Telecommunications Fraud: Reimbursement of Victims
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Vaux of Harrowden
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take to ensure that technology and telecommunication firms contribute to the cost of fraud prevention and the reimbursement of victims of fraud that arises on their platforms.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
Through regulation, including the Online Safety Act, companies are now required to stop fraudsters abusing their business models. All parties with a role to play should prioritise tackling fraud, including the tech and telco sectors, which are key partners in the prevention of fraud. However, more can be done, and further action will be set out in the Government’s forthcoming fraud strategy.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. As noble Lords will be aware, banks now have to reimburse fraud victims. However, according to the PSR, over 70% of scams by volume originate online, 54% from Meta alone, and 31% of scams by value originate from telecoms companies. Yet, despite facilitating most of the scams, technology and telecoms companies have no liability for the losses and are subject only to voluntary charters. Indeed, one large telecoms company—let us name it: BT/EE—has started to charge extra to warn people that calls or texts might be a scam. The voluntary charters are clearly not working, so does the Minister agree that tech and telecom companies will take serious action only if they have a real financial liability for the losses, just like the banks do? Does he also agree that it is a disgrace that a company such as BT/EE is profiteering from scams, and will he take action to stop that before the others follow?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will certainly look separately into the noble Lord’s question in regard to BT and so on. He will be aware that since March 2025, Ofcom’s illegal content code of practice has come into effect. That means that platforms such as Meta and the others he has mentioned, which contribute through hosting illegal activity and significant levels of fraud, now have a mandate to proactively stop and remove fraudulent content, or else they will face fines and other potential measures. The noble Lord mentioned the disparity between the banks and the platforms. We have the Online Safety Act, which has only just come into effect, and we have potential areas to look at in the fraud strategy. I am aiming to publish the fraud strategy at the end of this year and early next year at the latest. We are working through that currently, and I keep all options open.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Is the Minister aware that there are still too many rural areas in the United Kingdom where the reception, both telephonic and in respect of all other modern machinery, is not viable? Will he therefore call in the senior directors of those companies to make sure that the push that is supposed to be happening is actually happening on the ground?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will certainly look at that point. It is not within my direct responsibility, because this Question is about fraud. I live in a semi-rural area in north Wales myself and those issues are important, but they are not directly Home Office responsibilities. If the noble Lord will allow me, I will refer that matter to the appropriate Minister for somebody else to call in—I have enough people to call in on my own.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is about time that we treated social media as publishers and held them to the same account as we would do newspapers, et cetera? We have 14 years of lack of action on this. Should not the Government look at this again and try to deal with the problems that have just been raised?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend can rest assured that under the Online Safety Act, which passed with an element of cross-party support but which has now been implemented by this Government, we have put in place stringent standards whereby, if illegal, harmful and fraudulent content is hosted by companies and they do not remove it when requested to do so, they will face fines and penalties which are severe. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, we intend to keep that under review. We intend to look at how it is working, and if it is not working to a satisfactory level, we will take further action in the forthcoming fraud strategy paper that will be produced towards the end of this year.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, Facebook’s removal of fact-checkers from its platforms leaves people even more exposed, with a new person scammed every seven minutes. To make matters worse, Ofcom decided to delay implementing its codes of practice for paid-for fraudulent advertising. Does the Minister share my concern that this decision by Ofcom means that key parts of the Online Safety Act will not be fully enforced until at least 2027?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness has mentioned the fraudulent advertising duty, which, again, is a key part of the Online Safety Act. Ofcom assures me that it will consult very shortly, towards the summer, on codes of practice that will look at the very issue that she has mentioned—the advertising duty—with an aim to publish the final advertising codes around this time next year.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, fraud of this kind targets some of the most vulnerable people in our society and causes considerable emotional as well as material harm. Given that 70% of fraud in the UK either originates overseas or has an international link, can the Minister update the House on how the Government are working with other countries to make sure that those abroad who are targeting people in this country are stopped?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Absolutely; that is an extremely valuable point. Again in the upcoming fraud strategy, we will look at a number of countries from which fraud emanates. We have put just under £1 million into supporting the United Nations conference on this very issue, which will be held next year; the UK is leading the charge on that. For those noble Lords who may have missed me, a couple of weeks ago I spent four days in Nigeria dealing with the Nigerian Government and, with them, signing a charter to look at joint co-operation on fraud that emanates from both our country and theirs collectively; that is the first of a number of charters and codes of practice that we will look at with other countries. This is an extremely important point: there are certain areas from which fraud emanates very strongly. We need an international response to what is an international criminal gang operation.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I recollect that, when I was a member of the special Select Committee on fraud, we had the privilege of hearing evidence from a representative of the company that was providing me with mobile telephony. Of course, the first sentence of the evidence that they gave was, “We take this issue very seriously”. I had in fact spent five hours, on a train from Scotland, reading the terms and conditions of my contract with the company; I suspect that no other Member of your Lordships’ House has done that. The word “fraud” appeared nowhere in the contract that I had with it. It would be simple for providers to make it clear to those to whom they give the privilege of using their system that, if they use it for fraud, not only will the contract be terminated but all other mobile providers will be told that they have that background. When we revise the fraud strategy, can we insist that that simple requirement is made of mobile providers?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
One key area that we are focusing on in the revised fraud strategy is data sharing. I want to ensure that telecoms companies, telecommunications providers, platforms, the police and others share data where there is fraudulent activity. I hope that Members will bear with me but, when the fraud strategy comes out in due course, data sharing and how we can improve it will be one of our key aims as a Government.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I am glad that the Minister mentioned data sharing because, obviously, a lot of scams and fraud come through nuisance calls and texts. There is a no man’s land, as it were, between Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office, so it vital that those two regulators work closely together. I hope that, as part of the fraud strategy, the Minister will illuminate how closely those two regulators are working together and perhaps commit to regular reports on how they are cracking down on nuisance calls and texts, which companies they are closing, whom they are fining and what impact they are having.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Absolutely. I am keen on having not just data sharing but data metrics and performance in the fraud strategy. The noble Lord’s point is extremely valid. There is a lot of good talk, but we need to measure action.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if we had ID security on a cyber basis, much of this fraud would be diminished and would disappear?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an interesting point; if he will let me, I will take it as a representation for consideration in the fraud strategy. The Government are keen to look at any measure that will reduce the level of fraud, which currently accounts for 41% of all crime; that impacts on businesses, on consumers, on government and, ultimately, on confidence and growth in our economy. Fraud is extremely important; I will examine the noble Lord’s suggestion.
E-scooters: Insurance
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the insurance sector about the cost of illegally operated e-scooters.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I refer to the Private Member’s Bill that I have before the House on road accident offences caused by bikes, e-bikes and e-scooters.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
The Government regularly speak to the Motor Insurers’ Bureau and insurers as we develop our policy on e-scooters. This includes discussions about personal injury and property damage costs being covered by motorists, through the Motor Insurers’ Bureau’s uninsured drivers agreement, where an illegal e-scooter is at fault in a collision, ensuring that victims are fairly compensated. The e-scooters in the department’s rental trials, managed by the relevant local transport authorities, are covered by insurance.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. He will be aware that the cost that all motorists pay for the losses of all victims of uninsured vehicles, including illegal scooters, is £530 million. How do the Government intend to close this gap, where there is no insurance offered by the market for illegally operated e-scooters and other such vehicles?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness is rightly persistent on this subject and, as she knows, I have offered to meet her on it. The previous Government commenced trials but did not develop or introduce legislation. We recognise the depth of public concern and are actively considering next steps. In the meantime, the vast majority of MIB claims related to e-scooters are of less than £50,000, so are likely to be a small proportion of the £530 million that she mentioned.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, e-scooters are incredibly quiet and therefore dangerous on pavements. What action are the Government taking to prevent e-scooters being used on pavements?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The use of e-scooters needs legislation to regulate it. This is a question which I have answered in the House before and which no doubt will continue to come up until we produce draft legislation. The issues are complex. Noble Lords will know that I have replied to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, putting in the Library a résumé of the legislation applying in all European countries, where there are vast differences in where you can use them, whether you should have a helmet, whether there is an age limit, whether they should be registered and whether they should be insured. We are working hard through those issues. They are not easy to solve, but the noble Baroness is right that determining what can be used on pavements and what is safe in a world where people with disabilities are, rightly, very worried about this, is very important.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, even when things are made legal, they can be abused. There must be enforcement. E-bikes are supposed to travel at a maximum of 15.5 miles per hour and not be throttled up to that speed. Yet around us all the time we see employees, in effect, of multinational companies delivering our groceries and our takeaways being exploited on illegal and uninsured vehicles. Will the Government take that into account when considering any regime for e-scooters?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. The speed limit of 15.5 miles per hour determines the point at which an electric bicycle, capable of more speed than that, is a vehicle that needs to be licensed. The enforcement of the law is a matter for chief police officers, but we are considering what we can do in this area. I recognise as much as everybody else in this House that these alleged bicycles travelling at 25 or 30 miles per hour silently, and with the logos of quite major companies on the back of their riders’ rucksacks, represent a significant challenge to the legal use of the roads system.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite correct to ask the Question about illegal e-scooters, but, likewise, cyclists, who seem to have an ever-expanding space on our roads, do not pay road tax or insurance. Do the Government have any plans to look at that issue?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I do not recall whether the noble Baroness was one of the speakers in the debate that we had before Christmas on this subject. There are significant challenges with putting forward legislation about the licensing and insurance of bicycles. We want to encourage the safe and sensible use of bicycles, because active travel is good for the health of the nation. We will consider that further in the road safety strategy, but not to the extent that it deters people from cycling.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the Government came to power promising to do better than their predecessor. There is a perfectly respectable libertarian argument, I suppose, that you should not have any regulation of e-scooters and e-bikes, and that, irrespective of product safety, they should be allowed to go where they want at whatever speed they want. People might want to make that argument. It seems to me that that is, in practice, now the Government’s position. There is no regulation, there has been no regulation for a long time, there is no regulation coming and there is very little enforcement. I pay credit to the police forces that do occasionally take enforcement. Will the Government just be honest and say that they are happy with that position and intend to let it run?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Well, I refer the noble Lord to my answer to a very similar question he asked me on 1 April. I said to him then that I did not much care to be lectured about drift by somebody who represents a party that did an experiment in 2021, published some results in 2022 and then did nothing, and that remains the case today.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, we currently have a perfect storm with e-scooters. There has already been reference to the fact that there is no need to register them, it is illegal to use them on public roads and pavements, and there is no registration when you buy the e-scooter either. Would the first step for this not be to ensure that, when somebody buys an e-scooter —because you are supposed to have a driver’s licence, provisional or full—they have to give their driving licence details, which would then be logged with that particular e-scooter?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I very much respect the noble Baroness’s view about the safety of these things, particularly from the point of view of anybody with a mobility difficulty or disability. But this is only one of the things that needs to be contemplated carefully in introducing legislation, simply because the legislation has to work in practice. We are learning some things from the controlled trials that the department has sponsored—the noble Baroness will know that the e-scooters concerned are identifiable in a way that those purchased from retailers are not. We also have to be realistic about what we can expect retailers to do in these circumstances. We are, as I said, deeply considering this. I know it is an issue of great concern to this House; it is the subject on which I have answered questions most frequently since I came here. We are working hard at it, but it is a difficult area and the rules we put in place have to have some chance of being enforced in a way that controls behaviour.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I fear that the Minister will have even more questions. I have just managed to secure an Oral Question on 10 June about exactly this issue. I wonder whether, in between, he would be interested in visiting the City of London cycle enforcement group, which has come up with some quite creative ways of getting people points on their driving licences. They are able to spot, as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, mentioned, where vehicles have been adapted to exceed 15 miles per hour either by pressing a button that maintains the power consistently or merely by the size of the motor on these vehicles. It begs the question of why other forces are not able to have the same enforcement rigour that the City of London has managed. He might want to visit and see how the group is doing it.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am pleased to know that I shall have to answer further questions on this in June. In the meantime, I am absolutely delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, has raised this issue. It is very important to publicise the good work of the City of London Police, and he is absolutely right that it is very encouraging to discover that, as a result of people riding what are in fact illegal motor vehicles, they can have their licence endorsed or, if they do not have one, the points will be put on it whenever they get one.
I will try to go to see them, but I know exactly what he is talking about. It is a great model and I would encourage other chief police officers—I hope that he, with his previous connections, will too—to go and witness it, and then do the same. We also know that these things are being used for crime of various sorts. In fact, the reason why the City of London Police is cracking down on it is mobile phone theft, in particular. It is a very effective enforcement methodology.
BBC Sounds: Access from Abroad
Lord Blunkett
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the BBC about its decision to deny access to BBC Sounds for people travelling or living abroad; and what the outcome of any such discussions was.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
As my noble friend is aware, the BBC is operationally independent of the Government. Decisions of this nature are rightly for the BBC. However, I welcome the BBC’s commitment to keep BBC Sounds available internationally until access arrangements to other BBC stations for international listeners are confirmed. The Government are continuing conversations with the BBC to understand the timing and potential impact of changes.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
Since laying this Question, and as a supporter of the BBC, I have been pleased to have a dialogue, but I am sure my noble friend would agree that if it is to be “our BBC” then there must be communications with listeners and timescales for implementation, linking in with genuine accessibility for every user. Developing this with the World Service and investing in our soft power will be really important—perhaps this is tongue-in-cheek—to ensure that when we are abroad all of us can tune in and listen, because it helps us feel that we are not strangers in someone else’s land.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
As I made clear to my noble friend, DCMS is having ongoing conversations with the BBC to better understand the timing and implications of the proposed changes. Accessibility is clearly important. As somebody who, like many other Members of your Lordships’ House, listens using BBC Sounds when abroad, I am very grateful that the BBC is going to consider this further. However, under the current proposals, the international audience will still be able to access Radio 4, the World Service and the BBC’s journalism for free through bbc.com. Ultimately, whatever comes out of the delay to the changes and the refinement of the plans, this is a matter of operational independence for the BBC.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest in having been a BBC producer for 25 years. Today, the BBC director-general called for the “supercharging” of the BBC World Service so that it can double its audience and reach 1 billion people weekly. Can the Minister respond to his call for the Government to be ambitious for the BBC World Service and invest in its significant growth, rather than make the cuts which are being suggested at the moment?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I read the director-general’s speech with interest but, as noble Lords can imagine, since it came into my inbox five minutes before I came into the Chamber I have not had a chance to reflect on it at length. I thought, however, that the way he invoked Reithian values, and his commitment to the BBC being part of the rebuilding of trust, was really important. We recognise how vital the BBC is as a key British asset that makes a significant contribution to national life, as well as overseas through the World Service.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, the concern that has been expressed about these proposals, which are partly driven by financial considerations, illustrates just how popular BBC content is right around the world, providing, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said, real soft power. This means, for example, that BBC listeners are more likely to invest in the UK than non-BBC listeners. However, providing that content is getting ever more expensive and more difficult to fund. Notwithstanding the Minister saying how proud she is and how keen she is for the BBC to continue to do well, what assurances can she give us that the BBC will be given secure finances?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, for the BBC to deliver on its obligations, it needs continued sustainable funding. We are keeping an open mind about the future of the licence fee and will consider the best funding model during the charter review. Our priority is that there will be sustainable funding for the BBC.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, many of us in this House may just about be old enough to remember the shortwave broadcasts coming from Hungary in 1956 when it was invaded by the Russians. One of the few ways in which countries around the world can communicate or obtain information through radio is by using frequencies that have now gone in this country. Can the Minister confirm that, whatever the BBC does in order to have a long reach around the world, it is taking into account the fact that the way in which people receive radio is not always as sophisticated as the way that we are able to benefit from it here?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a really important point. The way that this whole agenda gets taken forward is clearly key. I recommend that noble Lords read the speech by the director-general, which I thought was very thoughtful about where he sees the BBC going. I hope noble Lords will take some reassurance that he sees the responsibility of the BBC in both a national and a world context. The Government also see the significance of issues such as that. I am afraid I was not old enough to remember the 1956 conflict that the noble Lord mentions—in fact, I was not born—but I will feed his points back to both DCMS and FCDO colleagues.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted that we have so many youngsters in your Lordships’ House. I echo the fact that the BBC is an important source of soft power. Like many Members of the House, I worked abroad, and I ended up with an addiction to the BBC World Service. When I confessed that addiction, I discovered that people from all countries shared my addiction to the World Service. If we squander that, we squander a big part of our influence abroad. I hope the Government will recognise that. I am encouraged by what the Minister has said, but we really need to keep the pressure on regarding this issue.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
It is only in your Lordships’ House that I am referred to as a youngster, and long may that continue. Reflecting on my noble friend’s comments, I will say that under the original proposals the international audience will still be able to use and access radio for the World Service and the BBC’s journalism for free through bbc.com. Clearly, the BBC is reviewing and refining the plans, but I think we can all agree that we should be proud of how the BBC is such a significant part of our soft power globally.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, the journalist and former “World News Today” presenter Kirsty Lang described this decision as
“devastating for all our overseas listeners … I have no idea why they’re cutting it or why they can’t introduce a subscription for people living outside the UK”.
The principal of the Royal Birmingham Conservatoire suggested that BBC Sounds could be made available for a monthly fee, and that
“Millions of others outside UK would pay for the great content”.
I appreciate that the BBC is operationally independent of the Government, but surely the Minister can constructively challenge the BBC as to why a monthly subscription fee would not be a viable option, particularly in view of its current £500 million deficit. Will she please commit to doing so?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
As I mentioned, the BBC is operationally independent. It is important for the BBC and our journalism that it is operationally independent of the Government. However, as I previously mentioned, I welcome the BBC’s commitment to keep BBC Sounds available internationally until access arrangements to other BBC stations for international listeners are confirmed. As I mentioned in a previous response, Radio 4, the World Service and the BBC’s journalism will still be free throughout the world at bbc.com.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I indeed remember 1956, which I am sure is a surprise to most Members looking at me at this moment. For the benefit of all of us, I ask the Minister what discussions, if any, have taken place with the Israeli Government that might allow correspondents to operate from within Gaza.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will discuss that issue with FCDO colleagues and write to my noble friend.
Water: Supply and Infrastructure
Lord Rooker
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure sufficient supply of water, and what assessment they have made of the adequacy of water infrastructure in this regard.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, statutory water resource management plans set out how water companies intend to deliver a secure supply of water. Water companies are required to publish new plans every five years. The 2024 plans have been scrutinised by the Environment Agency and Ofwat to ensure that companies can meet future challenges. The UK and Welsh Governments’ Independent Water Commission will recommend reforms to reset the water sector. It will report by summer 2025.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer—his first Oral Answer from the Dispatch Box—and I hope all the others are as good as that. Is it correct that, at the current rates of consumption, by 2050 this country will be 5 billion litres of water a day short—that is one-third of our supply—and that the rumoured answer to this, which I approve of, is that we need nine new reservoirs? Is this is confirmed? Given our pathetic infrastructure work in this country, should we not get started quickly?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. He is correct that we are predicted to get to a 5 billion litre a day water supply demand gap by 2050. However, I am pleased to tell him that he is also correct to mention that we are developing nine new reservoirs, in addition to the Havant Thicket reservoir, which is already under way and will be online by 2032. The Government secured a record level of investment in water infrastructure, with £104 billion of investment to be delivered between April 2025 and the end of March 2030. Reservoirs are just part of the story: they sit alongside other water schemes, such as transfer pipelines, nine new desalination projects and seven new recycling schemes. In fact, while they are important, the real prize in terms of closing that huge supply and demand gap is 65% more effective demand management, including tackling leakage.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, the Minister just mentioned 2050. It is a fact, unfortunately, that the government target for reducing leakage by 2050 is only 50% from the current level of leakage, which is, of course, far greater than it should be. Does the Minister agree that we ought to have a more ambitious target than simply reducing by 50% the current very high level of leakage by 2050?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Duke for his question. Leakage is at its lowest level in two decades and in December last year Ofwat allocated £720 million as part of its 2024 price review investment package to continue work to reduce leakage, focusing on things such as smart technologies and better data. The important thing to bear in mind is that the package supports continuing progress now on reducing leakage, with a requirement for companies to cut leakage by 17% between 2025 and 2030. It is important that we take action on this important issue now as well as trying to meet those long-term targets.
Lord Deben (Con)
Essex & Suffolk Water has announced that it cannot provide any extra water to any new business or extension of any business until 2036 and that the offices that are on site for Sizewell C are provided water by tankers. How on earth can we build this ridiculous Sizewell C when we do not have enough water to provide the office with drink?
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble Lord is right to say—as my noble friend Lord Rooker also suggested—that we desperately need new infrastructure now and as soon as possible. I would like to be able to stand here and say that a number of new reservoirs are currently under way because of decisions that had been taken perhaps by previous Governments. I cannot do that, but I can point to the £104 billion investment in water infrastructure. That will do things such as help us build the 1.5 million homes. It will help us build the new nuclear infrastructure that he is referring to and generate the regional economic growth this country needs. We are working with colleagues in the MHCLG to explore how building regulations—and I think this is across the piece, not just domestic housebuilding—can tighten water-efficiency standards so that we are better able to rely on natural supplies rather than tankers.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we are on course for possibly the driest spring on record, having received only 35% of the expected rainfall. Our farmers are at the forefront of this fight against climate change. The harvest in 2024 was the worst on record. The next 10 days are critical for our arable farmers. Can the Minister commit that, if rainfall does not come, this Government will support our farmers?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for his question. He brings our attention to a really important aspect of the water supply. He is absolutely right that we have had dry weather; I believe it has been the driest start to the year in the north of the country since 1929. Drought plans must be produced by water companies every five years. In fact, water companies are now planning to improve drought resilience to mitigate droughts that are so severe you see them only once every 500 years. We are very serious about tackling this.
I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the Water Minister, Emma Hardy, met the National Drought Group, which is convened by the Environment Agency, earlier this month to ensure that action is taken to safeguard water supply in all areas, including farming. The farming road map, which we are due to publish later this year, will help spell out how farmers can take more control of this. We have heard today from the NFU about how it is working with Defra to pilot initiatives such as on-farm private reservoirs, which would allow farmers to use their own water rather than rely on the public supply. This would be of benefit to both farmers and the wider population.
Lord Roborough (Con)
It was depressing to read that water companies are already asking consumers to ration water in mid-May, with our temperate maritime climate providing ample rainfall over the winter and with water bills at all-time highs. Do the Government believe that the Cunliffe review’s terms of reference sufficiently emphasise guaranteeing supplies to avoid this situation in future?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. Sir Jon Cunliffe is leading the Independent Water Commission in a once-in-a-generation review of the whole water supply system, including regulation. On its terms of reference, it can go wherever it wants in its inquiries. I am sure the noble Lord, given his interest in this area, will have made his own representations in response to the call for evidence. Again, all I can say is that we have secured over £100 billion of investment to spend on improving the water supply. I wish I could stand here and say there are many more reservoirs in train instead of just one, but there are not, and we are where we are. This Government will pick up and clean up the mess the last Government left.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that several conurbations in England, including Liverpool, Birmingham and London, get their water supplies from reservoirs in Wales. In these circumstances, should permission not be given to obtain increased levels of water capacity from reservoirs in Wales only with the agreement of the Welsh Government?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I did not expect to get on to the balkanisation of water supply, but I will say that the independent commission led by Sir Jon Cunliffe is undertaken on behalf of the UK Government and the Welsh Government. If the noble Lord has concerns about water supply from Wales into England, I am sure that he will be making representations to the Cunliffe review. This is a national water system; it must serve all companies, all businesses and all households in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister referred to the water resource management plans. Will he consider requiring water companies, when they publish these plans, to set out the implications for the workforce? What are the apprenticeship opportunities? What are the job and training opportunities? We could then see what it means in terms of regional growth, reducing regional inequalities and stimulating regional economies. Could he talk to Ministers in other departments about making this happen and perhaps start with Yorkshire Water, for example?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. It is an interesting idea, and I would be very happy to take it up with government colleagues. To be absolutely clear, the investment that we have secured is not good simply for the water supply, it is good for our economy. The £104 billion will create tens of thousands of jobs across the country. It will improve regional economic performance in places such as Yorkshire and further afield, and it will allow us to stimulate economic growth across the regions as well as improving the water supply.
Forensic Science Regulator Draft Code of Practice 2025 (Version 2)
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Code of Practice and Regulations laid before the House on 20 and 31 March be approved.
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington
That the Regulations laid before the House on 23 and 24 April be approved.
Relevant document: 24th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 12 May.
Mansion House Accord
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is disappointing that UK pension funds now invest only around 4.4% in British assets, in contrast to between 12% and 18% in Canada. That is no longer good value, given the scale of tax reliefs in the UK. Equally, a mandatory backstop, as apparently favoured by the Chancellor, is hard to reconcile with pension trustees’ fiduciary duties to put our millions of savers first. Does the Minister agree that experience in Australia and Canada should encourage us to move forward sensibly? Does he also acknowledge that the task of balancing important domestic investment with the need to invest in the best interests of our savers is actually best left to the providers themselves, and not directed by the Government?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her questions. I am sorry that she started her remarks with the word “disappointing”, because this is a really important initiative by the industry and one that the Government very much welcome. Of course, it builds on the work that the previous Conservative Government did, which the previous Conservative Chancellor began, so I hope that there is cross-party support for these steps. This is very important to our growth mission, by increasing investment in infrastructure, and it supports better outcomes for savers. As the noble Baroness will know, this is an industry-led, voluntary accord. Pension funds are choosing to do this, because evidence shows that high-growth assets can boost returns over time. We are confident that schemes are moving in the right direction, and this accord shows what government and business can achieve together, when working in partnership. The pension schemes Bill will contain more details about how these developments will be monitored to make sure that change is delivered.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, we all want to see more investment in the UK’s productive economy, but what protection is to be provided for people with small DC pension pots who cannot risk losses and see their pensions as a savings product, not as an investment, especially if that investment is high-risk and illiquid, as envisaged in the original Mansion House accords?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. This commitment is voluntary and led by the industry, because the industry knows and is choosing to do this—because the evidence shows that higher-growth assets can boost returns to savers over time, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said, in line with international counterparts, such as in Canada and Australia. Their pension funds and the levels of private asset allocation in those schemes is far higher. Pension savers will benefit from this accord through diversified savings, with potentially higher returns.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his replies and for the Statement in the Commons. I understand why my noble friend and the Minister in the Commons avoided tackling the issue of mandation, even though there was clearly a Treasury-inspired leak about the issue on Monday. Does my noble friend understand that with mandation of investment policies, should the Government consider it, comes responsibilities, with effectively the Government having to guarantee the returns or benefits on members’ benefits.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am shocked that my noble friend uses the word “leak”—I have no idea what he is talking about. As I have said, it is important that this is a voluntary commitment and that it delivers the investment promised for the UK economy. As I say, funds are voluntarily—it is industry led—choosing to do this because evidence shows that high-growth assets can boost returns over time, and we are confident that the schemes are now moving in the right direction. But equally, as I say, the pension schemes Bill will have more details in it about how these developments will be monitored over time to make sure that that change is delivered, because in the end what we all want to see is higher levels of investment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, if the Minister is right that this is an entirely voluntary scheme, why is it necessary for the Government behind the scenes to threaten to make it mandatory?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Because it is very important that this voluntary commitment delivers the investment that is promised for the UK economy.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome this initiative. Indeed, I would be pleased to see the Government go even further in ensuring that our long-term pension funds have faith in Britain, invest in Britain and use the £70 billion of taxpayer money that goes into pensions every year to add to contributions made by individuals and employers to benefit Britain, rather than being free to put 100% into overseas markets. But of course we need to make it more attractive to invest in the UK, and I urge the Minister to look into the possibility of using closed-ended investment companies that do exactly that kind of investment, are selling at discounts and have been hit by unfair regulation, which has stopped them being able to raise new capital and provide long-term returns of this nature for pension funds.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. I know that she has a great deal of expertise in this matter, and I enjoyed the meeting that she and I had with my honourable friend the Pensions Minister on this exact topic—he mentioned her in his remarks in answer to this UQ yesterday in the other place, so she has clearly had a big impact on his thinking. I am pleased, and I welcome the fact, that she welcomes these reforms. She has often called for greater investment by pension funds in productive assets, which I think is exactly what is being delivered. She has called for greater investment by pension funds in UK assets, which is again what is being delivered. Of course, there is always more that can be done; I hear what she says about the campaign that she has led for many months now, and I am sure that my honourable friend will look further at that issue.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, a number of pension providers have warned that progress will be dependent on
“a steady supply of high-quality UK investment opportunities”.
That is a big pipeline challenge, because our record of financial returns on infrastructure projects is, as we know, suboptimal. Investing in fast-growing start-ups and scale-ups, whether here in the UK or overseas, carries far greater risk. In many sectors such as tech, the failure rate of such start-ups is over 90%. Can the Minister therefore explain how these sorts of investment opportunities sit with the pension funds’ fiduciary and consumer duties to act in their clients’ interests in terms of maximising returns for pensioners without taking excessive risk?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right about the importance of the pipeline that he speaks about. The Government are playing our part in that, with £100 billion of additional public investment over the course of this Parliament. Our job as the Government is also to support the pipeline of investable projects, which is why we are getting the country building through our planning reforms; why we have ended the ban on the development of onshore wind; why we have set up the National Wealth Fund; and crucially, why we will be publishing, at the time of the spending review, the 10-year infrastructure strategy and modern industrial strategy.
