Lords Chamber

Tuesday 6th May 2025

(began 7 months ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:45
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
This This relate This relate as This relate as well This relate as well to This relate as well to the This relate as well to the next question Baroness Brown about the use of knives on our streets. The first instance is it is no secret first instance is it is no secret who carries weapons. The mothers of these kids know it as do the brothers and the people they go around with. But will they tell the police and will the police do something about it immediately? Could something like Crime Stoppers, which I try to get going before I left but couldn't, act as a good portal to make sure information is passed to the police about who is carrying knives and when and get the police out within minutes to go and find them on the tube, in the taxis or where they are travelling? Second is about the use of technology.

We are allowing officer intuition to decide at the moment where they search and who they search and surely technology by now should be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

helping them in that vital task? The noble Lord is right intelligence led policing is critical to making the best use. And search and that intelligence led policing includes methods where policing includes methods where individuals who have information can in confidence pass it to the police and the suggestions he has made are and the suggestions he has made are important. I think it will also be helpful we will have in the course
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:49
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
The government are taking a number of steps to halve knife within a decade, as part of the Safer Streets Mission. We have created the young futures program. The halving knife coalition, the knife enable robbery task force, and we are bringing in a new stronger

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legislation to crack down on the sale of and access to dangerous knives. Much of the night in my former constituency in East London was fuelled by the county lines drug gangs. And I worked with some gangs. And I worked with some amazing mums, desperately trying to rescue their children instead by the pernicious clutches of these gangs. pernicious clutches of these gangs. I believe the parents facing these circumstances need real support to help them navigate both the violence and the menace of the groomers, but and the menace of the groomers, but also the Criminal Justice Act system where they can be both victim and perpetrator.

Does the government agree? And if so, what action can we expect?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

expect? Can I first of all pay tribute to my noble friend for the work she did my noble friend for the work she did as Member of Parliament in the House of Commons on this very issue. She of Commons on this very issue. She will know that she has pressed very hard foreign offence to try and break up this issue of criminal gangs luring young people into gangs luring young people into violence and crime. And I am pleased violence and crime.

And I am pleased to tell her that, she will know, there is a new defence in the Crime and Policing Bill before the House of Commons now, which is coming to this place shortly. To ensure that we take action against exploiters we take action against exploiters and deter gangs. And ensure that we have a new offence of child criminal exploitation, and some prevention orders in place also. And I hope she will also welcome the young futures prevention partnerships, which we prevention partnerships, which we have put in place to help support both families and young people guide their way through moving out of gangs and moving out of criminal gangs and moving out of criminal behaviour.

We have also put in place, I'm sure it will be specifically of interest to her, the Metropolitan police have been Metropolitan police have been allocated £8.1 million via a hotspot action fund to include Metropolitan police officers on the ground, enabled police officer mode. enabled police officer mode. The noble Lord, the Minister, will know that there are reports of a dramatic increase in young people carrying knives. One regular basis. -- On a regular basis. This generation of young people have had a really hard time, first of all that has been a really major increase in the breakup of parental relationships in their younger years.

Secondly, in the pandemic, schools were closed, and then they have had to cope with the effect of a lot of social media. I wonder if the noble Lord, the Minister, would agree that we really ought to be thinking now of returning to some of the preventive and support services

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that we lost some time in the last decade. I am grateful to the noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his contribution. I mentioned to for his contribution. I mentioned to my noble friend the Young Futures Program, that is designed to ensure that we intervene early with children and young people who are children and young people who are facing poor outcomes, because of
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:58
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Last year, there were around 15,500 recorded offences involving a sharp instrument, and knife crime in course -- Of course terrifies committees and has legal committees and has legal consequences. It is heading in the wrong direction for the government reported in, 70% of knife offences related to children, over 99% of these were for possession alone. And one of the great issues around this of course is the glorification of carrying knives across the young people, so I wondered what the Minister might have to say in relation to tackling this glorification.

Valid point, and I look forward to him joining with the government in supporting measures that will be in supporting measures that will be in the Crime and Policing Bill that come before this House, that tackle the use of knives on social media, tackle the sale of social media, and tackle the sale of social media, and tackle the very point he made about glorification and the promotion of glorification and the promotion of knife culture. What we are trying to do was undertake a range of do was undertake a range of measures.

Some of which go back directly to interventions such as directly to interventions such as the youth futures program. Some of which go down to issues to do with which go down to issues to do with better policing in the neighbourhood policing. Some of which are around stop and search. But the big proportion is about the ban on proportion is about the ban on zombie knives, the ban of sales of knives, and the ban on social media promoting knife culture. Those things will become before this House things will become before this House very shortly and I look forward to supporting.
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:01
Lord Vallance of Balham Portrait Lord Vallance of Balham, Minister of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
-
Does the Minister agree caution is needed if public services, in an attempt to be inclusive but also save money, convey information in languages other than English which is being produced by machine translation? It works well as a standard for romance languages and for German but it is less effective for languages with many dialects like Arabic and it is currently virtually useless for languages which are Asian or African languages because they have not been used in AI training data. Is all this feeding into emerging AI policy and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prospective regulation? This is an incredibly important point. As the noble Baroness rightly point. As the noble Baroness rightly said, the AI training datasets are often not on the right things and often not on the right things and For training models in different languages and dialects. It will be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

languages and dialects. It will be very important as part of public service improvements. I thank for raising this. Yes, this is being looked at. There is a chequered history of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There is a chequered history of this Parliament and government in procurement of software to be used in various departments so can the in various departments so can the Minister kindly confirmed that there Minister kindly confirmed that there will be more rigour when procuring services to assist us in deploying
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:20
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)
-
-
If I may say so to the noble Lord, that sounds like a very dogmatic question. The fact is, you would be forgiven for thinking, for not thinking, that his party in government passed legislation, committing ourselves to Net Zero in 2050. My Lords, as for the points he makes, in relation to job, he will now in its, the CBI published a report showing the big growth in the economy, in the last year or two, has been in the Net Zero green sector.

And there are nearly a million people now employed in that sector. It is the fastest growing part of our economy. As far as the Tony Blair Institute is concerned, I am a great admirer of Tony Blair, disagreed with him on one or two issues but I would say, my Lords, in relation to the report, his was a global assessment. It recommended, my Lords, a particular emphasis on nuclear, one carbon capture usage and storage, and reform of the planning system. We are doing all of that.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, that concludes oral

**** Possible New Speaker ****

questions for today. My Lords, I thought it would be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thought it would be useful to the House to set out a plan for proceedings this Thursday, plan for proceedings this Thursday, which are slightly different to usual, to enable us to mark the eighth anniversary of VE Day, paid tribute to those who served was in tribute to those who served was in honour this week. The houseful settle as usual at a time of 11am settle as usual at a time of 11am but for prayers only, we will then adjourn around 11:05 AM, to allow noble Lords with tickets to attend noble Lords with tickets to attend the service at Westminster Abbey, that service will start at 12 noon.

that service will start at 12 noon. Noble Lords attending should make their way to the chamber for their way to the chamber for prayers, or by 11:05 to join the procession, Black Rod will give everyone a short briefing before everyone a short briefing before setting off, the house will resume shortly before noon, for the national two-minute silence to mark national two-minute silence to mark VE Day. This will be broadcast and noble Lords who wish to join should be in the chamber by 1155.

