Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities etc.) (Amendment) Order 2025
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore
That the Grand Committee do consider the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities etc.) (Amendment) Order 2025.
Relevant document: 28th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by extending my thanks to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for the detailed and thoughtful consideration of this draft order in its report published last month; I will respond fully to the points raised by the committee. I also take this opportunity to welcome the support for these reforms from consumer groups, from firms offering buy now, pay later products, and from the Official Opposition, who first initiated the process which has led to this order.
The purpose of the legislation before your Lordships’ Committee today is to protect consumers and provide certainty and stability for business. I will begin by providing a brief overview of the issue which this order seeks to address before outlining the steps the Government are taking to mitigate these harms.
More than 10 million people in the UK now use buy now, pay later products, which allow consumers to pay for goods and services through interest-free instalments over a period of 12 months or less. Fintechs such as Klarna, PayPal and Clearpay typically partner with merchants, predominantly online retailers, which offer their buy now, pay later options to customers at checkout. When used responsibly, these products can help users manage their finances and make purchases more affordable, compared with using traditional, interest-bearing forms of credit such as credit cards and personal loans.
However, unlike these traditional forms of credit, interest-free buy now, pay later products are not currently regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. This is because they fall under an exemption which was originally designed to help small businesses offer instalment payment plans to their customers: for example, a gym offering a 12-month payment plan.
The 2021 Woolard review, which investigated recent innovations in the consumer credit market, highlighted several potential risks facing people who use unregulated buy now, pay later products.
First, there are no rules on what information firms must give their customers. Too many people are left unclear about what they owe and when they need to repay it—and some do not even realise they have taken out credit at all. The Financial Conduct Authority previously found that nearly a fifth of buy now, pay later users were not aware they would be charged a late fee for missed payments from fee-charging providers.
Secondly, buy now, pay later firms are not required to check whether people can afford these products. This means that credit is being given to those who may not be able to pay it back.
Finally, firms are not required to check what an individual already owes. As a result, debt can quickly mount up when people take out several buy now, pay later products at once. For example, research from Citizens Advice found that almost a third of buy now, pay later users it surveyed had borrowed from elsewhere to pay off their buy now, pay later debts.
The Government believe that action must be taken to address these issues and protect consumers. That is why, under this draft order, buy now, pay later products offered by third-party lenders such as Klarna, PayPal, and Clearpay will be brought into regulation under the Financial Conduct Authority.
Under the new regulatory regime, firms will have to carry out robust affordability checks before lending to make sure that consumers are protected from taking on debt they cannot afford. Consumers will receive clear and transparent information about buy now, pay later products, including what support is available if they face financial difficulty.
In addition, for the first time, consumers will have the right to take their complaints about buy now, pay later firms to the Financial Ombudsman Service, guaranteeing access to fair and independent resolution if problems arise. These are rights and protections that users of other regulated credit products enjoy already; it is only right that users of buy now, pay later products receive them too.
The Government acknowledge concerns raised in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report that buy now, pay later products offered directly by merchants will not fall under the new regulatory regime. We examined this issue carefully before publishing the order before your Lordships’ Committee. Protecting small businesses from regulatory overreach was central to our approach. Regulating buy now, pay later products offered directly by merchants threatens to capture simple, interest-free instalment plans, such as the gym membership example that I referenced earlier. Regulating these arrangements, which small businesses routinely offer to their customers, would create unjustified disruption for countless small businesses and their customers, imposing regulatory burden without sufficient evidence of consumer harm to support it. The Government are also confident that there are robust existing protections in place to safeguard consumers using merchant-offered buy now, pay later products; current consumer protection laws covering advertising, financial promotions and unfair trading practices apply to these products already.
Finally, our assessment is that it is inherently unlikely that many merchants will offer their own products because of the associated credit risk and the accrual of new liabilities on their balance sheet. Instead, we believe that many would be minded to create a subsidiary to supply the credit or to partner with separate credit providers—both of which arrangements would fall under the scope of these changes. We will, however, continue to monitor this market closely with the Financial Conduct Authority and through our regular industry engagement, and, if we see evidence of potential consumer harm, we will not hesitate to act.
The second key aspect of this order relates to the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report questions whether the Government should consider whether definitions in that Act can be amended to distinguish between low-risk buy now, pay later products offered by small businesses, such as private gym memberships, and buy now, pay later products offered by large-scale merchants. The Government agree that this is an important issue, which is why the forthcoming consultation on Consumer Credit Act reform will seek input from stakeholders to ensure that any potential changes we make to these definitions are appropriate.
I want also to touch briefly on the other provisions in the order as they relate to this Act. The order before us will ensure that users of buy now, pay later products will have protection under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, making it easier to receive a refund if a supplier breaks a contract or misleads the customer. Under the current laws of contract, customers can seek compensation for defective goods or services only from the supplier for breach of contract. Our changes will strengthen consumer rights by making buy now, pay later lenders equally responsible for problems with purchases when they have provided the credit. This will give consumers a key statutory right enjoyed by users of currently regulated credit products.
Separately, consumers will also now receive clear and relevant information about buy now, pay later products, including details about what they owe and when payments are due. The new requirements will be set by Financial Conduct Authority rules, rather than the Consumer Credit Act. This change reflects feedback from both industry and consumer groups that current provisions on information disclosure do not suit interest-free, short-term buy now, pay later products. Although these changes will apply only to buy now, pay later products, the Government have also launched a consultation on reform of the Consumer Credit Act itself, which we are committed to doing at pace; the consultation includes proposals that would see the wider consumer credit industry benefit from modernised information disclosure requirements, too.
I turn finally to the impact of these changes on firms offering buy now, pay later products. The Government’s intention is that, while the changes outlined today will help protect consumers, they will also benefit providers. For years, buy now, pay later firms have faced regulatory uncertainty, stalling their growth and investment in the UK. This order ends that uncertainty and allows firms to innovate and invest in the UK. To ensure a smooth transition to the new regime, firms will also be able to continue lending under a temporary permissions regime while their Financial Conduct Authority authorisation is under review.
Twelve months after this order is made, the new regulatory regime for these products will come into force. In that time, the Financial Conduct Authority will consult on and finalise the rules that will govern buy now, pay later lending. The changes laid out in the draft order are fair, responsible and proportionate, and we are determined to deliver them promptly to protect consumers and to provide certainty for businesses. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order and for his thorough summary. It is an important measure, and the Committee is surprisingly thin today.
Borrowing with a defined repayment period is a long-standing practice, with many well-established advantages that most of us have benefited from: for example, in respect of mortgages on our homes. It is a good thing that innovation—buy now, pay later—has developed the lending market but, as always, we need to have an eye on the potential downsides. In this case, that refers above all to the possibility of unsophisticated borrowers getting into financial trouble, probably because of an inaccurate assessment by lenders of the likelihood of any loan being repaid. I accept that in such cases a degree of protection may be justified. That is the philosophical and economic background.
However, there is a need for balance so that regulation does not simply close down the borrowing arrangements, which will make life harder for hard-pressed consumers and will risk pushing them into the hands of loan sharks. Another concern is the impact on small businesses, whether in financial services or retail, which we need to protect from overburdensome regulation. The spark of enterprise risks being snuffed out by this Government if they are not very careful about how they treat the smaller operators. Excessive red tape will simply reduce the services available to consumers and increase costs and prices.
Over the past few years, consumer spending habits in the UK have undergone a significant change. There has been a surge in the use of buy now, pay later schemes, with 14 million consumers recorded as using the agreements in the six months leading to January 2023. This is, however, still a much smaller market than credit cards. We recognise that there are growing concerns about consumer harm in the sector, with 44% of frequent users of such schemes overindebted in 2022, according to an FCA survey. Misleading promotions, lack of affordability assessments and the possibility of accumulating high debts are examples of the potential harms identified for consumers.
Under the previous Government, the 2021 Woolard review proposed the urgent regulation of buy now, pay later payments, but we did not have time to carry this through to completion, so I welcome today’s statutory instrument, which builds on this legacy and addresses lending practices that could harm consumers if they remain unchecked. The proposed order will require buy now, pay later product lenders to be authorised by the FCA, which will give consumers a wider range of protections, including access to the Financial Ombudsman Service for redress.
The instrument also requires firms to carry out affordability checks on borrowers and offer clear product information to consumers to prevent unaffordable borrowing. The proposed order rightly offers more protection for consumers, but we must also be sensitive to business voices operating in the buy now, pay later market. We must be conscious that being subject to FCA rules is not a walk in the park. I speak as a former non-executive director of a challenger bank. So I would like the Minister to explain how the FCA plans to develop and implement the buy now, pay later rules over the next 12 months and who they will affect. For example, would Klarna or Clearpay do all the consumer checks, or would they also pose a burden on the retailer—Boots, for example, or a specialist online retailer of the kind the Minister mentioned?
I also need an assurance that the regulator will have the capacity, and indeed the will, to approve the three significant suppliers and the others that are caught by the new regulations, and to do so comfortably within the 12-month timeframe. It will take time to develop the rules on creditworthiness and affordability, and a year is not long. In my experience, the FCA is much more concerned about its consumer duties than keeping business running and innovating. In the helpful impact assessment on this order, the compliance costs are assessed at some £19 million to £32 million over 10 years. This estimate seems far too low to me, from my experience of dealing with FCA regulation in three different entities. Of course we need to do the right thing, but the regulatory and legal costs in financial services such as these continue to mount, and that then hits innovation and growth.
So I would welcome some reassurance from the Minister on this score and an undertaking that there will be continued engagement between the industry and the Financial Ombudsman Service, because that can also be a vehicle for delay and inconsistency. To put the change in perspective, I would also appreciate an update on the current level of over-indebtedness by frequent users—the worrying figure of 44% that I quoted from 2022—and an indication of the proportion of the total number and value of buy now, pay later borrowers that they represent. I am interested in how many indebted purchasers there are and how significant in number they are in the big scheme of things.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments and questions and for her support for these measures which, as she says, build on what the previous Government began. She rightly set out the importance of buy now, pay later products and pointed out the potential downsides, which we absolutely agree on, regarding borrowers getting into trouble and the need to prevent that. She also talked about the need for balance. She is right that the action that we take should not in any way close down an important route for consumers.
As I said in my opening remarks, these measures have been welcomed by consumer groups. Although these products can help people manage their finances by spreading the cost of purchases, they can put consumers at risk, particularly from unaffordable lending. The FCA will be able to apply appropriate, proportionate rules on assessing creditworthiness and affordability for buy now, pay later lending, so I am confident that it will not unduly close down these routes. It has been welcomed by the providers and consumer groups. The Government are committed to proportionate regulation.
On that point, the noble Baroness went on to talk about the impact on small businesses. Again, they have welcomed this measure to avoid the overly burdensome approach and the regulatory creep she spoke about. That is exactly why protecting small businesses from regulatory overreach was central to our approach. Regulating these products, offered directly by merchants, threatens to capture the simple gym membership example that we talked about. I am happy to give her those assurances on the approach and the way the FCA will approach that.
The noble Baroness asked a number of questions about the FCA and the next steps on regulation. Regulation will commence 12 months after this legislation is made. The FCA will consult after the legislation is finalised. The consultation will include the FCA’s proposed conduct rules for regulating buy now, pay later. The FCA will then consider stakeholder feedback and decide whether it needs to amend its proposed approach before making its final rules. Firms will need a period in which to digest and prepare for the final rules before they come into force. The FCA is keen to give industry as much opportunity as possible to prepare its systems and processes before the final rules come into effect. The FCA intends to publish its policy statement and final rules in early 2026.
The noble Baroness asked about capacity and my confidence in the FCA. Obviously, that is complete. The FCA is an independent, non-governmental organisation. Its independence is vital to its role. However, it is fully accountable to the Government and Parliament for how it exercises its functions. This accountability is critical to ensuring it advances the objectives given to it by Parliament and is performing optimally. Ministers in the Treasury have a very close working relationship with the FCA. We work together very effectively to solve problems and are able to exchange views frankly.
The noble Baroness asked about the second consultation process. Although the consultation is split into two phases, the Government intend to implement the reforms via one legislative vehicle when parliamentary time allows. Once the legislation is in place, the FCA will consult on a policy approach and draft rules for a reformed regime.
The noble Baroness also asked about exemptions, which I think I touched on. As I said in my opening remarks, we absolutely have the intention to keep these under review and if further action is required, we will not hesitate to act. I think I have covered all the points that she raised.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The one point the noble Lord has not really touched on is growth and innovation, but I take it from the points he normally makes that he sees this sitting within that context. I think the Chancellor sent a letter to the FCA some months ago encouraging an approach to growth in the way it regulates. So he is right that it is independent and does its own thing but, equally, it is important that it minimises bureaucracy and tries to be efficient and helpful, because it plays such an important part in the economy and with business, but also in protecting consumers.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I completely take what the noble Baroness says; my apologies for not covering that in my initial response. The intention with these specific measures is to be proportionate. That is why we responded in the way that we did to the scrutiny committee, for example. These measures should boost growth and investment. There has been uncertainty in the sector for too long and we are now correcting that.
The noble Baroness is absolutely right about the wider response to the regulation. In her first Mansion House speech, the Chancellor set out very clearly that she wanted to see us regulating for growth rather than risk, and for the pendulum to swing slightly further back the other way. The Chancellor has her second Mansion House speech next week; I am sure she will have more to say on that point then.
Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) (Threshold Amount) (Amendment) Order 2025
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) (Threshold Amount) (Amendment) Order 2025.
Relevant document: 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, before I address the content of this statutory instrument, I will briefly provide some background. The fight against money laundering is an important element of the Government’s missions to deliver safer streets and kick-start economic growth. This year marks the 10-year anniversary of the public/private partnership which is central to the UK’s response to economic crime and which sets the international standard in this area. With approximately 1,200 UK law enforcement operations supported, over 400 arrests made, nearly £250 million seized and restrained and more than 100 alerts published, the partnership demonstrates the power of a whole-system response which combines the capabilities, resources and expertise of the public and private sectors. However, with the threat ever evolving, we must target our resources to where they will have the greatest impact.
Under the economic crime plan 2, the Government, law enforcement and the private sector have worked together to consider how public/private resource can be better directed to maximise our collective impact against the threat. The statutory instrument before the Committee today is one of the first outputs from this work. Quite simply, it raises the existing financial threshold for two exemptions which apply to principal money laundering offences under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 from £1,000 to £3,000. The aim is to move finite resource away from low-value activity towards higher-value investigations and to increase the effectiveness of the suspicious activity reporting regime.
This uplift in the threshold will enable law enforcement resource to focus on higher priority reports that provide greater opportunities for asset denial and disruption of criminal activity. The proposal before the Committee today will also free up business resources which can be redirected towards high-value activity that may have a greater impact on the threat. The measure is further expected to reduce the impact on banking customers by reducing the number of instances of legitimate customers being unable to access their accounts, particularly where no further action is taken.
The first exemption applies to acts in operation of account, such as paying expenses, by deposit taking bodies—in essence, banks and building societies—and to electronic money and payment institutions. The second exemption applies in the instance of a business in the anti-money laundering regulated sector ending a relationship with a customer and paying away any money or property to the customer. This means that for transactions below this threshold, businesses in the anti-money laundering regulated sector do not need to submit defence against money laundering suspicious activity reports, or DAML SARs as I will refer to them.
A DAML SAR is submitted to the UK Financial Intelligence Unit by a person proposing to deal with suspected criminal property which may make them liable for one of the principal money laundering offences under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. By submitting a DAML, a person can avoid committing one of the principal money laundering offences by obtaining consent or deemed consent for the act they propose to carry out; for example, as I mentioned earlier, a customer’s transaction to pay their mortgage. The DAML provides information to the UK Financial Intelligence Unit and prevents the business carrying out the activity referenced in the request until the UK Financial Intelligence Unit gives a consent decision, or seven working days pass, after which businesses can assume they have consent.
In 2023, the threshold was raised to £1,000 due to the rising volume of DAML regulation procedures, and the regulatory burdens on businesses to submit a DAML suspicious activity report, as well as burdens on law enforcement to review and the delay to customers who must often wait seven days for their transaction to process. Those are all good reasons why the original threshold was raised to £1,000.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that all parliamentarians will agree that tackling money laundering is a shared mission across both Houses to create a safer society and support our economy. I am proud that the previous Conservative Government introduced the economic crime levy, which raises some £100 million per year from the anti-money laundering sector. I am pleased that today’s proposals build on this legacy of tackling money laundering.
These proposals will raise the threshold for two exemptions that apply to principal money laundering offences under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 from £1,000 to £3,000. This will reduce the resourcing burden on law enforcement and enable our officers to dedicate more time to activities that yield greater asset denial and to disrupting criminal operations more effectively.
If we look at the number of defence against money laundering reports submitted to the UK Financial Intelligence Unit in 2024, we can see why there is a case for raising the threshold. In 2024, 23,000 reports were submitted relating to transactions between £1,000 and £3,000. Of these, only 182 were refused, leading to £209,565 of assets denied. This represents 0.1% of all assets denied as a result of defence against money laundering reports in 2024.
It is both necessary and appropriate that we ease the pressure on enforcement agencies at this level and allow resources to be focused where they can have the greatest impact on tackling the most serious crimes. This policy area has been under review following the threshold rise in 2023, and a targeted consultation was carried out on money laundering reports. The outcome of the consultation shows strong support for increasing the threshold to at least £3,000. Respondents cited multiple benefits, including a reduction in the reporting burden, the reallocation of resources to higher-value investigations, and improved outcomes for customers, particularly by reducing the number of legitimate account users who face access issues. Raising the threshold to £3,000 is supported by the UK Financial Intelligence Unit, which believes it will also reduce the reporting burden on business and free up its resources to focus more on high-value activity.
Although the case is clear to raise the threshold, the Government must also be aware of the potential risks of criminals splitting transactions to come under the threshold. This was raised by a respondent in the consultation. Although mechanisms are in place, this must be a consideration. I ask the Minister to confirm that crime rates under that £3,000 level will be monitored and that the threshold will be changed again if it becomes necessary.
In conclusion, I support today’s proposals, which will help to tackle money laundering. There is no place for crime groups attempting to launder their illicit funds through the UK financial system. It is right that we prioritise resourcing for the highest crimes.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for having a shared approach to money laundering. He is right to point to the fact that there has been a consultation on this matter. He is also right to point out that, in essence, there is a shared understanding between all parties that the money laundering threshold needed to be reviewed. The figure of £3,000 that we have put in this order sets a balance. We will always keep it under review—there is potential for higher figures, which have been discussed as part of the consultation—but we have settled on a threshold of £3,000, which strikes the appropriate balance between reducing low-value reporting and mitigating the potential loss of asset denial outcomes.
The noble Lord is right to say that we need to ensure that we examine the risk of criminals splitting transactions into smaller amounts and seeking to avoid detection. The raising of the threshold is data led. It addresses an acute consumer duty risk and creates capacity in firms to tackle higher-value, more societally impacting economic crimes, all of which outweighs the residual risk of criminals circumventing the threshold limit as of now. The noble Lord was right to point to the very low level of transactions of interest between £1,000 and £3,000 in the previous regime, which resulted in further examination.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support. I can assure him that we will keep all matters under review, including the performance of this threshold, but I take and welcome his considered support. I commend the order to the Committee.
Combined Authorities (Adult Education Functions) (Amendment) Order 2025
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the Grand Committee do consider the Combined Authorities (Adult Education Functions) (Amendment) Order 2025.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for the scrutiny provided on this draft statutory instrument, which was laid in Parliament on 19 May 2025. If this order is approved, the Department for Education will transfer an additional funding power to nine existing combined authorities to enable them to use their adult skills fund allocation to fund new technical qualifications that have been approved for adults from the academic year on 1 August 2025.
The function being transferred to these combined authorities is under Section 100(1B) of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009—namely, the power to
“secure the provision of financial resources … in connection with approved technical education qualifications or approved steps towards occupational competence”.
This power will be carried out by each of the combined authorities, in respect of their area, concurrently with the Secretary of State. This will enable combined authorities to fund new technical qualifications for adults approved for funding at level 2 and level 3 from 1 August 2025.
The new technical qualifications are of high quality, are aligned with occupational standards and offer learners clear routes into skilled employment. One hundred and ten reformed technical qualifications at levels 2 and 3 have been approved to be first taught in the next academic year. These qualifications have been co-designed with employers to ensure that the skills needs of business and industry are better served and that clear progression pathways are created, delivering the outcomes that learners need, either to enter a skilled job or progress within a skilled career.
Learners deserve high-quality qualifications that meet their needs. If this order is approved, these nine combined authorities with existing adult education powers will have the freedom to fund these qualifications in order to meet the local needs of learners and employers. Transferring this power is key to reducing regional disparities, by ensuring that all authorities have access to reformed, high-quality qualifications.
If this draft order is approved, the nine combined authorities can choose to fund new technical qualifications available for delivery from August 2025 onwards, if they wish. It is a statutory requirement for public consultation to take place before changes are made to a combined authority’s existing arrangements. The Department for Education carried out a public consultation in November last year, and 85% of respondents agreed that the Secretary of State should transfer this additional power to the existing combined authorities. Each of the combined authorities affected, and all their constituent councils, have consented to the transfer of this power and the making of this order.
An order can be made only if the appropriate consent is given and the Secretary of State considers that the statutory tests are met. Those tests are that making the order is: first,
“likely to improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of … the people who live or work in the areas to which this Order relates”;
and, secondly, is
“appropriate having regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government, and to reflect the identities and interests of local communities”.
These combined authorities have already demonstrated effective administration of the adult skills fund allocated to them. They have a detailed understanding of the skills challenges facing their areas, and their strategic plans reflect the interests and identities of their local communities. Making the order will enable the combined authorities to provide the full range of technical qualifications that have been approved for adults. Therefore, I confirm that we have concluded that the statutory tests are met.
I take this opportunity to thank all our partner organisations and colleagues and the relevant combined authorities for their time, expertise and input. To conclude, this order will give nine combined authorities the ability to fund new technical qualifications delivery from August 2025 onwards, to meet local skills needs, to enhance economic growth and to bring greater prosperity to their regions. I beg to move.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order. The adult skills fund plays a vital role in helping adult learners gain the practical skills and qualifications needed for meaningful employment across key sectors. The fund was introduced by the previous Government to support adult learners. Tailored learning helps to equip them with essential vocational skills such as English, maths and digital literacy, as well as covering a range of sectors from business management to health and social care.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for his comments and his overall support of the direction of travel. I will pick up a couple of the points that he raised, in particular his comments about the reduction in adult skills funding allocations. I have to say that our analysis is that we have made a small reduction of 3%. The noble Earl referred to a reduction of 6%, but the overall reduction is in fact 3%. I emphasise that devolution is about giving freedom to those who best understand local needs, so that resources can be managed more effectively.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I feel almost as though I should resume from the top for completeness.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for his comments and questions and, underlying those, for his welcome for the provisions through the adult skills fund. The important thing to remember is that devolution is about giving freedom to those who best understand local needs. We are looking for resources to be managed effectively and, in particular, to deliver greater positive impacts for local people.
I do not think I need to remind the Committee that this Government inherited a very challenging fiscal context. We know that adult skills play a vital role in driving economic growth, and we must make sure that we fix the foundations of the economy in the meantime. We acknowledge that there has been a small reduction of 3% to the overall adult skills fund for the next year. However, the Government will invest more than £1.4 billion in the adult skills fund next year, which is a significant amount of funding.
The budget has been reduced nationally for all devolved areas. However, the context in each area of the country is different. Each area will assess how it is managing its overall budget, and will make choices and priorities within that. Of course, the Government will continue to work closely with the devolved areas to make sure that they have the support to make the best use of the funding. I can speak from personal experience, as a former member of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, when I say that all of the constituent local authorities take this responsibility very seriously and want to make sure that they are delivering the best outcomes for both the people who live in their areas and the businesses that perform in them.
On that basis, I completely agree that it is very important that we look at outcomes and that we always look for ways to learn and to improve from the devolved areas. Of course, because of local circumstances, each devolved area will come up with a slightly different approach to the opportunities and challenges that it faces. The Government hold areas to account through the English devolution framework; accountability is absolutely key for the significant amounts of public money that are now being devolved to those areas.
In conclusion, I reiterate that our priority is to build a skills system that will drive forward opportunity and deliver growth for our economy needs. Again, determination at the local level is absolutely fundamental to understanding where the economy needs the skills and how they should be co-produced. It is a really important aspect of the new qualifications that will be at their disposal, from the powers they will get, that employers have been very closely involved in the design of these qualifications. Making sure that adults can access these high-quality qualifications, no matter where they live, is an absolutely fundamental principle.
Sheep Carcase (Classification and Price Reporting) (England) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Sheep Carcase (Classification and Price Reporting) (England) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 28th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before this House on 2 June. I draw the Committee’s attention to a correction slip that was issued on 5 June in relation to the draft instrument. This corrected a typographical error on page 20, in Schedule 2, in the heading to the second table, “Table 1”, which should read, “Table 2”. This does not affect the substance or intent of the legislation. Copies of the correction slip have been made available to Members.
I probably should declare an interest as sheep are kept on our smallholding.
For years, industry has been calling for mandatory sheep carcass classification and price reporting. This instrument will bring the sheep industry in line with the beef and pork sectors, where mandatory carcass classification and price reporting has been in place for many years.