The noble Lord is also right when he talks about the long-standing problem in the UK economy of the ability for growing firms to get hold of scale-up finance, which this accord will help to address. The accord will provide investment for infrastructure but also provide growth capital to a much wider range of firms. These are often smaller-ticket items, and pension funds will need them to be aggregated to a higher level, which is exactly the work of the British Business Bank.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, if the Government are keen, quite rightly, to encourage more investment into the United Kingdom, why do they still give tax relief to those with ISAs who invest in overseas equities?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The Government of course want to see more consumers participate in capital markets and benefit from the long-term financial security that investing can provide. We are committed to incentivising greater saving and investment, and we recognise that ISAs play a very important role in helping households to build a financial buffer for a rainy day.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, having spent much of my life as a pension fund trustee, I am aware that this is not a new proposal. Can the Minister give us an undertaking that voluntary will not precede compulsory? What pension fund trustees are concerned about is being ordered what to do with their members’ money, which they are trustees of, not for.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I think I may have covered that several times already. I do not agree with the noble Lord when he says that this is not new. For the first time, we have 17 providers signing an accord, giving a commitment from industry to bring more assets into scope, doubling the target from 5% to 10% and including a specific commitment to investing half of that in the UK. That commitment has not been given before. As I have said, the pension schemes Bill will include more details about how these developments will be monitored to make sure that that change is delivered.
Renters’ Rights Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, it may not surprise your Lordships that before we start the debate on the first group, I remind the Committee again of the protocol around declaring interests. As I have mentioned, 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 has already declared an interest in Committee, that is sufficient, but if this is their first contribution, any relevant interests should be declared.
Amendment 206A
Lord Cashman
“Residential boat fees to be classified as rentThe rights set out in Part 1 of this Act extend to any individual—(a) for whom a boat is their only home, and(b) who is liable to pay a boat licence fee, boat registration fee, boat rental fee or mooring charges.”
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I apologise for racing here like a 15 year-old. I was under the impression that there was another Urgent Question, but there is no excuse.
Your Lordships will be pleased to hear that this is my first contribution in Committee, although I raised this issue at Second Reading. In moving Amendment 206A, I shall also speak to Amendments 262 and 271. While this is my first intervention, I am all too aware of the complexity of the Bill, so it is right that I give my gratitude to the clerks of your Lordships’ House who have advised me on how to proceed from the very beginning. Initially, it was my intention to bring forward one amendment to address the absence of rights and protections for permanent houseboat residents, those people who live permanently on houseboats along the rivers and inland waterways of the United Kingdom. After further advice, we have three amendments.
I am also grateful for the help I have received from Abbie North and Caroline Hunter from the University of York, Pamela Smith of the National Bargee Travellers Association and houseboat residents around the country. I am also particularly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for their support and for adding their names to my amendments.
I believe that the amendments are straightforward in what they request, but I recognise that they could be complicated in their implementation. Amendment 262, calling for a review from the Secretary of State, I consider to be entirely reasonable, and I will consider returning to it at a later stage if there is no movement from the Government or commitment to it or its principles. I thank the Minister and her team and officials for requesting to meet me when I had, interestingly, just one amendment tabled. It was a frank, good-humoured discussion, and I am aware of the good faith concern that exists, but I was deeply disappointed to learn that such a reasonable amendment calling for a review could not be accepted and would, it was said, drain resources cross-departmentally. Amendment 262 is a perfectly reasonable ask, specifically since this issue has been shunted into the sidings by successive Governments since 2005, despite frequently being raised in another place and in your Lordships’ House.
These amendments address a series of wrongs that need to be righted. Relying solely on the Financial Conduct Authority and the tenuous protections of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 is an insult to houseboat residents and just does not work. They need security of tenure and basic rights, hence the amendments.
The need for legislative action is becoming urgent. The rights and protections afforded by this Bill and other Acts of Parliament should apply to residential houseboat residents because they have tenancies and agreements for their moorings, a mooring fixed to a pier or the riverbank. They have to abide by all the obligations of residents within their local environment; additionally, they pay council tax, energy bills, water bills and insurance, but they are missing statutory rights and protections. They have even fewer protections when the owners of moorings propose increases to mooring fees, develop the site or, in some cases, refuse to renew licences.
The problem is growing. It is happening across the country, from Vauxhall to Chelsea to the Isle of Wight, in Manchester and Brentford and along the rivers and canals of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it is happening in Southwark. One solicitor specialising in this area said the calls are increasing monthly. We need these amendments. The calls are from people now facing not only eviction from their moorings but having to physically move their homes. They must take their homes with them or abandon them. She told me that these calls are often coming from vulnerable people, including disabled people who pay council tax and have leased residential moorings.
I am grateful of the South Dock Marina Berth Holders’ Association in Southwark for bringing its plight to my attention. Currently, plans are before the council that could force out residents, businesses and community hubs and demolish the entire site, a site providing marine facilities to more than 200 boats and more than 300 marina residents, which is further proof of the need for government action. I quote SDMBHA:
“Boaters have no legislative protection from exorbitant rises in mooring fees. Boaters have no security of tenure and are increasingly facing existential threats to their way of life which means that these communities and increasingly Boat communities across the entire country are experiencing huge existential threats”.
Southwark Council, which owns the site, has decided to look again, but the development threat hangs over yet another community of boat dwellers.
Time and again, I believe that Governments have dismissed these overlooked and often forgotten people. The excuse was that more evidence was needed. Well, it is there. I have outlined some of the evidence. The problem is growing and, as I said, will not be wished away. As homes become more difficult to rent and impossible to buy, people will turn to alternative sources, as we have seen with mobile homes and boats. People need places where they can live. The right to a home, a place in which to rest one’s head is a basic human right. Perhaps those who cannot afford to buy a place in London but may have some money will be tempted by one of the adverts at Limehouse Marina and elsewhere that encourage people to buy their floating home from £250,000 upwards, with flexible moorings, without security of tenure.
I have gone on longer than I intended. I know that the Minister, is sympathetic, but now is the time for action. The time for commitment is now. Therefore, I say to the Minister, if not now, when? There must be no attempt to kick this into the long grass again. Let us not say that we cannot do it because a mixture of different departments needs to deal with it or there are not enough resources. If the resources are not there now, when will they be? Meanwhile, evictions and homelessness among these communities will continue to increase. This needs political will and intention. I urge the Government, at the very least, to commit, within the legislation, to bring forward the review that I request from the Secretary of State. We can compromise on the length of time, but let us have a commitment to get it done. Let us deal with and recognise the needs of these people before these shameful situations turn into a national scandal. I beg to move.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for not being able to speak at Second Reading of this very welcome Bill, which will return that most valuable public good—security in one’s home—to so many people. I support all the amendments in this group and will speak to Amendments 206B and 275A, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, whom I thank for his support. I thank Friends Families & Travellers and Garden Court Chambers for their expect advice, and declare various positions in relevant organisations, as set out in the register. I am also most grateful to the Public Bill Office for sorting out some last-minute corrections so rapidly.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 262 and 271. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, for tabling them and for his excellent introduction, which explained the lamentable situation we have arrived at whereby people living on boats continually fall through the cracks between housing and what is now known as Defra. I will go a little bit into the history, so that the Minister will perhaps appreciate the need for action now.
Those with permanent moorings have some protection, although the cost of mooring fees and licences is an issue. I am especially concerned with those who do not have a permanent mooring and are classified as continuous cruisers, which means they can stay for a maximum of only 14 days in one place. This situation dates from the British Waterways Act 1995, when Parliament removed the need for boat dwellers to have a home mooring.
The Canal & River Trust, which is now responsible for our waterways, has embarked on a review by an independent commission. It says that the review will seek to implement any reforms, including any legislative changes, as soon as possible after its conclusion. Your Lordships may feel that that is a good way forward, but the problem is that housing is not reflected anywhere in the Canal & River Trust’s main purposes: waterways management, maintenance, environmental protection, and generating income to support its work, which might include development along the riverbanks. Your Lordships can see that nowhere is it tasked with looking after the rights of boat dwellers to a safe and secure home situation. All this amendment is asking the Minister to do is to ensure that this group of boat dwellers be considered within the scope and implications of the Bill. Defra formed a working group in 2017 to try to resolve some of these issues, but that was inconclusive.
Amendment 271 concerns the definition of a dwelling house. In 2016, the Planning and Housing Act placed a duty on local authorities to assess the housing needs of boat dwellers and bargees. However, the Act did not read across to the duties of the Canal & River Trust, in whose gift lie mooring and mooring regulations. As the riverbanks are continually assessed for development or leisure potential, the supply of moorings is constantly under threat. The ability to moor somewhere is obviously essential if a boat is your home. Given the Canal & River Trust’s rule that continuous cruisers cannot stay on any one mooring for more than 14 days, for a boat to remain a home there must be a supply of available moorings.
There is a lot of history to this, but I will not go into all of it because I do not want to detain the House. I simply mention that in 2004, I took part in a debate when the late Baroness Hanham was trying to pass an amendment to address this very issue. My noble friend Lady Hamwee made a very apposite point when she said that for
“the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to refer the people involved to Defra and for Defra to tell them that it is a matter for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister leaves us wondering what we can do to get bits of government not just to talk to one another but to find a solution to a very real problem”.—[Official Report,16/9/2004; col.1422.]
That was over 20 years ago. My right honourable friend Vince Cable raised the issue in 2006 when he was MP for Twickenham. He identified one reason why the navigation authorities and regulatory bodies are rather hostile to residential boat owners—the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, touched on this. He said that at best they tolerate them, but they do not see them as integral to canal conservation. So there was a certain amount of prejudice against boat dwellers and Travellers, and I do not believe that has changed.
The Minister who replied to my right honourable friend Vince Cable is now the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, Leader of our House. She said that a working group had been formed and that action in this area had been sought for a number of years. Well, that was 19 years ago and the solution is no nearer, because the department responsible for waterways never considers housing matters for boat dwellers, and the housing department, which has been through many names in time, does not relate to waterways issues. This Bill must break the mould and address this matter now.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I have an interest to declare, as my family owns land in Cookham with a quarter of a mile of river frontage along the Thames and one of its tributaries, but we have never accommodated houseboats. I have added my name to Amendment 262, so ably spoken to by Lord Cashman, and it is appropriate that houseboats are linked in this group of amendments with mobile homes, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, has just spoken. In both cases, the home is owned or rented by the owner, but the land or water on which it rests is owned by somebody else. This leads to issues of security mentioned by the three previous speakers, as the home—which, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, may cost a quarter of a million pounds—has really no value unless it is on land or secured to land. To that extent, there is some comparison with leaseholders, because the flat owner owns the flat, but he does not own the land on which it is based. That is the point that I want to make.
All three tenures—leaseholders, mobile home owners and boat owners—have varying degrees of security. Right at the top of the scale are leaseholders, whose rights have been progressively improved over the last 50 years, and more rights are promised in forthcoming legislation. Lower down the scale are mobile home owners. They have rights; as a Minister, I put on the statute book the Mobile Homes Act 1983. That legislation was then succeeded by other legislation, further improving the rights of mobile home owners. By contrast, houseboat owners are right at the bottom of the list and have very little security. So far, all Governments have refused to make any progress.
I will not repeat the problems facing boat owners that have been so ably mentioned, but I just make this point. In answer to a Question on 17 January, the Minister in the other place said:
“The government recognises that while the occupants of residential boats have the benefit of protection under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and wider consumer … legislation, they do not enjoy the same level of … security as those in the private rented sector. We will consider what action might be necessary to provide houseboat residents … with greater security in their homes”.
That is exactly what Amendment 262 does. It asks the Government to review the security of houseboat residents, which the Answer said they are going to do anyway. So, I honestly do not see why the Minister has any reason not to accept this amendment, as it simply is in line with an Answer given by her parliamentary colleague only three months ago.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, my name is down in support of Amendment 262 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, which, as he so eloquently explained, calls for a review of the position of river houseboat residents. I also support his Amendment 206A, which would give houseboat residents similar protections to those afforded to renters in the Bill before us. Protections are needed for those on houseboats against evictions and massive increases in mooring fees and licences, which are simply not affordable to many who have made their homes on our rivers and canals.
I couple these houseboat amendments with Amendment 206B, so convincingly covered by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, which would enhance the rights of those living in so-called mobile homes, often known as “park homes”. There are obvious parallels between those living in mobile homes where the site is owned by someone else and those living in houseboats, where, again, the resident does not own the place where their home is situated, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, explained. In both cases, there is a need for protection just as much for the rights of those occupiers as for those living in permanent bricks and mortar homes that cannot be moved.
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for her fearless campaigning for Gypsy and Traveller rights, and I will not attempt to speak on her expert amendments in respect of those communities.
My interest in respect of mobile homes stems from the Mobile Homes Act, which the former MP, Peter Aldous, introduced as a Private Member’s Bill and I piloted through your Lordships’ House in 2013. Today, some 200,000 people—many of them elderly—occupy such mobile homes, on about 2,000 sites. Although some are living in happy communities, there have been too many cases of unfair practices by site owners taking advantage of those residents.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for not being present during Second Reading or the preceding Committee sittings due to a health issue. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA.
I fully support this group of amendments and wish to speak in particular to Amendment 275A, to which I would have added my name if I had been more alert to the changes at the time. I am delighted to see Amendments 206A, 262 and 271, which cover the conditions of those living in boats. The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, has laid out the arguments for these amendments extremely eloquently.
Over the years, I have had several meetings with the National Bargee Travellers Association. These are a group of people within our community who have had a difficult time, as they have no permanent moorings. Some find they are constantly moving in order to comply with mooring conditions. This can be extremely disruptive, especially for those who have school-aged children or health appointments to keep. As my noble friend Lady Miller has said, this issue has been running for a very long time. It really is time that equality was brought to the issue for all those living on a boat as their home. There should be no difference between the way different houseboat dwellers are treated. Boat dwellers should have the same protection as those living on dry land: a safe and secure home.
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, has set out the case for Amendments 206B and 275A extremely well. It is essential that all the facilities on site, including amenity blocks, are in a good state of repair and fit for use. Residents living on Gypsy and Traveller sites often experience poor living conditions, with inadequate mechanisms in place to hold landlords to account, especially on the maintenance of essential living facilities. The Renters’ Rights Bill presents a vital opportunity to address this, and we should grasp it.
Most significantly, the RRB abolishes assured shorthold tenancies and fixed-term tenancies. It also introduces an extensive range of further measures designed to enhance the rights of tenants, including applying the decent homes standard to the private rented sector and extending Awaab’s law to private rented sector tenancies. The Office for National Statistics conducted research in 2022 with residents living on private and local authority sites, who reported issues such as fly-tipping, vermin infestation, proximity to environmental hazards, dampness and leaks, and the general need for repair. This could be the environment which some children would consider their playground.
The current changes will not apply to buildings comprising essential living facilities, nor the caravans and mobile homes situated on a pitch on a Gypsy or Traveller caravan site. Together with the housing health and safety rating system contained in Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004, these measures are important means of policing housing standards. There is no justification for not applying these regimes to the buildings that Gypsy and Traveller households use as part of their home or mobile home when it is rented from a landlord.
The previous speakers have supported this group of amendments and I agree wholeheartedly with their comments. The protections afforded to tenants in bricks- and-mortar buildings must be extended to those whose homes are in caravans and mobile homes, as well as to the amenity buildings on the sites of these homes. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I welcome this group of amendments as a point of discussion and commend the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, on his introduction of it. As somebody who has spent 50 years in the property business, I am absolutely unsurprised that the noble Lord may have received a less than enthusiastic welcome from members of the Bill team, because his amendment raises a fundamental principle around what we are actually looking at: that is, whether we are looking at the use of land or the use of a water body, which we used to refer to as “land covered by water”.
It seems to me that the principles relating to those two are rather different. A fixed pitch for a caravan is fundamentally different in qualitative and quantitative terms from a mooring, which is, in essence, a connection to the shore but with the vessel fundamentally sitting over water. It is not just houseboats that are involved here. This is also about moorings in marinas, where the water body may be a tidal area, which one would assume might be in the possession of the Crown.
A fundamental difference here is that, where you have a house as a piece of real estate—in other words, land with bricks and mortar—it is fundamentally fixed and has a degree of permanence in law, unlike something that can be sailed away. To take another analogy, if somebody wishes to have a motor home and park it permanently at one location, does the same apply? Because that could be driven away; it is not in the nature of a permanent feature.
I do not have any particular problems with the provisions of this Bill applying more widely, if that policy decision is made here, but I do see a problem in terms of its application. This gets a little more complicated when you consider that the item occupied for this particular purpose may be something that somebody rents as an entirety—in other words, a boat and a piece of mooring and the water in which it floats—or may be something quite different, in terms of its nature, because the person who occupies the thing may actually own the boat and bring it there.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, Awaab’s law might apply to the former instance, where the boat and the pitch are a complete package, rented as one element. However, it would not apply to an occupier of their own houseboat. However leaky the bucket may be, it is their responsibility and not the responsibility of the person from whom they are renting the mooring.
So I can see that there are a number of different ways in which this rather difficult cake gets cut, and I rise to clarify some of the points as a matter of land law rather than to pass judgment on whether, as a matter of policy, there should be the protections afforded under this Bill in whole or in part.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
I have the greatest respect for the noble Earl’s expertise in this area. However, I suggest that the key aspect which the Renters’ Rights Bill deals with is not essentially the physical structure of the home but the fact that it is somebody’s permanent home and they are the residents and rent it. Even if it were a balloon in the sky, if it were a permanent rented home, that is the criterion that should apply equal rights to the residential person. I will probably defer to the noble Earl’s expertise, but it does seem to me that renting your home is what matters, not what the home consists of.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
I am grateful to noble Baroness, who has great wisdom in this area. I am a humble technician on these matters.
There is an issue of permanence: whether the item is in some way permanently fixed or adhering to the surface—or, if it was a house on stilts, glued to the bottom of whatever water body there is—or whether it is actually capable of being removed. Permanence is a bit of a problem, I agree. I dare say that the average static caravan might have a life expectancy of perhaps 20 years before it is effectively scrap. I do not know how long a houseboat lasts, because I have never asked anybody. I do know that, every now and again, they have to be hauled out of the water and taken away to some yard to have plates welded on the bottom, anti-fouling paint added and all sorts of other things done to make them fit for purpose. Therefore, they do not have that permanence of being permanently affixed to a site from which they cannot be removed without total demolition.
I see that as rather different from something that can be sailed away, driven away or lifted out of the water. It is a different nature of animal from what we understand as real estate. The real estate here would be the land covered by water or, in the case of a mooring in a marina, that bit of tidal water. For something that might be on wheels, the permanent bit is the pitch and not the device or box in which the living takes place. That is the break point that we are dealing with here. As I say, I make no policy judgment on this. I just say that there is a technical difficulty in real estate terms in trying to pin it down, which is why the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, got the reception that he described earlier.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Whitaker. I want to emphasise the shortage of appropriate accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers, particularly when the size of this community is growing. There are multiple disadvantages linked to insufficient quality accommodation on sites—not only poor education and physical and mental health outcomes but a sense of social exclusion from the wider community.
The dearth of GRT sites and accommodation can cause conflict and tension. Local councillors are beset with complaints if an unauthorised encampment appears in their area. Unauthorised encampments often result from a lack of suitable authorised places. The Government already know these issues, but they need the partnership of the housing sector to drive change and speed up delivery of sites. I know that the social housing sector would like to help the Government in breaking this cycle by providing sufficient and appropriate sites and accommodation. There are a number of measures that can be taken in partnership to deliver more homes, and reduce conflict and costs to the taxpayer.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed. This is what makes this House so good at these sorts of debates, because expertise from all parts of this debate has been shown today.
These amendments draw attention to the housing circumstances of non-traditional tenures, in particular residential boat dwellers, mobile home residents and members of the Travelling communities. These are individuals and families whose housing arrangements, as we have heard, do not always align neatly with the frameworks established for the private rented sector.
The amendments in this group, most notably those from the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, raise legitimate questions, from the proposal to classify mooring fees and site fees as rent, to calls for formal reviews on how this legislation impacts riverboat dwellers, mobile home residents, and Gypsy and Traveller communities. The amendments ask us to think carefully about the scope and reach of the Renters’ Rights Bill. We on these Benches recognise that individuals living in houseboats, in mobile homes and on Traveller sites often face unique vulnerabilities, and we must be cautious not to exclude them from appropriate protections.
At the same time, it is essential that we examine whether the legislative instruments proposed in the Bill are the right fit for these circumstances, or whether we risk introducing unintended consequences for landlords, licensing authorities, the Canal & River Trust, which manages our waterways, or even the residents themselves. One of the questions here is whether the current legal definitions, such as “dwelling house” and “rent”, are suitable for application to mobile structures or moorings, as we have heard. However, we must also consider the interests and views of different Traveller communities. Have the Government undertaken proper consultation with these communities? Do they, in fact, want to be brought into the scope of this legislation, and on what terms? We must avoid legislating for communities without engaging with them first.
As we have heard today, particularly from my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, these amendments do not seek sweeping or immediate change—rather, they propose reviews and clarifications—but even the suggestion of classifying moorings or site fees as rent could trigger significant changes to how the law treats these tenures. This could introduce unintended complexity for landlords, many of whom are small-scale, and lead to disputes where the legal framework is unclear or even inapplicable. More work needs to be done on this issue, in our opinion. As my noble friend said, that has already been promised by the Government. Finally, we must ask whether there is a clear and compelling case for bringing these non-traditional tenures within the scope of the legislation, or whether doing so risks creating unintended consequences for both the tenants and the landlords.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I first express my appreciation for starting these debates at a reasonable time today. We have been getting later and later, so I am very pleased. I hope that we finish them at a reasonable time as well.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for their amendments relating to non-traditional tenures, and all who have contributed to this debate. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in saying that it shows the best of this House when you get expertise like that from across the Chamber, from the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller, Lady Bakewell and Lady Warwick, the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Best, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and, of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, herself.
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness who have amendments in this group for their very helpful engagement on the issues they raised. Before I give my responses to the amendments, I say that I truly understand the frustrations felt by both of them, and those on whose behalf they speak, that these issues have not been addressed by successive Governments. Although I do not believe the Bill is the vehicle to address those issues, as I expect they will have anticipated from our meetings, I will continue to work with them to seek appropriate solutions to the issues they have raised.
I turn first to Amendments 206A, 262 and 271, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. I thank the noble Lord for raising concerns about difficulties faced by houseboat owners in general and the houseboat owners in Chelsea who he has talked to me about in the past. Amendment 206A would give those who own or rent a houseboat and use the boat as their main residence the same rights under Part 1 of the Bill as renters of residential buildings. Although occupants of residential boats may benefit from some protection under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and some wider consumer protection legislation, the Government recognise that they do not enjoy the same level of tenure security as those in the private rented sector.
However, the Renters’ Rights Bill focuses on the law relating to rented homes, not owner-occupiers, and the tenancy reform measures in Part 1 focus on the assured tenancy regime, which applies to most private renters in England and relates to residential buildings. The assured tenancy regime does not apply to houseboats or other moveable property—an issue to which the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred in his intervention. Those in rented houseboats will have a licence to occupy the boat and will fall outside the assured tenancy regime that the Bill is concerned with.
Specifically on Amendment 262, as houseboats are predominantly owner-occupied—I understand that some are rented but they are mostly owner-occupied—and do not fall within the assured tenancy regime, it is therefore unlikely that a review of the impact of the Bill’s provisions would provide significant new insights into the issues affecting houseboat owners. Additionally, bringing houseboats within the scope of the assured tenancy regime, as proposed by Amendment 271, would raise fundamental and complex issues, about which I will explain a bit more in a moment, including what security of tenure means in relation to a chattel as opposed to land, and what the potential implications for moorings owners and navigation authorities might be.
The policy and legislative implications would be far-reaching and there would be a high chance of unintended consequences, as indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. The Government’s priority is to ensure the smooth and successful implementation of the measures in the Bill that are before the Committee today. On that basis, although I am very sympathetic to the noble Lord’s aims, I cannot support these amendments as they stand.
The Government will, however, continue to engage with parliamentarians and stakeholders on the complex issues about houseboats that the noble Lord has rightly and powerfully helped to highlight. The issues and history raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, illustrated some of the complications in resolving these issues. I will add that providing additional security of tenure to houseboat owners would require engagement with a range of stakeholders, including more than 20 navigation authorities and the owners of land adjoining waterways, and that is just part of the complication here.
I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said there was a working group 19 years ago in which my noble friend Lady Smith took part. I can say only that we have not been in government for the last 14 years so it has been difficult to move any of this forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to security of tenure. As I said, providing additional security of tenure to houseboat owners would require the engagement of those navigation authorities and owners of land, and other users of waterways will have different needs and requirements that would also need to be taken into account. Security of tenure under the Housing Act 1988 applies to tenancies of buildings and land, so would not be suitable for licences to occupy boats without significant amendment. To bring rented houseboats within the scope of the legislation would require a detailed assessment of the implications for the assured tenancy regime and the changes being introduced through the Renters’ Rights Bill and other legislation that refers to it, and, as I said before, a high chance of unintended consequences.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to unfair practice on mobile home sites. My email inbox indicates very much what some of those complications are, but I will talk about the mobile homes amendments now.
I thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker for her work to ensure that the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community has a safe and secure place to live. I have had a number of conversations with my noble friend since I joined this House, and she knows that I share her concerns about some of the issues that she raises. She and I have had many discussions about this, particularly about the standards of communal facilities provided on sites occupied by the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. We understand the concerns and will continue to engage with parliamentarians and stakeholders on the complex issues about standards on those sites. For those sites owned and operated by local authorities, there is of course recourse both to the local authority’s complaints system and, if that is not successful, to the Local Government Ombudsman, although I appreciate that there are some unique difficulties for those communities in accessing those routes.
Amendment 206B would give those who own a caravan and use it as their main residence the same rights under Part 1 of the Bill as renters of residential buildings. That would include those who already have protections under the Mobile Homes Act 1983. For similar reasons to those that I have already set out in my response to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, while I am sympathetic to the difficulties faced by mobile home owners, a different approach to addressing those difficulties is necessary from that proposed by this amendment. There would be a high risk of unintended consequences if an attempt were made to extend rights under Part 1 of the Bill, which is about rented homes, to mobile home owners.
The noble Baroness mentioned that the Mobile Homes Act 1983 confers on mobile home pitch agreements the key characteristics of a tenancy, rather than merely a licence to occupy. While there may be some similarities between the terms implied by the 1983 Act and the terms of certain tenancy agreements, the fact remains that those occupying pitches on caravan sites only have a licence to occupy the pitch. They have no interest in the land, and there would still be no intention by the site owner to create a tenancy between the parties. Moreover, the pitch agreement does not relate to the occupation of the mobile home itself, just the pitch on which it stands. In that sense, a pitch agreement and a secure or assured tenancy are fundamentally different types of agreement. To bring those with Mobile Home Act 1983 agreements within the scope of the assured tenancy regime, as proposed by Amendment 206B, would raise fundamental and complex issues, including what “security of tenure” means in relation to a chattel as opposed to land, and what the potential implications for caravan site owners might be.
Amendment 275A would commit the Government to carrying out a review of the implications of not extending the provisions of the Act to the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. Again, while I am most sympathetic to my noble friend’s aims, I cannot support the amendment as mobile homes are predominantly owner-occupied and do not fall within the assured tenancy regime, which the Renters’ Rights Bill is largely focused on. However, I understand and will further consider her points about the amenity blocks and how those issues may be addressed.
In addition, as the Renters’ Rights Bill is focused on the law relating to rented homes, it is unlikely that a review of the impact of the provisions in the Bill will provide significant new insights into the issues affecting mobile home owners. The Government’s priority is to ensure the smooth and successful implementation of the measures that are before the Committee today.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this has been a very worthwhile and effective debate. Not for the first time in my short 30 years in politics, I think we have won the arguments but have lost the vote—should it ever be called.
I thank all noble Lords for their interventions. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I pick out three of those who I call my friends—the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Best—for their very early guidance and support to me on this issue. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is right about the problems with what I am proposing. Indeed, the courts have exercised themselves greatly over the issue of land and chattels in relation to boats and fixings to piers. Arguably, that is why we need a clear definition and clear protections in law.
I associate myself with the other amendments in this group because I want to see more protections afforded to people, not fewer. Of course, I am disappointed by the Minister’s response. I expected more; I always expect more. I come from a profession—I have almost forgotten as it was many, many years ago—in which, if there was a problem, we went into a room and used our imagination to solve that problem, or at least to come up with suggestions for how to solve it. If, as politicians, in government and in opposition, we adopted the same process, people might forgive us more when we fail because our intention is to succeed for all the best reasons.
Of course, there are unintended consequences. I am told it fills lawyers’ pockets when such laws are passed and that happens. There are unintended consequences—the consequences of doing nothing. When I withdraw this amendment, those consequences will be the continuation of people being evicted from their homes, caravans and boats. The evictions and homelessness will be accompanied by families in despair. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes why definitions which determine who is subject to housing laws, rights, and responsibilities can be amended by regulations.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this group contains just one amendment, Amendment 206C, which stands in my name. This amendment probes why definitions that determine who is subject to housing laws, rights and responsibilities can be amended by regulation. This is yet another part of the Bill that is subject to change at the discretion of the Secretary of State.
Definitions in law are important. In this instance, the ability to change the definition of “private landlord”, “relevant tenancy” and “dwelling” for the purposes of determining which tenancies fall within the scope of the landlord redress scheme and the PRS database is a significant and fundamental power. Will the Minister say why the Government have sought to grant themselves this power through the affirmative procedure rather than through primary legislation? If the intent of these regulations is merely to clarify the position of superior landlords in certain circumstances, surely such clarification is best achieved through a full parliamentary process, one in which your Lordships’ House and the other place can explore the specifics and nuances of niche tenures such as student accommodation or temporary lets.