The broadcast will begin, just before 12 noon. At the beginning will be announced by the deputy speaker, and the division bells will ring for those outside the chamber, who also want to observe the silence. Once the silence has finished, we will proceed immediately to the first oral question, that will be around 12:02 PM, the first question will be asked by Lord Russell, as by Lord Khan of Burnley, after the questions are finished, we move straight onto main business, wish that day, will be the employment rights Bill, I hope it is clear how business will work on Thursday.

I've arranged for an email to be sent by myself to all noble Lords to explain this further. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This may be a suitable moment for noble Lords who wish to leave the
15:24
None Portrait Urgent Question Repeat: Government’s approach to reducing energy prices for energy intensive industries
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Questions Questions on Questions on an Questions on an answer Questions on an answer to Questions on an answer to an urgent question asked in the House
15:24
15:25
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the UK has the highest industrial energy prices in the OECD, we have discussed this many times in your Lordships house. Our prices are four-five times more expensive than the USA and sometimes more expensive than China. Without cheap energy, we are dealing and, through the back door. Just last week, on 1 May, The Times reported that between three and five British that between three and five British companies believed rising energy costs are undermining growth plans. Will the noble Lord, the Minister, please listen to advice of the industry, reconsider this accelerated plan to decarbonise the great at any cost, to prevent more British jobs being lost in a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

industries? My Lords, I do of course recognise the challenge high energy recognise the challenge high energy prices pose for UK businesses. I am very well aware the Urgent Question very well aware the Urgent Question very well aware the Urgent Question in the comments related to the company, let me say at once, my thoughts are with all those workers affected, and I know ministers are affected, and I know ministers are working very hard with the company and the industry to talk through some of those issues.

The structure we have in relation to The structure we have in relation to energy prices is the same structure as his government left when they left office last July. My Lords, we left office last July. My Lords, we know that one of the reasons, the main reason, why we have high energy main reason, why we have high energy prices is the reliance we have on international gas and oil markets. Which related back to the shock to the system from Putin's invasion of the system from Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

We believe, as a government, that the faster we move to decarbonise, the more we can to decarbonise, the more we can provide energy security. And cheaper energy. And that this, my Lords, is the best way to go forward. And if the best way to go forward. And if anything that came from the last question about the advice of the question about the advice of the Climate Change Committee, it is, my Climate Change Committee, it is, my Lords, that we cannot afford to let go to slow down in relation to climate change, we do not have that climate change, we do not have that luxury, my Lords, we need to press on.
15:27
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:35
Lord Offord of Garvel Portrait Lord Offord of Garvel (Conservative)
-
-
pricing, my lords. Because of marginal pricing, gas is most predominant and does tend to set the price. As my noble friend said, this is a system which has operated now for many years. But we are looking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

at it carefully. Questions on a statement made in the House of Commons on Wednesday, the House of Commons on Wednesday, My Lords, I will begin by expressing My Lords, I will begin by expressing my sympathy for all of those impacted by the recent blackouts in Spain, Portugal and beyond. These blackouts should serve as a reminder blackouts should serve as a reminder of the consequences when the power of the consequences when the power grid fails. Prolonged account are devastating.

The collapse of the grid in Iberia highlighted the vulnerability of complex interconnected systems which interconnected systems which underpin modern life and the profound human impact these failures profound human impact these failures can have. We must make sure this does not happen in Great Britain as does not happen in Great Britain as the economic and social consequences would be catastrophic. The government plans to rapidly build a government plans to rapidly build a grid that is dependent on naturally unreliable and intermittent renewable systems in just five years and it will compromise reliability and it will compromise reliability of electricity supply.

The stability of a grid depends on what positions know well as inertia. The ability to resist destabilising situations in frequency. It has been a key factor in the security and resilience issues. We rely on turbines and hydro and gas power stations but it is not provided for in solar and wind farm. Without an efficient buffer against frequency shifts, the grid risked destabilisation, potentially triggering a domino effect of system failures culminating in widespread blackouts. The most recent report from the Spanish equivalent highlights the risk of relying too heavily on renewable sources.

It concluded the closure of conventional power plants such as coal, gas and nuclear has diminished the balancing ability and inertia and what is deeply concerning is the same trend is occurring here in the UK. Data has shown a steady decrease in grid inertia as gas and coal plants are replaced by wind and solar. The transition carries a significant cost, which exemplifies the problems in much of the government's accelerated Energy Security Strategy. Those targets burden the British public with escalating costs, as the government pushes forward on a power system dependent on weather conditions rather than reliable, consistent energy.

Billions of pounds have been spent subsidising wind farms, expanding the grid, providing backup to reliable gas plants. The government remains determined to accelerate to their clean energy target without being transparent with the public about how it will be achieved. The lessons from the Iberian Peninsula are clear. We must maintain inertia in our grid to make sure of its stability and resilience. Gas and nuclear power is essential proper riding rye liable generation and inertia. I conclude by looking to the Minister to provide clarity and assurance.

Will the Minister confirm preparedness for blackouts? Will he recognise the role inertia plays in recognise the role inertia plays in the power system and the impact of declining inertia on grid stability? declining inertia on grid stability? Will the noble Lord the Minister recognise it is not a reliance on international gas markets that pushes the UK at risk of blackouts pushes the UK at risk of blackouts but it lie squarely at the foot of renewable sources which cannot abide reliable baseload electricity.
15:38
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
-- Provide.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lord the Minister for the statement on power outages across the Iberian Peninsula. Our thoughts are with the 55 million people across Spain, 55 million people across Spain, Portugal and parts of France who were affected. The statement is correct to highlight the resilient correct to highlight the resilient nature of Great British Energy. I do welcome the fact that there is a continued, we will continue to improve our resilience and make sure improve our resilience and make sure we have robust energy systems and we have proper systems in place.

We noted a similar event in Great Britain, a total loss of power is Britain, a total loss of power is listed as a national risk register of high impact but a low likelihood event. It is reassuring to hear the event. It is reassuring to hear the Minister has been in regular contact with the system operator and is working closely with industry to maintain resilience of energy infrastructure. I also welcome the fact the government is taking fact the government is taking forward the recommendations from forward the recommendations from previous exercises.

As the Minister noted, the exact reasons behind a power failure at this time remain uncertain. We have noted that , examining the causes. The truth is there were probably several interlinked events that caused this power outage. Sadly despite this, despite the fact the causes at the moment are unknown, this information is already erupting with some attempting to immediately blame the use of renewable energy. We echo the call of the Spanish Prime Minister to call out against this information.

Ministers have been quick to -- some people have been quick to dismiss renewables as the cause. Newspapers are already launching more incorrect editorials attacking the net zero policies. In the first four months of this year, more so than in the whole of 2024. I take the opportunity to ask the Minister, what actions is the government undertaking to improve communications, and also to actively Counter Disinformation Unit this space? What this incident does highlight is the importance in investing and upgrading in the national grid.

As we transition to clean energy, a closely synchronised system must happen between building grid capacity and developing clean power. The grid must be designed and invested in adequately at the right time, at the right volume, as renewable energy is added and as demand for electricity grows. Significant investment, some 77 billion in the next five years, to increase the levels of electricity, yet the UK is lagging behind with infrastructure spending only 25p for every pound spent on renewable sources. What measures is the government taking to ensure that investment in the grid is keeping pace and meeting the investment required? Can I further ask about transformers after the fire at Heathrow? It has come to my attention there is only one factor in the UK that produces these in the UK that produces these bespoke pieces of kit.