This instrument mandates sheep carcass classification and the price reporting of sheep carcasses for larger slaughterhouses—those which slaughter at least 2,000 sheep per week. Smaller slaughterhouses that slaughter at least 1,000 sheep per week can voluntarily decide whether the regulations will apply to them. The legislation will also provide a process for the introduction of a system for the authorisation of automated sheep grading methods for slaughterhouses that wish to use automated carcass classification.
The reason we are introducing this legislation is that slaughterhouses are currently able to set their own standards for preparing and presenting sheep carcasses for classification and weighing. As a result, carcass weights across the sector lack consistency due to variations in the way the carcass is prepared, trimmed and presented. This inconsistency leads to a lack of transparency across the industry, with non-comparable prices being quoted or recorded. Consequently, farmers often struggle to achieve the best payment for the quality of their sheep carcasses when they sell their stock.
We want to see a more transparent, productive and efficient sheep market. By addressing this long-running supply chain fairness issue, we will both encourage farmers to improve productivity and ensure that they are paid a fair price based on the quality of their sheep. Producers can then also rear lambs that will better fit the market’s specifications and consumer demand.
The legislation will also introduce a consistent and robust mechanism for the evaluation of the carcasses of sheep that are aged less than 12 months old at the time of slaughter; this encapsulates the prime lamb market. The instrument requires the use of the EUROP grid, as it is commonly known, to assess conformation—that is, the shape—and the degree of fat cover. The meat industry is familiar with this carcass classification scale through the mandatory schemes for pig and beef carcasses. Several abattoirs have already been using it when voluntarily classifying sheep carcasses.
The new system will require operators to ensure that sheep carcasses are presented in a consistent way post-slaughter, at the point of weighing and classification. Regulated slaughterhouses will have to use one of two specified carcass presentations at this point.
The regulated slaughterhouses will be required to report the weight of the carcass and its classification details, along with the price being paid for sheep sold on a deadweight basis—that is, where payment for the sheep is dependent on the classification and weight of its carcass. These carcass and pricing details must be reported both to the supplier of the sheep and to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, which will process the information under contract to Defra, as it currently does for beef and pork.
The instrument will apply a licensing regime to classifiers and to automated classification methods. The Rural Payments Agency, which will monitor and enforce the regulations, will assess and license carcass classifiers. This means that both manual classifiers and automated classifying technology in regulated slaughterhouses will need to be licensed for sheep classification. Provision is made for automated classification methods to be first subjected to an authorisation testing process, which must be passed before the automated equipment using that method can be put forward for licensing in regulated slaughterhouses. This will ensure that the method being used for automated classification can repeatedly and accurately classify carcasses. The Rural Payments Agency will be given the powers to inspect the regulated slaughterhouses and to take enforcement action where there are breaches to the regulatory requirements. The sheep industry, including farmers and meat processors, has been pressing us to create a mandatory carcass classification and price reporting system for sheep carcasses, which this instrument delivers.
I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for, and congratulate her on, introducing these regulations, of which I wholeheartedly approve. This must be the most consulted-on SI in the history of SIs; obviously, it is a brilliant piece of work, because it was started under the outgoing Conservative Government.
I declare my interest in that I own one lot of shares in the Thirsk Farmers Auction Mart. For the purposes of Hansard, that is one lot—a very small group—of shares, not a lot of shares. I am also a patron of the Huby & Sutton Agricultural Society Show, which is not happening this year, sadly, because of the animal diseases that were prevalent earlier in the year.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. I welcome the fact that there is a de minimis rule and that small abattoirs will be excluded. Is there any crossover with the requirements of the BSE and foot and mouth provisions, or are these are entirely separate? This instrument is stand-alone in that regard, I think.
My concern is that abattoirs are reducing in number. It is not my fault but the first time that this happened was, I remember, when there was a European directive on abattoirs. It might even have been under a Conservative Government. We gold-plated it, over-egged it and implemented it in a way that was never intended. That was down to the Home Department, I am afraid, which thought that birds flying around an abattoir was not a good idea when, in fact, all the carcasses were washed before they were cut up.
Since that time, the number of abattoirs has greatly reduced. The NFU is, as I am sure the Minister is aware, very concerned about the implications of abattoir numbers reducing for livestock farmers generally. Has the department done an impact assessment on where we are with the current number of abattoirs? I welcome the fact that, for one thing, this SI applies only to small abattoirs; and that, as the Minister said, we are equating sheep with pork and beef.
If we are not careful, though, all abattoirs will be large abattoirs because there will simply be no small abattoirs left. It is causing great concern among livestock producers, as well as—dare I say it very softly—among the animal welfare lobby, because animals have to travel further to slaughter. Obviously, given the extreme heat that we have seen recently, that is not something to be commended.
With those few remarks, I endorse entirely what farmers and the NFU are saying: we need more smaller abattoirs. Are the Government likely to look at this? I know that there was a small abattoir fund up until 2023. Locally, a lot of the Thirsk livestock went to Kilburn abattoir, but that is now gone. This is not acceptable. It is not fair on farmers that they must have this additional worry and the cost of sending their livestock a longer distance. I therefore welcome the regulations and congratulate the Government. I know that there were a number of reasons for the delay, but I would welcome the Minister’s support for small abattoirs; it would be good to see where we are in that regard.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)
My Lords, I echo my noble friend’s words: this consultation has been going on for a very long time. My noble friend Lord Deben and I absolutely can vouch for these issues being regularly raised but not always sorted in the time between us coming in and out of office. I therefore congratulate the Minister on this achievement.
I want to say one really serious thing about the decreasing number of abattoirs. In Norfolk, we now have one and a half abattoirs, if I can put it that way; I will not elucidate, but that is what we have. It means that if, for example, a farmer is selling to a supermarket—Morrisons, say—the abattoirs will be in Manchester, with the obvious consequences for the travel of cattle. In the recent hot weather, this has been intolerable for live animals. We are at risk with the number of abattoirs. I say to the Minister: this has never been a glamorous cause to pursue, but we are at risk of being accused of endangering the lives of animals.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I remind the Committee of my interests. First, I let land for sheep; as I have an organic farm, we want the sheep to be there so that we have the proper, natural way of producing vegetables and crops of all sorts. Secondly, I am in the hospitality industry, where we seek to provide locally produced food.
I thank the Minister for bringing this hugely important instrument forward. It reminds us that sheepmeat is just as important as beef and pigmeat, although we have not previously treated it in that way. I am also pleased that she made the distinction between the large abattoir and the small one. However, I am very worried about the provision of abattoirs. If you are trying to provide local food in a restaurant or a pub, it is not all that local if it has gone hundreds of miles to be killed then come back again. This is a very serious issue.
I am sure that the Minister will not mind me raising the question of climate change. This hot weather will be regular. It has not come just because there is a Labour Government—I want to ensure that the Minister is not blamed for anything she should not be blamed for. We have to be serious about this: the fact is that we are in really serious trouble in terms of how we handle agriculture in a world that is steadily getting warmer. Although I congratulate the Government on the excellent policies being put forward by Mr Miliband, I still do not believe that we are doing enough across the board and that a great deal more has to be done as far as agriculture is concerned.
I worry about these decisions. First, what happens when a small abattoir becomes a bigger abattoir? In other words, how does the department deal with the fact that, unfortunately, abattoirs have become bigger? When it comes over the level at which it should be reporting, what arrangements are made for that? That seems relatively important to me.
Secondly, now that we are treating the sheepmeat industry properly, is this not the moment for us also to look at the possibility of providing, for example, mobile abattoirs, which will enable sheep to be killed near where they are? I have a long history of trying to distinguish between cruelty to animals and sentimentality about animals. I am deeply opposed to the kind of cruelty that arises if they travel long distances. I have never understood those people who are worried about the export of live animals but do not mind if they go from Suffolk to Manchester—it is a very odd attitude.
Lord Deben (Con)
I was talking about Suffolk because that is the better of the two counties, but there we are.
The truth of the matter of simply this. Can we take this opportunity to give some real support for small abattoirs near to where the animals are? This means—in Suffolk and in Norfolk—having accommodation that just does not exist at the moment. I hope that now is the opportunity for the department to take this up.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for introducing this set of much-needed regulations, which are aimed at bringing the sheep sector in line with the beef and pork industries through the introduction of mandatory carcass classification and price-reporting schemes. These schemes, long established in the aforementioned beef and pork sectors, have provided transparency, accountability and consistency across the market.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, these schemes, long established in the aforementioned beef and pork sectors, have provided transparency, accountability and consistency across the market. It is only right that the sheep sector now be afforded the same standards.
The proposed regulations, based on the existing Carcase Classification and Price Reporting (England) Regulations 2018, would require regulated slaughterhouses to submit weekly reports detailing price data by carcass classification for individual sheep under 12 months of age. Not only is this move logical, it is also timely. It will enable producers to better understand whether the prices they receive reflect the true value of their animals. It will also support better forward planning, evidence-based policy-making and market monitoring.
As it stands, the absence of a mandatory classification and pricing system has created a fragmented and inconsistent marketplace. While some abattoirs have voluntarily adopted classification systems and reported prices to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, others have used their own internal standards for trimming and weighing carcasses. This misalignment of practices has led to inconsistencies in carcass weights and a lack of price comparability, leaving many sheep farmers at a disadvantage.
Non-standardisation presents real-world consequences. It means that farmers often struggle to negotiate fair payment for the quality of their livestock and lack the data needed to make informed decisions that may improve both their businesses and productivity.
The proposals put forward today have been supported by a consultation held by Defra and the Welsh Government last year, which found broad support from stakeholders. Notably, the National Farmers’ Union, which has long campaigned for the reform, welcomed the proposals. David Barton, chair of the NFU livestock board, greatly looked forward to the proposals, which will benefit farmers, processors and customers all across the wider supply chain. The Meat & Livestock Classification has also voiced its support, recognising the potential of these changes to promote transparency and high standards in the British sheep industry.
Those processing 2,000 sheep or more weekly will be required to comply, and smaller abattoirs slaughtering between 1,000 and 1,999 sheep weekly on a rolling annual average will have the choice to opt in. This threshold strikes the right balance, capturing approximately 85% of all sheep slaughtered, while avoiding unnecessary regulatory pressure on smaller operations.
The instrument also includes a licensing regime for classifiers and automated classification methods, with an authorisation process in place to ensure the reliability of automated systems before they are approved for use.
I shall briefly touch on the subject of mobile abattoirs and smaller abattoirs, as referenced by my noble friends Lady McIntosh, Lady Shephard and Lord Deben. I know from personal experience that abattoirs are on the decline; I do not know the exact statistics, but the decline has been significant. Will the Minister come back to us on what has already been asked, but also on the small abattoir fund, a fund that we introduced, of around £4 million? What are the Government’s plans for that fund? Will it remain? Will the funding be increased? How are the Government promoting it to smaller abattoirs? What regulations can we look at changing in order to make mobile abattoirs easier to be set up and used throughout the country?
In conclusion, we welcome today’s statutory instrument, which seeks to ensure that sheepmeat producers get a fair price for the product. It is a sensible, proportionate and long-overdue step towards a more transparent and equitable marketplace. It gives sheepmeat producers the clarity and confidence they need to ensure that they are receiving a fair price, and it should result in the system operating to a higher standard.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to today’s debate and their strong support for these regulations; it is much appreciated. These regulations are important, so it is very good that we can bring them in smoothly.
The key issue raised in the debate is that of small abattoirs: every noble Lord who spoke mentioned the problem of the closure of small abattoirs. One of the reasons we wanted to exempt small abattoirs from the scheme, in order not to put extra administrative regulatory burden on them, is because we know what pressures they face. I am acutely aware that many small abattoirs have closed over, I would guess, the last decade. It is much harder for abattoirs to stay open, and I am very aware of the extra stress that that puts on farmers. Farmers like to know where their animals are going, and with abattoirs becoming more centralised and larger, they do not necessarily know the abattoir and the people running it in the way they used to. As noble Lords have said, animals have longer travel distances, often in hot vehicles, so it is not great for animal welfare.
When I was president of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, we had a campaign around small abattoirs, so this is something I know quite a lot about; it is very close to my heart. In fact, last year, I chaired the Oxford Real Farming Conference session on small abattoirs and talked to people from the industry, as well as to the people running mobile abattoirs, who were represented at that meeting.
The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, talked about the small abattoir fund, which Defra was running at that time. That fund was for a fixed period, which has now come to an end. I have been talking recently to the Farming Minister, Daniel Zeichner, about small abattoirs—I know that he has a particular interest in them—and what we can do next to support the industry, because we in Defra are extremely aware that this is particularly challenging in more rural areas. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, is from Yorkshire, others are from East Anglia and I am in Cumbria, and we all have the same problem. Our nearest abattoir is probably a two-hour drive in a farm vehicle.
One of the issues we are coming up against is the skill set. It is an extremely skilled job, and there is a problem with staffing abattoirs. We need to look at that, because it is all very well having funds, but if we do not have people with the skills to do the job, and people who want to train to do that job in future, we are never going to solve the problem. We are looking at how we can encourage people to look at this as a career choice. It is not always an easy career choice to sell, but it is an important and valuable job and it can be very well paid.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for raising this matter, because I understand that part of the problem was Brexit—in particular, attracting Spanish vets and people who would have done the job. Are the Government planning to find a means of recruiting people to that role?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Obviously, the EU reset is looking at all sorts of different things and it is not something I can particularly comment on. What I can say, though, on the issue of vets being present, is that we have also been in discussion with the Food Standards Agency on the regulation of smaller abattoirs, the presence of vets, the level of inspection and so on. We are also working with the FSA on that.
The simple thing for me to say is that I do not have an answer to how we resolve the issue of the closure of small abattoirs. It is not just about them closing but about how you get them to reopen, because that is really important; the small abattoir fund was only to support existing abattoirs, not to open new ones. It is quite a complex issue, but I reassure noble Lords that it is very well recognised in Defra. We have officials who really know and understand the problems around this, and Ministers who are committed to try to do their best. If noble Lords have helpful information they would like to share with me, I will be very pleased to receive it.
On other issues, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked specifically about whether this instrument is separate from issues around FMD and so on. It is completely separate, just to reassure her on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, asked what happens if a small abattoir gets bigger. The answer is that, if it is then caught by the regulations, the abattoir itself has a duty to report it to the department so that it comes under the regulations properly.
Finally, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for recognising the broad industry support for these regulations, because it is really important to recognise how important they are for industry. He also mentioned the devolved Governments. We have worked very closely with the devolved Governments, and they are working to ensure that retrospective legislation comes into force at the same time so that we have consistency across the country, because farmers and food processors need to get the value that their products deserve.
This instrument is an essential tool in our efforts to increase the fairness of the supply chain. It will establish a much-needed scheme that will result in a more open, fair and transparent sheep market.
Subsidy Control (Subsidies and Schemes of Interest or Particular Interest) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Lord Leong
That the Grand Committee do consider the Subsidy Control (Subsidies and Schemes of Interest or Particular Interest) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 28th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move these regulations, which were laid before the House on 2 June 2025.
The Subsidy Control Act came into force in January 2023. This legislation was designed to balance the need for streamlined processes to ensure that public authorities can quickly and effectively give subsidies to support businesses where it matters with the need to ensure that subsidies are proportionate, represent good value for the taxpayer and do not unduly impact on competition and investment. The Subsidy Control Act also ensures that our international obligations on subsidy control are reflected in our domestic legislation.
When this Government were appointed last year, we were keen to test whether the legislation had achieved the correct balance or whether any changes should be made to improve the functioning of the UK’s subsidy control regime. Following discussions with officials, feedback from affected public authorities and a public consultation, we have decided to amend these regulations.
These regulations set out which subsidies must face mandatory referral for scrutiny by the Competition and Markets Authority’s Subsidy Advice Unit, and which may be voluntarily referred.
The CMA review process is designed to capture the largest subsidies, which have the greatest risk of distorting competition or investment. Once the CMA has accepted a referral, it must publish a non-binding report on the subsidy’s assessment of compliance with the Subsidy Control Act within 30 working days. Using feedback from the CMA’s report, the public authority awarding the subsidy should improve the design of its subsidy or its assessment of compliance, thus reducing potential harm caused by the subsidy and improving its design. As the CMA’s reports are published, this referral process also improves the transparency of subsidy giving, offering competitors the opportunity to better understand when their rivals are receiving subsidies and where they may wish to challenge an unfair subsidy.
This SI updates the existing regulations, changing the definition of a subsidy or scheme of particular interest, or SSoPI. An SSoPI requires mandatory referral to the CMA for scrutiny. The effect of the amendment on the definition of an SSoPI is to increase the threshold at which a subsidy must face mandatory scrutiny. Currently, this is set at £10 million for non-sensitive sectors, with the amendment moving it to £25 million. This is in response to stakeholder feedback that the £10 million threshold was too low and capturing subsidies that posed only a low risk of distortion. This includes subsidies for leisure centres and well-being hubs, which pose a comparatively low risk of harming competition or investment in the UK, or trade and investment internationally. The new £25 million threshold represents a proportionate approach that will allow the CMA to focus its resources on the effective scrutiny of the largest subsidies that pose the greatest risk to the UK’s internal market and to international trade.
Although we are adjusting the mandatory referral threshold, the voluntary referral threshold—currently set at £5 million—will remain the same. This will allow public authorities the opportunity to voluntarily refer subsidies that would previously have faced mandatory referral where they consider they would benefit from this additional scrutiny. The rules around cumulating related subsidies will also remain the same, ensuring that the cumulative distortive effect of subsidies to a particular enterprise is still captured and scrutinised.
We will also retain the existing list of “sensitive sectors” and the lower £5 million threshold at which subsidies in these sectors face mandatory CMA referral. There is a strong rationale for effective scrutiny of these subsidies to mitigate the risk of trade distortion and international challenge. Scrutiny by the CMA does not prevent the awarding of these subsidies but will give public authorities the chance to strengthen their assessment of compliance, as well as their subsidy, and mitigate any risks.
These sectors were previously deemed to pose a higher risk of international challenge, and at present there is little evidence to support amending this list. Indeed, on balance, the evidence provided in response to our recent consultation did not point towards amending the list.
As I hope is clear from my remarks, the intention of these regulations is to update the thresholds for CMA scrutiny in a measured and proportionate way, reducing administration while retaining effective scrutiny where it matters most. I invite the Committee to support the passage of this instrument and I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. It was in January 2023, under the previous Conservative Government, that the UK subsidy control regime was established by the Department for Business and Trade. The aim of the regime is to give public authorities, including local government and devolved government, the flexibility to award subsidies tailored to local priorities while minimising distortion to competition and, of course, driving economic growth. Designed post-Brexit, the regime was created to be less onerous and more flexible while still retaining protections for UK competition and investment.
As the Minister explained, under the regime, two categories of subsidy in non-sensitive sectors were identified as more likely to lead to distortive effects on competition: first, subsidies or schemes of interest with a current threshold between £5 million and £10 million; and, secondly, subsidies or schemes of particular interest with a current threshold of over £10 million, or over £1 million but cumulating to over £10 million with other related subsidies over the previous three financial years.
This statutory instrument proposes changes to increase the threshold for determining a subsidy or subsidy scheme in non-sensitive sectors as being of particular interest from £10 million to £25 million. I welcome these proposals, which will reduce the administrative burden on public authorities awarding smaller, lower-risk subsidies and will allow the CMA to focus on effective scrutiny of the largest subsidies, which pose the highest risk to the UK’s internal market and international trade.
As the Minister pointed out, today’s proposals are supported by the Department for Business and Trade, which has cited the threshold increase as a necessary step, and I agree. As it stands, the current threshold has resulted in subsidies with, as the Minister quoted, a “comparatively low risk” of distorting competition and investment, such as sports and leisure centres, well-being hubs and brownfield land regeneration, being unnecessarily referred to the CMA and therefore undergoing a disproportionate amount of scrutiny. It is essential that we learn from these reports and improve the regime to support competition and economic output across the country.
Reports from the Department for Business and Trade show that, from 2023 to 2024, the CMA received 68 referrals above the current £10 million threshold. If the threshold had been £25 million, there would have been 49 referrals—a reduction of 28%. I believe that this is proof that today’s proposals will improve the efficiency of the subsidy regime, maintain competitiveness and better support our public authorities across the country in driving local economic growth.
That is why we on these Benches support these draft regulations. Raising the threshold for subsidies and schemes of particular interest is a proportionate and pragmatic adjustment to the UK’s subsidy control regime. It strikes the right balance between ensuring effective oversight of high-risk subsidies and reducing unnecessary administrative burdens on smaller, lower-risk projects.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for his contribution and for his support for the regulations. He is absolutely right that changing the main threshold to £25 million while maintaining the existing thresholds ensured a proportionate approach to scrutinising these subsidies. He is also right that, in 2023-24, there were 68 SSoPI referrals. Had the threshold been increased to £25 million, 19 subsidies would not have been referred to the CMA, meaning a saving of some 20%. That saved time and allowed the CMA to look at the other referrals.
The CMA referral process was designed to foster good policy-making by public authorities across the UK and ensure an appropriate level of scrutiny for subsidies that are most likely to cause harm to competition—as mentioned by the noble Lord—trade or investment. These regulations will reverse the threshold for mandatory CMA scrutiny in a balanced and proportionate manner, reducing the administrative process while preserving robust oversight where it is most needed.
Prisons: Mothers and Babies
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lemos
To ask His Majesty’s Government how many mothers are in prison with their babies, and what consideration they are giving to making alternative arrangements for them to serve their sentences or for their children to be cared for.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
At the end of March 2024, there were 38 mothers and 36 babies in mother and baby units. There are currently six mother and baby units across the women’s prison estate in England, providing specialist accommodation and support services. These enable mothers, where appropriate, to have their babies with them in prison. Sentencing is a matter for the independent judiciary, but this Government have a clear goal of reducing the number of women in prison.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. As well as the 38 mothers with babies he refers to, there are more than 200 pregnant women in prison. Typically, babies are parted from their mothers in prison at 18 months. If these mothers are no risk to their babies, are they really a risk to anyone else? Should they be in prison at all? Does my noble friend the Minister think there are better arrangements that we could make for mothers with babies serving custodial sentences—for example, secure mother and baby homes in the community?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
To answer my noble friend’s question head-on, whether these women should be in prison is a matter for sentencers to decide in each individual case. However, we have embarked on major changes to the sentencing framework, including to short sentences, to which 75% of women are sentenced. This will help to reduce the number of women, including pregnant women, in prison. On his question about arrangements for women and their babies, just last week I was in the mother and baby unit at HMP/YOI Eastwood Park, speaking to the mums there. In my view, the facilities and support offered were exceptional, and I am grateful both to the staff and to the third sector organisations, such as Action for Children, for providing that support. We need to maintain those standards of care in custody, but the real answer to this question lies in tackling the structural problems that lead these women into the criminal justice system in the first place. That is what the Women’s Justice Board, which I proudly chair, seeks to address—early intervention, diversion from prison and community solutions—so that we have fewer women in prison, including their babies too.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the six mother and baby units are successful. However, 17,000 children a year are separated from their mothers by imprisonment, harming both children and mothers. The impact of domestic abuse and drug addiction is overwhelming. Last Monday ITV News ran an article in which the noble Lord was interviewed and rightly described prison for many women as a “disaster”. So how quickly can we cut the use of prison for mothers of young children to a minimum and provide women offenders with the therapeutic environments they so badly need?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. He is exactly right: we need to do more and do it faster. That is why the Women’s Justice Board is acting very quickly and coming up with its answers in the next few months. For me, what is really important is the intensive supervision court model, which we are very enthusiastic about, especially the one in Birmingham that is just for female offenders. Instead of them going to prison, we offer the wraparound support services so that they can stay out of prison and stay in the community. This comes back to a subject that I am very passionate about, attachment. It is really important for mothers to be with their children so that they can gain the attachment that, if not secured in their early years, can cause significant problems later on. As someone who was brought up with hundreds of foster children in my life, I am well aware of the issues around attachment in young children.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, an experiment in Oxford some 50 or 60 years ago showed that a newborn baby cat, if blindfolded for more than about six to eight weeks, would remain permanently visually impaired thereafter. We know that the infant brain is developing faster in those first two years than at any other time. I congratulate the noble Lord on what he is doing in trying to improve the environment for women and their children. Does he think that more could be done and, if so, how would we do it?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I have seen all the mother and baby units in our prisons, and they are stimulating and incredibly professionally run. I also know that many foster parents and families who look after children of mothers in prison do an incredible job. But we are dealing with women in the justice system, most of whom are victims, most of whom are very ill, most of whom are suffering from addiction and most of whom have mental health problems too. That is why it is important that the wraparound services that we have to support them do so and do so quickly.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, we are all very grateful for the efforts of the Minister in this matter. He is very careful to maintain judicial independence and independence from sentencing, but is he convinced that the sentencers are invariably cognisant of whether a female offender is pregnant?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The experts who work in the justice system and social services are the best placed to decide how to support mums and their babies when they are in the justice system. We have recently introduced social workers in four prisons. That is a really important role, and I am looking to see how well it is going—but so far, so good. As I said in a previous answer, the complexity of these women’s lives means that we need an awful lot of support, but in my view that support is worth it, especially in those early years.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
For mothers in those units, how is the monitoring undertaken to make sure that they are not being given drugs through illicit routes to maintain their drug addiction? Are they routinely tested for substances to try to help them come off drugs and maintain better bonding with the baby as a result? Are they also tested for viruses that might be a problem if they decided that they wished to breastfeed?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I am not familiar with the exact details on testing, but I know that we have mandatory drug testing in all prisons on a regular basis. I am also aware, from having foster children at home, that when we opened the fridge we used to be careful whether we got out the Calpol or the methadone. Too many drugs get into prisons and too many people who go to prison are addicted to drugs. We need to deal with that, and we need to do it quickly.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, as there is no women’s prison in Wales, can the Minister give an update on the residential centre in Swansea?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The residential centre in Swansea is something that we are considering. We have had the spending review and we are waiting for the allocation process. I know it has planning permission. We talk about it a lot with Welsh colleagues. Other residential and non-residential centres for women, such as Hope Street in Southampton and Willowdene, are really important, not just to help them recover, often from addiction and mental health issues, but as a safe space. A number of the women in the criminal justice system are there because of dysfunctional relationships; often they experience violence at home, so these need to be very safe places.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, there is a great difficulty here in that the penalties have to be applied equally to men and women despite their circumstances, which might be different. Is the Minister satisfied that it is more in the interests of children always to be with the mother in prison, rather than being outside that environment and being looked after more adequately by society?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
Children always have to come first in these decisions. I have met a number of mums in prison who are with their babies, and it is the best place for them and their baby. It is a safe place, they are getting a huge amount of wraparound support and they are able to build really important relationships with their young children, but it is for the judiciary to decide who goes to prison.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister able to share what support is given to women once they leave prison and how long it is provided for?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The general rule is that babies can stay with mothers in prison for up to 18 months, but there is flexibility so they can stay longer if required. It is really important that when women leave prison with their babies, they have somewhere to live and a wraparound support network. That is why it is important that we give them a soft landing when they leave prison. This is where probation comes in and where the £700 million in extra funding that we have will be really important to make sure that we get that first night accommodation, because we do not want anybody leaving prison with no fixed abode.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, the Prison Reform Trust’s 2025 report found that two-thirds of mother and baby units are operating above safe capacity. Can the Minister confirm how many mothers are currently held in standard, non-MBU prison accommodation with infants due to those shortages? What urgent steps are being taken to address this?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
Having been chair of the Prison Reform Trust, I should know the details of that question, but I do not have them to hand so I will write to the noble Lord with the exact details. It is really important that we keep monitoring what happens in mother and baby units, because the children are our priority. We need to make sure that mum and baby leave there in a very safe way.
