West Papua: Deforestation
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to limit deforestation internationally, in particular in West Papua.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK has long been at the forefront of efforts to protect forests and halt and reverse deforestation, and we look forward to a strong focus on forests at the upcoming COP 30 in Brazil. Through our diplomacy partnerships and development programmes, we focus on forest governance, sustainable trade and investment, and mobilising finance to protect and restore forest biomes. We work across the tropics, including in the Indonesian region of Papua. We work closely with the Government of Indonesia to support sustainable development and Indonesia’s green transition.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I thank the Minister for his reply. West Papua has some of the greatest forests in the world. Unfortunately, they are rapidly being cleared to produce coconut oil and for other agri purposes. The other dimension is, of course, that West Papua is occupied by Indonesia and there is a heavy military presence. As a result of this, sometimes the local indigenous population are pushed off their ground to make way for these plantations. Will His Majesty’s Government make representations to the Government of Indonesia—the Minister just said they work closely with them—to protect the rights of the local people? As one placard of a protest group put it, West Papua is not an empty land.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his question on this important issue. The UK respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Indonesia, including the region of Papua. We support the efforts of the Indonesian authorities and civil society to address the needs and aspirations of the Papuan people. All Papuans need to benefit from the development of the region. Where we have human rights concerns, we raise them, as we have done at both ministerial and senior official level. We continue to support a visit by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to the region. Our UK mission in Geneva raised this with the high commissioner’s office in April 2025, and we have encouraged both parties to agree dates.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, over the last two decades, we have seen the development of large-scale palm oil plantations in West Papua, and that has led to the clearance of vast swathes of primary rainforests, which are some of the most biodiverse in the world. What assessment have the Government made of the environmental and human rights impact of palm oil production in West Papua, and what steps are they taking to ensure that UK imports of palm oil are not linked to deforestation or associated abuses?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. The UK is supportive of the implementation of the Indonesian sustainable palm oil standard to support Indonesia’s sustainable economic, social and environmental objectives. Agricultural expansion for a small number of commodities, as the noble Baroness rightly notes, is the biggest driver of forest loss. We need to improve the productivity of existing land to reduce pressure on the forest frontier. We need to realise more economic benefits for forest countries from preserving forests than from deforestation. The UK is supporting small farmers and the Government of Indonesia in their commitment to greater food security, and working to improve supply-chain transparency internationally. This includes supporting international partnerships and initiatives such as the Tropical Forest Alliance. The UK ODA programme promotes sustainable farming in countries such as Indonesia by working with national Governments.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, the Tropical Forest Forever Facility, due to be launched at COP 30, is the Brazilian Government’s proposed blended finance mechanism to ensure that Governments and businesses around the world are able to provide the much-needed finance to stop the devastation deforestation causes, while making a return on their investment. This is crucial. We are not talking about loans or grants. Will the Government commit to making an investment in the TFFF when the World Bank facility opens? If not, why not?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for raising the Tropical Forest Forever Facility; it is a very important part of the direction of travel on this subject and we welcome Brazil’s leadership on global forest finance, climate and nature, particularly in the lead-up to COP 30. We do need to find new ways to leverage private sector investment, as I think we all agree, into forest protection, and bold new ideas such as the Tropical Forest Forever Facility are really exciting and show great promise in the eyes of the Government and others. We are working with Brazil and other partners on the design and feasibility of the Tropical Forest Forever Facility ahead of COP 30 and we are keen to make as much progress as possible. We are hoping to see prioritisation of forests as an essential part of the solution to the climate and nature crisis. The Tropical Forest Forever Facility is developing at pace, and it is testament to President Lula’s leadership that he has committed to a $1 billion investment. The UK has provided over £1 million in technical assistance.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, last week I read with concern a piece in the Times saying that No. 10 is apparently blocking a report by the Joint Intelligence Committee, which it saw as “too negative”, as it was apparently warning that we are approaching serious tipping points in the Amazon rainforest that would create food shortages as well as huge national security threats. Can the Minister tell me whether this is true, whether the report exists and whether it is going to be published?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I am afraid that we do not comment on speculation. This Government are taking robust action to boost UK food security and turn the tide of nature’s decline, as well as prepare for the impacts of a changing climate and nature loss. This includes treating biodiversity loss as a security risk, investing in nature protection and restoration at home and abroad, and delivering £11.6 billion in international climate finance.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, will Ministers make clear in their discussions with Indonesia about this important issue that we absolutely recognise the territorial integrity of Indonesia, especially given its rapidly growing importance, not only in the region but internationally, as the country with the fourth-largest population in the world and as a growing economic force?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
As I have already said, the UK respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Indonesia, including the region of Papua. The UK is working to agree a strategic partnership with Indonesia, and we hope to make progress on that soon.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, by coincidence, this morning I had a meeting facilitated by ActionAid UK with babassu coconut-breaking women from the Cerrado in Brazil. Will the Minister acknowledge what they told me: that deforestation is associated not just with climate change and collapsing nature but, in West Papua, Brazil and elsewhere, with human rights abuses, the displacement of indigenous people, and violence against women and girls?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I have already commented on the UK’s stance on human rights in Papua, but I also recognise that, as she said, deforestation is not only associated with the climate. In fact, the biggest contributor to the growth of deforestation in recent times has been wildfires.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, under the previous Government, the UK played a key role in a number of international agreements that included measures to halt deforestation, and we passed the landmark Environment Act 2021. That demonstrates how important we think this issue is. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will seek to work with businesses in a constructive way to reduce our global impact on deforestation?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I am very happy to confirm, as I have said, that the UK continues to build on the work of the previous Government at the forefront of international efforts to champion forests and tackle deforestation. I stress that mobilising finance and business for the protection of forests and the ecosystem services they provide is an essential, and perhaps the most important, part of that.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that someone such as me, who has visited West Papua frequently in recent years, can have no doubt whatever about the scale of the deforestation and the fact that it is being done to plant oil palms? Can he set out what precise steps we are taking to ensure that palm oil produced in that way and as a result of deforestation does not enter the United Kingdom?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I have already commented on palm oil, but I will comment specifically on palm oil products and other forest products entering the UK. We recognise the urgency of taking action to ensure that UK consumption of forest-risk commodities is not driving deforestation, and we will set out our approach to addressing UK consumption of forest-risk commodities in due course.
Refugee Family Reunion Scheme
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the temporary suspension of new applications to a refugee family reunion scheme, what is the timeline for introducing a new route.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
This suspension is temporary while the Government undertake a review and reform of the current family reunion rules to ensure we have a fair and properly balanced system. We anticipate that any changes will come into effect from spring 2026.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
I thank the Minister for his response, but I will press him further. Recent research from Oxfam and the Refugee Council has found clear evidence of people turning to cross-channel smugglers to reach family members because they could not access a safe and legal family reunion pathway. Therefore, what dedicated family reunion pathways are being considered by the Government that will offer safe, legal and accessible alternatives to asylum seekers, and which will thereby disrupt smuggling operations?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. Anybody in the system as of 4 September will still have the same approach to asylum and family reunion claims that applied prior to the announcement by my right honourable friend. This is a pause while we review the system. Anybody can apply through any other safe and legal route, and that will be considered appropriately. In the last 12 months, there was a 368% increase in family reunion grants compared with 2022. That is not sustainable, and we need to examine the reasons for that. That is why the pause has been put in place.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, safe and legal routes have always included working with the United Nations on its various programmes. I had the honour of organising the Bosnian one in the 1990s. Therefore, can the Minister confirm that the Government are still actively in touch with the United Nations to make sure that that safe and legal route is exploited where appropriate to give sanctuary to those that need it?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
In answer to the noble Lord’s question, I can say yes. The Government are always in discussion with the United Nations and will continue to be so.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, the suspension of the refugee scheme until next spring presents a particular problem for unaccompanied children whose refugee parents in the United Kingdom will be making an application for them to come to the United Kingdom. What special consideration have the Minister and the Government given to those children in that regard, in this period between now and next spring?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government uphold the principle of family unity and want to ensure that we maintain that. We have to examine the reason for the significant drive in family reunion applications over the last two to three years. It is a significant increase, and therefore the pause has been applied so that we can assess the situation, look at those areas and make some recommendations for, as I said to the right reverend Prelate, spring of next year. Family reunion and safeguarding children will remain key factors. Individuals can still apply through existing safe and legal routes, but the automatic assumption, which we have now closed on a pause basis, is not going to continue until we have reviewed it.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, if I had a very suspicious mind, I would be inclined to ask the Minister whether this is an excuse for stopping family reunion altogether. I do not have such a suspicious mind all the time; I just wonder whether he can give us an assurance that this is not just a way of blocking the whole process. He will know that last night, we debated the whole thing of child and family reunion, and it will be coming up again on Report.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I say to my noble friend, who I very much respect on these issues, that, as he knows, between January 2015 and June 2025, 83,179 family reunion visas were granted. In 2024, nearly 20,000 individuals arrived under this route. There has been and will continue to be a massive increase in the numbers arriving. It is responsible of the Government to examine this issue, to look at the reasons why this is happening and to potentially take some steps to regularise that situation. That does not mean that we have stopped the scheme; it simply means that we have to look at why there has been a 368% increase over the previous two years in the numbers arriving.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, if refugees living in the UK can demonstrate that they are in stable employment and contributing to society, and that their families would not be dependent on public funds, will their families be allowed to join them in this country?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As my noble friend will guess from the questions I have had to date, we paused the family reunion scheme on 4 September pending a review, and we expect to bring forward proposals by April of next year. I am not in a position to give my noble friend a foretaste of what those proposals will be, because the purpose of us pausing the scheme is to examine the reasons why the increase has happened; to look at the pressures that have brought, potentially, 18% of reunion visas from Syria, 17% from Iran and 12% from Afghanistan; to look at what the drivers of that are and at how we can provide an appropriate level of family reunion—but in a context whereby we put some more strictures on what family reunion means.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
The Government have rightly suspended the refugee family reunion route while they draft new rules for the scheme. The Prime Minister has said that this was because he wanted to end the
“golden ticket to settling in the UK”.
Surely, the Minister must accept that the Government’s inability to implement any meaningful policies to stop illegal migration and their failure to deter the recent small boat crossings is indeed a golden ticket?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord and I have had much discussion on this issue in the last weeks and months. He knows that we have an honest disagreement about how we control some of those issues. He is conflating family reunion and asylum claims with individuals who are potentially coming here through irregular migration by small boats, funded by criminal gangs. He knows we are putting a border command in place to tackle those gangs. He knows we are putting in place measures to criminalise that activity. He knows we are putting in measures to try to stop that, including a scheme with France and scrapping the failed Rwanda scheme. There is an honest disagreement between us, but I hope he will recognise that the Government are acting responsibly in looking at the drivers of family reunion to see if we can make an honest assessment, rather than letting the figures rise uncontrollably, as happened under the last year of the previous Government.
Lord Scriven (LD)
The definition of a family is very clear in the regulations. What kind of relative would the Government deem inappropriate, based on the evidence they have before them in the review that is taking place?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We have had a lot of discussion over the last couple of days on the immigration Bill about the question of what forms a relative. Amendments have been proposed to the Bill that would allow grandparents, siblings, cousins and others to come to the United Kingdom as part of the family reunion policy. The Government have resisted those. Part of this review is to look at those very issues: who is coming, why they are coming, what their family relationship is, and why the growth has taken place. It is perfectly responsible for any Government to look at that and to say, “We’ve had an enormous increase in the last three to four years in the numbers who are coming under this route; is that appropriate?” That is what the Government are doing.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, is not the answer to why there is a surge at the moment a simple one? They see UK migration policy tightening and tightening, perhaps as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, suggested, and that the only way they can reconcile themselves with their families is by getting in as soon as possible. Is not that the reason for the surge?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, I do not wish to pre-empt the review that is taking place. We are looking at what the reasons are. The growth has occurred over the last three to four years. That might well be to do with the situation of instability in places such as Syria and Afghanistan, but use of that route has increased. It is important for any responsible Government to look at what the reasons are, the numbers involved and what the steps are to manage and assess that, and to review the criteria. That is what this Government are doing. We have paused that scheme, and nobody before that pause is affected. The applications in the system will still be considered, but post 4 September to the end of our review, there is a pause. In the meantime, as I have said to other noble Lords, individuals can apply through normal family routes to undertake a transfer to the UK should they wish and, if they meet the criteria, they will be accepted.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Given the suspension, sine die, of the refugee family reunion scheme, what advice would the Minister give to the bona fide refugee here, granted asylum status, who discovers that their son or daughter is stuck in a camp in Libya, Syria or Turkey? Their child would like to join them; they would like to have their child here. What advice would the Minister give?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The advice I would give is that there are a number of routes that individuals can apply to in order to exercise their right to join their family. Those routes are available and can be exercised, but the family reunion automatic route we have now has been paused—not, in answer to my noble friend Lord Dubs, ended—pending review, to look at the very issues that have caused the need for the review in the first place.
Prisoners: Reoffending
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to ask the Question standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Hain.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
Reducing reoffending is my top priority. To break the cycle of crime, we are strengthening the rehabilitation offer in prison and the community, including increasing probation funding by 45%. We are recruiting more staff, expanding community housing and ramping up electronic monitoring—and that includes alcohol tags. Supporting prisoners into work is also something I care deeply about. Within six months of being in office, I launched regional employment councils, bringing together for the first time businesses, prisons, probation and the DWP to support offenders into work.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for that very positive Answer. I do not think anyone in the House underestimates the personal and professional concern the Minister has with reducing reoffending, which is why he is probably as concerned as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and I that four out of every 10 prisoners still reoffend. Can he comment on that incidence? It seems that one of the problems is that universal credit is a digital benefit, and prison restrictions on computers mean that prisoners cannot easily access computers to make benefit claims for housing or jobs, for example, until they are released. In addition, they have to provide a verifiable address, an email address and a bank account. Is it not possible for the DWP and prison staff to get together to sort out these details well in advance so that when prisoners are released they can access the benefits to which they are entitled and get help with housing and jobs? It seems to me that otherwise we are in a situation where this is going to go on indefinitely because they are bound to drift back, at great cost to themselves and to us, into reoffending.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My noble friend is right. We inherited a very difficult situation. Having been around prisons for 25 years, I know that we need to get to a point where it is sustainable, and that includes when people leave prison and find a job, housing and support. Since I came into the role, I have rolled out the DWP work coaches who engage with prisoners up to 12 weeks before they are released so that they get on to the system, but the other problem is whether they have a digital identity. When I was setting up the employment advisory boards, this was a clear problem, so we set up the banking and identity administrators. It is a mouthful of a job title, but they do a really important job. They get people bank accounts and driving licences, and get them on to the DWP systems. I have met a number of people in prison who, for the first time in their lives, have a bank account. But there is still much more we need to do. There are too many people leaving prison with no job and no house, and without access to alcohol and mental health treatment, as I saw in Bronzeville prison last week.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the biggest problem facing the rehabilitation work in which he has been so involved for decades now is that many of the prisons in which the training and other support is offered are overcrowded, dangerous, Victorian slums? As our incarceration rate is now the highest in Europe, thanks to the average prison sentence roughly doubling over the last few decades, would he consider reconsidering, with the Sentencing Council, the guidance given on the use of prison as a sentence to the courts? Does he agree that experience in the Netherlands and other countries where there has been enlightened reform shows that it has no adverse effect at all on the rate of offending and the crime rate in the country if incarceration rates are brought down to a more sensible level?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
Having been to prisons in Holland before, it is clear that they have a different approach. With the Sentencing Bill, which will come to your Lordships’ House soon, the inspiration has been the Texas justice system, where they did things differently and crime has come down by 30% and they have closed 16 prisons. What is clear from going around our prisons—as I do most weeks—is that they are too full. Today is a good day, as they are 98.4% full. We see that as a really good result. It is very difficult for our hard-working prison staff to rehabilitate people in overcrowded conditions, but I could give your Lordships many examples of prisons that I am proud of, and the noble Lord would be proud of too, where our staff do a fantastic job, in prisons that are modern, of turning people’s lives around.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, there was a manifesto commitment to reduce reoffending through improved access to education in prison. It has just been reported that the new national management contracts for prison education involve real budget cuts on average of 20% and in the case of some contracts of up to 60%. Can the Minister explain why, as a Justice Minister, he is abandoning the Government’s manifesto promise?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
Education is absolutely vital. We want people to leave prison able to read and write, and far too many do not. The education budget is not being cut; we just get less value for money. We are rebalancing because some prisons had an oversupply of education, money and staff compared with others. I do not want to walk past classrooms in prisons that are half-full; they need to be full. We need to support people in prison with digital learning as well. It is not just about education; it is about how we get people ready for when they leave prison so that they do not come back. Education is an important part of it, but so is work, housing and their health.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, in support of the initiatives that I know the Minister is very much involved with and has mentioned, could he say what progress he is making to reduce the number of prisoners being released on a Friday afternoon?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My noble friend is right that, in the past, that has been a significant problem. It still happens, but it happens far less. We try to release people on a Thursday, but some are still released on Fridays because of various technicalities. One of the things that I am working really hard at is getting people into housing when they are released. Over 14% of people leave prison with nowhere to live, and it is not surprising that they come back so often. For example, I was at HMP Bronzefield last week, a well-run prison. I found there that the women who are leaving with nowhere to live are coming back. The average length of stay of a woman in Bronzefield is 56 days. We need to ensure that there are more reasons why they can get out and stay out.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
How much of the £700 million promised to probation will be going to the Probation Service for more probation officers’ training and support, et cetera, and how much of it will be going to Serco for tags? The Chief Inspector of Probation, as I understand it, has yet to get a straight answer to this. If the Minister does not have the answer in front of him, perhaps he could write to me and leave a copy in the Library.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The extra £700 million for probation is a 45% increase. From what I have learned, all roads lead back to probation, and so that is where we need to focus our investment. We are recruiting 1,300 more staff and we will be recruiting more. We have not decided exactly how the money is going be split up. A lot of it will be for accommodation, some of it for tagging, and some of it for the support networks to help with mental health and work. I am confident that we can make big changes quickly, but we have to embrace digital technology. Far too much of probation officers’ time—70%—is spent doing admin, when I believe that 70% of their time should be spent face-to-face with offenders, helping them turn their lives around.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, will the Minister explain to the House how his approach will apply to those prisoners who are on indeterminate sentences? The frustration of being there year after year compounds the danger that, when they are released, this frustration will be taken out on the larger community, and yet there is a need for them to see daylight as soon as possible and to have some future. Can he give the House some assurance?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I believe that everybody who leaves prison should have the opportunity for a full life after they have served their punishment. We need to run prisons well, and it is difficult to run them well when they are 99.9% full. That is why our focus in the Sentencing Bill is on a sustainable justice system, so that prisons and probation can work hand in hand with the courts, the DWP and housing teams to make sure that, when people leave, they leave with confidence. We do not want people, in the lead-up to being released, to be concerned about having nowhere to live and all the other anxieties about coming out. That is one of the reasons why recall rates are still far too high.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
I know the Minister is interested in particular in those prisoners with drink and drug problems. Is he aware that many of the recovery centres that operate around the country state that funding to try to keep prisoners in recovery from drink and drug problems is drying up? This is principally coming from the health service side, but the Minister has an equal interest in this. Could he explore it and try to find some assistance around these continuing problems with funding?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My noble friend is right; this is absolutely vital for a number of people who leave prison. Some 49% of people go into prison with drug and alcohol problems. I have set up a drug and alcohol advisory panel with Dame Carol Black and others. I have also taken it one step further: I have been to an AA meeting to see how it works, and in the next two weeks I am going to my first NA meeting. I believe that the more of those types of meetings we have in prisons, the more opportunity people will have to overcome their addictions.
Jaguar Land Rover Cyberattack
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, the Jaguar Land Rover cyberattack has highlighted the vital need for robust cybersecurity across the UK’s economy, which is why today the Government have written to leading companies with advice on strengthening cyber defences using tools like the Cyber Essentials scheme and the Cyber Governance Code of Practice. We strongly recommend and encourage all companies to follow this guidance. We will also introduce very soon the cyber security and resilience Bill to raise cybersecurity standards in critical and essential services such as energy, water and the NHS.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, with the indulgence of the House, let me say that this weekend I came back from the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, where there were heartfelt tributes to the work of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem. He was held in very high esteem. It is one example of his dedication to defending our national interest.
One of the concerns of the NATO assembly was hybrid warfare. Attacks like that on JLR may come from nation states or they may come from individuals, but together they add up to a war on our economy that is costing billions of pounds. The National Cyber Security Centre chief executive Richard Horne said today
“Cyber security is now a matter of business survival and national resilience”.
As the Minister said, Minister Jarvis has written to large companies, but can he assure your Lordships’ House that the Government understand that information campaigns alone, like that which he has just described, are not effective? Can he tell the House that he realises that there needs to be a substantial change in gear, because attacks like the one we saw on JLR prove that what we are doing today just is not working?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, may I echo the words of the noble Lord about the late Lord Campbell? On behalf of the Government and this side of the House, I thank the late Lord Campbell for his public service to this country. He will be sorely missed in this House.