The Government have committed to lay these regulations as soon as possible following Royal Assent. We are aware that there are to be no transitional arrangements included in the Bill. In previous debates, we urged the Government to reconsider this approach and affirm their long-standing commitment to prospective lawmaking by providing clear commencement dates and reasonable transition periods for all new obligations. This would help protect both tenants and landlords from the risks associated with abrupt and unfair change. However, the Government were clear that they did not share this view. Despite that, can the Minister confirm when these regulations might come into force? Importantly, how are they going to be communicated to the affected parties given the absence of transitional arrangements? Like many aspects of this Bill, this provision is concerning, particularly given the lack of detail in the Bill. This is part of a growing trend from this Government, a pattern in not just this Bill but across others too. I hope we are not going into this, “We will commit now, but do later”. I beg to move.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend very strongly. I declare my interest, as I have done before, as a Suffolk farmer who has converted redundant agricultural buildings into dwellings. It is all still part of the farming operation.
I have already warned the Government that they are in danger of relying on statutory instruments, Henry VIII clauses and subsidiary legislation for what will be primary legislation. The purpose of the Parliament is to legislate, in the first instance, primary legislation. The House of Lords, with its careful scrutiny of statutory instruments, has a particular role and record in doing this. So, this particular Bill is going, in any case, to have a lot of unanswered questions. We are going to try to ask most of those questions and get the Government to face up and give us the answers because it is a very bad principle of legislation for a Government to say, “Oh, we’ll leave that to the courts”, or something like that. That is not what legislating is about. It is important that we do not unnecessarily add into potential secondary legislation what should be primary legislation.
The Government have got to take this very seriously because this is a long and difficult Bill which has many dangers in it and ahead of it, not least—and I shall probably say this again—because the private rented sector plays an important part in the provision of housing. The provision of housing was one of the objectives of the previous Government and of this Government. It is also part of generating economic growth, which the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have repeatedly told us is their priority. I beg the Government to be more rigid and dissective in their thinking before rushing ahead with this legislation.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Scott on the Front Bench and reiterate her very strong arguments and those from my noble friend Lord Marlesford just now.
We have seen a quite significant trend since the general election of the Government seeking to award themselves very wide-ranging, permissive powers in primary legislation with very little detail. That is a significant concern. Certainly, if the boot was on the other foot and a Conservative Government had brought forward a clause such as Clause 64, where we are being invited to take on trust the expeditious post-dated production of a statutory instrument and regulations, the party now in government would, quite rightly, have complained about that.
If we look at the detail, this is an extremely wide-ranging amendment. Clause 64(4)(b) talks about “relevant tenancy” and the adding or removal of any particular kind of relevant tenancy. On “dwelling”, paragraph (c) states,
“in addition to a building or part of a building, it includes any other structure, vehicle or vessel”,
and
“includes a building or part of a building, and anything for the time being included in the meaning of ‘dwelling’”.
That is a very wide definition to be in a Bill when we have an open-ended commitment to produce regulations without any date.
I think, and have said before, that the idea of retrospective legislation is poor. In a different context at the beginning of Committee in your Lordships’ House I mentioned this issue. It is very worrying that there is no opportunity for a period of amelioration and getting used to the regulations.
Finally, given all that, the chance of significant instances of litigation arising from this clause are pretty high, I would think. For those reasons, is the Minister able to write to noble Lords before Report at least to give an indication of when those regulations are likely to be published to reassure your Lordships’ House that this a one-off in terms of how wide and permissive these powers are? Frankly, it is not good enough. It does not allow us to analyse properly the efficacy of the policy and the likely impact it will have on any litigation for both landlords and tenants. I hope the Minister is able to take those issues on board.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendment regarding the definition of a landlord and thank the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford and Lord Jackson, for participating. Amendment 206C seeks to remove subsection (4) of Clause 64. This would mean that amendments to the definitions of “relevant tenancy”, “residential landlord” and “dwelling” set out in the Bill could not be made by regulations. This would affect Part 2, which includes the redress and database provisions.
I fully agree that any changes to the definition of those who bear responsibilities and benefit from rights under this legislation should be made with proper consideration. The definition of “residential landlord” under Clause 64 of this Bill has been drafted with care to capture the majority of typical private tenancies in England. However, the private rented sector has proven itself to be dynamic. I am sorry to say that the unscrupulous use of complicated arrangements, such as certain types of rent-to-rent schemes, has demonstrated the need for flexibility in how we define who is, or is not, in scope of private landlord redress or the database. We are also aware that other forms of occupation, such as occupation under licence, may benefit from the Part 2 protections in the future. A strong case may be made for expanding who is protected if certain arrangements proliferate following the implementation of the Bill.
Our focus at this time, however, must be on getting our reforms right for the millions living in typical private tenancies, rather than extending the redress and database provisions to other kinds of residential occupier whose needs and circumstances may be quite different from the majority. We have included a power to change the scope of Part 2 by regulations in the future if it is considered appropriate. The reason is that the introduction of mandatory landlord redress for the first time is a significant undertaking. The definition of “residential landlord” has been drafted, as I said, to capture the majority of tenancies. We have retained the flexibility to change the scope of rental agreements covered by the database and ombudsman in the future, should that be deemed necessary.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I particularly thank my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Marlesford for their support on what we consider a very important amendment. I also thank the Minister, although I am surprised at her response on having a period of time to get communications in place. I will look back in Hansard but I think that, on a previous group, it was suggested that the implementation would come quite quickly after Royal Assent. If that is the case, I would quite like to know what the timings would be—whether it would be weeks or months—as and when those things are known.
On these Benches, we of course recognise that the Secretary of State should be afforded certain powers to deliver the content of legislation. However, the Government possibly have not fully considered the scale and scope of these regulatory powers, nor the level of trust that landlords, tenants and legislators must place in the Secretary of State on this issue. This is not about questioning the intentions of the Minister or others; rather, it is to suggest that significant changes should be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny, and that both your Lordships’ House and the other place should be given the opportunity to fulfil their constitutional role—quite honestly, that is the reason we are here.
I believe that what the Minister was saying is that these powers are necessary, but I did not hear compelling justification for why that is the case. Perhaps at a later stage we might, as I said, have more information on this and the Minister might be able to give a better explanation and I would be very happy to have that in writing. However, at this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hacking
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment alters the Bill so that the Secretary of State must make regulations requiring a residential landlord to be a member of a landlord redress scheme, rather than leaving it to the Secretary of State’s discretion to make regulations.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, we now move on to Clause 65. I have tabled a number of amendments in this group: Amendments 207, 210, 214, 215 and 216. All of them are directed at tidying up the terms of the Bill, but they are also rather complicated, so I must ask for the patience of the Committee as I go through them one by one, so that I get the argument right relating to each of them.
Amendment 207 takes us straight to Chapter 2 on page 99 of the Bill and landlord redress schemes. Clause 65(1) says that the Secretary of State
“may make regulations requiring a residential landlord to be a member of a landlord redress scheme”.
The difference of opinion that I have in moving this amendment is that that should not be in terms of “may” but “must”, because it is an essential feature of landlord redress schemes that all residential landlords join in.
Amendment 210 goes further into this section of the Bill. The requirement that I seek here is that there should be only one landlord redress scheme. I think that my noble friend the Minister is sympathetic to that. I would like it to be rather stronger and make it an obligation to have only one redress scheme.
We then move to Amendments 214, 215 and 216. Amendment 214 gives sympathy to those who are digitally inept, which certainly includes me. In that amendment, I seek a requirement to enable those who are unfamiliar with computers and other electronic devices to be able to enter the redress scheme and not be digitally excluded.
Amendment 215 is the most complicated of all my amendments. It would make it a condition of approval of a designated redress scheme that the Secretary of State should apply the test of what is considered appropriate and proportionate in support of tenants experiencing house-related problems. It is a matter of drafting, perhaps, but a matter of some importance.
Amendment 216 is very sensible and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to help me here. I suggest that we should be quite sure that the duty of the Secretary of State is to designate one landlord redress scheme in the private sector, and no more than one.
I hope that I have covered all the amendments sufficiently and accurately. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I wrote in my notes that this was “hopefully” the last day in Committee on the Bill, but I have now inserted “possibly”. Regrettably, it is my last day, because of an important appointment tomorrow that I cannot cancel.
It is appropriate for me to thank profusely all those who have helped me personally, and probably helped all of us, with their excellent briefings, as well as giving help with amendments—and, in my case, frantic email exchanges when I have not quite understood things. I refer to all those in the Renters’ Reform Coalition, the Local Government Association, the National Residential Landlords Association and Suzanne, the Independent Landlord, to name but a few.
This is a very important part of the Bill, and we largely support the first two amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, regarding having just the one scheme and changing “may” to “must”. However, I will speak to my Amendment 218, which is a simple probing amendment for what is a very complex issue. The Bill makes continuing or repeat breaches of the landlord redress scheme an offence, but not joining the scheme in the first place is merely a breach. That means that landlords can still be fined by the local authority for not joining but tenants cannot claim a rent repayment order as it is not an offence.
There is clearly an imbalance here; my amendment simply seeks to probe the Government’s reasoning for not making failure to join the scheme an offence in the first place, rather than waiting for landlords continually not to adhere to the new requirement. We want this failure to become an offence from the get-go because we believe that non-compliance with the redress scheme will have serious regulatory consequences, significantly impacting tenants’ ability to hold their landlord to account. That is the key matter on issues such as disrepair and the standard of the home. The rent repayment order gives tenants compensation for substandard accommodation and can incentivise them to report things in the first place. Interestingly, Generation Rent’s polling found that nearly one in three renters has had maintenance issues in their home, which they have reported, but their landlord has not dealt with—a simple but very telling snapshot.
In the Republic of Ireland, failure of a landlord to register a tenancy with the Residential Tenancies Board—the Irish equivalent to what we are proposing—is a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment of up to six months and a fine of €40,000, with €250 payable each day of non-registration. Perhaps they take a rather different approach.
We are concerned that, as councils are already overstretched and currently have very little resource for proactive enforcement, an undetermined number of landlords could avoid joining the redress scheme initially as they will think being discovered by the council is low risk. The risk of being reported by their tenants—who would not be eligible for a rent repayment order, so there is no incentive for them—is also very low. Both aspects are not what we want. Therefore, we feel that this imbalance does not treat seriously enough the impact that non-compliance in these matters will have in undermining and frustrating one of the fundamental tenets of the new regulatory regime. I hope that the noble Baroness will allay our concerns.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for introducing this group of amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill.
The landlord redress scheme is a vital function of the Bill, and the onus is on all of us to ensure that the legislation is as effective and robust as it needs to be. I hope that the Minister will take the time to reflect on the constructive suggestions made by noble Lords and take them back to the department for further consideration. The fact that the Minister has tabled amendments is, I suggest, a recognition that the Bill is not perfect, even in the eyes of those charged with defending it.
Before I turn to the amendments tabled by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I shall speak to those amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. Amendment 208 would require a residential landlord to be a member of the landlord redress scheme only if their tenant does not already have access to redress via a letting agent who is a member of another approved independent scheme. This would avoid duplication, unnecessary regulatory burden and the potential confusion between effectively being a member of two different schemes. This is vital, because clarity and efficiency in regulation are essential for compliance and enforcement.
Amendment 210A probes the Government’s proposed duration of the membership period for the redress scheme. This period is to be set by regulations, but as things stand there is no indication, or even a hint, of what that timeframe might be. Could the Minister provide some clarity on this point? Stakeholders need certainty to plan and prepare appropriately.
Amendment 210B seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish draft regulations establishing the landlord redress scheme within six months of the passage of the Bill. A clear, time-bound commitment is essential if the Government are serious about delivering this long-promised reform. Without a defined timeline, there is a risk that implementation will drift or be indefinitely delayed, to the detriment of all stakeholders—especially tenants. Could the Minister say what, in her view, constitutes meaningful progress and what timescale the department is working to?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hacking and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Thornhill, for their amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for moving the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.
Before I turn to the amendments, I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, advised of her opposition to having Clause 65 stand part of the Bill. Clause 65 gives the Secretary of State power by regulations to require residential landlords to be members of a private landlord redress scheme. I note her concern over placing a legal requirement on landlords to join a redress scheme. However, having no legal obligation on landlords to do so means retaining the status quo, in which a very small minority of private landlords choose voluntarily to sign up to a redress scheme. I believe only around 100 landlords out of the 2.3 million in the country joined a previous voluntary scheme.
This lottery for private tenants is wholly unfair, particularly as those renting in the social sector have enjoyed universal access to landlord redress through the Housing Ombudsman service for decades. This Bill makes it clear that being a residential landlord is a serious commitment, which most landlords understand, and that it carries responsibilities and obligations towards a tenant. For those who do not understand this, we need to make it clear through the Bill.
Placing a legal requirement on landlords to be part of a redress scheme is necessary and key to delivering a long-promised government commitment. Access to justice for tenants should be not at the discretion of landlords but built into the new tenancy system, promoting high-quality, safe and secure privately rented homes.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I start with the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking— I hope he is going to carry on saying “Hear, hear!” as I go through his amendments.
Amendment 207 would place a duty on the Government to lay regulations requiring residential landlords to be members of a landlord redress scheme, rather than giving them discretion to do so. I understand why my noble friend has put in this amendment and I reassure him that the Government are committed to requiring private landlords to become members of an ombudsman as soon as it is practicable to do so. However, it would not be beneficial to the sector for the Secretary of State to be obliged to require landlords to join an ombudsman scheme before being assured that it is ready to join. We have taken powers in the Bill to allow the Government to make sure that the ombudsman is introduced in the most effective way, with the appropriate sequencing. This will make sure the ombudsman scheme is ready to deliver a high- quality service at the point that landlords are required to join it.
Amendment 210 seeks to set out in legislation that only one redress scheme can operate in the private rented sector at any time. Amendment 216 similarly seeks to remove the ability to set out in regulations the number of redress schemes that can operate in the private rented sector at any one time. It is indeed our intention to approve a single redress scheme, as my noble friend outlined, which all private landlords will be required to join. However, as my noble friend has noted, the legislation allows at the moment for more than one scheme. There are an estimated 2.3 million landlords operating in England, letting their properties to 11 million tenants. Allowing for multiple schemes in legislation offers the Government the flexibility and assurance that, should demand for redress prove too much for a single provider to handle effectively, additional schemes could be brought into this space to take over some of the load.
This approach to allowing for the possibility of multiple schemes has precedent: for instance, in the Housing Act 1996, which makes provision for social housing redress as delivered by the Housing Ombudsman. It is therefore vital that the Government can set out in regulations the number of redress schemes that they will approve or designate for the private rented sector. This will allow the Government to set a limit at first of one scheme, with the assurance that this is not set in stone, should demand for redress prove too much for a single provider to handle effectively.
Amendment 214 would make it a statutory requirement for the private rented sector landlord ombudsman scheme to enable access to the service through offline routes. I fully agree with my noble friend on the importance of ensuring that those who cannot or do not wish to use a computer are still able to engage with the service and access redress. I am pleased to reassure the Committee that the Government intend to ensure that the scheme is accessible, including to those who require offline access. We will expect the new ombudsman service, regardless of whether administered by a public or private body, to meet the same set of high standards for accessibility as outlined in the government service standard and accessibility requirements for public sector bodies. There will be further opportunities for the Government to ensure that this is the case without amending the Bill.
Amendment 215 would expand the role of the private rented sector landlord ombudsman to provide support for tenants with housing-related problems that are outside of their landlord’s control, such as issues with employment, welfare or debt; I found the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about piecemeal amendments to the welfare system, as I think he called them, a little ironic in view of where we find ourselves with the welfare system. This amendment would be an additional responsibility for the ombudsman not directly linked to resolving disputes. We think that it is important that we focus on the main function of the ombudsman, rather than considering other functions that may slow down implementation or direct resource away from delivering against the core purpose of the redress service.
We recognise, of course, that tenants facing housing-related employment, welfare and debt problems should have access to support. It may be appropriate for the ombudsman to signpost tenants to, for instance, their local authority, Citizens Advice or tenant advocacy charities, but we do not think that any amendment is necessary for that to take place. For these reasons, I kindly ask my noble friend Lord Hacking to consider not moving his amendments.
I turn now to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. Amendment 208 would exempt landlords from being required to join the private landlord ombudsman if they use a property agent who is a member of another approved independent redress scheme. We cannot have a situation where tenants have no route to redress for problems that are outside an agent’s control, such as where a landlord refuses to authorise large repair works or behaves badly toward the tenant. This is why we think that it is fair that landlords, including those who use a managing agent, can be held accountable if they have failed to resolve a tenant’s complaint satisfactorily.
We take seriously the noble Baroness’s concerns about duplication. Careful consideration will be given, during the implementation process, as to how the PRS landlord ombudsman service will interact with the agent redress provision. Our primary concern is that the service works effectively for landlords and tenants so that tenants can access redress where needed and treated fairly by the system, regardless of whether their landlord uses an agent.
Amendment 210A seeks to prevent regulations under Clause 65 requiring landlords to remain members of the redress scheme for a specified period after they cease to be residential landlords. Problems can occur for tenants at any point in the rental process, right up to the very end; in fact, the end of a tenancy can be an extremely stressful time for both landlord and tenant, with a lot of scope for things to go wrong as a landlord takes back possession of their property. Requiring landlords to remain members of the ombudsman for a reasonable amount of time once they have stopped being a landlord gives tenants the opportunity to seek redress for harm or inconvenience caused at the end of their tenancy.
As part of the implementation process, we will work with stakeholders to ensure that the period of time for which former landlords are required to remain members of the scheme is appropriate and proportionate. I assure the House that we are committed to ensuring that landlords who choose to leave the sector can exit the ombudsman scheme as quickly as possible; this is not a “Hotel California” ombudsman where you can check out but never leave. However, this needs to be balanced with giving tenants sufficient time for issues to come to light and for them to escalate complaints after their tenancy has ended.
Amendment 210B seeks to require a draft of the landlord redress regulations under Clause 65 to be published within six months of Royal Assent. We agree that transparency is important, and we are committed to giving the sector as much time as possible to prepare for the new redress requirements. However, it will be the published scheme, not the regulations—indeed, not regulations under Clause 65—that will set out how the private landlord redress scheme will operate.
We are committed to working with the sector to implement the PRS landlord ombudsman service smoothly. We intend for the details of the scheme to be published with significant lead-in time and to be piloted before landlords are required to be members. We do not think it would be right to place a legal requirement on the Secretary of State to publish draft regulations within a set time from Royal Assent. This is already a complex landscape, and work on this needs to be carefully thought through. Delivering it in a rush could be counterproductive, creating more problems down the line.
Amendment 212A seeks to remove the requirement for the redress scheme to provide for the appointment of a responsible individual to oversee the investigation and determination of complaints under the scheme. This individual will likely be known as the private landlord ombudsman. We believe that clear accountability is important to promote good performance. Responsibility and authority for oversight of the complaints handling process under a scheme must lie with a single accountable person. This is common practice across other redress schemes and we believe it is right that it should be the case for the private landlord ombudsman. We will set out in the regulations the process for appointing the responsible individual for the redress scheme.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her very constructive reply. It happens many times in this House that, when we seek to change “may” to “must”, requiring more pressure to be put on the Government to commit to a certain form of action, the Government’s traditional reply is, “Leave it as ‘may’: you have our promise that we will do our best to bring this measure in and actually apply the ‘must’ test rather than the ‘may’”—so I accept all that my noble friend has said.
I was interested in her comments on the landlord redress scheme and the explanation that she gave for why it would be quite sensible as a starter to have more than one redress scheme in place, but the aim must be to have a uniform scheme in place as soon as that is possible. However, the most important thing is the obligation on every residential landlord to join the scheme. I hope the Government will concentrate on that and will not have the type of figures that my noble friend has given to the House about an earlier scheme with a tiny number of landlords joining it and with a great, great majority not. I think that is probably the most important thing.
I am very happy, therefore, in these circumstances to withdraw my amendment, based on the very helpful response that the Minister has just given to us.
“(2A) A scheme must not be approved or designated under subsection (2)(b) unless it satisfies the conditions set out in regulations made under section 66(2).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that a landlord redress scheme must not be approved or designated by the Secretary of State for that purpose unless the scheme meets the conditions set out in regulations made under clause 66(2).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the Secretary of State is not required to make regulations under clause 65 before making regulations under clause 66.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the Secretary of State has a freestanding duty to make regulations under clause 66 which set out the conditions that must be met by a landlord redress scheme for the scheme to be approved or designated under clause 65(2).
Member’s explanatory statement
This ensures that a person who has been expelled from a scheme may join another scheme in appropriate circumstances.
Lord Hacking
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the database to be established within one year of the Renters’ Rights Act coming into force.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I congratulate our Chair on going through these complicated provisions. She is doing very well and should receive congratulations from all of us.
We now move on to the chapter relating to the private rented sector database, which is an essential component in the efficient bringing in of the provisions of the Bill. The database should be set up even before the Act comes into force.
Amendment 219 seeks an obligation that the database operator must establish and operate the database within one year of the Act being passed. It seeks to set down a timetable for the bringing in of the database. All these amendments, like my earlier amendments, are meant to be tidying-up amendments and helpful to all of us taking part in this debate. The other amendments in my name in this group are Amendments 231 and 232. In an earlier version of the grouping, Amendment 237 was in this group but somehow it has disappeared. Can it be brought back to this group so we can discuss it as well?
Amendment 231 would require
“the database operator to ensure that facilities are available for persons to report breaches of any requirement”
by means other than a computer. I have already spoken to the problems of the computer inept, including myself, and my noble friend the Minister is sympathetic on that issue.
Amendment 232 would require
“the database operator to ensure that facilities are available for people to access information on the database, in situations where they do not have access to a computer or electronic device”.
Again, it would help those such as me, who are digitally inept.
Amendment 237 would remove
“the exception for landlords to be registered on the private rented sector database before a court can grant possession in cases”
under ground 7A of the Housing Act 1998, as amended; for example, proceedings brought by the landlord for possession for anti-social behaviour. That seems to be a sensible amendment. There should not be restraint on a landlord bringing such proceedings, which are socially vital for the community in which those tenants are playing a part.
Those are all the amendments. I hope I have been able to describe them lucidly and correctly to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 220 and 225. Amendment 220, in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Kennedy of Cradley, is the first of several amendments to support and enhance the Bill’s proposals for a PRS database. I am grateful to my noble colleagues and also to the Lettings Industry Council, Generation Rent, and the Large Agents Representation Group for help in drafting these amendments.
The database, as proposed by Clause 76, will contain some basic information about the landlord and the property. This will assist local authorities in the carrying out of their duties in the enforcement of required standards in the PRS—private rented sector. It will save councils time and money—chasing landlords for the information the council needs and locating properties failing to meet statutory requirements.
However, the database can do much more than this, and Amendment 220 makes it clear that it can have a wider, more significant role. It would surely be a wasted opportunity if the property database was of use only to local authorities. The amendment makes it clear that information on the database should also be available for the benefit of tenants, landlords and their agents. Not least, this new resource should enable landlords and agents to identify any obligation for them to obtain a licence from the local authority where the property is subject to a licensing requirement and would assist them in making such an application.
For tenants and prospective tenants, Amendment 220 makes explicit what is surely intended; namely, that the database is being created to provide important information for those seeking a property to rent who want essential details about their future home and its landlord.
Amendment 225 seeks to assist the new database process by clarifying that its functionality should allow data to be uploaded by landlords’ agents as well as by the landlords themselves; otherwise, landlords will need to be contacted constantly by agents to obtain the information they need. With around half of rented property being supported by lettings agents, this tweak is another reason why the amendment is a necessary addition to the Bill.
This property portal amendment is supported by those representing renters and those representing landlords and property agents. With the additional features that we will discuss in the next group, these amendments seek to ensure that the database has a transformative impact in raising standards, helping enforcement and widening knowledge of all the properties in the sector.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 220, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, to which I have added my name.
Amendment 220 neatly ensures that the Bill is clear about who the PRS database is for. I understand the Government’s need to consider privacy, but in doing so the Government need to remember why the PRS database is needed. It is about increased transparency, empowering renters so that they can make informed decisions about where they live and properly exercise their rights. Yes, support for landlords and, yes, a tool for local authorities to raise standards—these are the intentions of the database and always have been since we started to lobby for this Bill many years ago. Amendment 220 is a simple way for this to be made clear in the Bill.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will accept this amendment. I also ask her to confirm that the Government’s priorities for the private rented sector database remain renter empowerment, support for landlords so that they are aware of their obligations, and providing an effective toolkit for local authorities to drive up standards.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 220 and 225, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my Amendments 243 and 243A, all of which seek to strengthen and clarify the role of the new private rented sector database.
I also support Amendment 219, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. In so much of this Bill we lack a timeframe. Between us, we have tabled several amendments asking for clarification on timeframes. It is not just us seeking these timings but everyone who is impacted by the Bill.
This is an area of great potential. I confess to getting quite excited about it when I first realised that it was a real tool in the Bill. A well-designed database could be genuinely transformative, supporting better enforcement, empowering tenants and giving responsible landlords the tools that they need to navigate the system more effectively. The noble Lord and I have very similar thoughts on that. However, to achieve that, it must be more than just a repository of basic information, which is where I fear we are going. It must be useful, accessible and enforceable.
Amendment 220 seeks to make it clear that the database is a tool not just for local authorities but for public good. It should serve the interests of tenants, responsible landlords and good letting agents alike. In its current form, the Bill seems to emphasise enforcement utility but underplays the wider potential of the database as a source of transparency and information for all parties in the rental market. If we want this database to help drive up standards and support informed decision-making, we must set out that intention clearly.
Amendment 225 introduces two further practical improvements. First, it allows letting agents to upload information on behalf of landlords, a sensible provision given the role that many agents already play in managing compliance. Secondly, it proposes that the database should offer a portal to help landlords determine whether their properties require licensing under the local authority schemes and to apply for those licences where necessary. Too often, licensing rules can vary from one area to another and be hard to navigate, particularly for smaller landlords. A centralised, user-friendly tool would significantly improve compliance.
My Amendment 243 probes a critical issue: enforcement. The Bill states that landlords must be registered on the database along with each of their dwellings, but it is currently unclear what consequences there are for non-compliance. This amendment proposes that failure to register should be an offence, and we seek clarity from the Government on how these provisions will be enforced in practice. Without credible enforcement mechanisms, even the best-designed database risks being ignored by the very landlords it is intended to regulate.
Finally, Amendment 243A would give the Secretary of State the power to include links to useful resources on the database, such as the “My Housing Issue” gateway. Such signposts may seem minor, but they can make a real difference, especially for tenants who need guidance on their rights or for landlords seeking to meet their obligations. The database should not exist in a vacuum; it should connect users to help, advice and relevant legal frameworks.
These amendments may differ in focus, but they are united by a common aim: to ensure that the private rented sector database lives up to its promise and potential. It must be more than a tick-box exercise; it must be practical, enforceable and truly useful to the people it is meant to serve. I hope the Minister will give these proposals careful consideration, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
I will make just a couple of comments on the two amendments tabled by my noble colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Best. I start with Amendment 220 and the point made in support of it by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, because what is proposed here is clearly, in effect, a public register. I was not absolutely sure that I understood whether that was delimited in certain ways by the reference to “other interested stakeholders”, whoever or whatever they might be in any given circumstance, but a public register is what we are dealing with.
If I may, I link this across to the next group of amendments, because it is appropriate to mention here that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has Amendment 222, which has an extensive list of requirements. I simply say that some of what she sets out there might need a rethink as to whether it is appropriate for that degree of detailed information to be on a public register, bearing in mind who else may have access to it and for what purposes.
I have a question on Amendment 225. I absolutely agree with the functionality point, and I add to that by saying that there must absolutely be an email communications option in any database of this sort. Given the state of the normal, regular postal service, having an email option and being able to flag up an alert system of some sort would be absolutely essential for any landlord, their agent or, for that matter, any renter using the database.
My question is to do with the way the database is applicable to local authority schemes. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, confirmed what I believed to be the case: namely, that local authority schemes might vary considerably. If we have a national database, I simply ask how that deals with strictly local things on a per local authority basis. The rules of the game must obviously apply nationally, but the property concerned, the landlord and the renter in particular may be local. I simply flag up how that will function or whether there will be a subsidiary local authority subset on a per local authority basis.
If we have approach, and given the amount of data that the noble Baroness’s later amendment suggests, then, in terms of the amendments previously spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I suggest that we are looking at quite a considerable lead-in period in practical terms to get this database in place. If it is to be of use, it needs to start off as some sort of cut-down version in order to enable the essential information to be there, even if it is then expanded. I therefore see this being achievable by some sort of rollout over time. Trying to put it in place from day one would be a recipe for something approaching chaos.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly comment on two amendments in this group: Amendment 233 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and Amendment 243 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, about databases. I feel that we are overlooking the need to ensure that the rogues in the system are identified and banned or punished for bad behaviour. They riddle the rented sector, I am afraid.
The database is a great attempt to give transparency and clarity to mortgagees, as in one of these amendments, to tenants and to potential tenants to check on their potential landlords. It is not responsible landlords who are the problem; it is the rogues. Rogues like to be invisible. They do not want to be detectable. They certainly do not want enforcement proceedings served against them. Enforcement must have teeth. Without real teeth, there is little point in trying to catch the rogues. The database would go a long way towards achieving that, but I fear that there is not enough determination in the Government to really punish those who are determined to cheat.
Rogues can hide their properties under the names of shelf companies. They can be registered abroad. They can have a tangled web of subsidiaries and further subsidiaries. They will make themselves as invisible and undetectable as possible. I close by simply saying that these are good amendments, but I would love to see sharper teeth in the enforceability.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for opening this group, as it marks the beginning of three vital debates on the database, which is an issue of great interest to stakeholders across the sector. There are 16 amendments in this group dealing with a range of quite complex issues relating to the database so, with the leave of the Committee, I will try to fully address the issues raised, but I might take a little extra time.