Unpaid Tax
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden
To ask His Majesty’s Government how much tax they estimate is unpaid each year, and what steps they are taking in response.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, the tax gap is estimated to be 5.3% of total theoretical tax liabilities. At the Budget last year, the Chancellor announced the most ambitious package ever to close the tax gap. The Government then built on this at the Spring Statement, setting out plans to make it easier for taxpayers to pay the right amount of tax for a modern and digital tax system. These measures will raise an additional £7.5 billion of tax revenue each year by the end of the Parliament.
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. He will be aware that in May the National Audit Office reported on collecting the right tax from wealthy individuals. It noted that
“underlying levels of non-compliance among the wealthy … could be much greater”
than anticipated and that, based on the most recent figures available, HMRC’s “wealthy team” devoted just 5% of its casework to investigating offshore non-compliance. Given that, what timelines will the Government set for HMRC for tackling non-compliance by the wealthy, particularly surrounding offshore assets?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for her question. As part of the action we are taking to close the tax gap, HMRC is recruiting an additional 5,500 compliance officers by the end of the Parliament; 400 of them will work specifically on wealthy offshore risks. HMRC has also created a new team focused specifically on tackling offshore non-compliance cases and is expanding its counterfraud capability, targeting those who facilitate wealthy individuals hiding money offshore. In the report that my noble friend mentions, the National Audit Office recognises that this Government are scaling up compliance activity to tackle serious offshore non-compliance and have committed further funding to do so. Looking ahead, we will take further action to close the tax gap; we have published consultations on strengthening HMRC’s ability to act against tax advisers who facilitate non-compliance and to close in on promoters of marketed tax avoidance. Finally, my noble friend asked about timescales. We will set out further plans in the Budget and will shortly publish a road map setting out HMRC’s strategic ambitions and the transformation required to achieve them.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s response—heaven knows, after last week the Government will have to raise a hell of a lot of tax to compensate for the extra expense they are incurring. On offshore tax avoidance, he will be aware that 3 million parcels a week arrive in the UK from offshore suppliers containing goods below £135 in value and therefore exempt from VAT. It is estimated that roughly £1 billion of additional VAT—that is not even in the tax gap—could be recouped. A number of actors, including RAVAS, have ideas on how to cure this. Will the Minister agree to a meeting with the Treasury and HMRC, which keep batting us away, to discuss how we can stop this tax gap?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I know that he has been in touch with my colleague the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury and has discussed having a meeting. I am sure that he will be in touch in due course.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, this is Whistleblowing Awareness Week. The Minister will know that HMRC, in its attempts to claw back large amounts of tax fraud, has announced a new scheme of rewards and incentives to bring whistleblowers into discussion with HMRC and to pursue fraudsters. However, there has been very little information about the structure around this, the mechanisms in place and the portals. Can he update us on what is meant to be the central pillar of the new attack on fraud?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
No. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making me aware of the awareness week. She says that this is the central pillar of our strategy; it is one of them. Most importantly, we are recruiting an additional 5,500 compliance officers, which is the central piece in what we are seeking to achieve. On updates, if there is anything further to say, I will be happy to write to her.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, back in February the Public Accounts Committee accused HMRC of not being
“sufficiently curious about the true scale of tax evasion”
in this country, suggesting that the tax authority’s estimate of £5.5 billion a year may be a significant underestimate. Does the Minister share the committee’s concern?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
After the measures we took in the Budget and the Spring Statement, no one could possibly say that we are not sufficiently resourcing the fight against the tax gap. As I said in my original Answer to my noble friend, the National Audit Office recognises in its report that this Government are scaling up compliance activity to tackle serious offshore non-compliance and have committed further funding to do so. It also recognises many of the measures we are taking, including, as I said earlier, significant additional investment in compliance officers by the end of the Parliament. The noble Lord will recognise that this is the most ambitious package to close the tax gap ever; we have committed an additional £660 million each year for measures to do so and by the end of the Parliament we will raise an additional £7.5 billion a year.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not disgraceful that some of the richest people in Britain get honours despite registering for tax purposes in places such as Monaco? As well as that, they are usually first in the queue for tax payouts if they want a subsidy for their business. Is it not time that we took a tougher line on these freeloaders?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I do not think the honours system is for me to comment on. The noble Lord will be pleased to know that we are taking the action I have already described, and we also intend to take further action to close the tax gap. At the Spring Statement, we published consultations on a wide range of issues, including widening the use of third-party data to help HMRC reduce error; strengthening HMRC’s ability to act against those tax advisors who facilitate non-compliance; and closing in on promoters of marketed tax avoidance.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, will the Minister give us an assurance that the Treasury will pursue Members, former Members and Members on leave of absence from this House with the same vigour as it pursues everyone else? In relation to one notorious tax dodger, will the Treasury accept the cash delivered in a JCB?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
It is not for me to comment on individual tax affairs, but of course HMRC will treat every taxpayer fairly.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, in pursuing tax evasion, the question of information from our dependent territories is key. There was an agreement between the Treasury and the dependent territories on the provision of fuller information about ownership of assets there as they relate to tax evasion here. We are well aware that a number of dependent territories— particularly the British Virgin Islands—have not yet implemented that agreement. Are the British Government pushing them to do so?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, at the end of 2024, it was reported that HMRC injected an extra £300 million into its compliance and fraud operations. Estimates suggest that these teams now have nearly 28,000 staff—which probably includes some of the 5,500 the Minister mentioned. What is the estimated cost benefit of this significant investment? Will the Minister agree to report to Parliament on the cost and on the tax actually recovered on a regular and consistent basis? We all want to see the success of this initiative.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
We have committed an average of £660 million each year on measures to do so. By the end of the Parliament, that will raise an additional £5.7 billion per year. That is quite a good cost-benefit ratio. Each Budget will report progress against that.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, between 2010 and 2024, HMRC failed to collect around £500 billion of tax. I therefore welcome the additional investment, but I am really concerned about the trajectory. Page 95 of the spending review shows that the HMRC budget for 2025-26 is to be £6.8 billion, rising to £7.3 billion for 2026-27. After that, there is a real-terms cut: the budget will be £7.1 billion for 2027-28, and £6.9 billion for 2028-29. Does the Minister agree that a real cut to the HMRC budget is not conducive to a sustained fight against organised tax avoidance?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
What is conducive is the most ambitious package ever to close the tax gap, raising £6.5 billion in additional tax revenue per year by 2029-30 and an additional £1 billion as a result of the measures in the Spring Statement. The spending review fully funded HMRC to deliver on those commitments.
Artificial Intelligence: News Media
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Black of Brentwood
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of artificial intelligence on the sustainability and reliability of the news media.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my interest as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
Trustworthy journalism plays a vital role in our democracy. Rapid recent developments in generative AI pose both significant risks and opportunities for news media. We are engaging with press stakeholders on this. The Media Minister and the Technology Secretary each held roundtables earlier this year with publishers and broadcasters to discuss the issues around AI in journalism. The Government will support our news media to capitalise on the huge potential benefits of the technology while mitigating its risks.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, AI poses an existential threat to independent media because of the way it scrapes their high-quality content without either attribution or payment to those who created it, which is an act of theft directly threatening the provision of quality news and the jobs of thousands of reporters. Is the Minister aware that research by market leader Cloudflare shows that, for example, for every 73,000 pages of content scraped by Anthropic’s AI crawlers from news providers, there is just one single referral back to publishers’ websites? Does she realise that without this vital traffic, publishers cannot sell advertising or subscriptions, and their businesses become unsustainable? The free press cannot wait years for copyright reform because there is nothing left to protect. We were promised immediate action on this issue when the data Act went through; when will we get some of it?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We want to get this right and for AI to work for everyone. All our work is around protecting existing rights for creators and the press and ensuring that AI creates new revenue streams for them. We are carefully reviewing all the responses to our consultation to ensure that any proposals taken forward properly support both the AI and creative sectors, including the media.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
Will the Minister undertake to view the opening session of the new inquiry by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, held last Wednesday, into human rights and artificial intelligence? In particular, will she look at the evidence of Professor David Leslie, the director of the Alan Turing Institute, who was very clear that this cannot be dealt with unless there is transnational co-operation? He drew attention to the Council of Europe document, published last September, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory but has not yet ratified. Can the Minister tell us when we will do so?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will need to get back to the noble Lord on the second point. On the first point, I am more than happy to watch the session to which he refers. As noble Lords are aware, we have a number of late sitting days, so I will make sure I use at least one of the evenings to watch what sounds like a really interesting evidence session.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, during the passage of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, the Government asked repeatedly that Parliament trust that they had the interest of UK copyright holders front and centre. So can the Minister explain why the UK Government have now signed a memorandum of understanding with Canadian AI firm Cohere, when Cohere is facing legal action from 13 news media copyright holders, including the Guardian, Forbes and the Atlantic? Does she not agree that the Government might better earn Parliament’s trust if, instead of rewarding with opportunities AI companies which infringe copyright, they limited those opportunities and future Government contracts to companies that lawfully license inputs?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
As I said, we want to, and need to, make sure we get this right for everyone. I am happy to have a conversation with the noble Baroness about the issue she raises.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the way the Government have approached AI and how they are dealing with different stakeholders, especially in the media. There is challenge regarding how the data is produced, but in its editorial guidelines our national broadcaster says that AI is part of the process in informing insight analysis, but not the production process. Are the Government looking at how the BBC and other broadcasters and content providers are adopting their policies to AI?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The BBC did a recent study on the use of AI and has done a quite a lot of work on, for example, the accuracy of chatbots. It is very well placed to get that real sense of how appropriate it is to use it. We want people to use best practice, and we are clear that AI offers the most powerful lever we have for national renewal, but we need to get the balance right, as I and other ministerial colleagues have said before.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the risks in AI of the impersonation of human reporting. A number of jurisdictions are experimenting with and exploring the watermarking of AI content, so that it is clear what is produced artificially and what is produced by people. The former Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg says in an article in the Times today that he is very sceptical of that approach. There is a counter-comment from Professor Michael Wooldridge of Oxford University commending it. Do the Government have a view on watermarking, and are their plans to introduce such legislation in the forthcoming AI Bill?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Without having read the article or looked into it in detail, I am hesitant to give a response, other than to say that we need to make sure that we get AI use up to an accurate level. Ultimately, in terms of news reporting, we are also very clear that the original source—the newspapers—need the revenue they get from people going through their pages for advertising, for example. I am happy to write to the right reverend Prelate on that point.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Select Committee on Communications and Digital, under the chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley. I am as keen to see trustworthy journalism as are the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Black, but before we all go marching shoulder to shoulder, I wonder if we can look at some of the behaviour. For example, in today’s Daily Mail and MailOnline, there are several articles of a highly personalised nature about the Chancellor. I will give noble Lords a flavour.
Lord McNally (LD)
Do noble Lords not want to hear it?
“A hormonal collapse from another femme failure who can’t cope when the going gets tough. A woman who wilts like a stick of damp rhubarb at the first sign of trouble”.
Unless we deal with that kind of misogyny in our national newspaper, and the noble Lord, Lord Black, joins some of us in trying to get high standards in our newspapers, then we will fail.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
My Lords, can the noble Lord sit down, because he has asked his question?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am not sure there was a question there, but I note the noble Lord’s comments.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, earlier this year, 61 countries, including France, China, India, Japan, Australia and Canada, signed the landmark Paris AI declaration, led by President Macron, the remit of which was to ensure AI is open, inclusive, transparent, ethical, safe, secure and trustworthy. So why did this Government refuse to sign it?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Earl clearly raises some important points. We genuinely want to get this right and for AI to work for everyone. All our work so far has been on protecting existing rights. In that context, I am happy to write to the noble Earl on that question.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, further to the points made by the noble Lord opposite, does my noble friend agree that misogyny in any shape or form, including in our newspapers or the media, is unacceptable?
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, the Minister keeps saying that the Government want to get this right—and of course, who could argue with that—but does she agree that in the broader sense, there are two fundamental tenets that we should be aware of? The first is that AI cannot be uninvented. The second is that it is developing extremely rapidly, so action to keep it under some sort of control has to be taken rapidly. Getting it right too late will not be the answer.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I agree that getting it right too late would be an issue, but we need to work through all the consultation responses properly. In preparation for this, I asked officials how fast they could do it, and they pointed out that it would not necessarily be appropriate for them to use AI to go through over 11,000 submissions. In addition to going through the submissions, we have announced plans to convene two working groups over the summer to look at transparency and technical tools, as well as a parliamentary group to engage Members as policy is developed. We will be reaching out to key contacts in the AI and creative sectors, including news media, to identify a mix of attendees as we work through our policy in this area.
Armed Forces: Recruitment and Retention
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of their recruitment and retention policies for the armed forces.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
Since July 2024, we have taken decisive measures to redress the recruitment and retention crisis, slashing the time it takes to access medical records from weeks to hours and restructuring the Army’s recruitment organisation. The results are clear. Year on year inflow is up 19% and outflow is down 7%; the Navy’s yearly recruiting target has been exceeded; the RAF’s applications are up 34% compared to early 2024; and the Army has seen a seven-year high in applications.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
I thank the Minister for his Answer. While conscious of the Government’s commitment to the recommendations of the strategic defence review and, for instance, improved housing and greater stability in posting, what assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the psychological impact of modern warfare—including drones and other digital means—on the likely recruits over the next few years, especially due to the reported higher mental health needs that there are among younger people?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is an interesting question. There are a number of different aspects to that. Clearly, mental health and the psychological impacts of modern warfare are things that any recruiting process will have to take account of, not only for recruits but for those who are serving and veterans. To answer the right reverend Prelate’s question, we have set up a new cyber direct entry means by which recruits can join, given the changing nature of warfare and the fact that traditional recruits may not be somebody we might regard as being fit for cyber recruitment. This issue is causing us to reflect and change in all sorts of ways, with respect to existing members of the Armed Forces and those who may serve in future.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
Does my noble friend the Minister agree that we have slightly lost sight of why youngsters want to join the military? I do not believe youngsters have changed that much and I think Capita got it wrong in spades. The sorts of reasons one joined were for action, danger, excitement, comradeship, travel and pride. Being told that you are going to have a very good pension in however many years and that there is going to be career development and this sort of thing is all fine and dandy, but you have to remember the real reason you might get people in. I think we got it wrong, particularly with Capita.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I agree absolutely with my noble friend’s points and will not repeat them. He will know that we have replaced Capita with Serco, which will make a difference. In a couple of years’ time, we will have a single point of entry for applicants, rather than through the three individual services. Let me also say this. We ought to speak up and speak out about the Armed Forces. My noble friend will know about the carrier strike group which has sailed through the Red Sea and is now on its way to Australia. They are young men and women who this country is rightly proud of, and we should use them as examples for our young people of the sort of service they can do and of what a career in the Armed Forces means. It is exciting, but it also stands up for the things that we in this country believe in.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister join me in congratulating the Armed Forces on the wide diversity that it holds now? Will he also tell the House what we need to do more of once people leave the forces so that we look after them better?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments and all the work that she does in trying to ensure that we get diversity, which is so important to our Armed Forces. She does a brilliant job, which we need to recognise, and we need more people like her. On how we treat our veterans, she will know that the Government are about to extend, in the Armed Forces Bill that will come forward in the autumn, the Armed Forces covenant so that it covers not only local government but central government and more departments. That is one of the ways that we will do it. We do it also by speaking up for the value which we place on what our veterans have done to defend the freedoms of this country and our allies.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, given the loyalty of Sikh soldiers in both world wars, there has been talk of having a Sikh regiment in the British Army for a number of years. Governments of both parties have talked about it. Is there any progress on that?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Let me consider that request from my noble friend. I am quite happy to meet him to see what more we can do to recognise the contribution of soldiers such as Sikhs, and those of many other faiths as well. We have VJ Day coming up on 15 August, and we should reflect then on the sacrifice that so many people made across the world—not just in Europe—to defend the freedoms that we all enjoy today. Not least among that were the Sikhs of the world, who played a valiant part.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, given the Minister’s response to my noble friend Lady Verma, does he think that creating uncertainty by reopening the possibility of vexatious prosecutions against Northern Ireland veterans who were simply doing their job will assist the goal of improving recruitment and retention in our Armed Forces?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a really important point. If she waits a couple of weeks, my understanding is that a statement will be made by both the MoD and the Northern Ireland Office about how we might take this forward.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, the 2023 review that was undertaken on recruitment and retention was conducted by one of our most eminent and successful businesspeople, and he identified a number of bureaucratic problems and economic drivers that would be important. The Minister has indicated that the Government are trying to work their way through that.
I want to pick up on the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord West. When young people get involved in business life, they are driven, appropriately, by individual economic drivers for their own betterment and success. When young people enlist in the military, we expect them to be prepared to sacrifice their own interests for the sake of the wider community. I know the Minister is very much aware of this difference and dilemma, but can he say a little more about how His Majesty’s Government are trying to address this dilemma?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The Government have increased pay by 35% for new recruits. That increase in pay is one of the ways in which we could encourage direct entry. We should not underestimate the power of the sense of duty among our young people and their desire to serve. As evidence of that, on Armed Forces Day and VE Day, in which the noble Lord and many other noble Lords and noble Baronesses across this Chamber will have been involved, it was remarkable to see the number of young people involved in those events across the regions and nations of the UK. That shows us that putting these careers and opportunities in front of young people is really important. Alongside that, we should never underestimate, however much sometimes we decry our young people, their sense of patriotism and duty.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, under the Capita system, probably the single biggest difficulty of the recruitment process was actually getting medical records out of the health service. What is happening to improve that?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We have scrapped a number of the medical record requirements to get rid of some of the silly things—for example, around dental records. Alongside that, we are making sure that, in the recruitment process, there is electronic access to GP’s records. That means that instead of days or weeks or months of trying to get those records, they can be accessed within a few minutes.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, the Government have committed to significantly growing the size of the Reserve Forces. With that in mind, what discussions have the Government had with employers to encourage them to promote the possibility of a career in the Reserve Forces and to ensure that they are prepared to release their workforce when they are called upon to serve?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We are having discussions with businesses of all sizes to try to ensure that we can promote the reserves as much as we can. That is in progress, and we will need to do more of it to ensure that we get the reserves we need.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
The Minister is well aware of the peculiar position of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary’s contracts. What assurances can he give me that the MoD will be looking at issues such as continuous days at sea and better work/life balance requirements for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Baroness has often raised the importance of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary to the Royal Navy, and we will continue to look at what more we can do with respect to it. I was recently in Singapore, where, as well as seeing the carrier and HMS “Dauntless”, I went to see the RFA ship—I can remember everything else except the name of the RAF ship.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lord West; that was very helpful—it is always good to hear your own side mumbling behind you. It was RFA “Tidespring”.
The serious point is this. As well as seeing the carrier and the “Dauntless”, I specifically went to see the RFA ship to ensure that I spoke to those people and discussed with them the importance of what they were doing and to see if they had any particular issues. That will inform the discussions that we have in the MoD.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Planning and Infrastructure Bill has been committed that they consider the bill in the following order: Clauses 1 to 12, Clauses 29 to 41, Schedule 2, Clauses 42 to 47, Clauses 13 to 23, Schedule 1, Clauses 24 to 28, Clauses 48 to 52, Schedule 3, Clauses 93 to 106, Clauses 53 to 66, Schedule 4, Clauses 67 to 83, Schedule 5, Clauses 84 to 89, Schedule 6, Clauses 90 to 92, Clauses 107 to 111, Title.
Renters’ Rights Bill
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:34 - Division on Amendment 53A - Ayes: 206 / Noes: 198 - Amendment 53A agreed.
17:07 - Division on Amendment 58 - Ayes: 213 / Noes: 209 - Amendment 58 agreed.
17:18 - Division on Amendment 59 - Ayes: 274 / Noes: 154 - Amendment 59 agreed.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, before we start the debate on the first group of amendments, I repeat the reminders from last week on declaring interests. As we set out previously, noble Lords should declare relevant interests at each stage of proceedings on a Bill. That means that, in their first contribution on Report, noble Lords must declare any relevant financial interests in a specific but brief way. Declarations do not need to be repeated in subsequent speeches on Report, so if noble Lords made a declaration last week, they do not need to do it again. As my noble friend the Chief Whip reminded the House last week, it is no longer sufficient to say that one’s interests are as set out in the register.
Clause 11: Right to request permission to keep a pet
Amendment 47
“(5A) The circumstances in which it is unreasonable for a superior landlord to refuse consent through the landlord include, but are not limited to, the following—(a) a superior landlord’s personal opinion of a tenant;(b) a superior landlord’s personal opinion of pets or specific species;(c) a generalised fear of damage to the property;(d) a pre-emptive fear of complaints from neighbours relating to noise, fouling or anti-social behaviour caused by the animal;(e) a superior landlord’s experience with a previous tenant about pets;(f) generalised or unsubstantiated animal welfare concerns.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets out examples of when it is unreasonable for a superior landlord to refuse consent, providing clearer guidance and limiting arbitrary or prejudiced refusals.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I start by declaring an interest: I own a dog that is subject to approval by a superior landlord of the flat in which we live. It has that approval.
In Committee, the Minister laid out the Government’s commitment to enabling many more tenants to have pets in rented properties, which is, of course, very welcome. However, in her reply to my Committee stage amendment, which was similar to this amendment, she made the point that the Government did not want to include superior landlords among landlords who could unreasonably refuse the right to keep a pet. The superior landlord owns the head lease under which another landlord may come. She gave two main reasons: first, that there are practical challenges involved in engaging with superior landlords, and secondly, that in many cases the superior landlord is not based in the UK or is a complex ownership structure and requiring the superior landlord to give reasons for refusal for a pet might involve the tenant and/or the landlord in lengthy and costly processes that might make the obligation difficult to realise in practice.
The fact is that most superior landlords are very quick to contact tenants when there is something they do not want to happen or there is an issue about money, so I do not accept how difficult it is to engage with them. The Minister may give me some examples. The fact that they are based overseas or have a complex ownership structure is simply not a good reason. The Minister kindly said she would come back to me after she had looked at the quantum involved, and I wonder whether she has found that out now as I have not heard anything.
The Minister went on to say that my amendment was “not proportionate or necessary”. In fact, it is necessary, given that there are about 24,000 property management companies and the average size of portfolio is about 193 units. That would equal about 4.5 million units altogether, and the bigger superior landlords often manage about 144,000 properties. That is an awful lot of tenants to whom this very good clause of the Bill would not apply. On whether it is proportionate given the size of the tenant base who, without my amendment, will not benefit from Clause 12, I believe it is necessary and desirable that, when we legislate, we are as fair and equitable as possible.
Since Committee, I have noticed warnings going out from people who represent superior landlords. I shall quote a couple. Nockolds writes:
“One proposal introduced by the Bill is that Landlords must not unreasonably refuse pets at a rental property. In assessing what is ‘reasonable’ in these circumstances, it is likely to be justified for the Landlord to refuse a pet if the superior lease does not allow pets. If you do not want pets to be kept in your buildings, this may be a sensible clause to introduce”.
That is what is going to happen. Superior landlords will all just introduce clauses, even if they do not have them now, to preclude pets, so there could be an unintended consequence without my amendment. John D Wood & Co goes into the matter:
“Under What Grounds Can a Landlord Reject a Pet?...acceptable reasons may include … Superior Landlord Refusal”.