The National Cyber Security Centre has been working very closely with Jaguar Land Rover to provide support in relation to the incident. The NCSC response to the JLR incident is ongoing, but it is set to reduce as mediation takes place. Throughout the event, the NCSC has been capturing feedback to inform national and internal incident management practices. The NCSC will participate in a cross-government “lessons identified” process to review how best to improve the Government’s response, share information across partners and react to some of the unique pressures, such as those that the noble Lord mentioned. The NCSC would be happy to share aspects, depending on classification, of this process with noble Lords and other Ministers once it has been conducted.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, according to the National Cyber Security Centre’s latest report—and following on from the noble Lord, Lord Fox—in the year to September, there were 18 highly significant attacks, meaning attacks with the potential to have a serious impact on essential services. Given the increasing frequency of these attacks, can the Minister reassure the House that the Government’s plans for a centralised national digital ID database would not create a single point of potential failure, one breach away from exposing the entire British public to foreign espionage, hostile state interference or domestic data misuse?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that point. As far as private enterprise is concerned, the Government will not interfere in what private business organisations do. However, government can produce the tools and the guidance so that companies can have a more robust and resilient approach to cyberattacks. For example, the Cyber Governance Code of Practice shows a board of directors how effectively to manage the digital risks to the organisation. As I said earlier, all companies, if they have not done so, should conduct a comprehensive risk assessment of their digital and cybersecurity framework. They should apply for Cyber Essentials certification or the various other forms of certification and ensure that they have appropriate cyber insurance.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that my noble friend has had a chance to read an interesting article in this week’s New Statesman by Oliver Pickup about the people who have so far been arrested in relation to recent cyberattacks, particularly those on Marks & Spencer and Jaguar Land Rover, noting that they are very young and that, on the whole, they have learned their skills in hacking and cybercrime through their engagement with cybergames which they start very young. Will my noble friend have a look at that article if he has not had a chance to read it? Can he tell the House in what way the Government are aware of this issue and how they are addressing it within the education system and engagement with young people?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. I have not read the article, but I will surely do so. The Government recognise the major role that UK cybersecurity professionals play in enhancing and protecting UK security, and it is vital that we support them. However, the defences are pretty complex, and we need to be very careful. While there are robust safeguards and oversight, we have concerns about how any defence could be exploited by cybercriminals and significantly hinder the successful investigation and prosecution of bad actors, so the Home Office is working closely with the National Cyber Security Centre, law enforcement and industry on this issue and will provide an update in due course.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, studies indicate that between 50% and 80% of cyberattacks result in the payment of a ransom. Ransom amounts are probably well over £1 billion a year, so it is no great surprise that cyberattacks are increasing: it pays well. Have the Government considered making the payment of ransoms by both public and private sector entities illegal?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point. I share with noble Lords that in the UK ransomware is considered the greatest of all serious and organised cybercrime threats and is deemed a risk to the UK’s national security by the National Crime Agency. In January 2025, the Home Office launched a consultation on a package of proposals to reduce the threat that ransomware poses to the UK economy. Alongside this consultation, significant stakeholder engagement also took place. Three proposals were consulted on: first, whether there should be a targeted ban on ransom payments to owners; secondly, a ransom payment prevention regime; and, thirdly, whether there should be a mandatory incident and reporting regime. The Home Office is progressing a new package of measures to protect UK businesses, and we will update the House accordingly.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, today is the last day of free support for Windows 10. It is estimated that 39% of our home computers will be impacted, as well as UK businesses, industry and our very national security. Why we are not requiring extended security updates for Windows 10, as are now required across the EEA?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Earl makes an interesting point that I mentioned earlier. Companies using outdated systems should consider whether that is still appropriate. To do so, I urge all companies to conduct Cyber Essentials certification. Once they have the certification, they can ensure that their customers and whoever they do business with are protected against cyberattacks.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Non-Afl)
My Lords, perhaps I might pose a somewhat more prosaic but urgent question. The crisis at Jaguar Land Rover had immediate and predictable consequences for the supply chain. The immediate call was for the taxpayer to stand in. Do the Government have a view about whether the banks should play their part in supporting good customers such as the supply chain of Jaguar Land Rover, which has a very good customer in Jaguar Land Rover? The crisis was clearly going to reach an end. I do not understand why the banks do not stand by. Otherwise, what are they for?
Lord Leong (Lab)
Noble Lords will know that there are certain commercial aspects of Jaguar Land Rover that I cannot possibly comment on. However, that said, the Government have published a Written Statement today stating that we will guarantee JLR £1.5 billion to ensure that it has sufficient cash reserves to pay its supply chain creditors. It will work its way through the whole system, and we hope that, eventually, most supply chain creditors will be paid accordingly.
Business of the House
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:57 - Division on Lord True’s amendment - Ayes: 211 / Noes: 261 - Lord True’s amendment disagreed.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That Standing Order 38(1) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Wednesday 22 October and Wednesday 29 October to enable Report stage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to begin before oral questions on those days.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I would not normally remain on my feet after doing so, but I understand that the party opposite—the Opposition—has tabled an amendment opposing the Motion, so I thought it would be helpful to your Lordships’ House to be clear about what the Motion does, what it does not do, and why it has been tabled.
The Motion concerns the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. By agreement between the parties, the Bill starts Report on 20 October—next Monday—and the House will debate and decide amendments over four days. On two of those days, the Government ask that the House considers the Bill for two to three hours before Oral Questions, starting at 11 am. Notice of this was given on 17 September.
The planning Bill is central to the Government’s plan to get Britain building again and to deliver the economic growth that we need to drive up prosperity and improve living standards across the UK—aims overwhelmingly backed by the electorate just last year. It is crucial that the Bill is swiftly put on the statute book, to help us deliver the 1.5 million homes and fast-track the 150 planning decisions on major infra- structure projects that we pledged in the plan for change.
As we know, planning and infrastructure is a topic that attracts interest from all sides of the House. Many of us have spent many hours in this Chamber debating planning reform; Committee on the Bill was no exception. I am grateful to the Official Opposition and to the Liberal Democrats, who worked with us to ensure that Committee was completed in the agreed time, including some very late sittings. We appreciated that.
I know that there can sometimes be what I would call “noises off” about scheduling and what is happening in your Lordships’ House. I recall the fury in the offices of the then Opposition—I acknowledge my noble friend Lord Kennedy in this—after we had agreed the Government’s proposals on the timing of the Rwanda Bill and the then Prime Minister proclaimed that Labour was the cause of the parliamentary delay, which was not true, so we understand that. I say clearly that an agreement was reached at Committee stage and all sides adhered to that agreement. We are grateful and appreciate that.
I turn back to Report. So far, 134 Back-Bench and opposition amendments have been tabled on the Bill for Report. I understand from my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage that there are at least 10 issues that the Official Opposition intend to press further on Report. The reason for tabling this Motion is simply to ensure that the Bill completes Report within the four days and that, on those four days, our deliberations and decisions can conclude at a reasonable time.
These two mornings will provide up to an extra six hours of debate. It is a practical step on a single Bill, reflecting the interest in the topic, to ensure that we are able to effectively discuss and debate the amendments without sitting unduly late. We understand the difficulties that it causes for Members when the House sits very late; we felt that this approach was in the best interests of Members across the House.
The Motion does not permanently change the sitting times of the House, as set out in the Companion to the Standing Orders. I know a number of Members support such a change, but that can happen only through the settled will of this House. This Motion is specifically for two Wednesdays—22 October and 29 October. The Motion does not give these Benches any advantage. I do not want to incur the wrath of my Chief Whip or cast any doubt on his whipping process, but I have to say, looking at the numbers in your Lordships’ House, that the Government might more easily be defeated at midday than at midnight.
As I said in my opening, the Motion does not subvert the conventions of the House. As the Leader of the House, I have no desire to systematically abandon our conventions, as the opposition amendment says. I give the House that assurance. What the Motion says is that the House may consider the Bill before Oral Questions on two days in the next month. On the other 12 sitting days in October, the House will sit at our normal times. On all sitting days, Oral Questions will be at the normal time.
I reiterate: this Motion has been brought forward to be helpful to your Lordships’ House. Suggestions were made to my noble friend the Chief Whip from across the House that it would be easier and better for the House to debate Bills starting at an earlier time rather than later in the night. In that spirit, this Motion was brought forward to be helpful. I hope all noble Lords will be willing to support a pragmatic proposal to ensure proper and effective scrutiny of legislation.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord True
To leave out from “that” to end and to insert “given no persuasive case has been put for systematically abandoning the usual conventions governing the sitting times of the House, the House should meet at 3pm on Wednesday 22 and Wednesday 29 October and that consideration of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill should begin after oral questions on those days; and the House should continue normally to sit at the customary times, as set out in the Companion to the Standing Orders.”
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader for the constructive tone in which she spoke. I fear we may not be able to reach agreement at the end, but I appreciate the way she addressed the matter.
I want to make one thing clear at the start: we on this side recognise the importance the Government attach to this Bill. Indeed, we support many of the measures in it and we have absolutely no intention of blocking its passage to Royal Assent. Since we hear mutterings offstage about the OBR, let me make that clear to it as well—although, in fact, the OBR says nothing about requiring Royal Assent; all it asks for is consideration of policy announcements. It asks the Government to provide it with details of any proposed policy changes so that it can incorporate these in its forecast. Announcements have been made, so the OBR can incorporate them. Let us leave that canard aside.
The issue I want to raise is not delay, not the OBR, not even the Budget, which many people are looking forward to with some foreboding. The reason why I have tabled this amendment, and it is unusual, is that I believe it is time to review how we may best conduct our affairs. This was in some ways implicit in what the noble Baroness said. No one wants late nights. Many do not want morning sittings, which interfere not only with those who have business to conduct outside the House but with our Select Committees. Yet, because of the sheer weight of legislation, often ill thought through—this is not a novel matter—we are slipping into both morning sittings and late nights.
We best conduct our affairs by agreement in the usual channels, based on what I hold as the sacred constitutional principle that the King’s Government must be carried on: where, if greater scrutiny than originally envisaged is required, more latitude is given to the revising House by the Executive; and where, on the other hand, if the Government have extra need and good cause to make progress, the other parties agree exceptionally to sit outside normal hours. I believe profoundly that the best way to go forward for us is a reinforcement and restatement of our conventions in a spirit of give and take between all sides.
There are constant insinuations outside that your Lordships’ House obstructs government business. I took the previous Prime Minister to task on that when it was said, quite wrongly, as the noble Baroness will remember. What this House does is scrutinise legislation.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, as a member of the usual channels, I regret that we have not reached an agreement. But I think it has to be recognised by the House that every Government ask for help when their legislative programme is under pressure. That is inevitable in a House where the pace of the business is unpredictable. I remind the noble Lord, Lord True, that he was responsible for the Procurement Bill, where we had 350 amendments tabled in Committee—so there is a little whiff of hypocrisy, I fear, in this amendment.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
There are three good arguments for opposing this amendment. If we do not accept some flexibility, we are going to be here later and later at night. We are going to have more late sessions: that is the reality. The late sessions are not good for scrutiny. People of our age should not be working late hours of the night. Last night I was here at midnight and there were about 12 other Peers in the Chamber, scrutinising a very important Bill. That is the reality of working late.
We also have—and I accept that the noble Lord, Lord True, mentioned this—a duty of care towards our staff and ourselves in working the late hours that we have been doing. We spend millions on the security of this House but do not give much attention to the fact that people are leaving very late at night when public transport is no longer available. We therefore have to show some flexibility. We have accepted this Motion and accept the quid pro quo that, if we are going to meet early, we finish at a reasonable time. That is how the House should operate.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I do not represent a considered view of the whole Cross Bench, but I will make one or two points. The first is that what the noble Lord, Lord True, said about making sure that we reaffirm the various conventions that operate this House would be a good thing. I certainly would play my part in trying to deal with that because, in some ways, this is a mild breakdown of conventions.
My second point is a very simple one: the Report stage of this Bill was the right size to fit into four days before the 67 amendments appeared. Looking at the 67 amendments, I think that they are quite major amendments and one would expect, therefore, there to be additional time required for the proper consideration of those amendments, particularly in view of the fact that they will not have been discussed in Committee, at Second Reading or even in the House of Commons. When the usual channels talk about this again, there may have to be some further time for this all. We will have to sit very late on at least a couple of those days that are coming up.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, this debate becomes more and more confusing as time goes by. It strikes at the heart of the way we manage this House, where we ask the usual channels to meet regularly and come to agreements. Most of the time that is exactly what is done to the advantage of us all. Even if some of us do not like the decision that the usual channels have taken, we accept them.
What I do not understand in this case is why things have broken down so catastrophically, particularly when my noble friend Lord True has explained how, at earlier stages of this Bill, the Opposition worked very hard with the Government to be able to deliver the Bill on a timetable. I would understand if the end of the Session were a few weeks away or a couple of months away, but we know that the end of the Session will not happen for another six months. There is no rush; there is no reason we have to sit in the mornings to complete this Bill.
Furthermore, we are a part-time House in the sense that we meet in the afternoons and evenings. I speak as chairman of the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords, which meets on a Wednesday morning at 10 o’clock. That means that very distinguished senior Members of the House who sit on that committee will be unable to come and listen to the deliberations on what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and my noble friend Lord True have recognised is an extremely important Bill. I echo my noble friend in saying: would it not be better if both Motions were to be withdrawn so that realistic discussions could be had by the usual channels in order to come to an agreement?
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I will make two very brief points: one specifically aimed at the noble Lord, Lord True, and the other a more general point about the House and its procedures.
The point for the noble Lord, Lord True, concerns the wording of his amendment, which says that,
“the House should continue normally to sit at the customary times”.
That is a long-winded way of saying it should continue in the future as it always has done in the past with no revision whatsoever. I am sure the noble Lord has not forgotten, but I remind some Members of the House, and maybe inform some new Members, that it is not so long ago since the customary times for meeting in this House involved Wednesdays for Private Members’ Bills and Thursdays for government Bills starting at 3 pm. This is a House with people, we hope, coming from all parts of the country. We did not start the business of the day until 3 pm. It was a struggle to get that change through, but we got it through. I am not aware of anyone —please stand up if I am wrong—on these Benches or any others who thinks we should revert to what was then the customary times of sitting.
The other point is about the procedures of the House. The fundamental function of this House is to scrutinise legislation. That is what we do. If anyone suggests to me that we scrutinise more effectively at 1 am than at 1 pm, I would ask them to reconsider their position. I watch day after day the attendance in this House—we know the figures; we can look them up; we can check the voting figures. When the House is sitting even at 9.30 pm, there is many a time when there are only about eight, nine or 10 people in the House: two on the Government Front Bench, a couple on the Opposition Front Bench, someone in the Chair, a couple of Cross-Benchers and maybe one or two with a particular interest in the Bill. That does not compare—
Lord Grocott (Lab)
I am sorry; I apologise to the Lib Dems. It is an error I have made frequently in life.
It is not uncommon at all to have such numbers of people in the House scrutinising. It is beyond argument that, if we are looking at the detail of a Bill at a sensible time, at midday or 1 pm, more people will be in the House, more people will be taking part in the scrutiny of it and, if there are any votes, more people will take part in them. It is a very simple, straightforward proposal from my noble friend the Leader, and I really hope the House has the sense and the common sense to pass it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I have been very involved in Committee on the Bill, and I have a number of amendments before the House on Report. I think the very fact that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has brought her Motion before us today shows that four days was insufficient, even before the government amendments were tabled. I very much support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord True, but I also support the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. The Bill originally looked at nationally significant infrastructure projects relating largely to energy; it has now been extended in large measure to water and other projects. The impact on the countryside, which I hold dear, is going to be huge. I believe we owe it to residents of country areas and rural areas to make sure that the Bill is properly scrutinised. Whatever time it takes and however many hours we have to sit, four days is not sufficient.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank those who contributed to this debate. The first thing I would say is that it shows a desire from all across the House to scrutinise legislation properly and effectively. The noble Baroness said that extra time is needed. This is why the proposal was brought forward, to provide some of that extra time, at a time of day when Members are perhaps at their best and sparkiest. I certainly think I am better at 11 in the morning than I am at 11 at night.
I want to address a couple of points made by the noble Lord, Lord True. He talked about the planning Bill being far too big. I remind him that I think we had the same discussions about the LUR Bill, which was significantly bigger than the planning Bill. The planning Bill has 111 clauses and six schedules. LURB had 223 clauses and 18 schedules, and a significant part was added. I know he has mentioned before the number of amendments that were tabled to the LUR Bill. There were some 700 on Report alone—no, there were 700 in Committee and 466 on Report, and over 200 of those amendments were from the Government. That Bill just went on and on and late at night. We are trying to provide the time required without having these late nights.
The noble Lord talked about press briefings. I have learned for a very long time, particularly as we get closer to party conference season, not to rely too much on press briefings but to see what amendments actually say. I take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull: I think that over half of those 76 amendments—some 35 of them—come from discussions with the devolved Administrations to give effect to legislative consent Motions, so it is not an unusually large number of amendments to have.
On the issue of early sittings, so far in this Session there have been 196 sitting days, and we have sat early on nine of them—that is 5%. That was in response to the number of people wanting to contribute, and to the number of amendments. For example, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill had a large number of amendments and Members wanting to contribute.
I have to say to the noble Lord that, under the previous Government, early sittings were used for Bills, including important Bills. The noble Lord may remember Report stage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill—which I have mentioned—in September 2023, and the Second Reading and Committee stages of the Illegal Migration Bill earlier that year. This is not anything particularly unusual.
Let us address the elephant in the room. Two of the reasons why we have had so much business, sat so late and had longer hours have been the number of amendments tabled, which has been larger than usual, and the Opposition’s preference for debating smaller groups of amendments. Both those reasons are entirely legitimate. I make no criticism of doing that, and I recognise that they are within the rights of Members and in line with procedure. There is nothing untoward about that, but we have to recognise the reality that it does increase the time taken for discussions.
Some 67 amendments, over half of which are related to the devolved Administrations, have, as usual, been tabled a week before Report starts. They were discussed with the Opposition spokespeople, and I think the Opposition have now asked for a Keeling schedule for the most technical and complex amendments, which we are pleased to provide.
I have been very clear that I have no intention of systematically abandoning—I think that is the word the noble Lord used in his amendment—the conventions of the House, because they are important. The noble Lord talks about further discussions. We would welcome those discussions; they would be very helpful, because moving forward it would not be conducive to good scrutiny for Members or staff to have so many late-night and long sittings. Those discussions can be held.
I say to the noble Lord that the additional time required is provided for in this Motion, but if he wants to have further discussions through the usual channels, we will welcome them. My Motion is an enabling motion. If those discussions can reach an agreement whereby it is not necessary to have earlier sittings, then we will not use what is in the Motion, but we have it as a fallback if those discussions do not conclude in a satisfactory way.
We brought this forward as an offer to the House that is pragmatic and sensible, and in order to assist. Although there was not agreement through the usual channels, we would much prefer to have that. The Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Kennedy, did receive representations from across the House from those who said that they would rather sit in the morning than have late nights, and we have tried to reflect that in this debate. However, it is a matter for the House. There is a large attendance here today, which is not quite so usual for Business of the House Motions. If Members want to sit here very late, they are fully welcome and entitled to do so. That is a matter for the House, and if that is the will of the House, I look forward to seeing a full House on those occasions.
I have been clear that although it might not benefit the Government, scrutiny at 11 am would probably be a bit more robust and thorough than it would be at 11 pm. Therefore, we offer the option to the House, but it is ultimately for the House to decide. We think it would be helpful to the House. We can continue with discussions, but if we do not need that extra time because the noble Lord and the noble Baroness can reach agreement with the Chief Whip, then that would be great. This is an enabling Motion that may be a fallback if discussions conclude unsatisfactorily. We are responding to requests to scrutinise legislation at a time when we can do our best work.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to those who spoke and to the Leader. I will come to her remarks at the end. I do not want to abuse the Companion, so I will not make a long wind-up speech. I was not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, was saying that the Liberal Democrats’ view was that morning sittings should become the norm. If that is the case, this should be a matter for Procedure Committee.
I agreed with what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, and I grateful to him for picking up my point on reinforcing conventions, which the noble Baroness also picked up. He and my noble friend Lady McIntosh highlighted that 67 amendments have gone down. This is new material, and that must have an effect on the consideration on Report, notwithstanding what the other place might think of it.
My noble friend Lord Strathclyde made a point I made about the difficulty of morning sittings for the committees of your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, referred to the words “customary times” in the amendment. These were suggested to me by the clerks, rather than setting out all the existing times, which would have led to a lengthy Motion. I certainly do not want to go back to the traditions of long ago, when we sometimes met on a Saturday.
I am grateful for the tone of the Leader, and I believe that this should be possible, as it was in Committee on this Bill—and it should be possible for all Bills. That is always my aspiration. The noble Baroness referred to the LUR Bill. We let that Bill run for 15 days in Committee, over which many people in the House got to know something about what my view about that Bill actually was. I hope my noble friend is not behind me.
My fundamental point is that I hope this occasion will be an unusual occasion, not a usual one, because the usual place should be the usual channels. I am confident that, if we do have the kind of discussions that the noble Baroness has talked about in the normal spirit of amity between the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and my noble friend Lady Williams, we can find a way forward on this Bill that will allow for the time that may be required by the new material.
But I do not particularly care to negotiate with the equivalent of a revolver on the table. I was disappointed that the noble Baroness would not withdraw her Motion, so I will test the opinion of the House because it should be marked that this is a business Motion that has gone down without the consent of the usual channels. This is a moment in the passage of this House from the way we conduct our business towards where it might otherwise go. The noble Baroness has given us an assurance that she does not want to go in that direction, and I accept her word. But I believe that we should mark our displeasure at this, and I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That a committee be appointed to consider the safeguards and procedures contained in the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:
Berger, B,; Berridge, B.; Finlay of Llandaff, B.; Goddard of Stockport, L.; Goodman of Wycombe, L.; Hayter of Kentish Town, B.; Hope of Craighead, L.; (Chair) Markham, L.; Newcastle, Bp.; Patel, L.; Scotland of Asthal, B.; Smith of Newnham, B.; Winston, L.
That the Committee shall hear evidence including from professional bodies, those with professional experience of coronial services, and Ministers;
That the Committee, notwithstanding the usual practice of the House, may report by drawing the attention of the House to the evidence received without making recommendations;
That the Committee do report by 7 November 2025;
That the report of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House; and
That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, as noble Lords are aware, after the Second Reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, the House agreed a Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, to establish a Select Committee to consider the safeguards and procedures contained in the Bill. As agreed by the House on 19 September, the Select Committee will take evidence, including from professional bodies, those with professional experience of coronial services, and Ministers, and will report by Friday 7 November.
The Motion before the House today gives effect to that decision by formally establishing the Select Committee and appointing its members. I am pleased to recommend to your Lordships the noble Lords who have agreed to serve. I beg to move.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the order of commitment of 23 April be discharged and the bill be committed to a Grand Committee; and that the instruction to the Committee of the Whole House of 23 April shall also be an instruction to the Grand Committee.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 23, Schedule 1, Clauses 24 to 41, Schedule 2, Clauses 42 to 52, Schedule 3, Clauses 53 to 66, Schedule 4, Clauses 67 to 83, Schedule 5, Clauses 84 to 90, Schedule 6, Clauses 91 to 113, Title.
Renters’ Rights Bill
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:41 - Division on Motion A1 - Ayes: 192 / Noes: 239 - Motion A1 disagreed.
17:36 - Division on Motion C1 - Ayes: 204 / Noes: 215 - Motion C1 disagreed.
18:24 - Division on Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H) - Ayes: 169 / Noes: 212 - Motion H1 disagreed.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 11, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 11A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A I will, with the leave of the House, speak also to Motions E, F, G, G1 and L, which are grouped together.
It is a great pleasure to bring the Renters’ Rights Bill back to the House of Lords to consider the amendments and reasons from the other place. I start by thanking my colleague in the other place, the Housing Minister, for setting out the Government’s position on the amendments agreed by your Lordships. As he outlined, the Government made a clear manifesto commitment to the people to modernise the insecure and unjust private rented sector. The Renters’ Rights Bill delivers on this promise by empowering private renters with more rights, protection and greater security of tenure. I thank the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for their amendments in this group.
I begin with the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, Amendment 11B, which would allow landlords to require an additional deposit equivalent to one to three weeks’ rent as a condition of their consent to a tenant’s request to keep a pet. A requirement for a further three weeks’ deposit would cost the average tenant in England over £900. This is unaffordable for most tenants and would greatly exceed the average deposit deduction for pet damage of £300.
