonderful content that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was speaking about earlier. How can a music industry executive reward themselves with a greater remuneration than the entire remuneration of every songwriter in this country? There is only one explanation: by the personal attrition of their soul—but that is another matter altogether.
The Bill is an opportunity. The key point is that obviously the elected House should have its way—I strongly believe that, as a former Member—but it is important that this House has its say along the way and that transparency is key. We cannot enforce copyright and rights holders cannot enforce their rights unless there is transparency. This Bill, this bus, is an opportunity that the Government should be getting on rather than waiting for another bus several years down the road, in the form of some future primary legislation. I hope that there is an opportunity for a compromise and that, should we send these amendments back to the other place, the Government look for a way to give a commitment towards ensuring that, through the Bill, they can take powers to regulate on transparency in the near future.
I was fortunate enough last week to accompany—this is an absolutely blatant name-drop—Björn Ulvaeus of Abba.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, objects. He would never do such a thing himself. I am glad he introduced me to the founder of Motown Records on one occasion in these Corridors, so he would never do something similar himself.
As I showed him the Royal Gallery, he took particular interest in one of the frescoes and asked me, “Who is that in that fresco speaking to the Duke of Wellington?” I said, “Well, that’s Marshal Blücher, of course, the head of the Prussian army at—”, and suddenly the penny dropped. I said to him, “Somebody should write a song about that”, and he said, “Yes, that’s a great idea. It could be a metaphor for a love affair”. I said, “I’m surprised no one’s thought of that before”—and we never mentioned the word “Waterloo” once.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Black, mentioned Beethoven. In declaring my interests as a composer, I should also mention that I have acted as an expert witness in cases of musical copyright. While doing that, I was asked by one of my learned friends, “What constitutes something that’s worthy of copyright?” I said, “Ba ba ba bom”. Why? Because that, in terms of the law, is a substantial idea. Just think what has been made of it ever since. The whole notion of copyright comes down to something valuable; it does not matter how long or how short it is. Creativity in the UK is already, I am afraid, in a somewhat parlous state and any erosion of copyright will add yet another cut to an already wounded body.
The Minister mentioned technology and, of course, we all use technology. We all want to use technology. The famous composers—wonderful songwriters, including Paul McCartney, Elton John and Sting—who have headed the letter to the Prime Minister, have all used technology to great effect. With the greatest respect, it is slightly insulting to say to them that we are pulling the shutters down because we want to know who is using our music. That cannot be something, intellectually, that holds water. People need to know how their music is being used. They have a right to know.
Why is this an important factor? Let me give the example, which I have mentioned once before in your Lordships’ House, of what happened with streaming. In other words, we have been bitten once already. In a way, I welcome opening music and the arts to the whole world through the internet, and streaming certainly does that, but what did it do? A very well-known musician, a top 10 artist, said to me the other day, “Where does all this money go? It doesn’t go to us”. If you ask Paul McCartney, Elton John or Sting how their royalties have changed over the years, they will tell you that they have gone down massively.
This is not just about famous musicians. Paul McCartney, Elton John and Sting would be the first to say that this is also about the little-known songwriters who at the moment make a pittance but are hoping to make something. Obviously, those famous names attract attention. It is quite right that they do and I am grateful for their support. However, there is also a whole other section, the contemporary classical music section, which I know supports the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, as do writers, theatre directors and filmmakers. This is a very dangerous Bill if we cannot curtail this.
I am glad the Minister is listening and wants to help and wants to find a way through. If we do not make improvements to this, we could be short-changing something that brings an absolute fortune into the Treasury: not just a fortune in money but a fortune in joy. I have mentioned Paul McCartney, Elton John and Sting—think about what they have brought into people’s lives. Although my section, the contemporary classical section, may be less famous and less well known, those musicians too have a right to be heard. Their view is that, if you allow, for example, training—it is suggested that it might be okay to allow people to use our products in training—that is the thin end of the wedge.
When streaming came in, the record industry virtually disappeared. I know the manager of a classical record company who said to me, “Why would we want to record this piece? It’s already out there on the internet”. You have to think about what follows on from opening this world up. I think the Government are listening, and many noble Lords have pointed out exactly what the dangers are.
I certainly will support my noble friend Lady Kidron. She has done sterling work. We are not making a fuss about nothing. This is the thin end of the wedge and we have to try to curtail it now for the future of music—and indeed all the other arts—in this country.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
I welcome the government additions made to the Bill in the Commons and endorse my noble friend Lord Camrose’s amendments, especially those relating to removing barriers to entry. It is vital that AI does not end up controlled by the same tech firms that dominate cloud, search and social media. This important new technology presents an opportunity for challenger firms and new markets to emerge, including affordable access to quality copyrighted data. Much of what I will say in a moment is very much with them in mind.
As to the amendment on transparency from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, she is right, in the context of copyright, to prioritise transparency. As I have argued before, whatever kind of solution is eventually adopted, opt out or opt in, transparency will be necessary for that solution to work.
The noble Baroness is also right to press the urgency of this. Content creators cannot afford to wait, so she has my support and my vote. Indeed, with the support of both the Conservative and Lib Dem Benches today, the Government could well be defeated. That would be most welcome. I am sure the Minister does not like me saying that, but that is my view.
That said, there are some aspects of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that may, at this juncture, be a little bit too prescriptive for primary legislation ahead of a policy decision on the solution for how to uphold copyright. I will focus briefly on what happens next if the Government are defeated tonight.
I strongly urge the Government not to do what they can: remove the clause that the noble Baroness would add to the Bill once it got back down the other end. Instead, what I urge the Government to do what they should: bring back an amendment in lieu. We all want a future for AI, where the creative industries and the tech sector—big and little tech—can be confident that the playing field for competition is fair and, when it comes to the use of copyrighted content, that they can strike mutually beneficial deals.
We may be a little way off from achieving that way forward, as is reflected in the Government’s additions to the Bill and the work they have promised over the next 12 months, but that work should not preclude the Government taking a power in the Bill to bring back secondary legislation to address transparency as soon as they have finished the work outlined in their Amendment 46. As other noble Lords have already argued, transparency is needed now and, as I have said, it will be relevant to whatever policy solution the Government decide on. So, a requirement on them to act in this area is not unreasonable.
From the perspective of content creators, who, it has to be said, may well be immensely powerful in ensuring that they get publicity and coverage of their cause, the future looks highly uncertain. So, a binding commitment with a deadline to bring forward transparency regulations at this juncture, while the Bill is going through Parliament, is reasonable if such a new clause is not overly prescriptive. That is what I would advise the Government to do next, assuming they are defeated tonight.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak as the founder of two AI spin-outs, and I draw the House’s attention to my registered interests as the founder-director of Oxehealth, a University of Oxford spin-out that uses AI for healthcare applications. I am also the author of three copyrighted books.
Since these amendments were last debated in the House of Lords, there has been a lot of high-profile comment but very few attempts, if any, to bring AI developers and creators together in the same room. During the same period, however, more businesses from the creative industries and the publishing sector have agreed content-licensing deals. That is because access to curated, high-quality content to fine-tune large language models—the step after pre-training which provides high-accuracy responses—is increasingly being monetised.
Even the Guardian Media Group, a strong supporter of the creative industries, announced in February a strategic partnership with Open AI to ensure compensation for the use of its high-quality journalism. This shows that it is possible, without any change in the law, for the creative industries and the big tech companies to come to licensing agreements.
The main technological development since our last debate has been the demonstration that training LLMs no longer requires the massive computer facilities and huge data centres of the big tech companies in the US. Since the beginning of the year, the Chinese company DeepSeek has released open-source LLMs hundreds of times smaller than hyperscale models such as GPT-4, Gemini or Claude Sonnet. These models, typically with, say, 10 billion weights, have been developed through the process of distillation, and they achieve almost the same level of performance as the hyperscale models with 1 trillion weights.
Why is that important? It means that users of LLMs no longer have to send queries to those hyperscale models which are then processed by OpenAI, Google or Anthropic using their huge compute facilities with thousands of GPUs in their data centres. Instead, any AI developer can now train and run distilled versions of those LLMs locally on their laptops.
DeepSeek was the first AI company to show how powerful the process of distillation is in the context of LLMs. Other big tech companies are now jumping on the bandwagon. In early March, Google released a brand-new LLM called Gemma 3, a lightweight, state-of-the-art open-source model that can be run anywhere from smartphones to laptops, and has the ability to handle text, images, and short videos.
These open-source distilled LLMs are now being used by thousands of AI developers, in the UK and elsewhere, who are training and fine-tuning them using content, some of which may be copyrighted, publicly available on the web. Training an LLM on a laptop using data from the open web will become as commonplace as searching the web. This is already happening both within computer science departments in UK universities and in the rich ecosystem of AI start-ups and university spin-outs in the UK.
A survey of 500 developers and investors in the UK AI ecosystem, carried out by JL Partners last month, had 94% of them reporting that their work relied on AI models built using publicly available data from the web, and 66% reported that if the data laws in the UK were more restrictive than elsewhere, projects would move to other countries. We need to consider the impact on the UK’s AI industry of these transparency provisions, and of the requirement to provide copyright owners with information regarding the text and data used in the pre-training, training and fine-tuning of general-purpose AI.
The use of content from behind paywalls or from pirated databases such as Books3 or LibGen, which is known to have been done by Meta to train its LLM, is clearly illegal. However, for data publicly available on the open web, I would like to do a simple thought experiment to show that the transparency requirements in Motion 49A are at present unworkable. In the UK, unlike in the US, there is no copyright database. Usually, the copyright rests with the author of the work, but there are exceptions, such as when a work is created by an employee in the course of their job, and copyright may also be assigned or transferred to a third party. If we assume, generously, that it might take just one second, on average, to ascertain the copyright status of an article, book, image, or audio or video recording, on the web, it would require 31 years and eight months to check the copyright status of the 1 billion data points in a typical LLM training set—never mind thinking about setting up licensing deals with the millions of rights holders. For the distilled models that are now, as I explained, being trained or fine-tuned by UK developers, which are 100 times smaller, the copyright status check would still require one-third of a year—still an entirely unworkable proposition.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I was IP Minister for nearly three years and I am a long-standing member of the APPG on IP. It is a great pleasure to speak from the Back Benches and to support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and my noble friend Lord Camrose’s amendment.
What concerns me is that we are witnessing an assault on a sector worth £160 billion to the UK, as we have heard. Actually, I suspect that may be an underestimate, because IP and copyright are to be found in the nooks and crannies of so much of our life and our industry. There has been a lot of mention of music and media. Nobody has mentioned breeding and performance data on racehorses, information on art and antiques, or—close to my heart—the design, by young graduates, of gorgeous new clothing and fancy footwear of the kind that I wear. It is the small operators that are most at risk. That is why I am speaking today.
We are going too slowly. Amendments have been knocked back. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has been trying her hardest, with a great deal of support from right across Britain. As time goes by, AI and LLMs are stealing more of our creativity, hitting UK growth. I believe that the Government must get on. It is not easy, but it is a challenge they have to rise to, and very quickly.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I support Motion 49A from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I will also address claims that we have heard repeatedly in these debates: that transparency for AI data is technically unfeasible. This claim, forcefully pushed by technology giants such as Google, is not only unsupported by evidence but deliberately misleading.
As someone with a long-standing background in the visual arts, and as a member of DACS—the Design and Artists Copyright Society—I have witnessed first-hand how creators’ works are being exploited without consent or compensation. I have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, in both his email to colleagues today and the letter from entrepreneurs to the Secretary of State. Although I deeply respect their expertise and commitment to innovation, I must firmly reject their assessment, which echoes the talking points of trillion-dollar tech corporations.
The claims by tech companies that transparency requirements are technically unfeasible have been thoroughly debunked. The LAION dataset already meticulously documents over 5 billion images, with granular detail. Companies operate crawler services on this dataset to identify images belonging to specific rights holders. This irrefutably demonstrates that transparency at scale is not only possible but already practised when it suits corporate interests.
Let us be clear about what is happening: AI companies are systematically ingesting billions of copyrighted works without permission or payment, then claiming it would be too difficult to tell creators which works have been taken. This is theft on an industrial scale, dressed up as inevitable technological progress.
The claim from the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, that these amendments would damage UK AI start-ups while sparing US technology giants is entirely backwards. Transparency would actually level the playing field by benefiting innovative British companies while preventing larger firms exploiting creative works without permission. I must respectfully suggest that concerns about potential harm to AI start-ups should be balanced against the devastating impact on our creative industries, thousands of small businesses and individual creators whose livelihoods depend on proper recognition and compensation for their work. Their continued viability depends fundamentally on protecting intellectual property rights. Without transparency, how can creators even begin to enforce these rights? The question answers itself.
This is not about choosing between technology and creativity; it is about ensuring that both sectors can thrive through fair collaboration based on consent and compensation. Transparency is not an obstacle to innovation; it is the foundation on which responsible, sustainable innovation is built.
Google’s preferred approach would reverse the fundamental basis of UK copyright law by placing an unreasonable burden on rights holders to opt out of having their work stolen. This approach is unworkable and would, effectively, legalise mass copyright theft to benefit primarily American technology corporations.
Rather than waiting for a consultation outcome that may take years, while creative works continue to be misappropriated, Motion 49A offers a practical step forward that would benefit both sectors while upholding existing law. I urge the House to support it.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it has been a privilege to listen to today’s debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, really has opened the floodgates to expressions of support for human creativity. I thank her for tabling her Motion. I also thank the Minister for setting out the Government’s position and their support for the creative industries.
I suppose I straddle the world of AI and creativity as much as anybody in this House. I co-founded the All-Party Group on Artificial Intelligence and I have been a member of the All-Party Group on Intellectual Property for many years. That is reflected in my interests, both as an advisor to DLA Piper on AI policy and regulation, and as the newly appointed chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society. I declare those interests, which are more than merely formal.
The subject matter of the amendments in this group is of profound importance for the future of our creative industries and the development of AI in the UK: the critical intersection of AI training and copyright law, and, specifically, the urgent need for transparency. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, described, the rapid development of AI, particularly large language models, relies heavily on vast volumes of data for training. This has brought into sharp focus the way copyright law applies to such activity. It was impossible to miss the letter over the weekend from 400 really important creatives, and media and creative business leaders urging support for her Motion 49A. Rights holders, from musicians and authors to journalists and visual artists, are rightly concerned about the use of their copyrighted material to train AI models, often without permission or remuneration, as we have heard. They seek greater control over their content and remuneration when it is used for this purpose, alongside greater transparency.
Like others, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who has brilliantly championed the cause of creators and the creative industries throughout the passage of this Bill in her tabling of a series of crucial amendments. Her original amendments on Report, passed in this House but deleted by the Government in the Commons and then retabled in the Commons on Report by my honourable friends, aimed to make existing UK copyright law enforceable in the age of generative AI. The core argument behind Amendment 49B, which encapsulates the essence of the previous amendments, is that innovation in the AI field should not come at the expense of the individuals and industry creating original content.
The central plank of the noble Baroness’s proposals, and one these Benches strongly support, is the requirement for transparency from AI developers regarding the copyrighted material used in their training data. Her Amendment 49B specifically requires the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out strict transparency requirements for web crawlers and general-purpose AI models. This would include disclosing the identity and purpose of the crawlers used, identifying their owners and, crucially, keeping records of where and when copyrighted material is gathered. This transparency is vital for ensuring accountability and enabling copyright holders to identify potential infringements and enforce their rights.
The Minister described the process in the consultation on AI and copyright, published last December. That consultation proposed a text and data mining exception that would allow AI developers to train on material unless the rights holder expressly reserved their rights or opted out. The arguments against this proposed opt-out mechanism are compelling; they have been made by many noble Lords today and have been voiced by many outside, as we have heard. This mechanism shifts the burden on to creators to police the use of their work and actively opt out, placing an undue responsibility on them.
This approach undermines the fundamental principles of copyright, effectively rewarding the widespread harvesting or scraping of copyrighted material that has occurred without permission or fair remuneration. The Government’s proposed text and data-mining exception, which it appears that they are no longer proposing—as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, asked, perhaps the Minister can clarify the Government’s position and confirm that that is indeed the case—risks harming creative sectors for minimal gain to a small group of global tech companies and could erode public trust in the AI sector. As the noble Baroness observed, this approach is selling the creative industries down the river. Voluntary measures for transparency proposed by the Government are insufficient. Clear legal obligations are needed.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
I shall make a very brief speech. I stood up when the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, stood up, but unfortunately, as so often in my life, he completely ignored me, so I will just slip in after him and just before our Front Bench. I declare my interest in the register as an adviser to ProRata.ai, which is a company that seeks to pay royalties to creatives for the use of their content in AI models. It was good to see not only the Secretary of State, Peter Kyle, standing at the Bar, but also the Creative Industries Minister, Chris Bryant, which shows that something is up. They were very clearly wanting to be seen by the 400 or so creatives who wrote to the newspapers over the weekend expressing their concerns about the Government’s AI legislation and also to seek, as we all do, to curry favour with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who has led so well on so many of these issues.
As she was speaking and making the point that creatives and technologists are not apart at all, but are together, it reminded me that I became the Technology Minister in the Cameron Government because I was the Creative Industries Minister, and the reason I became the Technology Minister was because I was the only Minister in the Cameron Government in 2010 meeting the technology companies. The reason I was meeting the technology companies was because the technology companies were busily ripping off the intellectual property of the creative industries. At that time, in 2010, you would sit down with Google and say, “Anyone can search for any material on your website, come up with it illegally, stream it and download it without paying the creators of that material. What are you going to do about it?” Of course, they said, “We’re going to do absolutely nothing because you are just a little British Minister, and we only do what the White House tells us to do”.
The Labour Government had passed legislation that was concluded in the wash-up in 2010 that effectively criminalised, to coin a phrase, the teenager in their bedroom downloading music, just as perhaps some of us as teenagers might have taped music off the radio in the past. I knew when I became a Minister that that legislation was completely unworkable. It was pointless to be prosecuting teenagers when you should be taking on big tech. Actually, the music industry found a solution by using the Fraud Act and began to take action in the courts against websites that were completely ripping off IP. It allowed courts to order those websites to be blocked.
I also knew that there would be no solution until there was a commercial solution. In fact, that commercial solution has come about. In 2010, people were predicting the entire death of intellectual property, the death of the music industry, the death of the film industry and the death of television. They have never been healthier: there are commercial models because more people are prepared to pay a subscription to Spotify, Netflix or Amazon Prime to get great content for a reasonable price, so a commercial solution is possible when people work together.
It was interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, talking about the opt-out model because it implies that you can have a conversation between big tech and creatives. The creatives can either opt out or opt in. We referred earlier to licensing deals. If anyone reads FT Weekend—in fact, everyone in this Chamber obviously reads FT Weekend as it is the Bible of the chattering classes—Sam Altman from OpenAI was featured in “Lunch with the FT”, an honour he shares with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. In fact, I texted her when she was in “Lunch with the FT” and said that it is better than a peerage. At the beginning of that lunch, it says that the FT has a licensing deal with OpenAI, so it is possible to have licensing deals.
What I think none of us can really stand is the utter hypocrisy of people saying that, for the national interest, we have to rip off intellectual property. It is completely hypocritical and nonsensical. You would not find a single tech chief saying, “I think it is fine if people take our patents because that is how you get economic growth. Just take my patent”. In fact, you will not find a CEO saying that. You will see them saying in court, “He’s ripped off my patent, and I want my money back”. That is intellectual property that big tech is prepared to fight for, yet big tech is still prepared to tell us, just as they told us 15 years ago, that they can grow only by ripping off the IP of the creative industries. Let us face it: there may be AI start-ups that need open source. I totally accept that. It is a complicated landscape, but we are still talking about big tech. We are talking about Microsoft, OpenAI, xAI and Meta. We are talking about the role of the United States. Donald Trump wants to make Hollywood great again. This is where he could start.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I first thank all noble Lords from across the House for their many eloquent and well-made speeches. The Government share the passion displayed today. We all care about the creative sector and want to see it flourish. We all want to find ways to make that a reality. We are talking here about the practicalities of how we can do that in a proper way; that is what we are addressing today. Nobody doubts the fantastic contribution that the creative sector makes to the UK. I thought I had set out some of that in my opening speech, but I am very happy to confirm it again.
On the practicalities, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, sets out wide-ranging obligations on businesses that make AI models available in the UK and would require the Secretary of State to nominate a body to enforce them. I agree with the noble Baroness that the creative sector has always been an early adopter of technology, and that the creative and AI sectors go hand in hand. A number of noble Lords made that point, and made it well.
I also completely recognise the value generated by the creators—again a point well made by a number of noble Lords—and their great cultural and economic contributions to society. The noble Lords, Lord Black and Lord Berkeley, my noble friend Lord Brennan and many other speakers spoke about that.
It is the Government’s view—and, moreover, morally right—that creators should license and be paid for the use of their content. The Government have always been clear that we want to see more licensing by the AI sector. The obligations in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, however, would affect a wide range of businesses and require detailed disclosure of information. This would include a mechanism to identify individual works, but it is very uncertain whether it would be possible to meet that requirement when a significant proportion of material on the internet does not have clear metadata to facilitate this. The scale of the impact on those businesses is unknown but, without a proper impact assessment, there is a real risk that the obligations could lead to AI innovators, including many home-grown British companies, thinking twice about whether they wish to develop and provide their services in the UK.
We agree that, if transparency obligations are to be created in this way, there will need to be provision for their oversight and enforcement, but that is not something that can be dropped on the first regulator that comes to mind. There is currently no body with the skills and resources to perform this function. We need a proper discussion about funding, clarity over what enforcement powers are required, and answers to a whole range of other questions.
It should also be noted that one of the main issues that creative industries are struggling with is enforcement of their rights under the current rules. As was said earlier—and I am happy to reiterate—we are not saying that the copyright laws are broken; at the heart of this is the question of enforcement.
Transparency would help with knowing what is being used, but that alone will not be a silver bullet for small creators and businesses seeking redress through our legal system. As many noble Lords will know, there are live court cases in train in the UK and other key jurisdictions. The Government, and I, recognise the urgency of the problem, as so fantastically put by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin.
This is why DCMS and DSIT Ministers are prioritising meetings with creative and AI stakeholders to discuss potential solutions as a top priority. Indeed, they held meetings and discussions with both sectors last September. We have moved quickly to consult, having hosted round tables and bilateral meetings with creatives and their representatives. These have been of great value and we will continue to hold those meetings.
However, all these moving parts mean that something needs to be developed as a full working approach. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, does not offer an instant solution, instead asking the Government to come up with regulations in 12 months. We cannot make such significant interventions without properly understanding the impact. This is why our position is to report on four substantive issues within 12 months and set out our proposals in that time. As I said in my opening speech, our proposals will be based on the evidence from the 11,500 responses and, indeed, will concentrate on what works rather than any preferred option. As the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, said, the solution must indeed involve creators and AI developers being in the same room, and this is what we will endeavour to do.
I further agree with the noble Lord that AI should not become a way to whitewash copyright piracy. The Government support strong action against copyright piracy and we will continue to do so. I also agree that it is important to support transparency. I cannot say this strongly enough. Noble Lords have seemed to suggest that we are not taking that issue seriously. Of course we are. The Government fully support and are encouraged by the work of the IETF and other fora developing new standards to help identify metadata, which will make this easier.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 45.
“Economic impact assessment
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning
with the day on which this Act is passed—
(a) prepare and publish an assessment of the economic impact in the United Kingdom of each of the four policy options described in section B.4 of the Copyright and AI Consultation Paper, read with relevant parts of section C of that Paper (policy options about copyright law and the training of artificial intelligence models using copyright works), and
(b) lay a document containing the assessment before Parliament. Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL] 7
(2) The document may include an assessment of the economic impact in the United Kingdom of policy options which are alternatives to the options described in subsection (1)(a).
(3) An assessment included in the document must, among other things, include assessment of the economic impact of each option on—
(a) copyright owners, and
(b) persons who develop or use AI systems, including the impact on copyright owners, developers and users who are individuals, micro businesses, small businesses or medium-sized businesses.
(4) In this section—
“AI system” means a machine-based system that, from the input it receives, can infer how to—
(a) generate predictions, digital content, recommendations, decisions or other similar outputs, or
(b) influence a physical or virtual environment, with a view to achieving an explicit or implicit objective;
“the Copyright and AI Consultation Paper” means the command paper “Copyright and AI: Consultation”, numbered CP1205, published on 17 December 2024;
“copyright owner” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988;
“develop” an AI system means carry on an activity involved in producing the system, such as (for example) designing, programming, training or testing the system (and related terms are to be interpreted accordingly); “digital content” means data which is produced and supplied in digital form; “medium-sized business” means a business with at least 50 but fewer than 250 staff;
“micro business” means a business with fewer than 10 staff;
“small business” means a business with at least 10 but fewer than 50 staff;
“use” an AI system means instruct an AI system to generate outputs or to influence an environment (and related terms are to be interpreted accordingly).”
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 46.
“Report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed—
(a) prepare and publish a report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems, and
(b) lay the report before Parliament.
(2) The report must consider—
(a) the four policy options described in section B.4 of the Copyright and AI Consultation Paper, read with relevant parts of section C of that Paper (policy options about copyright law and the training of artificial intelligence models using copyright works), and
(b) such alternative options as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) The report must consider, and make proposals in relation to, each of the following—
(a) technical measures and standards (for example, measures and standards
concerned with metadata) that may be used to control—
(i) the use of copyright works to develop AI systems, and
(ii) the accessing of copyright works for that purpose (for example, by web crawlers);
(b) the effect of copyright on access to, and use of, data by developers of AI systems (for example, on text and data mining), including the effect on developers who are individuals, micro businesses, small businesses or medium-sized businesses;
(c) the disclosure of information by developers of AI systems about—
(i) their use of copyright works to develop AI systems, and
(ii) how they access copyright works for that purpose (for example, by means of web crawlers);
(d) the granting of licences to developers of AI systems to do acts restricted by copyright, including the granting of licences by and to individuals, micro businesses, small businesses and medium-sized businesses.