Before turning to our specific amendments and those in the wider group, I start by saying that the creation of a private rented sector database is a major change for landlords and tenants in this country. It is an opportunity to seriously improve transparency and outcomes for renters. We have expressed concerns on previous Bills about the overuse of regulation-making powers to deliver the statutory powers that the Government seek. Ministers should, we believe, set out clearly their plans in this Bill as far as is practically possible. Given the lack of detail in the clauses relating to the establishment of the database, we take this opportunity to ask the Minister to clarify the Government’s plans. If she cannot answer today, we will be very happy to have it in writing after today’s debate.
I start by addressing Amendment 228A, tabled in my name. This is a simple amendment that would ensure that the Secretary of State is required to make regulations to ensure that the database entries are regularly updated and maintained. It is essential that the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the data be maintained if it is to be a useful resource for both tenants and for landlords. This is common sense, and this should be a requirement. I hope the Minister will agree to that. If the Government cannot accept this amendment today, will she please take this opportunity to explain why the Government feel that the Secretary of State should have discretion in this area?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Best, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Thornhill, for their amendments on database operation and accessing the database, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for their contributions. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, spoke to Amendment 230, which is in the next group, and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, spoke to Amendment 237, which is in group 6. I will respond to them when we get to those groups, if that is okay.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I apologise. I have two lists that have different numbers in them; I think they are one before the other.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
When we get to this stage of a Bill, especially when we have three or four groups on the same subject, I am not surprised that people get them mixed up.
I start by saying that I very much share the sentiments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott, about the potential of this database to support both landlords and tenants. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, clearly set out why this is important for responsible landlords as well as tenants. I am sure that landlords who do a very good job, which is the majority of them, get incredibly frustrated by the minority of rogue landlords who certainly do not and I hope that this will help them as well.
Amendment 219 from my noble friend Lord Hacking proposes that a duty be placed on the database operator to ensure that the database be established and operational within a year of the Renters’ Rights Bill coming into force. I know the database will be a vital tool in raising standards in the private rented sector. I assure my noble friend and other noble Lords who raised the issue that we are aiming for the database to be active as soon as possible.
The database is being designed as a bespoke product to ensure that it aligns with the operational and legal details set out in regulations. We are currently focusing on getting the basic functionality right, testing with the sector and local authorities and developing guidance for users. Setting a timeframe for a database in the Bill is unnecessary and could be counterproductive. We simply cannot risk it being brought in when the secondary legislation or technology is not ready. This would make life more difficult for tenants, landlords and local authorities. For this reason, I kindly ask that my noble friend considers withdrawing that amendment.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for Amendment 220, which would require the legislation to state that the database will benefit landlords, tenants, local authorities and other interested stakeholders. I assure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, who spoke to this amendment, that the database is being designed for the benefit of all potential users, including tenants, landlords and local authorities. I recognise the positive intent behind the noble Lord’s amendment. However, the Government are already working towards that and we are continuing to focus on those user groups as the database is designed. I therefore do not believe it is necessary to accept the amendment and for that reason I ask the noble Lord not to press it.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I am very happy to withdraw Amendment 219. The Minister has done magnificently. May I just say on behalf of all of us that she is doing magnificently? She stumbled for a moment just now, but it is amazing that she has not stumbled before. She is covering her brief with extreme detail, and I thank her on behalf of everybody in the Committee.
My noble friend replied to my amendment, which seeks a definite date for the establishment of the private rented sector database. In a sense, I think my amendment was unrealistic because the development of a database obviously takes time. The promise has already been made by my noble friend that they are working on that database and recognise its importance, and that fully satisfies me.
Now I am going to place a burden on my noble friend because I had not seen that Amendment 237 had been regrouped and put into another group. The Whip has told me that I am not allowed to speak again on that amendment, but is there any chance of my noble friend replying to it now, immediately after I have made the case for it?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is more appropriate for me to respond to that amendment in order because otherwise it would make it difficult for other members of the Committee to reply to it. I shall reply to it in the sixth group, and if my noble friend cannot be in the Chamber, I shall send him a response in writing.
Lord Best
“(d) entries containing details of landlord gas safety records and landlord electrical installation condition reports for dwellings which are or intended to be let under residential tenancies.” Member’s explanatory statement
This would include landlord records of gas and electrical safety checks in the PRS database. Permits the Secretary of State to make regulations to enable the PRS database to register landlord records of gas and electrical safety checks.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 221, 224, 227, 229 and 230. These amendments are in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Kennedy of Cradley. The noble Lord, Lord Young, apologises for his unavoidable absence but underlines his support for the amendments. I thank all those noble colleagues for supporting these amendments.
The amendments relate to the content of the new database, a property portal. They add key items to the information to be provided. Amendments 221, 224 and 227 would add landlord records of gas and electrical safety checks, with definitions of what these comprise. Currently, there is a national digital register of all energy performance certificates, and these EPCs will be brought together with details of the letting. However, there is no register for the critical landlord gas safety or electrical checks. These are frequently lost or neglected, and tenants may be unaware of them. The PRS database provides an opportunity to have these vital safety certifications brought into the digital age and made available widely, to ensure the safety of rented property. Building safety is now a national concern, and details of these checks represent important content for prospective tenants as well as for local authorities.
Am I right in thinking that the Government intend to consult on further items to be covered by the database and that, as part of the consultation, there will be the opportunity to add items to go into this new portal? I would include many of the extra items listed in Amendments 222 and 228, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Grender. For example, listing rent levels would provide invaluable data for the First-tier Tribunals, which will be taking decisions on market rent levels. A further addition it would be good to see would be a categorisation of properties suitable for people using wheelchairs or with mobility problems. To have this information readily available via the database would be helpful not just to renters seeking accessible accommodation, but to the landlord with an adapted property who is looking for tenants who can make use of the adaptations.
Finally, Amendments 229 and 230 would require the PRS database to make use of the unique property reference number, to which the Minister has already referred, as the identifier for every property on the database. This valuable and reliable tool already exists as a means of identifying any specific property. Noble Lords may not be aware that all their homes already have such a number—a UPRN, which can dramatically speed up the search for a particular house or flat. The Bill provides the perfect opportunity to put this excellent facility to good use. A pilot scheme utilising UPRNs in Nottingham has demonstrated that councils get a sixfold return from investing in this approach and streamlining the property data for collection for their area. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, jumped the gun in welcoming Amendment 230. I will save her having to do so again and thank her now.
In conclusion, and in relation to all the amendments in my name and those of colleagues, to whom I offer my thanks, I believe them to be acceptable and agreeable to the organisations representing renters, landlords and property agents. I hope that the Minister can support them and I look forward to her response. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, my Amendment 228 seeks to enhance transparency and oversight in the private rented sector by requiring the database to include information on tenancy disputes. This would cover a range of issues, including disputes about rent levels. It would also record the outcome of each case and how long it took to reach a resolution.
This is, at its heart, a proposal for greater clarity. It is not intended to be punitive, nor to cast all landlords in a negative light—quite the opposite. It is an opportunity to reward good landlords. Those who respond quickly to issues, resolve disputes fairly and demonstrate a commitment to their tenants should have that record reflected and recognised. Too often, the private sector operates in the shadows, with tenants unsure of their rights and little visibility of how disputes are handled behind closed doors. This amendment would bring to light that process by recording the nature of a dispute, the parties involved, the outcome and the time taken to resolve it. We would therefore create a more informed and accountable system.
For tenants, this information is empowering. It helps them to make better decisions about where and with whom they rent. For landlords, it provides an incentive to act responsibly and promptly, knowing that their actions contribute to a public record. For policymakers and regulators, it offers a valuable source of data to identify patterns, spot areas of concern and improve enforcement.
The inclusion of rent level disputes is especially important for improving transparency. At a time when affordability is a growing concern, making this information available would provide clear insight into how disagreements over rent are handled and resolved. It would help build a more accurate and evidence-based picture of where pressure points exist in the system. It would also help tenants and policymakers understand how rent issues are being addressed in practice.
In short, this amendment would help foster a culture of fairness, responsiveness and trust. These qualities are essential if we are to improve standards across this sector, and I hope the Minister will look favourably on it.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 222 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and all the amendments in this group, including Amendment 228 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, to which I have added my name. I declare my interest as a Nationwide Foundation trustee—I think I declared this last time I spoke, but I cannot remember, so better twice than never.
I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, will set out in great detail why the list of criteria is needed in the Bill. However, put simply, more detail on what the PRS database will contain needs to be in the Bill, which needs to set out core functions and minimum standards. Leaving the detail to be filled in later by regulation at the whim of a future Secretary of State is not acceptable. It will make the Bill less stable and requirements less easily understood. Landlords need clarity about what the law requires of them and tenants need clarity on what they can expect in terms of their rights.
I hope my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage will bring back on Report an amendment that sets out minimum requirements for the PRS database that can sit in the Bill, to give clarity and direction akin to Amendment 222 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 222, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. This Bill is very big and has wide-ranging impacts. Some are certainly planned, and others are possibly unplanned. It is vital that those impacts are evaluated. It is unfortunate that, at this stage, the evaluation plan is slightly unformed, but the impact assessment makes it clear that it is going to rely on some of the data collected in this database. Given that it is going to rely on that data, I think it has to be specified in the Bill.
For example, one of the prime aims of the Bill is to increase security of tenure, thereby reducing evictions and unplanned moves. The current source of that data is from the English Housing Survey, which suffers from the vagaries of any survey at the moment and questions about its validity. More importantly, it also does not have the necessary granularity, given that the local authority level is going to be the level at which this Bill is enforced. So we need the data that is going to be collected in this database in order to be able to tell whether the Bill is at all effective, and what other effects it might have.
That is true also of things such as rental increases, which it is trying to keep a lid on. If we do not have a record of those rental increases, we will not know whether it is effective. So I am concerned to hear tonight that the database may not even be fully in action within the first year of the Act being passed. How will we know what the effects are if the Act has already been in place for over a year before we measure some of these impacts? I would love to hear more from the Minister about what is going to be in the database and when those different aspects of the database are going to be active.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I have already mentioned Amendment 222 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, so I need say no more about it at this stage. I turn, then, to the one other amendment in this group that interests me: the one introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. The information that she proposes should be disclosed in the database is quite extensive. I have three points to make.
First, is the noble Baroness satisfied—and would the Minister consider herself satisfied—that, if there were an ongoing dispute, putting that data raw, on an incomplete process, would be free from creating a prejudice around the outcome? That might be in either direction; I am thinking only that this might be a quasi- judicial process of one sort or another. I just wish to flag that up.
Secondly, in any event, obviously, the database would identify both parties: the renter and the landlord. I assume that, when the noble Baroness says that her amendment would create a greater egalitarian thing, she is also happy with renters and landlords being mentioned, because the identity of the parties will be known. However, depending on the detail that goes in, there might be the disclosure of what might be described as more sensitive information related to the nature of the dispute; I wished to flag that up in case it had been overlooked. Bear in mind that, if we are talking about an open register, this goes to everybody, anywhere, who can tap into the information.
Thirdly, there is a whole issue here around the performance characteristics that sit behind this group of amendments, in terms of what is going on around the efficiency of the process through which information might be derived from this database. There must be a difference, I think, between the metadata from the processing of things, such as the speed at which things are dealt with and so on, the data on the types of disputes that might typically arise, including their frequency and distribution, and the individual data on the register. There will certainly be derivative information that does not necessarily require the total disclosure of all sorts of intricate and possibly personal details.
I would be very happy for the database to be used for the purpose of the further processing of non-personalised data of one sort or another for statistical and performance calculating processes. I am less clear, though, that that necessarily sits as a direct part of the database; that is, as a derivative of it. One must be careful about what one is expecting the raw data on a database to consist of; and about how it is going to be used as a derivative thereafter.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, first, I apologise to the Minister. I was remiss not to thank her before the previous group for the time she gave up to meet my noble friend Lady Grender and me to discuss the database. I know that she is always very willing to meet noble Lords and that she gives up a lot of her time. I hope she will accept my thanks now.
The amendments in this group continue to relate to strengthening the content, utility and functionality of the new private rented sector database. As has already been highlighted, the database could be a powerful driver of higher standards, tenant protection and, importantly, support for responsible landlords. But to fulfil that role, it must be built on comprehensive, reliable and adaptable foundations—something these amendments aim to deliver.
Amendment 222 is in my name, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, whom I thank. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his positive comments. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord both made some pertinent comments that I hope will add to the debate. Yes, the amendment sets out a broader and more ambitious vision for what information could be captured in the database from the onset. If this system is to be genuinely useful, it needs to go beyond the basics and include key documentation that reflects the safety, security and condition of the property. Renters deserve to know that the home they are moving into is safe, compliant and fairly let.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, that I do not intend to go into great detail on this today, because time is of the essence. To sum it up, the point is to expose infringing, dodgy landlords. A good landlord has nothing to fear, but if things such as banning orders are on the site, this might incentivise landlords to not get themselves into that position in the first place. In Watford we have had issues with a landlord who is a prolific property owner. It would be very useful, and quite powerful, if people could see the number of offences under the name of a landlord. I accept the concerns expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. If there was any hope of any elements of my catch-all list being taken up, I would happily argue each one with him on a case-by-case basis.
Amendments 221 and 227, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, would ensure that the database includes records of gas and electrical safety checks, and that, crucially, it can become a digital home for all these certificates. We already require these documents to be produced, so incorporating them into the national system should be a logical next step. Amendment 227 would even allow accredited safety certificate providers to upload directly, removing administrative burdens from landlords and improving data accuracy. This would modernise and streamline an essential part of the compliance process.
Amendment 228 in the name of my noble friend Lady Grender focuses on tenancy disputes—specifically rent levels and resolution outcomes. In the absence of reliable rent data, we lack the evidence base needed to track affordability—something that has come up before in the Bill—or understand the impact of policy changes. Including dispute outcomes would help tenants navigate the system more confidently and enable more informed decision-making by both renters and landlords. It also provides an accountability mechanism to ensure that the system is working as it should.
Amendment 224, also from the noble Lord, Lord Best, and which I support, is linked to these proposals and would reinforce the requirement for the database to include the right types of detail to make it genuinely functional for enforcement and policy use. I am sure we would all be willing to contribute to a general discussion on what that might be.
Amendment 229 introduces a small but important clarification to ensure that the database links records not only to landlords but to specific dwellings. This might seem technical, but it speaks to a broader point. The system must allow us to track the full history of a property and not just its owner, although the owner is clearly vital, especially the owner we have mentioned many times: the invisible, absent, non-contactable landlord. This is vital in cases where properties change hands but the issues persist. With reference to the local case that I referred to earlier, often it was just a family member’s name that had changed, so I think the more we can track down these infringing and rogue landlords, the better.
This brings me to Amendment 230, which would require the use of the UPRNs: unique property reference numbers. That is a new acronym for me. These identifiers already exist and are widely used in local government and in the property sector. Using them in the database would help standardise records, reduce duplication and enable effective data sharing across agencies—something that they, and all of us, think needs to be improved. It is a ready-made tool that would help knit together fragmented information across the sector and, as we have heard, it has proved effective.
These amendments work together to build a more useful, transparent and future-proof database that supports not only enforcement but renter safety, data integrity and informed policy-making for the future. Each of these proposals is practical, proportionate and grounded in existing obligations. What they offer is not duplication but integration. I hope the Government will recognise the value of taking a more ambitious approach to what the database can deliver and I am heartened by the comments that the noble Baroness has already made today.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I am entirely supportive of pretty well every amendment that has been put down on this—this blizzard of amendments about a database across four groups. I agree that there should be penalties for not participating in it. It has to be something that is not a nice-to-have add-on: it has to be core to everything. However, I will just give two notes of caution, the first of which goes back to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. If you are going to start recording disputes on the system, there could be many, many reasons why a dispute runs for a long time. It would not necessarily be the fault of evil landlords. It could be illness on the part of the tenant; it could be a multitude of things. You have to be very careful there.
The second point is to be careful what you wish for. No one has suggested this so far, but is this database going to be searchable by tenant? Because a landlord looking at a tenant might search the database and find that every previous tenancy has ended in a dispute. Is that going to be a fair use of this database? Because it is a logical suggestion, looking at this from a landlord’s point of view, to look out for rogue tenants as well as rogue landlords.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for opening this group. The question of what data is recorded on the database is an important one and the Government need to give the sector greater clarity on their plans. Noble Lords need only look at some of the briefings provided by lettings agencies to landlords over the past few months to grasp the level of uncertainty around this Bill. For the benefit of both renters and landlords, we need greater clarity as soon as possible. As my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook said earlier from these Benches, we believe the Government should be more ambitious. We are broadly content with the direction of travel on greater transparency, but taking this forward through regulations is leaving landlords and tenants in the dark.
We support the challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Best, to the Government on the inclusion of gas and electrical safety checks within the PRS database. Amendments 221, 224 and 227, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, all touch on this issue. The database makes use of official UPRNs and covers the full end-to-end process of property compliance, including the urgent need to mandate digital property safety certificates. This will certainly increase transparency for landlords and tenants. Including gas safety certificates and electrical installation reports would assist tenants who wish to confirm that their property is safe.
That said, we have some concerns about Amendment 227, which appears to place the burden of registering digital gas and electricity certificates on the certificate provider rather than the landlord. We do not think that responsibility should be placed on the providers without a proper impact assessment and a fuller understanding of how this would work in practical terms. Perhaps the Minister can commit to considering this proposal from the noble Lord between now and Report.
Amendment 222, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, proposes expanding the types of information or documents that are required for registration on the PRS database. I commend the noble Baroness on her thoughtful drafting. This amendment highlights further the uncertainty and lack of clarity that have arisen from the Government’s decision to place broadly drafted regulation-making powers rather than detailed provisions in the Bill to enable their plans.
Finally, on Amendments 229 and 230, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, it has already been noted that UPRNs are a universal means of identifying properties. They will be central to this system. The database should be as easy as possible to use for both renters and landlords. We accept that the noble Lord’s amendments are well intentioned and we will listen very carefully to the Minister’s response to them.
We have a separate concern. The Government do not have a strong track record on delivering large-scale IT projects. I make no political comment here. We share the concerns that have been raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, earlier, on the time that it will take to roll out this database. Can the Minister assure us that this project will be delivered—and delivered on time?
I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to these well-intentioned and constructive amendments.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Grender, for their amendments regarding which data should be recorded on the database. I also thank my noble friend Lady Kennedy, the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for their comments.
Amendment 222, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, seeks to expand Clause 76 and mandate the information that landlord and dwelling entries on the database must contain. I thank the noble Baroness for her very thoughtful amendment and for meeting with me to discuss the database in greater detail before Committee. We certainly both appreciate the potential of the database.
I reassure her that we expect to collect much of the information that is set out in Amendment 222 on the database. Detailed regulations about the making of landlord and dwelling entries in the database will be made under Clause 78(1) in due course. Our approach to data collection takes account of the balance of benefits and burdens for different users, to ensure that it remains proportionate. However, I stress that it is vital that the database is designed in such a way that it can evolve to incorporate technological innovation and changes in the sector. Although I very much understand the points made by my noble friend Lady Kennedy and the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, we do not think that, to accomplish this aim, the content of landlord and dwelling database entries should be mandated in the Bill. Rather, this detail should be set out in secondary legislation to ensure that the database can be more easily adapted to meet future circumstances.
Regarding points about when the database will be ready, we aim for the service to be operational as soon as possible following the passage of primary and secondary legislation. We are taking forward the digital development of the private rented sector database in line with the government service standard. We will conduct extensive testing of the new service ahead of implementation and continue to engage the sector on our proposals. We very much welcome the ongoing involvement of all those who have been helping us.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, highlighted the importance of why we must take our time on development, design and testing. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to the difficulty of IT systems. I have had them in past lives, so I know that this can be a tricky issue. However, we have been in government for only nine months, yet the noble Lord accused us of having a track record—or did he mean all Governments? I hope that he did.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Okay, fair point. We need to make sure that we do the development and the testing of the system carefully. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate— mostly agreeing with the amendments, sometimes quite enthusiastically.
One thing we have perhaps not covered before is the providers of gas and safety certificates and electrical safety checks being the people who upload that information on to the database, rather than putting the onus entirely on the landlords. This sounds rather radical, but it is in fact quite an important piece of the jigsaw. We do this with our MOTs: it is the MOT provider who has looked after the car who sends the information to the DVLA; you can record this pretty much instantly, without a lot of hassle. This also already happens with energy performance certificates: it is the provider of the certificate who uploads it on to the database. So this is not a huge jump.
I was encouraged by the Minister’s comments, for which I express appreciation. Basically, we are all on side, and things will be added to the list of contents that are included in this, but I get the unfortunate feeling that we are going to take this at a rather gentle pace. We have to wait for the secondary legislation, extensive testing and trials, bringing forward each piece one step at a time. This may be sensible, but it will be quite frustrating, given that there is such potential. There is an opportunity here for the database to make a real difference.
I thank all participants, and the Minister in particular, but I urge that we press on with this as soon as possible, because it is a really valuable tool and will make a big difference. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Trade Negotiations
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. The economic prosperity agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States is a welcome but limited first step towards a comprehensive free trade agreement. As such, it signifies a positive move towards strengthening the special relationship with our most important ally. Indeed, it was particularly refreshing to see that the special relationship was explicitly acknowledged as one of the three core objectives. If the relationship is to endure, it must be based, as the document says, on fairness and reciprocity.
The United States is the UK’s largest bilateral trading partner outside the EU, with trade in goods and services valued at over £310 billion in 2023. Following the costs imposed by the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions, this agreement brings some relief to sectors in our economy. For example, tariffs on UK vehicles have been reduced from 25% to 10%, benefiting up to 100,000 vehicles annually, as well as attendant auto parts. With UK car exports to the US worth £7 billion last year, this is an important development and will provide some relief. As Mike Hawes of the SMMT noted:
“The agreement announced today to reduce tariffs on UK car exports into the US is great news for the industry and consumers. The application of these tariffs was a severe and immediate threat to UK automotive exporters so this deal will provide much needed relief, allowing both the industry, and those that work in it, to approach the future more positively”.
We take Mr Hawes’s words at face value.
Similarly, the removal of tariffs on steel and aluminium, which had disrupted £400 million-worth of exports, is welcome news for our manufacturing sectors. But can the Minister say what exactly will the fact that the US is constructing a quota at most favoured nation rates for UK steel and aluminium products mean in practice, and particularly for the troubled British Steel?
In agriculture, US beef export quotas to the UK have increased from 1,000 to 13,000 metric tonnes, and negotiations are expected to continue on pork, poultry, rice and seafood—sectors where the United States has significant export interest and capacity. The US Agriculture Secretary has made it clear that these areas are priorities in their trade agenda. As further discussions progress, it will be important that they take into account the structure and needs of the UK’s own farming sector. Although there is broad support for open and competitive markets, we know that some British producers, particularly in poultry and seafood, have raised questions around production practices and the cost implications of different regulatory approaches.
The agreement acknowledges that both countries will
“comply with the importing country’s sanitary and phytosanitary … standards”.
Can the Minister therefore update the House on the nature of conversations held with domestic farming representatives so far, and on how the Government expect ongoing negotiations in this area to progress? Are there any major areas, apart from the frequently trailed chlorine-washed chicken, which may cause difficulties?
There is also very limited detail on digital trade, despite the Government’s ambition, set out in their AI opportunities plan, to position the UK as a global leader in emerging technologies. We would welcome clarity on how this agreement supports the goal in practice but acknowledge the commitment to negotiate an ambitious set of digital trade provisions. Can the Minister update the House on what discussions are under way regarding the future of the digital services tax?
Moreover, the agreement states that the UK will receive preferential treatment if new tariffs are not imposed as part of the US Section 232 investigation into pharmaceuticals and other products. It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves what that means. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act 1962 provides the President with the ability to impose restrictions on certain imports based on an affirmative determination by the Department of Commerce that the products under investigation are being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security.
So preferential treatment sounds positive, but we are awaiting clarity on what it means in practice. Will it mean lower tariffs, exemptions or more lenient treatment than other countries may receive? This is crucial for the UK’s pharmaceutical sector in particular, and we need transparency on the details of this arrangement. How will that impact our relationship with Ireland, which is home to a number of pharmaceutical companies with extensive operations here? On the subject of Ireland, can the Minister enlighten us as to exactly how Northern Ireland will be affected by this deal?
Note that security of supply chains in our exports is explicit in this agreement. China has expressed concern, suggesting that it could lead to the exclusion of Chinese products from British supply chains, and it may risk breaching international trade norms. In light of the Government’s stated intention to reset and stabilise relations with China, it is important to understand how these concerns are being managed. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that progress with one strategic partner does not inadvertently compromise engagement with another?
Furthermore, in the context of the UK’s economic and financial dialogue agreement with China, which includes co-operation on pharmaceuticals and financial services, how do the Government assess the potential impact of this new US deal on future negotiations in those same sectors? I appreciate that the Statement refers to other sectors, including copper, lumber, film production, semiconductors and critical minerals, but the themes of national security and defence run through this document, and obviously they represent the foundation of the special relationship. However, I note that no mention is made of the defence sector, so could the noble Baroness perhaps update us on discussions in that space?
The agreement states that:
“Both countries intend to build on an existing set of Mutual Recognition Agreements … by negotiating additional agreements … across certain industrial goods”.
How does that square with the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which is currently in the Commons? Superficially, this would suggest that the Government should have accepted some of our amendments in this area, but I say to the noble Baroness opposite that it is not too late.
While tariffs on UK exports have been reduced, the US baseline tariff of 10% remains higher than pre-President Trump levels. We should acknowledge the progress but also recognise that this still represents a return to a less favourable environment for UK exports. What this country needs is a comprehensive free trade agreement with the United States to alleviate these challenges to our businesses.
It would be remiss at this point not to mention that small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the backbone of our economy, need clarity on how they will benefit from this agreement. Tina McKenzie from the Federation of Small Businesses pointed out that practical measures to boost SME access to the US market remain unclear.
In conclusion, while this agreement represents important progress, it is clear that much remains to be done. The Government must now focus on expanding the deal to include services, investment and small business support, ensuring all sectors are given a fair chance to thrive. I have one last question, which has been asked and evaded every day this week. Will Parliament have a say?
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, as a vice-chair of the All-Party Motor Group, I must say that this agreement was good news for the UK car industry or, perhaps more importantly, it was less bad news—coming in where the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, left off. In truth, manufacturers will still see a rise from pre-Trump tariffs of 2.5% to post-Trump ones of 10%, but that is much more manageable than the 27.5% that was being faced and jobs will be saved, which is good news. As a key shareholder in the industry, I am sure the Government will welcome the moves on steel as well.
But on those and on the wider perspective, there is much detail still to resolve and I think it would be helpful if the Minister could set out a timetable for when businesses will start to know the detail of what this agreement will actually deliver. To date, the Government have not published the documents we need, such as impact assessments on key British industry. That leaves us in the dark at the moment as to what Ministers have really given up in exchange for these lower tariffs.
I was a little intrigued by the ethanol concession. Secretary of State Jonathan Reynolds said in the Commons:
“On ethanol, we … are working closely with our domestic sector to understand its concerns and any potential impacts to businesses, including what more Government can do to support the sector”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/5/25; col. 35.]
This seems a little late. Some weeks ago, when I met staffers of senior senators and asked them what their number one red line was, the most popular response was “Ethanol”. If I knew six weeks ago, I assume the Government knew a long time before that, which means there was plenty of time to work through the implications on domestic suppliers. Yet it seems only now is that process under way. How can negotiators know the value of what they are conceding without having done the work that seems now to be under way?
The deal also allows more American beef into the UK market. The Secretary of State was at pains to say that imports would not compromise our standards, so can the Minister confirm that this is being achieved by uprating the tariff rate quota for so-called “high-quality” beef? To put this into context, can the Minister share the Government’s analysis of how much high-quality beef the US produces per annum and what is the annual expected level of imports of that beef into the United Kingdom? Finally on this, can she set out in detail what border inspection regime will be planned to make sure that this indeed meets the standard of high-quality beef?
Given the urgent need for phytosanitary agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union, can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House what conversations the Government have had with their EU counterparts about this decision to allow US beef into the United Kingdom?
Overall, how certain is any of this? For example, Trump 1 signed a full trade deal with Canada and Mexico, the USMCA, in 2018 and then Trump 2 threw this self-same deal out in his first week of this presidency. This UK-US agreement may have been endorsed by President Trump this month, but what confidence do the Government have that new demands will not be made next month, or the month after that—or at Christmas? Does the Minister agree with the Liberal Democrats that the best long-term defence is to build our trading relationships with long-standing partners which do not change their views all the time, including the European Union and dependable allies such as Canada? Can the Minister explain to your Lordships’ House the Government’s analysis of how this US deal impacts the furthering of relationships with those reliable potential partners?
A further unanswered question, touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, surrounds our position with China. The deal with the US includes strict security requirements, particularly around the British steel and pharmaceutical industries. These requirements have already caused China to complain that this could be used to squeeze Chinese products out of British supply chains. How will the Government manage their relationship with China when President Xi knows that Trump is leaning on us in every way with our relationships? What is the Government’s message to China as a result of this deal?
The level of uncertainty over the details in this agreement begs many questions, but again, it seems the Government will duck proper scrutiny. If this was a full-blown trade agreement, we would expect it to be put before your Lordships’ International Agreements Committee, of which I am a member. But so far, we have been starved of the involvement of the Grimstone agreement and we have not really been taken in on this. Can the Minister confirm whether the International Agreements Committee will scrutinise this agreement?