While I truly appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, has considered these affordability issues to a degree in his amendment in lieu by stating that the additional deposit may be from one to three weeks at the landlord’s reasonable discretion, I am afraid that we still cannot accept this amendment. In practice, this provision would effectively be the same as allowing landlords to request up to three weeks’ deposit, as the original amendment did. Many landlords will charge the full amount, giving rise to the same affordability challenges as the original amendment.
As outlined at Lords Report, the Government have existing powers under the Tenant Fees Act 2019 which will allow Parliament to require a larger deposit where a landlord has consented to the tenant having a pet. We will continue to keep this position under review following Royal Assent. If there is clear evidence that pet damage is exceeding normal tenancy deposits, we have the Tenant Fees Act power, which would allow us to remedy this.
Amendment 39D, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, would introduce an annual reporting requirement on the quality of military accommodation. I express my grateful thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Thornhill, for their continued engagement on this issue. I also extend my thanks to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, for his tireless advocacy for service personnel and their families. I am sure that the whole House will agree that our armed service personnel and their families must live in safe and decent homes. The Government acknowledge the vital role that accommodation plays in their lives. We are determined to ensure that our personnel have access to safe, high-quality accommodation that meets their needs and reflects the importance of their service to our nation.
As I have previously outlined, the Government are committed to driving up the standards of military accommodation further. Earlier this year, the Ministry of Defence announced an additional £1.5 billion investment in service family accommodation over the next five years, above that already committed. Later this year, the Government will publish a defence housing strategy, setting out clear renewal standards and further steps to improve the lived experience of our personnel.
I welcome the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Baroness and can confirm that the Government support this approach in principle. We have therefore tabled Amendments 39B and 39C as amendments in lieu, which will introduce a statutory requirement for annual reporting on the extent to which service family accommodation meets the decent homes standard. This amendment will place on a statutory basis the commitments the Housing Minister made in the other place for greater transparency and accountability on the quality of military accommodation. Alongside the Government’s wider actions that I have already highlighted, this will make a real difference in ensuring that service personnel and their families have homes of the quality they deserve. I have discussed the Government’s amendment in lieu with the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Grender, and with Gideon Amos MP, to whom I am grateful for his strong advocacy on this issue in the other place. They have indicated their support, and I hope that noble Lords will also support this amendment.
Finally, Lords Amendments 26 and 27, which were tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, would require local authorities to meet the criminal, rather than civil, standard of proof when imposing penalties for rental discrimination and rental bidding breaches. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, for his constructive engagement on this issue. We believe that local authorities will enforce these measures against the relevant standard of proof effectively. However, we understand the concerns from noble Lords that if this is not the case, there is a risk of an unsatisfactory decision.
With that in mind, I can confirm that the Government will include in the relevant statutory guidance to local authorities advice that a local authority exercises a quasi-judicial function when imposing a civil penalty, and should therefore be satisfied by credible, reliable and sufficient documentary or other evidence on the balance of probabilities that a person has breached a relevant requirement before imposing a penalty. Moreover, the Bill already gives a person against whom a local authority proposes to impose a penalty a right to make representations before a final decision is made, as well as a right to an appeal by way of rehearing against a penalty. I am pleased to have come to an agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, on this issue. I hope this is sufficient to address the concerns of noble Lords and that they will agree to the Motion not to insist from the other place.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
“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 a minimum of one weeks of rent and a maximum of three weeks of rent, depending on the nature of the pet, at the landlord's discretion acting reasonably,
(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.””
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for her opening remarks. Your Lordships should please note my interest in the register that I work for and am a shareholder in a veterinary business that cares for many pets. I also have the privilege of being a dog owner for many years.
My updated amendment seeks to provide protection and reassurance to landlords and give tenants much more opportunity to find a rentable property that allows pets. The Government quite rightly included in the Bill the right of tenants to request landlords to allow pets, as currently there is a limited number of properties available.
At the commencement of the Bill, the Government wished to support landlords with a change with regards to the financial risk that pets may cause damage to a property during a tenancy. This proposed solution was an insurance policy which provided a level of cover. The proposal was supported by many housing and pet charities. Due to the risk profile of this type of cover, the insurance market could not provide the appropriate policies. As a result, the Government withdrew the proposal from the Bill. That risk still exists. The tenant’s five-week deposit covers the risk that tenants may cause damage to a property. Housing a pet is an additional risk and therefore asking for an extra amount of deposit is surely not unreasonable.
One of the Government’s objections to the amendment, as already stated by the Minister, was the increase in the deposit, and I acknowledge that this is an issue that exists for some. We have considered this in updating and reducing the number of weeks’ deposit required to a minimum of one week and in an obligation on landlords to be reasonable when asking for the amount of deposit considered and the nature of the pet or number of pets.
The Government said that the five-week deposit will cover the damage of pets. They used figures from the University of Huddersfield survey provided to the Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, which say 76% of landlords have no issue with pets. That leaves 24% of landlords with issues; that is not a small number and the summary does not define what those pet issues are. The report did quote that the average cost of pet-related damage was about £300 per tenancy. I believe the average weekly rent is about £300, as mentioned in the passage of the Bill, so one weeks’ rent would cover the damage.
It may be that if a pet damages a property, a good tenant will repair it. Sadly, not all tenants are the same, just like we have a range of good and bad landlords. If a tenant has a pet that causes some damage and it is not repaired, is it not likely that, if there are other damages, they will not be repaired? That is what the five-week deposit will cover, and an additional pet deposit could cover the pet damage.
There is good evidence that tenants with pets tend to stay longer, and many take care of their properties to a high standard. One conclusion would be that these tenants stay in certain properties for longer due to the lack of supply of alternative rental properties—which, happily, the Bill wishes to address—but we need to support landlords with this change. By supporting this amendment, we will be supporting landlords and making the process of more landlords accepting pets without objection a far greater reality, as they will have the protection of an additional deposit. It will, I hope, also encourage existing landlords to stay in the private rental sector market and potentially encourage new landlords to choose long-term tenancies over short-term holiday and Airbnb lets, so maintaining supply of rental properties.
A table in the University of Huddersfield report asks landlords whether different policies or incentives would encourage them to consider pet owners as tenants in the future. Some 53% asked said that having a tenant with insurance cover for pet damage would help. Sadly, this is not available. Some 51% said that allowing landlords to charge for a deep clean would help; this would be covered by a pet deposit. Some 43% said that allowing landlords to be allowed to hold a pet deposit would help them, and this is what this amendment does.
Pets provide so much to us human beings in companionship and health benefits and provide friendship and support at difficult times. When owning a pet, we have a responsibility to maintain their welfare and health. This is both a time commitment and a financial commitment for the owners. If someone is a potential tenant with a pet, an additional deposit for a property should be thought of as part of that financial commitment.
I hope my revised amendment will find some support with your Lordships today, and that we can find a balance between landlords and tenants to increase the supply of pet-friendly accommodation. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I welcome Amendments 39B and 39C in particular—on my behalf and on behalf of our most able leader on this Bill team, my noble friend Lady Thornhill. We are absolutely delighted that military housing is going to be held to the same legal standard as the private rentals in the Bill. Putting this on a statutory footing fulfils the wishes of this Government and the campaigning work by some of my colleagues, particularly in the Commons: MPs Gideon Amos and Helen Morgan, to name but two. I thank Adam Bull in our Whips’ Office, who has been working very hard on this over the recess.
I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for her time and patience in discussing this issue and us getting to this very happy mutual agreement. I also thank Minister Pennycook for the time he spared, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who has spent time on this. The noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, have provided wisdom, backing and advice, and I am grateful to them both as well.
At the heart of this issue are those in the military who give the ultimate sacrifice and the families who live with them and stand by them. Let us hope, as a result of this change, that the appalling conditions they have endured so far will change and will be a thing of the past. We are enormously grateful for this change and are looking forward to seeing it introduced.
With regard to the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, we have consistently not supported this. We recognise the eloquence of his arguments in this area, but we continue to argue that this will place undue financial pressure on tenants and could be exploited by rogue landlords to impose excessive deposit charges. We believe that tenants, owner-occupiers and social tenants should be viewed on a much more equal footing. This speaks to some of the speeches that both I and my noble friend Lady Thornhill have made. Therefore, we feel we cannot support it, but we are absolutely delighted with the government amendment, and we look forward to its implementation.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, Amendment 11B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, seeks to allow landlords to request a pet deposit equivalent to up to three weeks of rent. Like many of the charities involved in the animal welfare sector that have campaigned tirelessly on this issue, I am disappointed that we are having to return to this subject after it was clearly rejected in the other place, having been the subject of intense discussion. Charities including Battersea, Cats Protection and the Dogs Trust strongly support the Government’s position, and so do I. The reason for that is clear. Such an obligation would defeat the very purpose of the pet provisions in this carefully balanced Bill, which are designed to make pet ownership easier for tenants and remove the iniquity that owning a pet is the preserve of the increasingly small number of people who can afford to own their own home. I declare my own interests as the owner of a cat.
Let us be clear: as I said in Committee, for tenants seeking to have a single pet in rented accommodation, there is likely to be only very minimal, if any, damage. The standard security deposit is more than sufficient to cover any damage beyond standard wear and tear, as a survey conducted in 2021 by YouGov on behalf of the Dogs Trust and Cats Protection concluded. In rare circumstances, where damage caused by a pet may exceed the value of the existing security deposit, measures already exist for landlords to seek additional compensation from the tenant. As such, charging an additional pet deposit is unnecessarily and wholly disproportionate.
This costly proposal would put the wonderful aspiration of pet ownership beyond the reach of many. Allowing landlords to require a pet deposit equivalent of up to three weeks’ rent could see tenants forced to find up to an additional £1,500 for a one-bedroom flat in high-rent areas such as London—a figure which is unaffordable for many. It would also introduce an unfair geographical disparity, with those living in cities, where rents are higher, being far worse off compared with those living in rural areas.
Another problem with the addition of a pet deposit is the potential lack of transparency regarding what a landlord decides should constitute pet damage and what constitutes the type of damage that would otherwise be funded by the standard security deposit. Many landlords, I fear, would see this as an extra fund to provide an option to withhold more money simply for standard wear and tear.
The pet provisions in the Bill have been thoroughly and energetically debated, both inside and outside this House. It is clear from all those discussions that the standard security deposit is more than adequate to cover any damage caused by a pet and that this amendment is completely unnecessary. Its only result would be to neuter one of the key planks of this vital legislation, destroying the hopes of so many tenants who dream of having a pet in their home. Today, we should make that dream a reality, so I am afraid that, if the noble Lord presses his Motion, I shall be voting against it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on two matters: first, the Ministry of Defence accommodation, and then the pet deposit. On the Ministry of Defence housing, we thank the Government for listening and engaging so constructively on this issue. The concerns raised have been recognised, and the Government’s response has been both proportionate and pragmatic. On these Benches, as ever, we strongly support our service personnel and the vital contribution they make to us and our country, and we are happy to support the Government’s Motion.
Turning to pets, I support the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, on an issue that has filled my inbox and, I know, that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson as well. When the Bill was first introduced, the Government rightly sought to balance the cost of pet-related damage through the requirement of pet insurance. However, as we pointed out repeatedly, and as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, emphasised, no such insurance product actually existed. Once the Government accepted that fact, the requirement was removed, but nothing was put in its place.
The noble Lord’s amendment would restore that missing balance. It offers a fair and proportionate settlement, ensuring that renters can keep pets in their homes while landlords have reassurance that any pet-related damage can be covered. If there is no damage, the deposit will be returned. Recent research by Propertymark shows that 85.3% of landlords and agents have incurred damage to their properties by pets. Yet more staggeringly, 57% of landlords and agents report being unable to recoup pet-related damage costs.
Allowing an additional deposit of one to three weeks’ rent is therefore a reasonable and balanced step that protects tenants’ rights while recognising the realities faced by landlords, particularly small landlords. Landlords are not always wealthy investors. Many, as we have said many times on this Bill, are ordinary people for whom a second property represents their pension or their life savings. If a property requires major cleaning or repair, those costs can be prohibitive, and in some cases could drive properties out of the rental market altogether. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, chooses to test the opinion of the House once again, we on these Benches will support him.
Finally, I thank the Government for their constructive engagement and the assurances given in writing and from the Dispatch Box on the standard of proof. Those commitments provide much-needed clarity and reassurance on how this will be applied in practice, and we are grateful for the Minister’s response.
Taken together, we believe that these measures improve the Bill, and make it fairer, more workable and more balanced for tenants and landlords alike.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I thank again the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for their positive approaches throughout the course of the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Black, for his support—I will come on to some of the points that he raised in a moment—and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.
I think the responses to this part of the debate are pragmatic. I am afraid that we cannot accept the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. He mentioned the Government’s change in position on pet insurance. We had an extensive debate, in both your Lordships’ House and the other place. We drew on the expertise of Peers such as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Trees. The Government consulted further with the Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers’ Association. Following that engagement, we concluded that we were no longer confident that the insurance and underwriting sector would have sufficient or suitable products available for landlords or tenants to purchase.
In view of that, we did not want to leave tenants in a position where they could not comply with conditions set as part of the pet consent granted by their landlord, as that would mean they would not be able to have a pet, which would defeat the object of having pet provisions in the Bill. I am pleased to say that, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, mentioned, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home has indicated its support for the Government’s approach, including the approach of not accepting this amendment. I received just today a letter of very strong support from Dogs Trust and Cats Protection, and another email from Shelter expressing its support and hope that this amendment would not be accepted, because it did not feel that it was in the interest of tenants or their pets. We used the information from the University of Huddersfield as part of our consideration.
It is important to say that, as I noted in my opening speech, we will continue to keep this under review. We have powers to allow for higher deposits for pets, if needed. We are satisfied at the moment that the existing requirement of five weeks’ deposit for typical tenancies is sufficient to cover the risk of any increased damage by pet ownership. I know some landlords are concerned about potential damage that may be caused by pets. Landlords can deduct damage costs from the normal tenancy deposit, as they do now. In rare cases, where the deposit did not cover the cost of the damage, the landlord could take the tenant to the small claims court and bring a money claim to recoup any outstanding amounts, in line with the wider rules in the sector.
We do not want to put tenants in a position where they cannot have a pet because there are no suitable insurance products available or they cannot afford the additional cost of a deposit. We will keep this matter under review, and I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his Motion.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
I thank your Lordships for your thoughts and speeches. I am pleased about, and support, the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, being accepted by the Government.
The Minister has not changed her position on my amendment. I understand the comments regarding the deposit scheme. On the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, I am just as passionate about allowing more people to have pets. With this amendment, I am trying to encourage landlords not to leave the sector due to tenants having pets. I would like more people to have pets, and I realise how important that is, but there is a balance to be struck with trying to reassure landlords, because they do not accept pets at the present time. There are very few properties on the market that allow them.
This amendment is trying to create a balance. I appreciate that some tenants will struggle to find that deposit, but I believe that, by having it in place, more landlords would be willing to accept pets, and there would be less disruption between landlords and tenants when tenants ask to have pets. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House on my Motion.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, before we turn to Motion B, I remind your Lordships that, during a Division in particular, I need a clear sight of the clerk at all times. It is therefore strictly forbidden for any Peer to move between the Table and me so that I cannot see the clerk.
Motion B
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 14 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 14A in lieu—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will speak also to Motions C, C1, D and D1, which are grouped together.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Young, for their amendments relating to the no-let restriction. Lords Amendment 18, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is intended to reduce the no-let period to six months where the property has been demonstrably on the market and no suitable offers have been received for that period. The noble Lord and I, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, have discussed this amendment at length and I thank them again for their continued engagement on this issue. The Government understand that there may be situations where landlords genuinely intend to sell their property but cannot do so. However, the reletting and remarketing restriction is one of the strongest safeguards we have in the Bill.
I know that many noble Lords agree with the restriction in principle but disagree with its length. The Government believe that the 12-month period will make it unprofitable for a landlord to abuse this ground. It is vital that these strong protections for tenants remain in place, and I want to be clear about the Government’s position and commitment. This is shared by Members in the other place, and today I was pleased to receive strong support from Shelter, citing research from the Nationwide Foundation that one in five landlord sale evictions does not result in a sale.
Lords Amendment 19, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, would exempt shared owners from the re-letting and re-marketing restriction and other important restrictions. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for taking the time to meet, particularly during recess when he was kind enough to have meetings to discuss this important issue, and for his continued support for shared owners. I also thank him for his amendments in lieu: Amendments 19B, 19C and 19D.
The Government are very sympathetic to shared owners experiencing building safety issues and the particular challenges they face. We have already taken a number of steps outside the Bill to provide greater clarity for shared owners on what flexibilities and support they can expect from providers. These include new commitments in the update to the Government’s remediation acceleration plan, published in July. The noble Lord’s amendments in lieu acknowledge the unique circumstances in which shared owners operate, while not compromising on the core aim of the Bill to improve security of tenure in the sector. The Government are delighted to support his amendments and we encourage the House to agree to them. We will continue to work with the noble Lord as the Bill is implemented. I beg to move.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I will address Amendment 18, Motion C1 in place of Motion C. To recap very briefly on the substance of the amendment, the Bill punishes any landlord who serves notice on a tenant because the landlord is selling the property but the property fails to sell.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, forgive me for interrupting, but we were on Motion B and I was under the impression that the noble Lord wanted to speak on Motion B, but it appears that he has gone to Motion C. Am I correct?
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
Oh, they are in the same group. It is not my afternoon, is it? Pray continue.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
We could set this to music if the noble Baroness wishes. Where did I get to? I will not start again, the House has been too patient, but I will start halfway through.
The Bill punishes any landlord who serves notice on a tenant because the landlord is selling the property but the property then fails to sell. They are not allowed to re-let it for 12 months. The property must stand empty and unrented for that 12 months. The amendment does not quibble with that punitive intention of the Bill. It accepts that, in order to prevent a few bad landlords trying to abuse the system, all property, belonging to all landlords, that fails to sell will stand empty and be impossible to live in for anyone seeking rental accommodation. The amendment simply sets that punitive period at six months and requires the landlord to furnish proof to a court of a genuine and reasonable, including reasonable pricing, attempt to sell the property during that time.
The House of Commons debate on this amendment acknowledged that the landlord being hit with 12 months of no income, along with the costs of their property standing empty for a year, is a problem. However, this was considered to be “relatively minor” and simply an
“inconvenience … to a well-meaning landlord who is struggling to sell”.
It was claimed that it is “far too easy” for
“any rogue landlord looking for an excuse to evict”
to abuse the proposed period of six months, and that
“landlords give excuses that are perhaps not all they seem to be”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/25; cols. 651, 646, 652.]
I am sorry to say that no facts were presented, quantified or examined, and no evidence was provided, just these dismissive anti-landlord assertions.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I support Motion C1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I repeat my interest, in that my wife owns properties in London which she rents out, from which I occasionally benefit. I thank the Minister for meeting the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and me to discuss the matter. Her engagement with us was much appreciated.
I want to emphasise what the Minister in the House of Commons said when the Lords amendment was defeated. He said:
“We recognise that there will be occasions when landlords regain vacant possession of their property using ground 1A but are unable subsequently to sell it despite repeated attempts to do so”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/25; col. 637.]
So the Government expressly acknowledge that there will be landlords who are unable to sell, having intended to do so, and who are acting in perfect good faith. The issue is whether it is really appropriate in this Bill to penalise such good faith landlords by preventing them renting out their property for 12 months because of abuse—and there is abuse—by other landlords.
I suggest to the House that this is a plain and obvious case of a disproportionate sanction. It is a sanction against those who have done no wrong and who have acted in perfect good faith. This Government are often eager to emphasise the importance of human rights law. It is important to acknowledge that human rights law does not just protect prisoners and illegal entrants; it also protects law-abiding citizens who own property and who wish to rent it out.
It is a basic principle of the common law, adopted by the Human Rights Act, that any interference with the right to property requires a fair balance between the interests of the property owner and the interests of the community. I suggest to the House that to penalise a landlord who has acted in good faith by preventing them renting out their own property for 12 months when they have done no wrong defies the need for a fair balance. It is manifestly disproportionate. The modest amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, to reduce the period to six months is fair and balanced, and if he divides the House, as he has indicated he will, he will certainly have my support.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I do not know if the noble Lord is wanting to speak. I am perfectly prepared to give way to him, although I seem to have the Floor of the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, made a very powerful case, which was well supported by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The noble Lord and others will remember that I supported him on this measure in Committee, and I think also on Report. It covers a wider ground than just the landlord who has been unable to sell. There is another ground, where the landlord has got possession of a property to put members of their family in. I cited the example of a landlord having done that for, let us say, parents coming in, one of whom then has a stroke, meaning that the landlord then needs to do something with the property that involves putting it back on the market. In that situation, the landlord is penalised in exactly the same way as when a landlord fails in a genuine attempt to sell, as the noble Lord has described.
In Committee, and I think also on Report, I proposed a better way of dealing with this problem: a prohibition on any landlord putting property on the market again at a higher price than the price at the time of the change of ownership. I should have succeeded in that argument, but I did not. However, I am certainly supporting the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, as supported by noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I hope that your Lordships have heard the arguments from the noble Lords and will support them on this issue.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion D1 in my name, which the Minister referred to sympathetically at the beginning of our debate.
As we have heard, the Bill currently precludes a landlord who gives notice to a tenant because he wants to sell from re-letting that property for 12 months if that sale falls through. The Government want all tenants to be protected against abusive eviction by landlords, and I have no difficulty with that principle. However, in the case of shared owners, there are already safeguards against such abuse that are not there for conventional landlords, and their sales are more likely to fall through, through no fault of their own.
The amendment exempting shared owners from this provision was carried on Report in your Lordships’ House by the largest majority of any amendment to the Bill. While sympathy was expressed by Ministers in the other place for the plight of shared owners, the amendment was overturned there. Last week, the Government tabled their Motion asking your Lordships not to insist on that amendment. On 10 October, the Minister followed that up by writing to all Peers, hoping that they would support her Motion not to insist. Then last week, we had a Damascene conversion, and here I obviously had more good fortune than the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I am most grateful to the Minister for the time she spent with me on this last week, and indeed earlier, and to Matthew Pennycook and the officials. The amendment in my name is the outcome of those discussions and represents a deal that I can accept.
To briefly summarise the case, shared owners are social housing residents. They own a portion of their property and rent the rest of it from the housing association. They purchased a share of their home because they could not afford to buy on the open market. They are a distinct, legally identifiable group of people, and they are actually precluded from subletting without permission from their registered provider.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, on the compromise he has achieved on this important amendment. I must declare a family interest: my wife owns rented property in Dorset. I shall speak in opposition to the amendment to Motion C in the name of my noble friend Lord Cromwell, well-intentioned though I believe it is.