(4) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consider the likely effect of proposals, in the United Kingdom, on—
(a) copyright owners, and
(b) persons who develop or use AI systems, including the likely effect on copyright owners, developers and users who are individuals, micro businesses, small businesses or medium-sized businesses.
(5) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must have regard to, among other things, the Consultation Paper responses.
(6) The Secretary of State may comply with this section by preparing and publishing two or more reports which, taken together, satisfy the requirements in this section.
(7) In this section—
“Consultation Paper responses” means responses to the Copyright and AI Consultation Paper received by the Secretary of State on or before 25 February 2025;
“copyright” means the property right which subsists in accordance with Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988;
“copyright work” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988;
“web crawler” means a computer program that obtains data from websites in accordance with instructions and that can autonomously determine which websites to visit.
(8) Terms used in this section and in section (Economic impact assessment) have the same meaning in this section as they have in that section.”
Viscount Camrose
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the Minister for her full and detailed answer. Having heard the tone of the debate, I think it is clear that the focus and energy of the House are more on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, but I am happy to take up the Minister’s offer of a further meeting.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 47 and 48.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 49.
Baroness Kidron
49A: At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 49B instead of the words so left out of the Bill—
“Requirement to make provision in relation to transparency of business data used in relation to AI models
(1) The Secretary of State or the Treasury must by regulations make provision as set out in this section in relation to a trader which operates a service which—
(a) includes the making available of an artificial intelligence (AI) model, and
(b) has links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of subsection (2), and in relation to a data holder for the business data of such a trader.
(2) The service has links with the United Kingdom if—
(a) it has a significant number of United Kingdom users, or
(b) United Kingdom users form one of the target markets for the service (or the only target market).
(3) A “data holder” for the business data of such a trader means—
(a) the trader, or
(b) a person who, in the course of a business, processes that data.
(4) The regulations must require specified business data to be published by the trader or the data holder so as to provide copyright owners with information regarding the text and data used in the pre-training, training, fine-tuning and retrieval-augmented generation in the AI model, or any other data input to the AI model.
(5) The regulations must require the business data to be published by the trader or the data holder in such form, at such intervals and in such manner as the regulations may prescribe, in particular so as to ensure that it is accessible to copyright owners upon request.
(6) The regulations must require the trader or the data holder, when publishing the business data as required under subsections (4) and (5), to provide an effective mechanism to allow copyright owners to identify all individual works that they own that are used in the pre-training, training, fine-tuning and retrieval-augmented generation in the AI model, or any other data input to the AI model.
(7) The regulations may provide that the regulations apply in modified form in order that they apply proportionately to small companies and micro-entities within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006, or apply differently to UK-registered companies within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006 as opposed to companies which are not UK-registered.
(8) The regulations must require the trader, if bots are used in the making available of its AI model, to disclose information regarding the identity of such bots used by them or by third parties on their behalf, including but not limited to—
(a) the name of the bot,
(b) the legal entity responsible for the bot, and
(c) the specific purposes for which each bot is used.
(9) In this section “bot” means an autonomous software application that can interact with systems or users (including crawlers and fetchers) and which obtains data from websites in accordance with instructions.
(10) The regulations must make provision for enforcement of the regulations made under this section in accordance with sections 8 (enforcement of regulations under this Part), 9 (restrictions on powers of investigation etc) and 10 (financial penalties) of this Act as if this section were in Part 1 of this Act.
(11) The Secretary of State or the Treasury must lay before Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument containing regulations under this section within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed and the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.””
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I thank everyone for their fantastic contributions from all sides of the House. I say simply to the Government: I understand that they are trying to collect evidence, but the evidence is in front of their eyes that the wholesale stealing of UK copyright has gone on, is going on and will go on until we take action. I am afraid that a task force, a consultation, a review and listening is not adequate to the moment.
I will just push back on one thing: the Government did pick a side. They have forgotten that they had a preferred option for many months until this House spoke. So I ask all noble Lords, please, on whatever side of the House they sit, to show the creative industries that this House has their back. I wish to divide the House.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 50 and 51.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 52.
Viscount Camrose
52A: Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 52, and do propose Amendments 52B and 52C to the words so restored to the Bill—
“(3) For the purposes of this section, sex data must be collected in accordance with the following category terms and definitions—
(a) “sex” meaning male or female only based on “sex at birth”, “natal sex” or “biological sex” (these terms carrying the same meaning and capable of being used interchangeably), and
(b) in addition, where it is lawful to do so in accordance with data protection legislation and the Gender Recognition Act 2004, “acquired gender” meaning male or female only, as recorded on a gender recognition certificate issued in accordance with the Gender Recognition Act 2004.””
Viscount Camrose (Con)
A little time has elapsed since the original debate, but I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 53.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will also speak to Amendments 54 to 74 and 79.
We all agree that tackling the abuse of intimate image deepfakes is incredibly important. I am delighted that these provisions are returning to this House, having been strengthened in the other place, enabling us once again to discuss this key issue. I extend my heartfelt thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, for her dedication on this issue. I am also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Pannick—who unfortunately is not in his place—and Lord Clement-Jones, and others who have generously given much of their time to discussing this issue with me. Their engagement with me and my ministerial colleagues has been instrumental as we have refined our approach to this important topic. It has been a fantastic example of parliamentarians working across the House to get policy in the strongest possible position.
At Third Reading I committed that the Government would bring forward further amendments in the Commons, including on solicitation and time limits. We have delivered on those commitments. I will begin with Commons Amendment 56, which introduces the requesting offence. This addresses the commitment made on solicitation. It replaces, but builds on and delivers the same intent as, the amendment that your Lordships made to the Bill. It comprehensively criminalises asking someone to create a deepfake intimate image for you without the consent of the person in the image or the reasonable belief in their consent. This is an offence regardless of where the person you are asking is based or whether the image was in fact created.
I turn to the commitment on time limits. Commons Amendment 63 was passed to extend the statutory time limit so that prosecutions can be brought at any date that is both within six months of when sufficient evidence comes to the prosecutor’s knowledge and within three years of when the offence was committed. This means that perpetrators will not get away with creating or requesting the creation of a deepfake just because no one knew about it at the time.
A further change was made in the Commons through Commons Amendment 55, to add a defence of reasonable excuse to both the creating and requesting offences. I know that this is likely to be the subject of much debate today, so I will spend some time setting out the Government’s position.
First, I want to reassure the House that the Government’s priority is to create comprehensive, robust defences which ensure that perpetrators cannot evade justice. It is not our intention that the defences provide defendants with a get-out clause, and we do not believe that they do so. This is especially important to stress for the creation of sexual deepfakes, which are so extraordinarily harmful. In our view, it is extremely unlikely that there will ever be a situation where someone creating a sexually explicit deepfake will be able to prove that they had a reasonable excuse. Indeed, we anticipate that the defences would apply only in an extremely narrow set of circumstances, such as for covert law enforcement operations.
It is also our view that, for a very small minority of cases, such as the creation of genuinely satirical images that are not sexually explicit, the defence to the creating offence is legally necessary for it to be compatible with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Without the “reasonable excuse” defence, we consider that the creating offence will not be legally robust, and that any legal challenge to its compatibility with Article 10 is likely to be successful. This will not provide the best protection for the victims. Let me labour this very important point: our intention is to create comprehensive, robust offences that will ensure that those who create or request intimate deepfake images without consent, particularly sexual deepfake images, face grave consequences.
I also want to stress that abusers will not be able to evade justice by using spurious excuses. The defendant must provide enough evidence to prove that the creation, or that particular request, without consent was reasonable. They cannot just say it is art or satire without sufficient compelling evidence. It will be for the court, not the defendant, to decide whether something is in fact art or satire. From my many years as a magistrate, I can also reassure the House that it is simply not the case that a defendant can offer up any excuse and assert that it is reasonable. The CPS will challenge spurious arguments, and the courts are extremely well equipped and used to dealing with such arguments quickly.
The Government share the House’s desire to ensure that criminal law, and these defences in particular, work as well as the Government intend. I therefore speak to support the noble Baroness’s Amendments 55E and 56B, which place a binding obligation on the Government to review the operation of the “reasonable excuse” defence, for both the creating and requesting offences, by putting it in the Bill. As part of this review, we will carry out targeted engagement with external stakeholders and subject matter experts to ensure that we make a broad and informed assessment of the defence.
I hope this addresses the concerns about these defences. The best way to protect victims is to ensure that Parliament passes legally sound and robust offences that can bring perpetrators to justice. I urge the House to do that by supporting Motion 55C and Amendment 56B. I beg to move.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, I speak to my amendments in this group. In doing so, I declare my interest as a guest of Google at its AI policy conference.
I start by thanking both the Minister and Minister Davies-Jones for taking the time to engage on this issue and for their endless patience. I know they have worked incredibly hard to secure progress on this and I am very grateful for their efforts.
We are down to the issue of whether we believe a person can have a reasonable excuse to create content that looks like a photograph or film of another person without their consent. Noble Lords will recall that this House overwhelmingly indicated that we did not believe “reasonable excuse” should be included as a defence and highlighted concern that it may be misinterpreted or viewed too widely.
I have concerns over the position the Government outlined in their letter from Minister Bryant to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Minister Bryant argues that the inclusion of “reasonable excuse” is necessary as, without it, the offence would breach the ECHR due to limiting a person’s freedom to create photorealistic satirical art of scenarios such as a person on the toilet or in boxer shorts. Additionally, the Government argued the need for tech companies to be able to red team against this offence.
I share the Government’s strong desire that we do not want this Bill to have a memorandum on it warning that it may breach the ECHR, however precarious the arguments laid out may be. I do not want those who abuse women in this way to claim the prosecution may contravene their human rights.
With this in mind, I turn to my first amendments, Amendments 55C and 56B, written in conjunction with the Government, which offer a review of the implementation of “reasonable excuse” for both the creation and requesting offences after two years. I am grateful to the Minister for the compromise. He will know the conflicts I feel about this issue and the great concern I have that, without guardrails, “reasonable excuse” may be used to allow those who abuse others in this sickening way to escape justice.
I know the Minister will offer me reassurance that the courts will be used to hearing precarious excuses. However, my concern—as noble Lords know—is that image-based sexual abuse has been consistently misunderstood, with the Law Commission itself only arguing three years ago that the harm from creating non-consensual sexually explicit content was not serious enough to criminalise. In 2023, Refuge found that, despite steady year-on-year increases in recorded offences for image-based abuse, only 4% of offenders were charged. Even when a conviction was achieved, only 3% of cases resulted in the perpetrator being deprived of the images used for the offence.
We have seen consistent failure by prosecutors to understand and tackle the issue. I therefore have a very real concern that, by allowing “reasonable excuse” to sit in this offence, we risk it being misunderstood and the offence being undermined. Further, while I am grateful for the offer of a review, I am worried that if after two years we find “reasonable excuse” is allowing perpetrators to evade justice, there will not be a legislative vehicle in which to correct the issue, and the time it takes to correct may be lengthy. I would be grateful if the Minister could offer me reassurance on this point.
Additionally, I am concerned by the very premise of the argument that legislation without “reasonable excuse” would breach the ECHR. I have sought the legal counsel of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, KC—who apologises for not being here this evening—and he believes that the inclusion of “reasonable excuse” in the defence is not necessary in order to be compliant with the ECHR.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, advised, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights already highlighted in its letter, that
“the Government has stated that prosecutorial discretion is sufficient to ensure that an offence that could violate a qualified right under the ECHR is nevertheless compliant with it”.
Additionally, all legislation must, so far as possible, be read and given effect to in a manner that is compliant with the ECHR, according to Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. So, even if there were to be a prosecution in the sort of circumstances contemplated by the Government, the defendant could rely on their Article 10 rights, which means that an all-encompassing reasonable excuse is not necessary.
Additionally, I would be grateful if the Minister could outline to the House the reasons why tech companies cannot red team by prompting with the images of people who do consent and, therefore, not requiring a reasonable excuse, should their model fail and end up creating the content that it is trying to avoid. I would go as far as to say that testing prompts on a model using the image of a person who does not consent would be deeply unethical. It is my belief—and the view of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti—that such specific examples do not justify general reasonable excuse. To quote my friend and human rights advocate, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti:
“Spurious ECHR arguments for weakening 21st century cyber sex offences do not help the cause of those seeking to defend human rights from its many detractors”.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak primarily to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge. We need to be crystal clear that we would not be here and we would not have come as far as we have—notwithstanding residual concerns—but for her work. Her entry into your Lordships’ House was greeted by the most shocking barrage of misogynistic innuendo and abuse, including from a septuagenarian, privileged veteran of progressive journalism who really ought to have known better. It was pretty ghastly to watch.
However, it has been a joy of equal measure to witness the noble Baroness’s response to her critics, and this has been the best kind of response. With her campaign—backed by supporters across the House, including the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and supporters in civil society and the academy—she has made, in less than two years, a greater contribution to the most vital part of the legislative work of this House than many make in decades. Perhaps the young have something to teach their elders, after all, particularly about the new and all-too-lawless continent of the internet, which we have been discussing for some time today.
After nearly 30 years at the interface between criminal policy and the ECHR, I share the analysis of the harm caused by this 21st-century cybersex offence that has been offered by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. By contrast, I fear that Whitehall has displayed a breathtaking lack of empathy for the mostly women and girl victims of this conduct—a lack of empathy that, at times, verges on the obtuse. That has gone on for some years, as the noble Baroness indicated. It accounts for the time taken by the Government to agree to the offence being imprisonable, but I am glad that we finally got there.
Now, at the 11th hour, I too fear the sheer breadth of the Government’s reasonable excuse defence, which might drive a coach and horses through the protection. This kind of degrading conduct is no light-hearted matter. The creation of deepfake intimate image without a person’s consent is capable of destroying their dignity, mental health and life. More broadly, it is capable of changing the whole flavour of our society: in the classroom, in the workplace and wherever men and women rub along together. That is what is at stake.
“Reasonable excuse” defences are appropriate and necessary in the context of broad, strict liability offences capable of catching otherwise innocent behaviour. The classic example is the strict liability offence of being in possession of a blade in a public place. Without that “reasonable excuse” defence, any of us could be criminalised on the way back from the kitchen department at John Lewis, so there is an obvious reason for a reasonable excuse defence to that strict liability offence.
I put it to the House that we would not dream of a “reasonable excuse” defence for sexual assault. The offence requires intention, action and the sexualised aspect. Once these are established, there simply is no reasonable excuse. I believe that the creation of a deepfake intimate image is equivalent to sexual assault if it is without consent. I learn that the Government are concerned about freedom of expression in the context of creating deepfake intimate images without someone’s consent. Let us please remember that freedom of expression is not an absolute; it must be balanced with proportionate interference to protect the rights of others, hence laws against breach of copyright, child pornography and so on all over the world, including in the United States—famously, the land of the First Amendment.
I really must press my noble friend the Minister to explain in some detail—more than we have heard so far—why the tighter “reasonable excuse” defences from the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, of red teaming and political satire do not do the trick? In other words, what are these other reasonable excuses for pernicious conduct of this kind? Why should there be any reasonable excuse for the solicitation offence? Where is the freedom of expression in soliciting that someone else creates the deepfake image?
I noticed the introduction of the concern about covert policing—I think my noble friend the Minister raised it—but surely he recalls the covert human intelligence Act, a very controversial Act of 2020 that I am still very concerned about, which allows the authorities to grant advanced immunity to people committing criminal conduct in the course of their covert surveillance. I am a bit concerned about that suddenly popping up as a reasonable excuse of government at the 11th hour on this offence.
Without further specifics, I am really concerned about the impression that the Government just do not get it, that they do not totally understand what is being perpetrated online and that they are not properly taking the protection of women and girls sufficiently seriously. I would really regret that. This is the coalface of human rights at this moment in the 21st century. I really hope there is still time for the Government to listen further to the compelling arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, and think again.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has said everything I was going to say and more and better, so I want just to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, and to say that I too have witnessed her forensic fight over the last few months. I hugely admire her for it, and I congratulate her on getting this far. I absolutely share all the concerns that both noble Baronesses have expressed. Just in case I do not have the opportunity again, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her extraordinary work and campaigning.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the three noble Baronesses, and I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, on her magnificent and successful campaign to outlaw the making and requesting of non-consensual images, first with her Private Member’s Bill and then with amendments to this Bill. She has fought it with huge skill and determination, and, rightly, she has pushed it to the wire in wanting the most robust offence and tightest defences possible. I thank the Minister for his flexibility that he has shown so far—with the emphasis on “so far”.
The amendments that the noble Baroness has put forward represent a compromise, given the strong and rather extraordinary opinion of the Attorney-General that the defence of “reasonable excuse” is needed for the defence to be compliant with the ECHR and that, therefore, the whole Bill risks being non-compliant if that is not contained in the defence for these offences. That is the equivalent of a legal brick wall, despite an excellent opinion from Professor Clare McGlynn, which in my view demolished the Attorney-General’s case, which seems to be based on ensuring the ability of big tech companies to red team their models on images used without consent. That is a rather peculiar basis. Why cannot the big tech companies use images with consent? They would then be red teaming in a rather different and more compliant way.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I happened to be in the House when the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, was taking her Private Member’s Bill through, and I remember very well the reply given by my noble friend to her Bill. Therefore, it is a great achievement that this has become part of government legislation, but it is not complete. We have just heard my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti argue, and I can only adopt her words entirely, because she has always been a much better advocate than me, to persuade a very reasonable Minister—my noble friend has always been a very reasonable Minister—to acquiesce to this argument, notwithstanding the advice of the Attorney-General.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, first, I declare my interest as a commissioner at the EHRC, and I have also been a lifelong campaigner for and defender of free speech, so I do not approach this subject lightly at all. I have some sympathy with the Government’s position that a reasonable excuse is required to be compatible with Article 10. However, I think the definition being as broad as it is reinforces the worries of my noble friend Lady Owen and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti.
I was not really clear, and am concerned to know, as noble colleagues have already alluded to, on why the defence is drafted so widely. I was not sure whether this was coming from EU law and, if that were the case, I wanted to draw the House’s attention to the most recent EU directive on preventing violence against women and girls. If we look at that directive, in section 19, it has unequivocally decided that deepfakes should be criminalised and:
“Such production, manipulation or altering should include the fabrication of ‘deepfakes’, where the material appreciably resembles an existing person, objects, places”
and so on. I appreciate, of course, that we are no longer bound by EU law, but given that it will be applied by the ECHR, under which we still operate, it is interesting to note that in section 20 it has acknowledged the Article 10 obligation but has narrowly defined it.
I draw attention to this and ask the Government to take it into account and reassure this House that they will urge guidance to be issued, if this defence has to go forward as it is currently drafted, so that any reasonable excuse defence maintained in this clause is clearly confined by guidance issued as soon as possible by the CPS.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Owen of Alderley Edge. Her amendments fall into two categories, and we support her in all of them. I start by joining the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and others in paying tribute to her tenacity in pursuing this issue by standing up for women who should not have to live in the fear of becoming victims of sexually explicitly deepfakes. As mentioned, she has won the deep respect of this House and, at the same time won many, many friends from her action. The cross-party support that she has managed to gain from this shows this House at its best—a House of which I am proud to be a Member.
First, my noble friend has tabled reviews to ensure that the offence that is being created as a result of her tireless campaigning is effective. We support her in her Motion and agree with her that we must do everything we can to ensure that the law is robust and effective in protecting women. Secondly, like many others, I have been puzzled by the ECHR reasonable excuse approach being used by the Government. It was very helpful, as ever, to have experts on hand in this matter and my noble friend Lady Cash to bring her expertise and agree with the basic position that, while we understand it, it is very widely drawn as it is currently set up.
I think it is very sensible what my noble friend is trying to do in seeking to tighten those definitions of reasonable excuse and remove reasonable excuse in the case of requesting sexually explicit deepfakes in her Motion 55A and Amendment 56A. I completely understand why she has brought them, and, while they would appear to be instead of the reviews, which we also support, we feel that my noble friend is right to challenge the inclusion of reasonable excuse as a defence to these offences. On that, she has our complete support.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the arguments, particularly those in favour of the noble Baroness’s Amendment 55, the creating offence, which seeks to replace the “reasonable excuse” defence with the creating offence, with a targeted defence for red-team software testing and reasonable political satire. We share the noble Baroness’s desire to ensure that any defence to the creating offence functions tightly and share her belief that only in narrow and limited circumstances would a person have a reasonable excuse for the creation of such images without consent. That is how our reasonable excuse defence will apply in practice, which is why the Government believe that the defence is the right way forward.
However, we are unable to agree to these targeted defences that the noble Baroness proposes to the creating offence in place of a reasonable excuse defence. This is a novel offence, tackling behaviour that is changing rapidly along with the technology itself. We cannot anticipate all the ways in which people will use technology as it develops. A defence of reasonable excuse which, as I have said, we believe will be interpreted very carefully by the courts, will ensure that the offence can be used effectively to target culpable perpetrators, even as technology and its uses change. The targeted defences proposed by the noble Baroness would also, crucially, not eliminate the risk of successful legal challenge, which I explained in my opening speech. Even with such targeted defences, the creating offence risks successful challenge in the courts, leading to uncertainty and reduced protection for victims.
I turn briefly to Amendment 56A on the requesting offence. As I have set out, the reasonable excuse defence to the requesting offence will only apply in an extremely narrow set of circumstances, such as covert law enforcement operations. The legal issue which applies to the creating offence does not apply to the requesting offence. However, we always aim for consistency and parity across similar offences and so urge this House not to pass Amendment 56A to the requesting offence. Also, without the defence that the Commons included for the requesting offence, law enforcement and intelligence officials may be unable to effectively carry out their functions.
We made a manifesto commitment to ban the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes. This legislation, as amended in the Commons, does just that. For the first time, there will be protection for victims and punishment for the perpetrators who create, or ask other people to create, intimate deepfakes of adults without consent or a reasonable belief of consent. These provisions represent an important and necessary response to intimate image deepfakes. The Government are clear that these offenses are comprehensive and robust. While a defence of reasonable excuse to both offences is necessary, it does not provide a get-out clause for the many perpetrators creating intimate deepfakes, especially sexual deepfakes, without consent. We remain firmly of a view that this is the most effective way to protect victims from this appalling abuse. It is our duty to act decisively. For those reasons, I urge your Lordships to support, with confidence, Motion 55C, containing as amendments in lieu Amendments 55D and 55E, and Amendment 56B. I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, to withdraw her Motion 55A and Amendment 56A.
The noble Baroness asked about deprivation orders. We share her frustration with this. The ability for courts to apply deprivation orders has been in place but these have not been used as extensively as they could be, so the judges are looking at sentencing guidelines to see how that lack of implementation of deprivation orders can be remedied. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti asked whether offenders of the requesting offence would also be deprived of images by the court. Yes, they would be. We want to ensure parity across the creating and the requesting offence, so that includes their computers and any images that are stored anywhere.
A number of noble Lords have expressed scepticism about whether the courts would adequately apply the reasonable excuse defence, which really is the nub of the issue which we are debating now. I have had this discussion many times with the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, in private. I must say, as a magistrate for nearly 20 years, that we often hear completely ridiculous defences. It is certainly not unusual in magistrates’ court—or, I am sure, in Crown Court—and magistrates and judges are well able to deal with those types of defences. I know that the noble Baroness is sceptical of that, which is one of the prime reasons why we have put the review in the Bill. She will know it is very unusual for Governments to commit in a Bill to have a review, but it is because we understand that this is a new area of law and that the way we are defining “reasonable excuse” is a politically contentious area. I urge her to continue to work with us, which I am sure she will do in any event, and I urge her not to move her amendments to a vote. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 54.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 55.
“(7A) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for creating the purported intimate image.”
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge
55C: Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 55, and do propose Amendments 55D and 55E in lieu—
“(7A) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for creating the purported intimate image.”
“(9) The Secretary of State must—
(a) review the operation of subsection (7A),
(b) publish the outcome of the review in a report before the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, and
(c) lay the report before Parliament.””
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 56.
“66EA Requesting the creation of purported intimate image of adult
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) A intentionally requests the creation of a purported intimate image of another person (B) (either in general or specific terms),
(b) B does not consent to A requesting the creation of the purported intimate image, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) A intentionally requests that, if a purported intimate image of another person (B) is created, it includes or excludes something in particular (whether relating to B’s appearance, the intimate state in which B is shown or anything else),
(b) B does not consent to A requesting the inclusion or exclusion of that thing, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(3) References in this section to making a request (however expressed) include doing an act which could reasonably be taken to be a request (such as, for example, indicating agreement in response to an offer or complying with conditions of an offer).
(4) References in this section to making a request (however expressed) are references to—
(a) making a request directed to a particular person or persons, or
(b) making a request so that it is available to one or more persons (or people generally), without directing it to a particular person or persons.
(5) References in this section to consent to a person requesting something are—
(a) in a case described in subsection (4)(a), references to consent to a request being made that is directed to the particular person or persons, and
(b) in a case described in subsection (4)(b), references to consent to a request being made so that it is available to the person or persons (or people generally), as appropriate.
(6) An offence under this section is committed—
(a) regardless of whether the purported intimate image is created,
(b) regardless of whether the purported intimate image, or the particular thing to be included in or excluded from such an image, is also requested by another person, and
(c) regardless of where in the world the person or persons mentioned in subsection (4)(a) and (b) is or are located.
(7) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for making the request.
(8) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or a fine (or both).
(9) In this section, references to a purported intimate image, to creating such an image and to a person shown in an intimate state have the same meaning as in section 66E.”
“(10) The Secretary of State must—
(a) review the operation of subsection (7),
(b) publish the outcome of the review in a report before the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, and
(c) lay the report before Parliament.”
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 57 to 79.