Even if we did make a report, the key to a debate in the Commons is still held by the Government. The shortcomings of our scrutiny process of trade deals are laid bare. At the very least, can the Minister confirm that this agreement will have a full Commons debate? If the Government do not follow this course, that will indicate that this agreement is not a treaty that needs to be fully ratified and lodged with the WTO. If it is not a fully ratified treaty, under the WTO most favoured nation rules the UK will have to offer similar tariff-free entry to all other countries, not just the United States. Unless Keir Starmer wants to join Donald Trump in breaking a fundamental international agreement that supports world trade, this should be treated as a trade deal and lodged with the WTO. That requires a full CRaG process in your Lordships’ House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their remarks and the questions they have asked today. Of course, we recognise the strong level of interest in this House in this historic trade deal that we have secured with the United States. To ensure that those interested can see for themselves precisely what has been agreed, the general terms of the deal have now been published on GOV.UK and a copy has been placed in the Library.
As the Prime Minister has rightly said, we are living in a new world now, one
“less governed by established rules and more by deals and alliances”.
Our vision is to leverage our relationships with other powerhouse economies to make the UK a global hub for trade and investment. This is why last Thursday we reached an agreement on the basis of an economic prosperity deal with the United States. But I say in answer to noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that this is a deal; it is not a full-blown treaty. We need to be absolutely clear about that.
Our trading relationship with the US, worth £315 billion per year, is now set to grow. We already have £1.2 trillion invested in each other’s economies, and between us we employ about 2.5 million people across both countries. That is why the deal is so important. Saving thousands of well-paid, highly skilled jobs that are vital for our economy is essential, protecting jobs in the automotive, steel, aluminium, pharmaceuticals and aerospace sectors, which employ over 320,000 people across the UK. In addition, an estimated 260,000 jobs are supported across the economy by the auto industry alone.
The noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Fox, said that the deal on the automotive sector brought welcome relief. I agree with that. For the car industry, we have negotiated a quota of 100,000 vehicles which reduced tariffs from 27.5% to 10%, and secured an arrangement for associated car parts, recognising the vital role the sector plays in our economy. We have already seen Jaguar Land Rover come out in support of the deal. It is very positive news for iconic British manufacturers such as McLaren and Morgan.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked about the future of the steel sector. For steel and aluminium, the deal will remove the 25% additional tariffs that were put in place earlier this year, reducing US tariffs to an average of 0.6% for steel, including derivatives, and 2.7% for aluminium, including derivatives. This is a major victory for steelmaking in the UK. It reassures us that steelmaking is alive and well in this country, thanks to the action that this Government are taking, providing a critical lift for the steel industry, which has been brought back from the brink of collapse, allowing UK steelmakers to continue exporting to the US.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about agriculture. For UK beef farmers we have delivered unprecedented market access. Our farmers will be able to export their high-quality beef, through an exclusive UK quota, to a market of over 300 million people, providing unparalleled access to the world’s largest consumer market. The NFU has long campaigned for this, and this Government have delivered. I want to be crystal clear: agriculture imports to the UK will still have to meet our high-quality food and animal welfare standards.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox—or maybe it was the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe—asked whether we were engaging with the farming community. I confirm that colleagues in Defra regularly engage with the farming organisations, and indeed with the NFU, on this issue of market access.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about statistics to do with beef. I have to say that I do not have those to hand, but obviously I am happy to write with the detail of those proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked about the digital services tax. I reassure him that there are no changes to that tax in the agreement.
The noble Lord also asked about the impact on the pharmaceutical sector. For pharmaceuticals and life sciences, the deal provides assurances that we will receive significant preferential access in the case of any new US tariffs in future, something that only the UK has so far secured. The pharmaceutical manufacturing sector alone contributes £20 billion to the UK economy a year and employs around 50,000 people, so that is a welcome move.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked about Northern Ireland. I confirm that we have closely considered the impact of this agreement on Northern Ireland. First, as Northern Ireland is part of the UK customs territory and internal market, Northern Ireland exports can access the US markets under this deal on the same basis as those from the rest of the UK. Secondly, the deal does not affect how imports in Northern Ireland operate, and Northern Ireland businesses importing eligible US goods under the deal can avoid unnecessary duties within the established Windsor Framework schemes, such as the UK internal market scheme. As we have said all along, we continue to act in the best interests of all UK businesses, including those in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lords asked whether Parliament will have a say. I make it clear that the general terms document is not a treaty and will not be subject to a vote in Parliament. We will implement the terms of the existing deal in accordance with the appropriate domestic processes. To be clear, we are not seeking any change in the process of ratification of any duty. Members of this House will have the chance to scrutinise the treaty when it is agreed and presented to the House.
If I have missed out any of their points, I will of course write to noble Lords. To summarise, the deal shows what can be achieved through pragmatism, diplomacy and acting in the national interest. It shows the UK to be a key and influential player on the world stage, and one that can get deals done. We are sending a message to the world that Britain remains open for business, we will protect jobs and investment, we will boost and defend our industries, and we will drive economic growth in all parts of the UK.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for the Conservative Opposition, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for the Liberal Democrats, were as one in commending the remarkable change this deal represents from the initial proposals of President Trump. I adopt what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, says about the role of Parliament. Both of us happily serve on the International Agreements Committee, and we know that our Parliament must be very jealous of the way in which such a treaty would be dealt with in the US Congress. What is clear, although unstated by both those earlier speakers, is that any objective observer will surely praise the role that the Prime Minister has played in his relationship with President Trump. He has played it extremely skilfully to change positively the initial deal that was proposed. This is obviously a very limited deal and the best we can get in the circumstances. Is this the end of the story or are there other parts of our trading relationship that are still on the table and from which we expect to see some positive developments? If there are such other elements from which we can optimistically hope for further developments, what are they?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the Prime Minister has played a brilliant role in all this and got one of the best deals that has been negotiated anywhere around the world, so we absolutely give him all the credit due for that. My noble friend asked whether this is the beginning or the end. This deal marks only the beginning. We are continuing to talk on the wider UK-US economic deal that will look at increasing digital trade, access for our world-leading service industries and improving supply chains. The US has committed to further negotiations, including on the 10% tariffs introduced on 2 April across our economy. The Government will continue to act in Britain’s national interest for workers, businesses and families.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, following the Minister’s comments about the next phase, financial and professional business services are Britain’s leading industry here in London but with two-thirds of the jobs overseas. On the goods agreement so far, some £59 billion-worth were exported to the USA in 2024, while £119 billion of services were exported to the USA in 2023. This is potentially a moment of great opportunity for the United Kingdom in financial and professional business services. We have a unique position between the USA and Europe, and we can have a great platform here as an independent, neutral and very powerful player in this space. With our shared roots in common law with the United States, this is also a strong opportunity for us, so can Minister assure us that financial and professional business services will be a central part of the agenda as we move forward to the next stage?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a vital point. It is very much an area where we can have shared benefit. The trade strategy is aimed at achieving long-term, sustainable, inclusive and resilient growth throughout trade, supported by a rigorous economic and geopolitical analysis that will set out how we can take some of these issues forward. The noble Lord is right about the contributions that we can make to the US and the contributions that it can make to us. I think that the leaders of both countries understand that we have joint benefits in common, and I am absolutely convinced that we can take these issues forward and make further trade deals on that basis.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, I have two questions for the Minister. First, as my noble friend Lord Sharpe and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked, will the new agreement operate with most favoured nation rules, which, as she knows, means that the lowest tariff offered to one country must be offered to all? The reason why I ask whether the agreement is consistent with the MFN rules is because Mr Navarro, the architect of President Trump’s trade policy, as recently as 8 April wrote a very strong article in the Financial Times criticising the MFN rules. The alternative to those rules is, of course, reciprocal tariffs, which Mr Trump has been proselytising, but that would lead to a much more complicated system of international trade, with a huge amount of business bureaucracy, and to commercial chaos throughout the world. I would be very grateful if the Minister could answer that question.
The second question that I would like to ask relates to the 10% basic tariff. The Minister indicated that the Government might want or be able to negotiate further on that. The 10% tariff obviously places businesses in Britain at a disadvantage compared with where they were before, but it is strange that the 10% applies to Britain because the object of American policy is to remove imbalances in the trade system, and Britain had no imbalance in goods, as President Trump acknowledged. The implication seems to be that the 10% is going to apply to all countries throughout the world which, as the Governor of the Bank of England said, is bad news not just for Britain but for the whole world.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I can confirm that we will maintain our status with all the international obligations that we currently have, including with the most favoured status and the WTO. Both of them are very important for our status going forward.
The noble Lord raises the question of the 10% tariff. As we know, the deal removes the 25% tariff on steel, aluminium and autos, but the US has committed to further negotiations, including on the 10% tariffs introduced on 2 April across our economy. We are continuing to negotiate in the interests of key sectors for the UK and, obviously, we will seek the best possible outcomes for those vital parts of the economy and those that are vital to our critical infrastructure. A whole range of negotiations will continue, including on that 10% tariff impact.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the repeating the Statement. The Statement says:
“We will continue to work closely with the devolved Governments throughout the negotiations that will follow today’s announcement”. —[Official Report, Commons, 8/5/25; col. 898.]
Could my noble friend outline the detail of those discussions with, for example, the First Ministers in Northern Ireland? I recently had a letter from the Minister for Agriculture in Northern Ireland in which he stated that the detailed elements of guidance had not been provided to them. Will that guidance be provided to the Northern Ireland Executive, who can then provide it to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, which will be directly impacted by all this? Will the Windsor Framework be protected?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I think that all noble Lords will appreciate that discussions with the US have taken place at pace. Throughout this, Ministers and officials have had significant levels of engagement with the devolved Governments on both the US tariffs and progress on talks with the US.
My noble friend asked specifically about Northern Ireland. As it is part of the United Kingdom’s customs territory and internal market, exporters can access the US market under this deal on the same basis as the rest of the UK. Northern Ireland businesses importing US goods under this deal can use the schemes established under the Windsor Framework to avoid any necessary duties. As we have said all along, we will continue to act in the best interests of UK businesses, which of course include those in Northern Ireland.
The noble Baroness asked particularly whether further guidance will be spelled out. These discussions have been taken forward at pace, but of course we will work out that guidance and present it as soon as possible.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, the deal that has been struck is clearly limited in scope. However, it is clear that the Government see this as part one of a wider package that will develop and will be particularly significant in terms of pharmaceuticals, in which I think we will show a good deal of interest. It is also the case that, while it is limited in scope, those aspects and sectors of the economy which have been dealt with in the deal have been dealt with quite significantly.
To follow up on the questions about Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland has been left in a different customs regime from the rest of the United Kingdom, particularly as regards imports. Although the Minister makes reference to the reimbursement scheme, that has been very cumbersome and lengthy and is a very difficult hurdle for many businesses to overcome. What specific steps will the Government be taking, first, to improve that scheme, to make sure that it delivers; and, secondly, what actions will the Government be initiating with the United States to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom are able to gain full benefit from this deal?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Well, my Lords, as I just said, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and we will all have those benefits together, including Northern Ireland. The noble Lord asked about the customs duty waiver scheme. There is, as he knows, a comprehensive tariff reimbursement scheme. Of course, we continue to keep such schemes under review. Nevertheless, we are still operating under the Windsor Framework and, as such, the internal market scheme will apply.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this agreement —another Brexit dividend. Knowing the Government’s dedication to international law, I am sure they regret that this deal rewards the flagrant violation of WTO rules by Trump’s imposition of discriminatory tariffs. I accept that they had little option but to ignore that violation, but why are they now proposing to reward the EU for its flagrant flouting of rules on SPS checks? The WTO rules are quite clear:
“Sanitary and phytosanitary measures shall not be applied in a manner which would constitute a disguised restriction on international trade”,
which is what is happening at present. They go on to say:
“Members shall accept the sanitary or phytosanitary measures of other Members as equivalent, even if these measures differ from their own”.
Our rules do not differ; they are identical. There is no legal case for checks at the border on our exports of food and goods to Europe. Why are the Government proposing to make concessions which are in any case unnecessary? They claim it would reduce the cost of food imports from Europe, but we can unilaterally not impose checks on those food imports, as we have done for three of the last four years.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
As the noble Lord says, the WTO rules are still a very important part of our international trade system, and we remain a committed member of the WTO and a keen supporter of the multilateral trading system. The WTO has made global trade more predictable and, indeed, it plays a vital role in providing stability and predictability for businesses and consumers around the world. The noble Lord asked about the EU. We are in early discussions with the EU. That is a separate set of discussions. Nothing has been agreed, but we are moving along with those discussions and we look forward to the UK-EU summit on 19 May.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
Did my noble friend hear, as I did, the leader of the Opposition today calling this a “tiny tariff deal”? Given that she had had agreements only with Colorado, Oklahoma and states such as that, it would perhaps have been more generous of her to welcome it. Our right honourable friend in the other House said that this was a treaty, and my noble friend seems to be saying that it is not. That is really important, because if it is a treaty, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, says, that will come under the CRaG process. Can she clarify whether this will be a treaty and therefore have to come before both Houses?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, my understanding is that this is a trade deal but not a treaty in the normal sense. We are not seeking to change the process of the ratification of any treaty once we receive it. MPs will have the chance to scrutinise the treaty when it is agreed, but we are not at that stage yet. When it is agreed, it will be presented to the House and the implementation will still have to come to Parliament. At the moment, this is not a legally binding document, but there will be a vote on the legal framework and the secondary legislation, and it will be processed through parliamentary scrutiny in the normal way.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sharpe pointed to the absence of any reference to the defence industry. That may be another sector that is to be dealt with in future negotiations but I would certainly like to know what proposals there might be in relation to arms sales on a reciprocal basis.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, defence does not form part of the deal we have in front of us today but, as I said, there are a number of other areas where negotiations are continuing and we hope to have a much more comprehensive deal with the US as quickly as we can. I am sure that defence will be a consideration in those discussions.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that this deal has been warmly welcomed in steel and in the automotive industry, not just JLR. Not everybody realises we export a significant number of Minis to the United States, so it is good news there too.
I have two very quick questions. The first is about labour rights and how they will be protected and advanced as this deal progresses—that would be useful to know. My noble friend the Minister may be aware that under the previous Government and the previous Administration in the United States there was a quad—involving the TUC, our sister trade union centre, the AFL-CIO, the Secretary for Trade, and the US ambassador for trade—which was involved in consulting and developing those labour rights discussions.
Secondly, is it envisaged that there will be an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism? As my noble friend the Minister is very aware, concerns have been expressed that the mechanism models we have to date privilege the interests of big corporations over those of citizens and workers. Her answer will be very important, particularly when we get to the stage of talking about big tech and technology.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point about the wider consultation that needs to take place and, of course, we take the issue of labour rights and labour representation very seriously. As I said, this deal has been put together very quickly. There is a lot more work and consultation to be done on this. We want to make sure that when we get the detail of the treaty it is absolutely fit for purpose and that everybody in the UK will benefit from it. Wherever possible, we intend to make it in the interests of business but also of the workers and citizens of this country. That will be the essence of a good trade deal.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned the much-discussed issue of security requirements—the American requirements that there be security of the supply chain for steel and aluminium. In the document, that requirement applies not just to steel and aluminium but to the pharmaceutical sector. Indeed, it envisages that it will also apply to all other sectors where there will be agreements. This seems to now be a general requirement of the American trade relationship with us. My simple question is: are these security requirements set out in a document anywhere or will they be subject to ongoing discussion with the Government in the future?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a good point. I will need to check what is already set out in writing. There is a good deal more work to do on the background information that will need to be set out. I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Fox (LD)
Can the Minister share that response with Front Benches as well, please?
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, further to the earlier question from the noble Baroness opposite, what my noble friend seemed to be saying was that defence does not form a part of these negotiations, but it will form a part of the next stage in the process. Am I right in thinking that?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My understanding is that all issues and opportunities are being explored at the current time, so we are not able to rule anything out. I certainly cannot say that defence will not be part of those discussions. We are looking at every opportunity when it is in the UK’s interests, and I am sure we will pursue everything on that basis.
Renters’ Rights Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornhill
“(d) entries in respect of all landlord notices served under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988, to be registered within 7 days of service.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require entries to the database to include notices served under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 within 7 days of registration.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I reassure noble Lords, with regard to time, that the amendments in this group, in my name and those of other noble Lords —and there are a quite a lot of them—all work together and function as a pack. Therefore, my description of these amendments working together will actually be quite brief. The amendments look to strengthen the link between compliance with the private rented sector database and the lawful use of eviction powers. I appreciate that I am pushing the envelope a little bit and I will be genuinely interested in the Minister’s response.
These amendments are rooted in a very simple principle. If we expect landlords to meet minimum legal obligations—and we do, and we hope for more compliance: that is what the whole Bill is about—such as registering on the new database, which, following our previous discussions, is going to be the whizziest, wonderful game-changer, there really must be meaningful consequences when they do not. Currently, the Bill does not explicitly tie database compliance to a landlord’s ability to issue a Section 8 notice. These amendments aim to correct that, or at least to open up a discussion about it.
Amendment 223 would require landlords to register any Section 8 eviction notice on the database within seven days of issuing it. This would support greater transparency, help local landlords and tenants track patterns of use and ensure that there is a reliable record of how and when eviction powers are being exercised. Can the Minister say how we gather that data accurately, if not through this? It is important data and without it we lose very valuable oversight.
Amendments 235, 238, 239 and 240 would prevent a Section 8 eviction notice being considered valid if the landlord has failed to comply with Clause 83(3) of the Bill—namely, the obligation to register themselves and their dwelling on the database. These are not minor or excessive requirements; they are fundamental baseline requirements for responsible landlords. It is entirely reasonable to say that, if these duties are not met, a landlord should not be able to proceed with eviction.
Amendment 236 provides necessary clarification, ensuring that this requirement applies to the entirety of subsection (3) and not just selected parts. Taken together, this group helps to make the database a functioning gatekeeper for landlord compliance. It reinforces the idea that legal powers, especially those as significant as eviction, should be available only to those who follow the rules. That in turn builds confidence in the system and protects tenants from being displaced by landlords who are themselves acting unlawfully. I hope the Minister will look carefully at these proposals. They are proportionate and targeted and go to the heart of what this reform is meant to achieve: a fairer and more accountable rental sector. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for opening this group. The issues of database fees and possession restrictions are of real significance, and this group is therefore of considerable importance. Before turning to the wider contributions made today, I will speak to the amendments in this group that I have tabled. Amendment 228C seeks to probe the circumstances under which a landlord may be charged a fee under the regulations made under Clause 80. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some clarity on this point. Under what conditions do the Government foresee such charges being applied?
Amendment 228E, also in my name, would prevent the costs of enforcement action against non-compliant landlords being charged to those who have complied with the requirements of this chapter. This part of the Bill seems entirely unfair on law-abiding landlords. We want to understand why landlords who are compliant must bear the costs of enforcement taken against those landlords who fail to comply with the law. Could the Minister explain why compliant landlords must bear the costs of enforcement targeted at those who fail to meet their legal obligations?
Amendment 228F seeks to remove subsection (4)(d), which includes the costs of enforcement action imposed by the Bill in relation to the private rented sector. Our original understanding was that these fees were intended to relate to the database, but this paragraph seems to be a classic case of Ministers seeking additional and wider-ranging powers as a belt-and-braces approach. This is not an acceptable way forward. We understand completely that the database must be funded and we accept that a fee is reasonable, but we need to make sure that the fees charged under this clause remain reasonable. We know that this will increase the costs of business for landlords, so we need to ensure that the costs are both reasonable and proportionate. We are concerned that this wide definition of “relevant costs” may result in unreasonably high costs.
Perhaps I can press the Minister to give the Committee some sense of what the fees will be like, and how increases will be managed. Ultimately, we must bear in mind that it is usually the tenants who bear these costs through their rents in the future. Overall, what are the predicted costs of setting up and running the database, and what are the costs likely to be to the landlord?
Many landlords are small-scale and independent; they are not corporate landlords, with legal teams and financial reserves. They are ordinary individuals, often renting out one or two properties as a way to supplement their pension or to provide long-term family support. For the database to function as intended, it must be financially accessible.
On Amendment 228G, clear communication of the changes of fees is essential. It builds trust and helps people plan their finances, but it also avoids any confusion or frustration.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott, and my noble friend Lord Hacking, who I do not think is in his place anymore, for their amendments regarding database fees and possession restrictions.
I will start with the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Amendment 223 would mandate that the database operator establishes and operates the database so that it contains entries in respect of Section 8 possession notices, with such entries to be recorded on the database within seven days of the landlord serving them. I appreciate the intent behind this amendment. We are actively exploring collecting possession information on the database. We have identified various potential benefits to collecting this data—for example, it may support local authorities in identifying where possession grounds have been misused or where tenants are at risk of homelessness. It could also be useful to prospective tenants in making choices about where to rent, so I agree with her on that.
However, our research has also highlighted some challenges, particularly around accuracy and reliance on landlords self-reporting. We will need to consider carefully how these issues could be managed. I am also keen to impress upon the noble Baroness and the Committee that we do not think the information the database collects should be on in the Bill; we discussed that on the previous group. Our research has consistently demonstrated that it is imperative that the database can be adapted to meet future needs. Therefore, the data it collects should be set out in regulations. This is already possible through the regulation-making power in Clause 78, which the Government will use to outline registration requirements. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.
Amendments 235, 236 and 238 to 240, taken together, propose changing the Bill’s provisions so that landlords cannot serve notice for possession under Section 8 nor be granted repossession by the courts if they are not compliant with database registration requirements. In addition, the amendments would mean not only that landlords would need to be registered but that their entries would need to be up to date in order for notices served to be valid. The amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would do this by adding a provision in the Bill for updating Section 7 of the Housing Act 1988, which refers to courts’ powers to order possession to be updated to effect compliance relating to the database.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, also proposes amendments to the wording of Clause 91 so that it refers to Section 83(3) as a whole. I understand that the noble Baroness is concerned with incentivising landlords to comply with regulation and therefore sees the value in replicating some of the safeguards that have been in place for serving Section 21 notices. I agree that landlords who have not met the basic obligation of registering on the database should not be able to gain possession of a property. This is an important incentive for landlords to register and supports the role of the database in driving up standards in the sector. However, the Bill will already update the Housing Act 1988 to prevent landlords being granted possession by the courts if they do not have an active database entry for themselves and the property. This is a proportionate approach to stop landlords being granted possession where they have failed to meet their obligations.
The Bill also clearly sets out our expectation for landlords to maintain active database entries and to ensure that these are up to date. I reassure noble Lords that landlords who do not have an up-to-date entry in the database will be subject to enforcement action by local authorities. Regulations will stipulate the requirements for active and up-to-date entries, and in the meantime the criteria for gaining possession as outlined in the Bill provides an appropriate level of protection for tenants against landlords who fail to register with the database without sanctioning landlords disproportionately. We do not want to risk creating a situation where landlords cannot use Section 8 grounds but have no alternative means of seeking possession. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, to consider not pressing these amendments.
Amendments 228C, 228E, 228F, 228G and 237A were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. Amendment 228C would remove the ability to make regulations requiring the payment of a fee as part of renewals when database entries become inactive. I understand that the noble Baroness is seeking further information on the circumstances in which a landlord could be charged a fee under the regulations made under Clause 80. It is the intention that, in addition to an initial registration fee, there will be a fee at the point of renewal. An entry will become inactive if it expires at the end of a registration period and will become active again upon renewal. Landlords will not be charged for updates between renewal points. In cases where a landlord elects to make an entry inactive because they are no longer letting the property, they will not be charged. We will set out in detail when active entries become inactive, and vice versa, in secondary legislation. Timelines for registration and renewal will similarly be set out in secondary legislation.
Amendment 228E would place a requirement on Ministers to give two months’ notice of any fee changes to landlords with an active database entry. It raises a useful point to consider as we develop the database. We agree on the need for landlords to receive clear and timely communication about any changes in fees and to understand when a fee is required. As we develop the database, we are considering the required communications to landlords to help them understand their obligations, including payment of fees. We are also considering how we can design the database to facilitate this in a timely way. As we are already considering these points as we develop our proposals for implementation, we do not consider this amendment necessary.
Amendments 228F and 228G would remove the ability to set database fees with reference to costs of enforcing database requirements and to wider PRS enforcement costs respectively. This would mean that any fees could be calculated only by reference to operational costs and functions of the database. Effective enforcement is essential for the successful operation of the database. Without it, there will be no means to take action if landlords fail to sign up or provide the correct information. We have heard throughout the passage of this Bill the challenges with local housing authority resourcing and capacity for enforcement. Removing the option to factor in the costs of checking and taking action against any non-compliance would, in the long term, leave local housing authorities out of pocket and limit the database’s effectiveness.
As for wider enforcement costs, we believe that it is right that, as far as possible, the costs of enforcement should be met by those flouting the rules. Ultimately, all landlords, as well as the public and, most importantly, tenants, benefit from a well-regulated and enforced PRS. Clause 82 provides Ministers with the option of using a proportion of fee income to provide much-needed revenue to support enforcement activity. In answer to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about fees, the fee level will not be set arbitrarily. The Bill provides that the relevant costs that can be recovered via the fee can be based on the cost of establishing and operating the database and the cost of performing the functions required under the database legislation and of enforcing the database and wider PRS legislation. We will ensure that decisions about fees take into account a range of factors, including of course the burden on landlords. Fees will be set out in secondary legislation. We are in the process of developing a calculation and structure for fees. The fee level will need to reflect the operating costs of the digital tool, which is currently in development, and may also be used to fund local authority enforcement. We are in the process of designing the database as a bespoke tool, so we are developing our understanding of what our expected costs will be. This has been set out in the impact assessment. The costs may be subject to change as our plans for delivery and implementation develop, so I am not able to give the noble Baroness an exact answer at the moment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Surely there is a budget, or even a proposed budget, that will go to the Treasury to deliver this scheme.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As with all future funding for our department and every other department, spending review bids have gone in. I will take her request back to the department to see whether we are able to be any clearer on that, but my understanding is that at the moment that we are not able to give an exact figure.
Noble Lords will be aware that these database fees will be set at a later point in regulations. I stress that in setting fees, we will ensure, and we have always been clear, that the fees will be fair and take into account the cost to landlords. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, also asked me about the accountability of the database operator. I will write to her on that point, if that is okay. For the reasons I have set out I do not think that it would be beneficial to the private rented sector database, or the reforms more widely, to place these additional limits on what relevant costs may be recoverable via the database fees.
The Bill will make it a legal requirement for residential landlords to ensure that they and their rental properties are registered on the database before a court can grant a possession order and they can gain possession of their property. Clause 91(1) amends Section 7 of the Housing Act 1988 so that a court can order possession only where there is an active entry in the database for both the landlord and the dwelling. Clause 91(1) also stipulates that possession orders made on grounds relating to anti-social behaviour are exempted from this requirement.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
Before the Minister sits down— I am probably breaking the rules, but I do so for very good reason—I want to state to the Committee that that she was quite right on Amendment 237, and I was quite wrong.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I absolutely accept that my amendments were pushing at the boundaries. However, at their heart is protecting tenants from being evicted by a landlord who is acting unlawfully, almost as a matter of principle.
However, I accept that the Minister is confident that the Bill as it stands should drive compliance and that, therefore, my amendments will be unnecessary. My answer to that is that only time will tell. That leads us to group 13, where we will talk about reviews and why we need them. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who articulated some concerns and felt that maybe we could open a dialogue on this issue. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Thornhill
“(e) create provisions for financial penalties for non-compliance with the requirements for a database entry, including, but not limited to, provision for a rent repayment order where a person has failed to ensure that a required entry is up-to-date and active.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would include rent repayments orders for non-registration of the database created under this Act.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I am working overtime tonight. In moving my Amendment 226 I will speak to my Amendment 257 and support a number of important amendments in this group, including those from the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, whose contributions I look forward to.
As colleagues will know, rent repayment orders remain one of the few enforcement mechanisms that are available directly to tenants. That is the key. They are not just about recompense; they are about ensuring that landlords meet their legal obligations and that tenants are protected when they do not, and recompense is made. Amendment 226 seeks to ensure that rent repayment orders can be applied where a landlord has failed to register on the private sector database established by the Bill. If we are serious about transparency and raising standards, non-compliance with the system we are creating must carry real consequences. I am starting to feel like a broken record, but noble Lords will get the message. Otherwise, the credibility of the database and the wider enforcement regime is seriously undermined.
Amendment 257 seeks to extend rent repayment orders further to cover cases where landlords have failed to join a redress scheme or maintain active entries on the new database. This amendment relates strongly to amendments in the previous group and on the enforceability of the database. If we want a rental system that is responsive, accountable and fair, we must ensure that tenants have clear recourse when landlords do not engage with these fundamental duties.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for Amendment 244A, which adjusts the standard proof in some cases to the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. This change is both proportionate and pragmatic. We know that gathering evidence can be an enormous burden for tenants. This amendment helps to address that imbalance while preserving important legal safeguards in more serious cases.
I also welcome the suite of government amendments in this group, which bring clarity to how rent repayment amounts are calculated and to which offences fall within scope. These amendments, particularly those aligning the repayment period with a two-year window, provide much-needed consistency and support effective enforcement. The inclusion of new categories of offence and consequential changes to the Housing and Planning Act 2016 are helpful and align with the overall intent of the Bill. However, I gently emphasise that, while the government amendments are welcome, they will be significantly strengthened by the additions proposed in my amendments. There is little point in creating systems to register landlords and offer redress if we do not give tribunals the power to act when landlords ignore them. Rent repayment orders are not a silver bullet, but they are an important tool to renters. We should not pass up the opportunity to make them more robust, more comprehensive and more effective in practice. I beg to move.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, because I agreed with every word she said in her excellent opening speech. I will speak to Amendment 244A in my name. This amendment would apply the civil standard of proof for rent repayment orders pursued only on the basis of a Protection from Eviction Act offence. By changing the evidential standard for these rent repayment orders from “beyond reasonable doubt” to “balance of probabilities”, Amendment 244A will provide parity with the normal work of the tribunal and provide encouragement to tenants and those who assist them to claim redress, which was Parliament’s intention by including Protection from Eviction Act offences among the things that rent repayment orders could be claimed for. In short, the current requirement of a criminal standard of proof thwarts that intention.