And for waiting times of up to 24 months, it is crucial to make sure the grid continues to work. Can I ask the Minister to have a look at the transformer capacity issue? We must learn any lessons but a baseless rush to blame renewable as part of a rush to blame renewable as part of a culture war helps nobody. Enabling the resilience and security of the the resilience and security of the energy grid is paramount. We must focus on the facts and invest strategically in the infrastructure.

strategically in the infrastructure. We must counter harmful this information to deliver a secure, affordable and clean energy future.
15:42
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)
-
-
I thank the noble Lord for their comments first of all. Can I also join with them in expressing my sympathies for those affected? I'm glad to hear that power has been fully restored across the region. As noble Lord suggested, there is a review the Spanish government is undertaking. We do not yet know the outcome. I would suggest it is best to wait for the review before we can look properly at any potential lesson or impact on our own system.

Clearly it is entirely understandable that noble Lord should raise issues about how resilient our own grid is. My Lords, the Secretary of State has been in regular contact with the National Energy System Operator over the past week. They have provided reassurance that there is no increased risk to our energy supplies from that particular incident. My Lords, the intervention of the noble Lord did not come as a surprise to me. What I not come as a surprise to me.

What I would say is this. We still believe that the best way to secure energy independence is through clean power. Indeed the Office for Budget Responsibility has assessed in responding to future price shocks, it could be twice as expensive as the direct public investment needed to reach net zero. On the issue of inertia, I hope I can provide some reassurance here. The system monitors the condition of the electricity system to make sure that there is enough inertia and reserves to manage large losses.

System inertia is a kinetic energy stored in the spinning part of the generator connected to the electricity system. If there are sudden changes in frequency, these part will carry on spinning and slow down that change. System inertia is a bit like shock absorbers in a car suspension. They dampen the effect of a sudden bump in the road and keep the car stable and moving forward. In the context of renewable energy, we have introduced new technologies such as flywheels to increase inertia, establish new commercial mechanisms, to procure these on the GP system, as more non-synchronised generation is built, and we build up a proportion of the energy mix.

They have also introduced innovative approaches to manage system stability. The system is designed, built and operated on in a way that can cope with a loss of key circuits and all systems minimising the risk of significant customer impact. As Lord Russell suggested, a similar event which impacted in Great Britain would be a national power outage, a total loss of power across the whole of Great Britain, this risk is listed on the National risk register as a high impact but low likelihood event as the noble Earl said.

The great British national electricity transmission system has never experienced being shut down or anything on the scale seen in Spain over the past few days. Nonetheless I accept as a responsible government we must prepare for all eventualities. On the issue of transformers, I do take the point of the noble Earl that they are clearly an essential part of the supply chain for the energy sector. We are due to receive an interim report from the review about what happened at Heathrow and I think it is due today.

We will study that carefully and if it has implications in relation to transformers, we will consider this carefully. The noble Earl mentioned exercise mighty oak. Let me say that this was clearly a valuable exercise undertaken by the last government. We are committed to continually work to implement the continually work to implement the I think as far as the grid is concerned, I very much take the noble Earl's point, we know the grid needs extending. In the first instance, we are reforming the instance, we are reforming the prioritisation of connections, so, my Lords, that will bring those projects which are absolutely projects which are absolutely thought to be able to come forward immediately.

Rather than having applications which are not going to applications which are not going to go anywhere. But of course, we also recognise that with connection reforms are a critical enabler for our clean plan for 2030, and we our clean plan for 2030, and we expect this will bring around £208 investment network in project build, by 2030. Will the Minister except they are an essential tool in balancing the UK electricity network capacity, the availability of a significant additional number of pumped storage hydro schemes and will he urged GB Energy to accelerate the pumped storage projects currently under consideration and reconfigure grid capacity to facilitate this?
15:48
15:49
15:50
15:51
15:51
15:52
15:52
15:53
15:53
15:54
15:54
15:56
15:57
15:58
15:59
16:00
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)
-
-
I agree with him, we need to get on with it. I hope and expect we will have some decisions very soon my Lords, I hope that will set the foundation for future investment in the SMR program. So, a the issue of west London, my Lords, he is absolutely right to point out the challenges there, the fact that we basically inherit a system where there hasn't been insufficient investment in the grade at local distributions network. My Lords, I distributions network.

My Lords, I think in relation to Heathrow, let us wait the interim and final us wait the interim and final reports of the review to see what we have established and the lessons that can be learned. But, as I said that can be learned. But, as I said to the noble Lord Russell earlier, the fact is, we expect there to be a major investment in our whole grid system, between now and 2030. It will be essential in order to meet will be essential in order to meet our clean power targets.

My Lords, I think that will give confidence to the industry to invest in the areas the industry to invest in the areas we wish them to do so. My Lords, as to the question asked by the noble Lord Berkeley on solar panels on the roofs of houses, will he also look at priority for putting the solar panels on the roofs of shops, supermarkets, warehouses, quite often one goes into an industrial estate and you see a lot of flat roofs, but no solar panels for sexually, that is a much better option in locating solar arrays on top class agricultural I totally agree and these are the matters being discussed in government at the moment.

On farmland, he knows that if we achieved the whole of our solar ambition, we would not use more than ambition, we would not use more than 1% of agricultural land. So we will 1% of agricultural land. So we will Of solar on agricultural land. But I want to see a development, a much greater development in industrial premises and domestic houses as well.
16:02
16:03
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)
-
-
I congratulate the noble Baroness on her being a grandmother. Again. I think it is absolutely right. There is so much misinformation about this, appearing in social media and the media generally. We are doing our best. Sometimes governments are not listened to as much as we would wish. There is no question that some wish. There is no question that some of the criticism that is made in regard to energy prices is put at the door of net zero.

But actually it is because of the uncertainty and the volatility of international gas the volatility of international gas markets. There is a lot we need to markets. There is a lot we need to do collectively to get over the reality of why climate change reality of why climate change presents such a threat. Why unless we tackle these issues we will continue, probably to have high continue, probably to have high energy prices. Why we need to adapt energy prices.

Why we need to adapt and mitigate as fast as we can. My and mitigate as fast as we can. My Lords, I don't have easy answers but it is a matter we are giving great consideration to. Resilience is something we are always in the process of making. It requires emerging technologies. Nuclear energy can be much safer and cheaper than uranium or plutonium- based energy. China and India are leading the race and I have never seen the word thorium in any UK policy documents to do with long- term supply of energy.

Can the Minister say what investment the UK government has made or intends to make in thorium-based technology?
16:05
16:06
16:07
16:08
16:09
16:09
16:09
16:10
Lord Black of Brentwood Portrait Lord Black of Brentwood (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

declared. My Lords, it is a pleasure to introduce this important group of amendments on pet ownership. A subject of concern and interest to hundreds of thousands of families living in rented accommodation and desperately wanting to share their life with a pet. I am speaking to amendments 180 and 125, also supported by Mike noble friend Lord Lexden and Baroness Jones. I am also grateful to my noble friend Baroness Coffey for adding her name to amendment 125, as a former DEFRA Secretary of State with a long- In and commitment to animal welfare, she brings great authority to this debate.

I also support amendment 190 and 126 in the name of Baroness Miller of short form. To which I happily added my name. I will declare my interest as a patron of international Care. I am grateful to Battersea dogs and Cats home. Cats Protection and other charities in the sector, I'm grateful to them for their support and for the briefing they provided us, as well as other organisations who have shared crucial research on the benefit of pet ownership and does so much for animal welfare.

Let me set out the background to these amendments. We are a nation of pet lovers. Around 13.5 million UK homes include a dog. 12.5 million include a cat. Unfortunately however, pet ownership is all too often limited to those who own their own house. Causing anguish to the millions of families who rent but also want to share their lives with a pet. In 2024, Cats Protection found more than 500,000 households who would like a cat do not have one because of their rental agreement has forbidden it.