There is a real issue here that, without including superior landlords in the Bill, the Minister will find that Clause 12 was a nice idea that does not work in practice.
In Committee, the Minister rightly said that the Government want tenants to have the right to own a pet. We do not give superior landlords a free pass to discriminate in any other way, and we should not do so in this case. I hope the Minister will agree. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 48, which stands in my name. I declare my interests both as a landlord for my own part, to a small extent—all for properties in Scotland—and as trustee, in particular for the Blair Charitable Trust, all properties of which are also in Scotland.
At the earlier stages of the Bill, it was reflected by a number of noble Lords that pets promoted well-being among tenants; that is something with which I very much agree. I am looking at the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who made a very good speech on this point at an earlier stage.
The thrust of this Bill is that there is a presumption that pets should be allowed in rented property. There are two protections for landlords. First, they can say no if it is reasonable to do so; we have just been hearing about some things that might not be so reasonable. Secondly, there is a protection for landlords, at least currently in the Bill, of deposits and insurance. However, social housing is not included in the Bill; indeed, it is specifically excluded. That seems to me very unfair.
I am grateful to the Minister and her Bill team, some members of which I can see sitting in the Box. They have been very generous with their time; we have been over this topic a number of times in the Minister’s meeting room upstairs. It seems to me that people in social housing are in many ways the people who most need the sense of well-being that a pet brings. I would be very keen that we make that change.
In the meeting—I do not want to steal any of the Minister’s thunder—a number of points were made to me about this area, and I must say that I have been brought along with those. I would be very grateful if the Minister could tell the House everything that she told me. I think that would be helpful to everyone on this amendment.
Lord Trees (CB)
I rise to support Amendment 48 in the name of my noble friends Lord Kinnoull and Lord de Clifford. It is a short amendment but, hopefully, could have a long impact. It would allow tenants in social housing some of the benefits with regard to keeping a pet that this Bill will provide for tenants in private properties. Tenants seeking social housing may not be in a position to buy their own property; if they did, they would have no problem with keeping a pet and they would have all the positives to which my noble friend Lord Kinnoull alluded in relation to well-being and health benefits. Instead, the Bill denies them those rights, which are enjoyed by tenants in the private rental market. I am curious to understand the Government’s explanation for this.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I too am anxious to have a better explanation. To me, the Bill seems very unfair, as it introduces two classes of people, one of whom will be disadvantaged at the same time as others are advantaged. It is one step forward and another one or two steps back. I hope that the Minister will be able to give sufficiently strong reasons why this should not happen to make me content, but I am not holding my breath.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest. My wife is the landlord of a number of rented properties. My reason for rising is to invite the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, when she comes to reply, to clarify something that puzzles me about her Amendment 47. It says:
“The circumstances in which it is unreasonable for a superior landlord to refuse consent through the landlord include … a superior landlord’s personal opinion of … specific species”.
I ask her whether this means that the superior landlord would be prohibited from saying that he or she does not think it is reasonable or appropriate for the tenant to keep as pets rats, skunks or tigers.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I speak today in support of Amendment 48 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Trees. I declare my interest with regards to pets, as I own a share of a veterinary practice that cares for pets and I have my own dog. We welcome the Government’s support of a tenant’s right to request to keep pets. Although social housing is not the main focus of this Bill, surely it is fair and reasonable for all tenants to have the same rights to request to keep a pet, regardless of the type of landlord that they rent from, whether it is a private company or a social landlord. As I have said previously on this amendment, it also makes it fair to all landlords. Surely private landlords should not be the only landlords to have to accept pets in their property. I hope that the Minister can find a positive solution today to this issue and that all tenants have the opportunity to keep pets in their homes.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak on Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Baroness, Baroness Miller. I speak as a landlord of rental properties in Norwich, as declared in the register. Naturally, we should consider the rights of people who own companion animals, but that must go hand in hand with the rights of a landlord who may be concerned about damage to his property and the rights of neighbouring residents who may have to deal with the consequence of noise, mess, smell, and so forth. Once again, there is a balance to be struck, but this amendment strikes the wrong balance.
It is obvious that keeping a pet elevates the risk of damage, especially in the case of furnished accommodation. This Bill contemplates that all tenancies are the same, but there are different sorts of properties and in furnished accommodation the consequences of damage are greater. It fails to recognise the reality of different types of accommodation, whether they be period or listed or of some historic or archaeological merit making the building incompatible with pets. There are often circumstances, particularly in blocks of flats, where there are communal amenities—for example, common courtyards or gardens, often where children play. All these are different to the detached rented home in the countryside where there is much more space. This Bill contemplates a one-size-fits-all approach, regardless of all the different types of properties one may wish to tenant, whether they be furnished, unfurnished, in the countryside, or flats.
It is reasonable for a landlord to refuse to allow a large dog in a small flat where there is no outside space. Confined animals do not just chew, although they do. They bark and upset the neighbours, and the needs of neighbours must be considered. This Bill is all about the tenant, and I can understand that that is important, but it is to the exclusion of any other stakeholder, and that cannot be right. The landlord must make the judgment and take into account whether the applicant, perhaps a night-shift worker with a large dog, is suitable for his property. I will concede that there is a world of difference between the different types of pets: goldfish, spiders, dogs, cats and ferrets—may I be the first to introduce a Second Reading having just heard the First Reading of that particular Bill? Let us make those distinctions with the chewing variety. By just calling them pets, we are denying the obvious distinction between two legs, four legs, 100 legs, no legs, fishy ones with scales and so forth. There are different types of animal contained within this catch-all. That cannot make sense.
The one point where I agree with Amendment 47 is in proposed new paragraph (a), where it says that the landlord should not form predisposed opinions of the tenant. I agree with that, but not in the way you might think. I once had the chief executive of a county council as a tenant. Her cat ate my sofa. The white polyester fluff was everywhere. I did not know where the cat ended and the sofa began. These things happen, but my point is: however well-heeled or fragrant that tenant might have been, she had no control over the pet whatever. It is important that we consider that it is the pet which potentially does the damage, and not the tenant, because that lady worked long hours and travelled widely. She was not there. The chewing cat was incompatible with her lifestyle, and my furnished apartment took the consequences.
Let us move on. The Bill contemplates that the tenant with a pet has that pet at the outset, but neither the Bill nor the amendment adequately takes into account the possibility of a tenant who may acquire a pet during the tenancy or somehow mendaciously mislead as to the nature of an existing pet or even hide it away altogether. When we are considering pets—this is probably a bit too late because that is in Clause 4, which was done last week—we have to contemplate that wilful misdescription amounts to a breach of contract.
I have no intent to be overbearing or heavy-handed, but these are examples where the rights of the tenant must coexist with their neighbours. At the moment I have a case of a tenant who repeatedly allows his small dog to urinate against the wall in the communal courtyard. That is damaging the brickwork, which is for my account, and is really unpleasant for the kids because it is the only place for them to securely play away from the traffic that passes outside, and that is really not fair on everybody.
I have mentioned the distinction between the goldfish and the Staffordshire terrier and between the spider and the snake. While I am not scared of spiders or snakes, some are. One of the clauses in the Bill is about predispositions towards certain sorts of animals. Scaredness is a different sort of cat completely, the scaredy-cat. It is right and proper that people with a predisposition against those sorts of animals are protected.
I regret to say that the noble Baroness’s amendment is well meaning but does not live in the real world between the differences of location, different properties, different furnishings, different types of animal—fur or feather—and the neighbours. These examples are not grounded in prejudice; they are grounded in the balanced welfare of all residents, and the landlord has a role to arbitrate to everyone’s benefit. I am afraid I cannot support Amendment 47. I make no comment on Amendment 48.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 48 from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, not because he is the Convenor of the Cross Benches, although that could be a bonus point, but for three reasons. First, my family have never kept a pet, but why should I be part of a legislature that would deny somebody seeking consent to keep a pet simply because they live in social housing? To me, that is clear discrimination. It cannot be right that you would say, “Because you’re in social housing, you cannot request the consent of the landlord”. It is their right to ask for consent. That is not to say that it would give an automatic right to the social housing person to keep a pet.
Secondly, we are constantly told that this wonderful nation and the other three are nations of pet lovers. Do we want to say that somebody in social housing cannot be a pet lover? Who would want to say that?
The third reason is our beloved Majesty, the late Queen Elizabeth II. Do your Lordships remember when there was somebody who was going through a lot of trauma and she invited that gentleman to come and spend time with one of her corgis? Noble Lords will remember that the person said, “This has put my trauma in perspective”.
Those who want to keep pets because they live in social housing, and because they are animal lovers, should be given the same right as others to request consent.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, in particular the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for his thoughtful and balanced Amendment 48. This Bill must work for renters, but it must also work for landlords. We have discussed pets at length throughout the stages of the Bill and there is no denying that pets provide vital companionship, comfort and emotional support for many. It is therefore no surprise that this issue has attracted considerable interest across the House.
However, we recognise that this is not a Bill about social housing; it is focused rightly on the private rented sector. The frameworks, obligations and operational realities governing social housing are distinct, and we believe they are better addressed through the appropriate legislative and regulatory channels. That said, we fully support the principle behind the noble Earl’s amendment and hope the Minister will take this issue forward. There is a clear opportunity to work with housing associations and local authorities to ensure that fair, proportionate and compassionate policies can be delivered in this space.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for their amendments on pets and for their continued engagement on these issues, which has been incredibly helpful. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate: the noble Lords, Lord Trees, Lord Pannick, Lord de Clifford and Lord Fuller, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. I have heard the passion of noble Lords on the issue of keeping pets. I hope there is overall support for the aim of the Bill to make it easier for tenants to keep pets but to get the balance right between tenants and landlords.
Amendment 47 seeks to set out a list of circumstances in which it would be considered unreasonable for a superior landlord to refuse consent for a tenant to keep a pet. These include personal opinions, general fears of damage or complaints and previous negative experiences with other tenants. While I completely understand the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, to provide clarity and guard against unfair refusals, I must respectfully say that I do not believe the amendment is needed. Our letter in response to the noble Baroness’s questions in Committee was sent on 15 May. I am really sorry if she has not had that letter, but I will make sure it gets sent out to her again today.
We do not believe it is appropriate or practical to draw superior landlords into the day-to-day running of the tenancy. Requiring them to engage directly in case-by-case decisions about pets risks creating serious administrative burdens. We believe it could also lead to complex and costly delays in decision-making, particularly where superior landlords are difficult to identify and contact or are located overseas. The noble Baroness cited experiences where they have responded quickly, but I know from personal experience of having tenants trying to contact superior landlords that it can be a very complex business.
That said, we intend to publish guidance alongside the Bill to assist landlords in understanding what might constitute a reasonable refusal by an individual’s immediate landlord. This will help ensure clarity, without locking specific examples into primary legislation. For these reasons, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will consider withdrawing the amendment and not pressing for a Division.
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for tabling Amendment 48 and discussing this important issue further following Committee. Like the noble Earl, this issue is very close to my heart, and I absolutely would not want to see a two-tier approach. It is right that requests from tenants across all sectors to keep pets be considered fairly, especially given the valuable role pets play in people’s lives. Whether they be corgis, or the veritable zoo quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, pets can provide a great deal of comfort and company to those who wish to keep them.
Following Committee, my officials have explored the issue further. I can confirm that many social landlords already set out and publish their policies on pets in their tenancy agreements, allowing tenants to keep pets where appropriate. We have not been able to find any significant evidence that social tenants requesting a pet are not having their requests considered fairly. Although tenants in social housing do not generally experience the same barriers to keeping a pet as those in the private rented sector, I recognise that it is important to have clarity and consistency across sectors. Therefore, I intend to write to social landlords to ensure that they are fairly considering tenants’ rights to request a pet, and to share existing best practice in this area.
However, for the reasons I have set out, I do not I believe it is proportionate or necessary to add further provisions to the Bill regarding a social housing tenant’s right to request a pet. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, pointed out, even if legislation were required, this Bill is not the right vehicle for it as it would create inconsistent rules within the social rented sector. That is because the provisions in the Bill would apply only to tenants of registered providers who grant assured tenancies and not to the majority of local authority tenants, who are granted secure tenancies. Given the current approaches taken by landlords in the social rented sector, the lack of evidence of issues warranting further regulation, the additional engagement by my officials and my undertaking to continue to monitor this—and if there does seem to be a need, we will look at that if we bring forward future legislation—I hope the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, will consider withdrawing his amendment.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
I am very grateful for what the Minister has said all round. Before she sits down, I wonder if I could push her just a little more. I think she is saying that there will inevitably be a suitable Bill on social housing at some point, and that it will be the Government’s policy to bring forward at that stage an amendment similar to this, so that there will be a legal necessity for social housing to offer availability of pets on the same basis as this Bill.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We need to continue to look at the evidence, and to look at the response to the letter that I will write to social landlords. We will then take further action, as necessary and if it is needed, in future legislation.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has contributed to this debate and thank the Minister for her reply. I found very helpful her response to the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—which we do support—saying that she will write to ensure clarity and consistency.
I had a slight dread when the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, got to his feet, because I thought it would be something really tricky, which of course it was. On the circumstances in which superior landlords can have an opinion on specific pets, I am trying to include superior landlords in the same way as the Bill already includes landlords. I understand the issues the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, raised, but they are for direct landlords, not superior landlords, and we debated those very fully in Committee. It is people with portfolios of hundreds of flats having a blanket refusal—or not—I am concerned about. The noble Lord talked about a simple detached home in the countryside.
Lord Fuller (Con)
We can bandy around the distinction regarding the superior landlord with the offshore pension fund and hundreds of thousands of dwellings, but what about the small charity that owns a listed building held in trust for possibly hundreds of years? It surely must be entitled to its head leaseholder laying down certain provisions. It is not just about a common or garden large house in the countryside versus a flat; there have to be guardrails. Does the noble Baroness not understand that, as well-meaning as her amendment is, she has failed, I regret to say, to consider some of those narrow points and therefore it is incomplete? I find myself having huge sympathy for the Minister on this one; the amendment is incomplete.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
I am still struggling to understand why the noble Lord is referring to something that is much more about direct landlords. It is not bandying terms around; there is a specific legal definition of a superior landlord, and that is the only group my amendment is talking about. It is not talking about individual landlords.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for her comments, which were indeed more welcoming. I hope the Minister will consider some guidance to superior landlords too to address this situation. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This removes provision inserted into the Housing Act 1988 making it an implied term of an assured tenancy (other than a tenancy of social housing) that a tenant will comply with conditions relating to pet insurance where the landlord has consented to the tenant keeping a pet and given written notice of the condition.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their rigorous, detailed and good-natured engagement on the matter of pet damage insurance. In particular, the extensive knowledge of the insurance industry of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has been of great assistance in ensuring that we get this policy right.
Following much debate in Committee and further discussions with sector stakeholders, including the Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers’ Association, we have reflected on our position and I will now speak to government Amendments 49, 54, 55, 57 and 73. I have listened carefully and recognised that, while the insurance market adapts to public policy, there is a risk that relevant insurance will not come on to the market sufficiently following implementation of the Bill. To avoid a situation in which landlords could essentially veto a tenant’s reasonable request to keep a pet, we are withdrawing the pet insurance provisions from the Bill. Tenants will still be able to request to have a pet in their home, but landlords will no longer be able to require insurance to cover property damage caused by a pet. Although our view was that a new market will develop for insurance products, following further engagement with the sector we now accept that this may not happen at the scale necessary. We are committed to supporting responsible pet ownership in the private rented sector and we do not want to leave tenants in a position where they are unable to comply with impractical conditions that a landlord may place on the tenant as part of their pet consent.
Noble Lords will rightly want to know what this means for landlords with concerns about potential property damage. I reassure the House that we are also now satisfied that landlords will be suitably protected from damage caused by pets, particularly after noble Lords shared evidence in Committee—for example, the University of Huddersfield report showing that three-quarters of pet-owning tenancies result in no claim against the deposit. As such, I am content that the existing five-week deposit for typical tenancies will cover any increased damages caused by pet ownership. We will, however, continue to monitor this closely after the implementation of the Bill. If tenants with pets are regularly causing more damage than deposits can cover, we have existing delegated powers to allow higher deposits for tenancies with pets under the Tenant Fees Act 2019. I hope the House recognises that we have listened and responded to the debate with pragmatism. Private renters should be treated fairly if they have reasonable requests for pets, and our legislative framework should support that. I am grateful to all colleagues who have helped us to get to the best position possible, and I beg to move government Amendment 49.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, before putting Amendment 49, I must advise the House that, if it is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendments 50 to 53 due to pre-emption.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I first wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and the Government for adding Amendment 49 to this Bill with regard to pet insurance. I know that the Minister and the Bill team, as well as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, have spent a lot of time on this matter, and the Minister listened and considered the noble Earl’s expert views and spoke to the insurance market before bringing this welcome change to the Bill.
I have submitted Amendment 53A. I originally supported Amendment 51 in the noble Earl’s name, with regards to the pet damage deposit, but it no longer worked within the Bill. As mentioned previously, I welcome the changes in this Bill regarding pets. The Government have acknowledged that pets can potentially cause damage or wear and tear to the property, so there was a need for a pet insurance product to cover potential costs, but that is now not part of the Bill.
The amendment seeks to provide an alternative protection to landlords and tenants from the possible additional costs that may be incurred by keeping a pet, to maintain the condition of a property. The additional three weeks’ rent as a deposit would provide an amount towards those costs. Some would say that the first five weeks would cover all forms of wear and tear; that amount is set aside for human wear and tear and damage.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 53A. Getting the balance right between landlords and tenants is something that was stressed by a number of speakers on the previous group of amendments, including the Minister. The Bill really amounts to a presumption that tenants can keep pets, on the one hand, and protection for landlords, on the other hand, in the shape of a deposit and insurance. Insurance is going to fall away because it was not available and would have entailed a high cost. Even if such insurance had been available, the loss ratio would not have represented good value for tenants. Good tenants would have lost all their money, whereas, as the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, has pointed out, you can get your deposit back with interest at the end. I feel that a deposit is a very good way to go, and that is why I tabled Amendment 51. I was disappointed that the appearance of Amendment 49 was going to kill Amendment 51 by way of pre-emption. That is why Amendment 53A is a very good idea.
Pets damage buildings. We heard a lot about this in Committee, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, may say something to remind us of all the unseen things that pets bring into the home. I am afraid that I feel that the survey by the academics at the University of Huddersfield is a rogue thing; it does not accord with my experience at all—and the Blair Charitable Trust is a reasonably sized landlord all round. Pets do damage things, but a deposit is a very fair way of adjusting the balance between the two people.
In Scotland, that deposit is set at two months. Here, if the correct level of deposit is five weeks and we add the risk of a pet on top of that, which was going to be taken out by the insurance as originally proposed in the Bill, it seems to me not to be a good balance that there should be no increase in the level of deposit protection. In the original Amendment 51, I had set the additional protection at three weeks because I considered eight weeks very similar to two months and I felt that having some symmetry between Scotland and England on this point was a good idea. I also felt, through experience, that Scotland, with two months of deposit, was okay, and that the balance between tenants and landlords was okay where pets were concerned. I feel that Amendment 53A has a tremendous amount of merit.
One of the points made to me is that Amendment 53A would add a lot of expense to tenants in the amount of deposit they would have to put up. I was just totting up how much our own two dogs cost to look after in a year, and it is a lot. Even though they probably eat better than some dogs, the dog food, inevitable visits to the vets—we do not buy insurance but it would amount to roughly the same as insurance is a pooling scheme—and all the various other things one has to do, such as finding someone to look after them if you go away on holiday, cost many hundreds of pounds a year. There is also the initial cost. I am talking about dogs, but it would be same for other pets. The website Pets4Homes has 1,625 dogs on it today, which cost between £400 and £3,000. Many people who have pets are engaging in something that is reasonably costly anyway, so asking them to provide another three weeks of security is perfectly fair and proportionate—especially if, having looked after the property well, they get back not only the interest on it but the money itself at the end. I am very pro Amendment 53A.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I too will speak to Amendment 53A, but first I thank the Minister and her team for their Amendment 49 and the consequential amendments, which will improve this Bill substantially. I thank her for the helpful letter about assistance dogs, which is a matter I raised in Committee and at Second Reading.
I support Amendment 53A. As many have said, it is extremely important that landlords are willing to accept tenants with pets—an objective with which all noble Lords would concur. This amendment would further that objective, and I think it is quite significant.
The costs incurred occasionally—it is only very occasionally but it happens—can be substantial. It goes way beyond a gnawed chair leg or a bit of wallpaper off the wall. As has been alluded to, if one has deposition of potential allergens in a property or a flea infestation, a real deep clean can cost hundreds if not almost thousands of pounds. Those costs inevitably fall on the landlord at the minute and are a considerable potential disincentive.
We have heard the figures from Huddersfield. Another figure is that 75% of landlords did not have a problem with pets. That means that 25% of landlords accepting pets have had some degree of problem. I note that 40% of landlords do not accept pets at all.
The deposit suggested in the amendment is proportionate and extremely important to assure landlords that, if there were to be negative results from a pet, they would get acceptable recompense. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has pointed out, the deposit costs nothing if there has been no problem. It is returned fully, with interest, to the tenant. As he also pointed out, keeping a pet, particularly a dog—we are probably mainly concerned with what dogs can do—is a major financial responsibility and should not be undertaken by people who could not afford to put up a deposit of the size suggested. I support this amendment.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 53A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, spoken to so ably by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.
While there is considerable improvement in the present five-week deposit limit, there will still be a good number of cases where the damage by pets is more than the cost of the remedial work that needs to be done. For the first time ever, I have just refused a tenancy on the ground that the pets would be inappropriate. The proposed tenants wanted to have three Newfoundland dogs in a two-bedroom property. In Committee, the Minister said that the Bill already permits landlords to refuse their consent on reasonable grounds which are best judged on a case-by-case basis. Would my refusal to have three Newfoundland dogs in a small two-bedroom cottage be reasonable? I doubt that even an eight-week deposit would cover the potential damage, and the present five-week deposit would be nowhere near adequate.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, brought forward Amendment 53A, because it is enabling us to have this very interesting debate. We are talking about the cost of pets, but actually you could transpose the words “children” or “elderly incontinent”, because those two groups equally have very difficult problems. They can damage carpets—if anyone has had children in a house, they will know that they can inflict an awful lot more damage than pets. Unfortunately, the elderly and the disabled can often be equally as damaging.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, mentioned that pets have fleas, which is very true. However, if you let your property to people who travel a lot, there is the risk that they might bring bedbugs back, which are much harder and more costly to get rid of than fleas.
Although I understand the reason for the noble Lord’s amendment, we do not support it. We think the Government have struck the right balance with their Amendment 49, which we will support.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 53A. However, I ask the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, to deal with one point when he replies. There appears to be no requirement in the amendment that the landlord must be acting reasonably in demanding a deposit. It is easy to understand and entirely reasonable that the landlord may require a deposit if the tenant wishes to keep dogs, but it would not be reasonable to demand a deposit if the tenant wishes to keep a goldfish. It is easy to understand the idea that there is no harm done because the deposit will be returned at the end of the tenancy, but the requirement of the deposit may well inhibit the tenant from being able to have the goldfish and the companionship that it gives.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, once again I declare my interest, in that I am a landlord.
I support Amendment 53A most strongly, but I wonder if I might dwell on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Looking around this Chamber, I see that most of us travel a lot as part of our duties in this House if we live outside of London. I am sure my wife would be the first to complain if I brought bedbugs back to our family home.
Drawing on my experience as both a landlord and a managing agent, I know the cost of the Bill will be that the additional costs of damage, wear and tear, fluff, cleanliness, pest control and all those other little things—as enumerated most ably by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford—will, particularly in blocks of flats, be borne by those tenants who do not keep pets. I do not think that is right. Quite simply, keeping a pet is an add-on to a tenancy and the additional cost should be borne by those who bring the pets with them.
There are lots of examples of where things can go wrong and I will give an example, from my own lived experience, of a tenant who declared that he did not own any pets at all. In due course, he brought his two large dogs to the property, where he left them while he went to work. By and by, it became clear that my house was being used as a kennel. Not only were the neighbours disturbed by the barking all day and all night but, by the time the tenant had stopped paying rent and I had taken proceedings, £15,000-worth of damage had been caused. When he finally left, I discovered the most foul-smelling and revolting scene: one bedroom had been used as a doggy lavatory for weeks. It would have been even worse had the proposals to stop repossession action been extended from eight to 13 weeks.
This was a gross case, in every respect, although I was lucky to get an insurance claim because the sum of money was so large. But that is not what we are talking about generally in this Bill. We are not concerned about granny who may be infirm, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, implied, chewing the table leg or eating the carpet. We are thinking of the middling bit, where it is above and beyond the three weeks. I agree with my noble friend Lord Howard that the additional three weeks is not enough, but I accept that we have to fight the battles we can win. If that is as good as we can get, it is a proportionate compromise that I am prepared to accept.