My noble friend’s amendment would mean that a landlord who had gained possession of a property using the grounds of an intention to sell would be able to relet that property after six months if it had not been sold, rather than having to wait up to a year, as specified in the Bill. In normal circumstances, one would expect a sale to be agreed within around six months, or, if not, the landlord would still want to go for a sale rather than relet the property, so the issue would not arise in most instances where this ground for possession could be used. However, the Government want to prevent an unscrupulous minority of landlords using these grounds for eviction as a way of bypassing the Bill’s fundamental intention of giving renters greater security. The fear is that the landlord will profess to want to sell but has no such intention; they simply want to evict the tenant. They may want to switch to more profitable Airbnb-style lettings, or they may want to replace a tenant who is complaining about the landlord’s neglect of essential repairs and find a more malleable or more desperate tenant.
There is some evidence of such cheating behaviour from Scotland, where similar legislation has not had constraints on how quickly a vacated property can be relet, so the Government want to prevent abuses. The Bill needs to ban reletting for long enough to deter a landlord from misusing these grounds for possession. The question is how long a pause before re-letting is permitted would be long enough. Let us take a case where a renter is complaining about damp and mould. The property needs, say, £15,000 to be spent on rectifying various defects. If the tenant is paying £900 a month, it would be advantageous for the landlord to go without six months’ rent, that is £5,300, to be rid of that tenant and find someone who will tolerate the poor conditions. Having to forego 12 months’ rent before reletting, well over £10,000 in this case, would present a more robust deterrent against using this no-fault eviction route to removing the tenant.
I can see that a compromise of a nine-month ban on reletting would probably be acceptable all round, but in the absence of that halfway house, it is safer and more foolproof to stay with the Bill’s 12-month term and reject this amendment.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, first, I join the noble Lord, Lord Best, in praising the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his tenacity and commitment to shared ownership owners, who really are the raw end of the market and get a raw deal in many ways. He has really shown his mettle in his commitment to this. It is also fair to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for listening and doing something about it. I hope that her commitment to shared owners continues in other areas that we will look at.
Turning to Motion C1, from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, which it appears we will vote on, it is very difficult to follow the eloquence of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Cromwell, but I will try. The noble Lord, Lord Best, has already highlighted what we call “revenge evictions”, and we are approaching that issue from the position of working—for many years, in the case of my noble friend Lady Grender—with renter groups and renter charities. From that, we get a real idea of what is happening at the sharp end, which is not quite as narrow as we might like to think it is. There are probably more unscrupulous landlords out there than the number of homes that take over one year to sell.
On revenge evictions, there is the risk that a tenant will be kicked out because they ask for improvements—the noble Lord gave a very good example of that, but there are many others. In certain parts of the country where rents are not as expensive, six months’ rent would make it worth while for the landlord to kick somebody out on that ground if they ask for even some modest accessibility improvements and so on. We are arguing over six, nine or 12 months, and the truth is that only time will tell. What I seek from the Government is some reassurance that this will be looked at, because that could very well be the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned Scotland. It is interesting that the properties in one in five evictions that were made on this repossession ground then turned up on their database as still being for sale. That gives weight to the fact that people are prepared to do it, because in Scotland they have no period for not re-letting.
In several debates, I mentioned that I chatted to my women friends who are landlords; I referred to them as my “landladies”. I put this to them, and they looked at me as if it were a weird question. They said, “If I were concerned about my property sitting empty, I am actually able to sell my property with the tenants still in the property while the ‘For Sale’ board is up on the door, so I would talk to them and say that the ‘For Sale’ board is going up, but I certainly wouldn’t be serving notice until I was certain that I had a buyer”. That is due to—this is a statistic that has not been bandied about—the length of time it sometimes takes to sell a house. Interestingly, they did not see it as the kind of emotive, big, terrible, unfair problem that noble Lords have made it out to be. By keeping your tenants in the property, you are not only getting the rent but—much more importantly, in our view—you are giving your tenants more time to find a home.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. I will speak briefly to support two important Motions before us, one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, on no re-let provisions, and the other by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham on shared ownership.
On Motion C1, as the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, clearly explained, under the Bill, where a landlord seeks possession to sell a property and that sale then falls through—as it does in about one-third of cases—the landlord is prohibited from re-letting the property for 12 months. In practice, that means perfectly good homes must stand empty for a whole year. The amendment does not undermine the Bill’s purpose; it retains the requirement for a genuine sales process and safeguards against abuse. It introduces the vital element of proportionality. A six-month restriction would still deter bad actors while avoiding unnecessary loss of rental supply at a time when demand and rents are rising sharply. We have a housing crisis, and we must take every opportunity to improve the supply of housing and homes. Leaving homes empty for 12 months does not help those desperately looking for a home to rent.
Turning to shared owners, I would also like to extend my appreciation of the dedicated work of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, and we support the Motion in his name. He has made a compelling and deeply fair case on behalf of shared owners who, through no fault of their own, have found themselves trapped by the complexities of the shared ownership system. I want to thank Ministers for listening to the concerns raised across the House and for working constructively with my noble friend on this issue. We would support my noble friend if he took this to a vote, but from what the Minister has said, my understanding is that the Government are supportive of it. Therefore, we hope that a vote is not necessary.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions to our ongoing discussions on these matters.
On the failure-to-sell points, the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Pannick, queried why we are determined not to reduce the no-let period to six months if the landlord can prove that the property is not selling on the open market. Of course it is imperative that we provide the very strong protections against back-door evictions so that renters have more security and stability and can stay in their homes for longer, build lives in their communities and avoid the risk of becoming homeless.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to 12 months being a disproportionate sanction, but we have carefully considered the balance between the rights of the landlord and the security of the tenant, and that is why we have come to the conclusion that the current 12-month restriction on reletting being introduced will prevent abuse of the possession grounds, for example, by potentially opening up the practice of backdoor Section 21-style evictions to unscrupulous landlords. This length of time will make it unprofitable for a landlord to evict a tenant with the intention of reletting the property to another tenant at a higher rent. Any noble Lords who have dealt with housing cases will know of cases where that has undoubtably happened. In the areas where the markets are very hot, it happens even more. The restriction also ensures that landlords cannot pursue the retaliatory evictions so clearly outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Best. We hear of frequent examples of that as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, referred to me talking about people being forced to reduce the price. I do not think it was a matter of forcing people to reduce the price. If the property is on the market for that 12-month period, it discourages landlords from marketing their property at a price which they know will not sell. It will give time for that property price to be reduced over time and means it is less likely to encourage those Section 21 evictions via the backdoor.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, talked about properties being empty for a whole year. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, very ably demonstrated, there is no need for those properties to sit empty. They can be marketed while the tenants are still there if notice has been given. We do not need to have this protection reduced to six months. It is very important. I have had a plea from Shelter, as well as other renters’ organisations, over the last few days that we do not water down this provision in the Bill. It is a very important part of the protection for tenants. We genuinely believe that we have got the balance right between the rights of the landlord and the protections for the tenant.
On the issue around shared owners, as other noble Lords have commented, I have been very impressed with the way that the noble Lord, Lord Young, has championed the cause of shared owners. We all realise the very difficult situation they find themselves in. I would also like to thank the Shared Owners’ Network, which has been very good in its briefings to all of us and in helping us to come to the conclusions we have reached on this. Shared owners find themselves in a very difficult position—I think the noble Lord, Lord Young, describes them as reluctant landlords, and we know that that is where they are.
The noble Lord asked how the requirement for a shared owner to inform the assured tenant of the exemption will work for existing tenancies. The Government will make provision during implementation to ensure that shared-owner landlords with an existing tenancy will have the opportunity to provide this information to their tenant after the Bill comes into force. We want to take time to make sure that we get the right approach and ensure that we find a solution that works for shared owners. We intend to do this by using the delegated powers to make transitional provision provided by Clause 147 of the Bill. I very much look forward to working with the noble Lord, Lord Young, on this point as we prepare for the implementation of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 18, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 18A.
Lord Cromwell
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 18”.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I understand that at this stage I should be very brief, so I simply say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that I also speak to many landlords and tenants groups. Indeed, I have put amendments down on behalf of tenants groups during this process. I thank all those who have spoken. I particularly admire the ability of the noble Lord, Lord Best, to see into the mind of landlords who fail to sell their property and know what they would do next. I do question his maths, but perhaps we can come to that outside the Chamber. Selling with a sitting tenant is definitely a different matter to selling without a tenant on board. I simply say this: it is clear to me, and I hope to the House, that a rational basis suggests that a 12-month-long inability to rent out your property is disproportionate. Six months is still punitive, but it is effective. I have sought compromise on this in vain. On that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House and beg to move Motion C1.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 19, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 19A.
Lord Young of Cookham
At end insert, “and do propose Amendments 19B to 19D in lieu—
“(3) Subsection (4) applies where the relevant person relies on Ground 1A and—
(a) before the assured tenancy was entered into, a relevant person had given the tenant under the assured tenancy (“T”) a written statement that the landlord under that tenancy (“L”) is a shared owner of the dwelling-house and that section 16E(2) or (3) might not apply to a subsequent letting, or grant of a licence, of the dwelling-house (because of this subsection and subsection (4)),
(b) when the assured tenancy was entered into, L was a shared owner of the dwelling-house, and
(c) before the date specified in the notice as mentioned in section 8(3)(b), a relevant person had given the landlord under the shared ownership lease of the dwelling-house a written statement that L intends to assign L’s interest under that shared ownership lease.
(4) Section 16E(2) or (3) does not prohibit a relevant person from carrying out a controlled activity if—
(a) before the relevant person carries out that activity—
(i) the dwelling-house has been valued by a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in connection with the assignment of L’s interest under the shared ownership lease, or
(ii) L has advertised, or made an arrangement under which another person has advertised, that the dwelling-house is or may be available for acquisition by way of the assignment of L’s interest under the shared ownership lease, and (b) when the relevant person carries out that activity, L is a shared owner of the dwelling-house.
(5) In subsections (3) and (4)—
“controlled activity” means an activity that would (if subsection (4) did not apply) be prohibited by section 16E(2) or (3); “shared owner”, in relation to a dwelling-house, means a person—
(a) who is the tenant of the dwelling-house under a shared ownership lease, and
(b) whose share in the premises demised by the lease is less than 100%; and for this purpose, the tenant’s share in the premises demised is the tenant’s initial share in those premises, plus any additional share or shares in those premises which the tenant has acquired; “shared ownership lease” means a lease—
(a) granted on payment of a premium calculated by reference to a percentage of the value of the premises demised by the lease or of the cost of providing them, or
(b) under which the tenant (or the tenant’s personal representatives) will or may be entitled to a sum calculated by reference, directly or indirectly, to the value of those premises.”
“(2) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, repeal section 16F(3) to (5) of the 1988 Act.”
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 26, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 26A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 27, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 27A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 39, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 39A, and do propose Amendments 39B and 39C in lieu—
“The standard of MOD accommodation
(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish in relation to each year a report
on—
(a) the extent to which service family accommodation in England meets the relevant standards during that year, and
(b) the work to maintain and improve the standard of service family accommodation in England that is undertaken during that year and planned for subsequent years.
(2) The Secretary of State—
(a) may make the required assessment, or
(b) may arrange for an independent person to make the required assessment, in relation to any year.
(3) If the Secretary of State makes the required assessment in relation to a year, the Secretary of State must—
(a) arrange for an independent person to evaluate the assessment, and
(b) include that evaluation in the annual report relating to that year.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay each annual report before Parliament.
(5) The required assessment for a particular year may be made by reference to what is, in the view of the person carrying out the assessment, a representative sample of service family accommodation.
(6) The duty imposed by subsection (1) may be complied with by the preparation and publication of a report which relates to service family accommodation in England and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
(7) For the purposes of this section, service family accommodation meets the relevant standards if the accommodation would be a decent home when assessed in accordance with the 2006 decent homes standard.
(8) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, amend this section so as to make provision about what it means for service family accommodation to meet the relevant standards (which may include provision that operates by reference to other subordinate legislation).
(9) But that power is not exercisable unless and until, in the Secretary of State’s view, it has ceased to be appropriate for the 2006 decent homes standard to be used for the purposes of the required assessment (having regard, in particular, to whether, or how, that standard continues to be used for other assessments of the standard of living accommodation).
(10) In this section—
“2006 decent homes standard” means the document called “A Decent Home: Definition and guidance for implementation” that was published by the Department for Communities and Local Government on 7 June 2006; “annual report” means a report prepared in accordance with subsection (1); “independent” means appearing to the Secretary of State to be independent of—
(a) the Secretary of State,
(b) other Ministers of the Crown,
(c) government departments, and
(d) persons who provide, manage or maintain service family accommodation;
“required assessment” means an assessment of the extent to which service family accommodation meets the relevant standards during a year;
“service family accommodation” means any building or part of a building which is provided for the use of service families as living accommodation (whether or not it is provided by the Secretary of State); and for this purpose a “service family” is—
(a) a person subject to service law and members of the person’s family,
or
(b) a civilian subject to service discipline and members of the civilian’s family;
and expressions used in this definition have the same meanings as they have in the Armed Forces Act 2006;
“year” means—
(a) 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2027, and
(b) each subsequent period of one year beginning with 1 April.”
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 53, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 53A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion H. With the leave of the House, I will also speak to Motions J, K and K1, which are grouped together.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for their amendments relating to grounds for possession. Amendment 53, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would remove the restriction from ground 4A, which limits it to only students living in HMOs. This would allow students living in self-contained one-bedroom and two-bedroom properties, for example, to be evicted each year.
We have been clear from the outset that this ground has been carefully designed to ensure that the cyclical nature of the typical student market is maintained. We believe that the ground applying to typical groups of undergraduates living together in a shared house is the right position, while a postgraduate couple, for example, who have put down roots in the area and may live in a smaller property, should benefit from the full set of protections that the Bill gives tenants.
Noble Lords have expressed concerns about the impact that this restriction will have on the supply of one-bedroom and two-bedroom properties in the student market. With respect, I do not think that these fears will be borne out. There will continue to be demand for these properties, and many students will continue to move out in line with the academic year, even when not evicted. Renting to students continues to be a buoyant market, and I do not believe that the Bill will dampen this.
As I have stressed at length, one of the core principles of the Bill is that tenants should have more security in their homes. Removing this restriction could lead to students who need more security of tenure being evicted more regularly. I therefore ask that the noble Baroness does not insist on her amendment.
I turn next to Lords Amendment 64, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, which would introduce a new ground for possession for the sole purpose of allowing a landlord to regain their property to house a carer for themselves, their spouse or child. I thank the noble Lord for his thoughtful amendment in lieu. He has carefully considered some of the points I raised when we discussed his previous amendment. It is more specific on the type of care to be given and ensures that the ground can be used only where the dwelling is very nearby to the person requiring care.
The Government of course recognise the vital work that carers do to support people to live independently and with dignity. We will continue to look at what steps we can take to support the care sector, and phase 1 of the independent review into adult social care chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, should report next year. While we are profoundly sympathetic to the needs of those who require care, I am afraid that we cannot support the amendment.
I remind the House that we have already strengthened possession grounds to cover some situations, such as housing employees. In these cases, we believe that the needs of those involved can be deemed to overrule the general principle that renters deserve security of tenure and should be able to put down roots in their long-term homes.
Providing security for tenants in the private rented sector is the Government’s priority, and we have put much thought into the design of the possession grounds to ensure that they balance the needs of landlords and tenants. There must be a compelling case for new grounds, with strong evidence that it is justified for a tenant to lose their home. This proposal does not meet that bar.
We engaged extensively with stakeholders throughout the development of the Bill, and there have been only very limited calls for a ground for landlords who require care. Any added ground increases the complexity of the system, which allows more potential for abuse. The amendment could lead to a long-term member of the community losing their home to house a carer required only for a short period, and there have not been significant calls for it from the sector. I therefore ask that the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment in lieu.
On government Amendment 62A, I would like to extend my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the National Farmers’ Union for their very constructive work with the department to find a solution to the concerns they raised. As the Housing Minister explained in the other place, the Government have reflected on their position and tabled amendments in lieu, which narrowly expand ground 5A to allow agricultural landlords to evict assured tenants in order to house both employees and non-employed workers engaged in agriculture.
We believe that this is a small technical change that supports the Government’s ambition to ensure that the agricultural sector can continue to function effectively without compromising security of tenure. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the National Farmers’ Union have indicated their support for these changes. I hope that noble Lords will also support the amendment. I beg to move.
Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H)
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 53”.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move motion H1 as an amendment to motion H. I speak briefly to two important possession grounds, those concerning students and carers, and I also thank the Minister for her support on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, which this side of the House supported strongly.
First, on students, as your Lordships know, Amendment 53A sought to expand Ground 4A so that it also applied to one and two-bedroom properties let to students. Extending this ground would maintain essential stability in the market, ensuring that students arriving each autumn are not left without somewhere to live. Without it, landlords may be unable to gain possession in time for the new academic year, reducing availability, pushing up rents and increasing uncertainty. This is not simply about convenience—it is about fairness and inclusion. Many of these smaller homes are occupied by students who need quieter or self-contained accommodation. Often these include those who are neurodiverse and find shared living environments particularly challenging. For them, access to such housing is not a preference, it is a necessity. To exclude these properties from Ground 4A risks creating a two-tier system that leaves the most vulnerable in our society behind. I hope the Minister, and indeed our Liberal Democrat colleagues who once spoke so passionately in defence of students, will reflect very carefully on the points I bring forward.
We have a number of case studies that illustrate the implications of this ill-conceived plan, from Cornwall and Portsmouth to Loughborough. In Portsmouth, a letting agent and Propertymark member reported very high numbers of students renting one and two-bedroom flats, accounting for 20% or 30% of their portfolio—not a small number—and those included many international students. In Loughborough, feedback from another Propertymark agent on student tenancies showed a lower number of HMO lets compared with houses and flats. The evidence flatly contradicts the Government’s claims that one and two-bedroom student properties account for only a small fraction of the market. Regional variations exist, but the pattern is clear. These homes are a substantial and vital component of the student housing sector, and by excluding them from Ground 4A, the Government risk creating a two-tier system both geographically and between students themselves, particularly those with specific or additional needs.
I turn to carers and express my strong support for the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. As I said on Report, this amendment is tightly drawn and provides flexibility in exceptional circumstances, where a property close to home could be used to care for a loved one, enabling people to live independently and with dignity, rather than entering into the institutional care system. Propertymark has also highlighted a helpful precedent from Wales where, under the Renting Homes (Wales) Act, carers can have succession rights if the tenant they care for dies. While I understand that provision does not apply to landlords’ carers, it does demonstrate that such flexibility is possible in law and can be delivered responsibly.
If the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, chooses to test the opinion of the House, we on these Benches will support him. I also beg to move Motion H1.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion J, specifically Amendment 62. I declare my interest in farming and rented cottages in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire. I want to set out on the record that the NFU and I have every reason to thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for her tremendous work on these amendments, particularly the one I am speaking to. I also thank the Minister, Matthew Pennycook, for his attention to it as well. I very much hope that this sets a precedent, particularly in the realms of the Ministers of Defra and the Treasury, to take farming interests more seriously and learn from what we have learned here today.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Motion H1 and the powerful points that have just been made by noble friend Lady Scott. The Minister spoke as if one-bedroom and two-bedroom student accommodation would be occupied by families and people who needed deep roots in their university environment, but much of it is also occupied by undergraduate students, who are often on low incomes, because this tends to be the lowest cost accommodation. If academic year tenancies in one-bedroom and two-bedroom accommodation become unviable then there is a real risk that this will act as a constraint on students going to university.
The Minister said that these fears would not be borne out, and I understand the sincerity with which she makes that point. However, we cannot be confident. My regret, looking back over the exchanges we have had as the Bill has progressed through this House, is that we have not heard at any point any kind of undertaking to review or assess year on year whether student accommodation is being affected by this measure. We simply cannot be as confident as she appears to be that these dangers will not arise. Therefore, I strongly support Motion H1.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, my amendment would extend the grounds of possession to a family in need of providing a full-time carer for a family member. Regarding comments made in the other place, I confirm that I have no direct interest with regard to any property. My interest came only through contact with rural letting agents who have clients who might need a carer themselves or have a family member who does and wish to use their property to house a carer.
The amendment has been revised since the Commons debate on 8 September. One of the concerns, as already mentioned by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, is that the amendment is drawn too widely and open to abuse. The new amendment restricts who the carers can be used for, this being the landlord, their spouse, their child or a child they have legal responsibility for. We have also changed it so that, if the landlord wishes to give notice to a tenant, they must provide evidence with the eviction notice that a full-time carer is required to care for one of those individuals. This significantly tightens the range of the clause and therefore reduces the ability of an unscrupulous landlord to use it wrongly.
I acknowledge, from having spoken with housing charities, that landlords hold the power in the tenant/landlord relationship, and that approaching and challenging a landlord is difficult. With these changes, the onus would now be on the landlord to provide evidence rather than the tenant. The tenant could then go to the appropriate authority to challenge the eviction if no evidence is provided. We are not looking to change in any way the four-month notice period that a landlord would have to give if a family member needed the house.
I acknowledge that these grounds will be used on very few occasions, but when they are used it will be by a family at a very challenging time, when full-time care is required for an immediate family member. Landlords will evict only if they believe they need a carer for a significant amount of time, such as for an elderly person or a child with a long-term illness or disability.
A family that is fortunate enough to be in a position with the appropriate accommodation that meets the criteria of this amendment could, and most likely will, be in a location with limited supply of available or alternative properties, such as rural settings, or a city or town with high demand for rental properties, of which there are currently many. I acknowledge that a tenant needing to leave the property will cause upheaval, stress and potential cost to that family or individual, but surely a family has the right to use what possessions it has to maximise the quality of care for a family member and to support the rest of the family at a time of need.
I look forward to your Lordships’ support on this amendment. If I need to, I may test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 64B from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, to create a new possession ground for carers. I know that every noble Lord here appreciates and values the important work that carers do in our communities. It goes without saying that we should take every step possible, every step we reasonably can, to help them in their work. The noble Lord has been thoughtful and very considered throughout these discussions, and clearly has the best interests of carers at heart, as he has again shown.
I understand that this is a difficult issue and appreciate the arguments that landlords who organise their own care are not burdening the state and that they should be able to utilise their properties to do just that. On the other hand, I note that these debates have previously highlighted—as the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, has again today—the difficulty of housing carers, for example in rural communities.
The scarcity of housing in rural areas also raises the counterpoint of the plight of the tenant. These tenants may be the local teacher or work in the post office—long-term members of the community who do not own their own homes. To evict them to house a carer for a landlord who may possibly be in the area for only a couple of years will upend their lives and leave them potentially struggling to remain in the area. It is worth adding that the only way currently to test whether there is a genuine need for a carer is if the tenant challenges their eviction and the landlord has to go to court to obtain a possession order. Unfortunately, I am afraid, experience shows that many tenants will not do that, as they will simply leave without the landlord ever having to prove a carer was really required.