Rent repayment orders are brought in the first-tier property tribunal, and the first-tier property tribunal is not a criminal court. A rent repayment order is not a criminal prosecution. The first-tier property tribunal does not follow criminal procedural rules or result in a criminal sentence or criminal record if a defendant is convicted. However, the tribunals require a criminal standard of proof. In addition, rent repayment orders are often brought by self-represented applicants seeking to reclaim rent they have paid to their landlord as compensation, and legal aid is not available for rent repayment order claims. For these reasons alone, it is therefore inappropriate that rent repayment orders for Protection from Eviction Act offences should apply the criminal standard of proof.
Moreover, a civil claim in a civil court for a legal eviction or harassment applies the civil standard. This is despite the fact that civil claims typically attract much higher penalties in the form of civil damages, rather than just the chance to apply for repayment of rent paid. It is therefore logical and consistent to apply the civil standard of proof to Protection from Eviction Act rent repayment orders in line with the rest of the civil law, and this is what Amendment 244A does.
Why does getting rid of this illogical anomaly matter? First, the nature of Protection from Eviction Act offences means they are often impossible to prove to the criminal standard. Often, landlords change the locks on tenants and dispose of their possessions when renters are not at home. Illegal evictions and harassment occur in the privacy of a renter’s home, often without witnesses. The criminal burden places an extra, often insurmountable, burden on lay applicants to prove their case at tribunal. It also has a chilling effect of preventing claims being brought in the first place, as the evidence available for these offences is unlikely to meet the standard. Under the standard, therefore, renters cannot apply for rent repayment orders as they cannot prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, even where it is clear that an offence has occurred that only the landlord would be motivated to commit. This weakens enforcement and access to justice, and undermines the whole purpose of the rent repayment order legislation.
Secondly, the incredibly low number of rent repayment orders for Protection from Eviction Act offences demonstrates that the system is not working. Safer Renting and the University of York have done research which estimates that over the two-year period from 2021 to 2022, there were at least 16,000 illegal evictions—a figure which is almost certainly an undercount.
Meanwhile, data gathered by the organisation Marks Out Of Tenancy shows that, over the same time period, there were just 31 rent repayment orders on the Protection from Eviction Act ground that were successful. Despite the large number of illegal evictions recorded by individuals and organisations assisting them, people are not applying for rent repayment orders as a source of redress. The higher criminal standard results in tenants and those assisting them considering an application not worth pursuing.
Thirdly and finally, with the forthcoming abolition of Section 21, criminal and unscrupulous landlords, who are the minority of landlords, might take a calculated risk that they can save money by unlawfully evicting or harassing their tenants, as they know how hard it is for tenants to enforce against them in the First-tier Tribunal. Rent repayment orders are realistically the only option for renters to enforce their rights without legal representation. It therefore has never been more important to strengthen the rent repayment order regime for Protection from Eviction Act offences so that renters can enforce their rights and gain access to justice for these life-changing offences.
These offences are some of the most egregious a landlord can commit—illegal eviction, attempted illegal eviction and harassment. The physical, mental and financial impact of these offences on renters and their families cannot be overstated. I look forward to my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage’s reply. I am sure she will want to reflect on the wider debate today. I hope she will agree to meet with me and Safer Renting—experts in this field—to discuss the aim of Amendment 244 before Report to see what can be done.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure and privilege to follow the noble Baronesses. They are clearly very powerful advocates for private rental tenants, who very much need them.
I will speak specifically to Amendment 257, to which my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb attached her name; it having passed the lark hour, we are now into the Green owl hour of the evening. Before I do that, I want to mention that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, made a hugely powerful argument on the inequality of arms in the rental tribunal. The judgment level the noble Baroness suggested is clearly the right one.
I will mostly speak to Amendment 257 which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, clearly outlined, would enable the tribunal to make a rental repayment order where a landlord has failed to join a landlord redress scheme or have active entries in the private rented sector database. This is a simple and clear process in which the tenant can get what they are owed when the landlord has failed.
In preparing for this, I had a look at the Citizens Advice website and the advice it provides for tenants. It is telling that there has been real progress on some issues—for example, recovering rental deposits—in the past decade or so, but there are still far too many cases where renters are left stranded. People are in situations where they are left homeless or desperately trying to find a new rental property. Do they have the time, energy or resources to chase, go through the courts and take all of the procedures that they need to? This approach has worked well for tenancy deposit schemes. Renters get their money back from the landlord and all landlords know they need to register deposits or else pay the price. This is a proven system; it is a case of extending a proven system to deliver justice. Both the non-government amendments in this group are terribly important.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the discussion on the seventh group of amendments, which addresses important changes to the rent repayment orders. These amendments seek to strengthen the mechanism by which tenants and local authorities can hold landlords accountable when they breach laws and ensure that rent repayment orders are both fair and effective.
The proposals tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill, Lady Taylor of Stevenage and Lady Kennedy of Cradley, raise significant points that warrant our attention. Among them, we see the suggestion to register RROs on a public database, which would make the existence of these orders transparent, allowing tenants and others to be aware of landlords with a history of non-compliance. This could serve as a powerful deterrent against landlords who might otherwise continue to disregard their responsibilities.
In addition, we see proposals to change the amount to be repaid in an RRO, as well as to extend the ability of tribunals to issue RROs in the case of non-registration on the public database. We need to ensure that the consequences for landlords are proportionate to the harm caused and that tenants receive a fair outcome. Although it is appropriate to have rent repayment orders where a tenant has been impacted or suffered a loss, as outlined so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, where a landlord has inadvertently breached a regulation and received a fine, but no harm has been done to a tenant, should they also receive a rent repayment order?
These Benches accept that rent repayment orders are an important tool for holding landlords to account and we welcome the intention to make these processes more accessible and transparent for tenants. However, we note that there are complex issues surrounding the practicalities of RROs, as I mentioned earlier, particularly in relation to the standard of proof and their scope.
Therefore, I ask the Government to respond to the following points. How do they propose to ensure that these amendments, particularly those relating to the registration of RROs, do not place unnecessary burdens on tribunals or create unintended consequences for landlords, who may not be aware of the rules? How do the Government intend to address the issue of non-registration on the database and the potential impact on landlords who fail to comply?
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Kennedy of Cradley. These are important questions and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley for their amendments relating to rent repayment orders. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his contribution.
I will begin by responding to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Amendment 226 seeks to extend penalties for non-compliance with private rented sector database requirements. The Bill already includes a clear, proportionate and escalating approach to penalties against those who flout the rules. For initial or less serious non-compliance, local authorities can impose a civil penalty of up to £7,000— I think the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said she was beginning to sound like a stuck record; now I feel like that as well. In the case of the database, that applies, for example, to a first failure by a landlord to register.
For serious or repeat non-compliance, local authorities can prosecute or, alternatively, issue a civil penalty of up to £40,000. In the case of the database, that applies, for example, where a landlord knowingly or recklessly provides information to the database operator that is false or misleading in a material respect. We will, through the Bill, significantly strengthen rent repayment orders because we believe they are a powerful mechanism for tenant-led enforcement.
In relation to the database, rent repayment orders are available where a landlord knowingly or recklessly provides false or misleading information to the database operator. They are also available where a landlord continues to fail to register or provide the required information to the database following a first penalty. These, though, are criminal offences, and it would not be appropriate to extend rent repayment orders to non-criminal breaches of the database requirements. Rent repayment orders are intended to act as a punitive sanction against landlords who commit criminal offences. Extending them to conduct that does not amount to an offence would undermine this.
Similarly, Amendment 257 would make rent repayment orders available for initial failure to be a member of the PRS landlord ombudsman and initial failure to be registered with the PRS database. My view is, as before, that it may be inappropriate to extend rent repayment orders to these non-criminal breaches. The new ombudsman and database are fundamental parts of our reforms, and of a better private rented sector with greater accountability. It is vital that they are robustly enforced.
We think the routes of enforcement currently in the Bill represent an effective and proportionate approach. We will monitor the use and effectiveness of rent repayment orders under the new, strengthened regime and consider whether further changes are necessary. Therefore I ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, withdraws her amendment.
Amendment 244A, tabled by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley, seeks to lower the standard of proof to which the First-tier Tribunal must be satisfied before making a rent repayment order against a landlord for an offence of illegal eviction or harassment under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. She set out very clearly and concisely why she was putting that forward with a very convincing argument.
I am clear that illegal eviction and harassment are serious criminal offences and that offenders need to be robustly punished. I accept that this happens too rarely at the moment. We are seeking to address this through the Bill by extending civil penalties, as an alternative to prosecution, to illegal eviction and harassment offences under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.
My noble friend pointed out that the First-tier Tribunal is not a criminal court and asked why the criminal standard of proof should apply. The rent repayment order regime is predicated on an offence having been committed, and it is an established principle in law that offences are taken to have been committed when proved beyond reasonable doubt. Creating a lower standard of proof for the same offences for a finding of guilt in the tribunal compared with the criminal courts would be confusing, inconsistent and could be subject to a successful challenge.
We are also placing a duty on local housing authorities to enforce against specified landlord legislation, which includes illegal eviction and harassment under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, and we are looking hard at how best we can support them do so effectively. This Government are determined to bear down harder on illegal eviction and harassment. We are concerned, though, about what impact this amendment could have on the integrity of the rent repayment order regime as a whole.
Rent repayment orders are predicated on an offence being committed. As I said, they apply exclusively to criminal offences, and the penalty can be a very significant one. The changes that we are making through the Bill both double the maximum penalty to two years’ rent and extend the circumstances in which the tribunal must award that amount. I recognise that illegal eviction may be hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt, but that is not a principled reason for a civil standard of proof to apply to obtaining a rent repayment order in respect of a serious criminal offence.
The severity of the penalties that, quite properly, apply in the rent repayment order regime mean that there would be serious questions about procedural fairness should the criminal standard of proof not be required. The criminal standard of proof will of course be required when a local authority issues a civil penalty for illegal eviction or harassment under new Section 1A of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. All the other rent repayment offences would remain to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Making rent repayment orders for illegal eviction and harassment subject to the civil standard of proof would create an anomaly and be a departure from a well-established position, which we consider would be hard to justify. Of course, I would be very happy to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and Safer Renting but, for now, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, to withdraw her amendment.
I will end with a brief—I promise—explanation of the Government’s amendments in this area. This Government view rent repayment orders as a critical part of ensuring higher standards and better compliance in the private rented sector; that is why we have significantly expanded them through the Bill. Government Amendments 244 to 248 aim to ensure that they work as intended in their application to the offence of breaching the restricted period after relying on the moving and selling grounds of possession, and the amended licensing offences are described correctly.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
First, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their excellent, thoughtful and thought-provoking contributions.
We all agree, I think, that it is really disappointing that rent repayment orders—such a valuable tool—are so rarely used. Let us hope that the changes outlined by the Minister work and that the whole renting culture changes, with tenants’ empowerment. As we have gone through this process, we are beginning to see all the impacts of the Bill and how they should all work together to produce that change; perhaps an increase in the number of RROs will be an indication that things are improving.
I follow the logic of the Minister’s arguments, as on my previous amendments, but I hope that we have given her food for thought. I withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Colville of Culross) (CB)
I am going to have to beg your Lordships’ patience; I have quite a lot of pages to read through now.
Member’s explanatory statement
This enables a database operator to disclose information from the database to the Secretary of State.
“(aa) in line 5 of the table in that subsection, in the third column, for “control or management of unlicensed HMO” substitute “offences relating to unlicensed HMOs”; (ab) in line 6 of the table in that subsection, in the third column, for “control or management of unlicensed house” substitute “offences relating to unlicensed houses”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This updates the description of offences under section 72(1) and 95(1) of the Housing Act 2004 to reflect changes made to those provisions by clause 105 of the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name amending clause 99 to insert a new row into section 44(2) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 to deal with this case.
“(aa) in subsection (2), after the first row of the table insert—
“an offence mentioned in row 2B of the table in section 40(3) | the period of 2 years ending with the date of the offence or, if the tenancy ends before that date, the date on which it ends”;” |
This provides that the amount of rent to be repaid under a rent repayment order in relation to an offence under section 16J(2) of the Housing Act 1988 is to be calculated by reference to the rent paid in respect of the two years prior to either the date of the offence, or if the tenancy ends before that date, the date on which it ends.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name amending clause 99 to insert a new row into section 45(2) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 to deal with this case.
“(aa) in subsection (2), after the first row of the table insert—
“an offence mentioned in row 2B of the table in section 40(3) | the period of 2 years ending with the date of the offence or, if the tenancy ends before that date, the date on which it ends”;” |
This provides that the amount of rent to be repaid under a rent repayment order in relation to an offence under section 16J(2) of the Housing Act 1988 is to be calculated by reference to the rent paid in respect of the two years prior to either the date of the offence, or if the tenancy ends before that date, the date on which it ends.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would make the Decent homes standard apply to all homeless temporary accommodation provided under the Housing Act 1996.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
I thought that my amendment was never going to come. Amendment 249 stands in my name, and I am glad to support Amendment 252, to which I have added my name, and Amendments 250 and 251 in this group. I declare my interest as co-owner, with my wife, of one rather modest apartment in the West Midlands, which we let out.
As someone who has chaired a wide range of housing associations, including a large local authority transfer and an arm’s-length management company, I have seen the huge positive impact that the decent homes standard has had since one was first applied to social housing. Not least, it has forced landlords to pay proper attention to their existing stock, rather than focusing all their energies and resources on new developments. Hence, I am delighted that this Bill will, for the first time, extend the standard to much of the private rented stock; it is a sector desperately plagued by underinvestment in repairs, maintenance and stock improvement. One in five privately rented homes does not currently meet the decent homes standard compared to 10% for social housing. More than one in 10 has a category 1 hazard, which is two and a half times the figure for social housing.
My amendment, along with those in the names of other noble Lords that I wish to support in this group, seeks to test whether there is appetite in your Lordships’ House to extend the application of the standard to others whose homes will not be covered as the Bill stands. Amendment 249 would make the decent homes standard apply to all homeless temporary accommodation provided under the Housing Act 1996. Record numbers of individuals, families and children are currently housed in temporary accommodation. Some 117,450 households were in temporary accommodation in March 2024, which was a rise of 12.3%, almost an extra one in eight, from the previous year. Extending the decent homes standard to this large group of people would enable those living in temporary accommodation to expect basic standards from their accommodation.
The very phrase temporary accommodation is something of a misnomer. Many of those who live in such properties are housed there for years at a time. Moreover, the same property may then be used for further so-called temporary tenancies. While I understand that sometimes it may appear better to allow a family to live for a short while in a property that is awaiting imminent major refurbishment or even demolition rather than leave the building empty, this is not what is happening in the vast majority of cases.
I have previously raised in your Lordships’ House the particular plight of children in temporary accommodation. I remember a very good conversation with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, a year or two ago. The figure was then more than 130,000, and it is still rising. They are often housed many miles away from their schools and play friends. Managing an education in such a context is desperately difficult. Some schools in Manchester are already having to put on special provision for children living in temporary accommodation, so imagine what it means to have to do that in a home that does not meet a basic standard of decency. We are failing such children utterly. Alongside families with children, many residents in temporary accommodation have particular vulnerabilities in terms of health and are often not well equipped to advocate for themselves. A national standard will make a huge difference.
My amendment would close a glaring loophole in the current Bill whereby private landlords could escape the decent homes standard by switching to providing temporary accommodation. Allowing the poorest quality homes in our nation simply to move to another form of tenure without doing anything to tackle their condition defeats the whole object of extending the standard at all.
I shall not steal the thunder of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, whose Amendment 250 would extend the standard to accommodation used by HM Armed Forces families, save to remind us that these households, containing those on whom we rely for our nation’s defence, deserve the very best from us.
Amendment 251 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister of Burtersett and Lady Janke, and my right reverend friend the Bishop of Chelmsford, who cannot be in her place tonight, would extend the standard to accommodation provided for those who have fled war, terror and persecution and are now seeking, lawfully, to rebuild their lives here.
Amendment 252 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Whitaker and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, to which I have added my name, would extend the application of the decent homes standard to mobile homes that are rented for residential purposes. I have been a long-term advocate for the rights of Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller households, which often experience levels of prejudice beyond that of almost any other ethnic group in our society. They simply seek live a way of life that they have followed for centuries and have long been a vital part of the workforce, especially in rural areas where short-term temporary agricultural workers with high mobility are required at particular points in the seasonal cycle.
These amendments seek to extend to some of our most vulnerable or deserving households a standard that the Bill already agrees is the proper one for most of our citizens. I hope that in responding to the debate the Minister will be able to indicate some movement or at least offer scope for further discussions with us on these important issues ahead of Report.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. In particular, I draw to your attention Amendment 250 in my name which would extend the decent homes standard to accommodation used by service families.
Our service personnel and their families make extraordinary sacrifices for our safety and security. The very least we owe them is decent housing. The current state of service accommodation is, in many cases, unacceptable. Satisfaction levels with both service family accommodation, SFA, and single living accommodation, SLA, fell to their lowest reported levels in 2023 impacting recruitment and retention. The Defence Select Committee reports that one-third of SLA and two-thirds of SFA are in such poor condition that they are essentially no longer fit for purpose. We hear persistent reports of damp and mould, inadequate maintenance and repairs and poor communication.
We cannot discuss the state of military housing without acknowledging the damaging legacy of some past decisions. The sale of 57,400 military homes to Annington Property Ltd in 1996 under the Conservative Government was described as a disastrous fire sale. The deal left the Government trapped paying rent and maintenance costs with no power to plan or make major upgrades. Indeed, the Public Accounts Committee concluded that service families were,
“badly let down for many years”
under the previous housing contracts. The taxpayer was left nearly £8 billion worse off due to that original deal, with money that should have been spent on maintaining homes lost.
The current Labour Government have taken welcome steps. They repurchased 36,000 homes from Annington in January, a deal that is expected to save £230 million a year in rent. A defence housing review was launched in February. A new consumer charter promises measures such as higher move-in standards, more reliable repairs and a named housing officer for every family. It is welcome that the MoD has agreed with the conclusion that the current complaints process is inefficient and that a new, simpler, two-stage process is being devised.
I now come to the “however” bit, I am afraid. The scale of the problem is immense, a result of historic underinvestment over decades. Estimates suggest billions are needed, potentially £2 billion to £2.4 billion for SFA alone, and more than £1.5 billion for SLA. I reassure the Minister that we did our costings in our manifesto and definitely identified funding in some of these areas. While investment plans are being set out, questions remain about whether funding will be sufficient and sustained to address the condition of the entire estate.
Amendment 250 is crucial because it would continue the work of my colleague in the House of Commons, Helen Maguire MP, a former captain in the Royal Military Police who served in both Bosnia and Iraq; it would reinforce the work of the MoD; and it would honour the Kerslake commission. It would ensure that the decent homes standard, which provides a very clear benchmark for acceptable housing quality, was legally applied to service family accommodation.
The amendment goes beyond acknowledging the problem of setting targets. It would establish a right to a decent home for those who serve our nation and their families. They deserve homes fit for heroes, and the amendment would be a vital step towards making that a reality. It would ensure accountability. It would provide service families with the basic standards that they have every right to expect.
I urge the Committee to support the amendment. After all, it is only right that our service personnel and their families live in safe, clean homes that meet basic, dignified standards, especially when they risk their lives to keep us safe. Pride in our Armed Forces must mean pride in how we house them.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak particularly to Amendment 251 in my name. I wholeheartedly agree with all that was said by the right reverend Prelate, and if we were able to his agree to his amendment now—the Minister could nod her head if that is about to happen—then we could bring an end both to what I am going to say and, dare I say, to some speakers on the next two amendments as well. The right reverend Prelate’s amendment would cover it all.
In the, I hope, unlikely event that that does not happen, I will speak to Amendment 251, which seeks to extend the decent homes standard to include asylum accommodation. In doing so, because I am going to speak with particular reference to the situation in London, I must again declare my interest as co-president of London Councils, the body that represents all 32 London boroughs and the City of London, and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I spoke at Second Reading of the extensive evidence from London borough councils about the poor standards of asylum accommodation, particularly in London but by no means exclusively there. Many of the things that I said then and will say again today apply to too many other parts of the country. London boroughs have reported issues of low-grade temporary accommodation properties, with multiple category 1 hazards, leaving the private rented market and being procured by Home Office accommodation providers.
The Minister has received a letter from London Councils, signed by the lead spokespeople of all three parties on that body and the chief executive officer of the Chartered Institute of Housing, asking that the Government consider how the Bill can ensure inclusion of Home Office accommodation within its provisions to ensure that asylum seekers and refugees benefit from the same protections that all private and social renters receive. In her response, the Minister agreed to discuss these issues with the Home Office. I am grateful to her, as is London Councils, for arranging a meeting between officials and London Councils to discuss this in more depth. I understand that that meeting has now taken place, so I look forward to hearing from the Minister what conclusions she has drawn from those discussions and, more particularly, what action is now to be taken.
Extensive feedback from London local authorities has consistently highlighted evidence of poor standards across asylum accommodation. As we know, enforcement action is slow and all too often ineffective. There is also widespread concern, not just from London Councils and not just in London, that not including Home Office accommodation will inevitably result in a two-tier system in which a small minority of rogue landlords may be incentivised to procure poor-quality accommodation for use as asylum accommodation.
In Committee in the other place, the Government argued that extending the provisions of the Bill to asylum accommodation is unnecessary. I hope and believe that we have come a long way from that now, and that the Minister is convinced by all the evidence she has had from those working in the system that all is far from well. Clearly, there are practical difficulties of implementation to be resolved, but if there is a will then there is a way to do so. Including asylum accommodation in the provision of the Bill would be a strong incentive; not doing so would inevitably have the opposite effect. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s positive response.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group and will speak to Amendment 252 in my name and those from the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, for whose support I am most grateful. The right reverend Prelate’s observations, drawn from experience, were extremely valuable. I also thank my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe for her earlier support for this amendment.
This amendment simply brings the homes that caravan dwellers rent within the scope of the Bill and is surely uncontentious. It is still not generally realised that, for the Romani Gypsies and Irish Travellers, who keep to their traditional—and legally recognised—way of life, a caravan which is their residence is as much a residence as any other dwelling and should be eligible for the same legal protection. The owners of such caravans should respect the decent homes standard as much as for any other rented dwelling, and, in many cases, this is sorely needed.
I know of a case where a new Gypsy and Traveller site, built only four years ago, was from the day the family moved in infested by rats, frequently flooded and subject to damp, mould, slugs, trip hazards, faulty electrics, a broken boiler and sewage back-up across the site. This had terrible effects on the family’s physical and mental health. Childhood asthma returned and medical treatment was needed. I remind the Committee that Gypsies and Travellers have the worst health outcomes of any minority ethnic group, and this example shows one reason why.
All these health and safety hazards were the result of structural issues in the rented amenity block and site as a whole, for which the site owner was responsible. The family contacted the site owner in over 50 emails over the years and went through the formal complaints process. When they contacted the Housing Ombudsman, they were told that cases concerning the management of Gypsy and Traveller sites were not investigated. Does that not make it clear that there is a lack of effective protection for families living on Gypsy and Traveller sites? Why should they not have equal protection and equal status with other renters? I know my noble friend the Minister understands this and I hope she will accept the amendment.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 252A. I guess I am still learning about this Committee, because all the speakers have been exceptionally generous, saying that they support all the amendments in this group—perhaps they have not read my amendment, which excludes a certain number of properties from the decent homes standard. I think it is also fair to say that the only other amendment in this group that I actively support is that proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender.
On Armed Forces accommodation, I ran some surgeries, because I was pretty appalled at the state and operations of the property arm of the Ministry of Defence, which contracted two different suppliers but did not seem to have a grip on what was going on. The change that happened nearly 30 years ago is, in hindsight, regrettable. It is why the previous Administration initiated the process, which I congratulate the Government on completing. One of the strategic changes that should help families in the Armed Forces is the move towards lifetime basing. This applies to the majority of our Armed Forces, although not specialist regiments like 23 Parachute Engineer Regiment—based just outside Woodbridge—which necessitate quite a number of people in rotation. Our Armed Forces, of course, deserve the best. There is nothing more concerning than somebody who is abroad thinking not only about the key strategic or tactical role they are playing but also the state of their loved ones’ housing back at home.
My Amendment 252A is driven by my concern about how, in effect, the policy of requiring EPC level C certificates for all private rented property risks removing many homes from the private rented sector across the country, particularly in rural areas. On applying the decent homes standard, EPC legislation, or the required minimum standards on energy efficiency, does not legally apply to social housing; instead, there is a target that is set which is expected to be met. We are now seeing a situation where the decent homes standard, which currently only applies to social housing, is going to be applied to the private sector. That is in a broad sense a good thing, but I am particularly concerned about aspects of it that will drive landlords out of the market and the effect on rural communities.
According to a survey conducted by MHCLG last summer, there are about 2.6 million homes that do not meet EPC level C and have a rating of D or lower. That is 60% of the private rented sector, so this is concerning. I completely understand the need to address fuel poverty; in the other House I founded the APPG on fuel poverty. I was particularly focused on off-gas grid, which of course covers a lot of rural communities, but also inner cities such as Manchester, Salford and the other areas represented by the right reverend Prelate.
We should bear in mind that the MHCLG currently estimates that 10% of those properties cannot in any way be upgraded to reach EPC level C. That still leaves 90%, but the challenge now is the variation in what is going on to upgrade those homes, some of which could require significant investment. Where it is reasonable—and by that I mean the amount of investment needed to make the adjustment—we should of course try to ensure that these properties are suitably warm. That would be helped if pensioners still had the winter fuel allowance and did not have to worry about whether they heat or eat. We must look at how we can address that without losing the housing capacity that is available.
Under the current regulations, there is a £3,500 cap on required investment to make the changes to get to the current minimum level E. As I say, I support the ambition to head that way, but now the proposed policy being consulted on is for a £15,000 cap on required investment, below which there would be no exemption. Let us get practical. I appreciate that the Minister may not be prepared for my question, but it should be considered by her department: what rural assessment has been conducted on this? It is standard government policy to undertake what is often known as rural-proofing when considering policies that will impact rural communities. I am genuinely concerned about that and about the possibility that the proposals for changing the methodology on ascertaining the EPC level will have a significantly detrimental effect on rural communities right across the country.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 252A in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey, which would exempt certain buildings from an EPC requirement. I hope that noble Lords were listening to what she said, because it is absolutely true: the methodology used for assessment of EPC is not foolproof. As my noble friend said, the assessment seems heavily weighted against older buildings, and while she referred to early 20th-century buildings, a decent proportion of houses in this country are from the 18th and 19th centuries. They have even greater problems: for instance, double-glazing is required as one of the ways to achieve EPC C. Many 18th-century and 19th-century houses have shutters, which, when closed at night, do a similar job, but that is not part of the assessment. Many such houses are in rural settings, so what my noble friend said is so true.
My noble friend alluded to the variation in assessment of EPCs by different assessors. As an experiment on one property that we own, we got two separate assessors in—they did not know that they were being tested against each other—and, you guessed it, each of them came up with a different EPC grade. That is a real problem; the assessment needs to be sorted out. I think it was in the newspapers that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Mr Miliband, had a similar situation, with two different assessments.
On listed buildings, there has been a lot of campaigning by various organisations. You cannot take out 18th-century and 19th-century sash windows and replace them with double-glazing—at least, you can, but it completely ruins the look of the building. A number of people prefer to live in a house which looks nicer but might need a little more heating or a log burner.
As my noble friend said, the Bill is very likely to result in the law of unintended consequences. Many houses will be sold and lost to the rental market, and that will create for this Government and this country an even bigger problem. After the Second World War, some landlords—not that I would want to do this—even took the roofs off their houses so that they were no longer houses.
Finally, I am sorry, but I want to speak against Amendment 251 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. If we are to apply the decent homes standard to asylum accommodation, I am afraid that that has to be last in the queue while we sort out the accommodation for our own people in this country.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, a number of speakers have driven home in detail the problems of rural areas with old buildings. The choice is quite simple: we either continue with the existing exemptions or knock down about a third of them and start again. Can the Minister tell us which it is going to be?
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Tope’s Amendment 251, which I have also signed. We have all spoken of the support we give this Bill because it offers the opportunity to address the problems and injustices suffered by renters in the PRS, which is the most insecure, most expensive and lowest quality of any tenure. However, the Bill fails to recognise that certain vulnerable groups of tenants suffer disproportionately, as we have heard, and need special measures to give them the level playing field they need to be able to live in suitable accommodation that is fair, reasonable and secure in the private rented sector.
Refugees and asylum seekers are just one such group, and their housing experience is in need of radical reform. My noble friend’s amendment, suggesting that the decent homes standard should apply to housing for refugees and asylum seekers, offers an opportunity to move forward.
However, the asylum housing system in the United Kingdom leaves tens of thousands of people in inadequate accommodation, where they often live for years in conditions that significantly undermine their physical and mental well-being. The current outsourcing of asylum housing to private companies has created a system that is marked by significant issues, including exorbitant costs, excessive profit making, substandard housing, and inadequate safeguarding and oversight. I read in the Sunday Times this week that the owner of one such company, Clearsprings Ready Homes, is now a member of the Sunday Times rich list as a result of rapidly expanding contracts from the Government at the taxpayer’s expense.