“(8) The “maximum term for summary offences” means—
(a) if the offence is committed before the time when section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, six months;
(b) if the offence is committed after that time, 51 weeks.”
“66G Creating, or requesting the creation of, purported intimate image of adult: time limit for prosecution
(1) Notwithstanding section 127(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, a magistrates’ court may try an information or written charge relating to an offence under section 66E or 66EA if the information is laid or the charge is issued—
(a) before the end of the period of 3 years beginning with the day on which the offence was committed, and
(b) before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which evidence which the prosecutor thinks is sufficient to justify a prosecution comes to the prosecutor’s knowledge.
(2) A certificate signed by or on behalf of a prosecutor stating the date on which evidence described in subsection (1)(b) came to the prosecutor’s knowledge is conclusive evidence of that fact.”
“(3A) In the Armed Forces Act 2006, after section 177D insert—
“177DA Purported intimate images to be treated as used for purpose of certain offences
(1) This section applies where a person commits an offence under section 42 as respects which the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales is an offence under section 66E of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (creating purported intimate image of adult).
(2) The purported intimate image to which the offence relates, and anything containing it, is to be regarded for the purposes of section 177C(3) (and section 94A(3)(b)(ii)) as used for the purposes of committing the offence (including where it is committed by aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring).””
“(3B) In Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the Serious Crime Act 2007 (offences to be disregarded in reckoning whether an act is capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence: England and Wales), after paragraph 38 insert—
“Sexual Offences Act 2003
38ZA An offence under section 66EA of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (requesting the creation of purported intimate image of adult).””
“(3) Subsection (4) applies where a person commits an offence under section 66EA of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (requesting the creation of purported intimate image of adult).
(4) A purported intimate image which is connected with the offence, and anything containing it, is to be regarded for the purposes of section 153 (and section 157(3)(b)) as used for the purposes of committing the offence (including where it is committed by aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring).
(5) A purported intimate image is connected with an offence under section 66EA of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 if —
(a) it appears to be of a person who was the subject of the request to which the offence relates (whether or not it is what was requested), and
(b) it was in the offender’s possession, or under the offender’s control, as a result of that request.”
“(d) section 141(3A) (amendment of the Armed Forces Act 2006) extends to—
(i) England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland,
(ii) the Isle of Man, and
(iii) the British overseas territories, except Gibraltar;”
“(d) section 141(3B) (amendment of the Serious Crime Act 2007) extends to England and Wales and Northern Ireland only.”
“(5A) The powers conferred by section 384(1) and (2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (powers to extend provisions to the Channel Islands and to make provisions apply with modifications as they extend to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and British overseas territories other than Gibraltar) may be exercised in relation to section 177DA of that Act (inserted by section 141(3A) of this Act).”
“21A In section 170(2)(a) (unlawful obtaining etc of personal data), after “preventing” insert “, investigating”.
21B(1) Section 171 (re-identification of de-identified personal data) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3)(a), after “preventing” insert “, investigating”.
(3) In subsection (6)(a), after “preventing” insert “, investigating”.”
“(5) This section does not authorise the processing of information if the processing would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether it would do so, take into account the power conferred by this section).
(6) In this section, “the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).”
Renters’ Rights Bill
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, it may not surprise noble Lords that, before we start the debate on the first group, I again remind the Committee of the protocol around declaring interests. As I mentioned last week, noble Lords should declare relevant interests at each stage of proceedings on a Bill. That means that in Committee, relevant interests should be declared during the first group on which a noble Lord speaks. If a noble Lord declared an interest during the previous two days in Committee, that is sufficient, but if this is their first contribution, any relevant interests should be declared.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what he has just said, reminding us of the importance of declaring interests in Committee if they have not been declared so far, but will he make a statement to the Committee about the Government’s plans for further consideration of this Bill, given that we were promised six days of consideration? We lost more than two hours last week through dinner-hour business, and today—for extremely good reasons—we have now lost more than five hours of consideration. I hope the Government have now decided that they must give this Committee an extra day, because we were promised six days and we have not had six days. I hope the Government’s intention is not simply to go through the night tonight and through the night on Wednesday. This would not mean reasonable discussion of the 132 amendments that still stand to be debated in your Lordships’ Committee.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for those comments. We will try to resolve this through the usual channels, but there are six days and this is the fifth day. We want to make progress today and we want to complete Committee on the sixth day, which is Wednesday this week.
Clause 17: Landlords etc: financial penalties and offences
Amendment 145
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and another in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook, seeks to apply the normal standard of proof for civil cases for these fines and probes the Government’s reasons for applying the criminal standard of proof.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I want to make it very clear that we will not have had six days in Committee. I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley.
I do not feel that I can open this group without paying tribute to the late noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. His amendments are why we are debating this important issue tonight. We will miss his insightful contribution to this Bill and to the House more broadly. We are a poorer place without him, and I send my heartfelt sympathies to his partner, his friends and his family for their loss. May his memory be a blessing.
This group follows on from a group on the previous day in Committee, but it focuses more specifically on the burden of proof applied in the determination of penalties. I will be brief, as on these Benches we simply have two questions for the Minister. I draw your Lordships’ attention to probing Amendments 145 and 152. We are concerned about the Government’s proposal to grant local housing authorities the power to determine whether a person is guilty of an offence under Section 16 without proper due process. Can the Minister kindly set out for the Committee how this provision is intended to operate in practice, and whether it will be subject to any appeal or review process?
I wish to draw attention to the principal reason for these probing amendments—the selected standard of proof. We are seeking to understand why there appears to be a lack of consistency in the standard of proof applied across different parts of the Bill. I have no doubt that many distinguished lawyers in your Lordships’ Committee will address this matter with far greater clarity and precision than I can. However, the question remains: why should different standards of proof apply within the same piece of legislation?
I appreciate that the Minister is herself not a lawyer and may wish to take some time to reflect and return to the Committee with a considered response, but can she kindly set out, either today or at a later stage, the rationale behind this apparent inconsistency? I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 148, 197, 200 and 242 on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.
First, I join my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook by expressing my sincere condolences to the family and friends of the late noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. His reputation as an exceptional legal mind represents the very best that this House has to offer.
Secondly, I remind noble Lords of my own interest as a practicing solicitor.
These four amendments seek to make two substantive changes to the Bill. First, the removal of “reckless” would ensure that a landlord is guilty of an offence only if it can be proven that they wrongly relied on a ground for possession with actual knowledge of the offence. Secondly, the replacement of
“on the balance of probabilities”
with “beyond reasonable doubt” raises the standard of proof for these offences when the local authority is determining a case.
I expect that the Minister will oppose these amendments on the grounds that they will make it less easy for a local authority to find a landlord guilty of an offence. But surely the crucial point is that they would put a proper check on the incorrect prosecution of landlords that may arise from the new system of penalties that will be imposed by local authorities.
There is also a legitimate question about how we can be certain that local authorities will have the resources they need fairly to assess cases in which landlords are accused of an offence. We need a system that ensures that landlords are held to high standards, but surely that system has to be seen to be fair. Any system that makes landlords feel that they are perennially at risk of being found guilty of an offence, even without their knowledge, will only add to the chilling effect of the Bill on our rental market.
I also agree that the standard of proof where a local authority is making a decision on a case without recourse to the courts should be high. Local authority officers should be absolutely sure when making these decisions.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, will she take this opportunity to explain how a landlord who has been found guilty of an offence by a local authority will be able to appeal that decision? Secondly, will she please answer the question about appropriate local authority resources to enable them to administer these offences?
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, first, I echo from our Benches the sincere condolences to Lord Etherton’s husband, Andrew, and their family. They really do have our most sincere condolences.
I also echo the concerns that were delivered in a rather measured way by my noble friend Lord Shipley regarding the way that things have gone along. I have also communicated that to the Minister.
We come to another key plank in the Bill, perhaps one less explored or spoken of but, in our view, massively important, that of enforcement. It is important to remind ourselves of the current state of affairs in the enforcement world, albeit very briefly, as this is not Second Reading. The reality is, as the noble Lord has just mentioned, that after decades of cutbacks, councils have gradually been reducing the number of staff in the areas of housing enforcement, decent homes and tenant matters. It is arguable that, as a result of this, they have failed over that same time to carry out proper proactive enforcement work, inevitably leading to more substandard housing, as, let us be blunt, the rogue landlords know they can likely get away with it.
The big change is, of course, Clause 107. It is an important section in the Bill and, in short, it very boldly states:
“It is the duty of every local housing authority to enforce the landlord legislation in its area”.
That is a very powerful change—it is not optional nor desirable, it is mandatory. The landlord legislation wraps up, of course, other requirements from other Acts, such as the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and various housing Acts. It is a real step change from the current situation and it cannot happen too soon.
However, our concern is whether local authorities are tooled up for this. Are they ready and will they have the right resources? This is not a blame game; it is the reality. The Bill, as we discussed in a previous group, allows for two main activities to fund their enforcement activities—civil penalty notices, as previously discussed, and rent repayment orders, which we will get to sometime later. The importance of these funding streams is why we opposed any reductions in the previous group and why we have amendments in the next.
The amendments in this section centre around the burden of proof that local authorities can apply when taking civil action. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that we need to understand the rationale for using the criminal standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” as opposed to the civil standard “on the balance of probabilities”, and vice versa—all the more so given the increased powers that are being granted under the Bill. It needs to be stated that there are many and they are quite complex. I confessed earlier that I am no lawyer, but even I could see that some of our officers might need to get their heads around some of these changes.
Given that I have argued previously that local authorities will need this money to fund enforcement activities, Amendments 145 and 152 seek to lower the burden of proof to
“on the balance of probabilities”,
thus making it easier for local authorities to impose civil penalties, whereas Amendments 197 and 200 seek the opposite.
I also note that in the Renters (Reform) Bill, Clause 15 had the higher proof. I look forward to hearing the reasoning as to why there has been a change. In short, these are legitimate questions. Consistency and clarity are essential and I look forward to the Minister’s replies, particularly on the notion of recklessness and the culpable mind in Amendments 242 and 148.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, may I say how sorry I am to have to deal with Lord Etherton’s amendments after his sad passing? I did not have a long time to get to know him, but during my time in this House, I truly appreciated both his engagement and his wisdom on this Bill and his courtesy and kindness. I know that he will be greatly missed by the House and I add to what other noble Lords have said in sending my condolences to his husband and his close friends and family. I understand that his wonderful legal brain will be a sad loss to this House, and we will all miss him. I am very sorry that he is not here today to complete the work that he started on the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, may his memory be a blessing to all those who knew him.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for speaking on behalf of Lord Etherton in this debate on the amendments on financial penalties, and also the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her comments on these. I will make the declaration up front that I am not a lawyer either, so I rely on others for legal advice on this part of the Bill.
Starting with the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, Amendment 145 would replace the criminal standard of proof with the civil standard of proof for breaches of the tenancy requirements which are not criminal offences. These breaches can, by virtue of continuing or being repeated, form part of a criminal offence. We consider that it is necessary, therefore, for the criminal standard of proof to apply.
Amendment 152 would reduce the standard of proof from “beyond reasonable doubt” to “on the balance of probabilities”, where local authorities are imposing civil penalties as an alternative to prosecution for tenancy offences. Where civil penalties are imposed as an alternative to criminal prosecution, it is necessary for the same criminal standard, “beyond reasonable doubt”, to apply. That is already the case, for example, for civil penalties imposed as an alternative to prosecution for offences under the Housing Act 2004, such as failure to comply with an improvement notice. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments.
I now turn to the amendments tabled by Lord Etherton, and spoken to on his behalf today by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Amendments 197 and 200 would, conversely, require local authorities to meet the criminal, rather than civil, standard of proof when imposing civil penalties for rental discrimination and rental bidding breaches.
The standard of proof is lower than that which applies to the imposition of financial penalties for breaches of other requirements introduced by the Bill. This is because, unlike those other breaches, rental discrimination and rental bidding breaches cannot lead to a criminal offence if the conduct is repeated or continued. As such, rental discrimination and rental bidding cannot result in the landlord being prosecuted or given a £40,000 civil penalty, and are subject only to the lower £7,000 penalty. We therefore think it appropriate that local authorities need to prove these breaches to the civil standard, “on the balance of probabilities”, rather than the criminal standard, “beyond reasonable doubt”.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised the issue of resources, and I will answer that with two points. One is that the Government have committed to assess the financial impact of this on local authorities, and have committed to new burdens funding. Secondly, those fines will be available for local authority use for this purpose, or other purposes, if they wish to use them in that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about appeals. Local authorities can consider evidence and decide whether, for example, the individual concerned was aware that the information they provided might be false or misleading, and if so, whether it was reasonable for them to submit it, or if they took an unjustified risk in doing so; that is the point about recklessness.
The legislation also provides safeguards. In the case of prosecution it would be for the court, not the local authority, to decide whether the accused had been reckless. In the case of a financial penalty, the landlord has the right to make representations before a penalty is imposed, and a right of appeal against the imposition or the amount of the penalty.
Amendment 148 would narrow the offence of misusing a ground for possession to evict a tenant when possession would not be obtained on that ground. It would do so by removing the element of recklessness from the offence. Amendment 242 would narrow the offence of providing information to the database operator that is false or misleading in a material respect in the same way.
To commit the first of these offences, a landlord, or person acting or purporting to act on their behalf, would need to know that the landlord would not be able to obtain possession on that ground. If a landlord, or person acting or purporting to act on their behalf, was simply being reckless as to whether the landlord would be able to do so, it would not amount to an offence.
I do not think that limiting the offence in this way is necessary or helpful. Clearly, landlords should not be penalised for minor mistakes, but recklessness goes beyond making a mistake. It entails taking an unjustified risk, and landlords should not take an unjustified risk when their action may result in someone losing their home. It is, of course, the case that the offence is committed only if the tenant actually surrenders possession. Making enforcement in every case dependent on being satisfied to the criminal standard that the landlord, or those acting or purporting to act on their behalf, knew that the landlord would not be able to obtain possession using a ground for possession, would make it too easy for unscrupulous landlords and agents to escape enforcement.
Similar arguments apply in relation to the database offence. To require knowledge to be proved in every case would make it too easy for unscrupulous landlords to submit false or misleading information in purported compliance with database requirements.
It is well-established in legislation for offences relating to the provision of false or misleading information to include the mental element of recklessness, including in housing legislation. It is used, for example, in relation to the provision of false and misleading information to local authorities in connection with their functions under the Housing Act 2004—an offence that is prosecuted by local authorities.
In short, we consider that the mental state of recklessness is appropriate to apply to these serious offences, so I kindly ask that the noble Baroness considers withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, first, I am really disappointed because a number of noble Lords who have been involved in all these debates over the past four days in Committee are unable to be in their seats because of the later time of day. That will not help us scrutinise this Bill as we should.
I thank all those who have contributed on Amendments 148, 197, 200 and 242, which are now in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. Noble Lords are absolutely right to highlight the issue of consistency —an issue we on these Benches intended to raise today —but my noble friend Lord Hunt also introduced an important new concern: the threshold of proof required by local authorities before a financial penalty can be imposed. On matters such as these, it is vital that we draw on the expertise of the legal profession to improve the Bill’s drafting, and I hope the Minister will seek the wise counsel of noble Lords such as my noble friend as these matters are taken back to the department.
As noble Lords have rightly pointed out, the financial penalties under consideration are significant. Many landlords are small-scale or so-called accidental landlords, who may not be in a position to absorb such fines. It is therefore entirely appropriate that the Committee seeks clarity on the methodology, consultation process and factors, such as the ability to pay, used in determining these thresholds.
Given the scale of these penalties, the standard of evidence and the threshold for their imposition must be carefully examined, and my noble friend set out with clarity the issues that may arise without a sufficient burden of proof, and the legal argument underpinning these amendments. There is legitimate concern about penalties being applied without adequate legal scrutiny, potentially undermining due process. We therefore welcome these amendments and believe my noble friend Lord Hunt has made a compelling case. When large fines are at stake, a high level of rigour and certainty must be reflected in the legal standard applied. What is more, any concerns expressed on these matters should not be dismissed too readily and should be carefully considered, but at this point I withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the Government’s willingness to recognise in law the close family ties many people have with their first cousins once removed and other removed cousins.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the amendments I have tabled in this group are to probe the Government’s decision to define a family in the way they have in Clause 21. The Explanatory Notes to this part of the Bill state:
“Subsection (4) provides that where there are two or more tenants and one of the tenants is a family member of the guarantor, if the family member dies then the guarantor will not be liable for rent on or after the date of their death”.
The Bill defines a family member in such a way that excludes anyone more distant than a first cousin. It is essential that the definition of a family in law reflects the family units we see in our day-to-day life. In many tightly knit communities across this country, families still live close together, with many cousins, both near and distant, having strong family ties to each other. In these communities, it seems very likely that a second cousin might step in to help as a rent guarantor, and surely that person falls within the intention of this part of the Bill.
It seems strange that the Government would seek to recognise the relationship between two first cousins but ignore the relationship between second cousins. The example I gave shows how a second cousin might, because of their close family ties, help a family member out as their guarantor, but the Bill would not include that person within the tightly defined family under the Bill. Will the Minister explain why the Government have defined the family in this way? Will she also explain why a second cousin who acts as a guarantor for their family member is treated as a second-class citizen compared with their other closer cousins? We are also interested in the case of smaller families, where perhaps an only child chooses to help a family member who is more distant on paper but who in reality is their nearest kin. There will have to be a definition of “family” in the Bill. We understand that, but we need an explanation about why this definition of the family is being proposed. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, while it is understandable that some individuals have close bonds with more distant relatives, extending the definition of “family member” to include removed or second cousins could complicate the interpretation and enforcement of these provisions, which currently offer a clear and practical framework. Broadening the definition further could introduce uncertainty for landlords and tenants alike, potentially leading to disputes over familial links and undermining the protective aims of the clause.
For those reasons, we do not support these amendments but look forward to getting on to the next group of amendments, where we believe that the issue of guarantors will become less important if a certain amendment is accepted, therefore diminishing the need for this debate.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, but I want first to express great sympathy to the husband of Lord Etherton.
It seems entirely sensible to widen the definition of family within the Bill to include first and second cousins. I cannot see any reason for refusing that.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments relating to guarantors and family members, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, for contributing to the debate.
Amendments 167, 168 and 169 would expand the definition of “family member” used in Clause 21 to include the grandchildren of aunts and uncles as well as siblings of grandparents. This would absolve these individuals from liability for rent owed after a tenant had died when they acted as guarantor.
I understand the noble Baroness’s motivation in probing this definition of family. She sometimes accuses me of not listening, or of not thinking these things through, but I have carefully considered the balance of these provisions. They protect bereaved guarantors from financial hardship while allowing landlords to keep guarantors in place where it is reasonable to do so.
The definition of “family member” reflects the need to encompass more distant family members who might commonly be used as tenancy guarantors. While we understand that more distant relatives than those covered in the definition may rarely be used as guarantors, defining family members for the purposes of this legislation means that a line needs to be drawn somewhere. This definition does not seek to disregard or downplay any family links between relatives who are not included within that definition—some of my second cousins might have something to say if I tried to do that.
It is worth noting that landlords holding guarantors liable in these scenarios is already uncommon, and most landlords would already act compassionately towards a deceased tenant’s family. Furthermore, by removing fixed terms, a personal representative of the deceased tenant can end the tenancy by giving a landlord two months’ notice. We believe that this strikes a balance that is fair to tenants, guarantors and landlords alike. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, not to press her amendments.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for her response, but I do not think that we have quite got to a better understanding of the Government’s reasons for defining a family in this way; it is just that they are going to define a family in this way.
I point out once again that many families are of different shapes to the one described in the Bill. We feel strongly that it would be a strange outcome if slightly more distant cousins were not protected by the legislation, but close cousins were. We have set out clearly that many people have very close family ties with their slightly more distant cousins. We feel that the Government have failed to adequately explain why those individuals should not have the same rights based on their family ties as other members of the family.
We reserve the right to come back to this on Report, but we hope that Ministers will listen to the argument that we have made today and consider improving this part of the Bill to properly reflect the family relationships that many people have in in this country. At this point, I beg to leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Restriction on landlord’s ability to require tenant to provide guarantor(1) A relevant person must not, in any of the circumstances set out in subsection (3), require a person, as a condition of the grant of a relevant tenancy, to provide a guarantor in relation to the observance or performance of the tenant’s obligations under the tenancy.(2) For the purposes of this section, requiring a person to provide a guarantor includes accepting an offer by that person to provide a guarantor.(3) The circumstances are—(a) that the person has paid a tenancy deposit or has been assisted under a deposit scheme,(b) that the person is required to pay rent in advance of one month’s rent or more, (c) that on a reasonable assessment of their means the person’s income (including state benefits received and any other lawful source of income) is sufficient to enable them to pay the full rent due under the tenancy,(d) that arrangements will be made for housing benefit or the housing element of universal credit to be paid directly in respect of rent to a relevant person,(e) that the relevant person has entered into a contract of insurance under which they are insured against non-payment of rent, or(f) such other circumstances as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State.(4) In any other case where a relevant person lawfully requires a person, as a condition of the grant of a relevant tenancy, to provide a guarantor, the sum for which the guarantor may become liable under the relevant guarantee may not exceed a sum equal to six months’ rent.(5) In any case where a relevant person lawfully requires a person, as a condition of the grant of a relevant joint tenancy, to provide a guarantor, the sum claimed under the guarantee may not exceed such proportion of the loss as is attributable to the act or default of the individual tenant on whose behalf the guarantee was given; and if such proportion cannot be proved, may not exceed the sum obtained by dividing the total loss by the number of tenants.(6) In this section—a“guarantor” is a person who enters into a guarantee in relation to a relevant tenancy;a“guarantee” is a contractual promise to be responsible for the performance of an obligation owed by the tenant to a relevant person under the tenancy if the tenant fails to perform the obligation;a“deposit scheme” includes a scheme whereby a sum payable by way of deposit or a bond or guarantee is provided by a local authority, registered charity or voluntary organisation for the purpose of providing security to a landlord for the performance of a tenant’s obligations under a tenancy;a“tenancy deposit” has the same meaning as in section 212(8) of the Housing Act 2004;“relevant person” has the meaning given by section 16M(1) of the 1988 Act.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would restrict the circumstances in which a landlord can request a guarantor.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 265. Both amendments aim to strengthen the very welcome anti-discrimination provisions in the Bill. I am grateful to colleagues who have added their names and to Shelter for its help.
Amendment 170 sets out the circumstances in which a landlord may not require a tenant to provide a guarantor, a practice that has increasingly become a precondition of a tenancy for certain tenants—namely, those in receipt of social security, black renters, women, families and disabled renters—and one that could therefore be used as a way of circumventing the Bill’s anti-discrimination clauses.
The spirit of the amendment is the same as that behind the government amendment in the Commons which will prevent landlords demanding multiple months’ rent up front. To quote Independent Age, which is among the many organisations supporting our amendment,
“this is a sensible measure that safeguards against the risk of solving one problem (excessive rent in advance demands) only for it to be replaced with another (excessive reliance on guarantors)”.
Already, over the last five years, 550,000 private renters were unable to rent a home that they wanted because they did not have a guarantor that met the landlord’s requirements.
I know and respect that the Government do not want to prohibit the use of guarantors altogether, and my noble friend the Minister explained why in her helpful post-Second Reading letter. However, the amendment would not do that. It simply sets out the circumstances in which a landlord could not ask for a guarantor, and those circumstances reflect the National Residential Landlords Association’s guidance on appropriate guarantor use—that is, where a tenant cannot prove that they can afford to pay the rent. However, recent research by Shelter has shown that in practice guarantor requests often do not follow that guidance. Thus, the amendment is not radical but merely serves to ensure that guarantors are used as intended.
The case for ensuring that the use of such requests is limited is a strong one and is very much in line with the aims of the Bill. First, as noted already, it would help to safeguard the Bill’s anti-discrimination measures. Requests for a high-earning or home-owning guarantor are too often used in a discriminatory manner. Renters who receive social security, have a disability or are members of a racialised minority are all significantly more likely to be asked for a guarantor. Similarly, as Independent Age notes,
“requiring a guarantor can be a way for landlords to discriminate against older renters”.
Secondly, and related, the groups most likely to face a guarantor request are also those least likely to be able to meet one. Some 45% of benefit recipients and 43% of families struggle to provide a guarantor, compared with just 24% of those not receiving benefit or without children. The NUS believes that the amendment would make a huge difference to student renters, especially working-class, international, estranged or care-experienced students, who are likely to face difficulties finding a suitable guarantor. Become has highlighted the problems finding a guarantor faced by care-experienced young people more generally; its FoI research found that only around two in five local authorities provide a guarantor scheme for them.
Thirdly, in practice, fewer than 3% of landlords have attempted to pursue a guarantor for unpaid rent in the past two years. Moreover, insurance offers a sensible option for covering that risk.
Fourthly, the argument that the unfettered freedom to request a guarantor provides an essential lifeline for tenants with poor credit and/or problem debts is, Shelter argues, “a disingenuous one”, because there is evidence that landlords already avoid such tenants because of the manner in which tenant referencing is done. Those are not the tenants who are most likely to be able to find a suitable guarantor.
As well as the Renters’ Reform Coalition, of which Shelter is a member, and Independent Age, those calling for limitations on the power to require guarantors include the Mayor of London and Unison. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will be willing to discuss what is possible between now and Report and that if she cannot accept this amendment would consider proposing an alternative. Otherwise, I fear that some of the good intended by the Bill’s anti-discrimination measures will be undone in practice.
Amendment 265 would repeal the right to rent provision introduced in the Immigration Act 2014. It requires landlords, including those taking lodgers, and letting agents to check prospective tenants’ immigration status to confirm they have the right to rent in England before granting a tenancy. Letting a property to someone without the right to rent can now be punished with a fine of up to £20,000 or a five-year prison sentence.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 170 in the name of my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett. I declare my interests as a trustee of the Nationwide Foundation.