I appreciate that this is very much a balanced argument but, on balance, I am of the view that allowing tenants to be evicted through no fault of their own in order to house carers for landlords is not the right approach, because of the threat and disruption this would cause to tenants and the scope for wider misuse of this ground. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, we should not underestimate the danger that this could become a loophole for unscrupulous landlords. There are enough of them, as we all know and realise from our experience in the private rented sector, so this could be a real danger.
There are dangers and scope for wider misuse. In my view, therefore, the benefit to a relatively narrow group of landlords should not be allowed to outweigh that disruption, so I hope that the Motion is not moved to a vote.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my register of interests as the joint owner of a small cottage in the village where I live.
I strongly support Amendment 64B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. It has had the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and of caring organisations, which would be helped immediately, not just condemned to wait for the Casey review, which we are all very keen to see. The amendment has been tightened up considerably by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, to avoid any abuse, in response to comments that the Minister herself made in Committee, which is very helpful.
The Government’s negative response is an example of their unwillingness so far to take the demise of carers seriously. Being able to provide accommodation for carers can make a real difference to their availability.
Not every carer wants to be a live-in carer, especially if they have families, yet we need growing numbers of carers. This is because there are ever-growing numbers of the aged and the disabled, as well as a scarcity of care home and hospice spaces. There is an acute shortage of housing and a scarcity of short-term accommodation, partly as a result of this very Bill. At the same time, we have smaller families, more couples having no children and more people seeing their relatives working or moving overseas. The need for hired carers is increasing, therefore, and those carers need short-term accommodation—it can sometimes be for years—as they move, over time, from job to job in different locations. We need to look at this. This change will be a small and totemic positive that would help both the caring sector and families in need. I invite the Minister to think again.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. As previously, I declare my interest as a private landlord. In the context of this amendment, I had a relative to whom it would have applied; that interest no longer applies, as the Bill has caused plans to be advanced and the tenants in the relevant property were given notice under current law, but, of course, that does not take away my general concern around this topic.
This replacement amendment now has a narrower scope, applying only to homes needed to house carers in the immediate family—that is, the landlord, a spouse or children. Thus, it closes a loophole perceived by some of it being used by those with an awful lot of relatives, as was discussed with the Minister.
Some people have live-in carers. Others may need more than one carer or have progressive conditions. Whatever the reason—whether financial or in terms of availability—it may not be possible to have one large house to accommodate all the future carer needs under one roof or to sustain expenditure on such a property before it is required. People have to plan for the future deterioration of the person needing care and of the family members who are part of their support.
Some may have invested in an ideal adjacent property in good faith under current law as it became available. They may be using insurance payouts and—especially in the instance of children—are needing to plan for when parents are no longer around. Such plans have to be scrapped under this Bill, most likely resulting in property sales and earlier evictions. It may be a one-off readjustment, because nobody will make such plans in future, but is it really necessary to hit the vulnerable, such as children damaged at birth? That is among what we are doing.
To suggest that it is easy for affected people to set up and move elsewhere because they have the resources of more than one property is cruel. Avoiding upheaval can be an important factor, for reasons both of the health of the impaired person and of making bespoke adjustments to property—all of the equipment, bars, ramps, bathroom locations and so on. This is really not fair and not caring. I therefore support this amendment; with the narrower scope, I believe that it is a fair suggestion.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. We opposed the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, on Report, and we see no reason to change our minds now. We have reflected carefully upon it. My noble friend Lord Shipley was very vexed by this question and was in conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Willetts. We finally came to the conclusion that the Government have probably got this about right, for the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. We are very pleased that the diligent work of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has finally got the concessions that I think it deserved.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I am sorry, but every single person who would use this would be evicting a set of people, and the Bill is about protecting tenants in their place. Very few people will be in that privileged position. We and the Government have to make decisions about where that balance lies, and the decision has been made that way. I am sorry if it offends some people, but that has to be considered when making a decision of this sort.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all those who contributed to this debate. There have been some emotive discussions—I will come on to those in a moment—and some very thoughtful and considered responses to the amendments, and I am grateful for that.
I will start with the potential expansion of ground 4A. The Government recognise that the new tenancy system will have an impact on the way the student market operates. While we believe the ground covers the majority of the market, there is no one-size-fits-all solution that covers all circumstances. We think it is reasonable that the ground will apply to full-time students in larger house-share situations. Removing this restriction could lead to students who need more security of tenure—such as single parents living with their children or postgraduate couples living together who have put down roots in the area—being evicted more regularly. I took my degree as a mature student. I am very sympathetic to people who have to run other parts of their life alongside their student life. They may be working or have families or caring responsibilities to cope with alongside their student life.
Noble Lords have raised concerns that the Bill could cause severe shortages of student accommodation or force students into expensive purpose-built student accommodation. We do not expect our reforms to have that level of destabilising effect on the rental market. I shall quote from Shelter’s email to me today: “This amendment would deny a group of renters the security and stability offered by the Renters’ Rights Bill, many of whom will be in employment or with caring responsibilities that sit alongside their student life”. That is when stability is key, and we do not believe they should be denied that stability. We will continue to work with good landlords and their representative associations throughout the implementation of the Bill.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for his amendment. As I have outlined, everyone in the House is aware of the remarkable and vital work that carers do to support families and individuals in difficult circumstances. However, given the risk of abuse and the very limited circumstances—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, put this very well—in which it might apply or could be used, we do not believe this new ground is warranted. We have ensured that possession grounds are fair to both parties, giving tenants more security while ensuring that landlords can recover their property when reasonable. For example, if the carer is a family member, as set out in ground 1, a landlord can use that ground to gain possession, enabling them to accommodate the carer.
I was grateful to my noble friend Lady Warwick for illustrating some of the issues that may arise, particularly in rural communities, around who may be evicted as a result of this ground. I want to add to the list of those who could be evicted an existing carer living in a rural setting where there might be very scarce housing, so you may have to evict one carer to put another carer in place. If there is scarce housing in that area, you may end up in that circumstance. Of course, the Government will continue to look at ways that they can support carers. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that once the Casey review is published, we will look at all the issues around carer support once again.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his comments. I know that he was not able to stay in the Chamber for the end of the debate, but we had specific issues raised by stakeholders, including the National Farmers’ Union. We listened very carefully to what they said, and we have ensured that the ground now has appropriate protections in place preventing landlords evicting assured tenants to house short-term workers. I am glad that that met the noble Lord’s request in terms of the amendment that he submitted previously.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I still do not understand why a group of students is not being looked after quite the same as other students. Therefore, I urge the House to support my Motion H1 to send the Bill back to the other place with our concerns for equality in the student housing sector, with housing for students who want, indeed need, small homes. Not every student can either work or live comfortably in an HMO, and not every student can afford specific student accommodation. Therefore, I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 55 to 62 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 62A in lieu of Lords Amendments 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62.
“The landlord seeking possession requires the dwelling-house for the purpose of housing a qualifying agricultural worker.
For the purposes of this ground a person is a “qualifying agricultural worker” in case A or B.
Case A is where—
(a) the person will be employed in agriculture as a seasonal or permanent employee under a contract of employment, and
(b) the employer under that contract is—
(a) the landlord, or
(b) in the case of joint landlords seeking possession, at least one of those landlords.
Case B is where—
(a) the person will be—
(i) employed in agriculture under a contract of employment, but the employer under that contract is not the landlord or, in the case of joint landlords, any of those landlords, or
(ii) working in agriculture under a contract that is not a contract of employment, whether the contract is express or implied and (if express) whether oral or in writing,
(b) the person will be employed or working in agriculture under that contract wholly or mainly for—
(i) the landlord, or
(ii) in the case of joint landlords seeking possession, at least one of the landlords, and
(c) the relevant landlord intends that employment or work to continue for at least six months after the relevant date; and here “relevant landlord” means the landlord, or whichever of the joint landlords, the person will be wholly or mainly working for.
In this ground—
“agriculture” has the same meaning as in the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 (see section 1 of that Act);
“contract of employment” has the meaning given by section 230(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.”
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 64, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 64A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to this Motion. I beg to move.
Motion K1 (as an amendment to Motion K)
“New ground for possession for property which is required for a carer for the landlord or landlord’s family
24A After Ground 8 insert—
“Ground 8A
The landlord seeking possession requires the dwelling-house for the purpose of housing a person who is a carer for—
(a) the landlord,
(b) the landlord’s spouse, or
(c) the landlord’s child or a child for whom the landlord is the primary guardian,
where the dwelling-house is in sufficiently close proximity to the person requiring care to facilitate emergency callout.
The landlord is responsible for producing evidence to demonstrate that a full-time carer is required for the person specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) above. For the purposes of this Schedule, “carer” means an adult providing personal care or nursing care to another person, who may be under the age of 18, under a voluntary or contracted arrangement.
The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) specify the nature of the evidence to be produced by the landlord above, and
(b) amend the definition of carer.”””
Lord de Clifford (CB)
I thank your Lordships for your contributions to the debate on this matter. What I drew from it is how much we all value what carers do for all our people in need of care. I look forward to the review by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to help the caring market, which is coming out next week.
One of the comments has been that tenants would be evicted if this amendment were accepted, but tenants are being evicted all the time, for lots of different reasons. It is an important matter that people should be able to use their possessions to care for their families, as I said in my speech. However, taking account of the votes today, I will not move my Motion K1.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 67, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 67A.
Digital ID
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, we unequivocally oppose the Government’s dangerous mandatory digital ID policy, both in principle and in practice. If it is allowed to become legislation, the electorate risks being subjected to an extraordinary expansion of state power, one that comes not only at the expense of personal freedom but at great cost to the taxpayer.
Before I outline our objections to this proposal, it is important to understand the wider context in which this policy has been announced. Over this Government’s year in power, an estimated 50,000 people have entered the country on small boats, the largest recorded number to date, but the Secretary of State has claimed that digital IDs will deter these illegal migrants. Where is the evidence for this claim? Criminal gangs and illegal workers already operate outside formal employment and taxation systems. They do not care about paperwork or credentials. They work illegally, beyond the reach of existing regulation. They subvert existing national insurance requirements. Why would we expect digital ID to be different? To suggest that digital ID would somehow deter these operations is untested, unfounded and too optimistic to be convincing.
We are concerned, too, about the vast scope of this programme. The Government have claimed that digital IDs will result in “more joined-up” public services, saving people time from having to restate personal details to multiple departments. Here the Government seem to me to conflate separate issues: more effective public services and curbing illegal migration. They promise an end to bureaucracy while simultaneously constructing one of the most intrusive systems of state surveillance in our nation’s history. This is vast in its objectives, slight in its detail and, frankly, creepy in its reach into our privacy. Better online services do not require a centralised identity regime. We already have mechanisms such as right-to-work checks and DBS verification. These have all been designed with consent and privacy in mind, with nobody forced to pursue the digital route. The Government’s policy would herald an end to that freedom.
This policy was not even in the Government’s manifesto. There is no democratic mandate for digital ID, nor is there any appetite for it. In fact, over 2.8 million people have already signed a petition opposing it.
If, all of that said, the Government go ahead with this policy, we urge them to mitigate the risks and the costs in three ways. First, can they please ensure that the system is designed as a decentralised tool, using the blockchain to give citizens privacy and security? Secondly, to ensure some adherence to their stated goals, we urge the Government to adopt an agile approach of test and iterate rather than a build-once model. Thirdly, can the Government clarify and limit the stated goals? The current scope is simply too broad to be realistic.
Digital IDs fundamentally shift the burden of proof from government to citizens. In a free democracy, it is the state, not citizens, that must justify its actions. Under this scheme, one’s ability to rent, open a bank account or even order a drink would be conditional on the possession of government-issued digital ID. When the ability to work is conditioned on digital, state-approved credentials, meaningful consent ceases to exist. The choice between non-participation and never being able to work again is no choice at all. Last week, the Foreign Secretary proposed issuing digital IDs for those as young as 13. Once implemented, this policy will further infringe on people’s lives. Today, it is to determine the right to work; tomorrow, it could be to determine the right to vote or to travel.
Digital IDs are accompanied by a litany of practical problems and challenges, not least the enormous and real cybersecurity risk. The UK’s own sign-on system was breached only months ago during testing. The National Cyber Security Centre is yet to endorse the scheme. Further, 8.5 million adults lack the requisite digital skills to make use of these IDs, and many do not own a smartphone or have reliable internet access. Labour’s digital inclusion action plan is currently inadequate for the need and does not account for the structural barriers that vulnerable individuals face.
Finally, this presumably comes at a considerable cost to the taxpayer. Perhaps when he speaks, the Minister could give us some estimate of the likely costs for hardware, software, development and the operation of the system. The Government’s proposal for digital IDs is costly, controlling and risky. We do not think it will stop the boats and we do not think it will streamline services without very significant, and as yet unknowable, investment and programme delivery. Instead, we are concerned that it represents an illegitimate state encroachment on people’s privacy that they themselves are forced to fund. We are deeply alarmed.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the introduction of compulsory digital ID represents another fundamental error by this Government. The Liberal Democrats strongly oppose this proposal, which is a serious threat to privacy, civil liberties and social inclusion. We thank the Minister for bringing the Secretary of State’s Statement to this House today, but my disappointment and opposition to the Government’s plan more than mirrors that of my honourable friend Victoria Collins in the Commons yesterday.
The core issue here is not technology but freedom. The Government insist this scheme is non-compulsory, yet concurrently confirm that it will be mandatory for right-to-work checks by the end of this Parliament. This is mandatory digital ID in all but name, especially for working-age people. As my party leader Sir Ed Davey has stated, we cannot and will not support a system where citizens are forced to hand over private data simply to participate in everyday life. This is state overreach, plain and simple.
The Secretary of State quoted Finland and the ability of parents to register for daycare, but I think the Secretary of State needs to do a bit more research. That is a voluntary scheme, not a compulsory one. We have already seen the clear danger of mission creep. My honourable friend Victoria Collins rightly warned that the mere discussion of extending this scheme to 13 to 16 year-olds is sinister, unnecessary and a clear step towards state overreach. Where does this stop?
The Secretary of State sought to frame this as merely a digital key to unlock better services. This dangerously conflates genuine and desirable public service reform with a highly intrusive mandate. First, the claim that this will deliver fairness and security by tackling illegal migration is nothing more than a multibillion-pound gimmick. The Secretary of State suggests that it will deter illegal working, yet, as my colleagues have pointed out, rogue employers who operate cash-in-hand schemes will not look at ID on a phone. Mandatory digital ID for British citizens will not stop illegal migrants working in the black economy.
Secondly, the claim that the system will be free is disingenuous. As my honourable friend Max Wilkinson, our home affairs spokesman, demanded, the Government must come clean on the costs and publish a full impact assessment. Estimates suggest that creating this system will cost between £1 billion and £2 billion, with annual running costs of £100 million pounds. This is completely the wrong priority at a time when public services are crumbling.
Thirdly, the promise of inclusion rings hollow. This mandatory system risks entrenching discrimination against the millions of vulnerable people, such as older people and those on low incomes, who lack foundational digital skills, a smartphone or internet access.
The greatest concern is the Government’s insistence on building this mandatory system on GOV.UK’s One Login, a platform with security failures that have been repeatedly and publicly criticised, including in my own correspondence and meetings with government. There are significant concerns about One Login’s security. The Government claim that One Login adheres to the highest security standards. Despite this commitment, as of late 2024 and early 2025, the system was still not fully compliant. A GovAssure assessment found that One Login was meeting only about 21 of the 39 required outcomes in the NCSC cyber assessment framework. The GOV.UK One Login programme has told me that it is committed to achieving full compliance with the cyber assessment framework by 21 March 2026, yet officials have informed me that 500 services across 87 departments are already currently in scope for the One Login project.
There are other criticisms that I could make, but essentially the foundations of the digital ID scheme are extremely unsafe, to say the least. To press ahead with a mandatory digital ID system, described as a honeypot for hackers, based on a platform exhibiting such systemic vulnerabilities is not only reckless but risks catastrophic data breaches, identity theft and mass impersonation fraud. Concentrating the data of the entire population fundamentally concentrates the risk.
The Secretary of State must listen to the millions of citizens who have signed the petition against this policy. We on these Benches urge the Government to scrap this costly, intrusive and technologically unreliable scheme and instead focus on delivering voluntary, privacy-preserving digital public services that earn the public’s trust rather than demanding compliance.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for the points that they have raised with the Government. Unsurprisingly, I have no doubt that this is an area in which there will be strong interest across the House. I remind the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, of the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Hague, that the:
“Arguments against digital ID are paper thin”.
I shall address the concerns that have been raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. In the context of the Data (Use and Access) Act, we were clear that the services under that legislation were not mandatory, nor were they ever designed to be, and they cover many of the areas that have been discussed so far. This new national digital ID will be required, specifically and only, for right-to-work checks by the end of this Parliament. It is a very narrow use for a very specific purpose.
However, we have always believed and continue to believe that there are huge upsides for a digitally enabled society, one where everyone feels able to participate, everyone feels a sense of agency and everyone’s lives are made easier by a digital key that indeed unlocks access to services—something that is a big upside to a digitally enabled society. Those businesses that enable this, as we have seen in other countries that have introduced a digital ID, and the services that those businesses provide will have an important role to play.
We expect the digital identity market to be able to build on the national digital pass and offer value-added services for individuals and businesses. In countries where digital ID is well established, the private sector has built a wide range of services around it, making everyday tasks such as open banking, renting a flat and applying for a mortgage faster, simpler and more secure, but that is not a mandatory use of this. The required use is for the right to work.
I turn to the subject of illegal migration, a problem that obviously has grown enormously over the past 10 to 15 years. I absolutely agree that there is no silver bullet to solving illegal migration, but ensuring that there is a single digital system to prove that you have a right to work will simplify the process and drive up compliance, making it easier for businesses and providing the Home Office—this is an important point—with an overview of employers conducting checks that they can use to audit those suspected of hiring illegally. It will be possible for it to see where there are a large number of employees but only two or three who have been checked for work. Ultimately, it should be easier for honest, legitimate employers to get started and much harder for those employing illegally.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said that this was an invasion of privacy and civil liberties. I do not agree, and I think those countries that have introduced it would not agree. Digital identities preserve and increase privacy by limiting the information that individuals have to share when proving something about themselves. The credentials in play here are name, date of birth, information on nationality or residency status, and a photo. That is what you need for a right-to-work check, and the display may be as simple as a yes or no, with none of the information shared with the third party. We will ensure that strict safeguards are in place to prevent illegal tracking or misuse of data by the Government or anyone else.
On the point that has been raised about how this actually works and whether we end up with a big target —a honeypot—this will be a federated system, as it has rightly been pointed out that it should be, not a single repository, increasing security and not creating a honeypot of data.
A question was asked about those aged 13 and upwards. This is a system designed for 16 year-olds and above. As part of the consultation, there will be consultation about younger age groups and whether there may be utility for them. Any use of personal data will continue to be regulated by the independent Information Commissioner’s Office, and our consultation, which will be launched later this year, will consider whether further safeguards will be needed or appropriate.
The question of cost was raised. While I cannot give exact details of the cost, I can say that it will be met within the existing SR budget over the SR period.
OneLogin was raised. Indeed there were problems at the beginning, and that is not unusual with a system as it is getting set up. Those problems date from 2023 and have been resolved, and the National Cyber Security Centre is working hand in hand to get the OneLogin system to the place where it needs to be. The National Cyber Security Centre will be central to getting this system set up as well.
Finally, I want to talk about digital inclusion, a key point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and an area that is increasingly important for the times we live in. That is why this Government have made digital inclusion a priority. We set out a range of first steps in the Digital Inclusion Action Plan, published in February this year, and are working across government to improve inclusion. We know that those who do not own or cannot afford a smartphone, do not already have photo ID or have additional accessibility requirements will require special attention. One in 10 people already struggles to prove their identity and access the service that they have a right to because they lack a photo ID. This scheme is an opportunity to get them a free digital credential that proves their identity and helps them to access those services.
We will deliver a comprehensive inclusion programme, including face-to-face support to ensure that everyone eligible is able to access the new digital pass and benefit from it if they want to, including those using it for right-to-work checks—the only required need for this. It will provide targeted support to those who currently struggle to engage with digital services, including options for a digitally enabled physical alternative for those without a smartphone or who may experience data poverty, such as those unable to afford data use on their phone.
We have already started to engage with a range of expert organisations and community groups, including the Digital Inclusion Action Committee, and we look forward to continuing to do so throughout the credential’s design and development—a process that, as the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, has pointed out, must be done in an agile way and will require both external input and government technical need.
This is an important development that, although with a narrow requirement, has a broad use that I think many people already take advantage of in different forms in this country. Digital ID will make life easier for people.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, underpinning any individual ID scheme has to be an individual ID number. Other countries normally seem to base that on date of birth plus a scheme of other numbers. Can the Minister make clear to us whether we have decided what our system will be? How far have they advanced in developing it, and when is it likely to be rolled out?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. The consultation will start later this year. It will be very broad, and we welcome input from many groups. We know that this is not straight- forward; it will require considerable thought about how to get it exactly right. The answer is that we do not yet have a view on exactly how the system will be designed. That will be part of the consultation process. It will not be done overnight, and it will require us to come back to this House on many occasions. It will have great public input and technical input as we design it.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am very sceptical about mandatory digital ID. Can the Minister tell us how many people at the moment do not even have a mobile phone, never name all the extra that is needed? When the Government talk about inclusion, this is one of the most exclusive kinds of suggestions. It was not even in the manifesto. If by any chance this actually did go through and become law, can the Minister give an absolute commitment that it would apply to the whole of the United Kingdom and that the Government would not listen to those people who say that, somehow, mandatory digital ID in Northern Ireland would be contrary to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her point. In terms of digital inclusion, we know, of course, that not everyone has a mobile phone. The vast majority do: I think 92% of people do. Some people already use an equivalent to some sort of digital ID in banking and other areas, but there are people who do not. That is why we are so keen to make sure that we have a digital inclusion stream right from the very beginning, to try to identify the needs of those individuals and how we deal with people who do not have a smartphone. There will, of course, be no requirement to have a smartphone. There will be a workaround for those who do not, which will enable them to have a physical manifestation of something that has a digital imprint.