Research from Battersea shows only 7% of private landlords left their property as pet friendly, a very low number when you consider 76% of tenants already own or aspire to own a pet. Correcting this imbalance is important and that is for a number of reasons. There is the obvious link between rental restrictions and pet homelessness. With housing issues cited as the second against reason why pets are relinquished to The equivalent of three cats were taken in each day because landlords would not allow them in their properties.

Part of a wider crisis in pets having to be given up. At second reading I told the story of a cat that arrived in Battersea 24 hours after his first birthday after owners were faced with the heartbreaking choice between finding an alternative rental property or giving him up to shelter. His story is not unique. Across the UK thousands of animals urgently need loving homes, yet countless people are being unfairly prevented from adopting or finding suitable housing because of restrictive tenancy agreements.

It is not just pet to suffer as a result. Public health is suffer as a result. Public health is Has found pet ownership saves the NHS about £2.5 billion per year. With pet owners making 15% less visit to a doctor. The physical benefits of walking a dog or running every day are obvious but those of us who own pets know it is the mental health and well-being aspects Pets provide companionship, loyalty and particularly for those of live alone, helping them to meet new people and add structure to their day and offer unconditional love and support.

Children also benefit from understanding the responsibilities of caring for dogs or cats and learning how to safely interact with animals. Pet ownership is relevant to this debate and it is also often indicative of a responsible, reliable tenant. Research from Battersea shows 75% of landlords surveyed did not observe any discernible increase in wear and tear in their property due to pet ownership. I am delighted the government is committed to encouraging responsible pet ownership across the private rented sector. I support the ambition of this section of the bill.

Providing tenants with the right to request a pet. Which cannot be unreasonably refused by a landlord. The probing amendment I am proposing today seeks to tighten up certain aspects of legislation to guarantee the pet provisions in the bill are as effective as possible, and the ambition and clear intention of the legislation is fully realised. But we are not there yet. As it stands I fear there are loopholes and landlords will have too much room to deny most requests.

Risking unnecessary burdens upon tenants, the ombudsman and ultimately the courts. The amendments tabled will provide certainty with tenants and clarity for landlords and ensure this bill is not a missed opportunity to unlock thousands of homes for pet owners across the country. Amendment 118 first of all, at the moment the bill drafted as at the moment does not state that once consent is granted it will remain for the duration of the tenancy. Causing obvious anxiety and uncertainty for pet owners.

This simple amendment makes sure a landlord may not review or withdraw consent once given. It was one originally proposed in the other place during the passage of the previous bill on rental reform by the honourable member for Greenwich Now Minister for Housing and planning. During his time as the shadow housing minister. He was absolutely right. Without such provision families with pets remain in an ongoing state of housing and security, with a threat of eviction always looming round the corner. I understand the effective outcome of allowing pets for the duration of a tenancy could be est down the line.

But only as a result of time- consuming, costly litigation. I don't think that is satisfactory. It places the unfair burden of seeking redress on the tenant. As to the workload of the ombudsman, it stretches an already overloaded legal system. Far cleaner and fairer to incorporate such a protection to incorporate such a protection Amendment 125, the bill quite rightly as to lift the ban, with tenants the right to request deliver the pet. It does so by preventing landlords " Unreasonably refusing such a request".

But again, that report is a troubling degree of uncertainty into the system, it gives far much opportunity for landlords to deny requests, the provision allows landlords to reject the tenants requests simply based on personal preferences, such as a dislike of dogs or concern about noise for instance, without needing to provide any clear justification or evidence to support their refusal. Some landlords have not tried to hide their intention to do so. Before this legislation is even passed, landlord groups have outlined their plans in public forums, to exploit its loopholes specifically referencing this section of the bill.

They have listed potential reasons to deny requests, to include the risk of property damage, noise levels, and issues with antisocial. This will result in frequent disputes between tenants and landlords, again, placing the burden on tenants, potential pressure on the ombudsman and ultimately the courts, to sort out something which we could do so easily and cleanly in this bill. The amendment therefore simply look to amendment therefore simply look to include guiding principles on what constitutes unreasonable refusal, in response to a tenant's request to keep a pet in privately rented property.

It builds on the experience of countries like Canada, France, and Sweden, where similar legislation has been implemented with success. These countries have stricter regulations, which exceed the protections outlined in our current bill, including clear criteria for what constitutes unreasonable refusal. I understand unreasonable refusal. I understand we cannot feasibly detail every reason for refusing a pet request, my Lords. However, a middle ground between the current situation, which offers no guidance at all, and attempts every possible scenario, is entirely practical and proportionate.

I think the clear guiding principle in this amendment enabling tenants to understand their rights and landlords their obligations achieves that. My Lords, this important bill has the power to transform the experience of private renting for many thousands of families. But only if we act now to strengthen this legislation. Tenants and landlords need clear, fair rules that reflect this reality. Without them, there is a real risk that pet homelessness could only grow. We have the opportunity to unlock have the opportunity to unlock millions of homes for pets and pet owners across the country, so that owners across the country, so that no tenant will ever again have to face the heartbreaking decision of choosing between their home and choosing between their home and their pet.

I very much look forward their pet. I very much look forward to the debate, and hearing the Minister's reply. In the meantime, I beg to move. beg to move.
16:21
Lord Lexden Portrait Lord Lexden (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed,", page 13, line 12, insert at the end " Landlord may not withdraw consent once given."

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am always glad to support my noble friend, Lord Black. With whom I have worked with closely on many subjects over many years. Long ago, when we were both in the Conservative search department during the general election campaign, we circulated a briefing note to the party's candidates, telling them what they would need to telling them what they would need to do, to win the support, great and do, to win the support, great and small, if these creatures had the vote, and I cannot remember if we included rights for pets in rented property.

It would have been a grave property. It would have been a grave lapse if we had omitted them. Milos, my noble friend's amendments do not my noble friend's amendments do not contain a hint of opposition to the government's proposals relating to pets. They seek to make the good relevant elements of this bill even relevant elements of this bill even better. The amendments have two better. The amendments have two objectives, to strengthen the legal protection that the bill confers on pets, and to increase the well-being of people in rented accommodation, who wants to keep a cherished pet.

These objectives are intertwined. A These objectives are intertwined. A , shows that pet in a property lead to contentment and better disciplined lives. The upshot is tenants who keep pets are likely to seek long-term tenancies, something that benefits landlords by increasing rental income security. Surely, my Lords, we should, through this bill, do all that is possible to prevent responsible people in rented housing being denied unreasonably the opportunity to have a pet or pets, which those who owned their homes enjoy automatically, particularly at a time when successive governments failed to ensure the provision with sufficient new housing for private ownership.

It is a sad and deeply regrettable fact, a significant proportion of landlords, as my noble friend has explained, are resolutely opposed to the presence of pets on their properties. A 2021 survey, on behalf of those excellent charities, the Dogs Trust and Cats Protection, found 1/3 of private landlords currently refuse to allow pets in their properties are not prepared to reconsider their opposition, they must be expected to go to all possible lengths to try and flout the pet ownership provisions of this bill.

So, nothing could illustrate more clearly the need for stronger legal protection, than the bill currently provides. This could be achieved through my noble friend's amendment, to define more firmly and tightly the circumstances which request to have a pet in rented property could be rejected. In the absence of a more precise definition, what would constitute acceptable grounds for a landlords acceptable grounds for a landlords refusal, disputes will inevitably proliferate. A lack of clarity and proliferate. A lack of clarity and Law leads to problems, as we have seen in certain contexts recently.