There is a growing use of guarantors in the PRS. Generation Research last year found that 30% of renters who moved in 2023-24 had been asked to provide a guarantor. Requesting a guarantor is clearly being overused and is moving towards becoming standard practice. Moreover, a guarantor in many cases has proved to be unnecessary. Shelter found that only 2.9% of landlords attempted to pursue a guarantor for unpaid rent in the last two years, despite its estimate showing that 1.85 million renters had been asked to provide one. Guarantors are overused, unused and inherently discriminative, and make renting unnecessarily burdensome. Where a renter can prove through an affordability assessment that they can pay their rent, a guarantor should not be asked for.
Amendment 170, or one like it on Report, is a necessary addition to the Bill. Will my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage consider this amendment favourably or bring one very close to it back on Report? Will she also consider developing national guidance for fair and proportionate referencing? Although we may talk about this tomorrow, will she also consider adding information on guarantors to the private rented sector database?
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 170 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, to which I have put my name, along with Amendment 265 from my noble friend Lord Tope. As the two previous speeches have explained, the amendments attempt to ensure that the dangers of discrimination are not unintended consequences of the Bill. As we dismantle one source of insecurity—the abolition of Section 21—we must be vigilant that new discriminatory practices do not simply rise in its place.
Requiring a guarantor is often presented as a simple piece of standard referencing—a lifeline for vulnerable tenants—but in reality it is quite the opposite. It adds a significant and often insurmountable hurdle for many prospective tenants, typically imposed in addition to demanding a deposit, the first month’s rent in advance and passing an affordability assessment. Landlords already possess simple tools to assess a tenant’s ability to pay and to mitigate potential financial risk. Tenant referencing, rent guarantee insurance and deposit protection schemes provide those robust safeguards. When tenants can demonstrate they can afford the rent, requiring a guarantor becomes unnecessary and serves only to narrow the pool of renters.
The demand for guarantors is an unnecessary additional hurdle that disproportionately impacts those on low incomes, those from low-income backgrounds, those without family support networks, benefit recipients, women, single-parent households, black and Bangladeshi households in particular and, most shockingly, people with disabilities. A renter with a disability is 20% more likely to be asked for a guarantor, and a black renter 66% more likely. This is not a lifeline for the vulnerable; it is more like drowning. Independent Age tells us that this is a problem for older people, too. An older renter who can perfectly afford the rent, secure in their pension income, has recounted facing questions about their income and being asked for a guarantor.
A self-employed single mother who could pay six months in advance, topped up with universal credit, was asked for a guarantor with an income of £45,000 per annum. That is £15,000 above the UK median income. And there will be people, of course, who do not know someone with that level of income.
Throughout our debates, we have heard much about arrears, sometimes as if the problem is endemic. However, government statistics state that 2% of private rented sector tenants reported being in arrears in 2023-24; even the English Housing Survey put it at around 5%. While that is still too high, it does not reflect certain assumptions that all tenants are inevitably going to be in arrears and therefore need a guarantor.
Amendment 170 seeks to bring sense and proportionality to this practice. It does not ban the use of guarantors; it simply and reasonably restricts their use to circumstances where a prospective tenant cannot demonstrate that they can afford the rent. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, so ably put it, over the most recent two-year period, only 3% of landlords have attempted to claim lost rent from a tenant’s guarantor. When landlords have attempted this route, it has proved much harder than the standard insurance products to indemnify against non-payment.
The Government have rightly listened to calls to limit excessive upfront payments. If we tackle one form of financial barrier used to exclude tenants, we must tackle the other to prevent some landlords simply switching tactics—which I think is the greatest fear of noble Lords who support this amendment. Without this amendment, there is a significant risk that limiting rent in advance could inadvertently lead to an even wider reliance on guarantor requests, thus undermining the Bill's anti-discrimination provisions.
This amendment is a sensible, proportionate step that ensures landlords can still use guarantors when genuinely needed, while protecting vulnerable renters from being unfairly shut out of the market. I hope the Government will consider and adopt this amendment or agree to discuss a possible alternative.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 265 and, in speaking briefly on it, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for the way she introduced both Amendment 265 and 170, which I also support, although I did not have the opportunity to add my name to that one as well.
First of all, I declare an interest a co-president of London Councils, which is the body that represents all 32 London boroughs and the City of London. I am also, inevitably, a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I think the point has been very well made, not least by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and I do not want to repeat the arguments at this time of night—although I would very much like to have done so. Instead, I shall ask the Minister one thing. I hope, in a minute, she is going to say that the Government are going to take this opportunity to repeal that part of the Act and, I hope, support these amendments. If she does not, however, I say that it is widely agreed, and indeed has been agreed by a High Court judge, that the right to rent is discriminatory. Therefore, can the Minister give us any evidence that it has had any effect in actually reducing illegal migration? Has it achieved its purpose in any way? If it has not, in its 10-year life, why on earth are a Labour Government keeping it in this Bill when they have the opportunity, in this legislation, to remove something that is both ineffective and discriminatory?
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Shipley might have said, and with apologies to Robert Frost:
“I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep”.
My promise was to support Amendment 265. I knew that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, would be as thorough as ever. When she started to say the word “efficacy”, I thought it was going to turn into “ethics”—but maybe that as well.
I simply want to record my support. However, given today’s White Paper, I do so without much expectation, as has been the case so often in the past on this issue. Nevertheless, my enthusiasm for the amendment is entirely disproportionate to the time I have taken— I promised it would be within a minute, and it is.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
We have heard some compelling arguments from across the House on the very important issues here. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, for her cogent and careful explanation of the reasons for bringing forward her amendments.
The issue we are addressing today is of great importance, particularly given that the Bill removes the options for tenants to pay rent in advance. Furthermore, the Minister has declined to support our amendment, which would have allowed for an arrangement between two consenting adults to agree on such a payment structure. This is a missed opportunity. Although His Majesty’s Opposition have not tabled an amendment to this group, we share the serious concerns that have been raised and I will try not to repeat the many arguments that have already been made.
Unfortunately, the Government’s proposals, in their current form, appear to pay little more than lip service to fairness. In practice, they fail to provide meaningful protection to those most at risk of exclusion from the rental market. Let us be clear about the deficiency of Amendments 170 and 265: they specifically prevent landlords requiring a guarantor in a wide range of circumstances, yet there remains ambiguity as to whether the amendments would still allow landlords to accept a guarantor if offered. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, for being very clear that they could still accept it, but that does create some ambiguity.
While we recognise that requiring a guarantor can be a significant barrier for many prospective tenants, particularly those from vulnerable backgrounds, the guarantor system serves a legitimate function where it is used proportionately. It can provide a safety net for tenants with limited financial histories, such as students, individuals supported by local councils or those whose circumstances might not meet the traditional expectations of landlords. However, the Government’s approach to rent in advance is inconsistent with the rest of the Bill. If tenants are not allowed to offer rent in advance as an alternative to a guarantor, we must ask: how will the Government ensure that fair and proportionate mechanisms are put in place to assess risk?
The private rental market is not a one-size-fits-all model; it encompasses a diverse range of tenants, from students and graduates to care leavers and older renters. How do the Government plan to accommodate those who may not have access to a guarantor but are still financially reliable? Crucially, where does the space exist in this framework for discretion, mutual agreement and choice between two consenting adults—tenants and landlords?
Furthermore, the Secretary of State’s proposed power to allow insurance-based alternatives to guarantors raises significant concerns. Can the Minister say how accessible these insurance products are likely to be and what steps are being taken to ensure that they do not create another costly barrier for tenants? As it stands, the insurance model seems unlikely to provide a fair and proportionate solution to the challenges that tenants face. These are not abstract concerns: the provisions, as drafted, place undue strain on tenants and their families without achieving the balance that the Government claim to seek. Unless there are significant revisions, this issue will undoubtedly return with force on Report.
As has been mentioned, the Bill has generated substantial interest across the rental sector, with campaigns led by the National Union of Students being particularly striking. Students across the UK, especially those from marginalised and underrepresented backgrounds are sounding the alarm. Guarantor requirements have emerged as one of the most significant barriers to accessing stable, affordable housing.
As the NUS has clearly outlined, these requirements disproportionately affect working-class students, care-experienced young people, estranged youth and international students—groups already navigating considerable challenges in their pursuit of education. Many of these students face an additional hardship: they do not have a family member in the UK who can meet the often arbitrary financial thresholds demanded by landlords. As a result, they are forced either to pay up to a year’s rent in advance—an impossible ask for many—or to turn to expensive guarantor services. We now find ourselves in the deeply perverse situation where it costs more to rent a home if you are poor.
Guarantor requirements contribute to this divide, by insisting that students find someone, often someone who earns up to 80 times the monthly rent and is based in the UK, to guarantee their tenancy. We are systematically locking out those who cannot meet these criteria. No one should be denied the opportunity to pursue academic excellence simply because of who they know or, more importantly, who they do not know. This is why these amendments fail, why the NUS and student representatives worked so tirelessly to bring this reform forward in the other place, and why it is so vital that we do not let this opportunity slip through our fingers in this House.
I focused much of my speech on the barriers faced by students, but it is essential to remember that this issue also affects many other vulnerable groups, none more so than care leavers. I speak as an ex-leader of a council, where I spent much time trying to enhance the position of care leavers. Having already overcome considerable challenges in their lives, they should not face yet another hurdle in their pursuit of independence. How can we in good conscience expect care leavers to comply with a condition that they simply cannot meet on their own? This also demonstrates the complexity of the situation, as often, their local councils—including Central Bedfordshire while I was there—were often willing and keen to provide guarantors to ensure that care leavers were on an even playing field to those from better financial backgrounds.
As I have outlined, the restrictions on rent in advance and lack of objective criteria for when a guarantor is required will only entrench existing inequalities. Penalising individuals who may be financially reliable but lack family support or financial connections to meet the arbitrary thresholds demanded by landlords is unjust. This is not just an issue of housing, it is an issue of fairness, opportunity and basic dignity.
Housing is not merely a financial transaction, it is the foundation of stability, security and opportunity. When we deny people access to housing because they cannot meet arbitrary demands for a guarantor, we are closing doors not only to homes but to education, career advancement and future independence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, raised a very valid issue regarding the right to rent and the fact that introducing what may seem quite a sensible rule leads to complications and places landlords in an awkward situation if they do not fully understand the legislation in front of them. Earlier today, we heard a number of noble Lords admit that they were not lawyers. It is also unreasonable to expect every landlord to be a lawyer. Where the law is complex, we need to make it simple and easy to comply with. This is one of our major concerns with this legislation.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister to listen to the voices of those most affected by these provisions—the students, care leavers and low-income tenants—and make the necessary changes to ensure that the Bill delivers fairness for all.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, before I respond directly to the amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, talked about denying people access to housing, including students, care leavers and people on low incomes. The fact that so little social and affordable housing has been provided over the last 14 years is a very strong reason why we are in the situation that we now are. That those people have not been able to find affordable housing is largely due to the housing policies of the previous Government. I want to put that on the record before giving my answers on my noble friend’s amendments.
I thank my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett for her amendments relating to guarantors and the right to rent. I add my thanks to Shelter, which has provided so much advice and support during the passage of this Bill, for which I am very grateful. I also thank my noble friend Lady Kennedy, the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Jamieson, for their comments.
Amendment 170 seeks to restrict the circumstances in which a guarantor could be required by a landlord. I appreciate that underlying this amendment—tabled with characteristic clarity, commitment and compassion by my noble friend Lady Lister—is the concern that those who do not have access to a guarantor will find it more difficult to find a home in the private rented sector than those who can obtain a guarantor. I make clear to my noble friend and the Committee that our approach to this issue is underpinned by the need to provide tenants with the rights and protections that they deserve. At the same time, we wish to guard against any unintended consequences that may, for some tenants, make renting more challenging. I recognise that obtaining a guarantor can be difficult for many prospective tenants. The Government are clear that landlords should consider tenants’ individual circumstances when negotiating rental contracts.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, seemed to indicate that there was some sort of compulsion for landlords to find a guarantor. If they wish to come to an agreement without one, they are more than able to do that. What they cannot do under the Bill is require significant sums of rent in advance. That is what was really discriminating against people. Those incredibly high sums of rent required in advance were making it difficult for people to rent.
However, it is important to acknowledge that, in many circumstances, the use of guarantors can provide landlords with the confidence to let their properties to tenants who may otherwise find it difficult to secure a tenancy in the private rented sector. This includes tenants with a history of rent arrears, people with incomes that fluctuate from month to month and those with no previous rental history—for example, students or young people moving out of home for the first time. Prohibiting landlords from accepting large amounts of rent in advance will benefit all tenants by giving them the confidence that the maximum financial outlay needed to secure a tenancy will not exceed the cost of a tenancy deposit and the first month’s rent.
The Government recognise that providing a UK-based guarantor may be difficult for some prospective students, including international students. Under the Renters’ Rights Bill, landlords will continue to be able to offer tenants who cannot provide a UK-based guarantor with the alternative of purchasing rent guarantor insurance. The measures set out in my noble friend’s amendment would inadvertently risk blocking certain types of renter from accessing accommodation in the private rented sector altogether, despite the amendment’s honourable intentions.
Turning to my noble friend Lady Kennedy’s question on guarantors, the Government are clear that landlords should consider each prospective tenant’s circumstances individually, including when it is appropriate to require a guarantor. They should not apply blanket requirements for guarantors to all tenants. In response to her other question, the landlord’s database will act as a record of landlords and properties rather than of individual tenancies. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for landlords to record the risk-mitigation measures that they have put in place for a particular tenant on the database. She also made a point about guidance on guarantors. I will take that back to the department to consider further.
I assure the Committee that we have carefully considered the extent to which different practices act as barriers or enablers to accessing the private rented sector. That is why we are taking this action to limit rent in advance through the Bill. I am always happy to meet my noble friend to discuss this further but, for all these reasons, I hope she will withdraw her amendment.
I turn to Amendment 265, which would abolish the right-to-rent scheme that applies in England. Right to rent was introduced to ensure that only those lawfully in the United Kingdom can access the private rented sector and—this is important—to tackle unscrupulous landlords who exploit vulnerable migrants, sometimes by letting properties that are in very poor condition indeed. Some landlords who rent to those who are here illegally are criminal operators and we all have a shared objective to drive them from the market—I think everybody around the Chamber would agree with that.
We have been absolutely clear that discriminatory treatment on the part of anyone carrying out the right-to-rent checks is unlawful; the dreadful examples given by my noble friend illustrated that. The checks apply equally to everyone seeking accommodation in the private rental sector, including British citizens, and I will just elaborate a little further on that. The right-to-rent scheme is capable of being operated proportionally by landlords and letting agents in all cases. The very purpose of the statutory code of practice on avoiding unlawful discrimination when conducting checks recognises and seeks to address the risk of discrimination.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to everybody who spoke. I will not go into any great detail in response, given the late hour. I do not think that my noble friend the Minister answered the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, which was on whether the right to rent has had any effect in reducing illegal migration. I do not know if she would care to answer that question now.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not have any statistics in front of me, but I will come back to noble Lords on that point.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. I am grateful for the support that I received. I was slightly confused, I must admit, by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, because I was not sure whether he was supporting my amendments or not. He said that they were ambiguous, but I think his approach was perhaps a bit ambiguous—and I cannot resist pointing out that right to rent was introduced by his Government, and we are now saddled with it.
I am disappointed, but perhaps not surprised, that my noble friend said that there is no plan to be shot of it especially, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, in the light of today’s White Paper. It is not exactly conducive to it, but it is important still to come back to the point.
I was also a bit disappointed that my noble friend did not feel able to give a bit more on the question of guarantors. She said that the proposed amendment would inadvertently block certain groups and could have unintended consequences. Everyone who spoke to this amendment accepted that it may be that it is not quite right, but that it is aiming to do something that in fact supports what the Government are trying to do.
Although she very kindly said that she is willing to discuss it, I did not get the sense that there is a willingness to discuss it in terms of perhaps bringing forward a government amendment that would achieve what we are trying to achieve but without the unintended consequences. Given the late hour, however, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Shipley
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Shipley aim to ensure that the provisions contained in section 22 apply to joint tenancies as well.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, there are four amendments in this group relating to Clauses 22 and 23 on notices to quit, so I wish to move Amendment 171 and speak to Amendments 172, 174, and 175.
The background to these amendments has been raised by front-line advisors of Citizens Advice. I thank them for their contribution to our consideration of this Bill, and I hope the Minister will be able to allay the concerns that they have expressed when she responds. These concerns relate to how tenants serve, withdraw or reduce notice in joint tenancies, and the length of notice that tenants must give to leave before the expiration of an eviction notice that they had been served using the new, no-fault grounds 1 and 1A.
It may come as a surprise to some to realise that, in joint tenancies, one tenant can serve a notice to quit to the landlord, ending the tenancy for all tenants without the other joint tenants knowing that this has happened. Tenants remaining in the property might not know that a notice has been served until the landlord expresses an intention to issue a claim for possession on the basis that the tenancy has been ended by a notice to quit. This would put the remaining tenants in a very vulnerable position, at risk of homelessness and liable for court costs. This is the status quo with periodic tenancies, but it could become a more common problem when all tenancies become periodic. It is important for one joint tenant to be able to end a joint tenancy unilaterally—I accept that—but a mechanism is essential to ensure that all joint tenants are notified.
Similarly, while it is welcome that the Bill provides for reduced notice by agreement between landlord and tenant, it should be stipulated that this is only where all joint tenants agree in writing. Otherwise, there is a risk that a departing joint tenant and their landlord will agree to bring a tenancy to an end very quickly, potentially without the remaining joint tenant being aware. In terms of the withdrawal of notice, there is a similar problem. In theory, one joint tenant could issue a notice to quit, and the other joint tenant and the landlord could agree that it will be withdrawn. The solution is to require that the agreement of all joint tenants is needed for the withdrawal of a notice.
There is a further issue when a tenant serves notice, but when the other tenant would have sought to transfer the tenancy solely to them if they had known notice was being served. This happens most often when joint tenants go through a relationship breakdown and the tenant who leaves serves a notice to quit, sometimes with the intention of harming the remaining tenant. Yet the remaining tenant could have gone to court to get an injunction to prevent the departing tenant from serving the notice to quit, allowing time for the tenancy to be transferred to them under family law. The remaining joint tenant would then retain the security of tenure and not be made homeless. It is important to note that many of these cases involve children.
When a tenant receives an eviction notice based on the new no-fault grounds 1 and 1A, they must still give two months’ notice, even if they need to leave the property before the expiration of the eviction notice. Yet in a fast-moving rental market, tenants often have to move quickly to secure an appropriate new home before their eviction notice expires; tenants may therefore face having to start a new tenancy before their current one has ended in order to avoid homelessness. There would be a new deposit, a first month’s rent, and often household bill costs on the new property, while also paying rent and household bills on their current home. This creates a very high-cost burden for tenants and can push those on a lower income into significant debt or put them at risk of homelessness if they cannot cover these costs or find a property with an aligning tenancy start date. This issue will be amplified with the Bill’s increase in tenant notice from one month to two.
This group of amendments would, first, require joint tenants to be notified by both the landlord and any tenant giving notice, that a notice to quit has been submitted and the tenancy will come to an end on a specified date. We should note that this amendment reflects the notification requirements of Section 130 of the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016.
Secondly, the amendments would ensure that a tenant’s notice to quit can be reduced or withdrawn, through agreement with a landlord, only if all joint tenants agree to it in writing.
Thirdly, they would allow withdrawal of a tenant notice in circumstances where a transfer or assignment of the tenancy to a remaining tenant is a viable option, which would remove the need to anticipate and pre-empt a notice to quit with an injunction.
Finally, they would reduce the notice a tenant must give to one month when notice has been served to them on grounds 1 and 1A, which would give much-needed flexibility to tenants and help them manage the high cost of moving, which is unaffordable to many low-income renters.
I hope the Minister will give due consideration to those issues, which I think are very important. I have learned a little about joint tenancies that I did not know before Citizens Advice got in touch. I hope that the Minister will be willing to give further consideration and detail to this so that, on Report, we can produce the amendments that are necessary to solve the problems that have been identified.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I was intrigued by the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, today and it is interesting to hear that they have come from Citizens Advice. I am conscious that things have evolved over time, and he mentioned relationship breakdown. As somebody who used to rent with other people, I know there was always a certain risk when you took on a tenancy that somebody could walk out and you would be left liable.
I guess I am trying to understand—perhaps I was not listening quite closely enough—whether we will get to a point where, instead of people coming together, this will drive more accommodation into houses of multiple occupation.
I will give your Lordships my personal experience. I was working for a very large company when I moved to another city, which reflected the job situation that I needed. There is no doubt that I deliberately sought out situations that were not exactly HMOs but where individual contracts and tenancies were allowed with the landlord, so that it would not fall on my shoulders to think about these issues.
I suppose I am trying to understand how this amendment would address the situation of making sure that there are enough tenancies and enough accommodation available, without putting more risk on to the landlord. We are already seeing quite a substantial change. I understand why the Government set this out in their manifesto and similar. I appreciate that there may be some differences on some of the impact but, perhaps when the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, follows up—I am happy to discuss this outside—it would be useful to discuss how much of a genuine, as opposed to theoretical, problem this really is.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for bringing these amendments to the Committee. As we on this side have consistently said throughout, we support the Bill’s overarching aim to create a fairer and more secure private rental sector. However, if it is to deliver on that promise, it must engage with the way that people rent in reality, not in theory. Joint tenancies are a common and practical arrangement, as we have heard, whether between couples, friends or flatmates. However, as currently drafted, the Bill leaves considerable uncertainty as to how these tenancies will be treated, particularly when one party wishes to leave.
Amendments 171 and 175 rightly seek to bring joint tenancies fully and clearly within the scope of the Bill. Without this clarity, both tenants and landlords could be left navigating ambiguity, with little guidance in law and potentially significant consequences in practice.
Similarly, Amendments 172 and 174 focus on the mechanisms for ending a joint tenancy. This is a matter not just of legal process but of fairness and practicality. Tenants must be afforded flexibility, particularly in cases of relationship breakdown or changes in household arrangements, while landlords should not be left in legal or financial limbo.
In that context, it is right to raise the issue of subletting, which is closely tied to how joint tenancies evolve and adapt over time. When a tenant is not using all or even part of their space, subletting enables the more efficient use of underoccupied homes. This is particularly important in areas facing acute housing shortages, where every single room matters. Subletting arrangements can offer a pragmatic solution for tenants trying to manage their finances, respond to personal changes or simply avoid exiting a tenancy altogether. It can help maintain housing stability where one joint tenant moves out, by allowing a new occupier to contribute to rent without formalising a new tenancy agreement from scratch. Moreover, subletting can play a role in addressing the chronic supply issues affecting the rental sector. It offers access to more affordable rents, supports tenants’ incomes and introduces much-needed flexibility into an often rigid system.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his amendments, which relate to tenants ending an assured tenancy and joint tenancies. In doing so, I thank him for raising the very important issues brought to him by Citizens Advice, which has been in touch with the department as well. I thank Citizens Advice and all the other stakeholders for engaging with our officials on these issues. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Scott, for their comments too.
Where a joint tenant has served a notice to quit, Amendment 171 would require any agreement to a notice period of less than two months to be with not just the landlord, as the Bill requires, but with all other joint tenants as well. Although I genuinely think there is merit to this approach, I am cognisant of the potential impacts on tenants who do not wish to inform their co-tenants that they are leaving. There may be a number of reasons why that might be the case. We would need to give very careful consideration to any change in this direction, to make sure we understand any impacts that it might have. We are currently working through that.
Amendment 172 would allow a tenant to provide only one month’s notice to end an assured tenancy if the landlord had already provided a notice of their intention to seek possession using ground 1 or ground 1A. The Government understand that tenants may find new properties to let within the four-month notice period the landlord has given them, and that market pressures would mean that, ideally, they could go when they need to. However, it is right and fair that tenants provide landlords with the usual two months’ notice so that landlords have sufficient notice, as they may need to change or alter their plans as a result. We think that this strikes a fair balance. Tenants will benefit from slightly longer notice periods, and it is right that landlords can plan for the ending of the tenancy too. Nothing prevents the agreement of a shorter notice period. We expect that, in many cases, landlords will gladly facilitate a quicker end to the tenancy to allow them to sell or move in more quickly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, raised a number of questions around subletting. I will come back to her on those points.
Amendment 174 would require joint tenants to notify each other when serving a notice to quit an assured tenancy, and landlords to inform all joint tenants that such a notice has been served and to provide a copy of the notice. The Bill does not require joint tenants to inform each other when ending an assured tenancy. I understand the point that there is an inherent risk that tenants may not find out until late in the notice period that their tenancy is ending. However, at the moment, the Government are concerned about the potential impact—for example, on domestic abuse victims—of being required to inform the perpetrator that they are ending a tenancy, possibly in order to flee. On the balance of risks, we believe the needs of domestic abuse victims must be allowed to prevail, although I recognise it is a difficult decision and we are giving it further consideration.
Finally, Amendment 175 would require all joint tenants to agree to withdrawing a notice to quit. This amendment is unnecessary, as it has already been established in law that all joint tenants must agree to positively sustain the tenancy. It is very unlikely that a court would determine that a single tenant could unilaterally withdraw a notice to quit, because there is not the positive consent of all tenants. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, these are essentially probing amendments and I am glad that the Minister and her department have had discussions with Citizens Advice. I understand some of the points that she has made. To take up the point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, I think the aim is to avoid unintended consequences in a new Bill such as this. So it is important that all these issues are thought through and examined so that the best answer can be found. I hope it might be possible, between now and Report, for some of the issues that the Minister has raised to be looked at in detail. I shall look carefully at her response in Hansard to see whether there are ways in which some of the problems that have been identified, and some of the responses with perhaps unintended consequences that the Minister has identified, might find a solution. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Roborough
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe why the government has sought to remove section 25(1) of the 1988 Act completely.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 176 and speak also to Amendment 177, in my name. Before I begin, I refer the Committee to my interests as set out in the register, as a farmer, landowner and residential landlord. In particular, I have a number of houses occupied by employees under assured agricultural occupancies.