In terms of the very important question about Northern Ireland, I can guarantee that this will apply to everyone eligible to work in the UK. It will take full account of the Northern Ireland situation, and indeed those from the island of Ireland who are eligible to work in the UK will be eligible to be part of this as well.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I confess that I am slightly confused. The Minister rightly referred to the Data (Use and Access) Act, and we spent a lot of time then discussing the introduction of digital verification services. At the time, those were described as having pretty much the same benefits as are described in this Oral Statement. In fact, the description is uncannily similar. Can the Minister please explain the additional benefits this digital ID will bring and why and how those benefits justify the £1 billion to £2 billion cost?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The new part, as I have said, is exactly about the right to work and the ability to have identity related to the right to work. That will form a platform for digital ID and the ability to use that in other ways for the services described in the Data (Use and Access) Act.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the noble Lord may have seen an article in Computer Weekly in June in which the headline talked about the eVisa system as being “error-prone” and “anxiety-inducing”. Among the cases in this extensive report was a doctor with indefinite leave to remain who had been here for 20 years but could not travel to a medical conference because the IT error meant that they could not link their official identity documents to their visa account. The report also talked about a woman they called Athena who had to take a month off work because she was so stressed by the fact that the Home Office computer could not match the name on her passport to the name on her account, despite the fact that her name, which had never changed, was the same on her passport, her eVisa account and her biometric residence permit. Can the Minister tell me why the noble Lord or this House should have any expectation that we would not see the same situation with this proposal?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I am certainly not going to stand here and say that it is going to be absolutely error-free, because nothing is. I am not going to say that it is easy, because it is not. But there is a big gain at the end of this. It is not as though this has not been done elsewhere. It is not as though there are not ways in which countries have got this to work very effectively. Certainly, if you were to speak to anyone from Estonia, they would think we were mad not to have it already.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I chair the Digital Inclusion Action Committee. I do that not because I am a digital expert like the two Front-Bench people opposite and my noble friend, but because I know and have worked throughout my life on social exclusion. I know that we can do this. If either of the two Front-Benchers opposite, or anyone else, wants to come with me to a hub, I would love to take them to see it. The hub is doing this now with people who never thought they would get near it but now have digital devices that we organised for them, free. They learn to use them properly and are properly supported. Next week is Digital Inclusion Action Week and I hope that some Members will take care of that.
The reality is that, for many people who are socially excluded, the Government’s proposals will make a huge difference. If you are homeless, you frequently cannot get into a hostel because they cannot work out who you are. You cannot get benefits because you have no means—you have not got an address, so you cannot get the benefit. You cannot get a bank account. We are working with the banks to change that. We are working not just with the excluded but with the industry, with the not-for-profit organisations involved and with local government. There is enormous enthusiasm for this. I have met people whose lives have been changed. They want to know that they have the Government on their side and do not have to rely on everything else that is produced in America. We do not have any security of digital ID. We are all using iPads and iPhones now and they are controlled in America by people such as Elon Musk, who could not care less about your well-being and what happens to you. Let us make this secure, so that people here can have confidence that their digital ID is protected and they do not have to rely on people outside who do not care about them.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that powerful and informed statement. I am sure that my noble friend’s offer for people to come and visit will be taken up, and I certainly would like to accept that offer myself at some point.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as I currently chair the Proof of Age Standards Scheme, which is, as it says on the tin, to prove the ages of young people who want to go out for a drink at night, engage in nighttime activity or go to the cinema. We are seeking to move from a purely physical card to a digital one, so I echo the confusion expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. Where are we with digital ID? If it is going to be for only one purpose—the right to work—you are excluding from activities those young people who currently are willing to buy either a physical card or a digital card for a very modest sum. They will be excluded from this free scheme because it is only for the right to work.
I can quite see where the Government are coming from, because there is a category of people who cannot prove their identity or their age because they do not drive, so do not have a driving licence, and do not travel so do not have a passport. But there is a bit of confusion at the moment in the Government’s thinking between proof of age, age verification and digital ID. If that could be clarified as soon as possible, it would be extremely helpful.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
Let me just try to be clear about a point that I think is important. The required element of this is the bit to do with the right to work. The notion that this is available for all sorts of other things which people can choose to be part of or not is completely separate. The same structure will be used, but the only mandatory part is that, to have the ability and right to work, you will have to show this. The noble Baroness is quite right, of course, that there are lots of things that people want to use this for now. That is why work is going ahead already on the digital wallet and the ability to use those things. They are, of course, separate from a requirement to have this for the right to work.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, further to the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has careful consideration been given to the circumstances on the island of Ireland, where there is quite a lot of cross-border working, both from south to north and north to south? The Government should also be mindful of the Good Friday agreement. Many people, including me, see their identity as Irish and would not want a digital ID issued by the British Government. Can my noble friend the Minister tell the House what discussions have taken place with the Irish Government regarding this particular issue and the method of implementation? Have all those issues regarding identity and nationality been fully considered?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
We are, of course, fully committed to everything in the Good Friday agreement. My colleague, the Minister for Digital Government and Data, was in Northern Ireland just last week. He had meetings with the Deputy Speaker, Northern Ireland’s Community Minister and the Finance Minister. Engagement with the Irish Government is planned as well. This will be done in close collaboration, recognising exactly the point about the desire of people either to have or not to have something linked to this. Of course, Ireland is introducing its own digital ID scheme as part of the EU. We intend to stay very close on this and make sure we do this in partnership.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I have listened with interest to the exchange so far. I have an open mind on this. My noble friend Lord Camrose raised some important questions about cost, security and utility. It struck me that it would be premature, before those questions had been fully explored, to come to a conclusion that this is something that should be opposed in principle. I note that in a recent opinion poll some 57% of the public were in favour of ID. The highest level of support actually came from people who voted Conservative.
My question to the Minister is about the consultation process mentioned in the Statement, which is due to begin at the end of the year. Can he tell the House when that consultation will end? What form will it take? Will it be an attempt to have a wide debate throughout the country, with documents being produced for public consumption? What exactly is the shape of the consultation? Presumably the Government will be in favour of the proposal, but what might be available to those who take a different view from the Government on it and may want some resources to campaign against it?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for those observations. The consultation needs to be inclusive, involve various groups, and give everybody a chance to input into this from societal and technical aspects. The aim is to have a very widespread consultation to make sure we get the right input from all parts of society. We have talked about those who may feel excluded already. The intention is to have a consultation that really helps shape this. It is not a consultation just to say we have done one; it is one that will help shape this from every angle. We look forward to input from across the House and beyond.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
Can my noble friend the Minister tell the House how the Government plan to address the arguments that will be made against these proposals, in particular in relation to concerns about individual privacy?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The argument about individual privacy is an interesting one, because digital ID is a way of increasing privacy. At the moment when you show a form of ID, it includes all sorts of information that the person who sees it does not need to know and should not necessarily know. A digital ID gives the chance to show simply that you meet the requirements that are needed without disclosing any more information whatever. There are arguments that need to be well rehearsed and described, as part of the consultation, as to why this will not be a sudden increase in exposing your information to others. It is a way of protecting it, owing it and having agency over what you do with it.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this initiative and I have listened with interest to the two opposition spokespersons. In 2010 and 2011, they abandoned the work that had been done, and we have fallen so far behind. We have seen people come into the country and work unregistered—not paying tax and not being part of society in the fullest sense. If a digital system had been operating, even the old-fashioned ID system, then we would have had a much bigger income coming into the country and a much better state of affairs than we have at the moment. We would have deterred people from coming here, which is one of the major factors behind it. I hope we will move quickly on that part of the exercise. I welcome the second part to extend it over a wider front too.
On cost, I hope the Government will be innovative and will not think simply in old public service terms: “This department is doing this, and that department is doing that”. I hope we can create an umbrella organisation that will be made up of Governments, local authorities and charities, involve the private sector and extend this to citizens. We should give them an incentive to join—as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, talking about the rights of young people to go out and drink—and cover issues such as that within the ID system. We should try to have a completely new structure compared with what we had in the past.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his comments on migration. I agree that this is one way in which one can detect whether illegal employment is going on. It will be a deterrent, because the ease with which people can be employed here is part of the reason why it is an attractive place to come. On the way we go about doing this, in addition to the points he has raised, it is worth looking at what has happened in other countries, where businesses became very involved, saying, “Once this has been set up, how do we also start being a part of creating services that allow people to do things more easily?” I expect that to be a major part of this. We already have business sectors beginning to think about how they can use this approach to provide better services, better link-up and better access. That private sector involvement will be important for the uses that people want. They are not mandatory uses but ones that make life easier for people.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I have just been at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, so it is reassuring to hear that there will be close co-ordination and co-operation on this issue. I also welcome the response on social exclusion and those issues, although, in my experience, increasingly low-paid workers need to have a mobile phone because that is the way you get the job and carry out the work. I have heard about the benefits to business of the mandatory requirement in respect of digital ID and the right to work, but I would be very grateful if my noble friend the Minister could say, in lay person’s language, what the benefit is to the average worker.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The benefit to the average worker is that they are being employed by an honest company, in the right way, and they are not having their jobs taken by people who should not be working. This should be a very easy, quick thing to do. It should be very easy for the person wanting a job and for the company, and it will exclude people who do not have a right to work.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, further to the answer the Minister gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and me on Northern Ireland, I think more would be helpful. Every time a Minister in different places and parts of the United Kingdom says anything about this issue, something slightly different comes out. Could the Minister look carefully at this and perhaps write a letter to me and to the noble Baroness and put it in the Library, specifically on how this be implemented in Northern Ireland if it should become law?
Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, the matter before us today is a grave and serious one, and I am glad that we have another opportunity to discuss it, following my noble friend Lord True’s success in securing a PNQ on the matter yesterday. The collapse of the case against Mr Cash and Mr Berry goes to the very heart of this Parliament. What is at stake is nothing less than the dignity and security of Members of both Houses and of those who work within them.
In their handling of the matter, the Government have shown a grave failure of responsibility. The Statement issued by the Security Minister in the other place on Monday was woefully inadequate. This dispute turns on one simple question: why did the Government not give the Crown Prosecution Service the evidence it needed to pursue this case? In both his Statement and his replies, the Security Minister failed to clarify four central matters.
First, he proceeded on the false premise that the previous Government did not regard China as a national security threat. The record shows that they did. For example, the head of MI6 in 2021 said that China was one of the biggest four threats to the UK, alongside Russia, Iran and international terrorism.
Secondly, like the Prime Minister, the Security Minister seemed to argue that it was not open to the current Government to give the Crown Prosecution Service evidence that differed from the previous Government’s view of the threat from China. In other words, he seems to have assumed that the present Government could not form their own view of the threat during 2021 to 2023 or provide a statement to that effect. That was wrong. Nothing in law or practice stopped the Government from doing so.
Thirdly, he cited the Roussev judgment as though it had narrowed the 1911 Act. It did not. The Court of Appeal made it clear that “enemy” includes any state acting against the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, whether or not we are at war with it.
Fourthly, he assumed that only the Government can determine who falls within that definition. There is no such requirement. The question is one of fact, not fiat, and may properly be assessed by a jury on the evidence before it.
I might stress that noble Lords should not just take my word for it. The Minister’s and the Prime Minister’s argument has been refuted by no less than one former DPP, two former Cabinet Secretaries—one of whom was a National Security Adviser—two former heads of MI6 and a professor of public law at the University of Cambridge, who said this week that Ministers’ statements so far are “misleading” about the legal position. The experts are all clear that Mr Cash and Mr Berry could have been prosecuted under the old legislation. Are we to believe the Government’s position that they are all wrong and that they—the Government—are right?
This case is only one symptom of a deeper failure in the Government’s approach to China. Ministers are still intent on allowing the Chinese Communist Party to build its new embassy on the Royal Mint site, within sight of some of the most sensitive financial and communications infrastructure in the country. They have done so despite clear and repeated warnings from our allies in Washington and from our own intelligence agencies that the project poses a serious espionage risk. Those warnings have been brushed aside and key details redacted from public view.
The decision to transfer the Chagos Islands to Mauritius tells the same story. China’s ambassador there publicly welcomed the move, congratulating Mauritius and confirming its intention to join Beijing’s belt and road initiative. Now, even as evidence of Chinese interference has reached into Parliament itself, the Government’s response has remained slow, confused and complacent. This is not an isolated failure but a pattern of neglect—one that leaves the United Kingdom exposed at a moment when China’s ambitions are clearer and more aggressive than ever.
Before I conclude, I have several questions for the noble Baroness the Minister. It is not for Ministers or officials to determine what evidence meets the threshold for prosecution. That judgment belongs solely to the Crown Prosecution Service. The Government’s duty was to provide all relevant information to the CPS when asked. They did not. The question is: who decided that the Crown Prosecution Service would not be provided with further evidence? Was that decision taken by Ministers, officials or advisers?
Everyone in government knows that a matter of this kind would have gone to Ministers. To pretend otherwise is not credible; to blame a single official is wrong. Did the Deputy National Security Adviser act without ministerial oversight in determining the evidential basis of the case? If so, who authorised that arrangement? Were any Ministers or special advisers shown, did they clear or were they consulted on the Deputy National Security Adviser’s draft statement before it was sent to the CPS? When the CPS requested further material, were Ministers shown this request and did they clear the revised version? Will the Minister publish the internal guidance that allowed the Deputy National Security Adviser to act “without interference” from Ministers, as well as the correspondence between the Cabinet Office, the CPS and the Foreign Office concerning the drafting of his statements?
Furthermore, how many current investigations rely on the 1911 Act, and have any been paused following Roussev? What part of that judgment, which produced six convictions, prevented the CPS proceeding in this case? Did any official or Minister advise that Roussev made prosecution under the 1911 Act impossible, and will that advice be placed in the Library? Mr Justice Hilliard cited the evidence of Matthew Collins, the Deputy National Security Adviser, as authoritative in Roussev. Why is the same official’s evidence deemed unusable when applied to China?
Why is guidance to Members being launched only today, when MI5 and the National Protective Security Authority have been aware of active Chinese interference since at least 2022?
Finally, will the Minister confirm whether Sir Olly Robbins has been instructed to make clear to his counterparts that the United Kingdom regards China as a national security threat and to set out what discussions he is authorised to hold?
This is not about one prosecution that failed. It is about whether we still possess the will to defend the institutions that safeguard our liberty. It is about whether those charged with protecting this country still understand what it means to act in its defence. When foreign powers reach into our Parliament and Ministers look away, it is not only our security that is breached but our sense of who we are. A Government who will not face the truth invite their own humiliation. A nation that tolerates such weakness endangers itself.
Britain’s strength has never rested on wealth or size but on the courage to confront those who would test it. That courage is now being tested again. The Government must speak plainly, act decisively and show that this country will never be cowed, compromised or complacent in the face of the ambitions of China. I urge the noble Baroness to answer not with evasion but with candour, and to meet this moment with the seriousness our duty to the nation demands.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I do not think that I have followed the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, in the past and it is a great pleasure to do so. I am happy to say that there are still one or two things left to say.
This Statement is clearly an attempt to put to rest the issue of these botched prosecutions, or non-prosecutions. So far, however, it has not only failed in that ambition; at the same time, it has resurfaced other issues regarding China and our relationship that generate increasing concern. Regarding the prosecutions, and given the Minister’s Statement and the Government’s adamant view that they have not concealed evidence or suppressed anything, it would be easy for the Government to publish all the relevant documentation. They have nothing to hide; we know that—they have told us, and we trust them. Will the Government publish all the relevant documents, as set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and the correspondence between all officials, politicians and advisers involved with the CPS?
It is time for the Government to properly protect the interests of our citizens so, working with the CPS, will the Government look at all legislative options to make sure that these two individuals have their time in the court, face a jury and are able to plead their case? These are the ways that the Government can push this issue to rest: by openness and actually seeking to prosecute.
More widely, this case has exposed appalling gaps in the Government’s willingness to challenge China’s considerable espionage efforts, but I am pleased that they recognise that we have a problem. The Statement is clear:
“We fully recognise that China poses a series of threats to UK national security”,
it says, but their actions fly in the face of that reality.
A former director-general of the Security Service has warned that Chinese espionage is being carried out on an industrial scale, including by seeking influence over Parliament, as well as in industry and education. This has been clear for some time. That was why we warned that exempting China from the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme under the National Security Act was a terrible mistake by this Government.
Will the Government now undertake to include all Chinese officials, Hong Kong special administrative region officials and Chinese Communist Party-linked organisations in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? More than that, the Government, supported by the Conservatives, exempted government administration and public bodies in their entirety from the FIRS scheme. Will the Minister now undertake to listen to the intelligence community and include people performing in these activities in the enhanced layer of FIRS?
Finally, as we have heard, it is now time for the Government to come to their senses and block the planning application for the Chinese mega-embassy. We know that, through its embassy in the UK, China has been co-ordinating the transnational repression of people who are carrying out normal and legal activities in the United Kingdom. Will the Minister confirm that the intelligence agencies were not consulted before the Government approved China’s new super-embassy in London, and will the Government now take heed and halt that project until a full national security review is completed?
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, that is a significant number of questions, which I have written down and now lost—thank you—and I will endeavour to answer all of them. I will also review Hansard and make sure that I correspond on anything that I am unsuccessful in responding to. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for their participation and genuine interest in this. Let us be very clear that matters of espionage, especially those that have seemingly been conducted within your Lordships’ House, but also within Parliament, are of the utmost seriousness.
I want to begin by reinforcing that this Government remain extremely disappointed by the collapse of the Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry trial. During yesterday’s PNQ, I committed to update your Lordships’ House on the facts surrounding the collapse of this trial, as well as government actions to counter state threats—as my honourable friend Dan Jarvis, the Security Minister, also made clear yesterday. The decision not to prosecute was made independently by the CPS. It is a bedrock principle of our democracy that decisions of the CPS are independent of Ministers and the Government.
The Director of Public Prosecutions has written to the chairs of the Home Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee, setting out that the CPS decision not to take this case to trial was because the evidential test was not met. As the Prime Minister—who, if we are citing former DPPs, I remind noble Lords is also a former DPP—has stated, the policy position of the current Government was “immaterial” to the CPS’s assessment.
The legal test required consideration of the Government’s policy at the time the alleged offences were committed—between December 2021 and February 2023—when Members opposite were in Government. At that time, the previous Conservative Government described China as a “systematic challenge” in the Integrated Review 2021 and an “epoch-defining challenge” in the Integrated Review Refresh 2023. They did not designate China as a threat or an enemy; that is at the crux of the issue.
I want to be clear, and I am genuinely horrified by the suggestion, that accusations that the Government concealed evidence, withdrew witnesses or in any way restricted the ability of witnesses to provide evidence are entirely untrue. The Director of Public Prosecutions has given his assurance that the CPS was not influenced by any external party, any member of this Government or any senior civil servant or special adviser. As the Security Minister set out in detail yesterday, evidence was provided to the CPS by the Deputy National Security Adviser, who is highly respected and has the full support of this Government. All the evidence provided by the Deputy National Security Adviser was based on the law at the time of the offences and the policy position of the Conservative Government at that time. The DNSA did not materially change his evidence and was under no pressure from anybody to do so.
On the question raised by both the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox—which was also raised yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Gove—it is not for me to make decisions about the publication of evidence that may be used in further ongoing legal processes. To do so, or not, would likely affect witnesses in coming forward and hamper the interests of justice.
I understand that many noble Lords are also rightly interested in the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of the facts around the collapse of this case. The Government’s approach will always be to make as much information available as possible through the appropriate processes, given the national security considerations. I welcome that the National Security Adviser will be giving a private briefing to the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy next month.
On our approach to China, this Government are unequivocal. China poses a series of threats to UK national security, from cyberattacks and foreign interference to the transnational repression of Hong Kongers. This Government fully recognise the gravity of these threats. However, we must also recognise that China presents opportunities. It is the world’s second-largest economy. To act in the UK’s best interests, we must adopt a long-term strategic approach, as the last Government did. This means a consistent and pragmatic approach to economic engagement without compromising our national security.
On some of the other specifics that have been raised, I want to respond to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on the Chinese embassy. No such decision has been made. The noble Lord knows that, throughout the process, we have been clear that we have considered the breadth of national security considerations and have publicly outlined necessary security mitigations that we would need to see to support an application. National security has been our core priority throughout the process. A final decision will be made in due course by Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in their quasi-judicial role, and we expect a decision imminently. We do not underestimate the impact of national security as part of that decision.
As I also said yesterday in response to the PNQ, no decision has been made on China regarding the FIRS scheme. We are talking about a scheme that has been undertaken for only three and a half months. No decision has yet been made to exempt or include China, but a decision will be brought forward to your Lordships’ House.
On the specific question of the 1911 Act, the legislation the CPS uses for arrests and prosecutions is a matter for that agency. I do not have access to that data; that would be for the CPS. To clarify for noble Lords, there is a reason why many hours were spent in your Lordships’ House debating the National Security Bill in 2023—which was supported by my colleagues too on a cross-party basis—to update the Official Secrets Act. It is unfortunate that the 1911 Act was the basis of this prosecution, but there is a reason why we had to update it, and that is because of the very definition of “espionage” and “enemy”. This is a piece of legislation that was written prior to World War I. The world has changed, the threat level has changed and how people undertake threats has significantly changed.
I think I have touched on all the evidence. The Deputy National Security Adviser operated within the confines and constraints of the policy direction of the previous Government. We are fully committed to his work. He can operate only within the confines of the situation of the moment and, on that basis, there is nothing more for him to answer.
I reiterate this Government’s unwavering commitment to our national security. Yesterday, MI5’s National Protective Security Authority launched new guidance, building on previous guidance—it was not brand new—to protect our democratic institutions from foreign interference. I urge all noble Lords to read this vital guidance. Furthermore, the Government continue to hold China state-linked actors accountable for cyber espionage. The National Cyber Security Centre recently co-sealed a US-led technical advisory calling out Chinese state-sponsored actors for targeting global networks, including in the UK. We will continue to take all necessary action to tackle state threats, including those from China. That is the primary responsibility of government.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, that, as chair of the ISC, I do not recognise some of her comments about our security services concerning China.
This confuses me because, as I understand the situation, the prosecutor has taken the 1911 Act. It was the ISC that, in 2020, called for reform of the Official Secrets Act, and there is still undone business on the 1989 Act, for example. But the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Roussev did not raise but lowered the bar in terms of the definition of “enemy”, if I am reading it correctly. So, on the idea that the CPS should just rely on the Government’s input into this, I cannot understand why it could not, for example, have used the ISC’s 2023 China report, which outlined our concerns about the threats. It would be interesting to know why the CPS did not look at that judgment. If they were not satisfied with what the Government gave it, there was plenty of other evidence out there that it could have used.
I say to my noble friend that the ISC meets on Thursday, and we will discuss this, as she can imagine. If—as is likely—we ask for the intelligence on this, I ask that we are not hindered in receiving it.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his work as part of the ISC and his work in these areas for several decades. I would expect full co-operation with the committee in terms of what happens next. We want to be as open to scrutiny as possible but, given the issues, talking within the appropriate processes—the ISC is one of them—will be a matter for his committee and future conversations.
We need to remember that this was an independent decision made by the CPS. We genuinely believed that this case was going to proceed until we were informed by the CPS just before the embargo. We provided full co-operation with the CPS, I am reassured, within the constraints available to the Deputy National Security Adviser at that time, based on what had been said.