Opaque law cannot be satisfactory Opaque law cannot be satisfactory law. So, my Lords, I hope the government will give a very careful consideration for these important and constructive amendments. and constructive amendments.
16:24
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Portrait Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to amendments 119 and 126 in my name, two of the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, has added his name. The provisions of my two amendments provisions of my two amendments simply mirror the provisions in amendments 118 and 195, so they will apply to superior landlords, as well as landlords. A superior landlord is the person who, for example, owns the block of flats. It's the person that has a greater interest in the tenants than the immediate landlord.

And I declare an interest, as I have been affected twice recently by the superior landlord being in a position to deny any pet ownership. I fully agree with the excellent introduction from Lord Black of Brentwood and all the points he made. But if this provision isn't added to the bill, I fear it will completely undermine the government's very good intentions, which we support, in bringing forward remark clause 12, because the position of this. Downloadable almost always override the landlord.

So, the interest I quote, I will give us examples, the first time was when, during COVID, rented out my flat. The family who rented it wanted to adopt a cat. The rules up applying to the block of flats set the pets cannot be kept. I as a landlord was happy the family adopt a cat, the superior landlord rule for the block forbade it. I'd really recently, this year, my husband and I have bought a flat, but even as owners, we are subject to a rule that was a period landlord has to give permission for a pet.

This means a lot of uncertainty for the vendors and others, while a period landlord decided if we could keep our 15-year-old dog or not. If the government succeeds in changing the position for renters, it absolutely must address the issue of superior landlords and their ability to block any pet ownership. If the government do not address this, the likelihood is the good intentions behind this closable fail -- behind this clause will fail for the because the legal , they don't have a contracting relationship, legally no proclivity of contract, with a period landlord, unless there is direct agreement.

At this could mean that enforcing writer obligations become very difficult if the issue lies with the difficult if the issue lies with the superior landlord, rather than the superior landlord, rather than the immediate landlord. So, I look forward to hearing the Minister's forward to hearing the Minister's replied to this issue. Because I fear that otherwise, as I said, the good intentions of clause 12 would be totally undermined.
16:27
Lord Howard of Rising Portrait Lord Howard of Rising (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, may I declare, I am not quite sure the Minister said earlier, but I would like to declare an interest as a landlord of a rented property. Appetite to speak to amendments 122 and 123 and my name in this group. All of these amendments seek to highlight where pets could be unsuitable in a rented property. Although, as I have already said earlier, during this committee, that I, as a landlord have never refused a pet. That having been said a blank cheque for pets is not practical.

Amendment 120 would allow landlords to reasonably refuse their consent to a pet if the allergies from that pet would have a negative impact on a landlord's employees, managing agents, or other related persons, including future tenants. Those who suffer with allergies, this is a very serious matter and can have a debilitating effect. And is not always possible to remove allergens through standard cleaning. We have already and heard about the allergies from peanuts et cetera, that can kill. Well, the allergies from pets are not so serious, but they are very serious for people who do suffer.

Amendment 122 will allow landlords to reasonably refuse their consent. To a pet. If they reasonably believe it is unsuitable for the property, may cause a nuisance to neighbours or may damage the property. Or place an unreasonable burden on its upkeep. Wooden floors get scratched, carpets get stained, if they are still there. When pets are involved, flooring almost always needs to be replaced, when a tenant's year ends. Some may consider this reasonable wear and tear, others may not. But it is certainly a much greater cost when there have been pets in a property and it is an important factor to consider.

Not every landlord is in a position to always replace everything. Every time there is a new tenancy. Of course, some pets are capable of causing more damage than others and some properties are easy to upkeep than others. I think there should be some leniency, some leeway, for landlords who know their properties to make a judgement on this. Amendment 123 follows on from this and seeks to exclude pets which are inappropriate or disproportionate in size or number. I realise there will be difficulties in defining this.

Our five Doberman pinscher is more or less suitable than 25 Fox Terriers? Nevertheless, as the bill stands, I am not clear whether the landlord will be clear to make a judgement. Which most noble Lords will agree will be very sensible. That a great Dane could not be housed in a studio flat. Or that 50 cats could not be flat. Or that 50 cats could not be kept in a small terraced house. Given the difficulties, would the noble Lord, or Baroness, the Minister, consider making it clear Minister, consider making it clear that the landlord does have or should have discretion to make sensible decisions to the benefits of residents, neighbours and the of residents, neighbours and the
16:31
Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Earl of Kinnoull (Crossbench)
-
-
I speak to 124 which is in my name and I do declare relevant interests earlier. The amendment is very simple. It is about putting social tenants in the same place as private rental sector of the bill has become an act. And what was interesting to me was a copy of the letter I received from the dogs trust earlier. The dogs trust had written to the Deputy Prime Minister in March this year and had proposed more or less the same thing, well exactly the same thing, so I am sort of looking at the crib sheet for the answer that has come back.

The first part of the answer is commendable. It says the Government understands that pet ownership can be hugely beneficial, bringing joy to owners and supporting mental and physical health. And I can only agree with that and in the readings of various parts of the process of this bill, it has been eloquently and frequently said how important pets are, and certainly speaking as a Scottish landlord, both personally and a charitable trustee, I very much believe that we strongly support the concept of there being a much more presumption that pets are allowed when people are renting properties.

The letter went on to make two points. The first we did not feel was correct because social tenants was a separate policy area. Of course it is all still in H the LG and I do feel that someone standing at a bus stop in England would scratch their head about that particular one and why unless someone living in social should be in a different place to someone living in the private rented sector. It is a distinction without a difference.

The second part of the letter went on to say various reasons why it might be reasonable for social housing to say no, and all of that amounted to a certain limit of reasons why it might not be reasonable for a pet to be allowed in a particular property. Of course, that is already how the bill is drafted. It is possible for the landlord to say that a particular pet or series of pets should not be allowed in their rented accommodation as long as that is reasonable.

It is reasonable for a landlord to say no, and so I do not quite see what the logical force of quite see what the logical force of that is, because the social housings sector would retain that right to say. We therefore urge the Minister to reach across the current law at MHC LG and accept what has become a very popular amendment.
16:34
Baroness Fookes Portrait Baroness Fookes (Conservative)
-
-
I wish to declare an interest in close connections with various animal charities and in particular as vice president of the RSPCA nationally the president of one of those branches. I too want to speak to amendment 124. Eloquently introduced. I see no logic whatsoever, and I think to make a distinction in the way that it has been done is what I call civil service shortsightedness. And I strongly disapprove of it. I can see no logical reason whatsoever for treating people who are renting their properties differently, simply because they live in a slightly different type of property.

I do hope that the Noble Lady the Minister will look very carefully at this and come to a different conclusion. May I just broaden it out slightly to look at the various amendments which are gathered together in this group. It seems to me that while the heart is in the right place, and I give due credit to the Government for introducing this general right to have a pet, for which I have long campaigned, I do think it fails slightly in not laying down the circumstances clearly enough.

So that it leaves the opportunity for some landlords to squeeze past what is clearly intended and on the other hand it could make for some difficulties if the tenants themselves are unreasonable. I would suggest that the Noble Lady the Minister could look at ringing forward some Code of Conduct that would act as a guide for all of these varying points which have been made hitherto. Like a highway code. Not necessarily having the force of law to look for guidance.