These providers need to be properly accountable. Refugee organisations report appalling conditions and many incidents of poor, unsafe and cold properties with infestations and mould. It should therefore form part of contracts with providers that the decent homes standard should apply to properties that are paid for by government. Taxpayers’ money is being used to fund substandard accommodation and providers are not being sanctioned. Many of those who are obliged to live in such misery are children, forced to live in virtual isolation and incarceration with housing conditions that are woefully inadequate for their needs. I therefore support my noble friend’s amendment and call on the Minister to reflect on this situation. If she is unwilling to amend the Bill, can she say what the Government are proposing to do to resolve the desperately pressing circumstances of refugees and asylum seekers and the housing crisis that they face?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate on the decent homes standard and its potential application across a broader range of accommodation types. As we have heard, the Bill introduces new powers for the Secretary of State to specify additional standards for qualifying residential premises, which offers the potential to raise housing quality and improve conditions for tenants across England. This is, in principle, a welcome ambition, particularly if it helps to extend protections to the most vulnerable in our housing system.
We must recognise the dignity of all residents, regardless of tenure. However, while the intention behind these amendments is laudable, it is vital to interrogate the practicalities and the legal impact of such proposals. For instance, how would the Government define “qualifying residential premises” in the context of asylum accommodation, where providers may be delivering services under a Home Office contract rather than under tenancy agreements? What enforcement mechanisms are appropriate in temporary or institutionally managed housing? Where would the burden of compliance ultimately fall?
We must also examine the legislative implications for landlords and housing providers, particularly those operating on constrained margins. Applying a uniform standard across such a diverse landscape of housing may sound straightforward in principle but in practice it could impose significant compliance costs, particularly in sectors such as mobile home parks or supported houses, where the business model and the regulatory framework already differ markedly from the private rented sector.
Stakeholders such as G15, representing London’s largest housing associations, have raised these very points, urging caution in implying one-size-fits-all approaches and stressing the importance of clarity, resourcing and consultation. Similarly, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has warned of the unintended market disruption that could follow from ambiguous or overly broad standards, particularly if applied unevenly or without sufficient support for implementation.
Amendment 252A, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, seeks to exempt certain buildings from the requirements to maintain specified energy efficiency criteria, specifically those in rural areas, those that are listed buildings or those that were constructed prior to 1900. This raises an equally critical set of questions. As we have heard, many older and listed buildings simply cannot meet modern EPC targets, such as EPC C, without intrusive and costly works that may fundamentally alter their structures or even their appearance. The amendment, therefore, is a measured and proportionate intervention designed not to weaken the decent homes standard but to ensure that it is applied with practicality and flexibility where needed.
Finally, we must ask whether there is a clear and coherent framework in place for assessing which tenures and building types should fall under the decent homes umbrella and whether, without such a framework, we risk creating legal uncertainty or burdens that will ultimately be passed on to tenants themselves.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender, Lady Whitaker and Lady Coffey, for their amendments on the decent homes standard and standards within the private rented sector. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Scott, for their comments in this group. Let me say how much I agree with the right reverend Prelate’s words about the decent homes standard and how dramatically that has improved homes in the social rented sector.
Amendment 249, tabled by the right reverend Prelate, would remove the power that allows Ministers to specify in regulations what types of temporary homelessness accommodation the decent homes standard will apply to. People living in temporary accommodation deserve a safe and decent home. I therefore agree with the right reverend Prelate’s aim of ensuring that such accommodation meets minimum decency standards. I can confirm that it is the Government’s intention that as much of this sector as possible is covered by the decent homes standard—I feel really strongly about this. I was told by the Mayor of London last week that one in 21 children in London are currently in temporary accommodation; that is probably more than one in each classroom of children. It is absolutely shocking that this is the case. Of course, the long-term answer is our commitment to the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. We have already invested £2 billion in making a start to help towards that situation.
However, it is important that I say that the pressures on the supply of temporary accommodation mean it is important that we carefully consider how we apply the standard to this sector. Having this power allows us fully to examine these issues and to consult. That will make sure that we strike the right balance between improving standards and avoiding risks to supply. I am of course very happy to meet the right reverend Prelate on this issue, because we all want the same outcome. For now, however, I ask that he withdraw his amendment.
Amendment 250, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, seeks to bring service family accommodation provided by the Ministry of Defence within the scope of the decent homes standard provisions in the Bill. I certainly agree with her that the conditions of much of the service family accommodation that we inherited were absolutely shameful. I strongly agree that we owe our dedicated military personnel and their families safe and decent homes. However, as the Minister set out when this amendment was debated in the other place, bringing this accommodation within the scope of the enforcement system established by the Bill is not the right way to achieve this. I will explain why.
Our Government are determined to deliver homes fit for heroes. Noble Lords will be aware that the Ministry of Defence has recently completed a landmark deal to bring military housing back into public ownership—the deal that the noble Baroness referred to. This represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to provide service families with a better standard of accommodation while contributing to our economic growth mission and boosting British housebuilding overall.
Alongside this deal, the MoD has started work on a new defence housing strategy, to be published later this year, to deliver a generational renewal of military housing. In April, the MoD announced a new consumer charter for forces family housing, which will form part of the strategy. The charter will introduce consumer rights for forces families, from essential property information and predictable property standards to access to a robust complaints system.
On standards, the MoD already uses the decent homes standard as a benchmark for service family accommodation. Homes below that standard are not allocated to service personnel and their families. The MoD uses its own higher defence “decent homes plus” as the target standard for service family accommodation. As part of the new strategy, the MoD is reviewing that target standard in line with the recommendations of the excellent Kerslake review that the noble Baroness referred to and the House of Commons Defence Committee.
On the specifics of the amendment, we consider that the approach we are taking in the Bill to apply and enforce decent homes for privately rented homes is just not the right one for service family accommodation. There are particular challenges in bringing accommodation within scope of local authority enforcement, including access to the more than 6,500 homes that are located “behind the wire” on secure sites.
The Government are already taking action to ensure that service personnel and their families have homes of the quality they deserve, as part of our commitment to renewing the contract with the people who serve us. By regaining ownership of military housing, we will now be able to embark on a substantive programme of redevelopment and improvement, which will enhance recruitment and retention in the Armed Forces and, with it, our national security. My right honourable friend John Healey, the Secretary of State for Defence, has set out his commitment to improved military housing and will report to Parliament later this year, when the defence housing strategy is published. Given this, I hope the noble Baroness will agree that her amendment is not required.
Amendment 251, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, would extend the decent homes standard provisions in the Bill to Home Office asylum accommodation. This would require such accommodation to meet the decent homes standard requirements and increase the scope for enforcement by local authorities. A number of noble Lords raised this issue during the Second Reading debate. Following that debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, mentioned, officials from both my department and the Home Office met London Councils and the Chartered Institute for Housing to discuss their concerns. I can assure the Committee that the Government share the objective of ensuring asylum accommodation is of a good standard. However, I do not consider that this amendment is the right way to achieve this.
There are already robust processes in place in respect of standards for all types of asylum accommodation. The contracts that the Home Office has with accommodation providers explicitly include standards requirements based on the decent homes standard, as well as the Welsh quality homes standard and the Scottish housing quality standard. Those contracts, including the standards requirements, are publicly available to view on the GOV.UK website. There is also a clear complaints process in place. Inspectors inspect the properties on a targeted and rolling basis.
There are also several reasons why the amendment would not be appropriate to bring asylum accommodation within scope of the decent homes standard provisions in the Bill. First, these provisions introduce the decent homes standard for privately rented homes in England only, whereas there is asylum accommodation across the United Kingdom. Accepting this amendment would therefore result in a fragmented system, with different standards requirements and enforcement systems applying depending on where in the United Kingdom the accommodation was based. The Government wish to avoid this.
In addition, we wish to avoid situations in which requirements to comply with the decent homes standard would mean that certain types of asylum accommodation could no longer be used, even if there was no alternative. For example, we want to end the use of hotels over time, but it is sometimes necessary to meet the legal duty to accommodate destitute asylum seekers. That accommodation might not meet the decent homes standard requirements, such as full-board hotels where there are no kitchen facilities for asylum seekers to use themselves. I appreciate that they are certainly not ideal for families seeking asylum, and they would not meet the decent homes standard. Standards requirements already apply to asylum accommodation, and there are adequate routes of redress for occupants when things do go wrong. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press this amendment.
Amendment 252, tabled by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, seeks to bring rented mobile homes within the scope of the decent homes standard provisions. While I am sympathetic to the aims of my noble friend, I cannot support this amendment, as the decent homes standard is not suitable for mobile homes. The decent homes standard has been specifically designed to apply to residential buildings. This is integral to the design and operation of the standard. For example, the housing health and safety rating system, the assessment method that underpins parts of the standard, was specifically developed to assess health and safety risks in buildings. As a result, it is not possible to apply and enforce effectively the decent homes standard in respect of types of accommodation that are not buildings. This amendment would therefore not achieve the desired outcome of improving the quality of rented mobile homes. I am, of course, happy to discuss further with her how we might seek to achieve what she has been trying to achieve for many years. Given this, I ask my noble friend not to press her amendment.
Finally, Amendment 252A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would limit the breadth of the decent homes standard as it applies to the private rented sector. We will be launching a consultation on the content of the decent homes standard for social and privately rented homes in the coming months. We will consider carefully the responses before finalising the detail of the standard. The regulations we will make to implement these requirements will then be subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the affirmative procedure.
I acknowledge that the PRS is a diverse sector with a broad range of differing housing types, and some may have features that, as the noble Baroness rightly pointed out and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, mentioned, make it very difficult to meet certain aspects of a decent homes standard. We want landlords to take reasonably practicable steps to bring their properties up to standard, but we will not unfairly penalise those who are unable to do so. The legislation we are introducing will therefore provide local councils with a range of enforcement tools to respond to different circumstances. We will publish statutory guidance to support councils in dealing with such issues in a pragmatic and proportionate way that is fair both for tenants and for landlords.
Accepting the amendment would result in different standards applying to different types of PRS homes, which would make it harder for tenants and landlords to understand what requirements apply, and more challenging for local authorities to enforce. As I have stated, the legislation will provide local authorities with flexibility, and we consider that this will provide a more effective and fairer way of dealing with situations when a property cannot realistically meet the standard.
As I am the MHCLG Minister with responsibility for net zero, I have a lot more information on how we intend to operate EPC and the minimum energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector, and I am happy to write to the noble Baroness with a lot more detail rather than take up the Committee’s time tonight. But on that basis, I ask her not to move her amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has been characteristically good natured and very well informed, and I am very grateful in particular for the way the Minister has responded to the various amendments in this group.
Because we are going to have a rather late night tonight, I will not say too much at this stage. I wish to respond to some of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. I did not speak to her amendment in my introduction because I did not understand it in the form in which it appeared on the Marshalled List; I am very grateful to her now.
I guess I should declare an interest: my daughter lives in a pre-1800 former gamekeeper’s cottage in a very rural part of Devon. She is not a tenant because she managed somehow to negotiate a very favourable mortgage rate with “the bank of mum and dad”, with which I think many of your Lordships will be very familiar—all too familiar, I fear. I understand the complexities of trying to get that cottage up to anything like a decent environmental standard, so I have great sympathy.
The noble Baroness mentioned in particular the Church of England’s land. The Church Commissioners, which I chaired in succession to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, until about 15 months ago, currently has a development land portfolio sufficient for about 30,000 homes, and we would like to develop that out to make more homes for people to live in. We recently set up a group that I am now the chair of, the Church Housing Association, which was registered with the regulator about six weeks ago. It is looking to utilise more Church land, particularly land owned by parishes and dioceses, in order to produce more social housing, particularly housing at social rent level, across the country. I am hoping to meet with Homes England and others in the near future to progress that. My own diocese is going through a very determined process of evaluating all parsonages, selling the ones we do not need and investing the money in improving the ones we are going to keep. So I hope the noble Baroness will agree that this is the right way to take these matters forward.
I am very grateful for all that has been said tonight and I look forward to meeting the Minister to further some of the conversations we have had. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Shipley
“Use of licence conditions to improve housing conditionsIn section 90 of the Housing Act 2004 (licence conditions), for “the management, use or occupation of the house concerned” substitute “all or any of the following—“(a) the management, use and occupation of the house concerned, and(b) the condition and contents of the house concerned.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable local authorities operating selective licensing schemes to use licence conditions to improve housing conditions.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 254 and, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, Amendments 267, 268 and 269.
Amendments 253 and 254 would remove unnecessary barriers to the use of licensing schemes to improve housing standards. Licensing is an important tool for improving housing standards because it is proactive. It provides a means for local authorities to inspect privately rented housing using enforceable conditions, and to identify and resolve problems without the need for tenants to have complained.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this group of amendments in this important debate concerning property licensing. This discussion touches on a particular practical part of the regulatory framework: how local authorities manage and enforce licensing regimes for rental properties and meet appropriate standards of safety and quality.
The amendments in this group, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Young of Cookham, address both the effectiveness of the licensing schemes and the administrative burdens that they impose on landlords, local authorities and tenants alike. Amendments 253 and 254 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, speak to the role of selective licensing in improving housing conditions and propose to extend the maximum duration of these schemes.
We already have selective licensing. UK government guidance is clear that local authorities can use this process to tackle poor housing conditions, as well as other issues. These are worthy proposals. We will listen carefully to these concerns and work with noble Lords across the House both to get the balance right and to ensure that the Bill plays its part in driving up the quality of housing, particularly in the areas where local authorities can clearly demonstrate poor housing conditions or evidence of anti-social behaviour.
However, we must also ask: are licensing schemes always the right lever for improving housing quality? In the right circumstances, licensing can help drive up standards, but, if it is poorly targeted or applied too broadly, it risks creating unnecessary bureaucracy and placing costs on good landlords while doing little to deter the worst offenders. We must guard against the risk of licensing becoming a tick-box exercise rather than a tool for real enforcement.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for introducing Amendments 267 to 269, tabled by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. They are pragmatic and draw on my noble friend’s extensive experience in both government and housing policy. They propose more proportionate licensing fees in large blocks, simplified procedures for name changes and facilitated bulk applications. All are practical measures designed to reduce red tape and bring common sense to what can sometimes be a cumbersome process.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Young of Cookham, for their amendments relating to selective licensing, and I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for moving the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Young, in his absence. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his comments.
Amendment 253, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seeks to allow local authorities to use selective licence conditions to improve housing conditions. We acknowledge and share the noble Lord’s intentions to improve housing conditions. We believe that all renters deserve to live in safe, secure and quality homes. With the introduction of a decent homes standard and the application of Awaab’s law through this Bill, the Government will reform and improve conditions across the sector. We think it is important that these measures benefit all renters and local authorities in tackling poor-quality homes, regardless of whether they are in selective licensing areas.
Amendment 254, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seeks to allow local authorities to increase the maximum duration of selective and additional HMO licensing schemes from five to 10 years. As many noble Lords will be aware, the Government recently removed the requirement to obtain Secretary of State approval to introduce larger selective licensing schemes. We think it is right that local authorities have greater autonomy to implement schemes provided that they meet the statutory criteria. However, we also recognise licensing schemes do, as noble Lords have said, place additional burdens on landlords. It is therefore important that local authorities monitor any schemes to make sure that they are proportionate and are continuing to achieve their aims. A maximum scheme duration of five years strikes the right balance in giving local authorities time to make this assessment, while also ensuring that landlords are not by default subject to increased regulation for prolonged periods. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, to withdraw his amendments.
I turn now to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. Amendment 267 seeks to streamline the selective licensing application process and cap the total fee that local authorities can charge for licensing similar properties in a block under single ownership. The Government recognise that selective licensing imposes a burden on landlords. The financial and administrative cost can be particularly significant for large portfolio landlords, such as those operating in the build-to-rent sector.
Local authorities already have discretion to streamline licence applications and fees for landlords whose properties meet the requirements for block licences. Where appropriate and consistent with the aims of their licensing schemes, we would encourage local authorities to make greater use of block licences. This reduces the burden on large portfolio landlords and can better reflect efficiencies for local authorities in licensing such properties, for example, the ability to inspect multiple properties in a block during a single visit.
It is right that licensing schemes continue to be determined locally and that local authorities have the flexibility to decide the best application process and fees to support delivery of schemes. Placing a cap on application fees could cause issues due to regional differences in costs between local authorities and potentially undermine the success of some schemes.
Amendment 268 seeks to allow the transfer of selective licences in circumstances where the licence needs to be passed to an employee of the same corporate body. As noble Lords will be aware, under Section 91 of the Housing Act 2004, licences currently cannot be transferred, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, explained. A new licence application is needed where a change to a licence-holder is required after a licence has been issued. A crucial part of the application process is ensuring compliance with the fit and proper person test. This is designed to ensure that prospective licence-holders do not pose a risk to the welfare of tenants. I am sure it is not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Young, but accepting this amendment might mean circumventing those important checks for any new licence-holders within the same organisation.
I accept that it may seem excessive for a local authority to require a full licence application to be submitted where a licence needs to be transferred due to changes in staff in cases where there are no other changes to the management or use of the property. We would encourage local authorities to take a proportionate approach in these cases, for example, by requiring only details of the new licence-holder to be provided in the application and charging a fee that covers only the essential parts of the application process, for example, the fit and proper person test.
Amendment 269 seeks to allow a local authority to grant a temporary exemption from selective licensing to an applicant where it has determined that it requires more time to process the relevant licence application. I recognise the issues this amendment attempts to address. Where a local authority has received multiple licence applications from the same applicant, it needs sufficient time to review them. As a result, applicants may receive a decision after the period they deem reasonable. I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about digitisation of this process and making the whole process more efficient.
Local authorities are already required to determine all licence applications within a reasonable time. We would encourage them to set out clearly their expected processing timelines when inviting applications. When planning a licensing scheme, local authorities should also carefully consider the level of resources needed to process applications to avoid large backlogs being created.
However, regardless of any challenges a local authority may face in processing licence applications, landlords with licensable properties should apply for licences. This ensures that they are protected from enforcement action being taken against them for having control of or managing an unlicensed property. With this in mind, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Young, not to press his amendments.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very full explanation. I think the best course of action would be to review in Hansard what she has said and look at ways in which we might progress some of these issues by the time we reach Report in a few weeks’ time. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 253.
Member’s explanatory statement
This replaces a reference to the improvement notice with the correct reference to the prohibition order.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes an amendment to section 33 of the Deregulation Act 2015 that is not necessary as a result of paragraph 68 of Schedule 2, which repeals this section.
Lord Cromwell
“Illegal evictions: police and local authority duties(1) Where a police force or local housing authority in England receives a complaint alleging that an offence or offences contrary to Section 1 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 (‘PFEA offences’) has been committed, it must—(a) notify the local housing authority (where the complaint has been received by a police force) or the police force (where the complaint has been received by a local housing authority) (‘the other party’) with responsibility for the area to which the complaint relates, and(b) co-operate with the other party to promptly and effectively investigate the alleged PFEA offence(s) and any offences committed at the same time, in furtherance of, or as a consequence of, the alleged PFEA offence(s).(2) Where a police force or local housing authority receives an allegation that PFEA offences are being committed or at risk of being committed, it must take reasonable steps to prevent those offences continuing or being committed, including, but not limited to, by cooperating with the other party and by taking reasonable steps to assist tenants to regain access to properties from which they have been unlawfully evicted. (3) The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities, and Local Government, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, issue joint statutory guidance as to how police forces and local housing authorities are to discharge the duties in subsections (1) and (2).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment addresses the poorest end of the rental market by removing ambiguities between police and local authorities, clarifying police duties (illegal evictions often incorrectly seen as civil) and enabling efficient information sharing.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, for adding their names in support of the amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who cannot be here at this time, but who has authorised me to say that he both supports the principle of the amendment and believes that it is deliverable in practice. Given the role of the police in this amendment, his assessment and support have been invaluable. I am also grateful to the organisations Safer Renting and ACORN for their assistance in highlighting the urgent need for this amendment, and to the Bill team for working their magic in drafting.
At Second Reading, I underlined concern about those at the bottom end of the rental market; here are the economically and socially vulnerable. They are the most likely to face illegal and sometimes forcible evictions. They are also often the least equipped to resist illegal evictions. It is this shadow private rented sector, the lowest part of the rental market, that most needs help and, in particular—as so often with the legislation that we like to pass in Parliament—needs proper support through effective and well organised enforcement of renters’ rights in what can be a wild world of criminal landlords who pay little mind to the niceties of tenancy agreements when removing tenants. That is what this amendment seeks to address.
Illegal eviction is defined in the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 as a criminal offence—it was referred to earlier this evening by the Minister as a serious criminal offence—that can include physical force, the changing of locks, depriving renters of essential services, and other forms of interference and harassment. Figures from 2022 show that 8,750 illegal evictions were reported in that year; the actual number will, of course, be higher than this. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, earlier cited a figure of about twice that. However, currently prosecutions for illegal evictions are very low. The police do not act in 91% of cases, making an enforcement rate of below 0.3%. I underline that this is not to blame the police; rather, it arises from a legislative ambiguity that needs resolving.
While the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 set out the legal definition of illegal eviction as a criminal offence, it did not include a duty on the police to enforce the protections. The results of this have been, first, ambiguity of responsibility between local authorities and police as to which is the enforcing agency. This, in turn, has led to councils and police each referring renters to the other organisation. Secondly, the police have almost always held the incorrect belief that illegal evictions are a civil matter.
The amendment also takes into account the need to be realistic about overstretched police time and resources. The duties under this amendment have two aspects: reporting and intervening. On reporting, in the interests of joined-up working, the police will notify the local housing authority when a complaint has been made, and vice versa, when a complaint is received by the housing authority.
The immediate anxiety here is to avoid imposing an additional reporting burden on front-line officers and officials. But any incident raised with the police or the local authority gets reported, or it certainly should. That report can simply be electronically copied to the other so that both can be aware, spot patterns and so forth. So it is not really “more flipping paperwork”, because adding a cc to a report is not really very onerous.
Lord Best (CB)
I shall confine myself to two sentences, because the exposition from my noble friend covered the ground so admirably. I can only imagine the nightmarish, Kafkaesque scene whereby a family is being turned out of their home and call the police, who, if an officer turns out at all, take the side of the landlord, who is committing a criminal offence. What seems badly needed is the clear statutory guidance proposed by this amendment, coupled with the instruction that prevention of cruel and illegal evictions by landlords has to be grounds for both co-ordination and intervention by the relevant police force and the local housing authority working together. I support this amendment.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I want to scratch lots of bits out, since the noble Lord, Lord Best, was so succinct.
Amendment 258 is in the name of Lord Cromwell and has notable signatories, and the noble Lord sold this amendment well. In short, this is an amendment that should not be needed, if the police and local authorities did their jobs correctly, as per the law, as outlined in the Protection from Eviction Act. This amendment is rightly seeking to reinforce what should be happening but we know is not. The already mentioned organisation, Safer Renting, monitored data from its clients over a given period, which revealed that, when the clients were going through an illegal eviction, and while it was in progress they called the police for assistance, worryingly in only 9% of cases did the police actually go to the property and assist the tenants. Therefore, as the noble Lord said, in 91% of cases they either failed to turn up, or turned up and sided with the landlord.
Interestingly, so concerned was Safer Renting about these statistics that it decided to do something about it. To its credit, in partnership with the Metropolitan Police and the GLA, it developed a training course for officers. Approximately 8,000 officers took the training but, sadly, this did not mean it recorded any significant improvement when talking to its clients, which begs a lot more questions that are probably not answerable here.
As has already been said by several noble Lords, it is imperative that the police understand the harassment before and during an illegal eviction—or, indeed, what constitutes criminal offences—and, most importantly, that they co-operate with the local authorities charged with the role of prosecuting these rogues and criminal landlords. Shockingly, that is not always happening. Safer Rentings’ illegal eviction count for England and Wales in 2022-23 showed 8,748 illegal evictions—that is one every 67 minutes.
It is not necessary for the police to prosecute these offences unless they witness criminal actions taking place alongside the eviction, but it is crucial for them to understand the law both to refer them to the local authority and to co-operate with the authority’s investigations. We support this amendment, but we hope the Minister will reassure us that it is not needed.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 258, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, aims to provide greater clarity for local housing authorities and police forces in responding to cases of illegal eviction. Illegal eviction is a serious offence; it is not simply a housing matter but often a brazen abuse of power that leaves some of our most vulnerable renters without recourse. That said, we have reservations about the practicalities of this proposal, but I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, having asked the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, his views on it.
In essence, the amendment would place a statutory duty on police and councils to notify each other when a complaint of illegal eviction is received, to co-operate in investigating the offence and to take reasonable steps to assist the tenant. The intent here is understandable —tenants report illegal evictions and are, as we know, bounced between bodies, with the police saying it is a civil matter and councils struggling with limited capacity. Although the intent behind the amendment is undeniably well-meaning, we just have to pause and ask whether it might inadvertently entrench confusion within the statutory framework rather than resolving it.
Without clear definitions, the proposal to impose duties on local housing authorities and police forces to co-operate and assist opens the door to operational ambiguity. What exactly constitutes “reasonable steps to assist”, and what measurable outcomes are expected from this co-operation? Without these clarifications, there is a real risk of creating more confusion for the very tenants we want to protect.
We also want to be very careful about the practical burdens. As the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said, both councils and police forces are grappling the whole time with existing resource shortages. This amendment adds new responsibilities without addressing the underlying issue of capacity. Should we not first evaluate whether these agencies are equipped to handle their current workload before we impose further duties? What assessments have been made of the additional resource implications of this?
There is great merit in the principle behind the amendment—namely, the need for clearer co-operation and more decisive enforcement—but there are significant questions about whether, as drafted, it achieves that aim in a proportional, workable manner.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and I ask the Minister: is the guidance clear enough, particularly to police forces, that it is an illegal act and it is against the law? Is there enough guidance? Are they being told exactly what they have to do? Do local authorities have clear guidance about looking after the tenant, which is their responsibility if they have been evicted and they are homeless at the time? Can this not be done in a different way by insisting that the Home Office work with MHCLG to try to embed the guidance that is already there and insist that both organisations deliver what they should be delivering at the moment?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for his amendment and for meeting me to discuss it. The amendment would place a duty on local authorities and police forces to share information regarding alleged offences contrary to Section 1 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott. Local authorities and police forces would also have a duty to co-operate in the investigation of these offences and take steps to prevent offences from occurring or continuing, as well as assisting tenants to gain access to properties from which they have been illegally evicted. The Secretary of State would be required to produce statutory guidance outlining how these duties would be discharged.
The Government are clear that illegal eviction is unacceptable. Changes introduced in the Bill will further empower local authorities to penalise those who illegally evict, giving them the option to issue a financial penalty of up to £40,000 as an alternative to prosecution. Illegally evicted tenants are also entitled to receive a rent repayment order. Local authorities will be provided with new investigatory powers alongside the powers that police forces have to investigate and prosecute breaches of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.
However, I am concerned about the administrative burden that a reporting duty might place on police forces. The department is trialling approaches to improving multi-agency targeting and the disruption of rogue and criminal actors operating throughout the private rented sector. For example, Liverpool City Council’s private sector housing intelligence and enforcement taskforce—a snappy title, I know, but it does what it says on the tin—has successfully carried out joint operations with Merseyside Police and the Home Office. The Government will continue to explore how we can encourage more effective collaboration between the police and local authorities.
I am happy to add this topic to the agenda for the meeting that I have already agreed to with my noble friend Lady Kennedy and Safer Renting, and to take another look at the existing guidance to make sure that it does what it needs to do. With that said, I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their contributions.
I do not want to detain the Committee too long, but I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, regarding her comments on co-operation and working it out in detail, that we found, in trying to specify every detail of what would go into the database, that it is much better to let the two responsible bodies work it out for themselves. They are grown-ups and they can work that out.
With regard to it being a further duty on the police, it is not a further duty but an existing one; it clarifies what they are supposed to be doing. I do not want to pray in aid the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, too much in his absence, but he certainly felt that that was a realistic thing that they could deliver without their resources being too stretched.
Sharing information and co-ordination is something that we ought to be able to take for granted, but it is a “nice to have”. The really important bit is that they intervene when people are being illegally evicted and that the police take that responsibility firmly on themselves. That is currently not the case, because they still have this ingrained idea that it is a civil offence, not a criminal one, which is incorrect.
That said, I am grateful to everyone for their comments. I look forward to the meeting. I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to meet the tenant groups, which are passionately convinced that this amendment is essential. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Energy Act 2011”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives authorities the power to use this data to enforce minimum energy efficiency standards.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I will move Amendment 259, a three-word amendment that provides argument for the value of explanatory statements. As this explanatory statement says, the addition of “Energy Act 2011” would give local authorities
“the power to use this data”—
about home energy efficiency—
“to enforce minimum energy efficiency standards”.
As we have discussed often on this Bill, many renters are stuck in cold, damp, leaky homes. Sometimes there are very simple and cheap fixes, such as adding or topping-up loft insulation. Sometimes they are more complicated and challenging fixes, such as insulating solid wall properties. This amendment gives local authorities the power to obtain and use energy efficiency information to help private renters. This could allow housing officers to support tenants in the most poorly insulated homes or, importantly, it could support councils to develop the street-by-street insulation programmes that can bring economies of scale and support widespread installation of insulation.
The case study is quite an old but lovely one. In Kirklees, a Green councillor, Andrew Cooper, was one of the driving forces behind a street-by-street insulation programme. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, claimed credit for it, which may be the first time that we have seen a Green achievement being so claimed. I saw reports on how that worked out afterwards. One of the things that really came through was how much people are concerned about cowboy builders, which might be true of landlords as well as tenants, but that they trust their local authorities. That street-by-street process works well, but to make that happen you need the data. That is what this modest amendment is designed to achieve. It builds on the positive Clause 134, which will give local authorities more data to support tenants and take enforcement action against failing landlords.