These two amendments are probing amendments, intended to allow the Committee to understand better how the Government sees these provisions of the Bill operating and also to probe whether the impact of the Bill in this area may have unintended consequences that need to be resolved. Before moving on to the detail of the discussion, I shall follow my noble friend Lady Scott, who on an earlier group underlined the importance of being able to offer on-site accommodation to agricultural employees.
I have three herdspeople, and one relief herdswoman, who rise daily at around 3.30 in the morning to milk. Being a short walk from the herd and the parlour is critical to their employment conditions. Those herdspeople also take primary responsibility for animal health within the herds, as well as the linked young stock. Again, being on site is vital to allow frequent inspections of the animals to ensure that they are doing well. There is also an important security consideration in having employees on site and able to deal with any malicious trespass, animal escapes and so on.
In short, this may not be a matter of huge general interest, but it is critical to farming in general, and to livestock farming in particular, that accommodation is available on site for these employees. When they leave, it needs to be available for their successors. However, we must also recognise that farm workers may have lived for many years, and even decades, in a community, and that options for them to stay in the area even when employment ends are desirable.
Beginning with Amendment 176, my Explanatory Notes indicate that leaving out this paragraph is intended to probe why the Government have sought to remove Section 25(1) of the 1988 Act completely. Since the 1988 Act, it appears that agricultural occupiers with an assured agricultural occupancy are entitled to remain in that occupation, even if they leave the employment of the landlord, as long as they remain in agricultural employment.
Omitting this subsection could mean that agricultural occupiers retain protection even after their qualifying employment ends. I ask the Minister whether that is the intention. The subsection may be being removed because it refers to fixed-term tenancies, which the Government are seeking to abolish in the Bill. However, in this case, it is linked to fixed-term employment. It appears that the Government may not have considered the importance of this link and the necessity for landlords to be able to recover agricultural accommodation linked to employment. I also ask what impact this will have on assured agricultural occupants in tied agricultural dwellings where, if they are no longer employed in agriculture, it may well be a breach of planning regulations.
Amendment 177 is a similar probing amendment. Ground 16, for recovering possession of an assured agricultural occupancy at the end of employment, was omitted from the Housing Act 1988. This created a headache for agricultural employers, but in practice its implications have been rather limited, as departing employees often leave for other employment with accommodation included, or because the open market rent for quality rural accommodation tends to be unaffordably high for those working in agriculture.
In the Renters’ Rights Bill, the Government have continued to omit the ability to recover accommodation at the end of employment—or at least that is what I thought. On an earlier group, the Minister said that
“we appreciate that the agricultural sector has distinct requirements, and it is often vital for workers to live on-site to carry out their duties, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, very ably described to us. That is why we have included ground 5A”.—[Official Report, 24/4/25; col. 859.]
However, it does not appear that ground 5A is applicable to landlords and assured agricultural occupants to ensure that houses can be recovered at the end of employment, as it is omitted as being a ground. I would be most grateful to the Minister if she could explain how she sees it working in practice for agricultural employers to recover vital accommodation at the end of employment.
These assured agricultural occupiers will also gain greater protection, given that grounds 2ZC and 2ZB are not available for use. I ask the Minister why the Government think this is appropriate. Why are agricultural landlords being treated differently from other landlords and are not able to regain possession of the properties after the landlord changes under Section 18 of the Housing Act 1988 or after taking over a tenancy?
In a previous group, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, argued for making grounds 2ZC and 2ZB discretionary. In our view, this introduction of legal uncertainty would make the complexity even worse. From my limited exposure to this Bill, I am not sure how easily anyone will be able to administer all tenancies captured by it without a law degree. This discretion may elevate that base level of expertise to actually practising at the Bar. Given that it is largely estate agents and land agents who manage tenancies, it is important to make the Bill’s provisions as clear-cut as possible.
I also ask the Minister whether the Government have considered the impact of this Bill on a particular practice that we believe will deliver unintended consequences. Many agricultural employers, when housing employees, have understandably sought to avoid creating assured agricultural occupancies by serving notice before a tenancy begins and classifying that tenancy as an assured shorthold tenancy. This allowed serving a Section 21 notice with certainty that the house could be recovered at the end of employment to ensure it was available for the next employee. As a consequence of this Bill, those employees or tenants will now gain what appears to be greater protection than originally intended. Would the Minister consider adding a provision to allow landlords and employees in this position to change the status of those tenancies, potentially to assured agricultural occupancies, before the Bill takes effect? I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 182. I am a great supporter of the policy of right to buy and right to acquire. I think it is one of the best policies of the past 50 years, making sure that people had investment in their communities and were able to determine exactly how different things in their homes looked. Basically, it made sure that we had a greater proportion of owner-occupiers.
During my time as a Member of Parliament, I had not realised that, in effect, there had been discrimination against people living in the countryside. I discovered this when busily propagating some of the latest policies that my party was putting forward and had it said to me very squarely on a doorstep in a particular housing estate in Rendlesham in Suffolk. I was told that I was doing a load of good, but, frankly, it meant nothing to them because they had already tried to acquire their housing association home and had been told that they could not.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I want to say a few words about Amendment 182 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey—not, I am afraid, in support of it. Is it fair that tenants residing in rural properties should have different treatment from those in the rest of the country? I have been responsible for a number of rural housing schemes—indeed, I recently chaired the Devon Housing Commission, looking at the issues facing communities in Devon—and I suggest that there are a number of reasons why it is fair to treat tenants in rural areas rather differently from those in the rest of the country.
First, it is much more difficult if a property is sold and therefore does not come back for reletting. We now know, Right to Buy being a matter of history, that after a period you will not get the relets, the opportunity for more people to enter those properties, in the years ahead. It is more difficult to replace properties in a village than in a town. If we lose the six houses that we have built in that village, they are gone for ever. It often takes years to acquire a site, convince the parish council and deal with the landowners. It takes a very long time to get those six homes built and we do not want to lose them if we can possibly help it, because in the future we will regret that.
My second reason is that the amount of social housing—housing association and council housing—in rural areas is appreciably less than in the rest of the country. It is about 11% for areas classified as rural locations compared with 17% for the rest of the country, including the rural areas, so there are already signs of acute shortage of affordable social housing in many areas, and we cannot really afford to lose what we have.
The third reason is that most of the developments in rural areas, or village areas, are small developments, and there is therefore no requirement to do affordable housing—to have a proportion of the homes that are available at subsidised low rents—so most of the development that is going to happen in rural areas, being less than 10 homes, is not going to have any affordable housing attached to it. We have to hang on, if we possibly can, to the properties that we have and then relet them later on.
My fourth reason is that, as the noble Baroness said, prices are higher but wages are lower. It is much more difficult in rural areas for local people to find any housing other than social housing that they can genuinely afford. There are the retirees moving in—in the case of Devon, from the south-east very often into the south-west. There are more affluent commuters paying more than locals can afford on their salaries. There are second homes—we are going to be talking soon about short-term lets, Airbnb and holiday lets—so locals are priced out, and it becomes a precious commodity to retain those few rural social houses, so I am afraid that I am unable to support Amendment 182.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, these Benches recognise the vital importance of our rural and agricultural communities, who operate under the more specialised and long-standing tenancy agreements. Such tenancies often span many years, involve successive generations and reflect a connection between the land and those who work it, going well beyond the norms found in other areas of the rental sector. We fully appreciate the challenges that tenants and landlords may face under those arrangements, particularly when legislation risks creating ambiguity or disruption.
When I looked at these amendments, it struck me that discretionary rather than mandatory powers would be a very useful thing to have, so it is hugely ironic that the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, raised my own amendments on this issue. I would have thought that a discretionary approach for any decision in the courts may well be useful in this context. However, while we are sympathetic to the concerns raised, that sympathy does not translate into ready support for Amendments 176, 177 and 182. It is our understanding that the Bill will not apply to residential property let under a farm business tenancy or an Agricultural Holdings Act tenancy but will apply to any residential property on a holding that is subsequently sublet on what we now know as an assured shorthold tenancy, and it will in future have grounds for possession as set out in other parts of the Bill.
We also understand that a process will be in place for landlords to avoid inadvertently creating assured agricultural occupancies, and we fully back the words of the noble Lord, Lord Best, as ever, with regard to rural communities and retention of, in particular, social housing. We believe firmly that local authorities know best and should be given the powers to make decisions over those social homes, with the right level of localism and autonomy. With that said, we look forward with interest to hearing the Minister’s response but remain unconvinced by these three amendments as set out.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for their amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for their comments.
I turn first to Amendments 176 and 177 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. Amendment 176 seeks to reverse the Bill’s removal of Section 25(1) from the Housing Act 1988. The noble Lord stated that he is seeking to probe why we are making this change. The answer, I am sure he will be pleased to learn, is simple and straightforward. After this Bill is implemented, Section 25(1) of the 1988 Act will be a spent provision; that is to say, it will have no effect. That is because it deals with what happens when statutory periodic tenancies arise upon the end of a fixed term of an assured agricultural occupancy. Statutory periodic tenancies will no longer exist after the Bill is implemented, nor will fixed terms. Indeed, all assured tenancies, including assured agricultural occupancies, will be periodic tenancies. The provision in Clause 25 is purely a consequential amendment, tidying up this spent provision from the 1988 Act following our reforms.
Amendment 177 seeks to allow the eviction of tenants with assured agricultural occupancies under ground 2ZC. This would reduce the security that these tenants currently enjoy. The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, has highlighted that he is seeking to probe why the Bill is expanding the restrictions on when assured agricultural occupancies can be evicted. With respect, this represents a misunderstanding of what the provision is doing. Clause 25 contains technical and consequential amendments to the assured agricultural occupancy regime that aim to maintain the status quo in light of our reforms. It includes preventing landlords from evicting those tenants under the employment ground—now 5C—as well as ground 5A and the new superior landlord grounds. These grounds cover circumstances where tenants under assured agricultural occupancy tenancies cannot currently be evicted. They are being amended or introduced by the Bill, and, as such, may pose a risk to tenants’ security in the new system. Rather than expanding the restrictions on evictions for such tenants, this provision will broadly maintain the status quo. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, not to press his amendments.
Amendment 182, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would prevent any secondary legislation laid under the power in paragraph 65 of Schedule 2 exempting the rural sector from the right to acquire—and, more widely, seeks to ensure that residents in properties in rural areas have the right to acquire. The provisions in paragraph 65 of Schedule 2 allow the Secretary of State to lay regulations specifying types of assured tenancies to which the right to acquire would not apply. This consequential amendment allows the government to consider whether any of the existing right-to-acquire exemptions that apply to assured shorthold tenancies should be transferred across to the new regime. The amendment from noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would prevent this power being used to exempt the rural sector from the right to acquire. Rural properties are currently exempt in designated rural areas, which are generally settlements with fewer than 3,000 people—the noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned the Devon Housing Commission, which he has ably chaired, and he has made me aware of the conclusions of that commission.
This is designed to protect affordable housing in areas, both rural and urban, where replacement is often not viable due to its high costs, planning restrictions or land constraints, for example, and it is necessary to ensure the supply of rural affordable housing. The Government have no plans to change this, although it may be helpful if I comment briefly on the right to acquire. To qualify for that, tenants must have spent at least three years as a public sector tenant and occupy an eligible property. That applies whether they are in a rural or an urban area. However, there are important exemptions, such as those for the rural sector and for properties built or acquired by housing associations using their own funds. These restrictions aim to strike a balance between promoting home ownership and protecting social housing in areas or situations where it is most needed. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, reflected some of the reasons that might be the case.
The Government recently consulted on reforms to right to buy, seeking views on eligibility criteria, the minimum and maximum percentage discounts, further protections for new-build properties and replacement of the homes sold. That consultation closed on 15 January and we are considering the responses received. We will provide more information on the next steps in due course. Importantly, the right to acquire was not included in that consultation; the Government will consider whether any changes should be made to the right to acquire in the light of future changes to the right to buy.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Could the Minister address the situation where housing associations are selling off rural housing on the open market to the highest bidder, rather than to the tenants?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We hope to provide more financial sustainability to housing associations through our funding mechanisms, which I hope will prevent them having to do that. The Government have no current plans to change the right to acquire. On that basis, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, in particular to my noble friend Lady Coffey for her comments on agricultural tie dwellings. I am also grateful to the Minister for providing a very helpful clarification. The question mark remains about what happens to dwellings that have an agricultural restriction on them which are occupied by agricultural employees after they cease to be agricultural employees but may be protected in their tenancy under the Bill. I hope she might write to me on that but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.
“13A In section 553 (effect of repurchase on certain existing tenancies (England)), in subsection (2)—(a) in paragraph (a), omit the words “or an assured tenancy”;(b) in paragraph (b), omit the words from “or in accordance” to the end of that paragraph (including the “and” at the end of that paragraph);(c) omit paragraph (c).13B In section 554 (grant of tenancy to former owner-occupier), in subsection (3)— (a) omit paragraph (c) (and the “or” at the end of that paragraph);(b) after paragraph (b), insert—“(ca) an assured tenancy, or”.13C In Part 4 of Schedule 2 (grounds for possession: secure tenancies), in paragraph (1)(c), omit the words from “which is neither” to the end of that paragraph.”Member's explanatory statement
This makes further amendments to the Housing Act 1985 which are consequential on the changes made by Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Bill.
Member's explanatory statement
This brings the wording into line with the definitions used in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.
Lord Best
“Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008
57A In Schedule 3 to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 (enactments specified for the purposes of Part 1), in the suitable place insert—“Tenant Fees Act 2019 (c.4)””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment integrates the Tenant Fees Act 2019 into Schedule 3 to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. It enables a Primary Authority to support local authorities to give assured advice to lettings agents on achieving compliance under the Tenant Fees Act 2019. Providing this advice will support lettings businesses and reduce pressure on local authorities' enforcement teams.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I repeat my declaration of interest as a vice-president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute as well as of the Local Government Association.
Trading standards represent an important ingredient in achieving the objectives of the Bill: they are the front line in enforcement of key measures of good practice by property agents carrying out lettings activities. To assist local businesses of all kinds and the trade associations that represent and advise them, arrangements are in place for primary authorities—local authorities able to provide specialist advice on a range of consumer protection legislation. Primary authorities cover different aspects of property matters and support property agents, as well as their trade association Propertymark and the Property Ombudsman. These arrangements enable authoritative assured advice to be given to property agents, who can then rely on that advice in dealing with any query or dispute. It relieves local authorities’ enforcement teams from dealing with queries, complaints and misdemeanours that could be avoided if assured advice was available.
Demand for high-quality advice is likely to grow as a result of the Renters’ Rights Bill. More landlords are likely to make use of letting agents to ensure that all regulatory requirements are being met. The letting agents, in turn, need the best possible advice on the extensive legislative measures that affect their client landlords. A problem here, however, is that current arrangements for assured advice do not extend to aspects of lettings activities in the Tenant Fees Act 2019. This legislation bans agents from charging fees to tenants as well as to landlords. Since the introduction of that legislation, local authorities have been anxious for this area of letting agency work to be included in the assured advice arrangements.
This small amendment would mean that lettings advice covering the Tenant Fees Act, on which property agency businesses can rely, would at last be available, and that local authority enforcement authorities can act with confidence. It is an entirely helpful amendment in tidying up a piece of defective legislation, and it fully supports the objectives of the Renters’ Rights Bill. I am not expecting passionate expressions of support from lots of your Lordships for this somewhat technical amendment, but I hope the Minister will say that it meets with the Government’s approval. I am pleased to move it.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I am going to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Best, as I rise very briefly because I feel that this ties in quite neatly with his later amendments on letting agents becoming more professional and having better qualifications. Any means that will reduce the pressure on local authority enforcement teams are very much to be welcomed. The amendment is techy but simple, and I think it could be effective.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for moving this very sensible amendment, which is thoughtful and well-considered.
The integration of the Tenant Fees Act 2019 into the framework of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, through Schedule 2, is not just a technical improvement but a step towards greater coherence and clarity in an already highly complex area of legislation. In a Bill of this scope and detail, ensuring that our legislative frameworks align and complement one another is not only sound law-making but essential for those responsible for implementation on the ground. Was that passionate enough?
The practical implications of this amendment deserve the Committee’s close attention. In essence, it would allow primary authorities to give assured, legally backed advice to letting agents on how to comply with the Tenant Fees Act 2019. Supporting letting agents through legislative transitions in this way will help avoid confusion and ensure compliance from day one—a key goal for any regulatory change.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, mentioned, the amendment would also relieve pressure on local enforcement teams, many of which operate with limited resources, in both finance and capacity. By reducing their workload where possible, we enable these teams to concentrate on the most serious breaches—rogue landlords, unsafe housing and the exploitation of vulnerable tenants—where intervention is most urgently needed.
This approach is not without precedent. Organisations such as the Lettings Industry Council have consistently called for greater clarity, guidance and consistency in how regulations are enforced across local authorities. Integrating the Tenant Fees Act into this structure directly supports those calls and shows that the Government are listening to those working on the front line of regulation and compliance.
We are, therefore, sympathetic to the spirit of this amendment. It offers practical benefits to tenants, agents and enforcement authorities alike. We believe that it would contribute to a more effective, fairer and more streamlined regulatory environment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am not sure whether it is because of the late hour, but my Whip, sitting on the Front Bench with me, just sent me a dancing emoji, as if to show me how to show passion when responding to amendments. I will do my best.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his amendment, which would allow for the Tenant Fees Act 2019 to be included in the primary authority scheme. This would provide estate and letting agent businesses with the option to receive assured advice on complying with its regulations. The scheme allows the local authority nominated as a primary authority to provide assured advice to businesses that operate across multiple local authority areas, which helps those businesses comply with regulations. The scheme has the potential to streamline the interpretation of regulation for business. It can also be a more efficient approach to regulation for local government.
I welcome Members of the House sharing their views on this matter and we will undertake to consider this amendment further. For now, and for those reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Best (CB)
I am much encouraged by that response from the Minister, and I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Charities Act 2011
66A (1) The Charities Act 2011 is amended as follows.(2) In section 117 (restrictions on disposition of land: general), in subsection (2)(b)(ii), after “less” insert “or which are assured tenancies”.(3) In section 120 (requirements for leases which are for 7 years or less)—(a) in the heading, after “less” insert “or which are assured tenancies”;(b) in subsection (1), the words from "a lease" to the end become paragraph (a);(c) after that paragraph insert “, or(b) a lease that is an assured tenancy within the meaning of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1988.””Member’ s explanatory statement
This amends the Charities Act 2011 so that the disposition of leases which are assured tenancies will be subject to the requirements in section 120 of that Act.
(i) before the regulations come into force, or(ii) when or after they come into force under a contract entered into before then, or by the acceptance of an offer made before then.”Member’ s explanatory statement
This brings the wording in clause 32(5)(a) into line with the wording used in the new Part 2 of Schedule 6 which would be inserted by the amendment in my name.
“Restrictions on conversion of assured tenancies to short-term lettings(1) Where a property has been let subject to an assured tenancy or assured shorthold tenancy at any time in the preceding three years, it must not be let as a short-term rental property within the meaning of section 228(2) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 unless a change of use has been permitted under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987/764) as amended by subsection (2).(2) In Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987/764), at the end of part C insert—“Class C7. Short term rental property
Use of a dwellinghouse for commercial short-term letting, within the meaning of section 228(2) of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023.””Member’ s explanatory statement
This clause requires planning consent for assured or assured shorthold tenancies to be converted into short-term lettings.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for leading two groups of amendments in a row.
Amendment 185, in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Truscott and Lord Young of Cookham and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, seeks to add a new clause to the Bill that would require planning consent before assured or shorthold tenancies can be converted into short-term lettings. The definition of “short-term letting” is defined in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. These lettings are often referred to as “Airbnb lets”, although several companies handle them.
I note that the amendment would not affect the letting of spare rooms to supplement the family income or temporary use of an owner-occupier’s home, when, for example, they are away on holiday. Instead, the amendment would cover the switching of privately rented properties from ordinary, longer-term lettings for those living and working locally to short-term lets for visitors. This phenomenon is having a serious impact on housing shortages in a number of tourist hotspots. In some places, the loss of PRS lettings has reached critical proportions, from seaside towns to national parks and historic cities. Appallingly, there are many examples of landlords serving notices to quit—thereby evicting tenants—so that long-established renters can be replaced with higher-paying lettings to tourists.
According to AirDNA, which tracks the lettings by Airbnb and similar companies, York saw an increase of nearly 30% in short-term lets in the city between August 2021 and August 2023. York now has more than 2,000 such lets. In Coniston, in the Lake District, 50% of homes are not lived in full-time. In the picturesque town of Salcombe, Devon, it is understood that around 40% of the accommodation now comprises second homes or short-term lettings; I commend the relevant section in the Devon Housing Commission report on that.
The switching phenomenon also has a particular relevance in London: a survey by the property consultants, Savills, found 117,000 homes listed for short-term letting on the Airbnb and Vrbo websites last year in just 12 London boroughs. The survey found that over half were let for more than the 90 days permitted in London and, in the central London boroughs, 40% of the private rented sector was let on a short-term basis. In many other European and American cities, action is being taken to address this problem. Indeed, Wales and Scotland have legislated to reduce the impact of losing homes for locals to rent.
In England, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 has provided the basis for a start to be made. The Act requires the Secretary of State to introduce mandatory registration for short-term lets. This measure would provide local authorities with an evidence base on which to decide whether the level of short-term lettings in their area should be restricted. Regulations under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act would prohibit the use of short-term lets of non-registered properties. Introducing registration would be a good starting point but, so far, no action has been taken.
In February 2024, Michael Gove, then Secretary of State, announced that the Government would be taking this issue to the next stage, using the planning system to control switchovers to short-term lets where the local planning authority deemed this necessary. To inform the details of this new regime, a government consultation considered the introduction of a new use class for planning purposes, enabling local authorities to refuse permission for a change of use from a long-term to a short-term letting. This consultation exercise produced near-unanimous agreement that such action would be an invaluable mechanism to discourage further expansion of the so-called Airbnb sector in specific places. The Government of the day pledged to take this forward at pace. Sadly, no action followed.
The previous Government reformed the tax regime for furnished holiday lets, and this has now come into force. The change removes a strong incentive for flipping properties from long-term to short-term letting, but the Renters’ Rights Bill may mean that more landlords are now being tempted to flip their properties, making the introduction of a new use class, which would enable councils to intervene, the more urgent. Amendment 185 is intended to provide the opportunity for the Government to progress the action needed to amend planning law by creating a new use class for short-term lettings, empowering each local authority to decide whether it is in the interests of their community to permit changes of use from long-term to short-term lets. The Minister for Housing and Planning in the other place, Matthew Pennycook, has demonstrated an appreciation of this issue and has promised to take further action—but when?
If the Minister is not able to accept this amendment, it would be helpful if she could update the Committee on the timetable for introducing first, the short-term lettings registration scheme and, secondly, the legislation to create a new use class for short-term lets. Action is overdue. I beg to move.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as mentioned previously in Committee, I declare my interest as a landlord and former long-term tenant in the private rented sector. I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, on short lets requiring planning consent for properties to be converted into short-term lettings. As your Lordships’ House would expect, the noble Lord, Lord Best, has made the case convincingly.
His Majesty’s Government should include this amendment in the Bill, because there is an undoubted link between the reduced availability of long lets, especially for local residents, and the exponential rise in Airbnb and other short-let platforms. A register, while welcome, will mainly chart the huge and expanding nature of this part of the PRS, which is already having such a deleterious effect on the provision of long-term accommodation for locals and their communities. The Minister may say this amendment is not a matter for the Bill, but it is. The Bill will accelerate the trends of short lets and reduce long lets unless amended. By introducing periodic tenancies with a minimum two-month notice period, it will simply introduce another class of short lets protected by law and destabilise the long-term lets market.
The PRS has not grown in the last nine years, as I mentioned previously in Committee. The Bill, by prohibiting upfront rental payments and fixed-term tenancies, will lead to evermore landlords moving to short lets. This trend is completely ignored by the Bill but will follow as surely as night follows day.
Tenants will be able to give two months’ notice on day one under the proposed legislation. Why should they do that? Because long lets are up to four times cheaper than short lets in, for example, the London Borough of Camden. Once tenants move in, the length of their tenancy will be impossible to police. If tenants move out after only a month rather than the minimum two, how will that be monitored and by whom? It will result in widespread short lets by the back door. A tourist could simply move into what was previously a long let, give two months’ notice and save thousands of pounds. It would just take a little fib on the part of the tenant.
A landlord will have no way of knowing a tenant’s real intentions under periodic tenancies, so will put up the rent, assuming that all long lets can become short lets. The distinction between short and long lets will disappear, with implications for rent levels. Neither the prohibition of mutually agreed fixed-term tenancies nor advanced rental payments were in Labour’s election manifesto, so I am at a loss to understand why these two essential measures to provide stability and certainty to the market have become non-negotiable. The majority of tenants want fixed terms, so I fail to see why HMG think they know better than the tenants themselves. Reducing the supply of long lets as ever more landlords gravitate towards more profitable short lets will mean that rents will assuredly go up, not down, and the losers will be the tenants, especially local residents and their sense of community.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned London and Devon. I have quoted before how some London housing blocks have become over 90% Airbnb or similar short lets. Local residents are squeezed out. Devon is a county I know well; I am a Devonian. The noble Lord, Lord Best, quoted the example of Salcombe, Devon’s answer to Saint-Tropez. Similar cases can be quoted throughout the West Country and Wales, including Cornwall. However, as the noble Lord said, it is not just coastal resorts and historic cities such as Bath, which I also know well, and York, that are affected. Areas around Birmingham have also become short-let hotspots.