Were these tricky problems can arise. I hope that will commend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

itself to the Noble Lady. I rise to speak to amendment 124
16:37
Earl of Caithness Portrait The Earl of Caithness (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 124 in the name of my Noble Friend. He apologised to the House for not apologised to the House for not being here. He hope to be here, but a long-standing commitment has prevented him. Of course, my Noble Friend is absolutely right. Pets can be extremely beneficial and are a great asset to many households, but great asset to many households, but my Noble Friend Lord Howard, I right in saying there needs to be a balance and it cannot just be an open door for tenants to have a pet as and when they want it however well or badly that behaves.

Amendment 124 refers especially to cats and I was actually quite surprised my Noble Friend did not mention cats. He mentioned dogs, he give them a good writer, but he did not mention cats. Probably he knew that I would raise the point that cats are killers. They have many assets. I love them dearly. But let out of the House on the loose, they are killers. They kill roughly 162 270 million animals every yeah also 1/4 of those are birds.

But I wonder how many of your lordships walk up early on Sunday and listen to nature's greatest symphony, the dawn chorus. It was well dawn chorus day. And we like all songbirds, they are hugely under threat from all sorts of areas. But they are also under threat from cats. There are certain measures that cats can have their owners take to make their pet less harmful towards other species. But Brits are not terribly good at doing that.

In fact, in Germany, they have also found that some of the Germans are not terribly good and they have made an order in some parts of Germany that during the summer you have got to keep your cat indoors all the time. The amendment I am talking to is very tightly drawn. It allows a landlord to say no to a tenant having a cat if it is close tenant having a cat if it is close to an area next to the wildlife, I remember speaking quite often during the process through the Parliament.

Or a designated area close to it. In other words, what we are talking about are our key nature sites. The SSRIs, the national nature reserves, and nature reserves. And one is not allowed to have a cat if it is within a mile. Why a mile? The reason is the research undertaken at the request of songbird survival, by the University of Exeter. That has the University of Exeter. That has found that cats can roam over 1,000 m which is just about 1 mile.

And they have also found through research that urban cats behave differently to the periurban cats which are much more open to stray further and have a different attitude and natural instincts than cats in urban areas because of the restriction that those in urban areas do not have. Similarly, I think it is entirely reasonable that we should encourage landlords to say yes, but it is equally entirely reasonable that we should allow landlords to say no in certain circumstances.

I believe that nature needs protecting in this country. Not only does it need protecting, it needs encouraging. And if one of those small ways to encourage nature is to say no to a tenant having a cat, in an area that it is very close or part of, the national nature reserve, I believe that to be the right step, the protection of nature rather than the protection of the will of an individual. the will of an individual.
16:41
16:42
Lord Hacking Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-
I think my Lords this has been a very interesting fate and I have none of the expertise of the Noble Lord who spoke to us now about cats. At this stage I should be declare my interest already in the early days of this committee. It is very simple that my wife and I, for almost the last 30 years, by accident, actually, are the landlords of five one-bedroom flats in the next house. We speak of pets, and while normally households has there pet, either a cat or dog, there are extraordinary households who have a Havana of pets, a snake, for example, or a monkey, or indeed a parrot.

And it is with some relief, I look now at the terms of the act itself, going back to the section 16 of the Housing Act we find on page 21 of the bill under subparagraph two, that pet is described as an animal, that pet is described as an animal, so on that basis it talked to pirate, or indeed a snake, does not fall under these provisions and the assumption therefore is that the landlord is entitled to say no snakes, if he needs to, although it is hardly necessary, one hopes, to a talkative parrot.

One of the things that is important to establish our the reasonable grounds that a tenant can refuse, sorry, a landlord can refuse to permit a tenant to bring a pet into the property, and therefore the amendments moved by the Noble Lord Howard of rising, 120 going down to amendment 123 are very helpful. I suggest that they are condensed if this amendment is going condensed if this amendment is going to be pressed, and if not I suggest that they are condensed into a single amendment.

But it is very helpful to know that Michael and I have always refused to allow tenants to have a pet in the House, a dog or a pet, because we have been concerned about the disturbance of other tenants, a dog barking, for example, and have been concerned with the damage that a pet can
16:45
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
create in the household. And therefore with that background it has been very helpful to identify circumstances in which it is circumstances in which it is reasonable or unreasonable for a reasonable or unreasonable for a landlord to refuse a pet. It continues to be a very interesting debate. I do not know if Kate will debate. I do not know if Kate will educate us further on cats, but educate us further on cats, but Lord Black did cover the amendments thoroughly, I have a daughter who has recently taken the tenancy of a has recently taken the tenancy of a House and she has children and a dog and two cats, it was difficult for and two cats, it was difficult for her to make sure that they could live together.

I can understand that live together. I can understand that there are a lot of people who would have to lose their pets and I think that is an incredible shame. I would that is an incredible shame. I would like to thank dogs trust, and Bassett dog home for their briefings and work on this, which were very thorough. Amendment 118 would provide security for pet owners, knowing that once granted, consent cannot be withdrawn. If this was tabled in the other place by the current Minister, I am assuming he is going to accept this amendment and the noble Lady, the Baroness, will tell us that today? Amendment 25, 125, which I have also signed, would go a long way towards ensuring that blanket no pet policies cannot continue because, what we see, and continue because, what we see, and what Battersea home described, is the second most common reason pets the second most common reason pets are given up to Battersea is because are given up to Battersea is because of rental restrictions.

It does seem extremely hard. Although I do not have pets, I understand the value of them to people in all sorts of ways. them to people in all sorts of ways. I do hope we can have some success with these amendments. with these amendments.
16:47
16:48
16:50
Lord de Clifford Portrait Lord de Clifford (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to speak on this group, mainly in support of amendment 124. I wish to note my entry in the register of interests, I am a part owner of a large veterinary practice with a significant portion of our turnover generated from pets. Before I speak specifically, may I say I welcome this clause in the bill as it will increase number properties that tenants can keep pets out. With the growing number of owners in the past five years, it is welcome.

However, we care for pets and how we value the companionship has changed significantly in the past 10 years, that is why the clause is so important. We must be aware that there are many in society who are allergic to pets, find them scary, and make them nervous, especially children. Those who do not like pets, therefore, through this amendment, we need to ensure that we find a balance between landlords, tenants, and pets and others in tenants, and pets and others in society.

As previously spoken, this amendment gives access to all tenants, regardless of being in a private rental sector or social housing. This gives the right to request permission to keep your pet regardless of the landlord. This Bill is improving the opportunity for tenants to keep a pet, surely this amendment will create A-level playing field between the local housing sector and private landlords. Social housing is the most place for people to go first, seeking to find a home for their families.

This has been drawn to my attention by a TV advert white homeless charity, I quote, new polling results show the consequence of the housing crisis. 50% of those surveyed reported being in a situation where they are forced to choose between remaining with the pet or accessing a home. This situation is ever present within the last oddments, 43% of respondents experienced the challenge of finding a House that allowed pets, it is amplified for those between the ages of 18 and 24, therefore, to ensure that the private is not...

To ensure the private is not forced to take up all of the housing needs for pet owners, I hope this amendment is considered by the government, surely it is not reasonable to allow... Surely, the reason for not allowing pets in the home is the same for a private Arnold as a social housing. Turning to other amendments, I support 118, a landlord cannot withdraw consent. If a pet is causing an issue, this will surely be covered by other sections within the Bill and the landlord could terminate a tenancy using anti- social as a reason.