Given the hour, I will leave the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, to explain Amendment 274, which is related to this. I hope that the Minister can set out—briefly, given the hour—how the Government plan to ramp up support for domestic energy efficiency, especially for private renters. As we have just heard, so many are in vulnerable situations. Given the cost of living crisis, this is often seen as an environmental measure, but it is a crucial anti-poverty measure. We need to make this as easy and simple for local authorities to achieve as possible. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a previous chair of Peers for the Planet and a director of that organisation. I will speak to my Amendment 274, which is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, who cannot be in the Chamber this evening. It continues the theme of energy efficiency that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has just spoken about on her Amendment 259. She dealt specifically with the issue of data on energy efficiency. I wish to contribute particularly on the issue of financing energy-efficiency measures. This is the first time that I have spoken in Committee on this Bill, mainly because of my interaction with the Minister and her officials in the run-up to it, during which several issues were clarified very helpfully.
The issue of improving energy efficiency in the private rented sector has been discussed at length and on multiple occasions in this House. I hope that the current consultation will go some way to address the lack of coherent and consistent long-term policy certainty in this area, because it has suffered from stop-go and from changes of administrations and forms of assistance that have been incoherent and stopped us making progress. Of course, one of the main issues preventing progress in this area is funding, so my amendment seeks to break through some of the barriers to progress by requiring the Government to publish a road map on how private finance initiatives could be scaled up to support the funding of energy-efficiency measures.
Other speakers in the Committee have pointed out the problems that exist because of the quality of the stock in the private rented sector. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester pointed out, nearly half the housing stock in the private rented sector has an EPC rating below C. Although fuel poverty has fallen 35% among owner-occupiers and 54% among council tenants since 2010, it has fallen only 4% for private renters. Their homes are still disproportionately damp and cold, causing both short- and long-term health issues, with higher bills adding insult to injury. Of course, this is an issue where we should take action not only because of the need to help people in this situation but because of the detrimental effects this has on our achievement of net zero and improving our energy security.
However, while there has been widespread agreement about the value of improving energy efficiency, finance has always been an obstacle to progress. The costs of improving the quality of housing will be substantial, as others have said, given where we are starting from, and it is not realistic to expect the Government to foot the bill in its entirety, nor to put intolerable burdens on landlords. We need to find a way to finance these improvements that will work for tenants, landlords and the public purse. I recognise that the Government are doing some work on this and looking at how barriers can be overcome. The green home finance accelerator fund, due to end in June, has a number of projects looking specifically at rented properties and a number of pilot schemes. I would like to hear from the Minister what steps the Government plan to take in response to what they are learning from the experience of the fund and to what timetable they will be working.
There is also a growing number of innovative private sector finance mechanisms that deserve serious attention. As the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association recently reported, the high upfront costs of installing energy-efficient technologies remain the biggest challenge for landlords, and ensuring that there is private capital to support this process, and investment to help drive down the costs of energy efficiency, is paramount. To meet this challenge, a number of policy proposals have been made that my amendment would prompt the Government to consider. The UK Green Building Council, for example, has proposed a warm home stamp duty incentive, where stamp duty would be adjusted up or down depending on the EPC of a property and a rebate would be triggered within two years of purchase if the energy efficiency of the home had been improved.
The Local Government Association has recently recommended that the Government should incentivise landlords through tax rebates. France has added energy efficiency improvements to the list of deductible costs of managing a property, such as legal fees or insurance. Within the UK, Scotland has introduced low-interest loans for landlords. Such loans could be linked to the property, rather than the individual, for which there is the precedent of the interest-free loans that were available to install renewables.
Property-linked finance has been deployed in several other countries, and these are all measures that deserve serious consideration by the Government. They could cut through the Gordian knot of all agreeing that a great deal needs to be done but no one being able to see how it could be financed.
I hope that when the Minister responds, she will provide a little more detail on the Government’s thinking in this area, particularly on ways of incentivising landlords and how the Government intend to make progress in an area about which much has been said but too little has been done.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Bennett, for tabling these amendments and generating this debate. We on these Benches support both amendments. Every renter has the right to a warm and energy-efficient home as part of a decent standard of living. Improving energy performance in private rentals not only is vital for tenants’ comfort and reducing fuel poverty but contributes to the all-important climate target.
I thank the LGA for its briefing. It is concerned about how enforcement will be enhanced to ensure that minimum energy-efficiency standards in the PRS are upheld. As we know, the sad reality is that some landlords continue to let out inefficient, poorly insulated properties, leaving tenants with high energy bills and cold homes. Indeed, tenants in the private rented sector living in the least efficient homes are paying as much as an additional £1,000 a year on their energy bills, compared with someone living in a relatively energy-efficient home. As we heard in previous discussions, an expansion of the rent repayment orders to cover situations where a landlord lets a property that fails to meet the minimum energy-efficiency requirements would mean that if a landlord breached energy standards, for example by renting out a property below the legal EPC threshold, the tenant or council could apply for an order to reclaim up to 12 months’ rent, which we think will be a powerful deterrent against non-compliance.
Amendment 274, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is an extremely useful step towards the ultimate goal of making homes warmer and more sustainable. It proposes a clear government strategy to unlock private finance, for example with green loans or incentive schemes for landlords to retrofit insulation and efficient heating. It makes me a little nostalgic for something that we think was an excellent model, but it was on a wider infrastructural basis. I refer to the Green Investment Bank, which was introduced in the early days of the coalition Government. The National Audit Office praised it for having a clear rationale, mission and objectives, backed by sound oversight. The then Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the NAO and the Institute for Government all concluded that it had largely been successful in scaling up the UK’s green investment during its early years. It invested £3.4 billion into green projects, attracting £8.6 billion of private capital—a healthy £2.50 of private investment for every £1 of public money. Its portfolio was expected to deliver a 10% return by 2017. Sadly, in 2015, the Conservatives flogged it off and that 10% return was not realised. I would love to be able to tempt the Minister to look at that model as a really interesting way of pulling in investment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for recalling the excellent Kirklees Council scheme. I think it was the local authority with the largest number of retrofitting and insulation projects. It was award winning. I would not want to miss the opportunity of mentioning that my noble friend Lady Pinnock was then leader of Kirklees. It drew on finance that it received for an infrastructure project; it decided to insulate across every tenure in the largest local authority area. I believe that it is still the largest local authority area, unless anyone wants to correct me.
These remain excellent examples of how facilitating investment in measures such as insulation, efficient boilers and double glazing, the Government can ensure that landlords have the means to comply with higher energy requirements rather than simply exiting the market or passing the costs on to their tenants. We therefore welcome this proposed roadmap and data collection and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we all want to see energy efficiency, better homes for tenants and reduced fuel poverty but, as we discussed earlier this evening, this needs to be done in an affordable and pragmatic way that does not force older, rural and heritage homes out of the rental market. Amendment 259 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to extend the powers of local housing authorities to use available data to enforce and exercise their functions under the Energy Act 2011. As the noble Baroness has established, that Act provided obligations on landlords to meet certain energy efficiency requirements for their properties before they are able to let their properties to tenants.
Clause 134 already enables local housing authorities to use the information they possess to enforce housing offences and other functions under a wider range of legislation than was previously permitted in the Housing Act 2004. This amendment would therefore extend the already expanded remit of Clause 134 to the domain of energy efficiency. We understand the intentions of the noble Baroness in this amendment and will be interested to hear the response from the Minister.
However, I question the necessity of the amendment. The Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015, made under the Energy Act 2011, already provide for the energy efficiency regulations to be enforced by local authorities in the case of domestic private rental properties and by trading standards in the case of non-domestic private rental properties. Those enforcement authorities are empowered by the 2011 Act to impose monetary penalties of up to £5,000 for any landlord who breaches the energy efficiency regulations. Given the powers that already exist and the highly significant changes to energy performance certificates that the Government plan to implement, this amendment appears unnecessary.
A review of energy efficiency improvements required and the methods for funding these improvements would be more appropriate, which is why we support Amendment 274 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, supported by my noble friend Lady Penn. This amendment would simply require the Secretary of State to publish a roadmap for using private finance initiatives to provide the funding for any required improvements to energy efficiency for the private rental sector. This is a sensible and measured approach to the issue at hand, as opposed to any prescriptive requirements. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Hayman, for their amendments relating to minimum energy efficiency standards, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—who I think described herself as the Green night owl—the noble Baroness Lady Grender and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for contributing to the debate.
I turn first to Amendment 259 in the name of noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. This amendment would allow information given to local authorities by tenancy deposit scheme administrators to be used by local authorities for a purpose connected with their functions under the Energy Act 2011, including enforcement against breaches of minimum energy efficiency standards under the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015. I reassure the Committee that local authorities are already equipped to enforce the private rented sector minimum energy efficiency standard of an EPC rating of E.
In February, a consultation was published to amend regulations and raise energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector, addressing fuel poverty and carbon emissions. The consultation proposes that local authorities will be empowered to issue fines of up to £30,000 for non-compliance with the new minimum energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector. To respond to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, officials from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero are exploring support for enforcement in collaboration with stakeholders, including local authorities.
Local authorities often identify non-compliance during other property engagements and can take appropriate action. A local authority may issue a compliance notice to a landlord suspected of breaching the energy standard. If the landlord fails to comply, the authority has the power to issue a penalty notice. Of course, I recognise the value that data plays in aiding enforcement, which is why we have widened access to information for other enforcement purposes through the Bill. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 274, from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, would require the Secretary of State to publish a road map for scaling up private finance initiatives to support the funding of energy-efficiency improvements in privately rented homes within six months of the passage of the Bill. I strongly support improvements to energy efficiency in privately rented homes. The Government have pledged to take action to stand with tenants and deliver the safety and security of warmer, cheaper homes. In February, we published our consultation on improving energy-efficiency standards in the private rented sector in England and Wales. The consultation closed on 2 May. We are analysing the responses and expect to publish a government response later this year.
I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, as we recognise the important role that private finance will play in supporting the private rented sector to meet the proposed energy-efficiency standards. We are currently considering the consultation feedback and options to further support landlords to make the necessary improvements to their property. I believe that the amendment is not necessary as the information on support, including private finance to fund energy-efficiency improvements in privately rented homes, will be available shortly.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and everyone who has taken part in this short debate, which was marked by a remarkably strong degree of agreement. Everyone agrees that home energy efficiency is something on which we really need to take vital action. I was reminded of a stat, which I learned probably a dozen years ago, that British homes were, in terms of energy efficiency, the second worst in Europe, behind Lithuania. I am not quite sure how Lithuania has done in those 12 years since then, but I know that we have made very little progress.
I will briefly pick up a couple of technical points. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the Minister both talked about local authorities having enforcement powers or, indeed, enhanced enforcement powers. But you can take enforcement only when you have the information—the data—that enables you to know when to take action. Just guessing which might be the homes that are not great is not a really effective way to proceed.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for the Lib Dem support for this amendment and also for embracing Kirklees. Everyone wants to embrace Kirklees, and really where we want to get to is a situation where we can embrace every town and city in the country with the same kind of project, particularly with those street to street-type arrangements.
I have one final comment. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, spoke about long-term policy certainty, which reminded me of going—I think it was in 2012—to the Insulate UK presentation. It was the insulation industry’s annual expo, and the whole industry was shutting down because the funding had disappeared. That boom-bust, boom-bust has been an enormous problem. We have not mentioned this yet, but, of course, we are talking also about huge numbers of opportunities, particularly for small independent businesses in every town and city up and down the land, if we find the funding and if we find the data and the push to make it happen.
I reserve the right to come back to this to look technically at the details, but in the meantime, of course, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(a) in subsection (5)(a), omit “known), and” and insert “unoccupied), or;””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to allow the 24 hours’ notice requirement for an inspection under Section 239 of the Housing Act 2004 to be served solely on the property’s occupier.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, in moving this amendment, I am grateful for the help of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, which has worked with local enforcement teams in my diocese to help us get to this amendment.
Local enforcement will be vital to making the intention of the Renters’ Rights Bill a reality, including the extension of the decent homes standard. However, an amendment to the power of entry that councils are going to use to enforce that standard is needed so that negligent or criminal landlords do not get a tip-off of inspections in advance, which would allow them to frustrate that process or to put pressure on the tenant. Enforcement officers would never tip off the proprietor of an off-licence in advance of an under-age mystery shopper trying to buy alcohol or cigarettes but, as currently drafted, this Bill will require enforcement officers to give landlords a 24-hour tip-off for any formal inspection of compliance with the decent homes standard.
The power of entry under the Bill comes from Section 239 of the Housing Act 2004. It is completely appropriate to give notice to the occupier—I mean, it is their home; they are probably the one who made the complaint that led to environmental health officers or enforcement officers wanting to come round to have a look at it—but why on earth do we give the landlord that 24 hours’ notice? Indeed, we know already from what enforcement officers tell us that, where there is a requirement to tip off landlords, it allows criminal landlords to take lawful countermeasures. These include things such as forcibly removing tenants from an overcrowded property, pressuring tenants not to let enforcement officers into their home or taking retaliatory action, which can dissuade tenants from pursuing complaints. They can also prompt them to withdraw complaints; indeed, there is every reason why a tenant may not want the landlord to know that they have made a complaint at this early stage of the process.
Finally, I would urge that focusing the notice requirement on the occupier is consistent with equivalent enforcement legislation. For example, council enforcement officers’ powers of entry under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 include no requirement to give notice to a property’s owner.
Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle—I see that she has just left us—I am not a night owl: should it get to midnight and I am still here, these fine ecclesiastical robes will, like Cinderella’s dress, turn to rags. I trust that we can have an effective but brief debate on what is, I think, a simple and clear proposal. I hope that the Minister will agree that this is a timely and sensible amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for this amendment on powers of entry into properties. Of course, there is a fine line here: we are trying to balance landlords’ rights to know what is going on in their properties, especially regarding enforcement, with the rights of the occupiers of the property to be informed when powers of entry are being exercised by enforcement authorities.
The amendment would remove the current requirement for a notice to be provided to both the owner and the occupier of the property before the authority can exercise any power of entry under Section 239 of the Housing Act 2004. This would mean landlords not having to be told that their property is going to be entered for survey or examination. I would argue that the owner of the property should have the right to be informed both that their property will be investigated by enforcement authorities and that the authority will exercise its power of entry into the property. This is the case as things stand now, and I believe that that is how it should remain.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for his Amendment 260 and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her comments. This amendment to Section 239 of the Housing Act 2004 seeks to enable local authorities to inspect PRS properties without the need to give 24 hours’ notice to property owners where the property is unoccupied, while retaining the notice requirement for tenants.
Section 239 currently requires local authorities to provide 24 hours’ notice to owners—if known—and occupiers before an inspection can take place. We are aware that the current requirement to provide property owners with 24 hours’ notice enables some unscrupulous landlords to hide evidence of breaches of PRS legislation, intimidate tenants and obstruct inspections. We recognise that the current notice requirement may, in some circumstances, hinder local authorities’ ability to address tenants’ unsafe or hazardous living conditions effectively.
While we are supportive of any efforts to improve local authorities’ ability to enforce against rogue landlords and appreciate that this amendment is in support of that objective, we must carefully consider its implications. We will continue to have conversations with the right reverend Prelate and with stakeholders, and we welcome noble Lords sharing their views on this matter so that the Government can take them into consideration. For these reasons, I ask the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester to consider withdrawing his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, this has been exactly the brief debate that I was hoping for on this matter. I am very grateful to all noble Lords for exercising restraint. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for her response, and I look forward to continuing those conversations. We have time before the Bill is finalised to get this right, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Thornhill
“Review on impacts of the Act on private rented sector(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the impact of this Act on the private rented sector.(2) The review must, in particular, assess the impact of the Act on—(a) the supply of housing in the private rented sector,(b) rent levels and affordability,(c) the security of tenure for tenants,(d) the regulatory and financial burden on landlords, and(e) any other factors the Secretary of State considers relevant. (3) In conducting the review, the Secretary of State must consult—(a) representatives of tenants and landlords,(b) local housing authorities, and(c) any other persons or bodies the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(4) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the review before Parliament no later than two years after the day on which this Act is passed.(5) The report must include—(a) the findings of the review, and(b) any recommendations for legislative or policy changes the Secretary of State considers necessary.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to review and report on the impact of the Act on the private rented sector, including housing supply, rent levels, tenant security, and regulatory burdens, within two years of its enactment.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 263 is in my name, and was kindly signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon. My noble friends Lady Janke and Lady Grender will speak to their own amendments in this group, and we will all aim to be brief due to the lateness of the hour.
All through every day of this Committee, there has been a series of common threads, regardless of the groupings. One such thread is the uncertainty of the impact on the supply of homes to the private rented sector. We have had claims and counterclaims, but the reality is that no one knows exactly what will happen yet, because this is a genuinely radical Bill. A sub-theme, if I may call it that, has been the plea throughout the Bill’s passage for various aspects of it to be reviewed. My amendment tries to pull these concerns together and seeks to provide an honest, full and all-embracing review to be presented to Parliament no later than two years after the passing of the Act.
Two years seemed like a long enough time to gather data and see trends, but not too long to make changes, if it were apparent that changes needed to be made. The proposals in the Bill are so far-reaching, the legalities complex and the regulations as yet largely unknown and awaiting guidance or agreement through secondary legislation. But the impact of them could, we hope, be extremely positive and change the rental market for the better—or it could be a total disaster. We have certainly had plenty of hyperbole and tub-thumping rhetoric to that effect. Maybe it will simply be somewhere in between: the curate’s egg.
This amendment tries to cover all the important key indicators. As the explanatory statement says, it
“requires the Secretary of State to review and report on the impact of the Act on the private rented sector, including housing supply, rent levels, tenant security, and regulatory burdens, within two years”
of the Bill’s enactment. It also helpfully suggests who might be consulted upon, but—also helpfully—it includes the option for whomsoever is deemed appropriate by the Secretary of State.
I do not think it would be helpful at this time of night to expand on why each of these things is extremely important, but we know that they are, and that is why they are listed in the amendment. For that reason, we would like to see this, or something very similar, on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, having been extremely brief on everything, I beg noble Lords’ indulgence on this issue, which is extremely important. I sincerely hope we make a bit of progress on it. I want to thank the Renter’s Reform Coalition for their very hard work on this amendment, indeed, on the whole of the Bill. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, who strongly supports this amendment but is unable to be here tonight.
While this was debated on Report in the House of Commons in terms of its drafting, the original proposal was ruled out as not in scope of the legislation. Therefore, this is a new draft to reframe it as a review of the impact of the Bill on rents. The amendment has been redrafted in response to that feedback. To be clear, according to the Renter’s Reform Coalition, the likely projection of increase in rents as a direct result of the Bill is limited to the net core cost to landlords of £12 per home per year or 0.1% of mean annual rents. I will explain why rents continue to be a problem in spite of whatever the impact of the Bill is likely to be according to the coalition.
This amendment proposes that the Secretary of State must within 18 months of passing the Bill establish a body to report on the impact of the Act on rent levels in the private rented sector. A report published under this proposed new clause would include an analysis of any changes in average rent levels, an overview of the historic affordability of properties and consideration of proposals for improving the affordability of properties. The report should also include characteristics such as age, income and employment status.
Some of the context will be very clear to noble Lords. Private tenants have the highest weekly housing costs of any housing tenure, with lowest income tenants in particular often spending huge proportions of their income on rent. On average, renters spend 34% of their household income on housing, compared to 19% for mortgagors and 26% for social renters, and high rents hit poorer tenants hardest. One in three private renters spends at least half of their monthly household income on rent alone. Nearly 30% of private renters struggled to pay their rent in 2022.
England’s rent burden as a share of disposable income is among the highest in Europe. An analysis from Generation Rent has shown that not a single borough of inner London is affordable for roles across education, healthcare, social care, construction, retail, commerce and hospitality. Recent data released by Zoopla shows that renting a new home is on average £270 per month more expensive than in 2021, meaning that rents have increased by more than £3,000 annually in just three years. An increase in housing affordability would enhance the Government’s objective of driving growth. New research from the Mayor of London, London Councils, Trust for London and G15 shows that a 1% increase in housing affordability in this city could yield a boost of £7.3 billion in economic output over a decade. This research clearly showed that worsening housing affordability has a negative impact on productivity.
We welcome the fact that the Government are ending the bidding wars, but without also including something that acknowledges the issue of rent—and this is a very small version and modest in terms of what it does to the Bill—rents will remain too high across the board, and there will be no measures within the Bill to tackle that issue, or the current measures will be limited.
The amendment stipulates that any report made would need to include proposals for improving the affordability of rent levels in the private rented sector, but it does not prescribe what those policies should be. A report of this nature is an invaluable opportunity to consider the factors that make renting increasingly unaffordable and measures to address these factors in the round. Undertaking this thorough assessment of this complicated issue will take time, given the various intersecting factors that are contributing to the unaffordable nature of renting.
The report could consider: supply and demand in the private rented sector; the role and long-term future of the local housing allowance; the shortage of social housing; the effects of various kinds of rent control and stabilisation measures in comparator nations; an assessment of the potential impact of introducing any kind of rent measures—our preference would be for rent smoothing, as we have discussed several times, not rent controls; any impact on rent prices since the passing of the Act; and other relevant factors. In other words, this is not about being prescriptive but about studying all the impacts on rent. The impact report proposed in this amendment would provide an ongoing mechanism for acknowledging the scale of the affordability crisis. It would provide an opportunity for the Government thoroughly to assess the available evidence on unaffordability in England.
This amendment, as I have said, would not commit the Government to any one policy or approach but aims to gather evidence, data and information in a way that we do not believe is currently sufficiently gathered, and neither does the Renters’ Reform Coalition. It is also an opportunity for the Minister to commit publicly to further considering how to bring rents down in relation to incomes. I will draw my remarks to a conclusion, but this amendment is simply seeking to strengthen what the Government are already trying to do to improve the private rented sector. Without this piece, there is something very substantial missing. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, my Amendment 273 would require, within 12 months of implementation, a report on the impact of the Bill on BME and ethnic groups. I thank Race on the Agenda and Shelter for their briefings.
The private rented sector has the highest number of ethnic minorities relative to other tenures—23% compared with 19% among social renters, and 8% among owner-occupiers—yet black renters are disproportionately faced with barriers that prevent them securing a home in the sector compared with white renters. Generation Rent’s 2024 survey of private renters around the UK revealed that minority-ethnic renters were significantly more likely to face obstacles in accessing new tenancies. Racial minority respondents were almost twice as likely to have been refused a tenancy when they attempted to move home, with 12.5% reporting this experience compared with 6.3% of white British or Irish renters. Some 7% of England’s population are BME, yet in June 2024 20% of homeless households were BME; 8% of households living in poor conditions were BME compared with 3.5% identified as white households.
It is well-documented that black and minoritised groups experience both income and wealth inequality. This makes it much more difficult for these groups to cushion the shocks of rent increases or large deposits, pushing them deeper into problem debt with the associated mental health difficulties that that brings. Measures in the Bill, such as banning discrimination against people on benefits and families with children, should help reduce discrimination against BME groups, as will the ending of the bidding up of rents and the constraints on upfront payments. These are also positive measures.
I will end with a comment from Race on the Agenda.
“We note that although some provisions are made in the Bill to address housing discrimination in general terms, there is a problem as the Bill has not conducted a full racial impact assessment and does not sufficiently include robust measures to tackle racial discrimination in housing and homelessness”.
I hope that, in the light of this, the Minister will embrace the need for the review set out in this amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for opening this group and introducing her Amendment 263. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review and report on the impact of the Act on the private rented sector, including housing supply, rent levels, tenant security and regulatory burdens, within two years of its enactment.
We on these Benches do not support reviews for the sake of reviewing. They often consume time and public funds, and require precise delivery in order to answer the questions they set out to answer. However, this legislation poses a significant risk to the market. Noble Lords from across the Committee agree that we must protect tenants and ensure they have access to secure, stable and decent housing at a fair price. We have been clear this Bill does not deliver that.
The Government must review the efficacy of the Bill and be held accountable for the decisions they have taken and insisted on. To achieve this, we need a functioning market with an adequate supply of good-quality homes to meet a growing demand. Ensuring the availability of homes is key to making accommodation attainable and keeping rents affordable. Any legislation in this area must strike a difficult but essential balance between these competing interests. Only by getting that balance right can we hope to achieve an efficient and effective rental market. We, along with the many stakeholders we have consulted, believe that a review is necessary and that it should be brought before Parliament.
I am keen to know whether the Government are giving the amendments in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Janke, serious consideration. Can the Minister say how the success of this Bill will be judged? What does success look like in the eyes of the Government?
In our view, the fear and uncertainty surrounding this Bill is already having a negative impact. On the first day in Committee, I quoted figures from Savills and I will underline them once more. According to Savills, the number of rental properties available on their books in quarter 1 of 2025 is down 42% compared with the same period in 2024. That is 42% fewer homes for families, and 42% less choice for people searching for somewhere to live. If the Government are confident in the positive impact of this Bill, what reason does the Minister have for not reviewing its effects on the housing market, specifically its impact on the availability of rental homes, rent levels, house prices and the demand for social housing? If the Bill were to have a damaging effect on the rental market, surely Ministers would want to know.
Getting this balance right is paramount. It is the difference between a functioning, accessible rental market and one that is suffocated. It is the difference between tenants being able to find a secure and affordable home, and landlords leaving the sector altogether. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill, Lady Grender and Lady Janke, for their amendments, which propose several different types of reviews to the future Act, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her comments. I have to ask why we do not have a functioning effective rental market—we were not in government over the past 14 years.
Amendment 263, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would introduce a legal requirement for the Government to carry out a review of the Bill’s impact on the private rented sector. This review would be conducted, and subsequently reported to Parliament, within two years following the Bill’s receipt of Royal Assent. In particular, it would require the review to consider the Bill’s impact on supply, rent levels, security of tenure and the burdens on landlords. It also prescribes that the Government must consult with representatives of landlords, tenants and local authorities during the preparation of such a review.
I know the Committee shares my interest in the practical impact that this legislation will have on the private rented sector. I reassure the Committee that this interest is at the heart of the Government’s commitment to monitor and evaluate robustly the impact of our reforms. Our approach will build on the department’s existing monitoring of the housing sector. Our process, impact and value for money evaluation will be conducted in line with the department’s published evaluation strategy. Our monitoring work will make use of a range of data, including the results of the English Housing Survey, data from relevant stakeholders, including local authorities, and data generated from the reforms themselves. We will also deliver an evaluation involving extensive data collection through interviews, surveys and focus groups. These will be conducted with a range of stakeholders, such as tenants, landlords, letting agents, third sector organisations, delivery partners, the courts service and government officials. Monitoring data from existing surveys and new data produced by the reforms will supplement these findings.
I can also reassure the Committee that the conclusions of our evaluation will be published in a timely manner, in line with our broader policy on the publication of research. This includes an interim evaluation report on the processes, early impacts and intermediate outcomes, which we will produce in the early years after implementation. I hope this gives the Committee confidence that the Government’s proposed approach to monitoring and evaluation is the right one. Setting an arbitrary deadline for this process, as the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would do, we believe represents an unnecessary step. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 270, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, would mandate that the Secretary of State carry out a review of rent affordability in England, with a report to be laid before Parliament within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. This amendment would require this review to be wide-ranging, encompassing the affordability of rents across both the private and social sectors, the impact on tenants, and regional differences. It would also require specific assessment of the effectiveness of measures to control excessive rent increases and the uptake and outcome of the tribunal.
As I already noted, the Government are committed to very robust monitoring and evaluation of the private rented sector reform programme. We will also continue to monitor trends across the industry as a whole, using a range of data sources, which include the Valuation Office Agency rental prices data, the Office for National Statistics rental price index, and data from the English Housing Survey and the English Private Landlord Survey. This will enable us to respond to unexpected impacts or unwelcome outcomes and initiate appropriate changes where these are needed.
Finally, Amendment 273, from the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, would introduce a legal requirement for the Government to produce a report on the impact of the Bill once it is an Act on different racial and ethnic groups in the private rented sector. I have already outlined at length our broader plans for assessing the impacts of the Bill. Regarding specific impacts on racial and ethnic groups in the sector, the department follows the Ethnic Group, National Identity and Religion guidance published by the Office for National Statistics. Ethnicity statistics are regularly collected and published by the department about tenants and landlords to understand the demography of the private rented sector through the English Housing Survey and the English Private Landlord Survey. This data supports our continued compliance with the requirements of the public sector equality duty and wider government responsibility by contributing to the race disparity audit.
It is also worth stressing that, in keeping with the public sector equality duty, once the Bill is an Act, Ministers will continue to have due regard to the equality impact of decisions on groups by reference to relevant protected characteristics. This includes the protected characteristic of race.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I understand the collection of the data, which I think is excellent so that we know what is going on, but how is that going to be scrutinised by Parliament? Will that come in a report? If it is, when will that first report come to Parliament for scrutiny?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will write to noble Lords confirming the policy on publication of research. I think it is a matter of publication and then for Members to call it forward if they wish to scrutinise it further.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I thank the Minister for that. I am glaring at the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, because she filched one of the things I was going to say, but she is absolutely right—great minds think alike. Although we are coming at the Bill from completely different positions, we are agreed on this issue. Her summary of my Amendment 263 actually said it all as to why we feel we need something in the Bill.
If the Government are confident about the way they will monitor and evaluate, why not put something in the Bill? As for an arbitrary date, surely, after two years—bearing in mind that you can come back whenever you like within that period—you will have some indication of the trend. That is what is bothering us: the uncertainty and radical nature of the Bill, which we hope will be successful.
We reserve our right to come back to this issue, but for now I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is now 11.41 pm. We have made good progress scrutinising the Bill this evening, having completed 13 groups of amendments. We have three groups remaining. Given the hour, and as agreed by the usual channels, I will now resume the House, and we will return to complete the remaining three groups after Second Reading of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill tomorrow.
I am grateful to all the staff of the House who have stayed so late to support us tonight, and on Monday. I particularly want to thank the staff in the Public Bill Office for their work to facilitate proceedings. I greatly appreciate all the work they have done, along with that of the other staff of the House, including the clerks, doorkeepers, attendants, catering staff and Hansard reporters. I look forward to completing Committee on this important Bill.