Of course, it is not only the UK. Airbnb and the like have reached saturation point in Spain, in cities such as Barcelona and on Tenerife. It has become so bad, with locals priced out of accommodation, that tourists have been assaulted in restaurants and on beaches. As I mentioned, short lets are far more profitable for landlords than long lets. Airbnb and other short-let platforms are becoming increasingly dominated by professional landlords, as regulation is either non-existent or very light-touch.
By way of comparison, long-let residential property is already governed by 170 laws and regulations. The attractions for landlords to move to short lets is obvious and will be enabled by this Bill. Apart from the further regulatory and legal provisions in the Bill, long-let landlords will be asked by HMRC to make quarterly tax returns by April 2026, and new EPC regulations could cost anything up to £15,000 per property. Estate agents must report long-term rentals to HMRC in this country. Airbnb and the like do not, and I suspect that tax evasion is rampant.
Renting out flats or rooms on Airbnb or other short-let platforms undermines long-term rentals, legitimate B&Bs and smaller hotels, all of whom must pay taxes, abide by a host of regulations, employ local people and support local economies. With more and more remote professional landlords, Airbnb does none of that. The idea that Airbnb and other similar platforms allow a few grannies to innocently rent out their spare rooms is far from the true picture.
The impact of short lets is also pernicious. They undermine any sense of community, create nuisance for full-time residents and can be a security risk for blocks of flats, with Airbnbers having raucous parties and coming and going at all hours of the night and day. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, research has found that half of London’s 117,000 short holiday lets are being rented out illegally. In Westminster, where over 50% of residents live in rented property, council leader Adam Hug has said that short lets
“can hollow out long-term residents, making neighbours subject to significant noise disruption, fly-tipped waste linked to short-term let properties”.
In 2015, there were fewer than 30,000 short lets in London. This more than doubled throughout 2016, peaking at over 100,000 in 2019. As Tom Copley, Sir Sadiq Khan’s London Deputy Mayor for Housing, said,
“we need to bring those properties back into use as long-term rented properties or long-term properties for people to buy and live in as owner-occupiers”.
This Bill as drafted will legalise ever more short lets, as tenants will be able to legally move out of a property after just two months.
I had experience of an Airbnb rented flat in a block where short lets were banned under the lease. The owner was fully aware of this fact and kept denying the property was rented out on Airbnb, despite the property being advertised openly on the website. Airbnb takes no action in these situations. In our case, it took over two years for the owner to be forced to abandon Airbnb, despite his flat being the only short let in the block. People were coming and going every few days, and wear and tear on the communal areas and concern for security were considerable.
The only action which reined in the current leaseholder was a threat by the excellent managing agent to go to court to get him to forfeit the lease. HMG have previously said this option will be banned, so I wonder how such situations could be resolved in the future. I would retain the nuclear option of forfeiture but exclude it for death and other relatively minor transgressions.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I too have added my name to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, and want to add a very brief footnote to the two speeches that have already been made.
It is at times like this that we miss the contribution of the late Baroness Gardner of Parkes, who many of us will remember intervening forcefully whenever short-term lettings were mentioned, reminding us of the erosion of rented property in London, but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, mentioned, some of the problems in large blocks of flats when short-term tenants cannot conform to the normal rules.
What we need here is a balance. There is a role for short-term lettings and Airbnb to play as part of a portfolio of opportunities in a coastal resort or, indeed, in a capital city. But what we have at the moment is a one-way street of erosion of long-term property for rent into short-term lettings. If we are to have a balance and get it right, it should be the local authority which should be in a position to strike that balance. I am sure the Minister, as a distinguished leader of a local authority, would agree that local authorities are best placed to do this.
I think I am right in saying that, until fairly recently, you actually needed planning permission to move from long-term to short-term letting, but, in a move to deregulate and make it easier to move from one use class to another, that requirement to get planning consent to move from one use to another was waived in the 2010 or 2015 Parliament, apart from in London.
It was retained in London, and only in London, where, if you want to short-term rent a property, you can only do so for 90 days—a rule that is ineffective unless it is enforced, and many local authorities find it difficult to enforce . What this amendment seeks to establish is whether the Government are minded to extend from London to other parts of the country that type of restriction to stop what is, at the moment, a one-way street.
I just add a rider to what the noble Lord, Lord Best, has suggested. If you need planning consent to go from long-term to short-term, I do not think you ought to need planning consent to go back the other way. In other words, it should be a hurdle to get over, but if you want to revert to long-term renting, you should not have to go through the process again. If one looks at various parts of the country, in some coastal areas, one in 10 homes are now short-term lets or second homes. Roughly 24 homes a day are being lost through this process, so I hope the Minister will be able to respond sympathetically to the thrust of this Bill, and say that there are plans to give local authorities the powers that I think they need to get the right balance in the tenures in their area.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I live not far from Aldeburgh, not too far from Southwold, so I am very conscious of the issues that have arisen from people acquiring homes and then turning them into short-term rentals. It is a really important part of the coastal economy, but I would suggest in a different way that, in fact, the changes made to the tax situation, where it was possible to offset mortgages and all sorts of expenses, led to a significant increase in the price that people were prepared to pay for houses. I saw this in Southwold, where I got a lot of angry letters—admittedly from people who had done just this thing. What happened was that neighbouring houses that had been priced only a few years earlier at something like £300,000 to £400,000, were now selling for over £1 million. This was done on the basis of the short-term property rental that was possible.
However, what concerns me about this particular amendment is that it does not account for those people who are moving into a place to make it their permanent home. At the moment, this amendment suggests that, if it has been used at all for long-term tenancy, it should be excluded or need further planning permission. I suggest that there are plenty of people who are trying—whether in rural or coastal areas—to make their long-term home, but want to take advantage of the times when they themselves choose to go on holiday to be able to get some rental income. It is a perfectly sensible way, at times when people choose to be away potentially at the height of season, to gain that extra income. While I am sensitive to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, I think that we need to explore what happens when the property transitions from one owner to another so that they can use their new family home in the best way possible, not only to enjoy that home but potentially to make sure that it gets used all year round.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 185 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and signed by the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Truscott, and me. It has been explained very fully and in detail, so it needs no further repetition or expansion from me. Indeed, from our many and various discussions or Oral Questions during House business, we are all only too aware of the problem, both here and abroad. The loss of properties from the long-term private rented sector into the much more lucrative and less regulated short-term lettings is causing considerable problems in some parts of the country, as outlined in detail by the noble Lord, Lord Best.
It is a fact that some communities—I am sorry to keep stressing that, but I feel it is important to keep a balanced perspective on this—are being hollowed out as locals cannot find somewhere to rent for the longer term, nor can they find somewhere that they can actually afford to buy. They therefore feel that they cannot remain in their communities. Some areas where short-term lets proliferate can, as we have also heard, be the result of regular antisocial behaviour, which can be of various types, from the very obvious noise nuisance to the degradation of neighbourhoods. Any moves to incentivise landlords back into the long-term private rental market are therefore welcomed by us on these Benches and anything to deter landlords from flipping, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Young, will also be supported by us.
We recognise the willingness of both the previous Government and this Government and the difficulties of efforts to balance the needs of tourists, home owners and local residents. It is tricky, because balance is key and individual local plans should be able to reflect each local authority’s needs and circumstances.
To help local authorities, as we have already heard, there was the mandatory registration scheme proposed by the previous Government. That was very positive, as it would improve transparency and ensure compliance with local regulations. However, I note that, in parliamentary debates on the Bill, Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook stated that the previous Administration’s proposals to clamp down on holiday lets
“did not go far enough”.—[Official Report, Commons, Renters' Rights Bill Committee, 5/11/24; col. 238.]
and that his Government are considering what additional weight to give local authorities to enable them to better respond to the pressures that they face, as a result of what have been called “excessive” concentrations of short-term lets and holiday homes in some parts of the country.
To keep this brief and to sum up, it would be welcome to have, before Report, an update on the mandatory registration scheme and any other powers that have been taken forward on this Bill or in other legislation, including actions on companies that take no action, as was well outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Truscott. We could therefore judge whether this amendment is a helpful addition to take forward on Report or is completely unnecessary. I look forward to the noble Baroness’s response.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for proposing this amendment. It raises a serious solution to one of the most acute crises affecting the private rental sector: the supply of housing. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, my noble friends Lord Young and Lady Coffey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their comments. There is a fair degree of support for this from all sides of the Committee.
Noble Lords will remember that this is one of the themes that these Benches have been most concerned about. My noble friend Lady Scott highlighted the reduction in housing supply on the first day of Committee. Savills reported seeing a 42% reduction in the number of rental properties available on its books in the first quarter of this year. Data compiled for the National Residential Landlords Association found that 41% of landlords say that they plan to cut the number of properties that they rent out in the next 12 months. This is highly concerning, given that the supply of available rental properties is already falling.
TwentyEA found that the supply of properties available to let has dropped by 1% compared to the first quarter of 2024 and has plummeted 22% below the 2019 pre-pandemic levels. Currently, only 284,000 rentable homes are available nationwide—a decline of 18% from last year and 23% from 2019. In the first quarter of 2025, 15.6% of new property listings for sale were previously rental homes. This is a sharp increase from 9.8% in the same period of 2024. Renting is no longer simply a transitional phase or fallback option for many people. It is a deliberate and legitimate long-term housing choice. Renting offers flexibility, mobility and freedom from the financial and practical burdens of home ownership, but tenants cannot benefit if there is simply not enough supply.
The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, raised, as did many others, the risks associated from the Bill accelerating this trend to short-term lets such as Airbnb and other types. This amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, would contribute to the solution. Where there is not enough supply of available rental accommodation and many landlords are planning to sell up, working to reduce the amount of short-term lettings could protect the currently available supply and hopefully prevent further reductions.
Planning consent helps local authorities manage the shift and safeguard their rental supply, especially in high-demand areas. This is especially true given the highly regionalised disparities in supply deficits of private rental housing. As the Bill goes forward, we need to ensure that local authorities have sufficient capacity in their planning teams and, in this context, to consider whether licensing may also be an effective tool in this area.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his amendment, which seeks to restrict the conversion of assured private rental sector tenancies into short-term lets, and the noble Lords, Lord Truscott, Lord Young and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Thornhill, for taking part in this debate.
The Government recognise that while short-term lets can benefit the tourist economy, they can also impact on the availability and affordability of housing, including in the private rented sector. I understand noble Lords’ frustration that little has been done to assess the impact of this as its development has accelerated over recent years.
As we have discussed at earlier stages of the Bill, we share concerns that landlords may be leaving the private rented sector to instead provide short-term lets. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, gave some figures about reductions in the rental market, but statistics released on 28 April from Rightmove’s rental tracker told a very different story. Its property site found that the number of new properties coming to the market in March was 11% ahead of the same period last year, while the overall number of rental properties is 18% up on 2024, just months before the legislation is set to come into force this summer, so there are differing opinions about the impact.
To address the issues that noble Lords have raised, the Bill includes a provision to ensure landlords will not be able to evict tenants simply to return the property to a holiday let. As many noble Lord will be aware, we have also abolished the furnished holiday lets tax regime. As a result of that measure, landlords will no longer be incentivised by the tax system to make their properties available as short-term holiday lets rather than longer-term homes for people who want to live and work in the area.
The Government will also introduce the short-term lets registration scheme, as legislated for in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The scheme will collect crucial data on the sector and ensure that all providers of short-term lets are aware of their legal responsibilities to ensure that health and safety standards are met in their property.
With regard to the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Truscott, Lord Young and Lord Jamieson, we are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the reform programme and have set out how we are developing our approach in the impact assessment for the Bill. Our approach builds on the department’s existing long-term housing sector monitoring work, and we will conduct our process impact and value-for-money evaluation in line with the department’s published evaluation strategy. We are not going to just drop the Bill and leave it; we will continue to monitor the situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, asked when the register will be operational. The Government are keen to introduce the registration scheme for short-term lets in England as soon as possible. The initial phase of digital development is now complete and public testing is planned to start in the next 12 months. During this next phase of work, we will test a working interface with a small number of users to make sure that the systems and processes are robust and effective before publicly launching a first version of the service. It is on its way; we have started working on it and will bring it forward as quickly as we can.
The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, asked a question about energy performance standards for the PRS and short-term lets. On 7 February this year, DESNZ launched a consultation on increasing minimum energy efficiency standards in the domestic private rented sector. The consultation includes proposals for rented homes to achieve an EPC C or equivalent by 2030. DESNZ is also seeking views on whether short-term lets should be included in the scope of these changes to help ensure a common standard across all private rented properties.
The proposed amendment seeks only to allow councils to place restrictions on the change of use from a private rental property to a short-term rental property and would not affect the change of use of owner-occupied properties. The amendment seeks to achieve this via a change to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. However, it would not have the intended effect, as the use classes order does not permit the change of use in the way proposed.
I assure noble Lords that we are carefully considering what additional powers we might give to local authorities to enable them to respond to the pressures created by short-term lets. However, I also recognise the complexities of introducing such restrictions, so I believe we need to explore the various potential levers that could help achieve that better balance that we all want between housing and the tourism economy before moving forward. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Best, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
May I seek a point of clarification before the Minister sits down? If I heard correctly, she said that the legislation would come into force this summer. Does that mean that everything will be in place, including things like the database, ensuring that there is court capacity and so forth?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The comment related to the finishing of the Bill. There may be subsequent work to be done on it after that.
Lord Best (CB)
I am grateful to noble Lords around the Committee for their support for the amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, who emphasised the urgency of the situation, and the position in many other places—Paris, Barcelona, Menorca, Santa Monica —where other countries are getting ahead of us in taking action that we should probably learn from. He mentioned, as did the noble Lord, Lord Young, the disruption to other residents that comes from short-term lettings, and the nuisance of parties, fly-tipping and security problems. That is not the main reason for the proposed amendment, but it is an important additional factor, which emphasises its importance.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, said that we must strike a balance between the interests of the tourism industry and the interests of those who are looking for somewhere to live—and the local authority is best placed to do that. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, was a bit worried about owner-occupiers being badly affected and not being able to let out their properties, when they were on holiday, for example. I think the amendment takes care of that; it certainly should. It is not the individual owner who lets out their spare room, or even the whole house, for a week or two that we are talking about here; it is the businesses that operate on some scale.
I am grateful to the CPRE, the Countryside Charity, for helping to formulate the amendment, and I give many thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, who made important points. We must protect the current supply of accommodation at a time when we are worried about the loss of any homes, which are badly needed. I will withdraw the amendment, but, as I do so, I thank the Minister for telling us about registration. I think that the timescale was that testing would take place for a new registration scheme for short-term lettings over the next 12 months, with a first version then being tried. It is all good stuff, but it sounds slightly slow—the “as soon as possible” bit was the best bit.
The Minister said that other solutions, alongside the possibility of introducing a use class that works—that must be part of it—were being considered. Pulling the right levers is obviously going to be important. Yes, the Government are prepared to do something, but they should take away the message that the speed at which it is done will be important too. We cannot let this fester much longer. With those comments, I beg leave—
Baroness Coffey (Con)
The noble Lord referred to my comments. What I was doing was reading out his amendment where it says:
“Where a property has been let subject to an assured tenancy or assured shorthold tenancy at any time in the preceding three years, it must not be let as a short-term rental property … unless a change of use has been permitted”.
I was trying to understand whether, when there is a change in ownership—not just any old renting out if somebody goes away—that would prevent a new owner-occupier being able to do what is suggested without planning permission. I was just trying to understand his own amendment.
Lord Best (CB)
I am grateful for that point, which sounds entirely valid. We may need to refine still further the amendment that we are all working on. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(ai) after subsection (1) insert—“(1AZA) But that is subject to subsections (1ZA) to (1ZC).”;(aii) in subsection (1ZA), for “But in” substitute “In”;(aiii) after subsection (1ZB) insert—“(1ZC) Section 11 does not apply to a lease of a dwelling-house in England which—(a) was an assured tenancy immediately before the commencement date (which has the meaning given by section 146(3) of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025), and(b) was granted—(i) for a term of seven years or more, and(ii) by a person other than a private registered provider of social housing.”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This ensures than an existing assured tenancy of a fixed term of 7 years or more - which will become a periodic tenancy by virtue of the Bill - does not come within section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as a result of that change. Accordingly, repairing obligations will continue to be governed by the tenancy.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the new paragraph 3D inserted by clause 33(1) now referring to leases of more than 21 years (instead of 7 years).
“(2) In Schedule 1 to the 1988 Act, paragraph 8 (lettings to students that are not assured tenancies) is amended as follows— (a) after sub-paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) But that is subject to sub-paragraphs (2B), (2C) and (5) to (7).”;(b) after sub-paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (2) may, in particular, specify as a body of persons—(a) the members, or(b) a class of the members,from time to time of a housing management code of practice which is specified for this purpose by regulations under sub-paragraph (2).(2B) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument—(a) specify a class of building, and(b) provide that a tenancy—(i) does not fall within this paragraph if the dwelling-house is in a building of the specified class, or(ii) falls within this paragraph only if the dwelling-house is in a building of the specified class.(2C) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument—(a) specify a student landlord or a class of student landlord,(b) specify a class of building in relation to the specified student landlord or specified class of student landlord, and(c) provide that, where the landlord is the specified student landlord, or a student landlord of the specified class, the tenancy—(i) does not fall within this paragraph if the dwelling-house is in the specified class of building, or(ii) falls within this paragraph only if the dwelling-house is in the specified class of building.(2D) Regulations under sub-paragraph (2B)(a) or (2C)(b) may, in particular, specify as a class of building—(a) the buildings, or(b) a class of the buildings,from time to time subject to a housing management code of practice which is specified for this purpose by regulations under sub-paragraph (2B)(a) or (2C)(b).(2E) Regulations under sub-paragraph (2C)(a) may, in particular, specify as a class of student landlord—(a) the members, or(b) a class of the members,from time to time of a housing management code of practice which is specified for this purpose by regulations under sub-paragraph (2C)(a).”;(c) in sub-paragraph (3), for “the power conferred by sub-paragraph (2) above” substitute “a power conferred by this section”;(d) after sub-paragraph (3) insert—“(4) Regulations under this paragraph—(a) may make different provision for different purposes;(b) may make supplemental, consequential, incidental, transitional, transitory or saving provision.(5) The question of whether or not a tenancy is within this paragraph is to be determined by reference to the circumstances at the time when the tenancy is granted. (6) A change in the circumstances after that time does not affect whether or not a tenancy is within this paragraph, except in a case where—(a) the tenant is entitled to possession of the dwelling-house at a time after the tenancy was granted, and(b) at the time when the tenant is entitled to possession—(i) condition A is met (see sub-paragraph (8)),(ii) condition B is met (see sub-paragraphs (9) and (10)), or(iii) both of those conditions are met.(7) In such a case, the tenancy ceases to fall within this paragraph (and accordingly this paragraph ceases to prevent the tenancy from being an assured tenancy) at the time when the tenant is entitled to possession.(8) Condition A is met if—(a) the tenancy was granted by a body of persons who were, at the time of the grant, a specified landlord solely by reference to a code of practice, but(b) at the time when the tenant is entitled to possession of the dwelling-house, the landlord (whether that is the body of persons who granted the tenancy or a successor in title) is not a student landlord.(9) Condition B is met if—(a) at the time when the tenancy was granted—(i) regulations under sub-paragraph (2B) or (2C) were in force, but(ii) those regulations did not prevent the tenancy from being within this paragraph, but(b) at the time when the tenant is entitled to possession of the dwelling-house—(i) regulations under sub-paragraph (2B) or (2C) are in force, and(ii) those regulations prevent the tenancy from being within this paragraph.(10) But condition B is not met in any circumstances that are specified, or are of a description specified, for this purpose by regulations made by the Secretary of State.(11) For the purposes of this paragraph—(a) “student landlord” means an institution or body of persons specified, or of a class specified, for the purposes of this paragraph (see sub-paragraph (2));(b) “housing management code of practice” means a code of practice approved by the Secretary of State under section 233 of the Housing Act 2004 (codes relating to the management of HMOs or excepted accommodation);(c) a building is “subject to” a housing management code of practice if it—(i) is a particular building subject to the code, or(ii) is of a class of buildings subject to the code;(d) a reference to—(i) a class of the buildings from time to time subject to a housing management code of practice, or(ii) a class of the members from time to time of a housing management code of practice,includes the buildings or members that are from time to time in a class provided for in the code of practice;(e) a body of persons are “a specified landlord solely by reference to a code of practice” if they—(i) are a member of a housing management code of practice that is specified by regulations under sub-paragraph (2A), and (ii) are not specified by regulations under sub-paragraph (2) as a body of persons otherwise than as a member of that code of practice.””Member’s explanatory statement
Paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1988 provides for certain student lettings not to be assured tenancies. This amendment would enable the exemption to be limited to buildings of a specified class; and for regulations to operate by reference to codes of practice approved under section 233 of the Housing Act 2004.
Lord Black of Brentwood
“Discrimination relating to pets(1) A relevant person must not, in relation to a dwelling that is to be let on an agreement which may give rise to a relevant tenancy—(a) on the basis that a pet would or may live with or visit a person at the dwelling if the dwelling were the person’s home, prevent the person from—(i) enquiring whether the dwelling is available for let,(ii) accessing information about the dwelling,(iii) viewing the dwelling in order to consider whether to seek to rent it, or(iv) entering into a tenancy of the dwelling, or(b) apply a provision, criterion or practice in order to make people who would have a pet live with or visit them at the dwelling, if it were their home, less likely to enter into a tenancy of the dwelling than people who would not.(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if—(a) the relevant person can show that the conduct is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, or(b) the relevant person can show that the prospective landlord of the dwelling, or a person who would be a superior landlord in relation to the dwelling, is insured under a contract of insurance—(i) to which section 40 does not apply, and(ii) which contains a term which makes provision (however expressed) requiring the insured to prohibit a tenant under a relevant tenancy from having a pet live with them at the dwelling or to restrict the circumstances in which such a tenant may have a pet live with them at the dwelling, and the conduct is a means of preventing the insured from breaching that term.(3) Conduct does not breach the prohibition in subsection (1) if it consists only of—(a) one or more of the following things done by a person who does nothing in relation to the dwelling that is not mentioned in this paragraph—(i) publishing advertisements or disseminating information;(ii) providing a means by which a prospective landlord can communicate directly with a prospective tenant; (iii) providing a means by which a prospective tenant can communicate directly with a prospective landlord, or(b) things of a description, or things done by a person of a description, specified for the purposes of this section in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I will speak also to my Amendments 192 to 196 and 198, which are also signed by my noble friend Lord Lexden and, with the exception of Amendments 193 and 198, by my noble friend Lady Coffey. I am very grateful to them. Given the hour, and as we are discussing animals, it is right to acknowledge that they are clearly night owls.
The purpose of the amendments is to insert a new clause to extend pre-tenancy discrimination protections to pet owners. In an earlier debate on this Bill in Committee, I set out why this legislation is so important and why pet owners need certainty and clarity about its application. These amendments build on that debate on a further, very specific issue.
Although the current version of the Bill provides protections after tenancy begins for pet owners, requiring landlords to consider pet requests reasonably, I am concerned that these are rendered ineffective if pet owners are excluded before tenancy agreements are even offered. As I have made clear before, I am delighted that the Bill rightly seeks to prevent pre-tenancy discrimination against tenants with children and those who are benefit claimants, but I believe these welcome provisions should also be extended to tenants who already own pets and are seeking a new place to rent. Currently, they are unprotected. Without such a measure, there is a real risk that landlords will automatically disadvantage or reject applicants simply based on the issue of pet ownership.
The truth is that pet ownership is, regrettably, already currently treated as a de facto disqualifier by many landlords. Applicants can be dismissed outright on the sole basis of owning a pet, with no requirement to justify the decision. This renders any post-tenancy pet consent rights in the Bill practically inaccessible for existing pet owners who are moving home, who are barred from progressing past the application stage in the first place.
As the Minister rightly highlighted during our debate last week, the pet provisions in the Bill are fundamentally based on the principle of reasonableness, and that is absolutely right. However, as it stands, a landlord is not technically required to consider in any form a pet-owning applicant and can reject them outright without appropriate safeguards in place. This creates a gap. Although existing tenants may benefit from protection, prospective tenants looking to move may not have the legal support to make a reasonable request to keep a pet at the point of applying for a tenancy. I fear this will continue to result in pet owners facing the heartbreaking decision of having to choose between a home and their pet, as many thousands of homes will remain closed to them.
The proposed clause, with consequential amendments, offers a balanced solution. It does not require landlords to accept pets unconditionally. Instead, it prevents landlords automatically rejecting applications on the grounds of pet ownership while retaining their ability to refuse consent on reasonable grounds after an application has been successful. That seems to me to be the right way to deal with this matter.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I am glad, as always, to support my noble friend Lord Black, whose commitment to animal welfare is well known. His proposed new clause and his amendments in this group represent a further stage of his determined efforts on behalf of beloved pets and their owners. The principle underlying his proposed changes is simple: fairness in the rental market must apply at the first stage of the process, which is when an application is made for a tenancy.
As my noble friend pointed out, the Bill rightly prohibits pre-tenancy discrimination against those with children or in receipt of benefits. Similar protections should be extended to those who own pets, who at the moment face rejection of an application for a tenancy on that one ground alone. The new clause does not compel landlords to accept pets unconditionally; it simply introduces fairness by ensuring that applications cannot be dismissed out of hand just because a pet is involved.
As my noble friend has made clear, we need to bear in mind the terrible position in which the absence of fairness places pet owners at the moment. The heartbreak of being forced to choose between a home and a companion animal is one that no tenant should have to make. I hope the Government will give very careful consideration to my noble friend’s constructive proposals.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I put my name to these amendments. I must confess I did not quite understand Amendments 193 and 198, so I did not put my name to them, but I am grateful for the explanation that my noble friend has given. There is no doubt that the availability of private rental in having pets is considerably smaller. I am conscious that when I moved to Suffolk, I think it was back in March 2010, when I was looking for places to rent—not to holiday rent, but to rent properly as a home—had I not had my dog Rizzo at the time, more than 200 properties would have been available, but when it came to any landlord that would even encounter having a dog, the number was reduced to four, and this in an area of 300 square miles.