Several noble Lords mentioned—and I agree—that if the pet does not cause any damage, the tenant gets the deposit back in full, with interest. I place on the record that in the statutory deposit protection schemes, interest is not normally paid. The deposit goes in and the costs of interest are retained by the deposit scheme, presumably to defray their costs of operating the system and its administration. I would not want those watching this outside the Chamber to think that we are now going to introduce the requirement to pay interest if the landlord does not accept that.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the Government’s ability to increase the deposit through the Tenant Fees Act 2019, but I think we should accept here and now—and Amendment 53 implies this—that there are additional costs and risks to keeping pets, and it is obvious that we should not necessarily wait. Let us have those provisions within the Tenant Fees Act 2019 introduced immediately, but proportionately, so the goldfish is not charged at the same rate as the Newfie—that would not be sensible—particularly in cases where there is furnished accommodation. Then we can have a good compromise that everybody can live with.
Finally, I do not want to repeat this at length, but I believe that if we can come to that arrangement, having that deposit benefits the tenant because at least they get it back, whereas in the case of buying an insurance policy—not that these policies exist, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said—that would be an absolute cost because they would pay whether there was damage or not. I strongly support Amendment 53 and if the noble Earl is minded to test the opinion of the House, I will follow him through the Lobby.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the issue of pet-related damage is understandably a source of concern for landlords. This group of amendments raises important questions about how we balance—that word balance again—the increased rights granted to tenants to keep pets with the responsibilities and protections that landlords need.
It is simply not reasonable to argue that the existing tenancy deposit, which is designed to cover damage under current arrangements, is also sufficient to cover the additional risks introduced by granting tenants a new right to keep pets.
The Government have already accepted that pets pose a greater risk by including pet insurance measures in the Bill. That was a clear recognition that pets are likely to cause additional damage. However, as we consider these provisions, it is crucial to reflect on the experience already gained in Scotland, where tenants’ rights legislation has evolved to allow pets in rented properties, while seeking to balance landlord protections. In Scotland, the introduction of pet-friendly tenancy provisions and related insurance requirements has offered valuable lessons. While these measures have expanded tenant freedoms and encouraged pet ownership, they have also revealed challenges, particularly in ensuring that landlords are adequately protected against damage and in making sure that any additional costs or deposits are fair and transparent.
Either pets cause additional damage or they do not. If the Government now claim that they do not, they must provide clear and compelling evidence to justify overturning their original assessment. Without such evidence, it logically and fairly follows that the landlord should be permitted to take a separate pet damage deposit.
We believe it is inevitable that some damage will result from pets. That is why we support Amendment 53A, which would introduce the option of a dedicated pet damage deposit. This would provide landlords with an essential route to recoup costs, while also protecting tenants from unfair charges by clearly defining that this is a separate and transparent element of a tenancy agreement and that, as we have already heard, if no damage is done, they get this charge back.
We recognise that some landlords may choose to welcome pets without requiring additional deposits—or, in the future, insurance—and they should be free to do so. But where landlords require further protections, there must be a fair and transparent mechanism for tenants to provide it at the outset of the tenancy.
Finally, the experience in Scotland reminds us that implementing pet-friendly rental policies is a delicate balance that must be tailored to the practical realities that landlords and tenants face. As the Bill moves forward, it is essential that it draws on such lessons to achieve frameworks that work fairly across the whole United Kingdom.
If the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, is minded to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 53A, we will support him.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I know it is a hugely emotive and important issue for so many people, and we have had a good debate on it today. I thank the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for introducing his amendment, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the noble Lords, Lord Trees, Lord Howard, Lord Pannick and Lord Fuller, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Scott.
I turn now to the amendments in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. As we have discussed, Amendment 50 is not required as our government amendments remove the insurance requirements altogether. I understand fully the intention of Amendments 51 and 53A, with the aim to ensure that landlords are protected from potential damages caused by pets. However, we are content that existing deposits, which are capped at five weeks’ rent for typical tenancies where the annual rent is less than £50,000, or six weeks’ rent for tenancies over £50,000 per annum, are enough to cover typical pet damages.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, illustrated very clearly some of the complexities of this issue. Allowing a further three weeks’ deposit would cost the average tenant in England over £900. This is unaffordable for many tenants, who will have worked very hard to save for their deposit for their property, and greatly exceeds the average deposit deduction for pet damage of £300 reported in the study we have already spoken about. That study found that 76% of landlords reported that they did not encounter any damage caused by dogs or cats in their rental properties. Where there was damage, it was an average of £300 per property, compared with £775 for non-pet-related damage.
The report also shows that renters with pets tend to stay longer in their properties than those without pets, indicating financial and social advantages for landlords in fostering those longer and more stable tenancies. In the very rare cases where the insurance and deposit do not cover the cost of damage caused by a pet, a landlord can of course take the tenant to the small claims court by bringing a money claim to recoup any outstanding funds.
In relation to the issues mentioned about Scotland, housing is of course a devolved matter in Scotland, and it is for the Scottish Government to set deposit limits for private rented properties. I note that the right to request a pet does not yet exist in Scotland. In England, we believe that the five weeks’ deposit will be sufficient to cover damages. We also have concerns that in some cases it will be impossible to distinguish between damage caused by pets and that caused by tenants themselves. This could leave pet owners with more exposure to large, unreasonable deposit deductions compared with other renters. As I said, we have an existing power under the Tenant Fees Act, which we could use to allow landlords to require a larger deposit where they have consented to the tenant having a pet. We want to closely monitor how the pet provisions work in practice following implementation, and will consider using the power in the Tenant Fees Act if we see that the cost of pet damage is frequently exceeding the value of deposits.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, the Minister just said that the situation has changed. I have listened very carefully to the debate. The Government thought it was necessary to have insurance; they now say it is not necessary. Therefore, the Government have already admitted that there needs to be something additional to protect the landlord in the case of somebody having a pet. Frankly, the argument does not stand up to say that that is not so. I hope that the Minister will accept that she really has to go back and say that if there is no insurance, there has to be a greater degree of protection for the landlord.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I hear what the noble Lord says, and I have listened to other noble Lords, but the evidence in the study that I cited is that three-quarters of landlords of those tenants who have pets do not report any damage. Where there is damage, the cost is around £300, which is perfectly within the scope of the normal deposit. We are content that landlords would be suitably protected against the cost of pet damage through existing tenancy deposits.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 53. As I stated in Committee, “premium” is already commonly understood to include any insurance premium tax, so this amendment is not strictly required, in our view. However, following the Government’s amendments, which remove the ability of landlords to require tenants to obtain insurance to cover the risk of property damage caused by a pet, the noble Lord will, I am sure, recognise that this amendment is no longer required. I therefore request that these amendments not be pressed.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, as previously advised, Amendment 49 having been agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 50 to 53 due to pre-emption.
Amendment 53A
Lord de Clifford
“16D Pet damage deposit(1) It is an implied term of every assured tenancy to which section 16A applies that if, at the time of consenting to the tenant keeping a pet, the landlord informs the tenant in writing that the payment of an additional pet damage deposit by the tenant is a condition of the consent, then the tenant must comply with that condition.(2) The additional pet damage deposit under subsection (1)—(a) can be used to make good pet damage,(b) must be of equivalent value to three weeks of rent,(c) cannot be subject to the limits for deposits in tenancy agreements, and(d) is subject to the rules governing deposits in tenancy agreements, for purposes of monies handled.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to introduce a new option of a landlord pet damage deposit.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
I thank your Lordships very much for their contributions on my amendment. I will answer just a few of the questions posed. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, that children and, potentially, elderly people can cause extra damage, but pets have their own minds and are uncontrollable. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has pointed out a possible slight fault in the amendment, but landlords do not have to make that a condition. If it was just goldfish, I think there could be some negotiation with the tenant.
I have listened to the Minister and her suggestion of a way of reviewing this in time, but that will take time. It could be many years before we see a change. Therefore, I think landlords need a little more protection when it comes to pets—they do cause additional damage—so I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name which would remove the provision to be inserted into the Housing Act 1988 relating to indemnity and insurance for pets.
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment removes the provisions to be inserted into the Tenant Fees Act 2019 to allow tenants to make payments relating to pet insurance in consequence of the amendment in my name which would remove the provision to be inserted into the Housing Act 1988 relating to indemnity and insurance for pets.
Baroness Grender
“Permission for home adaptations(1) The Housing Act 1988 is amended as follows.(2) After section 16 insert—“16A Home adaptations(1) It is an implied term of every assured tenancy that a landlord must give permission for adaptations where a local council has carried out a Home Assessment and recommends adaptations which constitute reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.(2) A tenant may appeal a landlord’s refusal to give permission for such adaptations.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would ensure that landlords of private and social tenancies provide permission for home adaptations for people who have disabilities where a Home Assessment has been carried out.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 56 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Tope, who, regrettably, is unable to be with us today. This amendment would require landlords to grant permission for home adaptations that qualify as reasonable adjustments, provided that a local authority assessment has been completed. The challenges faced by disabled tenants are many and their needs are often complex. Without clear provisions allowing disabled tenants to make the necessary adaptations following a proper assessment, they risk being unable to remain in their homes long term. Far too often, disabled tenants are forced to move frequently, encountering unpredictable and inadequate modifications that undermine their ability to live independently.
This is not a marginal issue. The 2023-24 English Housing Survey found that 37% of households included someone with a long-term illness or disability, with that figure rising to a striking 59% in the socially rented sector. According to a 2024 report by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee, one in three people living with disability in the private rented sector lives in unsuitable accommodation—the highest rate of any tenure type. Meanwhile, a survey by Generation Rent found that more than eight in 10—86%—of disabled private renters reported that their disability or mental health condition had been negatively impacted by renting privately.
Following the Committee debate, I am grateful to the Minister for highlighting the additional funding for the disabled facilities grant and for her comments on the review of the allocation formula, which is a welcome step. I also appreciate the Minister’s remarks regarding the ongoing review of the upper limit for the disabled facilities grant. However, I highlight that this upper limit has not been revised since 2008, meaning that it has not kept pace with rising costs and the increasing complexity of adaptations needed. While I agree that any review must be thorough, to ensure fairness and sustainability, it is equally important that it is carried out with a sense of urgency. Delays in updating the upper limit risk leaving many disabled people without the full support they need to make their home safe and accessible. A timely review and adjustment are essential to reflect the current realities and provide adequate assistance for those who rely on this vital funding. I also gently urge the Government to prioritise timely and efficient local authority home assessments. For many disabled people, delays in these assessments mean living for months or even longer in unsuitable or unsafe conditions.
The challenges facing disabled people in the housing sector were highlighted in deeply concerning evidence from, again, the local government Select Committee. Some individuals waited 22 weeks to complete just the first stage of their disabled facilities grant application, leaving them without access to an adapted kitchen or bathroom during that time. While I understand the concerns about creating a two-tier system, the central aim of this amendment is to ensure that, once a professional assessment has confirmed a need, there is a clear pathway to delivering those adaptations. I hope that Ministers will continue to engage with the spirit of this proposal and explore practical ways to reduce unnecessary barriers to independent living.
I also express my support for Amendments 72 and 86, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Amendment 72 proposes a new clause to establish a right to minor home adaptations for accommodating a disability. This is an important and practical step that would enable disabled tenants to live more independently, without unnecessary delays or obstacles. Amendment 86 seeks to prevent discrimination against prospective tenants who may require adaptations for accessibility. This is a vital protection to ensure that disabled people are not unfairly excluded from the rental market because of their needs. Both amendments reflect a fair and proportionate approach to improving accessibility and inclusion in the private rented sector. I hope the Government will give them serious consideration.
While I do not intend to divide the House at present, I hope that the Government will listen carefully and reflect on the proposals contained in these amendments. The aim is not to impose undue burdens but to support disabled people in living independently and with dignity in homes that meet their needs. I urge the Government to continue engaging constructively on this issue and to consider how we can work together to improve the system so that it is more responsive, more equitable and more attuned to the realities faced by disabled tenants across the country. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 72 and 86. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for giving such a good explanation of them. I wish I had lobbied the Minister more, as all three amendments in this group are very good and very sensible.
Turning first to Amendment 72, I was talking last night to a friend who has very severe disabilities. He said he had noticed that, while landlords are very slow at making improvements or adaptations and allowing their tenants to do so, business, retail business in particular, is moving ahead. He talked about a new retail development in Yeovil where everything is accessible. It is roll-in, roll-out, and people with disabilities in wheelchairs, for example, have full access.
It seems that businesses are taking this seriously, so why are the Government and landlords not doing so? Renters of all ages face challenges—it is not only the older ones among us—but older renters are particularly vulnerable, for several reasons. They are more likely to have health issues or disabilities, which means they are more at risk of becoming ill because of poor housing. They are also more likely to live in poor quality homes. In view of our ageing population, this is not just a good thing to do but entirely necessary.
I welcome the support of the LGA for Amendment 86, as promoting equitable housing access and preventing discrimination is fundamental to our society. It is essential that tenants are protected from unfair discrimination when seeking housing. I do hope that Labour listens. We have seen with its welfare reforms what happens when Labour does not listen to the needs of disabled people. These are simple changes, but they are important. They would change the lives of our ageing population for the better, now and in the future—and that is what a progressive Government should do.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Baronesses for speaking in this debate. It is a sensitive issue. It concerns adaptations for some of the most vulnerable in our society and touches on those who require the greatest compassion and care. We do need to support people to live independently in their own home. As a council leader, I was proud that we built a number of fully accessible, affordable homes for the disabled.
However, I must express some concerns about Amendment 56, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. This Bill is focused on the private rented sector, yet the amendment introduces provisions relating to social tenancies. As my noble friend Lady Scott alluded to earlier today, social housing providers have not been widely consulted in the lead-up to this Bill. Imposing new requirements on them without proper consultation and discussion would be inappropriate. Any such change rightly belongs in a dedicated social housing Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, said earlier that she would seek to write to social landlords and perhaps this is another opportunity for her to do so.
Furthermore, the amendment is riddled with gaps. It lacks clarity on important matters such as what happens when a tenant leaves, who is responsible for reinstatement, its cost and the loss of rent while work is carried out. There is also the issue of ensuring work is carried out to a high standard and that structural integrity is maintained. These issues are vital to maintaining the value and usability of the property, and the amendment fails to address them adequately.
Turning to Amendment 72, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I note that it defines “minor changes” as including structural alterations. Structural alterations hardly seem minor. While I fully appreciate the noble Baroness’s intentions and her compassionate approach, which we all share, this is a complex issue. I strongly believe that we must strike a careful balance between compassion, cost and deliverability, and we must do so in a thorough and considered manner. I hope that your Lordships’ House agrees.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for his amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for moving it so ably, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her amendment. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. He may remember that I visited some of the housing that he developed when he was a council leader to pinch some ideas for my own local authority. It was indeed very accessible.
Amendment 56, from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, would require landlords to allow disability adaptations when a local authority has carried out a home assessment and recommended changes to be made. While the Equality Act 2010 already provides protections for disabled renters, I completely accept that they are not always as well understood as they should be. It is right that we consider how to address barriers preventing disabled renters getting the home adaptations they need. However, as I stated in Committee, I do not consider that this amendment is the right way to do this. A new requirement linked to local authority home assessments would create a confusing two-tier system. As a consequence, even these well-intentioned measures might make it harder for people who are not eligible for disabled facilities grants to access adaptations.
As I previously set out, the Government have committed to take steps to clarify matters further to support disabled renters. We all recognise what a vital issue this is and the difference it can make to someone’s life to have adequate access to their property. We will look to ensure that the written statement of terms that landlords will have to provide to new tenants includes the duty on landlords not to unreasonably refuse tenant requests for disability adaptations.
We also intend to work closely with the sector to deliver a communications and engagement programme to raise awareness of disability-related rights and obligations among tenants and landlords, and we will explore enhancing guidance to help landlords and tenants better understand the current system. This is in addition to existing provisions in the Bill that empower disabled tenants to request the home adaptations they need. For example, by abolishing Section 21 evictions, we will remove the threat of retaliatory eviction, and the creation of the new ombudsman will give tenants a new route of redress when their adaptations are refused.
The Government have also increased funding for the disabled facilities grant, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned. We have increased the grant by £86 million, bringing the total amount to £711 million. On the role of local authorities, they must provide a decision on the disabled facilities grant application within six months of receipt and the works must usually be completed within 12 months of the approval date. I appreciate that that can feel like a long time when you are waiting for an adaptation, but the Government have published guidance for local authorities in England to help to support the efficient local delivery of the disabled facilities grant, including speed of delivery. I appreciate that in some areas the availability of occupational therapists to do the assessments has proved an issue. Many local authorities are looking carefully at this issue, and I know we will be taking steps to address it.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for participating in this short but sweet debate on a very important issue.
I particularly welcome the reiteration of the application of the Equality Act, particularly for people with disabilities who simply wish to have reasonable adjustments to live their lives with independence and dignity. That is the most important point that we are trying to achieve with this amendment.
I am sure that my noble friend Lord Tope would wish me to say that he would love to continue to work with the Minister on this issue to try to ensure that we can achieve some of the changes that are required. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name which would remove the provision to be inserted into the Housing Act 1988 relating to indemnity and insurance for pets.
Lord Pannick
(iii) the dwelling house has been demonstrably available for purchase on the open market at a fair price for not less than six months and the landlord has not had any suitable offers to purchase the dwelling house.(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b)(iii), the previous tenant or local authority retain the right for the courts to require evidence and to decide whether genuine attempts have been made to market and sell the property at a reasonable price and no offers at or above that price have been refused.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment proposes a 6, rather than a 12, month prohibition on renting out an unsold property to make it impossible for a landlord to benefit financially by falsely claiming to be selling a property in order to require a tenant to vacate. The amendment includes evidential safeguards to ensure sale attempts are genuine and to support greater availability of property for rent.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Cromwell has asked me to apologise to the House on his behalf, as he is unable to be here today. Amendment 58, tabled in his name, was debated last Tuesday.
I remind the House that the Bill says that, if a landlord asks a tenant to leave on the grounds that the landlord is selling the property but the property then fails to sell, which happens in about one-third of cases, the landlord will then, in all such cases, be prohibited from renting out the property for another 12 months. Amendment 58 seeks to reduce that period to six months, which would mitigate what is an unjustifiably penal provision of the Bill, which damages both landlords and prospective tenants. With the agreement of my noble friend Lord Cromwell, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Young of Cookham
“16GA Exemption for shared ownership leaseholders(1) Sections 16E and 16F do not apply to any relevant person who gives notice under Ground 1A in Schedule 2 if on the date such notice is given that person is a tenant under a shared ownership lease.(2) For the purposes of this section “shared ownership lease” has the same meaning as in section 13 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and “tenant” shall be construed accordingly.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to protect shared leaseholders whose sales fall through, as is common. The current drafting of clause 14 would leave the shared ownership leaseholder with an empty property if notice is given and the sale falls through.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, when I spoke to this amendment last Tuesday, I said I was minded to test the opinion of the House if the Government could neither accept the amendment nor give an assurance that shared owners letting flats in blocks affected by the cladding scandal could sell the flats back to the housing association they bought it from when a sale falls through to save them from the financial problems that will confront them with the proposed 12-month ban on re-letting. Although I was grateful to the Minister for the meeting she held with me, and for her sympathetic remarks at the end of that debate, and read with interest the letter that she sent me this morning, I am afraid that it falls well short of the assurances I was looking for, so I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Report on financial assistance to local housing authorities(1) Within 12 months of the day on which section 16 (landlords etc: financial penalties and offences) comes into force, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must make a statement of all financial assistance provided to local housing authorities under section 16L of the Housing Act 1988 (financial penalties: supplementary and interpretation).(2) The statement made under subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This would require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on financial assistance provided to local housing authorities.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Bill brings forward significant changes to the way our housing market functions and to the Government’s role within the private rented sector. It introduces new controls, grants new powers to the Secretary of State, imposes new fines and restricts what landlords and tenants can do. These are not minor or technical adjustments; they are fundamental shifts in how the private rented sector will operate.
A Bill of this scale and consequence will require a clear, well-planned implementation strategy. It cannot promise change at some undefined point in the future, with no clear road map for how landlords and tenants will be taken along that journey. Effective communication and timely guidance will be essential to ensure that the sector is not left in a state of uncertainty.
Beyond implementation, the Bill will alter the underlying dynamics of the market. The Government’s active involvement will inevitably shift the balance of supply and demand, change price signals, affect future capacity, influence rational expectations and alter incentives for both landlords and tenants. These are not unintended side-effects; they are the direct consequences of the choices made in this legislation. That is why we have to be so passionate about the need for proper accountability and monitoring. It is why we tabled Amendment 118, which would require an impact report on the effects of this Bill as a whole, covering the housing market, rent levels, house prices and availability.
It is clear to us that the Bill will not enhance the availability of homes; indeed, it risks diminishing it. It will not ease the pressure of unaffordable rents, but may exacerbate it. Nor will it drive improvements in the quality of rented accommodation; quite the reverse, it threatens to hasten its deterioration. The Government should therefore be required to return to both Houses with a report on the impact of this legislation, not merely a review. A review can be vague, take time and be inconclusive, lacking in accountability and expensive. A report, by contrast, must provide evidence, analysis and a clear assessment of outcomes against the stated aims of the Bill. If we are to legislate with such ambition, we must also commit to transparency about the consequences of this Government’s Bills.
Finally, I wish to draw the House’s attention to Amendment 60, which would require the Secretary of State to provide an annual report on financial assistance to local housing authorities. This is about transparency and accountability. When public finances are under strain and the fiscal outlook is bleak, taxpayers deserve to know where their hard-earned money is going. I hope the Minister will consider how we can strengthen oversight when significant sums of financial assistance are involved.
On the broader principle of scrutinising the Bill’s intentions and implications, I am pleased that we have found common ground with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. The Minister and the Government may find this group frustrating, but the onus is on us to ensure that predictions are tested and instincts are aligned with reality. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 90 and 93 in the name of my noble friend Lady Thornhill, who, unfortunately, cannot be here. These are thoughtful and constructive proposals that seek to strengthen the effectiveness and accountability of the Bill.
Amendment 90 would require a review of the impact of Part 1 within three years, specifically addressing its effect on renter security and stability. Given the significance of the reforms introduced by the Bill, it is entirely reasonable to build in a mechanism to evaluate whether these changes are achieving their intended outcomes and put it before Parliament. I am aware that the department conducts its own review processes for legislation of this kind, but I would welcome assurances from the Minister that these reviews will be thorough and fully account for the various impacts of the Act across the private rented sector.
Amendment 93, also tabled by my noble friend Lady Thornhill, proposes a review of how well tenants understand their rights and obligations under the Bill and where they are most likely to seek that information. This speaks to a critical issue. The Bill makes a number of positive reforms, particularly in strengthening the rights of renters to challenge unfair practices such as unlawful rent increases, poor property standards or breaches of their tenancy agreements through accessible routes such as the First-tier Tribunal. However, as we have discussed again and again in Committee and at Second Reading, far too many tenants either are unaware of these rights or lack the practical information and support needed to exercise them. Without clear and accessible communication, even the most well-intentioned reforms risk falling short. This amendment would ensure that the Government are proactive in identifying how renters seek advice and whether current methods of communication are effective at reaching them. It is only through this kind of follow-up that the Bill’s protections can be meaningfully realised in practice.
Amendment 60, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on financial assistance provided to local housing authorities. As drafted, in our view, the amendment does not clarify the contents of the review and the information it suggests is already available. We are much more supportive of Amendment 118, which would require a broader review of the impact of the Bill on the housing market. We attempted to introduce this on day 1 of Report; we argued then that, given the scale of the reforms to the private rented sector, a review of this kind would provide a useful opportunity to assess the Bill’s wider consequences.
We hope the Minister will take these considerations into account. These amendments do not seek to undermine the Bill but rather to ensure that its implementation is informed, effective and fair. A commitment to review the impact on renters’ stability and to assess how well tenants understand and can access their rights would demonstrate that the Government are serious about delivering lasting change in the private rented sector. It would also offer a valuable opportunity to identify where further support or clarification may be needed, helping ensure that the reforms achieve, as we all hope, their full potential.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Thornhill, for their amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for again ably speaking to them.
Amendment 60 would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement of the financial assistance provided to local authorities in connection with their powers to impose civil penalties for breaches and offences relating to assured tenancies. The statement would need to be laid before Parliament within 12 months of Clause 16 coming into force, and then annually for an indefinite period. It is clearly important that local authorities are prepared to fulfil the duties placed on them by the Bill. However, requiring the Government to produce an annual statement of the nature outlined in this amendment would create a significant administrative burden for little benefit.
We know that the enforcement duties created by the Bill will present an additional net cost for local authorities. That is why we will ensure that the additional burdens created by the new system are funded in line with the new burdens doctrine. We will continue to work closely with local authority stakeholders as the Bill is implemented to ensure a smooth transition to the new system. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 90 from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, seeks to prescribe the groups with which the department would be required to consult as part of this process. I know there is a large amount of interest in this House on the impact of this legislation, and I have previously set out to the House the approach we will be taking to monitoring and evaluating the impact of the Bill.
The use of a broad range of data is at the heart of our approach. As well as existing data, we will use data from stakeholders such as local authorities, and data generated from the reforms themselves. I agree that it is important that our evaluation makes use of interviews, surveys and focus groups, and we have committed to conduct these with a range of stakeholders. This amendment would require the Government to speak to renters, landlords and local authorities as part of our evaluation. We have already committed to speaking to these groups. In fact, we plan to go further and draw on the experience of letting agents, third-sector organisations, delivery partners, the courts and tribunals service and government officials. The information we collect from speaking to these stakeholders will be used as a key part of our evaluation of the programme.