This amendment ensures that pet owners, once allowed... Once a pet is allowed in the home, it cannot be forcibly removed. Amendment 119, I also support, all properties, regardless of who the landlord is, can be asked by the tenant to have a right to keep a pet. Like social housing amendment in 114 -- 124, seeks to increase the number of properties available to tenants and ensures that all landlords are obliged to the request of the tenants to keep a pet.

Amendments 125 and 26 fried clarity -- provide clarity. This clarity can only help with negotiating between landlords and with regards to keeping a pet and hopefully the solution will be found quicker with less bad feeling between the two parties. With this clarity, it will reduce the number of cases that can be referred to other authorities, to decide if a landlord reasons for objections are reasonable. I look forward to hearing the comments on these amendments.
16:54
16:55
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, the provisions relating to tenants keeping pet might seem like a small aspect to some, but its impact on the well-being and lives of millions of renters cannot be overstated. We, on these benches, warmly welcome the intention to make it an implied term most assured tenancies that landlords cannot unreasonably refuse a tenant request to keep a pet. We support many of the amendments in this group with the exception of one to -- 121, one to two and 123.

For too long, a blanket ban has been a source of stress, pain in the sense that this ever-growing group continues to be treated as second-class citizens. And that includes those social renters, we commend the noble Earl's amendment on this issue. Indeed, research estimates that pet ownership contribute considerable savings to, for instance, the NHS, each year, potentially as much as 2.45 billion annually. Across the UK, through reduced doctor visits, it is wrong that the joy and benefits that a pet brings should be restricted to only those who are fortunate enough to own their own home.

We have heard compelling evidence illustrating the scale of the issue, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, I thank them for their briefing on this issue, has highlighted that housing concerns are the second most common reason why dogs are relinquished to their care. I should add, even though I am here in fear of The Earl of Caithness, I would like to add my thanks to Battersea Dogs and Cats Home for our own rescue cat that we got from Battersea, he brings us daily joint and kills a lot of rats.

Despite 76% of private tenants owning or aspiring to own a pet, only eight% of landlords advertise properties as allowing pets, this creates difficulty for renters, forcing them into, as we have heard, heartbreaking decisions. Clauses 10, 11, 12 and 13, which introduce the right to request a pet, and allow landlords to require insurance, still, we feel, leave further questions about the practical implementation. Sources currently suggest there is no readily available insurance products, specifically for tenants to cover potential pet damage.

We welcome some of the amendments on this issue. We look forward to hearing from the Minister about any clarification on that. Organisations like Generation Rent argued the existing tenancy deposit should be sufficient to cover the damages, we must ensure the Bill does not disadvantage the most deprived renters. Perhaps exploring alternatives such as allowing for a higher deposit or different insurance mechanisms like the Scottish model of an additional deposit. I look forward to hearing from the noble Lady, the Minister, on this issue.

Crucially, the bill states that consent cannot be unreasonably refused. However, what constitutes unreasonable is not, as yet, we feel, clearly defined. We need reasonable grounds for refusal to be set out, perhaps, with a bit more clarity. Ensuring fairness and consistency in decisions, especially if the proposed ombudsman service or the courts are involved. A particularly troubling aspect is the exception allowing superior landlords to override a landlord's approval for pets. This risks undermining the spirit of the legislation, especially for tenants in blocks of flats or leasehold properties where management companies or freeholders might maintain blanket bans.

We, on these benches, support noble friend, Baroness Miller, in her amendments to seek greater clarity on this issue in amendments 119 and 126. This exemption should be removed to ensure the right to keep a pet applies consistently across all applies consistently across all types of rented homes. My Lords, the practicalities, such as the proposed timeframe for landlords to respond to requests, also might need some scrutiny or simplex ability, Battersea... They have suggested that a shortening of this time might be an idea.

Whilst the intention is commendable, reflecting a much- needed shift towards acknowledging the important role that pets play, there is evidence that renting to tenants with pet can be commercially beneficial for landlords with pet owners tending to have longer tenancies, averaging 24 months compared to 21 months for those without pets. Pet owners are also often willing to allow more regular inspections or consider covering additional costs. Whilst concerns about damage are understandable, about damage are understandable, most evidence suggests that these fears can be exaggerated.

As other the noble Lord and contributing organisations have highlighted, some refinement, in our view, is needed. We must ensure the provisions are not only well-intentioned but genuinely effective in practice, providing clear rights for tenants whilst addressing the legitimate concerns. We look forward to hearing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If I may very briefly intervene,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If I may very briefly intervene, I agree that people with pets benefit from having them and I guess the landlords that do not like pets are going to have to put up with it are going to have to put up with it and that seems fair enough, I guess. No point intended, what a legal can of worms we are opening here. What is a pet? I disagree with the Noble
17:01
17:02
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
This section of the bill is set to introduce some significant changes affecting the rights of renters. The rights of landlords. And the nature of the relationship between those of the relationship between those two parties. And we need to consider these provisions. And the amendments to them, I believe, with particular care. Amendments 118 and 119 tabled by my Noble Friend of Brentwood and by my Noble Friend of Brentwood and the noble Baroness Miller of North the noble Baroness Miller of North on do seek to have consent withdrawn by a landlord once it has been by a landlord once it has been granted.

This proposal presents some challenges, as far as we can see. challenges, as far as we can see. And may benefit from a more considered approach. It poses a risk to landlords when taking on a new to landlords when taking on a new tenant because it raises the prospect that they could be time themselves into a contract whereby themselves into a contract whereby there would have no right to remove in future a dangerous, aggressive, or damaging animal from their or damaging animal from their property.

These amendments also suffer from the way that they have been drafted in their opinion. If required, would the be obliged to seek consent again from their landlord, or would it be the case that the one issuing of consent would cover all future acquisitions? If a tenant was granted consent for a goldfish, does this amendment really seek to assume that the consent is also automatically granted if the same tenant decides to buy an Irish wolfhound? Amendment 120 tabled by my Noble Friend the Lord Howard of Rising addresses that fundamental question of proportionality which I have referred to several times throughout my remarks on the bill.

The amendment rightly seeks to protect beyond the immediate term and ensures they will be able to make full use of their property after the tenant has left. If you landlord reasonably believes that pet could limit their use of their property into the future and thus reduces utility and value, to surely reasonable to allow the landlord the discretion to protect their asset and the health of their family and that of future tenants. I Noble Friend that Lord Howard of rising takes this responsible approach further, in the amendments 121, one to two, and one to three, which would provide the landlord with the capacity to refuse consent if a pet was a dangerous wild animal.

If a pet risked causing damage or disruption, or if a tenant wished to keep an inappropriate number or size of an animal in any of their properties. These amendments do not only preserve the balance of the renter/landlord relationship, but they also help to ensure safety, protection from damage, and well- being of both the landlord and the tenant alike. The bill, as it stands, creates huge risk for landlords. And they could enter a contract with a tenant who could bring an unsuitable, untamed, or even dangerous animal onto their property, without the capacity to refuse.

These amendments are sensible opportunities to address this risk. Moving on to a man must want to fork to five, and want to six, tabled by the noble Lords, these seek to clarify unreasonable circumstances for pet refusal. Including in Social Housing Act and I think this is an extremely interesting amendment from that particular point of view. Outlining these conditions could make the law clear there in our opinion in application, although it is right that this should not come as the expense of the landlord to safeguard and utilise their property.

For instance, these amendments attempt to prevent a landlord from refusing to consent to a pet on grounds of pre-emptive concerns. For this amendment to balance out with respect to the rights of the landlord, surely it is reasonable to support a further amendment which would allow a landlord to withdraw consent once provided if there pre- emptive concerns do, in fact, turn out to be valid. We also have some concerns over the vagueness of that language used throughout these amendments.