It gave me a clear insight into the restrictions placed on people who want to move with their family—and pets are considered often part of that family. As has been mentioned elsewhere, there was certainly a premium to pay, as a consequence of what property was available, for the opportunity to have Rizzo come and visit on a regular basis.
I was struck by one issue in the amendments that my noble friends have tabled, to do with mortgaged premises. I have been pretty horrified to learn, in the variety of casework that I have undertaken over the years, about the artificial restrictions placed on mortgages that people have taken up. They have simply told me, “I’m not allowed to do this”. I felt that this was too good an opportunity to miss; that is why I signed my noble friend’s amendment.
As my noble friend Lord Lexden said, this is plain discrimination against people who have not yet been able to secure a home in a particular area. These are sensible additions to the Bill. I am aware that your Lordships have, overall, welcomed the opportunity to try to remove these exclusions on keeping pets in homes that people are renting. I hope the Minister will look kindly on these amendments to make sure that this part of the potential loophole is addressed and filled.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I do hope that the Minister will not agree to this. I have a flat that I live in part-time but sometimes rent, and I am allergic to animals. The idea that I would have to consider and take an application from someone with a pet, when I could not possibly have them living there because of my allergy, seems to me quite unfair. They would come to see the flat and waste their time when there is no chance in the world that I could let it to someone with a pet. I do hope that we will not go the way of forcing somebody like me to waste someone’s time in going to see a property. There is no way that I would be able to have an animal in the flat that I live in at other times.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood for his amendments. I also thank my noble friends Lord Lexden and Lady Coffey for their contributions, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who makes it very clear that we need to have a balance.
This group seeks to address the growing concern among renters, but we must also consider the valid and practical concerns of landlords. Although these proposals aim to prevent blanket bans on pets in rental properties, it is essential to recognise that there must be legitimate reasons for any restrictions. Many tenants may view their pets as family members, as we have heard, but we must also acknowledge the potential challenges and consequences of allowing pets in rental properties. These are challenges that can affect property maintenance, insurance costs and, as we have heard, the well-being of other tenants. A balanced approach is needed, one that considers the rights of tenants and the legitimate concerns of landlords and property owners.
Landlords are often responsible for the upkeep of the property and ensuring the safety and comfort of all tenants. Allowing pets may also complicate insurance policies, leading to higher premiums or even exclusions in certain cases. These concerns are not trivial and must not be dismissed lightly, but rather addressed in a way that is both fair and proportionate. The amendment in this group recognises the need for a balanced approach that takes into account the rights of those tenants and the legitimate interests of landlords.
We on these Benches have made our position clear on previous days in Committee. We continue to advocate for a balanced solution that respects the needs of both tenants and property owners. Ultimately, these amendments contribute to a more equitable housing market, where tenants with pets are not excluded from their right to live in a home that suits their needs. They also ensure that the landlord can continue to manage their properties responsibly with the appropriate protections in place.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, for his amendments relating to pets and rental discrimination, and the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Scott, and my noble friend Lady Hayter for their comments on these amendments.
Amendments 190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 and 198 would extend the core rental discrimination provisions of Chapter 3 to prospective renters with pets, protecting them from any unfavourable treatment in the letting process. We know that pets bring a huge amount of joy to their owners—even Wilberforce, the snake we heard about the other day—and we are committed to supporting responsible pet ownership in the private rented sector.
However, it is our view that extending our rental discrimination provisions in this manner would not be proportionate, nor is it necessary. The Bill already contains measures to ensure that landlords cannot unreasonably withhold consent when a tenant requests to have a pet in their home. Landlords must consider all requests and provide valid justification if consent is refused. This ensures that tenants are not unfairly prevented from keeping pets while still allowing landlords to consider legitimate concerns such as property suitability lease restrictions—the other day we discussed superior leases, which may have clauses about pets—or potential issues with other residents, as my noble friend Lady Hayter mentioned.
Tenants will be able to escalate unfair decisions to the PRS ombudsman, who will have strong powers to put things right, such as compelling a landlord to take a specific action, issue an apology and award financial compensation. Given that, I kindly ask that the noble Lord consider not pressing his amendments.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
I am grateful to all who have taken part in this short debate, particularly my noble friend Lord Lexden, who rightly told us about the heartbreak that can follow when tenants have to choose between a home and a pet, something that happens far too often and which the Bill is determined to diminish. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Coffey, who brought to bear her considerable experience and expertise in this area. We should take her comments very seriously.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that of course I understand the issue that arises from allergies; I am unfortunately allergic to pollen and there is little I can do to avoid it. She is right, and that is why we have to strike a balance. As my noble friend Lady Scott said, this is all about balance between the rights of tenants and those of landlords. I believe that these amendments strike that balance, which is why I tabled them.
I am grateful to the Minister for her comments and her understanding. She has been very constructive throughout our Committee discussions on pets, and I thank her for that. When we last discussed these matters in Committee—last week, I think—she talked about some of the guidelines being drawn up to go alongside this legislation when it comes into force. It occurs to me that this might be one of those areas where there could be some form of guidance to landlords that would ameliorate some of the problems. If she would be happy to do so, perhaps she might look at that and talk to the various animal charities concerned; I know they would be happy to help. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment that would allow the landlord to invite any person to offer an amount of rent under the proposed letting value.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, my amendments in this group are intended to probe the Government’s decisions on rental bidding and to better understand the rationale behind this section of the Bill. I begin by drawing your Lordships’ attention to Amendment 199A tabled in my name. I wish to understand why, if a tenant or prospective tenant offers a lower rent than the proposed letting value, the landlord is prevented from accepting it. If a tenant is able to secure the property at a more affordable rate, this seems a fair and beneficial outcome. If the proposed letting value is set unrealistically high, allowing offers below that figure provides an important market correction, one which benefits tenants. This is particularly relevant in weaker rental markets where negotiating powers often lie disproportionately with the landlords. I simply ask the Minister: did she consider this before putting it forward?
On these Benches, we recognise the difficult balance the Government are attempting to strike between preventing unfair and unaffordable rent increases and ensuring that the proposed letting value reflects proposed market conditions. Market conditions are, of course, determined by the supply of homes and the market rent must still incentivise landlords to remain in the sector to provide the housing capacity that we urgently need. This brings me to our intention to oppose the question that Clause 58 stand part of the Bill. The rent-setting process must be transparent, and must be free to function. We should not pretend that we can fix prices without distorting the market signals that allow for an efficient and well-resourced housing market. We must be careful not to introduce policies that mask the simple fact that we need more homes of all types. We on these Benches are committed to working with the Minister to that end, but I first ask her: has she considered whether these measures may in fact obscure the true demand within the rental sector? Understanding that demand is key to delivering the right supply and the right homes built in the right places.
Further, has the Minister considered the impact on labour mobility? Tenants in rent control units may be discouraged from relocating for jobs or education, thus reducing workforce mobility. With over 800,000 vacancies, we should not be inadvertently curtailing the movement of our workers. Finally, I wish to probe whether the Government have fully considered the potential impact on new renters compared with existing tenants. No one on these Benches doubts the Minister’s intentions; we simply fear that the department has not paused to fully reflect on these key issues.
I turn to Amendment 199B, also in my name. I will cheekily anticipate that the Minister may say, in response to this probing question: “Yes”. The Bill attempts to define the term “relevant person” in Clause 58(6) but, before the Minister reaches that definition, I wish to question its adequacy and its clarity. Is there any formal process to designate someone as a relevant person or is this determined on a case-by-case basis? Further, how is the term “acting indirectly” to be interpreted? Does this include property agents or other advisory parties? Crucially, what is meant by “purporting to act”? I am sure that those with legal expertise in this House will argue that this is a loaded term that depends heavily on interpretation. I would be grateful if the Minister could offer her understanding of it and, importantly, explain how consistency in interpretation will be ensured.
Clause 58 represents a significant shift. With that must come clear answers. I hope the Minister will help your Lordships’ House to understand the Government’s thinking more fully. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend in these amendments. Two different things are going on here, one of which is not allowing the market to work. I am trying to understand what evidence there is to suggest that this is a real issue.
I will give a personal story. When at university, a group of us wanted to rent a house. Under the rules of the university, you could live only at a certain distance, and so on. Not wanting to take a 12-month tenancy, we were particularly attracted by and sought out houses that would require only a nine-month tenancy. The landlady we were involved with used to make considerably more rent in the summer through tourists and short-term lets, but also gave students the opportunity not to take on the liability of the year. That helped keep rents relatively low. I am sure that your Lordships can imagine that such a scenario, while it may seem niche, was still very important to students at that time, and so was the availability of houses reflecting that opportunity. In effect—this is nothing to be embarrassed about—we gazumped by being prepared to sacrifice a living room and turn it into an extra bedroom. It also gave a little more rent to the landlady, which was a factor when, I was led to believe, 46 groups went to see that house wanting to secure the tenancy.
While I completely understand some of the intentions of this clause about not getting into ridiculous bidding wars, I am surprised, given the real scarcity in certain parts of the country of private sector rentals, as to why we would want to unnecessarily put such handcuffs on the landlord to accept only the rent they advertise and not be creative about the situation in which prospective tenants may find themselves.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for tabling her amendments relating to rental bidding. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for contributing. I will respond to the two probing amendments in a moment. First, however, I will set out to the Committee why I consider her fundamental objection to Clause 58 —which will end the unfair practice of renters being pitted against each other in bidding wars—to be misplaced.
The measures in Clause 58 will require landlords and persons acting for them, for example letting agents, to state a proposed rent in any written advertisement for the property. Landlords and those acting for them will then be prohibited from asking for, encouraging or accepting bids above this price. To respond to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, these are not rent controls—the landlord may advertise the property at the rent they wish to achieve, but they cannot then increase that rent as other bidders come along. Currently, too many tenants suffer from a lack of transparency in the lettings process. I cannot imagine the heartbreak of thinking that you have found a property at a rent that you can afford only to discover that the landlord or letting agent has pushed other tenants to offer more. Their experience is not that of a viewing but of a kerbside auction. The impact on renters of the practice is clear and our measures will end it for good.
This is a specific problem that we are trying to target, and the majority of landlords do not engage in rental bidding. However, we are trying to stamp out the egregious practice of a minority of landlords who exploit the fact that, particularly in hot rental markets, there is a lack of supply relative to demand. Tenants can be pitted against each other in ways that ensure the rent of a tenancy escalates to a point beyond what many of them can afford, or which, if they can afford it, puts an incredible financial strain on them.
I visited a housing site in Greenwich this week and I heard that, in some parts of London, a house in the private rented sector will cost a public sector worker 94% of their salary just to pay the rent. These measures will improve the experiences of prospective tenants across England and provide clarity to all those involved in the lettings process.
Amendment 199A would remove the prohibition on landlords inviting or encouraging a tenant to offer to pay an amount of rent that exceeds the stated rent. If this amendment were taken forward, landlords would fall foul of the rental bidding provisions only if they accepted rent at a level above the stated rent, not if they invited or encouraged its payment. While I welcome the scrutiny—and I genuinely do—of our rental bidding measures, I am concerned that this amendment would risk allowing a form of rental bidding to continue to be practised. Under this—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Sorry. While we are talking about this, does the Minister not think that what could happen—and what may happen—is that the level of rents will be above what they would normally be, because the landlord is going to go for the absolute maximum they can? Is that not a danger?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think I answered this question under a previous group on a previous day. This is not intended to be rent cap; it is intended to stop the practice of changing the rent once the rent for that property is published. It will be up to landlords to advertise the property at a rent they think they can achieve for that property and, once they have advertised it at that price, they will not be able to increase that rent when things subsequently come along.
Under this amendment, a landlord could lawfully encourage bids above the advertised price, take the property off the market and then use any bids received to establish a higher price at which to relist it. I think that would start to have an inflationary effect on rents. I am not suggesting that this scenario would be commonplace, but it would be lawful and, if it were to occur, it would clearly be to the detriment of prospective tenants. I therefore consider that our belt-and-braces approach of prohibiting both the accepting and encouraging of bids to be the right one and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Finally, Amendment 199B seeks to remove
“by any other relevant person”
from the definition of “stated rent” in Clause 58(4)(b). As I have explained, the rental bidding clauses prevent a landlord, or person acting for them, inviting, encouraging or accepting an offer of rent higher than the “stated rent”. The term “stated rent” is defined as the rent originally proposed in the written advertisement, either by the person who is now doing the inviting, encouraging or accepting of higher offers or, as the case may be, any other relevant person.
A “relevant person” could be either
“the prospective landlord, or a person acting or purporting to act directly or indirectly on behalf of the prospective landlord”.
The latter would usually be a lettings agent, but it could also be a more informal relationship such as a friend of the landlord. It is necessary for us to avoid a loophole whereby, say, the landlord publishes the advertisement containing the stated rent and then asks his friend or letting agent to carry out the rental auction.
As such, the Bill is drafted deliberately to ensure that the prohibition applies in those circumstances, as well as the more straightforward scenario in which it is the landlord who publishes the advert and then proceeds to carry out the rental auction. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to not press this amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the Minister for her reply, and for the insight into this issue from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. On these Benches, we recognise the challenging balance the Government are seeking to achieve: protecting tenants from unfair and unaffordable rent increases, while also ensuring that the proposed letting value remains aligned with the functioning market.
These market conditions are of course shaped by the availability of housing, and any rent-setting approach must still offer sufficient incentives for landlords to stay in the market and to continue providing the homes that our communities so urgently require. I thank the Minister for her answers, but I urge her to truly reflect on the points that we have raised, to carry them back to her department and, if necessary, to come back with her continued engagement with the House.
This group of amendments, like many others, is not overtly political; it consists of serious and practical probes into serious and practical issues. In our pursuit of stronger protections for tenants, we must be careful not to deter landlords or make it unfeasible for them to continue to provide the homes our communities so badly need. These are concerns that many landlords share, and we believe that they must be at the forefront of the Government’s thinking. We ask them to go back to reflect on what we have brought forward. I ask the Minister to step back and consider any unintended consequences of this part of the legislation—or, at the very least, to acknowledge the genuine concerns of those who oppose this part of the Bill. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, which rightly brings the issue of abandonment to the attention of the House tonight.
I wish to be brief, but I will take the opportunity to pose several questions, so that the Minister can set out the Government’s position. The Government are correct to note, in their Explanatory Notes, that Part 3 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which sought to address the recovery of abandoned properties, has never been brought into force. However, in light of the significant changes now proposed to the grounds for possession, I ask the Minister: have the Government sought to revisit this? With the departure of Section 21 and the insistence that landlords must rely on specific grounds for possession, as outlined in Schedule 1, what options are available to a landlord if a tenant abandons their property?
I would welcome clarity on several practical matters. For example, is there a requirement for specific types of evidence of abandonment, in terms of format, scope or detail? How many attempts must a landlord make to contact the tenant? I understand that this may appear later, but, as the Government have refused to implement these changes gradually, these really are burning questions.
Next, with no distinct legal ground for abandonment, how does the Minister propose to ensure that landlords understand how to use grounds 8, 10 or 12, which appear to be the only potential avenues in such cases? Additionally, I would be grateful if the Minister could outline the current average wait time for a court order in such circumstances. What, if anything, is being done to address the underlying causes of tenant abandonment?
I fully recognise that this issue extends beyond housing policy alone. However, ensuring that tenants are able to remain in their homes, and feel secure in doing so, is not only beneficial to them but vital to the health of our wider society and economy. In connection with this, I also ask: from the landlord’s perspective, how is one expected to assess the risk of a tenant returning after a property is believed to have been abandoned?
It appears there is currently no specific legal ground for possession on the basis of abandonment. While the Minister may point out that the incidence of abandonment is low, this is not a justification for leaving the issue unaddressed, particularly now, when the framework for possession is being overhauled. Getting abandoned properties back into the rental market will allow others to benefit from that tenancy and a tenant who has abandoned a property to not accumulate further unpaid rent.
I ask whether the Government gave any consideration to amending Part 3 of the Housing and Planning Act, especially in light of the proposed removal of assured shorthold tenancies, which Part 3 originally referenced.
I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to provide clarity and, where necessary, commit to reviewing this area further. I look forward to her response.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, before the Minister stands up to respond, I just make the point that it has gone midnight. We did not start consideration of Committee until 8.30 pm. That has meant that people have gone home without putting forward their amendments, and there has not been proper scrutiny on the last few groups. The Committee has done amazingly well to get as far as it has, but it has now gone midnight. I do not know if the Whip intends to resume the House.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I will resume the House at the appropriate time. This is not the first time where debates have gone beyond midnight: on day 1 of Report, the Great British Energy Bill went to 1 am. I do not intend to take this much further. I want to stop at Amendment 206, which is another two groups, and then that will be it. Hopefully, we will be finished very shortly.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The reason we are on the penultimate group is because people have not been in the Chamber to move their amendments in Committee. There have been very short debates in Committee, and some very important groups in Committee have just been glossed over—that is my point.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
As I said, I want to get to Amendment 206. There is only one amendment that has not been moved. There have been other debates that have gone on until 1 am. If we spent less time discussing this aspect, we could finish quite soon.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the central aim of the Renters’ Rights Bill is to give tenants more security in their homes. Landlords must not be able to evict tenants without a ground for possession, as defined in Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988, which we are expanding and refining to ensure that landlords can gain possession where proportionate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has stated that they do not support Clause 61 standing part of the Bill. This clause will repeal Part 3 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which, if brought into force, would have allowed landlords to take possession of premises they believed to be abandoned without a court order. However, Part 3 of the 2016 Act was never brought into force. It also wholly pertained to assured shorthold tenancies. Those tenancies will cease to exist in the private rented sector after the implementation of the Bill. The repeal of Part 3, therefore, is necessary to maintain a coherent statute book.
As I mentioned, Part 3 of the 2016 Act would have enabled landlords to reclaim possession of properties under an assured shorthold tenancy that had been abandoned without a court order, provided they had issued three warning notices without response and the tenant was in rent arrears. While we acknowledge that genuine abandonment can present challenges—I dealt with a case that had gone on for years and years in Stevenage—not only for landlords but also for the wider community, these provisions were not the appropriate solution. At the time, they were criticised as a rogue landlord’s charter, and it is appropriate that they were never implemented.
Where abandonment has occurred, landlords will need to establish a ground for possession. It is likely that, in abandonment scenarios, tenants will also be in rent arrears, making those grounds for possession applicable. Landlords may also rely on breaches of tenancy agreements, such as clauses prohibiting prolonged unoccupancy or on grounds relating to deterioration of the property. In clear-cut situations, implied surrender may also apply—for example, where tenants have returned the keys and the landlord has accepted them even if no formal notice was given.
It is vital that tenants have access to justice when facing the loss of their home. Landlords must not be enabled to take possession without a valid ground. Clause 61 ensures the removal of these redundant provisions from the statute book. I commend this clause to the Committee.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will not do a full closing speech. The purpose of this was for the Minister to give us some thoughts on how you might deal with abandonment rather than going through a lengthy court case when clearly the property has been abandoned. I would be very grateful if, before Report, the Minister could give this some thought. None of us wants abandoned properties; we want them back in use and available for rent. We do not want people accumulating rental deficits that have to be chased through the court. There clearly is a special case here that needs to be considered. I look forward to the Minister giving us a thoughtful response before Report on how we address the issue of abandoned properties. None one on either side of the Committee wants abandoned properties.
“Student accommodation that is not an HMO(1) Schedule 14 to the Housing Act 2004 (buildings which are not HMOs) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (4).(2) After paragraph 3 insert—“Buildings occupied by students: England
3A (1) Any building in England—(a) which is occupied solely or principally by persons who occupy it for the purpose of undertaking a full-time course of further or higher education at a specified educational establishment, or at an educational establishment of a specified description, and where the person managing or having control of it is the educational establishment in question, or(b) which is occupied solely or principally by persons who occupy it for the purpose of undertaking a full-time course of further or higher education at an educational establishment and where the person managing or having control of it is a specified person or a person of a specified description.(2) In—(a) sub-paragraph (1)(a) “specified” means specified for the purposes of that sub-paragraph in regulations made by the Secretary of State;(b) sub-paragraph (1)(b) “specified” means specified for the purposes of that sub-paragraph in regulations made by the Secretary of State;and the regulations may (in particular) provide that an educational establishment is specified, or of a specified description, for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b).(3) Those regulations may, in particular, specify—(a) as a description of educational establishment for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(a), or(b) as a description of person for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b),the members from time to time, or a description of the members from time to time, of a housing management code of practice which is specified in the regulations.(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations—(a) specify a class of building, and(b) provide that a building—(i) does not fall within this paragraph if it is of the specified class, or(ii) falls within this paragraph only if it is of the specified class.(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations—(a) specify a building manager or a class of building manager,(b) specify a class of building in relation to the specified building manager or the specified class of building manager, and(c) provide that a building which the specified building manager, or a building manager of the specified class, manages or has control of—(i) does not fall within this paragraph if the building is of the specified class, or(ii) falls within this paragraph only if the building is of the specified class.(6) Regulations under sub-paragraph (4)(a) or (5)(b) may, in particular, specify as a class of building—(a) the buildings, or(b) a class of the buildings,from time to time subject to a housing management code of practice which is specified for this purpose by regulations under sub-paragraph (4)(a) or (5)(b).(7) Regulations under sub-paragraph (5)(a) may, in particular, specify as a class of building manager—(a) the members, or(b) a class of the members,from time to time of a housing management code of practice which is specified for this purpose by regulations under sub-paragraph (5)(a).(8) For the purposes of this paragraph— (a) “building manager” means an educational establishment or other person managing or having control of a building;(b) “housing management code of practice” means a code of practice approved by the Secretary of State under section 233 (codes relating to the management of HMOs or excepted accommodation);(c) a building is “subject to” a housing management code of practice if it—(i) is a particular building subject to the code, or(ii) is of a class of buildings subject to the code;(d) a reference to—(i) a class of the buildings from time to time subject to a housing management code of practice, or(ii) a class of the members from time to time of a housing management code of practice,includes the buildings or members that are from time to time in a class provided for in the code of practice.”(3) Any regulations made by the Secretary of State under paragraph 4 of Schedule 14 to the Housing Act 2004 before the coming into force of this section are to continue to have effect on and after the coming into force of this section as if made under paragraph 3A of that Schedule (inserted by this section).(4) In paragraph 4 (buildings occupied by students)—(a) in the heading, after “students” insert “: Wales”;(b) in sub-paragraph (1), in the words before paragraph (a), after “building” insert “in Wales”.(c) in sub-paragraph (2), for “appropriate national authority” substitute “Welsh Ministers”.(d) in sub-paragraph (3), for “appropriate national authority” substitute “Welsh Ministers”.(e) in sub-paragraph (4)—(i) in the words before paragraph (a), for “appropriate national authority may have regard to the extent to which, in its opinion” substitute “Welsh Ministers may have regard to the extent to which, in their opinion”;(ii) in paragraph (a), for “authority” substitute “Welsh Ministers”.(5) In consequence of the other amendments made by this section—(a) in paragraph 16E(3) of Schedule 2 to the Finance Act 2019 (inserted by Schedule 1 to the Finance Act 2025) (meaning of “institutional building”), in paragraph (i)(i) and (ii) (buildings occupied by students), for “paragraph 4” substitute “paragraph 3A or 4”;(b) in the Capital Allowances Act 2001, in section 270CF (exclusion from qualifying use: residential use), in subsection (1)(b), for “paragraph 4” substitute “paragraph 3A or 4”.(6) Any regulations made by the Treasury under paragraph 16E(3)(i)(ii) of Schedule 2 to the Finance Act 2019 before the coming into force of this section which designate provision as provision corresponding to paragraph 4 of Schedule 14 to the Housing Act 2004 are to continue to have effect on and after the coming into force of this section as if they designated the provision as provision corresponding to paragraph 3A or 4 of that Schedule.”Member's explanatory statement
Paragraph 4 of Schedule 14 to the Housing Act 2004 provides for certain buildings used as student accommodation not to be a house in multiple occupation. This amendment would enable the exemption to be limited to buildings of a specified description; and for regulations to operate by reference to codes of practice approved under section 233 of the Housing Act 2004.
Lord Best
“Training and qualifications of property agents managing assured tenancies(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations require that individuals undertaking the activities of a property agent in respect of management of assured tenancies must have, or be working toward, specific mandatory qualifications, as defined by regulations to demonstrate competency to undertake their property agency roles.(2) Regulations under this section—(a) are to be made by statutory instrument;(b) may make provision generally or only in relation to specific cases;(c) may make different provision for different purposes;(d) may include supplementary, incidental, or transitional provision;(e) must specify classes or types of employees who must be qualified and the appropriate qualification level for each such group;(f) must specify syllabuses and testing methods for qualifications;(g) must specify means of training provision and minimum training hours;(h) must specify requirements for continuous professional development;(i) must approve providers for the provision of training and qualifications.(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, this is a slightly longer amendment, but I will take it at a brisk pace. Amendments 203 and 204 in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Truscott, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town and Lady Thornhill, relate to the implementation of recommendations from the governmental regulation of property agents—ROPA—working group, aimed at protecting consumers from dodgy or inept estate agents, letting agents and managing agents.
Your Lordships have considered and endorsed the case for regulating property agents on a number of occasions since the ROPA report was published by the Government in 2019. Your Lordships’ Industry and Regulators Committee endorsed the recommendations only last year. Indeed, the Housing and Planning Minister, Matthew Pennycook MP, has made clear that the Government accept the case for regulation of the sector, so there is no need for me to rehearse the arguments again. Indeed, the professional bodies and trade associations, including the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Property Institute, Propertymark and the Lettings Industry Council have persistently supported the ROPA agenda. Those who would be regulated are as keen on regulation as those consumers who would be protected by it.