We need to remember—the noble Lord is absolutely right—that it was not until 2019 that the integrated review first mentioned China at all. Until that point, the previous Government did not consider China worthy even of mentioning in the security review. Importantly, at the point that we are discussing, the then Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly, when asked whether China was a threat, said it was
“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise”
to sum up our relationship with China in one word. As I said yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition, when she was Trade Secretary, said:
“We certainly should not be describing China as a foe but we can describe it as a challenge”.
That is the constraint within which the Deputy NSA gave his evidence. We need to be very clear about what government policy was two years ago.
Lord Pannick (CB)
May I ask the noble Baroness to clarify the answer she gave to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on the important subject of transparency? He asked whether the Government will publish correspondence between officials, politicians and advisers involved with the CPS. The noble Baroness’s answer was exactly the same as that given yesterday by Mr Jarvis, the Minister in the Commons:
“it is not for me to make decisions about the publication of evidence that may be used in any further ongoing legal processes”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/10/25; col. 70.]
My question is: what ongoing legal processes? This criminal prosecution has ended and it cannot be resurrected, and there is therefore no reason not to inform the public of all the details of this so that any concerns can be removed.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. Obviously, his level of expertise in our legal processes is much more significant than mine, but neither he nor I know what plans the CPS has for any future prosecution.
Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill
Tuesday 14th October 2025
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberDeprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill 2024-26 View all Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 14 July 2025 - (14 Jul 2025)
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
There is no more important task for any Government than to keep their citizens safe, and this Bill will form an important part of the Government’s ability to do just that. I remind noble Lords that the Bill is very narrow in its scope and intent: it contains just one substantive clause, which is focused solely on closing a specific loophole in the existing deprivation of citizenship process.
Noble Lords may recall its substantive provision, in Clause 1, which addresses a recent Supreme Court ruling: N3(ZA) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The effect of this ruling is that, if an appeal against a deprivation decision is successful, or if a deprivation of citizenship order is withdrawn, that initial order will have had no effect and the person will be considered as having continued to be British. This means that people who have been deprived of British citizenship will automatically regain that status before any further avenues of appeal have been exhausted.
The effect of this judgment creates two risks. The first is that someone who poses a significant threat to public safety could return to the UK before all onward appeals are determined. I am sure that is a situation that noble Lords would not wish to see. Secondly, it could allow a person who has been deprived of citizenship, on the ground that it is conducive to the public good, to undermine further deprivation action by renouncing their other nationality before all onward appeals are determined. This is because reinstatement of a deprivation order would then render them stateless. This Bill simply intends to maintain the status quo by closing these loopholes, which may arise in a very small number of deprivation appeals.
It is important to say at the outset that the scope of this Bill does not touch on any wider areas of the deprivation process. It is important to say that because this Bill does not amend the existing deprivation power, it does not extend its potential application to additional individuals, and it does not in any way widen the reasons for which a person could be deprived of their citizenship. It also does not change any existing right of appeal, and it does not place any new restrictions on individuals who are subject to a deprivation order.
It is self-evident that deprivation of citizenship is a significant power, and I know that many noble Lords have strong feelings on its use. However, Parliament has enacted the power and entrusted the Home Secretary with using it, including to protect the UK from those who mean us harm. The existence of this power is not, however, the matter before us today. Rather, in this Bill, it is the specific provision that relates only to the potential period between a successful appeal and a final determination on the case.
To explain why it is so important that this power remains effective, which is what the Bill seeks to achieve, I shall set out briefly the circumstances in which the power is used and therefore the types of threat that the Bill will help protect society from. Deprivation is an important part of the suite of tools available to the Government to maintain public safety and preserve national security. The use of deprivation where it is conducive to the public good is a decision to be taken personally by the Home Secretary. It is used against some of the most dangerous individuals who pose a threat to the United Kingdom, including terrorists, extremists and serious and organised criminals. Someone who has been deprived of their citizenship and is in the UK no longer has any immigration status. Steps may be taken to remove them from the UK; they may be held in immigration detention in the interim; if they are overseas when a deprivation decision is made, they would not be permitted to enter the UK. In these circumstances, this is clearly an effective way to disrupt the threat posed by dangerous individuals.
I know that noble Lords will be interested in the volumes of this power: it is a power used sparingly. From 2008 to 2023, the entire period of the last Government’s use of the power, 12 people a year on average were deprived of their citizenship when it was determined to be for the public good.
There will undoubtedly be interest in this debate in the safeguards within the system. As I have set out, the existing safeguards will not be affected by the Bill. Deprivation decisions are carefully considered and made in accordance with international law, following advice from officials and lawyers. Each deprivation case is assessed individually. Along with many other things we have been discussing this week, this regime complies with the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and always comes with a right of appeal.
On the specific provision in the Bill before the House today, I reassure noble Lords that there is indeed grit in the system to ensure that the Bill, once enacted, is not used for any spurious purpose. Rules of court set defined timescales within which any application by the Home Secretary to appeal must be made. In addition, the decision to grant permission for such an appeal lies solely with the courts and is contingent on the presence of a properly arguable point of law. This means that the Government cannot rely on the provisions of the Bill to maintain deprivation of a person’s citizenship following a successful appeal without proper legal grounds or justification.
Finally, noble Lords will be aware that the deprivation power can also be used where someone has obtained citizenship for which they were never entitled on a fraudulent basis—for example, by providing false documents. Indeed, the majority of the deprivation orders fall under this category, as from 2018 to 2022, there was an average of 151 cases in that category per year. However, I want to be clear up front that the Bill will not apply in such cases. This is because where citizenship has been obtained fraudulently, a deprivation order is made only once all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. Such cases will therefore not be impacted by the narrow scope of the Bill.
As I hope I have stated and illustrated to noble Lords, the Bill is extremely narrow—in fact, in my nearly 30 years in both Houses of Parliament, it is probably the smallest Bill I have had the pleasure to introduce—but it seeks to ensure, in its smallness, that the deprivation power remains effective by retaining the status quo.
It is important, in finishing, to place on record a tribute by the Home Office team and me to our world-class law enforcement and intelligence agencies. They work tirelessly to keep us safe, and we owe them tremendous gratitude for that. This Bill is another tool in our toolbox to ensure that we can preserve our national security. I hope that noble Lords will examine it in detail. It is a small Bill; I hope they will support it, and I look forward to discussing it with Members of this House today, in Committee and on Report at a later date. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, as always, it is a pleasure to follow the Minister in opening the Second Reading of this short but highly important Bill. There is a lot that we disagree on in this House—indeed, in politics in general, it would be fair to say that the Minister and I have differing views on a number of issues—but we all have the same end goal: we want to see this country thrive and, to do that, it must be as safe and secure as possible. To that end, I fully support the Bill.
The Minister has given a detailed account of the events that led the Government to seek this change to Section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981. As he said, it arises out of a Supreme Court case earlier this year. In that ruling, the court held that were an appeal against a deprivation order successful, the order is considered to have had no effect. That means that while the Home Secretary’s further appeals are pending, the person would be able to enjoy their full rights of citizenship. The point here is that the power to deprive is used as a last resort. There was some talk in the other place that this power has not been used sparingly. That is not the case, because between 2010 and 2024, 222 orders were made on the grounds that deprivation was conducive to the public good—that is an average of 15.8 per year—and 858 orders were made for fraud. For context, there were 269,621 grants of British citizenship in 2024 alone, and since 2010, there have been at least 100,000 grants of citizenship every single year. We are therefore talking about a very small proportion of people who have their citizenship deprived when compared to the number of new citizenship grants that have been made. It is evident that the power is indeed used sparingly, in cases of the utmost seriousness.
Is it not wholly right, therefore, that in cases of such gravity the deprivation order should continue to have effect during the period of appeals? Of particular importance here is where a person whom the Home Secretary rightly deems to be a national security risk is currently abroad. The deprivation order would prevent that person returning to the United Kingdom. Under the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the law, if that person were to successfully appeal in absentia, their right to enter the country unhindered would be reinstated automatically, with no regard to the potential risk they presented to the British public. That is surely an untenable situation.
This new interpretation is also legally inconsistent with asylum and immigration decisions. With asylum claims, a refusal continues to have effect until all legal processes are completed. Asylum status is not simply automatically granted by a court upon the first successful appeal. The process requires one to exhaust the full spectrum of legal challenges first.
This Bill is not about attempting to subvert judges or to amend the appeals process, nor does it make it easier to deprive a person of their citizenship. Rather, it is about reasserting the simple fact that it is for Parliament to decide what British citizenship means and the expectations we place on those who are granted it. Citizenship is a privilege, one that demonstrates a bond of trust. Those who violate that trust and openly threaten our society, or who utilise fraudulent means to gain it, should have that privilege revoked. The Government are right to ensure that deprivation can continue during the appeals process and are right to bring forward this Bill.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, this legislation, while described by the Government as “small” and highly focused, carries constitutional significance and poses risks to fundamental rights, which is why it needs the rigorous scrutiny which this House can provide. The Government’s stated purpose for the Bill is clear: to safeguard the UK from individuals who pose a threat to national security or public safety. The Bill seeks to amend Section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981 to ensure that if the Government strip a person of their British citizenship, the deprivation order remains in effect throughout the entire appeal process. This measure is a direct response to the Supreme Court judgment in N3(ZA) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department. That judgment established that when a person successfully appeals a deprivation order, their citizenship is automatically and retrospectively restored at that point.
The Government argue that this Bill is necessary to prevent high-harm individuals who are overseas from returning to the UK, and to stop persons seeking to undermine deprivation action by renouncing other nationalities in order to become stateless while an appeal remains ongoing. I understand the Government’s duty to keep the country safe, but we must question whether this measure is right, proportionate and the only tool available to achieve that goal. I will raise some of the contradictions that have been raised in the other place and look at some of the possible solutions to them. I will then pose questions to the Minister that I think will help to clarify the rightness and proportionality of the measure and whether it is indeed the only tool available to achieve that goal.
This Bill proposes to overturn the ordinary presumption that court orders take immediate effect. The legislation delays the restoration of citizenship until all governmental appeal rights are exhausted. That diminishes the only mechanism for scrutinising the Home Secretary’s decisions and thus could be viewed as an assault on the rule of law. The Bill grants the Government unwarranted power to ignore court rulings that find their actions unlawful. The Bill also applies retrospectively to appeals brought but not yet finally determined. This means that any individuals currently caught in the legal process will have the rules changed against them mid-appeal.
The principal concern relates to the severe consequences that this Bill poses, particularly for vulnerable individuals and potentially for British children. Under the current regime, the UK employs deprivation of citizenship orders more frequently than most other countries in Europe. The practice of citizenship-stripping disproportionately targets ethnic-minority communities. Some of those affected are stranded overseas and exposed to severe harms such as detention, cruel treatment and death, without consular protection or the ability to return home, even when courts rule in their favour.
The case of N3 (ZA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department is instructive. A child born in the UK to a British father whose citizenship was later ruled to have been unlawfully stripped was initially denied recognition as a British citizen. The Supreme Court ruled that the father should be treated as having retained his citizenship throughout the deprivation period. This Bill reverses that, meaning that future children in similar positions could be left without UK state protection until their parent’s final appeal is exhausted, which could be some years later.
We know that British children are already detained in inhumane conditions in places such as north-east Syria. Available information indicates that all British adults detained there have been stripped of their citizenship, leading to the creation of stateless, or effectively stateless, children. The Bill would expose those children to these extreme risks for a significantly longer period, even after a court has found that they have a valid claim to citizenship.
The Bill impairs an individual’s ability to participate meaningfully in legal proceedings. Individuals challenging deprivation from overseas face insurmountable barriers to accessing justice, making it difficult to instruct lawyers or access documents. The Bill prevents the individual, even after winning at the first instance, from returning to the UK to participate fully in the ongoing appeals process. UK courts have already acknowledged that appeals from those detained in north-east Syria would
“not be fair and effective”.
Forcing an individual to continue participating in this admittedly ineffective process compounds the unfairness.
I need to press the Minister on why the Government have chosen this blanket approach, rather than legislating for more targeted solutions, and why crucial safeguards have been either omitted or rejected. My questions to the Minister are as follows. First, the Government’s stated motivation is to maintain the ability to exclude individuals who pose a threat. Why was the alternative approach, suggested by Reprieve and others—of legislating to clarify the rules governing stays in the First-tier Tribunal and the SIAC, allowing the Government to apply for a stay of a successful order on a case-by-case basis where justified—rejected in favour of a blanket suspension?
Secondly, given that the duration of the appeals process could be considerable—potentially lasting years—and result in British children being stranded overseas, why have the Government resisted establishing an expedited appeals route to ensure unlawful deprivation orders do not continue to have effect for prolonged periods of time?
Thirdly, the Government have rejected judicial discretion to suspend the effect of a successful appeal, asserting that national security accountability rests with the democratically accountable Secretary of State. However, in the House of Commons, a proposed amendment—the so-called the Malthouse amendment—would have provided judicial discretion to prevent severe hardship, specifically if a person faced a real and substantial threat of serious harm, or if the continuation of the order would significantly prejudice their ability to mount an effective defence. Can the Minister confirm why the Government did not accept these basic judicial safeguards to protect against the most egregious cases of abuse and harm?
Fourthly, the current power to strip citizenship is already criticised for placing excessive power in the hands of a single Minister under the subjective test of being
“conducive to the public good”.
Will the Government commit to reforming the entire deprivation process—as called for by the Liberal Democrats—to require the Home Secretary to apply to a court for permission to make a deprivation order in the first instance, thereby ensuring judicial oversight before the power is exercised?
Finally, following concerns about transparency and oversight, will the Minister commit the Government to publishing annual reports detailing the use of deprivation of citizenship powers, and ensuring their regular review by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation?
The Bill grants greater authority to the Government in a context already marked by high levels of citizenship-stripping and minimal checks. It threatens to legislate away the authority of British courts. Your Lordships’ House has a constitutional role as the final check on government overreach to ensure that, if this Bill is to proceed, we can preserve judicial oversight and prevent British people, particularly children, being left at risk of serious harm.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the author of a report, required by statute and published almost 10 years ago, on citizenship removal resulting in statelessness. It was a short report, since that power introduced by the Immigration Act 2014, which was always intended to be highly exceptional, had never been used at the time—there was therefore nothing to report on.
However, my crash course in citizenship deprivation—a concept with which this country seems notably more at ease than most of our European and North American neighbours, as the noble Lord, Lord German, said—prompted three reflections of a general nature that may still be relevant. First, the
“conducive to the public good”
threshold for citizenship deprivation—which, in 2006, replaced the previous threshold of
“seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom”—
is remarkably low. There is some comfort in the self-imposed guidance that governs the interpretation by government of this elastic and subjective phrase. However, that comfort may not survive the arrival of another Government less keen on self-imposed guidance. For my part, I hope that we will return someday to this threshold issue.
Secondly, as was pointed out by speakers as different as Kit Malthouse and Bell Ribeiro-Addy in Commons Committee, citizenship deprivation discriminates by its very nature against individuals and groups who have, or are entitled to, another citizenship. Jews and those born in Northern Ireland were mentioned, but of course there are also many others. The power to strip people of their citizenship, however sparingly used in practice, reminds naturalised citizens in particular that the citizenship that they went through so much to achieve is precarious in a way that my citizenship is not.
A few years back, in the Nationality and Borders Bill, the proposal to allow the removal of citizenship without notice was greeted with an outcry, including a petition signed by more than 300,000 people. That is a consequence not only of Clause 9 of that Bill but of the sense it conveyed to some people with dual heritage that they were second-class citizens. Thanks to your Lordships’ House, that outcry was channelled into the much-improved Section 10 of the Act.
Thirdly, there is a gap where review of citizenship deprivation should be. The Minister in the Commons pointed correctly to reviews by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration that were published in 2018 and 2024. But the purpose of those inspections was procedural, as it was described in the 2018 report, to examine
“the efficiency and effectiveness of the Home Office’s processes”.
Even that procedural exercise had its limits. The 2024 inspection looked only at the status review unit, which deals with deprivations prompted by fraud or related to serious organised crime. What were described as
“‘conducive’ cases where sensitive intelligence is relied upon to make a decision”
are handled by the special cases unit and were acknowledged by the independent chief inspector to be “out of scope”. Published figures are welcome, but do not answer all the pertinent questions. What was the intelligence case for the sudden surge of conducive deprivations from 14 in 2016 to 104 in the following year? What were the circumstances of those subjected to it, and why was deprivation used in preference to the many other tools in the counterterrorism and state threats armoury?
The reality is that deprivation of citizenship on conducive grounds is a power used for national security purposes. Like other such powers, its exercise should be reviewable by the security-cleared Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, as successive holders of that office, including me, have recommended.
Having got that off my chest, I turn to the Bill. It is one of a growing number of Bills that seek to change the law as it has recently been declared by the Supreme Court. Indeed, the next one will come along on Thursday: the Crime and Policing Bill. There is nothing constitutionally improper about that. The courts try to make sense of what we decide, which, in this field, has chopped and changed several times since 2002, as the Supreme Court’s judgment made clear.
It is also relevant, it seems to me, that both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, after consideration of all factors, including the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, declared the law to be as the Government now seek to clarify it by means of the Bill.
The Supreme Court took what it described as a “middle position”, under which the Secretary of State is bound by the result of a successful appeal for all purposes
“other than in respect of the validity of immigration enforcement action taken on the basis of the deprivation order up to the time the appeal against it is allowed”.
By doing so, the Supreme Court sought to banish the unwelcome spectre of damages claims in respect of past immigration enforcement action, while requiring the individual to be treated as having always been a British citizen for all other purposes, including in the hard case that was before it, by passing that citizenship to any child born during the currency of the deprivation order.
I am persuaded by the Minister, and I thank him for his time and that of the Bill team, that there are good reasons for preventing a person from regaining their British citizenship, even following a first-instance victory in SIAC until such time as the Home Office has exhausted its appeal rights. These are, in summary, the prospect of empowering a person who endangers national security to enter the United Kingdom, possibly forever; the risk that the tactical renunciation of other citizenships will render deprivation of British citizenship impossible; and the desirability of having immigration powers, such as detention and immigration bail, pending the resolution of appeal rights. Those are reasons enough for me to support the thrust of the Bill.
The Bill might be considered tough on infant children, such as ZA in the Supreme Court case. For that reason in particular, I see the case for a limited judicial discretion along the lines proposed by Kit Malthouse in the Commons and I will listen carefully to the debate if a similar or narrower amendment is tabled here. But I am not as struck by this as the noble Lord, Lord German. There is surely consolation in the fact that the appeal process is finite and can be expedited by the courts, and that the child’s citizenship will still be recognised if the Home Office is unsuccessful at the end of the day.
The Bill is retrospective in its operation, resembling in that respect court rulings, including the judgment of the Supreme Court that it seeks, in effect, to reverse. The Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, asked the Government why retrospectivity applied across the board and could not be limited to “conducive” cases. The Minister’s answer, that deprivation orders on other grounds are not made until the person has exhausted their rights to appeal, with the result that the Bill does not apply to them, sounds pretty conclusive to me.
Finally, I have in mind the fact that people may have their citizenship removed when inside as well as outside this country and that views on deportation, including in this country, appear to be hardening in some quarters quite alarmingly. I expressed to the Minister my concern that a Government less scrupulous than this one might take advantage of the Bill to remove a person’s citizenship on conducive grounds and then take advantage of their new status as a non-national to deport them, even after SIAC had declared the removal of citizenship to be unlawful. I was told that this fear was unfounded, in summary, as I understand it, because a deportation order does not come into force until in-country appeal rights, including on human rights grounds, have been exhausted, and because Section 78 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 prohibits such a person from being removed while any in-country appeal is pending.
On the face of it, that is reassuring, at least for as long as we have the Human Rights Act. But I would welcome the Minister putting his detailed explanation on the record, either from the Dispatch Box or in writing, so that it can be scrutinised by those more expert than me. This is not something that would have seemed worth worrying about 10 or even five years ago. But I am sure that your Lordships would not wish to pass a Bill that could facilitate the future use of unlawful citizenship deprivation as a means of effecting the arbitrary or large-scale deportation of British citizens who are objectionable or unwelcome to the Government of the day. Subject to that clarification, the Bill has my support.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who brings so much expertise and wisdom to this debate.
This is a short Bill, yes, on a narrow point, but it raises some important constitutional questions. It concerns the power of the Home Secretary under Section 40 of the British Nationality Act to deprive a person of British citizenship. As we know, under this provision the Home Secretary may deprive a person of citizenship in two cases: first, if she is satisfied that the deprivation will be conducive to the public good; and, secondly, if she is satisfied that citizenship was obtained by fraud, false representation or concealment of a material fact. I do not have any problem with the second scenario; it is the first one which is intensely problematic.
There is a limit to the exercise of this power. A deprivation order may not be made if that person would be rendered stateless, and thus would result in a breach of our obligations under the statelessness convention. But this limit, however important, is insufficient. In practice, as has been mentioned before, people with two nationalities, such as me, are British citizens only for as long as the Home Secretary of the day is satisfied that depriving us of our citizenship would not be conducive to the public good. Under the law as it is, it is easier for me to be stripped of my British citizenship than of my barony. This rule is based on an idea of citizenship that is simply unfit for a modern liberal democracy. Yes, the power is used sparingly, as the Minister said, but we are, as the noble Lord, Lord German, pointed out, a country that, in Europe, uses this power to an exceptional degree. We strip citizenship at rates that are higher than those of almost any other country in the world, as was noted by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its recent report, Accountability for Daesh Crimes.
The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation observed that there is a sharp contrast between the high number of deprivation orders in these cases, which are usually national security cases, and the low number of prosecutions or temporary exclusion orders. To put these things in perspective, from 1972 to 2006 only 10 people were deprived of citizenship, whereas from 2010 to 2023 there were 1,080 deprivations of citizenship, and of those 222 were on the basis of the “conducive” test—104 of those deprivations were in one year alone, 2017.
As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said, we need to think of how this power would be used by a Home Secretary who comes to office with a rather different conception of the public good from that of his or her predecessors. We have to be very alive to those risks. There is little in the language of Section 40 to which we could point to invite restraint if faced with a Home Secretary determined to make even more extensive use of the power of deprivation than has been the case so far.
The problem with this Bill is that it makes a power that is already excessive even worse by reversing the decision of the Supreme Court in the N3(ZA) case. The Supreme Court ruled that a person deprived of British citizenship automatically and retrospectively regains their citizenship following a successful appeal. It is still possible, even after the Supreme Court ruling, for the deprivation order to be made and enforcement action pursuant to that order to be taken, despite the affected person bringing the appeal.
As a matter of principle, it seems to me that, given that the power of the Secretary of State is already so extensive, and in the light of the severe consequences that the exercise of that power has, it is wrong to allow deprivations which our courts have found to be unlawful to continue to have effect pending an appeal. It seems to me even more important for a power such as this that we should stick with the ordinary approach, which is that the decision of the court should take effect pending the appeal and, where circumstances justify, the Government could seek a stay—or, as the noble Lord, Lord German, explained, there could be some work around identifying the grounds on which such a stay should be granted.