I also recognise that this amendment places a particular focus on the impact of the Bill on levels of homelessness and the use of temporary accommodation. We already collect robust data through the Homelessness Case Level Collection. Local authorities provide quarterly data returns on their actions under the homelessness legislation. This allows us to effectively monitor homelessness, including temporary accommodation breakdowns.
No approach to tackling homelessness can rely on a single action. Instead, we are determined to address the homelessness crisis we inherited and deliver long-term solutions. That is why we have already made a £1 billion investment in homelessness and rough sleeping services this year—2025/26—a £233 million increase on the previous year. In addition, we are developing a cross-government strategy to get us back on track to ending homelessness. We are committed to moving away from a system focused on crisis response, taking a holistic approach to preventing homelessness in the first place and driving better-value-for-money interventions.
Amendment 93—also from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill—would introduce a legal requirement for the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the extent to which tenants in the private rented sector understand their rights and obligations. I know the House will share my view that the successful implementation of the Renters’ Rights Bill is firmly rooted in how widely its provisions are known and understood, and I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, in that respect. I therefore want to reassure the House that the Government are committed to raising awareness of the full range of Renters’ Rights Bill reforms across the private rented sector. This will be done through robust and extensive stakeholder engagement, providing the sector with a full suite of guidance on the reforms and an overarching communications campaign, along with partnership marketing. This extensive and targeted work will ensure each part of the sector fully understands its new rights and obligations.
The Government have already committed to a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation programme of the reforms, drawing on a wide range of data sources and stakeholder input. Including a requirement for a review of tenants’ understanding of the rights and responsibilities in the Bill therefore represents an unnecessary step. On the basis of these arguments and our clear commitments, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, not to press her amendments.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 118 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. I appreciate the concern that underpins Amendment 118, namely the potential impact of the Renters’ Rights Bill on the housing market in England and whether it might discourage landlords from remaining in the sector. As we consider this issue today, it is important to reflect on the evidence already available. The 2023-24 English Housing Survey shows that the size of the private rented sector has remained broadly stable since 2013-14. This suggests that, despite ongoing discussions about reform since 2019, landlords have not exited the market in significant numbers. The Government remain confident that the measures in the Bill will not destabilise the rental market. On the contrary, our proposals make sure that landlords have the confidence and support they need to continue to invest and operate in the sector.
I will not repeat the details I set out in Committee of this Government’s commitment to thoroughly monitoring and evaluating the private rented sector reform programme using a wide range of data sources and stakeholder input. However, for the benefit of the House, I will briefly set out our plans for publishing the findings from this evaluation, which I believe is what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, was asking me.
In accordance with the policy set out in our evaluation strategy, the department will publish its assessments of the Renters’ Rights Bill on GOV.UK at two key intervals: two years and five years after implementation. To ensure the reports are publicly accessible, copies will be formally lodged in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament at the time of publication.
I reassure the noble Baroness that we are committed to carrying out a robust evaluation of the Renters’ Rights Bill. We will disseminate its findings widely so that parliamentarians, tenants, landlords, local authorities and wider stakeholders will be able to see and scrutinise the impact of the reforms in a timely way. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this group, which have allowed us further to explore the real impacts of the Bill and what it entails. It is clear from today’s discussions in the lead up to the report that there is probably not sufficient support in the House for Amendment 60, so I will not be pressing it today.
However, it has been clear from the outset that this, to us, is a poor Bill. We believe it will have serious consequences for both landlords and tenants. A reduction in rental supply is not good for tenants; it pushes up costs for those already just about managing and, in many cases, removes the entirely reasonable option of renting a home altogether. We therefore wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 118 when the opportunity to do so arises, on the next day of Report.
If the Government are confident in this Bill, we believe they should have nothing to hide. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Restriction on landlord’s ability to require tenant to provide guarantor(1) A relevant person must not, in any of the circumstances set out in subsection (3), require a person, as a condition of the grant of a relevant tenancy, to provide a guarantor in relation to the observance or performance of the tenant’s obligations under the tenancy.(2) For the purposes of this section, requiring a person to provide a guarantor includes accepting an offer by that person to provide a guarantor.(3) The circumstances are—(a) that the person has paid a tenancy deposit or has been assisted under a deposit scheme,(b) that the person is required to pay rent in advance of one month’s rent or more,(c) that on a reasonable assessment of their means the person’s income (including state benefits received and any other lawful source of income) is sufficient to enable them to pay the full rent due under the tenancy,(d) that arrangements will be made for housing benefit or the housing element of universal credit to be paid directly in respect of rent to a relevant person,(e) that the relevant person has entered into a contract of insurance under which they are insured against non-payment of rent, or(f) such other circumstances as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State.(4) In any other case where a relevant person lawfully requires a person, as a condition of the grant of a relevant tenancy, to provide a guarantor, the sum for which the guarantor may become liable under the relevant guarantee may not exceed a sum equal to six months’ rent.(5) In any case where a relevant person lawfully requires a person, as a condition of the grant of a relevant joint tenancy, to provide a guarantor, the sum claimed under the guarantee may not exceed such proportion of the loss as is attributable to the act or default of the individual tenant on whose behalf the guarantee was given; and if such proportion cannot be proved, may not exceed the sum obtained by dividing the total loss by the number of tenants.(6) In this section—“guarantor” is a person who enters into a guarantee in relation to a relevant tenancy; a “guarantee” is a contractual promise to be responsible for the performance of an obligation owed by the tenant to a relevant person under the tenancy if the tenant fails to perform the obligation;“deposit scheme” includes a scheme whereby a sum payable by way of deposit or a bond or guarantee is provided by a local authority, registered charity or voluntary organisation for the purpose of providing security to a landlord for the performance of a tenant’s obligations under a tenancy;“tenancy deposit” has the same meaning as in section 212(8) of the Housing Act 2004;“relevant person” has the meaning given by section 16M(1) of the 1988 Act.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would restrict the circumstances in which a landlord can request a guarantor.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of the Nationwide Foundation. Amendment 61 seeks to address a growing and deeply concerning issue in the private rented sector: the overuse, and often misuse, of guarantor requests. This amendment was expertly moved by my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett in Committee, and I thank her for her support today along with that of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester—all of whom have given continued support to addressing the issue of the overuse of guarantors.
I am sure that noble Lords across the House will accept that landlords should retain ways to manage financial risk. However, the increasing use of guarantor requests is creating a new form of exclusion, particularly for vulnerable renters. This is what Amendment 61 is about: it is not about banning guarantors altogether but restoring proportionality and fairness in their use.
Guarantors have become a significant barrier to housing for many. Recent data from Generation Rent shows that almost 30% of renters who moved in 2023-24 were asked to provide a guarantor. A further survey by Shelter and YouGov showed that over 100,000 private renters per year are blocked from renting a home in the private rented sector due to a guarantor request they cannot fulfil.
Meanwhile, only 2.9% of landlords attempted to claim unpaid rent from a guarantor in the last two years, despite an estimated 1.85 million tenants being asked to provide one. Guarantors are therefore becoming commonplace, yet they are rarely needed in practice and often never pursued when payment issues arise. Noble Lords may be asking why. A YouGov survey by Shelter asked the same question. When questioned, 25% of private rental landlords said that they asked for a guarantor because “My letting agent advised me to”. Another 16% said, “I thought it was standard practice”, while 12% said, “I’d heard from other landlords it was a good idea”. Simply put, guarantors are over-requested, largely unused and, worst of all, increasingly serve as a proxy for discrimination.
When a tenant can show that they can afford the rent through a standard affordability assessment, the additional requirement of a guarantor becomes both unnecessary and unfair. It many cases, it adds to an already substantial financial burden, alongside the five-week deposit and the first month’s rent in advance. The evidence shows that this practice disproportionately affects people on lower incomes, those without access to financial support networks and groups already at greater risk of housing discrimination: women, single parents, renters with disabilities and black and Bangladeshi households are all significantly more likely to be asked for a guarantor. A renter with a disability is 20 % more likely to face such a request, and a black renter is 66% more likely. These figures cannot be anomalies; they are a pattern. In Committee, we heard from my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett about older renters securing their pensions, being asked intrusive questions and then being required to provide a guarantor. From the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, we heard of a self-employed single mother being asked for a guarantor even though she was earning £45,000 a year—well above the UK median income. Too many renters simply do not have someone in their network who can act as a guarantor. Unless this issue is addressed, we risk entrenching a two-tier system in the rental market: one for those with access to wealth and another for those without.
The justification for these requirements often rests on an overstated fear of rent arrears, yet government figures show that only 2% of private renters were in arrears in 2023-24, and the English Housing Survey puts it at 5%. Of course, that is not negligible, but it does not warrant such widespread and disproportionate use of guarantors. There is an eviction ground for rent arrears, which is the primary backstop for when tenants fail to pay their rent.
Moreover, Amendment 61 aligns with the National Residential Landlords Association’s own guidance that guarantors should be requested only when a tenant cannot fully demonstrate that they can afford the rent. This amendment strikes a balance, allowing landlords to use guarantors when genuinely necessary, while protecting tenants from unjust exclusion. It is supported by a wide range of voices: Shelter, Independent Age, UNISON, Renters’ Reform Coalition, the Mayor of London and others. It is also worth noting that this amendment not only calls for legislative clarity but invites the Government to go a little further by introducing national guidance on fair and proportionate tenant referencing. Such a move would help standardise best practice and prevent local variation from undermining equality in the rental market.
In summary, this amendment is proportionate and reasonable and would not remove a landlord’s right to safeguard their interest, but it would ensure the right is exercised in a way that is just, consistent and in keeping with the spirit of the Bill. I hope that my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage is minded to accept this amendment, but if that is not the case, I ask my noble friend four final critical questions. With guarantor requests increasingly becoming standard process, rather than when they are needed, will the Government issue guidance to landlords on when to request a guarantor? Will the Government look at what support they can provide for people who are at risk of homelessness because they cannot find a guarantor? Will the issue of guarantors be examined in detail as part of the post-Bill implementation work? Will my noble friend commit to working on these issues with Shelter, the Renters’ Reform Coalition, noble Lords in this House and many others on these issues, to find other ways to support the growing number of renters being locked out of the PRS because of the overuse of guarantors?
Without this amendment or government action to address the issue of guarantors, the Bill’s measures to tackle discrimination risk being undermined by the very practices it seeks to reform. I beg to move.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly against Amendment 61. It is well-meaning, but I am afraid it is a blunt instrument full of unintended consequences. I do not deny that to require a guarantor for most tenancies is disproportionate and unnecessary, and the Bill makes welcome provisions to regularise what has become standard practice for the most part. However, I want to alert your Lordships’ House to some perverse consequences for three particular types of potential tenant who are among the quietest voices: the foreign student; the groups of students; and those with impaired reputation or difficult personal circumstances. Guarantees make the unrentable into rentable, in some cases. It makes opportunities exist when refusal would otherwise be the only other choice.
Let us dwell for a moment on the case of the foreign student. The foreign students come from far away; they have no reputation, there is no covenant strength and they may not even have arrived in the United Kingdom. They certainly do not have a UK bank account at this point and they probably do not have a UK mobile phone either. In many cases, the only way in which they can secure a property to live in before they arrive is to have the support of a guarantor; a guarantor allows them to have a roof over their head.
Then we have the groups of students. I refer to the case of my daughter, when she went off to Newcastle. There were seven students who were friends, although none of them really knew each other that well; they certainly were not related to each other, and there were no family bonds to tie them, whereas the Bill contemplates that the tenant is a single tenant. It is quite reasonable for a landlord renting to students, if they cannot have payment in advance—I will not talk about that because we discussed that on day one of Committee—to require some sort of guarantor so that the downside risks can be compensated. Not all students want to live in expensive halls of residence; they are disadvantaged at an early part of their lives.
Let us think also about those with an impaired reputation—people who may have left prison or are suffering from domestic abuse or family breakdown. I have been a guarantor for hundreds of families in these sorts of situations, but the Government seek to make my well-meaning interventions unlawful. Let me explain. Sitting in your Lordships’ House, I see the Minister and my noble friend Lord Jamieson who, like me, have been leaders of councils. We know that councils, in certain circumstances, have to step in to avoid homelessness. We know there are not enough registered social landlords and that the private sector landlords are our friends—they are part of the solution, not the problem. However, we cannot expect the private sector landlord to be the only one who takes a chance to get that person, who may have become homeless, a roof over their head.
In common with many other councils, my council—and I am proud that we pushed this hard—went for guarantees. We stood as guarantor for somebody in difficult circumstances so that the private sector landlord, who was prepared to take a chance with us, could provide a home. This is an essential part of managing a housing market. It is all about supporting the most vulnerable. It works; it is a success. If you have been a council leader—I am sorry that I failed to identify the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who has also been a council leader in these circumstances—this is about helping families get back on their feet.
In considering Amendment 61, I ask noble Lords: in what universe can this misdirected, misguided and counterproductive amendment help those with the quietest voices get a roof over their heads? Providing a guarantor is the way in which the unrentable can rent, and there is nothing fair about keeping people in bed and breakfasts if they could, via a guarantor, be housed. I cannot support this amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to support my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley, and I am grateful to her for taking over the amendment. She is much better placed than I am to speak to it, and has done so very persuasively. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, called it a blunt instrument and was hyperbolic in his description of the amendment. According to Shelter, the Bill and this amendment would restrict the scenarios in which a landlord can legitimately request a guarantor to those in which a prospective tenant cannot prove that the rent is affordable to them.
So it does not seem to me that the amendment excludes the groups that the noble Lord described. If it does so, then perhaps we can have a refined version of it, but the fact is that there are problems without an amendment of this kind. My central argument in Committee—
Lord Fuller (Con)
The noble Baroness talks about the burden of proof. In the three examples I gave, proof is not available. I can understand the intent and the well-meaning behind Amendment 61, but if it is to form part of the Bill, noble Lords need to ask themselves how those people in difficult circumstances are going to demonstrate the proof. They cannot, so a guarantor is the only way forward.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
This amendment does not preclude the use of guarantors; it just limits their use. I will leave it at that. As I said in Committee, if there is a better way of doing it, then fine—perhaps the Government could bring forward an amendment that ruled out any unintended consequences. I am not convinced that there are any—but anyway.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, and am absolutely delighted to support it. We spoke about this in Committee, but I still feel that there is an opportunity here. This is not about banning all guarantors—if that needs clarifying—and that is made very clear in the wording of the amendment. This is about trying to stop the blanket use of guarantors, which, I am afraid, is occurring and is highly discriminatory.
The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, referenced student groups. But I am a little bit confused, because my understanding is that the student groups that have been in touch with me over the last few days about this amendment are in support of it—unless the noble Lord has any examples of student groups that have been in touch with him that are against this amendment, then I am happy to sit down to allow him to tell me.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I have not canvassed student groups, but I know the example of my own family—my daughters went to Oxford and Newcastle—and the strictures that were placed on them. So I am talking from my personal experience rather than that of the representatives of other organisations.
Baroness Grender (LD)
It is my understanding that student groups are happy with this amendment and against the blanket use of guarantors. The current use of guarantors is, I am afraid, a proxy for discrimination against vulnerable groups. There is evidence that black renters are 66% more likely to be asked for a guarantor—I know that has already been said, but it is so profoundly shocking that it bears repetition. If you are on benefits, you are 60% more likely to be asked; if you have a disability, it is 20%. The great Equality Act 2010 is being driven over with the use of guarantors and I am delighted to support this amendment.
I read with a lot of care the Front-Bench speeches in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, suggested that guarantors can be a lifeline for those with poor credit or no rental history, but on these Benches we genuinely believe that nothing could be further from the truth. The harsh and stark reality is that 550,000 private renters were unable to secure a desired home in the last five years because they lacked a guarantor.
There is not a single organisation that I am aware of that campaigns and advocates on behalf of people who could be described as those who need that kind of lifeline, who are on no or a low income, which opposes this amendment. That includes working-class, international, estranged and care-experienced students who struggle to find suitable guarantors because they do not know anyone in those highest quartiles, which are the only guarantors that many landlords will accept. They just do not have those contacts or connections.
The noble Lord further suggested that tenants have market discretion or choice if a landlord is imposing a blanket guarantor policy. That defies the logic of the current marketplace, where the low-income tenant is never in the luxury position of shopping around. Again, that choice rests only with those whose income is in the higher quartiles.
On the Minister’s point in the same discussion about guarantors providing confidence, we must ask: at what cost to fairness? Landlords already have really robust tools: a five-week deposit, the first month’s rent up front, and affordability checks. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, guarantors are rarely invoked in practice. Like the noble Lord, I am currently a guarantor for my son, who is a student, so I completely understand that this is what we currently do. But in the past two years less than 3% of landlords have ever attempted to claim lost rent from a guarantor. When they did, it was 16 times more likely to be difficult than easy. Landlords have other, much more appropriate business risk management tools, such as rent guarantee insurance, rather than relying on a tenant’s family member, and so many of these tenants do not have a family member who is earning way above the median income, which is what is demanded.
Even before this legislation has come into effect, there is a worrying rise. A 2024 Generation Rent survey of its supporters found that 30% of private renters who had moved in 2023-24 had been asked for a guarantor—up from 22% of people who had moved in 2019. Always in this context, I fear that the debate is held on a presumption that renters lack responsibility somehow, unlike other tenures. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, only 2% of tenants were reported as in arrears in 2023-24. The vast majority of tenants are responsible individuals, who, by the way, often forgo other things, such as heating and eating, in order to pay rent, because they understand the severe consequences of not doing so and because the market is so limited for them.
This amendment is not a radical proposal. As Generation Rent and Shelter argue, it simply ensures that guarantors are used sparingly, appropriately and only when absolutely necessary, when a prospective tenant genuinely cannot demonstrate that they can afford the rent. This entirely aligns with the National Residential Landlords Association’s own current guidance.
When the Minister responds, if the Government are unable to stop this loophole for discriminatory practice, will she at least make it clear, either today or perhaps in a letter to follow, that guarantors should be used only as a last resort, that the Equality Act should be used if there is further evidence of discrimination, and that landlords already have the means to ensure that tenants pay through other mechanisms? I hope that her words today will ensure that the widespread use of guarantors is not the next version of no-fault evictions.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the many who have spoken in this debate, particularly the three noble Baronesses who have spoken very passionately to say that we need to support some of the most vulnerable in our society. I agree that we need to support them.
As my noble friend Lord Fuller pointed out, many councils use the fact that they can act as a guarantor to enable many of the most vulnerable to access a home which they would, in other circumstances, not be able to. There is clearly an appropriate role for the guarantee. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, just mentioned, there is a shortage of rental accommodation—I think the figure is something like 12 people chasing every available rented home. We need to think about this when we are discussing this Bill. How do we encourage more people to rent their home so that we have a more dynamic market, with more availability there?
It is widely recognised that we need more rental homes, as is the importance of small landlords, particularly in rural areas. We also need to recognise that many of these small landlords have only one or two homes. For many of them, it is a substitute pension, and many of them have mortgages on these homes. If that is the case, they need security that they will get the rental income; otherwise, it is just too high a risk. Some noble Lords have said that the risk is small, but if it is your only asset and you have got a mortgage on it, you may not feel able to take that risk. As we have discussed before, without this, many would have no choice but to exit the market, meaning fewer rental homes and fewer people able to access a home—more people on the street. That is a particular issue in rural areas with small landlords.
Guarantors play a crucial role in the rental market. They provide an essential layer of security, offering landlords the reassurance that the rent will be paid, even if the tenant experiences financial difficulties. As we have mentioned earlier, for tenants, particularly students and young people or those without a strong credit history, a guarantor can be key to securing a home which might otherwise be out of reach. This is partly why we are so passionate about enabling rent in advance. That provision is especially helpful for individuals facing barriers, such as overseas students without UK credit records, or those who simply have no one to act as a guarantor.
With that context, I understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, has brought forward this amendment. However, I regret to say that, on this side of the House, we cannot support it. First, it is overly prescriptive and would constrain landlords from making what is, in many cases, a reasonable response to financial risk. Secondly, preventing landlords requiring a guarantor in such circumstances could have the unintended consequence of discouraging them from renting to high-risk tenants altogether. Thirdly, it would undermine a market-led approach to risk mitigation. Finally, the amendment would afford a broad and, we believe, inappropriate delegation of power. Combined, this would, as I said earlier, reduce the supply of available homes, increase the cost to a tenant and mean fewer people are able to get their own home. For these reasons, we cannot support this amendment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley for her Amendment 61 and for bringing her expertise and experience to both today’s debate and discussions we have had previously on this issue—as did my noble friend Lady Lister when she moved a similar amendment in Committee. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for speaking.
The use of guarantors within the private rented sector is an issue which I know is of great interest to the House. Let me start by saying that the Government recognise that obtaining a guarantor can be a difficult task for some prospective tenants, and I understand concerns that it can be used as a further barrier to tenancy in some cases. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, indicated, where it is being used to discriminate, equalities law may apply. I will consider, for our information-sharing exercise on the Bill, whether there is more we can do to inform people in this regard.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank every noble Lord who has spoken on this group. I reassure my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage and the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Jamieson, that the intention behind this amendment is clear: it is not about banning guarantors. On this side of the House—and, I am sure, on all sides of the House—we appreciate that landlords need to manage their financial risk. They have a number of ways to do this. The amendment would not ban guarantors; it simply seeks a way to end discrimination and ensure that guarantors are not overused and commonplace, and that they are used when they are genuinely needed. It is about restoring proportionality and fairness to the use of guarantors.
I thank my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage for her reply, and her engagement and understanding on this issue, and for continually meeting me and other stakeholders. Of course, we are disappointed that the Government will not accept the amendment, and I am particularly disappointed about the guidance not being issued. However, I appreciate the issues around the guidance, about discrimination and the discriminatory nature of the overuse of guarantors, and her commitment that guarantors will be included in the evaluation of the impact of the Bill. Of course, I am always very happy that she will meet me and other stakeholders.
I am firmly of the belief, as I am sure other noble Lords are, including my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett and my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, that the overuse of guarantors seriously undermines the anti-discrimination intentions of the Bill. We welcome the guidance from my noble friend the Minister. Having said that, I will not be pressing it to a vote, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Shipley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Shipley aim to ensure that the provisions contained in section 21 apply to joint tenancies as well.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 62, I will speak also to Amendments 63, 65 and 66. In Committee, I raised some problems with the way the Bill was drafted for joint tenants in respect of notices to quit under assured tenancies defined in Clauses 21 and 22. It was anticipated in Committee that the issues raised would be examined further, and I thank for the Minister for having done this.
The problem was that where joint tenants had a breakdown in their relationship, there could be unforeseen consequences for one joint tenant, who might be unaware, for example, that a notice to quit had been served by the other joint tenant. I am grateful for the assistance provided by Citizens Advice, whose front-line staff identified this problem and proposed solutions, and for the work done by the Minister and her department in drafting Amendments 64 and 67, which I welcome.
I look forward to the Minister’s explanations of Amendments 64 and 67 in the expectation that I will then seek to withdraw this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments relates to joint tenancies and the procedural requirements for serving and responding to notices to quit. These amendments, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seek to ensure that the provisions in Clauses 21 and 22 apply expressly and fairly to all assured tenancies. The spirit of these amendments is to promote transparency and fairness, ensuring that no tenant is left unaware of or disadvantaged by unilateral actions.
As we have discussed in this debate and in Committee, joint tenancies are an important and increasingly common form of tenancy arrangement, particularly among families, couples and shared households. Given that multiple tenants hold equal rights and responsibilities, it is only right and fair that the Bill reflects this reality by requiring all parties to be kept informed of significant developments affecting their tenancy.
These amendments propose sensible procedural safeguards. The requirement that any notice to quit served by one joint tenant be communicated in writing to all other joint tenants is fair. Similarly, where a landlord serves notice, all joint tenants should be notified promptly. It is also noteworthy that some amendments specify that certain agreements, such as those shortening notice periods or withdrawing notices to quit, must involve the consent of all joint tenants rather than just one. This is a balanced recognition of the collective nature of joint tenancies and the importance of mutual consent in such decisions.
As the Bill continues to evolve, it is our shared goal to ensure a rental market that is fair and workable for all parties involved. Although we fully understand and respect the intentions behind these amendments and welcome the constructive debate they have sparked, it is important to consider the practical implications. Requiring unanimous consent or detailed notice procedures could, in some circumstances, add complexity or delay, especially in situations where tenants’ circumstances change rapidly. Therefore, although we support the principle of ensuring fairness and transparency in joint tenancies, we urge careful consideration of the balance between protecting tenants’ rights and maintaining workable, efficient processes for landlords and tenants alike.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his amendments on joint tenancies; Citizens Advice, which has provided the benefit of its significant expertise in this area throughout the Bill’s passage; and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his contribution.
Turning first to Amendments 62 and 66, the Government’s intention is not that tenants on a joint tenancy can unilaterally end that tenancy sooner than expected, nor should a tenant be able to trap another in a tenancy indefinitely by withdrawing a notice to quit. As such, I am pleased to confirm that the Government have tabled Amendments 64 and 67, which achieve the same effect as those laid by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley.
Government Amendment 64 will apply where a tenant who wants to serve a notice to quit in a joint tenancy seeks to agree a shorter notice period with the landlord. All other joint tenants will need to agree the shorter notice period as well for the notice to quit to be valid. This will ensure that tenants will not be able to agree short notice periods for a notice to quit without their other joint tenants being aware, preventing tenants finding out at potentially very short notice that their tenancy is ending. This was not the Government’s intention, and I am pleased to be able to clarify this issue beyond doubt in the Bill.