However, I fear that the Housing Minister feels that the new measures for ROPA will have to wait until a later date. It is possible that the forthcoming leasehold and commonhold reform Bill will include regulatory measures for the managing agents of leasehold property —a part of the property agency sector where there have been many complaints of abuses and incompetence. However, that Bill only covers leasehold property and is unlikely to incorporate lettings agents, and its timetable is uncertain. The Renters’ Rights Bill presents an important opportunity to take a first step towards creating a proper regulatory framework for the property agency sector. This Bill is concerned with the deal faced by renters and letting agents, who are involved with half the properties in the PRS. This is a chance to raise standards, and a timely one.
The ROPA working group, in recommending the creation of a regulator for property agents, emphasised the need for proper qualifications as well as adherence to a code of practice. At present, anyone can set up a property agency business overnight with no experience of property matters.
Amendment 203 would require the relevant agents to have or be working toward mandatory qualifications. Since the Bill relates only to lettings, its requirement for proper qualifications can affect only lettings agents; and since setting up a fully-fledged regulator just for lettings agents could be seen as disproportionate, this amendment is strictly limited to the requirement for qualifications, which is the most basic of a regulatory regime.
However, without the establishment of a regulator, how can even this somewhat tentative step be taken toward creating a more professional property management sector? Who, in the absence of a regulator, can enforce the new regulatory requirements for qualifications set out in Amendment 203?
Local Authorities’ Trading Standards Officers could check that legal requirements are being met in their area, but, to protect the consumer, a robust national mechanism is needed to operationalise this amendment’s requirements for agents to hold the necessary qualifications before acting for landlords and taking responsibility for rental properties.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, once again I follow in the slipstream of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and have added my name to one of his amendments. I commend the work that he has done on this particular subject.
The only point I want to make is to draw attention to the growing gap between the qualifications that are needed to manage a block in the social sector as against those needed to manage a block in the private sector. I take the view that, whether you live in a block managed by a social landlord or a private landlord, you are entitled to the same quality of management, professionalism and competence.
Two years ago, we had the then Social Housing (Regulation) Bill. That set out requirements of qualifications for those in the registered social landlord sector, and it required some 25,000 people to go out and get qualifications. Senior housing managers have to have a level 4 housing qualification and senior housing executives need level 5. One could make the case that requirements are even more necessary in the private sector, because it does not have the overall protection that the social housing sector has with either local authorities or registered social landlords.
There is now a growing gap between the relative qualifications you need, depending on whether the block is in the private or public sector. Although some progress has been made in driving up the standards of lettings agents, there is still some way to go. I hope the Minister will be able to express some sympathy for these two amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, indicated, if we do not make any progress with this Bill, we will be back with the leasehold Bill later in the Session.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I have also put my name to Amendment 203 and I declare a non-financial interest as chair of the Property Institute, which favours regulation of all property agents, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, has said. Amendment 203 is about safety, security and the good management of people’s homes. I think we all agree that residents deserve to be safe in their homes, but in rented accommodation it is impossible for residents to do everything themselves, because the building and the environment are actually owned and managed by the landlord.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, intimated that, in the case of social housing, it actually took the death of Awaab Ishak to bring forward mandatory qualifications for those who manage social property. As he said, however, there is no equivalent for private property, where unqualified and even rogue agents take responsibility for vital parts of the building’s upkeep, its safety, its access, its insurance and its legality. Unlike other professions handling legal and financial transactions, most of which are regulated, there are no mandatory qualifications or any minimum requirements for property agents, even when they are managing the money of assured tenancies. The absence of regulations clearly can lead to the mismanagement of deposits and rents and legal non-compliance, very often through ignorance rather than wickedness.
Managing shared buildings, particularly tall ones, is extremely complicated and demanding, and growing more so. There are a lot of new energy-efficient rules, quite rightly; there are increasing tenant demands for involvement, quite rightly; there is the rising cost of insurance; and there is more focus on legislation on health and safety, particularly after Grenfell. All these are complicated issues that need to be handled by a professional in the private rented sector, which houses, of course, many vulnerable people.
The private rented sector is often the home of people who can least afford to pay for any additional services, and, if they are paying too much in rent, they cannot even heat the property, and that can be because of mismanagement. It should be obvious without, I hope, having to wait for a death in the private rented sector, that all managing agents looking after homes should be properly competent and qualified. It is a job for professionals, not amateurs.
This amendment is a way forward. We are not talking about an expensive thing to run; it is not asking for very much. It asks simply that those who are paid to manage rented properties know what they are doing and have the qualifications to prove it, so that landlords would employ only agents capable of managing homes legally and honestly. Let us not wait for a tragedy: let us do it now. We owe it to all residents to make sure that the state requires those managing their homes to know what they are doing.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 203 and 204, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and others. I declare my interest as a leaseholder, as well as a landlord and former PRS tenant. Noble Lords supporting these amendments have already made a cast-iron case for requiring property-management agents to have relevant training and qualifications, and for these requirements to be legally enforced.
I have dealt with a number of property management agents. Some have been excellent and others have been appalling. It seems extraordinary to me that property agents who may deal with millions of pounds of property and revenue are currently not required to have any professional qualifications or training whatever. Some agents I have dealt with in the past have no property qualifications and had little or no understanding of property law or lease enforcement. There is no other sector that I am aware of where individuals dealing with such large amounts of money and such valuable assets can be wholly unqualified and virtually unregulated.
Anyone can set themselves up as a property agent, with little or no knowledge of the sector. Many property agents are, of course, very professional, but the rogues and amateurs undermine the reputation of the whole property sector. This must end, as we have heard. For that reason, I wholeheartedly support these two amendments and urge the Minister to accept them.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I oppose this amendment. It is rare that I am out of step with my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, but I am concerned that overregulation of aspects of employment is—how can I put it?—a solution waiting for an extensive problem. One of the things that these amendments do is to yet again give considerable powers to others to set all sorts of training expectations. Candidly, and certainly in the private market, there are simply too many sectors in which government and Parliament seek to rip away control instead of the individual having that engagement and relationship.
We already have the property redress scheme in place, of which letting agents and people who manage properties have to be a part. Do not get me wrong: there are plenty of landlords who are not necessarily doing what they should, at the moment, but there are already mechanisms to put this in place. I do not believe that qualifications, training schemes or similar will make a particular difference.
I am also conscious of what happened with social housing, particularly some of the significant failures that we sadly saw in aspects of local government and housing associations. There was a feeling that something must be done. I am conscious, however, that that does not mean that we need to paint every letting agent or property manager with the same brush. For me, this is overreach on behalf of Parliament and, again, I would like to see the evidence for why we need to go to this extent and why yet another profession that has minimal regulation today now needs to be heavily regulated.
It is again a barrier that would put up agencies’ costs. This is the reality of having to deal with this sort of regulation: the person who pays is the renter, not the landlord. We have to bear in mind that, with the cost of living challenge that we are facing—still the number one issue for the electorate in this country—we are here tonight considering an amendment that will continue to put costs on people who are trying to pay their rent. This is the sort of economic situation that we need to consider for every regulation where we are adding extra barriers to entry to make sure that we keep in mind the people who want to just get on with their lives and have good relationships. They can change in the private sector; that is much harder for people in the social rented sector but, even then, we may have gone slightly too far. We must continue to consider the economic impact on people in this country with every regulation that we pass in this House.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the noble Lord, Lord Best. I declare an interest, which I recently gave up, as the chair of the Property Ombudsman board. Perhaps I can provide some of the evidence that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, wanted because, in 30 years of dealing with complaints about property agents, the Property Ombudsman has seen many disputes that probably would not have occurred had those agents undertaken formal training and qualifications.
In 2023—the latest statistics we have—the ombudsman resolved over 2,200 letting disputes. Of these, over half concerned the management of tenancies where the main issues were the agents’ performance in organising and communicating repair and maintenance issues. For the majority, dissatisfaction in these disputes concerned simple and consistent communication around timescales and, in general, managing expectations. Training for agents on how to manage tenant and landlord expectations would have stopped many disputes arising in the first instance.
In addition, there were more than 500 disputes that related to complaint handling. Again, agents currently do not take a consistent approach to complaint handling, which often leaves both tenants and landlords frustrated. It became very clear to me in my time at the Property Ombudsman that to provide a professional and consistent level of service to tenants and landlords, many letting agents would benefit from formal training. It would not only help agents to provide a better service but set consistent expectations for consumers, meaning that relationships between agents, tenants and landlords would improve.
In my brief intervention, I reinforce the RoPA report recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Best, indeed reinforced by the work of my noble friend Lady Hayter, that the elements required to implement a training and qualifications regime are already in place. I hope it would not be too significant a leap for the Government to make training and qualifications a mandatory requirement for all letting agents.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, talk about save the Best until last—well, until the penultimate. The breadth, depth, knowledge, understanding and experience of the names backing these amendments is fascinating and extraordinary. I thank all noble Lords. I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Thornhill who also put her name to both amendments. She signed these amendments and we backed them because it is so astonishing that property agents still, today, have none of these qualifications and that anyone can be set up and become a lettings agency. It is staggering given the amount of expertise that they need in order to advise landlords and tenants on these significant complex legal issues in exchange for the not insignificant amounts of money they get for doing that very job.
Propertymark and others are pressing for this. They know that there are people out there who are not doing a good job, as the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, described, and that they are letting the side down and giving good lettings agents a terrible reputation. It is in everyone’s interest that this aspect of the private rented sector is regulated, precisely because the UK property market is very heavily regulated already, with strict laws governing tenants’ rights and landlords’ obligations across many different Acts. Knowledge, understanding and training around that is absolutely critical.
Qualified property agents should possess the knowledge and expertise to navigate this minefield. Legal compliance and risk management are essential. The list of what they have to do already is long and complex and the Bill will add to it, which is why a transition timeline is essential, with thorough, clear guidance as to what is expected, when and by whom. Landlords are rightly worried about this, and I hope that the Minister can reassure the sector on that particular issue of timeline.
It is worth stressing that without proper qualifications, agents risk costly legal battles, fines and damage to their own professional reputation. We have heard that there are already qualifications out there. The sector is keen to get going and roll them out, but they need that push; that degree of compulsion. Amendments 203 and 204 would provide that. Qualifications demonstrate that the agent is knowledgeable about market trends, property evaluations, but also, importantly, ethical practices and transparency itself. All these things are needed. This would create a virtuous circle, boost tenants’ confidence and make landlords more likely to trust their investments with a qualified agent who would also be able to conduct property inspections, manage maintenance, repairs and rent collection and handle financial management. Surely this has to be done with real professional skill, reducing the risk of disputes and maintaining property value. Those agents who get ahead of the curve and get qualified now will become the best. They will stand out from the crowd in a competitive marketplace.
If the Bill is about raising the standard in the private rented sector, rooting out the bad guys and making a once-in-a-generation shift in private renting, this is such an important part of the equation. The Government must grasp it, grasp it soon and get on with it. At the end of the day, it is not just about bricks and mortar, but people’s homes and livelihoods. I ask the Minister: if not this Bill, where and when?
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for bringing Amendments 203 and 204 before your Lordships’ House today. They propose the insertion of new clauses after Clause 63 and rightly focus on training property agents and the enforcement of agent qualifications. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, who raised the important aspect of parity with the social rented sector, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, who said that, actually, this is very complex, that people need to understand it and that inadvertent mistakes and omissions are frequently made. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, gave us some statistics—I could not write them down quickly enough, but I am sure I will get hold of them sooner or later. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, made a good point, which I will come back to, about proportionality and the risk of overregulation—something that noble Lords may have heard once or twice from this side of the Chamber. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, whose comments I will also come back to.
Your Lordships’ House is correct to consider the value of proper training and qualifications, and the benefits this knowledge can bring to the property market. I shall focus my contribution on the impact that training can have in reducing the risk of regulatory breaches, thereby benefiting tenants. Not only will well-trained agents develop a broader and more cohesive understanding of the law but their ignorance, and the potential for breaches arising from a simple lack of understanding, will be greatly diminished. With this, significant benefits will also be felt by local authorities, as fewer cases of regulatory breaches will be brought to their attention for resolution.
Such a reduction in caseload is particularly important at a time when local authorities are tasked with implementing the Secretary of State’s reorganisation plans as outlined in the devolution White Paper. As your Lordships’ House will be well aware, local authorities are currently operating under immense pressure—facing financial constraints, staffing shortages and increasing responsibilities. It is not just a case of money; I know from my experience with local authorities and their housing teams that it is a lack of enough trained people. We need to seek to minimise the pressure that we put on them.
We must explore proactive measures such as ensuring that property agents are properly trained and qualified from the outset. By doing so, we not only improve standards across the sector but allow local authorities to focus their limited resources on strategic priorities rather than enforcement. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said, there is an issue of proportionality. We must ensure that any powers we pass to the Secretary of State are proportionate and can be implemented. While ministerial oversight is, of course, necessary in certain respects, we must be cautious about top-down regulation of key aspects of training and enforcement.
If we are truly committed to getting this right, we must resist the temptation to defer action or consign this matter to the “deal with it later” category. This argument has been, and will no doubt continue to be, clearly articulated across this House. Not placing provisions in the Bill is not only inadequate but raises more questions than it answers. We must understand the Minister’s intentions fully before we consider granting such significant powers to the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, the intention behind these amendments is well placed. Educating letting agents is vital, as they occupy a central role in the rental housing market and have a direct impact on whether tenants are treated both fairly and lawfully.
Exploring ways to enhance tenant protection without compromising housing supply should be at the front and centre of the Government’s thinking. It is vital that we establish clear, accessible means to ensure that landlords understand their rights and responsibilities, and the regulatory framework in which they operate. Property agents must be at the heart of this ambition.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his amendments relating to the regulation of property agents. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Young, Lord Truscott and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Coffey, who have all spoken in this debate, as well as my noble friends Lady Warwick and Lady Hayter.
Amendment 203 would enable the Secretary of State, through subsequent secondary legislation, to introduce professional qualifications for property agents who manage assured tenancies. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his continued engagement on such an important topic—I do regard it as such. He is an ardent campaigner for driving up standards across all property agents, not just letting agents, who are the focus of this amendment.
The Housing Minister and I have had a number of conversations with the noble Lord on how best to raise levels of professionalism. We recognise the challenges that tenants and landlords can face when using letting agents. Many agents provide a good service, but some do not.
The Government are committed to ensuring that landlords and those living in the rented and leasehold sectors are protected from abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous agents. On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Young, about parity with the social housing sector, we want to ensure consistency with our work to drive up management standards in the social housing sector. We are aware that in some blocks, including those managed by social landlords, managing agents will be providing services for both leaseholders and social housing tenants. It is important to ensure that any measures we bring forward on managing agent regulation take full account of other legal requirements, including qualifications proposed for the social housing sector.
Protections are already in place to make sure that both tenants and landlords are treated fairly by letting agents and can hold them to account. This includes the Tenant Fees Act 2019, which bans most letting fees and caps tenancy deposits paid by tenants in the private rented sector in England, and the requirement for all property agents, including letting agents, to be members of a government-approved redress scheme.
The Housing Minister made a Written Ministerial Statement on 21 November 2024 which set out the Government’s intention to revisit the 2019 report from the noble Lord, Lord Best, on regulating the property agent sector. We continue to engage across the sector to improve standards among property agents. We welcome the ongoing work being undertaken by the industry itself, as well as by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friend Lady Hayter.
We are continuing to consider this issue carefully and have already announced our intention to introduce minimum qualifications for property managing agents of leasehold properties and estate managers of freehold estates, and to consult on this issue this year. We will set out our full position on the regulation of letting, managing and estate agents in due course. I thank my noble friend Lady Warwick for the strong evidence she provided about why that is necessary.
Amendment 204 would have the effect that a property agent who manages assured tenancies may be part of a mandatory redress scheme only if they meet the relevant qualification requirements. In practice, this amendment would place responsibility for ensuring the appropriate property agent has the relevant qualifications on the Property Ombudsman and Property Redress. It would also give these redress schemes the power to award a financial penalty for non-compliance.
The main role of redress schemes is to deal with individual complaints by tenants against their agent. The existing redress schemes have a number of levers at their disposal, including the ability to award compensation to a tenant or a landlord where things have gone wrong. They may also expel members from their scheme. However, redress schemes are not designed to be enforcement bodies, so it would not be appropriate to give them powers to issue a financial penalty. Such measures should be reserved for enforcement authorities, such as local authorities. Furthermore, expulsion from or failure to join a redress scheme will not expressly prevent an agent from trading, although it does mean that the agent is in breach of regulations and liable for enforcement action by the local authority.
The question of who is best placed to enforce qualification measures is important and is certainly something the Government are taking into account as part of their consideration of the regulation of managing, letting and estate agents. As I have mentioned before, we will set out our position on this in due course. I am happy to meet the noble Lord, Lord Best, and any other noble Lord to discuss this issue further. However, with these assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I am deeply grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Young, drew attention to the fact that social housing providers are now required to have qualifications, and the same should go for the private sector—perhaps even more so. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, reminded us of Awaab’s law, introduced by the previous Government after the death of little Awaab Ishak, and the dangers of housing management not operating smoothly and for the safety of the occupiers. She said that this business was a job for professionals—for properly qualified people—and so it is.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, who made the point that managing agents, property agents and letting agents are dealing with millions of pounds-worth of clients’ money. It is actually billions rather than millions. A really serious commitment is required of these agents. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, was not so sure that qualifications and training would make any difference. I think this is a bit out of step with the sector itself, the profession, which is asking very urgently for regulation to drive out those who are not worthy of being part of that profession, just as we would expect accountants, doctors and lawyers all to have qualifications before they undertake important tasks.
“Mediated rent pauses (housing conditions)(1) This section applies where—(a) there is a tenancy to which section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 applies;(b) it appears to the tenant that the landlord has breached the covenant implied by that section; and(c) it appears to the tenant that the landlord has failed to carry out works necessary to remedy any such breaches within the timeframes set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 10A(3) of that Act.(2) A tenant is entitled to make arrangements to pay rent to an independent individual, rather than to the relevant landlord.(3) The independent individual must not pass any rent paid under subsection (2) to the landlord until there has been a determination or agreement between the landlord and tenant as to the landlord’s liability for any breach of the covenant implied by section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.(4) Where a determination or agreement under subsection (3) sets a time by which works are to be completed, the independent individual will—(a) release any rent paid under subsection (2) to the landlord if the works are completed by that time;(b) release any rent paid under subsection (2) back to the tenant if the works have not been completed by that time.(5) In this section an “independent individual” means the independent individual responsible for investigating complaints made against members of a landlord redress scheme under section 65.”
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, all the bright-eyed and bushy-tailed Members of the House who are still here at 12.47 am will note that I am not the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. My noble friend is the Green lark, and I am the Green owl, so you get me after midnight.
I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford. The hashtag I often use is #Nowaytorunacountry. I take the systematic approach to this and suggest that your Lordships’ House urgently needs to think about a reset of our sitting hours.
I rise to move Amendment 206 in the name of my noble friend. This is a very straightforward, positive, friendly amendment aiming to assist the Government to ensure that this legislation can be enforced and can make a real difference. We know that so many renters are trapped in mouldy homes with leaking roofs and heating and hot water systems that are not working. When renters find themselves in those kinds of situations, this amendment would give them the right to pay the rent to a third-party body. My noble friend Lady Jones has suggested the new ombudsman, but we are very open to other suggestions as well. There are other ways of doing it. The amendment is written in a neutral way.
This is to deal with the situation where a landlord refuses to carry out essential repairs, yet the tenant is in a situation where they still have to keep paying for this utterly inadequate accommodation. The arrangements under this amendment would be that, if a landlord carries out the works and ameliorates the problems, the independent third-party would send them the full amount of rent due. If not, the tenant could get a full or partial refund, which they might well otherwise have to go to court to try to recover.
This is both a fair and an effective provision. It punishes the bad landlords and does not impact on the good ones. From the Government’s point of view, this is a constructive suggestion to help make sure that this legislation delivers on its stated aims. With those brief remarks, I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, this in effect creates a formal escrow process. One of my proudest achievements was to organise a student rent strike, admittedly some time ago, as noble Lords may recognise. At the time, the university accommodation was due to be dismantled at the end of the year and as a consequence it felt like the university was not taking various matters very seriously.
I happened not to be a paying student at the time; I was a vice-warden in a hall of residence. So I did help them, but I insisted that, if I was to help them, they would have to pay over their rent to avoid being evicted. We did that by handing the money to the student union, to effectively act in escrow. As a consequence, repairs were made and everyone ended up happy—apart from the university, which did not like my role in that at all.
The reason I tell that story is that it matters that tenants should be able to withhold cash going directly to a landlord when the landlord is, frankly, taking the mickey. Awaab’s law has already been mentioned and Clause 63, which we did not specifically address, is already extending that to the private sector, and I welcome that. We need to work out a much easier way for people to effectively deploy this escrow approach. That is why I am supporting the amendment.
It is fair to say that we need to make sure that any such processes are easy to administer. Going a little bit further, there is a regularly read out statistic that something like 15% to 20% of housing benefit—or housing support, whether as direct housing benefit or through universal credit—is thought to go to properties not deemed fit for rent. I went into a reasonable amount of detail on this with officials.
The philosophy explained to me by the Permanent Secretary and other officials was that the state thus far should not determine on behalf of the renter where they are going to live; it is an important right for the renter to make that choice—even though it felt repulsive to me that taxpayers’ money was being spent in, frankly, some pretty ropey places. From my visits to some different housing, I have to say it was quite extraordinary what was going on. Sometimes, I am afraid, the dilapidation was the consequence of the tenant not allowing repairs to be undertaken—but that is a minor aside. The point is that—whether it is private money, your own money or the state’s money going to a private landlord—it matters that we have habitable accommodation. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment from the noble Baroness.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, these amendments have raised the serious and emotive issue of the reality of tenants living in poor housing conditions and the remedies that are available when landlords fail to act. It is an area where frustration and vulnerability can understandably run high.
Amendment 206, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, proposes a system of mediated rent pauses. Under that model, tenants would be entitled to pay rent to an independent individual rather than their landlord when repairs are not carried out within the expected framework. However, we must be clear-eyed about this. How would it operate in practice? Who would this independent individual be in real terms? Would it be the redress scheme ombudsman? If so, is it appropriate or even realistic for them to be holding and distributing rent payments? Would they have the resources, legal authority or financial infrastructure to do so? It is overcomplicated.
There is also the question of safeguards. What mechanisms would ensure that the process was fair to both parties? What happens if a tenant withholds rent on the basis of a dispute that turns out to be unfounded? How long might rent be withheld, and what impact would that have on smaller landlords with limited financial resilience? It is entirely right that landlords should meet their obligations to maintain safe and decent homes, but we should be cautious about creating a system that effectively withholds rent before any formal adjudication. That could introduce significant uncertainty into the private rented sector. Would this approach encourage resolution or would it risk entrenching disputes? Might it push responsible landlords out of the market while rogue landlords simply continue to ignore the rules?
In short, while the amendment is well intentioned, and of course we sympathise with all individuals living in poor conditions and battling with irresponsible and careless landlords, it raises complex questions about implementation and unintended consequences. On balance, we are not persuaded that the provision as drafted would be workable in practice. However, there must be a better, more practical way to ensure that tenants are protected without creating further layers of bureaucracy and pushing good landlords out of the market.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for tabling Amendment 206, ably supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who moved it, and I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Scott, for taking part in the debate.
Amendment 206 would allow a tenant to pay rent to the ombudsman rather than their landlord if the landlord had failed to meet legal requirements on housing quality. I strongly agree with the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to ensure that landlords remedy hazards in good time—we all know the outcome when that does not happen—but I feel that the Bill’s existing provisions are the best way to achieve that. The Bill will allow private rented sector tenants to challenge their landlord through the courts if they fail to comply with the Awaab’s law requirements, such as timescales for remedying hazards. Alongside that, it will allow us to apply the decent homes standard to the private rented sector, which is an important move.
The PRS landlord ombudsman will provide a new route of redress for tenants and will be able to investigate complaints about standards and repairs. The Bill will also strengthen rent repayment orders, including by increasing from 12 months to two years the amount of rent that a tribunal will be able to award a tenant. Tenants can seek rent to be repaid where a relevant offence has been committed, including offences related to housing standards, such as failing to comply with an improvement notice.
The amendment has the potential to be administratively complex and risks unintended consequences that might lead inadvertently to worse outcomes for tenants. For example, rent being held by the ombudsman could delay repairs in some cases if it made it more difficult for landlords to fund the required works, a point that I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, referred to. Existing measures in the Bill place legal expectations on landlords about the quality of their properties and give tenants access to compensation if their landlords have not met obligations in relation to standards, as well as providing mechanisms through which landlords can be required to carry out repairs. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response, and those who have taken part in this short but perfectly formed debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, in particular for her support for the amendment. It is something we might come back to and look at the working of down the track. I also thank her for the fascinating tale of student days which, I think, took many of us back to our own student days. I think there was an expression of support from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for the intention if not the exact drafting of the amendment. I would stress that we are not wedded to the precise drafting, as we are in Committee; we would be delighted to work on the detail of the drafting as we go forward.
In response to the Minister’s response, I am afraid there is a phrase that I am sure is in the Civil Service handbook: “inadvertent consequences”. That seems to be the response that every Minister gives. More substantively, what the Minister said is that tenants can challenge through the courts and appeal to the ombudsman, and orders for action can be done. Those are all things that have differential levels of access depending on people’s capacity, people’s awareness, people’s ability to access those things—their time and energy and costs. The action proposed by this Amendment 206, however, is a really straightforward and simple way to give tenants the power to have control and agency for themselves, not relying on other bodies.
Having said all that, this is of course Committee, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment while reserving the ability to come back on Report.