Another problem with the Bill is that it creates an incentive for the Government to pursue every possible point in order to preserve the continuing effect of an order. On matters of such importance, if anything, the incentive should be the opposite.
Last but certainly not least, British children born during unlawful deprivation periods find themselves in an even worse limbo. Under the Supreme Court ruling in N3, children would acquire British citizenship if their parents’ appeal is successful, and they would do so immediately. Under the Bill, children would not acquire citizenship, even though the most authoritative determination of the law at that point would support their acquisition of citizenship. I appreciate that the consequence of the Supreme Court’s approach is that a child would be treated as a British citizen during the appeal period and that, if the Government are ultimately successful, that child would have to be regarded as never having acquired British citizenship. But, as a matter of principle, I would rather we erred by treating a non-citizen child as a citizen temporarily than by depriving a child who was a British citizen all along of the benefits of British citizenship.
I have two questions on this point which echo points raised by the noble Lord, Lord German. First, the national security reason, which is stated as the main justification for this Bill, does not apply to children. Being the child of an individual who may pose a threat to national security is not a national security concern. So what is the reason for extending the consequences of the measure to children? Secondly, would the Government be open to considering ways of mitigating the effects of the Bill on children, in the light of the fact that the consequences for them cannot be justified under the underlying justification for the Bill—namely, national security?
I do not have any objection in principle to Parliament taking the view that a law, as interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court, must be changed. It does not mean that the Supreme Court was wrong about the law. As lawmakers, we have a different perspective from that of judges. Our role is to make the law and sometimes change it, and that may at times require reversing a decision of the Supreme Court. In this case, however, I see no legislative reason and no reason of principle that justifies a fundamentally different conclusion from that reached by the Supreme Court. As for the position of the children of the persons who have been deprived of British citizenship, there is a strong reason for considering forms of mitigation.
It seems to me that by extending the powers in Section 40, as the Bill requires us to do, we are going in exactly the opposite direction of that which we should be taking, which is to restrict a power that has been on the statute books for a long time but that is way too illiberal and exorbitant.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my noble friends who have just spoken, though I do not agree with them altogether. I had prepared a much longer speech, but I do not think it is necessary, so I will make just a few points.
First of all, my noble friends are much too pessimistic and are not actually exercising the role which we have today—I respectfully include an old friend of mine, the noble Lord, Lord German, in the same comment. My observation of the law relating to the deprivation of citizenship is that it is extremely valuable that the decision is made by the Home Secretary herself. She will be advised in a proper way and will ensure that the advice is properly given.
The decision we make is about the situation we are in today; it is not about some future in which a malign Home Secretary might come into existence. I do not think it is right for us as legislators to take that view of the future, unless there is hard evidence of imminence of such a person being appointed. We can rely on our courts and on the separation of powers to protect us from that kind of situation, and indeed on lawyers such as my noble friends to be part of that protection. The legal process by which these orders are tested through the court system is extremely rigorous. SIAC has the advantage of having special advocates who have access to all the relevant material upon which the case is decided. The appellate courts act likewise, and we can be confident that courts will provide protection.
On the essence of the Bill, it is extremely important that national security should protect us from those people who have been deprived of their citizenship. That is what the Bill is about in the here and now, and in broad terms at least I fully support that aim.
As to my noble friend Lord Anderson’s question about whether we should improve the test from “conducive to public good” to a more strict test, I would like to hear the Minister’s response to that. We might improve the law during the course of the Bill’s passage by such a change, if it can be drafted.
I agree that the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation should be inserted into this process. There are two of us here who have been Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, and I can see it being something that the independent reviewer could do easily.
My noble friend Lord Verdirame made some comments about the increase in the number of cases in which citizenship deprivation orders have been made. This is actually over the period when I was Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and the period since. That is nothing to do with me—it is just a consequence of the change in terrorism and the change in the cases that we have had to face up to. It is no surprise to me that there is a need for a greater number of deprivation orders in 2025 than there was in 2007. I am afraid that that is an evolution of the very unpleasant effects of terrorism.
As for the situation with children, I would like the Minister, if he would not mind, to explain to us again the protection that children have during the period when appeals are pending. In principle, I am afraid I can see no reason why we should change an old existing situation in which there is no birthright to British citizenship applicable to children who happen to be born there. Some countries have that birthright; some countries—I can name one in the European Union—have that birthright if the father was a citizen of that country but not if the mother was a citizen of that country. There are all sorts of laws dealing with the nationality of children. I see no reason to change our law, particularly under the particularity of this Bill.
Broadly, I support the Bill. We should get it through this House as quickly as possible, so we can ensure that the measure intrinsic in it is able to protect our citizens as quickly as possible and as well as can be done.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, I enter view with some hesitation after speeches by such a phalanx of Cross-Bench lawyers. I understand the reasoning behind the Bill, as set out by the Minister in introducing it. I understand, too, that it will put us on more or less the same footing as like-minded countries. Finally, I appreciate that the Bill has cross-party support.
However, I have two concerns. The first, as I have explained to the Minister—to whom I am very grateful for his letter responding to my concern—is the implications of the Bill for children, especially children born between a successful appeal and the final determination of the case. Here, I share the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord German, and my noble friend Lord Verdirame.
Consider a child born to a successful applicant, whether in Britain or abroad. Under the present draft Bill, the child, unless born in Britain with one parent with British citizenship, will be deprived of citizenship even though his or her parent has successfully appealed against deprivation of citizenship. If the next stage of the appeal were quick, this might be acceptable, but the gap between the successful appeal and the hearing of the Government’s counter-appeal may be five, six or seven years. During that period, the child will be deprived of all the benefits of British citizenship, and if the parent and child are abroad, the child may be in a far worse situation, subject—as we are seeing in north- east Syria, for example—to illness, separation from his or her parents, or terrorist attacks.
My second point is that the obvious way forward is to speed up the appeals process. The Minister said in his letter to me:
“Provisions already exist to enable the courts to expedite such appeals … and it remains within the judiciary’s discretion to determine the suitability of such measures”.
Indeed, but five, six or seven years is too long. I understand and fully support the independence of the judiciary, but I ask the Minister at least to give an assurance that the Government’s views of the desirability of a speeded-up appeals process will be made known to the judiciary.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, this is a small but very important Bill. Most of the important issues it raises have already been spoken to by noble Lords, but some of them bear repetition.
To my mind, this is yet another Bill that, depressingly, seeks to make indents in our constitutional, judicial and democratic rights. The Bill, as we have heard, overturns the presumption that court orders take immediate effect. Clause 1 gives the Government of the day the power to overrule the court’s decisions by ignoring court rulings that have found the Government’s actions to be unlawful.
In brief, the Bill will deny citizenship to individual cases which the courts have already ruled eligible for further appeal. This denial persists until the last of all possible appeals have been exhausted, and as again we have heard, in some cases this may amount to years. Individuals awaiting appeal, and especially their children, are vulnerable, in that, in whatever conditions they find themselves, they are precluded from consular or any other protections.
In effect, this clause renders individuals stateless, and their children open to all kinds of other abuse, including forcible recruitment to armed militias from the age of 12, and/or to compulsory training camps, as happens in northern Syria. UK citizens in northern Syrian camps, for example, have already languished awaiting a court decision, and in some cases face life-threatening conditions. The Bill, given its retrospective mandate, will add years to their detention and render their children, some as yet unborn, vulnerable for years to come.
The purpose and the outcome of the Bill, to quote from a recent Reprieve briefing, is
“to prevent individuals from exercising their rights as British citizens even after the courts have ruled their deprivation unlawful, purely to maintain the Home Secretary’s unchecked ability to exclude them from the UK—however grave the abuses to which they risk being exposed”.
As we know, again, there was an attempt in the other place to introduce an amendment by Kit Malthouse, which proposed, among other elements, that a judge would be able to determine that an order had no effect during the appeal period if the individual faced a substantial threat of harm due to the order. This might be because such an order would adversely affect their ability, for example, to mount an effective defence, and/or the duration of the appeal period was excessive due, perhaps, to actions or omissions by public authorities.
Current levels of deprivation of citizenship in the UK are already very high and— again depressingly—disproportionately affect those from ethnic communities. The Home Secretary’s authority is considerable, in being able to issue an order to deprive a person of his or her citizenship on the basis simply that a person’s presence as a citizen is not conducive to the public good. There is no requirement, as far as I can tell, for judicial oversight, nor is the targeted individual necessarily informed of such a decision. Challenge at this stage is virtually impossible, as decisions are made under secret proceedings. Moreover, the current appeals system is lengthy, complicated and expensive, and certainly not easily accessed by those outside the UK.
This Bill is unnecessary. I hope very much that the relevant clauses will be challenged in Committee to ensure a more equitable, democratic and transparent procedure.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive a Front-Bench speech from the second Bench: it is for practical reasons and not out of disrespect. I knew that a one-clause Bill would not defeat the House in its determination to make varied, well-informed forensic points. For me, the phrase “deprivation of citizenship” brings back memories of my noble friend Lord Avebury—the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is grinning. Eric was so forceful and so clear about statelessness not being used as a punishment. I have often thought of him as a role model to whom I have not been able to live up.
As we saw a couple of years ago with Bangladesh, our Government’s views about a person’s citizenship do not always, as a matter of practice, align with those of the other state involved. Of course, many argued at the time of the Begum appeal judgment that two-tiered citizenship had been created, downgrading citizenship for naturalised citizens and the children of immigrants.
I have to say that I am one of those who is troubled by the phrase “conducive to the public good”. It is not for us today, as the Minister reminded us at the start of the debate, to try to open up the 1981 Act, but the term requires a value judgment. It is capable of varying and wide interpretations, and it sets a low bar, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, described it. At one point during his speech he used the term “hard cases”. I was not sure whether we were being asked to think about bad law following on from that. Why not “threat to national security”? Indeed, Minister Jarvis in the Commons really seemed to use the terms interchangeably.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, suggested that we might be able to look at some change during the course of the Bill. The Long Title of the Bill is actually very short and very unhelpful in that sense, stating that the Bill is
“to make provision about the effect, during an appeal, of an order under section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981”.
I look forward to the noble Lord’s ingenuity in seeking to build on that.
Whatever the ground, as has been said, it is not only the subject of the order who is affected, and the consequences for a child may be extreme, as we know from recent and current history. The APPG on Trafficked Britons in Syria, of which I am a member, has pointed out the risks of statelessness and the concomitant risks of exploitation and extreme ill-treatment, so let us not lose sight of the best interests of the child.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked a number of specific questions—I have seen the Minister’s reply—one of which was about the national security point that I have made. The letter also argues against SIAC having powers to suspend the effect of a successful appeal. Not quite all cases, I think, are security matters—or perhaps they are. It seems to me that “conducive to the public good” might extend that. One of my concerns is about it being a little unclear. There should be consistent mechanisms for managing all cases. The JCHR also asked about expediting appeals and the Government have told us that determinations are for the democratically accountable Secretary of State. I do not think the JCHR was actually challenging that.
I have seen a paper prepared by ILPA, the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, regarding seeking a stay while an appeal is pending or still possible and pointing out a number of procedural matters that I would have thought could be overcome. I assume that the Home Office has seen the briefing. If not, I wonder whether I might send it to the Minister. It raises points that are pretty technical, I think, and perhaps not appropriate for the subject of this debate. But, if I send it to the Minister, perhaps he could consider responding to it, via me if that is appropriate. It is not aggressive; it is pointing out problems.
Like other noble Lords, I thought that the Malthouse amendment had much to recommend it in the Commons. Kit Malthouse said that he hoped that the Minister would do the right thing. Well, if they could not, let us do so.
The Government maintain the position, not just in this situation, that it is possible, practicable and not disadvantageous to exercise legal rights from outside the UK. When I was in practice as a solicitor, from time to time I found it difficult enough to get a coherent picture from some clients with whom I was face to face—never this sort of situation. It takes time, trust, patience, skill and, of course, access, particularly with a person who has undergone, perhaps over a long period, some extreme experiences. Like others, I feel that our system, which operates on the basis that if a relevant court makes a finding in favour of an individual, that stands, unless it is stayed, until it is overturned, is the way we should continue to do things.
I have been told that the Home Secretary’s powers are used almost exclusively against individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds who hold or are perceived to hold dual nationality. I can see how that could come about. The Minister might like to comment on that because, in the current highly charged political atmosphere, we should be as clear as possible about the facts.
Apart from one point that strikes me as a very good basis for a possible amendment in Committee—my noble friend does not know this yet, because I did not know he was going to make the point, but we will discuss it afterwards—I remain with the basic principles: that no one should be made stateless; that the state’s response to allegations of threats to national security should be tried in the UK unless there are very good reasons to do otherwise; and that the best interests of the child are a priority. I use the term “a priority” as that is what is in other legislation; I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, about that—and it would be a great shame if his barony were challenged. Finally, I remain with the basic principle that the exercise of the power of deprivation should always be proportionate.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister for his clear exposition of the issue that is addressed in this Bill. I extend my thanks also to other noble Lords who have spoken this evening, albeit that some of the contributions would appear to me to go beyond the scope of the present Bill in seeking to address, for example, the amendment to Section 40 of the 1981 Act.
The Bill concerns one of the most significant powers available to the state: the ability to remove a person’s citizenship when it is deemed conducive to the public good. It is therefore appropriate that this Parliament should give the power the fullest scrutiny and that we should proceed with some caution and considerable care. However, this is not a new power. It is one that successive Administrations have exercised, albeit only in the most serious cases where individuals have posed a threat to our national security.
Some comment was made about the increasing number of instances in which deprivation has taken place but, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, observed, over the period since the provision came into force, we have seen an evolution of the terrorist threat that is faced by this country.
The right to determine the conditions of citizenship is a core attribute of sovereignty and clearly recognised under international law. Obviously, it must be exercised responsibly and in accordance with due process, but, following the recent Supreme Court judgment that has been referred to, this Bill seeks to restore the balance that was deemed to exist prior to that decision earlier this year.
The court’s ruling created a severe problem with respect to the effect of deprivation orders during an appeal process, with the result that there could be an undermining of public safety. Indeed, consequent upon the decision of the Supreme Court, where a tribunal overturned a deprivation order, that decision would take immediate effect even before the Government had exhausted their rights of appeal. I would indicate to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, that a right of appeal is not liable to take five to seven years. Albeit that we have considerable delays in the Crown Courts of this country, we have moved on from Jarndyce and Jarndyce.
Clearly, where the Supreme Court decision would have applied, it would have been open to an individual who was considered to be a serious security risk to this country to return to or enter this country during an appeal process. That would have been properly regarded as an unacceptable risk.
We agree with the Government that it is appropriate that this narrow and targeted measure should be taken. After all, the first duty of any Government is the security of the nation and the security of the people. We would champion, as do the Government, effective counterterrorism measures, including the reform proposed in this Bill.
I welcome the assurance from the Minister that the Bill does not alter the substantive grounds on which citizenship can be removed, nor diminish the right of appeal itself. It merely clarifies the issue following the Supreme Court decision. Of course, public confidence in this power depends not only on its necessity but on its consistent and judicious employment. The Government must continue to ensure that every deprivation decision is taken only after the most robust and rigorous assessment with appropriate safeguards in place. Those safeguards are in place through the application of Section 40 of the 1981 Act. I nevertheless ask the Minister to reassure us that the Home Office will continue to use deprivation powers carefully and only when there is the clearest justification in each individual case.
The Bill is not a sweeping reform but a measured correction to protect national security and uphold Parliament’s original intent with regard to these statutory provisions. It preserves our right to defend the nation state within the bounds of legality and due process. Therefore, we on these Benches support that aim. After all, the first duty of Government is to protect the nation state and the British people. There is always a balance to be achieved between liberty and security. It is never simple to achieve, but with this Bill we believe the Government have rightly struck the appropriate balance, and that is why we lend our support to it.
Finally, I merely observe that there is some constitutional significance to this Bill, inasmuch as it illustrates how our sovereign Parliament can move swiftly to reverse a decision of the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court when the public interest is perceived by Parliament to trump legal niceties.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have raised points in this Second Reading. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for their support from His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I also welcome the broad support from the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Carlile. I recognise that other noble Lords have made legitimate points, and I will try to respond to them.
I remind the House that the debate is about the very small amendment to the legislation. It is not about the principle or application of deprivation, or the numbers of people who have had their citizenship deprived. It is a response to the Supreme Court judgment and what that means in relation to individuals who could potentially return to or retain their status in the United Kingdom when the Government have, through the Home Secretary, determined, for whatever reason, that that individual needs to have their citizenship deprived. That is a very serious step for a Home Secretary to take. When the Supreme Court states, as it did in the recent case, that an individual can retain their citizenship during the appeal process, that means that the individual, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, just mentioned, will be free to remain a British citizen, with all the rights and privileges that brings, while the appeal is ongoing, unless this legislation is put in place.
The noble Lord, Lord German, in his introductory remarks, made a number of points about that. Essentially, I ask him whether he is willing to take the risk. That is the nub of the argument that we are putting to the House today—that the purpose of deprivation of citizenship being maintained during the course of the appeal procedure is so that the United Kingdom Government, the Home Secretary, accountable to the House of Commons, and me in this House, accountable for the Home Office, can take a decision and uphold it during the period of appeal. If the appeal is successful downstream then all bets are off and the individual’s citizenship is restored. For whatever reason it was originally removed, the Home Secretary’s decision has been overturned and the status quo for the individual remains. However, in the event of the individual remaining at the serious risk level that meant the Home Secretary brought forward the citizenship issue in the first place, that opens the United Kingdom to a risk until such time as the appeal is heard. This Bill deals solely with that issue. I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, said on this matter, but I put it to them and to the noble Lord, Lord German that the issue is about the management of risk by the UK Government in a limited circumstance, which I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for raising.
This has been a fair debate about what we call the “Kit Malthouse amendments”, as a number of noble Lords have raised in their contributions. It is not appropriate to confer this discretion on the courts, because it is the Secretary of State who is accountable to this House and to Parliament, through the House of Commons, for matters of national security. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, mentioned, deprivation of citizenship and national security are matters for the Home Secretary. The Supreme Court itself emphasised that in its discussion and judgment. The Bill will align the approach to asylum and human rights appeals and extend it to appeals to the Supreme Court.
Decisions to deprive are taken in accordance with our international obligations and with consideration as to whether to give deprivation will expose the person to a real risk of mistreatment, which would constitute a breach of Articles 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Home Secretary is the person responsible for that decision. I hear what noble Lords have said but that is the reason why my noble friend in the Commons, Minister Jarvis, rejected the Kit Malthouse approach, and the reason why I do so today.
Valid points have been raised. The noble Lords, Lord Jay, Lord German, Lord Anderson and Lord Verdirame, mentioned citizenship and the impact on the child. I pay great tribute to the private discussions —which are now public discussions because we have talked about them—that I had with the noble Lord, Lord Jay, because they raised an important issue. We have looked at that and reflected on it, and I hope I can give a satisfactory response to all noble Lords who have raised this question with me. It is simply this: the Bill does not alter the existing situation in relation to children born to deprived individuals, which is already established in law.
Where a child holds British citizenship, the deprivation of the parent’s citizenship has no effect on the child’s nationality status. Again, those points were mentioned across the House today. In cases where a child is born after the parent was deprived of British citizenship—another issue that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, has mentioned privately and in the Chamber today—their entitlement to British citizenship will depend on a number of factors, including the status of the other parent. The consequence of the Supreme Court’s decision in N3(ZA) is that if the child would have been British had their parent not been deprived then a successful appeal against deprivation by their parent means the child is automatically a British citizen. There are no changes in any of the principles that we have here, and I hope that reassures noble Lords on these points. Again, I am happy to reflect on that in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, made valid points on the question of the appeals procedure and the fast-track process that takes place. In answer to what I think was his pointed question to me, the Government are committed to supporting the expediting of these cases on a case-by-case basis, where appropriate, as quickly as possible. It is in no one’s interests to have long drawn-out appeals. What is the practical implication of that in relation to the courts determining the length of the appeal procedure where disagreements arise, now that courts have the power to order case management reviews to resolve issues? The current rules of court already permit the court to make directions to expedite cases if there are reasons for that to be done. The judiciary themselves are probably, dare I say it, better placed than the Home Secretary to determine and assess in each case how they can expedite those cases or not. All the factors that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, is concerned about are things that would potentially mean that a judge could determine, with “defence counsel”, that this needs to be done quickly. That is reasonable, and we want to see it over and done with as quickly as possible. We can look at the practical implications for the Government, but I hope I can reassure him on the principle.
Questions were asked about whether a person could be deported from the UK while they are appealing against the deprivation decision. In theory, it is possible for a person to be deprived of citizenship and deported before the deprivation appeal is resolved, but in practice that is going to be difficult because there will be the opportunity for people to make a human rights claim in response to the stage 1 deportation letter, and that means they would have an in-country right of appeal against the refusal of that claim if certified and a right of redress against the certification decision. It is a matter for the courts how those appeals are managed.
A number of other points were raised, including by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, about the role of the terrorism reviewer having oversight of these matters. The current situation is that the oversight for this aspect of public policy lies with the inspector of borders. They can determine their own inspection regime, if they wish to look at that. The terrorism reviewer does not currently have that role and responsibility—that is an argument the noble Lord might want to put down for debate. Should the inspector of borders wish to have an investigation on the performance of any matter to do with this—including the rights of the child, the length of the appeal procedure or the Home Secretary’s powers—they could do that, should they so wish, independently of government. So there is a sort of oversight there, but maybe not to the standard or type that the noble Lord wishes.
Ultimately, for this House—and, again, I am grateful for the support of His Majesty’s Opposition, in particular on this—it boils down to whether we are willing to take the risk. If the Home Secretary has taken advice from officials at a senior level and signed that order and taken the decision to deprive an individual of their citizenship, they have done that because there is a threat to the United Kingdom, in one form or another. If this Bill is not enacted, that threat will potentially materialise in another form as the individual will be able to restore their rights as a citizen when they appeal the original decision. This is the purpose of this Bill.
I recognise the range of points made by noble Lords from across the House on a range of issues, from the principle of deprivation in the first place to the numbers and so on, but that is the focus of the Bill and I put the question: are noble Lords willing to take that risk? I suggest that the Government are not and I am grateful to those Members who will support that position in this House today.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I have a question for the Minister about the possibility that perhaps in the future the deprivation of citizenship would be used as a prelude to deportation, even in circumstances where the first-instance tribunal had decided that the deprivation of citizenship was unlawful. It would be very helpful if the noble Lord could write to me about that.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I thought I had answered that, but if I have not answered that to the extent that I thought, I will reflect on what we have said in Hansard and will ensure that, before the next stage of this Bill, which I think is scheduled for a week today, a piece of paper in electronic or physical form lands on the noble Lord’s desk. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.