Government Amendment 67 will clarify that all joint tenants must agree, alongside the landlord, for a notice to quit to be withdrawn. This will ensure that it is clear that tenants must all agree to sustain a tenancy and make absolutely clear that one tenant cannot trap another in a tenancy indefinitely. These changes will ensure that joint tenancies can continue to operate effectively in the future tenancy regime and ensure maximum clarity for all parties. As such, I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendments and will instead support the government amendments.
Turning now to the noble Lord’s other amendments, Amendment 63 would require a tenant to inform all other joint tenants of their serving a notice to quit, and the landlord to do the same. I have great sympathy with the noble Lord’s intent. We all agree that tenants and landlords should communicate transparently with one another and take action to ensure that all parties are aware that a tenancy is coming to an end. With regret, however, I am unable to support codifying a requirement for this in law. The Government are concerned that, in certain circumstances, this may place individuals at risk. This is particularly true for victims of domestic abuse, who may not be able to safely inform a perpetrator that a notice to quit has been served. Indeed, some victims may choose not to serve a notice to quit at all. I also have practical concerns about the amendment. It might give rise to frustrating and counterproductive disputes between tenants. It might also cause tenants to question whether a tenancy has been validly ended if the requirement is not complied with.
Amendment 65 would allow a tenant to serve one month’s notice to end a tenancy if a landlord has served a possession notice on grounds 1 and 1A. That would be a reduction from the usual two months’ notice required by the Bill. Although I appreciate that the intent is to offer tenants greater flexibility to find a new property, we think the Bill strikes the right balance. Landlords must now give four months’ notice when using these grounds, and we think it is reasonable that the property be occupied for at least two months of this period, unless there is specific agreement to a shorter period.
I note that allowing a shorter notice period automatically might place other joint tenants in a difficult situation—for example, if they have not been able to find alternative accommodation as quickly as their housemates. This is recognised in the noble Lord’s other amendments. In many cases, the landlord will be supportive of a tenant moving out sooner than would otherwise be permitted. In those cases, there is nothing to stop all joint tenants and landlords agreeing a shorter notice period.
I hope that the noble Lord recognises that we have given very careful consideration to these amendments and have accepted those where we think the Bill could be strengthened, although I fully appreciate the intent behind his other amendments. I therefore ask him not to press those amendments for the reasons I have set out.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I thank the Minister for her clarifications and for the Government’s amendments, which strike an appropriate balance, given the explanations from the Minister. As a consequence, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(1ZB) In the case of a joint assured tenancy, an agreement under subsection (1ZA)(a)(i) is not valid unless it is made between the landlord and all of the tenants.(1ZC) That does not affect the validity of any notice to quit premises let under a joint assured tenancy that is given by only one or some of the tenants.(1ZD) In this section “joint assured tenancy” means an assured tenancy where two or more persons are tenants under the tenancy.”Member’s explanatory statement
The new subsection (1ZA)(a)(ii) inserted into section 5 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 enables the landlord and tenant to agree that notice to quit of less than two months can be given. This amendment would ensure that, where there are joint tenants, all of them must make such an agreement with the landlord.
“(4) In the case of a joint assured tenancy, an agreement under subsection (3) is not valid unless it is made between the landlord and all of the tenants.(5) That does not affect the validity of any notice to quit premises let under a joint assured tenancy that is given by only one or some of the tenants.(6) In this section “joint assured tenancy” means an assured tenancy where two or more persons are tenants under the tenancy.”Member's explanatory statement
The new section 5A(3) inserted into the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 enables the landlord and tenant to agree that notice to quit can be withdrawn. This amendment would ensure that, where there are joint tenants, all of them must make such an agreement with the landlord.
Lord Shipley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Shipley seek to prevent a landlord from serving a notice (under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988) to seek possession of a property where a tenancy deposit has not been properly protected or the relevant statutory requirements in relation to the deposit have not been complied with.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 68 I will speak to Amendments 69 to 71. This issue was not raised in Committee but it is sufficiently important—again I thank Citizens Advice for raising it—to be discussed on Report. I assure the Minister that I do not wish to press these amendments to a vote, but I hope the Minister might be willing to take away the questions raised in this group to assess whether further amendments are needed at Third Reading.
The amendments in this group
“seek to prevent a landlord from serving a notice (under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988) to seek possession of a property where a tenancy deposit has not been properly protected or the relevant statutory requirements in relation to the deposit have not been complied with”.
Citizens Advice has advised me that the tenancy deposit protection scheme will be significantly weakened if it remains the case in the Bill that landlords will not need to protect tenants’ deposits prior to serving notice, and that this would be a departure from the current position. Reverting to the requirement that a landlord must be compliant at the point that notice is served would give far greater certainty and avoid wasted court time in cases where a tenant may not have known up until the last minute whether a valid defence existed. The tenant may believe that they have a defence, because the deposit has been taken and not protected, but then find that the landlord protects or returns the deposit to them at the very last minute, potentially on the morning of the court hearing. That makes it very difficult for tenants to make informed decisions about defending a claim.
The Bill says:
“Where a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with an assured tenancy, the court may make an order for possession of the dwelling-house let on the assured tenancy only if the tenancy deposit is being held in accordance with an authorised scheme”.
My Amendment 68 would amend this to say that where a deposit has been paid in connection with an assured tenancy,
“no notice of proceedings for possession under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 (notice of proceedings for possession) may be given at a time when the deposit is not”
being held.
Over 600 clients every month ask Citizens Advice for help with tenancy deposit return issues of various kinds, and things will only worsen if the protections are weakened. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure the House that deposit protection will be strengthened during the passage of the Bill and that no notice of proceedings for possession may be given at a time when the deposit is not being held in accordance with an authorised scheme.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for bringing this group of amendments to the attention of the House. However, we do not believe that these amendments are necessary. Tenants already have clear rights and remedies when it comes to deposit protection. A tenant can easily check online whether their deposit has been lodged in a government-approved protection scheme. If it has not been properly protected and the issue remains unresolved, the tenant has the right to take the landlord to court.
In such cases, the court may order the landlord to return or protect the deposit, and may even award the tenant three times the value of that deposit as compensation. These are significant penalties and they serve as a strong incentive for landlords to comply with the law. Given that eviction proceedings are already subject to considerable safeguards and restrictions, we are not convinced that removing Section 8 grounds in these circumstances is either proportionate or necessary.
In particular, we must ensure that where a genuine error has been made and later rectified, especially where there is no actual harm or financial loss to the tenant, landlords are not barred from recovering possession of their property. To do so would seem unjust. A more flexible and proportionate approach would promote better compliance while avoiding unnecessary hardship or deterrence to good-faith landlords.
Although we fully understand the intentions behind these amendments, having heard the reasoning of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, we believe that existing protections for tenants are robust and that further restrictions of this kind risk being disproportionate.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am once again grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for raising these points, as well as to Citizens Advice for discussing them directly with our department, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her comments. Although I have great sympathy with the intention of Amendments 68 to 71, Clause 27 already ensures that deposits will be protected at the time of the possession hearing, which we think is a more proportionate approach.
Landlords have until the court hearing to comply with deposit protection rules. This ensures that landlords can still gain possession when it is reasonable, while ensuring that the tenant’s deposit is protected before the tenancy ends. I also note that this approach is far stronger than current restrictions, which prevent only the use of Section 21, and not Section 8, if the deposit is not protected.
However, I believe the noble Lord’s approach goes too far. Most notably, if a landlord had failed to protect a deposit within 30 days of receiving it, they would be permanently prevented from serving notice for possession on any ground except anti-social behaviour. Let me be clear: such a landlord should have complied with the law—of course they should—but there are other, more proportionate, mechanisms available to enforce that compliance, including an ability for a court to award tenants up to three times the amount of the deposit if it was not protected properly.
In conclusion, the Bill balances tenant protection with the need for legitimate possession cases to proceed. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s reply but it has extended the doubts that I have had about this, because it is still not clear to me why the Bill is weakening the current safeguards.
It is not clear why a valid defence cannot be assured for a tenant who has to go to court when the court case may not be necessary—in other words, they do not know whether the landlord has managed a tenancy deposit scheme correctly on their behalf. Citizens Advice has produced a strong case here, and it is not clear why the current safeguards are not being continued. I am advised that the tenancy deposit protection scheme will be significantly weakened if it remains the case in the Bill that landlords will not need to protect tenants’ deposits prior to serving notice. That is a departure from the current position. If that is required to happen in future, it will simply encourage wasted court time.
I shall withdraw the amendment and not move the other three, but I hope that the Minister and the Government will look very carefully at this issue because otherwise, I fear that tenants will not be properly protected by the tenancy deposit scheme. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name which would remove the provision to be inserted into the Housing Act 1988 relating to indemnity and insurance for pets.
Lord Best
“Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008
69A In Schedule 3 to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 (enactments specified for the purposes of Part 1), in the appropriate place, insert—“Tenant Fees Act 2019 (c.4)””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment integrates the Tenant Fees Act 2019 into Schedule 3 to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. It enables a Primary Authority to support local authorities to give assured advice to lettings agents on achieving compliance under the Tenant Fees Act 2019. It is intended that providing this advice will support lettings businesses and reduce pressure on local authorities' enforcement teams.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 74, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and, to my delight, the Minister, have added their names. I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute. Trading standards officers are going to be important in the enforcement of key provisions in this Bill, and Amendment 74 is intended to support their work.
I brought forward this amendment in Committee, and it is intended to extend the matters covered by the special primary authority scheme. This scheme enables certain local authorities to provide assured advice that property agents can rely on in seeking to fulfil their obligations. With this amendment, letting agents and those that advise them, such as Propertymark and the Property Ombudsman, would be able to obtain clear guidance on their responsibilities in meeting regulatory requirements under the Tenant Fees Act 2019, an important piece of legislation that has been left out of this advisory scheme to date. This amendment will help trading standards officers ensure compliance and is beneficial to all property agents wanting to do the right thing.
The amendment was promoted by the senior manager of the National Trading Standards estate agency team, James Munro, to whom I offer many thanks. I also thank noble Lords on the Opposition Benches for supporting this amendment in Committee. I am very pleased that the Government have also decided to back it, and I am grateful to the Minister for adding her name to it. It may not be the most exciting measure before us, but it represents a most welcome addition to the Bill and will reduce pressure on overburdened local authority enforcement teams. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 74 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, noting that it is signed by my noble friend Lady Thornhill. This is a characteristic amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, who has become the technical amendment expert when it comes to housing, capable of spotting small but significant changes that can genuinely make a difference. We are delighted that the Minister has also signed the amendment.
We have long supported efforts to raise standards and professionalism among managing and property agents. We fully agree with the findings and recommendations of the 2019 report, Regulation of Property Agents, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Best. Is it really six years since its publication on the 18th of this month? How many of its recommendations have been implemented? Perhaps the Minister can tell us or the noble Lord in his summating. The noble Lord’s amendment goes some way to helping local authority trading standards officers work more effectively with good agents who want to raise standards for all and weed out the bad guys, knowing that the assured advice they receive will be clear and comprehensive in ensuring compliance in meeting their obligations under the Tenant Fees Act. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, on this amendment, I think we are unanimous. I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for this amendment. I approve of his technical knowledge on this and can agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender—just occasionally.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I hope that the next day of Report will go just like that. It will be wonderful.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for Amendment 74. As he noted, I have added my name to it, and I am delighted to do so. The Government are very pleased to support the amendment, technical as it is. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, said, it will make a positive difference. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for bringing this forward. The amendment is a positive step towards creating a fair and transparent rental market with a more streamlined regulatory process. We want to ensure that letting agent businesses are able to receive reliable and tailored advice on complying with regulations under the Tenant Fees Act 2019.
The amendment will allow a primary authority scheme to be set up for the Tenant Fees Act 2019. The reliable and tailored assured advice issued by the primary authority is recognised by other local authorities. This helps businesses avoid costs and difficulties caused by different local authorities interpreting and enforcing the same rules inconsistently. The primary authority scheme also promotes great co-operation between businesses and regulators, fostering a collaborative environment that ultimately increases compliance rates while lowering enforcement costs and reducing administrative burdens. The Government strongly support the amendment, recognising its potential significantly to improve the rental market. I hope the whole House will support it.
Lord Best (CB)
I am delighted to receive support from all around the House and am deeply grateful. The commonhold and leasehold reform Bill is on its way shortly. That will provide further opportunities to strengthen the regulatory framework around managing agents and the work they do.
“(a) for sub-paragraph (1) substitute—“(1) A tenancy which is granted to a person who is pursuing, or intends to pursue, a course of study provided by a specified educational institution if—(a) the tenancy is granted— (i) by that institution,(ii) by another specified educational institution, or(iii) by a specified body of persons, or(b) either of the following is a member of a specified housing management code of practice—(i) a person appointed to act on the landlord’s behalf in respect of the tenancy;(ii) a person appointed to discharge management functions in respect of the building which comprises the dwelling-house or in which the dwelling-house is situated.(1A) Subsection (1)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
The new paragraph (b) of subsection (1) provides that a tenancy of student accommodation is not an assured tenancy if the person appointed to act on behalf of the landlord or to discharge management functions in respect of the building concerned is a member of a “housing management code of practice” (which is a code approved under section 233 of the Housing Act 2004).
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 76 to 85 and Amendments 123 to 125, to Clause 33 and Schedule 6 respectively. These relate to the mechanism by which private purpose-built student accommodation, or PBSA, will be exempted from the assured tenancy system. They are highly technical in nature and can be broadly divided into two main groups. First, there are technical amendments to the power in the Housing Act 1988. We will use this power to make secondary legislation exempting providers from the assured tenancy framework by reference to their membership of the Unipol code of management practice. This amendment to the power will allow building managers, not just traditional landlords who own the building, to be exempted in the event those managers are members of the housing management code. The amendments are designed to reflect the diversity of commercial arrangements in the PBSA sector.
Secondly, there are amendments that aim to smooth over the transition for the sector by providing access to a modified ground 4A for landlords of existing PBSA tenancies after the transition date. I am grateful to stakeholders from the sector for working with the Government to ensure that these clauses work in the way intended.
I will now go briefly through the amendments one by one. Amendment 123 is a consequential amendment that updates the numbering in paragraph 13 of Schedule 6. Amendment 124 is not related to PBSA but rather corrects a pre-existing cross-reference error contained in paragraph 13 of Schedule 6.
Turning to the first of the substantive amendments, the Government’s intention is to exempt private PBSA from the new assured tenancy system, in recognition of its unique operating model and the need for alignment with the academic calendar. We will do this using a delegated power in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1988, which we are also amending. However, the power in the Housing Act will allow for new tenancies to be exempt only if they fall within scope. As a result, tenancies entered into prior to the commencement of the Bill will fall outside the scope of the exemption and, therefore, will be subject to the full provisions of the new assured tenancy system.
To apply the exemption retrospectively would carry significant risk, as it would turn one of these existing PBSA tenancies into what is known as a “common law” tenancy: that is, a tenancy almost entirely regulated by what is in the tenancy agreement. This could cause unintended consequences, such as those PBSA tenancies containing significantly fewer rights for tenants than the assured shorthold tenancies they will have signed. It could also cause problems for the landlords of those tenancies in the event that the tenancy agreement does not give them adequate forfeiture rights. We do not consider it to be the right approach, therefore, to simply exempt pre-existing PBSA tenancies from assured tenancy status.
That said, it is important that PBSA landlords under these existing PBSA tenancies can still access the possession grounds, in particular ground 4A. To ensure that the exemption operates as intended, Amendment 125 modifies ground 4A when applied to pre-existing “qualifying student tenancies”. These are PBSA tenancies, in other words.
The amendment ensures that the ground can be used despite those tenancies not usually being HMOs, nor does it require the landlord to serve the Section 8 notice between 1 June and 30 September, reflecting the fact that this restriction does not apply to PBSA tenancies in the old system; nor will it apply to fully exempted tenancies. This will ensure that existing PBSA landlords retain the ability to regain possession at the end of the academic year and therefore end the tenancy. This is consistent with the treatment of new PBSA tenancies established after commencement, where they will not be subject to the assured tenancy framework.
I turn now to Amendments 75, 76, 77 and 78. We are seeking to make the existing exemption from assured tenancy status for student tenancies more comprehensive. This exemption is currently set out in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1988. Amendment 75 therefore amends the exemption to ensure that it applies where a landlord has appointed a person to manage the tenancy on their behalf or to manage the building, and that person is a member of a recognised student housing management code of practice.
Amendment 77 therefore inserts a new sub-paragraph, (2CA), into paragraph 8. This will allow for regulations to make more tailored provision for particular circumstances by reference to a specified building when combined with the specified person acting on behalf of the landlord. Amendments 76 and 78 are consequential on Amendment 77. They ensure that new sub-paragraph (2CA) is cross-referred to where appropriate in the rest of paragraph 8.
I turn to Amendments 80, 81, 82, 83 and 85. There is often a delay between a student tenancy being entered into and the student tenant actually taking possession. In light of this, the exemption in paragraph 8 contains provision to say that a tenancy that meets the exemption at the point at which the tenancy is granted will be exempted permanently, save for particular situations.
These situations will include where at the time of grant the tenancy was exempt because the landlord or person acting on their behalf was a member of a housing management code of practice but at the point where the tenant takes possession neither the landlord nor the person managing is a member of a code. It will also include where at the time of grant there were regulations in place under paragraph 8 that did not prevent the tenancy from falling within the exemption, but at the point at which the tenant is entitled to possession, these regulations do prevent the tenancy from being caught by the exemption. This is achieved by Amendments 80, 81, 82, 83 and 85. These amendments are designed not only to ensure that the exemption is granted solely to those PBSA providers who adhere to robust standards but also to guard against any potential for the exemption to be misapplied or exploited.
Amendment 79 is consequential on Amendment 75. It ensures that regulations made elsewhere in paragraph 8 can specify classes of buildings that are subject to a housing management code of practice specified for this purpose under new paragraph 8(1)(b).
Amendment 84 is consequential on Amendment 125, which provides that a tenancy will be exempt if the person discharging “management functions” in relation to the building is a member of a specified housing management code. Amendment 84 defines “management functions”. It defines these functions to include services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, and insurance of the building. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister for so clearly setting out the Government’s amendments relating to purpose-built student accommodation—PBSAs. I am also grateful to her for taking the time to meet with me and my noble friend Lord Jamieson ahead of Report to discuss this matter in detail.
As the Minister is aware, student accommodation is a matter of considerable importance to many of us; indeed, it is an area of particular concern in this Bill. Ensuring that we have sufficient student accommodation, of the right type, available in the right places, and operating in line with the academic calendar, is vital. This is a matter not simply of logistics but of availability and affordability. An adequate supply of accommodation helps to keep rents manageable, which is especially important for students from less advantaged backgrounds.
This is why we raised concerns around ground 4A, particularly with regard to the importance of preserving the cyclical nature of student tenancies. The cyclical model is central to the viability of purpose-built student accommodation and, indeed, to maintaining affordability for students. We therefore welcome the Government’s amendments in this area, which rightly acknowledge the unique nature and operation of the PBSAs. In particular, I am very grateful for the clarification offered in sub-paragraph (2C), which states that the tenancy of student accommodation will not be considered an assured tenancy if the person acting on behalf of the landlord is a member of a housing management code of practice.
However, I would be grateful for further clarification. Can the Minister confirm whether this provision refers specifically to recognised codes such as the ANUK or the Unipol code, or whether it includes other housing management codes of practice as well? It would be helpful if the Government could set out explicitly which codes are deemed applicable under this provision. Furthermore, in the case of newly established accommodation, how will providers be expected to demonstrate adherence to an accepted code specifically for the purpose of continuing to provide fixed-term tenancies?
I am sure the Minister agrees that providers must have, and maintain, an up-to-date understanding of their obligations. With that in mind, when does the Minister intend to update the relevant guidance, particularly regarding the practical steps that PBSAs will need to take to ensure they can continue offering fixed-term tenancies?
The relevant codes of practice are, of course, designed around the specific characteristics of student accommodation, covering matters such as health and safety, maintenance and the management of relationships between providers and their tenants. In light of the changes introduced by the Bill, does the Minister have any plans to review or amend the codes? If so, how will such changes be communicated to those operating in the sector?
Finally, does the Minister agree that one of the key benefits of code membership is the ability to provide student accommodation outside the assured tenancy framework—a flexibility that underpins the viability of the sector?
I hope the Minister will continue to keep under review the impact of this Bill on students and to consider carefully any future changes that could make it harder for students to secure suitable accommodation. Students must be at the forefront of our considerations, not only in policies but also in practice.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for those comments. I will attempt to answer her questions; I may have to come back in writing on the point about amending the codes.
Pre-existing PBSA tenancies will continue to benefit from the protections provided by the Bill. For newly signed PBSA tenancies after commencement, protections will be provided through the housing management codes of practice, approved under Section 233 of the Housing Act 2004. These codes set out clear and robust standards, and compliance with the codes is a condition for exemption.
In respect of the approved codes, the ANUK and Unipol codes have clear oversight mechanisms in place, including regular audits, complaint processes and suspension or exclusion for non-compliance. That is why they are the important codes that we have focused on. Landlords must maintain membership and demonstrate adherence to the code standards. If they fail to do so, they will lose their exemption, so that is very important. If they lose their code membership mid-tenancy, they will no longer be entitled to rely on the exemption for any new tenancies. However, existing tenancies will continue under the terms; otherwise, that would not be fair to the students concerned. I hope that answers the noble Baroness’s questions.
I thank everyone for their contributions to this debate. We debated other student accommodation issues extensively on the previous day of Report. I hope the whole House will agree that these amendments will ensure that this PBSA exemption works effectively and as intended, and I hope the whole House will support them.
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting the new sub-paragraph (2CA).
“(2CA) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument—(a) specify a person appointed to act on the landlord’s behalf in respect of the tenancy or to discharge management functions in respect of the building or a class of such persons,(b) specify a class of building in relation to the specified person or specified class of persons, and(c) provide that a tenancy—(i) does not fall within this paragraph if the dwelling-house is in the specified class of building and there is a person appointed to act on the landlord’s behalf in respect of the tenancy or to discharge management functions in respect of the building who is specified or is in the specified class of such persons, or(ii) falls within this paragraph only if the dwelling-house is in the specified class of building and there is a person appointed to act on the landlord’s behalf in respect of the tenancy or to discharge management functions in respect of the building who is specified or is in the specified class of such persons.”Member's explanatory statement
This makes provision which corresponds to the new sub-paragraph (2C) but which operates in relation to the case where a tenancy of student accommodation is not an assured tenancy because the person appointed to act on behalf of the landlord or to discharge management functions in respect of the building concerned is a member of a “housing management code of practice”.
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting the new sub-paragraph (2CA).
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting the new sub-paragraph (1)(b).
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting the new sub-paragraph (1)(b).
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on paragraph (b) in the amendment in my name which inserts the new sub-paragraph (1).
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting the new sub-paragraph (2CA).
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting the new sub-paragraph (2CA).
“(za) “management functions” in respect of a building includes functions relating to—(i) the provision of services, or(ii) the repair, maintenance, improvement or insurance of the building;”Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on paragraph (b) in the amendment in my name which inserts the new sub-paragraph (1).
“(da) a tenancy is “exempt solely by reference to a code of practice” if—(i) the tenancy was granted by a body of persons who were, at the time of the grant, a specified landlord solely by reference to a code of practice, or(ii) at the time of the grant, sub-paragraph (1)(b) applied to the tenancy but sub-paragraph (1)(a) did not apply to the tenancy;(db) a reference to the landlord’s interest under the lease not attracting the exemption under this paragraph is a reference to—(i) a case where the landlord is not a student landlord and there is no person appointed to act on the landlord’s behalf in respect of the tenancy or to discharge management functions in respect of the relevant building; or(ii) a case where the landlord is not a student landlord and there is a person appointed to act on the landlord’s behalf in respect of the tenancy or to discharge management functions in respect of the relevant building, but that person is not a member of a specified housing management code of practice;and for that purpose the “relevant building” is the building which the dwelling-house comprises or in which the dwelling-house is situated;”Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting the new sub-paragraph (1)(b).
Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, with permission I will now make a Statement to update the House on this Government’s vital work to change our country for good by giving every child the best start in life.
“The focus today is firmly on our youngest children, but the impact will be much broader. This Government are building a stronger, fairer society and will lay the foundations in the earliest years of our children’s lives. Because we are determined to tackle the root causes of problems, not just the symptoms, we begin at the start. The inequalities that stain our country, the way in which opportunity is heaped on some but hidden from others—those disparities do not suddenly spring up in adulthood. Our babies are born into an unequal world and the inequality grows with them, right from those very first days when we carry them home from hospital.
Those early differences in the support their families can get, in the early education and childcare their parents can access, in the opportunities they have to start exploring: these are the differences, these and many more, that we all know take hold early on. The winds of fortune are there already on the first day of school—a gale at the backs of some; a blizzard in the faces of others. These are the differences that mean that some children arrive in the classroom not yet ready to learn. These are the differences that mean that while two-thirds of children reach a good level of development by age five, a third do not. These are the differences that fuel the injustice that half of our children on free school meals miss that milestone.
A Labour Government will not tolerate our children being failed like this. Within months of taking office, we set out in our plan for change our ambition for a record share of children reaching a good level of development by the age of five, because it matters so much for those young lives. It goes further—it sets the tone. Forty per cent of the disadvantage gap at the age of 16 is already there at the age of five.
Next month, we know that many young people across our country will pick up their exam results. Some will do well, but sadly some others will be disappointed, and those results-day stories of smiles and frowns for our young people begin to be written in the first years of their lives, so if we want to build an education system where every child can achieve and thrive, if we want to grow a society where the opportunity to get on is open to all, and if we want to deliver the change that the country so desperately needs, we have to focus on the early years. We have to give every child the best start in life. That is where my priority as Secretary of State lies, and that is why, just 12 months after entering government, I am proud to be here today to set out our ‘best start in life’ strategy, which we are determined will change this country for good.
Giving every child the best start in life begins with families. Becoming a parent or carer is full of joy and wonder, but it can sometimes be hard, and it can feel isolating too, so parents and carers need to know that they can tap into a community of support. They need to know that they are not alone, but we are falling short. One in four families with children under five struggle to get trusted advice; for families on low incomes, it is one in three.
It was not always like this. There was a time when the Government cared deeply about children’s development. Members across this House will know all about Sure Start, the quiet revolution in the lives of our children carried out by the last Labour Government. Sure Start was one of the proudest achievements of that Labour Government, and I am proud to build on its legacy. We remember all the good it did for our children, for our communities and for our country. Sure Start raised exam results and reduced hospitalisations. It improved early identification and boosted physical health and mental health. It reached disadvantaged families and made a difference to their lives.
Sure Start was a triumph. Of course, it was not perfect—no programme ever is—but it worked in so many ways and for so many families, and never more so than when it stuck to its principles and brought together the excellent services that parents need. At the heart of its success were the children’s centres: one-stop shops where families knew where they could go for help; a comforting and consistent offer of support all in one place. There are many ways in which 14 years of Conservative Government damaged our country and society, but the vandalism they inflicted on the lives of our youngest children—tearing these services out of communities, deepening inequalities and abandoning families—should never be forgotten. Today, the Government will right that terrible wrong and restore hope to families.
Our Best Start service will honour the proud legacy of Sure Start. Today’s Labour Government stand on the shoulders of those who went before, but we do so to look forward to the better future our children deserve, not back to the past. That is how we will deliver for a new generation of families.
We will introduce a new Best Start family service delivered through Best Start family hubs: the first step to a national family service that ensures that families can easily get the right support for their children from conception to age five, giving parents the freedom to focus on loving their children. Today, we announce the National Year of Reading for 2026. We want to give parents more time to read with their children, to grow a love of learning that starts in the home and flows throughout a child’s life.
Best Start family hubs will be open to all, rooted in disadvantaged communities. They will work with nurseries, childminders, schools, health services, libraries and local voluntary groups—a whole community coming together around one goal: to give children the best possible start in life. Our Best Start digital service means we are ready for the future, linking families to their local Best Start family hubs and exploring how the power of AI can help parents to find the right information.
We will make early education and care more affordable and easier to access. From the day this Government won the backing of the British people, we have set about delivering the entitlement of 30 hours of government-funded childcare a week for working families, backed by funding reaching £9 billion next year. Last July, we inherited a pledge without a plan, but the Government are delivering on our promise to parents. I know how much it matters that promises made are promises kept—to the future of our country and to the trust between families and their Government. The cost of childcare will no longer price parents out of jobs they love; instead, they will have the choice and freedom to work the hours they want, and an average of £7,500 a year back in their pockets.
I thank all those who are working with us to drive that change, from private to school-based nurseries, group-based providers, childminders, dedicated professionals and early years educators who are transforming life chances. With almost £370 million provided by the Chancellor at the spending review, we are building and expanding more nurseries in primary schools, with the first of the 6,000 extra places from September this year. Soon enough, 80% of childcare in this country will be government-backed.
The message is clear: this Labour Government are on the side of families. The Labour Party is the party of the family. That means that childcare must be better linked to educational priorities, better geared to closing attainment gaps, and better focused on all our children succeeding at school. Our early years educators are too often the hidden heroes of our communities. It is past time that we backed them, so we will raise the status of our workforce. There will be a new professional register, because working in early years is just that: a profession. There will be more high-quality training for staff, guided by a golden thread of the best evidence, and we will train more early years teachers, because we know the difference they make to our young ones.
Stronger practice hubs will double in number, and we will offer new financial incentives to attract and keep great early years teachers in nurseries that serve the most disadvantaged communities. Every child deserves a great education and a great early start in life, and that includes children with SEND. Early intervention can work wonders to lower barriers to learning, so under this Government, inclusive practice will become standard practice.
This Government are driving a decade of national renewal, but there can be no decade of renewal for our country without a decade of renewal for our children. This is urgent, because children only get one chance. If opportunities are missed, parents do not get what they need. If the great nursery down the road has not been built yet, that is it—there is no going back. For 14 years, children’s lives marched on as services were ripped away. I will not stand by and watch as more and more children are let down. Through this strategy, I am bringing change—change for all our families, all our communities, and, above all, change for our children. It is for them that our strategy was written, and it is for them that we will see it through, so that we give each and every child, from their first day in this world, the best start in life. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by her right honourable friend earlier today. Of course, we welcome the Government’s focus on early intervention and support for children in their early years before they go to school. Clearly, some key elements of the Government’s strategy formed part of the previous Conservative Government’s approach, including the major expansion of free childcare and the development of family hubs. That is why, although I appreciate that the tone in the other place is a bit different from here, and I do not know whether or not the Minister felt uncomfortable at the tone of the Statement, but I thought it jarred slightly. This is an area where long term-policy is hugely important, so the continuity is welcome. I think it was Ronald Reagan who said there is nothing you cannot achieve if you do not mind who takes the credit.
We acknowledge that the Government plan to go further and, if they are successful, it will improve the start that many children get in life. That is something that we want to see across all Benches in this House. So my questions will focus on some of the detail and aim to get clarity from the Government on how they plan to deliver on their ambition.
The strategy document talks about a best start family hub in every local authority. The Minister talked about her pride in the Sure Start children’s centres, but I am not clear whether the hubs will be a physical location in every local authority and how they will differ from the current family hubs and Start for Life teams. Obviously, one of the key ingredients—supported by the evidence, which the Minister rightly referenced as a driver in the Government’s approach—is that they offered support to a much wider age range of children. The Minister referred to the joy mixed with a little fear in bringing home one’s child from hospital; in my experience, that joy mixed with a little fear can continue for some time. So it would be good to know what will happen to the support that was offered to older children, including those in care, under the Government’s new plans.
Will the Minister set out briefly for the House how the additional expenditure will work? How will the £500 million annually that the Government have talked about break down? How much will go to family hubs, how much will go to the others that the Government have referenced, and roughly how much will each local authority receive?
I thought one of the Statement’s harsher moments on the “pledge without a plan” line was about the family hubs. There are currently 641 hubs, so I do not think it is a pledge without a plan; it is actually hubs on the ground. I am assuming that those hubs will continue within the Government’s target of 1,000, so perhaps the Minister can confirm that and that there will be 360 new ones.
We welcome the aim in the plan to build stronger links between nurseries and reception classes, but I am not clear how the Government intend to recruit additional teachers for early years settings outside the 20 disadvantaged communities, where there will be an additional payment to teachers working there. How many teachers do the Government plan to recruit, and will that have any impact on their target for 6,500 more expert teachers in our secondary schools and colleges?
The Government have published the best start in life goals. Can the Minister say anything about the Government’s vision for how screens will be used by very young children? She is aware from our work on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that there are real concerns about the introduction and presence of screens in very young children’s lives. I wondered whether she could confirm that screens will not be used as part of the delivery of those goals.
Can the Minister also clarify the Government’s plans for SEND support in early years settings? Again, this is obviously a major workforce challenge, but the Minister knows that there are two elephants in the Chamber—if they would both fit. The first is perhaps a slightly smaller, but still quite large, elephant, which is the impact of national insurance contributions on the financial stability of our nursery providers. The Government’s decisions in relation to national insurance have left nurseries up and down the country close the brink financially, with 95% of providers being forced to increase childcare fees and one in 10 facing closure. I am not clear how the Government can deliver their objectives without addressing the fragility of nursery providers.
The largest elephant is the future of education, health and care plans. Around the House we recognise the need for reform of the SEND system, but parents are worried and need clarity. The Minister spoke about the importance of promises and Governments keeping their word. Will she confirm the Government’s intentions in relation to EHCPs?
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Secretary of State’s Statement. We welcome any measures to tackle child poverty and improve the early years support which families receive. Early years have for so long been seen as just an add-on, but they are actually the most crucial part of education, including the early identification of any problems or issues and early support for any problems that are identified.
The ambitious aims of the strategy must be matched with sufficient funding to ensure its effective implementation. The additional funding for early years specialists is welcome. But with schools currently finding efficiency savings from existing budgets—mention was made of national insurance rises—and the Government’s new early years funding contract, which has led to nurseries refusing new children, there is a real risk that the investment will simply paper over the cracks rather than deliver lasting improvements. Without a comprehensive review of funding across the entire early years system, many settings will continue to struggle to meet demand or retain experienced staff. My colleague in the other place, Tom Morrison, has campaigned tirelessly following the heartbreaking death of Gigi Meehan, who lost her life in the care of a nursery that failed to follow correct procedures. We welcome the announcement that Ofsted inspections will become more frequent in early years settings and nurseries.
Giving children the best start in life also means giving parents the flexibility and support to make the right decisions for themselves and their childcare arrangements. Currently, low rates of statutory maternity and paternity pay are not high enough to give parents a real choice, while the UK’s two-week statutory paternity leave lags behind far more advanced economies.
High-quality early years education is the best possible investment in the future and the most effective way of narrowing the gap between rich and poor children. As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, the Early Years Alliance reported that one-third of providers are at risk of permanent closure in the next year, and four in 10 said they would reduce the number of funded places for three and four year-olds. Early years education provision is so important. It needs to have high-quality provision with well-trained staff. They need to see a career strategy, training and all staff having or working towards an early years qualification.
Childminders are a valued part of the early years system. Will the Minister consider replacing the three different current registration processes with a single childcare register? Given the staffing crisis in early years education, what assurances can the Minister offer that there will be sufficient qualified professionals to staff 1,000 hubs by 2028?
Best start family hubs will make a real difference to children and families. The new investment will take the total number, as we have heard, to around 1,000 by 2028. It will be supported, as we have heard, by the new digital family hub to be launched by the National Health Service. However, does the Minister think that we need to consider measures to ensure that the most disadvantaged families actually access the services offered by these hubs?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords for their response to and broad welcome of the Statement. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that I did not feel uncomfortable at all. It took me back, I have to say, but nevertheless the challenge and contrast that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State set out in her Statement in the other place was wholly fair.
On the funding of family hubs, the difference that this Government are making is a trebling of investment in those hubs over his spending review period. While currently only 88 local authorities have access to the funding to support a hub, that trebling of investment will ensure that all local authorities will be able to develop the best start family hubs. As I suggested in the Statement, we will develop that further through the digital offer, giving parents access to the information that they—I agree with the noble Baroness here—most certainly need from the very earliest stages, not only of their children being alive but in pregnancy, to be able to support them.
Although there is a focus in this Statement on the very early ages, because that is the right place to start to make a difference, children’s hubs will continue to respond to children from nought to 19. I think the noble Baroness identified some areas in which we would expect that support to continue.
Noble Lords asked about funding of the early years entitlement and its delivery. To be clear, in delivering the 30 hours entitlement from this September, this Government will provide over £8 billion, as well as delivering a 45% uplift in the early years pupil premium and providing £75 million for the early years expansion grant to help providers meet their local demand. We have responded to concerns around funding in the way we have increased investment.
The phrase “pledge without a plan” related to the early years entitlement. While the noble Baroness is right that it was announced by the previous Government, it did not have funding allocated to it to enable it to be delivered. It is the hard work of the sector and the investment this Government have been willing to put into it, as I have just outlined, which means we stand a chance of being able to meet that entitlement this September. However, noble Lords are right that, without sufficient recruitment, we cannot deliver that.
That is why, as I outlined in the Statement and is outlined in the strategy, we will invest in the recruitment of early years workers through the £4,500 financial incentive for early years workers in the most disadvantaged areas. Across the system, we will have improved training for early years workers through a focus on professionalism, with the development of a register to recognise the professional status of those who work with our youngest children. Those will be important ways to welcome and attract more people into the sector, along with our “Do Something Big” recruitment campaign and the emphasis we are putting on supporting better practice in a range of areas for early years practitioners.
Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, rightly raised the issue of early years SEND provision. We know the crucial importance of children’s earliest years: they can make a really important difference to their development, health and life chances, as well as to identifying any special educational needs a child might have at an early stage. That is why we are further funding training for up to 1,000 early years special educational needs co-ordinators in 2025-26, which will be targeted at settings in the most disadvantaged areas. Last year, we launched free online child development training to support early years educators working with children with individual needs and development differences. We are continuing to fund voluntary and community sector partners that support family hubs’ delivery of services for home learning and early years special educational needs and disabilities. This includes funding awarded to the early years SEND partnership for the 2025-26 financial year.
The noble Baroness also asked about the concern around the continuation of education, health and care plans. In this Chamber, we often talk about the parlous state of this country’s special educational needs and disabilities system, the struggle parents face to get the support they need for their children, the length of time it takes to get education, health and care plans, and the lack of trust parents now have in that system. We are determined to rectify all those things.
To clarify, there will always be a legal right to the additional support that children with SEND need, and we will protect it, but this Government are prepared to grasp the nettle and reform a broken system that noble Lords opposite presided over and have themselves described as a lose-lose-lose system. We will ensure that every child in this country gets the opportunity to achieve, thrive at school and get on in life, and we will do that by bringing forward earlier identification and inclusion of all children, while safeguarding the support that those with special educational needs and disabilities need.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, about the tragic case of Gigi, I very much commend her parents for their campaign. Last week they had the opportunity to meet with my honourable friend the Minister for Early Education, Stephen Morgan. As the noble Lord said, the improvements in Ofsted’s inspection of early years provision are important here, with a commitment to inspecting an early years setting within 18 months of it being registered, and a reduction in the length of time between inspections from six years to four years. We will see better inspection, and therefore better accountability, and with the investment this Government are putting in, better results as well.
Lord Storey (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, could she commit to writing to me on the points I raised about the registration of child minders and ensuring that we get disadvantaged children to actually use the facilities?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Yes, I will write to the noble Lord about that.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this Statement, and I positively want to declare an interest. Two weeks ago today, my first granddaughter was born, and since then I have spent many hours holding her and talking to her. I could not agree more with my noble friend when she talks about the importance of early years and early years education. What timetable does my noble friend have in mind for raising the status of early years educators? Does, for example, she have a deadline in mind for the adoption of the professional register?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
May I start by congratulating my noble friend on his grandfatherly duties. He makes an important point about the contribution that parents and indeed grandparents can make to children’s earliest development. That is why, as part of the best start family hubs, we are providing support for parents. We are supporting them to read with their children and grandchildren and helping them with behaviour issues—which I am sure my noble friend’s grandchild definitely will not have. All these things are very helpful. We will move as quickly as possible on the action to improve the recruitment of early years workers with the £4,500 financial incentive and the professional register, both of which recognise the urgency of ensuring that we have the right people in place to deliver the quality of care and education that our youngest children deserve.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I very much welcome this Statement; I think it is fantastic. Like the noble Viscount, I have become a grandparent reasonably recently, but I am very struck by the difference from when I had my daughter, which is now 41 years ago. First, I got three nights in hospital, and, secondly, the moment I got back, the health visitor was at the door. I did not have to ask for the health visitor; she was there. She came two to three times a week for what seemed like most of a year, and she was absolutely wonderful.
My daughter had twins; they went to term but were a bit early and were jolly small. The moment the little ones could survive without their heated blanket, we were out; no health visitor turned up, until finally one did, and there was very little help with breastfeeding. That is the thing I really want to ask the Minister about: under this, will you have to go and search for the help, or will the help come to you? I ended up with my daughter getting her people on the phone and there were lots of panics—people are scared when they have little ones around. Everything I have heard from the Minister is simply amazing, but it misses that first crucial week or two when you are back home with your bundle of joy.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that the healthcare and support that families receive through the 1,001 critical days from conception to age two and beyond can have a lifelong impact. That is why our colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care are also focusing on ensuring that every child has the healthiest possible start in life, including by improving maternity care, strengthening health visiting services, increasing access to vaccinations and taking steps to reduce tooth decay in children. As the noble Baroness said, strengthening the health visiting services is particularly important for those parents bringing home their bundles of joy, with all the challenges that they bring with them.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare that I am a councillor in central Bedfordshire. I too welcome this Statement; I think we all recognise how important it is to support families and the early start in life.
The Minister made reference to Sure Start. When I became a council leader, I had to deal with Sure Start. It was great because we had these shiny new buildings, but they lacked long-term funding, which put councils in a very difficult position when that funding ran out after three years. The second point I discovered was that they were very much stand-alone and did not integrate with other services such as schools, health, various support services and, as I think somebody else mentioned, the wider age range. When we took over Sure Start centres, we started doing more of that: we took them out of some of their shiny buildings and put them in places where they were much more accessible.
Given what the Government are now proposing and the real-term cuts that they are making to the local council funding that they provide, can the Minister assure the House that there will be long-term funding for family hubs into the future? Can she also assure the House that the Government will enable local councils and local partners to have the flexibility to tailor their approach to their local area and its needs, to deliver for their communities? As my noble friend Lady Barran said, will the Government build on the previous Government’s good work with family hubs and look at the wider age range? I do not want to be in a situation where you can bring your newly born baby along to the hub but not your three year-old or five year-old, which actually stops you going.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am sorry that the noble Lord’s experience was that Sure Start funding was not guaranteed over a long enough period. It certainly was not guaranteed after 2010, was it? That was the problem in the last 14 years.
But to take up the noble Lord’s point about how you ensure that these centres bring together a whole range of services, we are establishing these best start family hubs, building on the lessons of Sure Start. But it will be very important that, in doing that, we bring together parenting, healthcare and education support services to ensure that all babies, children and families have access to both early intervention and the support that they need throughout children’s lives. Alongside that, it will be important to bring together professionals not only from health and education but also working with nurseries, childminders, schools, health services, libraries and local voluntary and community groups and connected to other local services such as relationship support, housing and job support. It is by bringing those services together in an easily accessible way—either in a physical building or through the development of the digital access to best start advice, which we are also working on—that we believe that our expansion could reach an estimated 500,000 children.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It is good to have the whole thing read out; it gives you some context. As pages 4 and 6 of the Statement mention, we are talking about parents reading to children—and, before that, the Minister spoke about how good an advantage it is if you do all the right things. We then talk about SEN. To go back to nurse, in my case, I am dyslexic, and 70% of the dyslexics in the country are unidentified. It tends to have a downward spiral effect on your income and earnings. What are we doing to make sure that libraries and assistive technology are used to get children used to the idea that books are good things? You cannot rely on all parents doing this. Will we, for instance, make sure that libraries are available and that they have access to the new technology? Before I sit down, I had better remind the House that I am chairman of Microlink PC, which is an assisted tech company.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As well as the announcements that we have made around the best start family service—which will, as I suggested, link in to libraries, for example, and other important local facilities—we were able to announce today that 2026 will be a National Year of Reading. There will be a whole range of activities linking with local libraries, led by the National Literacy Trust, to encourage more reading, both at a very early age and with a focus on children who might not otherwise be able to access reading. Alongside what I talked about in terms of the additional support that we are providing to early years workers and training on identifying special educational needs—as well as the stronger practice hubs that help with advice about how to support children perhaps with particular needs and help to develop reading and maths understanding, for example—that begins to be, and is, a strong package to ensure that we are both picking up children with particular needs around reading and promoting a love of reading among all children and their parents.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, there is so much to welcome in this Statement, and I thank my noble friend for repeating it. I was going to ask about reading for pleasure, but she has just responded to that so brilliantly that I do not need to. I particularly welcome the raising of the status of the workforce. The presumption of inclusion is an absolutely excellent departure. It does of course mean that we have to be very clear that all these things need to be funded and that we need to have ongoing training—one-off training for people will not cut it. If we are going to have the expectation of inclusion, we need that to be part of everyone’s training all through. I am delighted to hear what she said about reading for pleasure.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is right about the investment in special educational needs, and disabilities in particular. I know she will recognise the additional £1 billion into high-needs funding that this Government have invested already; the £740 million-worth of capital that is going into creating extra spaces, particularly in mainstream schools, for the inclusive resource centre provision that enables children to remain in those mainstream schools; and the investment in more training for teachers.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement. The Government are right to identify education as being the great life changer for many young people. It is right to place emphasis on the power of development through reading and to focus on early intervention. It is often the case—sometimes Governments can be reluctant on this—that the dividends of that early intervention may be decades down the line, but that is all the more reason for ensuring that it happens.
It is often the case that many children who are in greatest need of that early intervention come from families who are disengaged from formal education—sometimes perhaps because of parental bad experience with formal education themselves—who are slightly disengaged from society as a whole or from the local community, or who are disengaged from involvement with government agencies. Can the Minister outline the Government’s strategy to ensure that those who might be described as hard-to-reach children are able to benefit from early intervention and are not left behind?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As I was suggesting, in some of the initiatives we have focused on ensuring that, for example, the additional financial incentive for early years educators will start in the most disadvantaged areas, to make sure that the areas where children most need support are the areas where we are improving and increasing the numbers of teachers who can teach there. Lots of children will benefit from the extension of evidence-based interventions to support early maths, literacy and language skills. From next year, we will provide additional funding to extend the early years pupil premium in areas most in need, ensuring that children most at risk of falling behind receive high-quality, evidence-informed support.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, following on from the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on screens, new research shows that gaming addiction and smartphone overuse is, frighteningly, starting much earlier than previously thought—in fact, in primary schools rather than in teenage years. Does the Minister agree with the cross-party amendments that seek to ban unnecessary screens and smartphones in every year of schools, primary and secondary?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We had a lengthy debate about this in Committee on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. I certainly agree with the noble Lord that supporting parents to read with their children, for example, rather than simply giving them screens to look at—that is part of this initiative—and finding ways to help parents to understand the impacts of screen time, which we talked about in considering those amendments, are important. In that debate, I undertook to ensure that we continued the work we are doing on gathering evidence around the impact of screen time and making sure that we are providing strong and positive alternatives for children and support for parents.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for an excellent Statement, which I really welcome. Best start, it seems to me, builds on the legacy of Sure Start. I noticed the telling research from EPI in 2016, which found that 40% of the attainment gap by 16 is created before children start school. I am glad that she did not resile from the words of the Statement: the demise of Sure Start was devastating, particularly for the poorest children. That degree of disadvantage makes it much more difficult for teachers. Sure Start was a universal entitlement. Does the Minister envisage that best start will start with the most disadvantaged but develop into a more universal entitlement for all parents and their children?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very important point. We have seen the evidence from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others about the long-term impact of Sure Start, which is what makes the gap in the past 14 years so distressing. That is why this Government are committed to building on Sure Start, developing the best start family hubs and providing over the course of this spending review period a trebling of the investment in them, and making sure that every local authority—not just the 88 that currently receive funding—has access to funding to develop that sort of provision.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I warmly welcome this daughter of Sure Start. One of Sure Start’s great strengths was the way in which it involved parents so as to boost their agency, self-confidence and sense of ownership of the projects. Today’s report refers to coproduction by local authorities together with their communities. Can my noble friend say more about that, and whether the Government will emphasise the need for efforts to be made to ensure that parents from the most marginalised communities, including those living in poverty, are actively involved?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. The best best start centres will involve local communities and parents and will emphasise, as she does, the needs and voices of parents who most need to be able to access those services. There will be a strong message to local authorities that that engagement and a co-development should be an important part of the way in which they take all this.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I, too, welcome this Statement—it is a wonderful Statement. The Minister’s opening remarks give hope. I have a particular interest, as I have two grandchildren in Luton and one in Birmingham. The backdrop to Sure Start was that wonderful report that Robert Runcie published, called Faith in the City. The problems then were that residents faced social and economic decline, with poor housing on large estates, with unemployment and poverty and issues with education and policing. The call was that both church and government and everybody should be doing something about this. Sure Start was an inspired vision, and I for one want to say that, whatever anybody says, it worked. But in order that children are not failed from when they begin, are the Government going to take on those great hindrances to learning and well-being that we see particularly in the inner cities?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble and right reverend Lord rightly says that, although this is important progress, and we will have a broad range of partners, there are of course other issues, such as child poverty and lack of housing, which this Government are absolutely committed to addressing.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My question follows on from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. Apparently, many children arrive at reception level unprepared for being in school, which is really a parenting problem as much as anything. How do we get reluctant parents to accept the work of the centres, and how do they become involved? What incentives will we have to get those reluctant parents to take on the responsibility and have the help that they can so readily get?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Yes, at the moment, one-third of children arrive with the lack of development to succeed. That is exactly why families will have an important role to play in the development, and parental support will be an important part of the services offered.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
At the moment, family hubs can provide language support for parents from two years through the home learning scheme. Will the Government consider ensuring that that policy covers children from birth? A great deal of good can be done, as many noble Lords have said, for children’s language development from the earliest possible time.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is certainly a very important part of what we would hope to deliver, both in best start hubs and in early years, as we improve the ability and provision there to ensure that children have the language skills that they need from the earliest possible time. I shall certainly pass on my noble friend’s exhortations about that to the team developing this work.