For instance, referring to a generalised fear of damage to the property and generalised concern over animal. I think the House would benefit from further clarification about what these specific steps are that a landlord would need to take to move from generalised to what would be considered a valued concern under the text of this amendment. Finally, turning to amendment 126 Finally, turning to amendment 1268 tabled by my Noble Friend the Earl of Leicester and introduced by my Noble Friend of coldness, this amendment is a very sensible proposal, designed to build consensus and clarify points of concern over the scope and the definition of the terms used by the Government in this bill.

Amendment 124, I think, is a national, if not an international debate. And although I understand my Noble Friend is concerned, I think this is probably a debate that is wider than this particular bill. We must always remember that this is a bill that will be used to govern a series of relationships which involve possibly millions of people throughout this millions of people throughout this country. We have a duty in this place to make sure the law is as clear as possible and the relationship we create between a tenant and landlord is one which is tenant and landlord is one which is fair and mutually beneficial.

We need to make sure that we create need to make sure that we create market conditions in the rental sector, which ensure a steady sector, which ensure a steady supply. If landlords start to pull out because of vague and out because of vague and overburdened regulation, the process will go open the choice for renters will go open the choice for renters will go down. This is not an outcome the Government once and it is not an outcome that will promote and protect renters rights.
17:09
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Can I to thank all of the animal charities and organisations who have helped us with this section of the bill? And I know that other noble Lords have really appreciated the briefings that those organisations have sent out. Can I thank the noble Lords Lord Black of Brentwood, the noble Earls, the Earl of Leicester, and ably moved by the own of coldness and the noble Baroness lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer for all of the amendments. Very thoughtful amendments in relation to pets.

And I also thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate today. Before I go into the detail of the amendments, can I reassure noble Lords how much I truly realise the incredible importance that pets hold in people's lives and confirm that it is in recognition of that the Government has included additional pets in the till. The noble Baroness Lady Scott just mentioned that balance. And we have tried really hard on the bill to get the balance right between wanting tenants to be able to have the right to have a pet and making sure that landlords have their responsibilities and their property recognised as well.

I would like to thank the Noble Lord black and the furnace and other noble Lords for their recognition of the intent of pet provision in the bill. No one once to see people having to give precious pets, just because of Of their housing. And Of their housing. And to Of their housing. And to respond Of their housing. And to respond to the Noble Lord Inglewood, a do not think I would actually make it compulsory to keep pets, although I took on board the Noble Lord black and the noble Baroness brand as comments about the impact on people's health.

I think if you were allergic to pets that might be a different issue, but if they were to make it compulsory, we have no intention of doing that. Amendment 118, tabled by the Noble Lord Black of Brentwood six to ensure that once a landlord has granted consent for a tenant to keep a pet, then consent cannot later be withdrawn. And the noble Lords have mentioned my honourable friend that Minister Penny cooks advocacy of this issue. I wish to reassure noble Lords that when a Noble Lord gives permission when a Noble Lord gives permission to have a pet, that consent is binding and cannot be revoked.

I would say with the exception of if there is a case in the very rare occasion when that becomes an antisocial behaviour issue, and it might. But apart from that it cannot be revoked. This is because once permission is given, it forms an implied term of the tenancy agreement. This is an unwritten contractual term that tenants can rely upon as it is legally binding. Any attempt by a landlord to withdraw consent once given would therefore be unenforceable. This principle will be clearly outlined principle will be clearly outlined in the accompanying guidance to ensure clarity for both landlords and tenants.

Given this, I do not believe it is necessary to add further provision to the bill will stop us doing so would introduce an unnecessary complexity into legislation that is already clear on this point. The bill is designed to create that fair and workable system for both landlords and tenants. And adding an explicit provision where the legal provision is already established would have the potential to risk confusion and unintended consequences. And in the light of that I hope the Noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.

I would like to thank the noble I would like to thank the noble And amendment from 19 And amendment from 19 which And amendment from 19 which seeks And amendment from 19 which seeks to ensure their superior landlord cannot unreasonably withhold consent when a request is made to allow a tenant to keep a pet. While I understand and sympathise with the intention behind it, I do have some concerns about this. This amendment, if accepted, could lead to significant legal uncertainty. Many superior leases, include absolute prohibitions on pets.

And introducing a reasonable task could conflict with existing contractual terms which are legally binding on both parties. I do intend to look at any data that might be available and the extent to which this might impact, but I would say also it could place a considerable burden on the immediate landlords who would be required to engage with those superior landlords, often based overseas or are difficult to contact, before responding to a tenant's request. That can cause delays, additional legal costs, and the kind of practical difficulties that the noble Baroness outlined herself in her own case, and I would say that I do hope that her permission is forthcoming for her dog.

But for these reasons I do not believe the amendment is proportionate or necessary and I do hope the Baroness Lady Miller and the Lord Black would consider withdrawing this amendment. I thank the noble Lords for amendments 120, 122, 123. Amendment 126 to allow landlords to refuse pet requests where they recently believe the pet may have a negative impact due to allergens on a range of individuals, including themselves, their employees, agents, neighbours, and even future tenants. While I understand the intention behind the amendment, I must express concern that it would significantly broaden the scope on which landlords could refuse consent.

The bill already allows landlords to refuse permission where there is a legitimate concern. And guidance will make it clear that health- related issues, such as severe allergies, can be taken into account, where medical evidence supports this. And there is a genuine and ongoing concern to health. However, this amendment would go much further, in particular the inclusion of future tenants introduces a highly speculative element. Allowing landlords to refuse a request based on the hypothetical scenarios that they never arise. This would give landlords an effective veto, entirely undermining the legislation, which aims to strike a balance between landlords and tenants.

For these reasons, do not believe the amount is necessarily proportionate and I hope the Noble Lord will consider withdrawing that amendment. Amendment 1226 to allow landlords to reasonably withhold or withdraw consent for a pet introduced me tenancy where it is deemed unsuitable for the property, may cause nuisance, or Mayoress property damage or unreasonable upkeep. While I understand the noble Lords intention to provide clarity I must respectfully say that this amendment is not required. The bill already permits landlords to refuse their consent on reasonable grounds which are best judged by a case-by- case basis.

I know the Noble Lord black recommended some guiding principles around this and the noble Baroness folks I think all that I think a highway code of guidance. And we will be providing guidance alongside the bill to give examples of the type of situations in which it might be reasonable for a landlord to refuse or withdraw their consent to a tenants request to keep a pet. This will support both landlords and tenants without restricting flexibility in legislation. There is also the risk that listing specific reasons in the bill may unintentionally narrow the interpretation of what counts as reasonable, excluding other valid This could become a means for landlords to encourage tenants to leave, I do not consider the amendments necessary and I hope the noble Lord will consider drawing it.

Amendment 1236 to clarify that a tenant cannot keep an inappropriately sized audition fortunate number of animals in a property without the landlord's consent. In our view, this amendment is unnecessary, the Bill requires tenants to gain written permission from landlord to have a pet in their home. Landlords can refuse permission for such requests when it is reasonable and decisions are best made on a case-by-case basis. There are too many variables for the government to set them out in detail within the legislation.

However, in our view, landlords are likely to be able to refuse the request in situations where a pet could not be kept safely in a property, that would include if the animal is too big or if there are too many of them. I would therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I would like to thank the noble Earl for tabling amendment 124, I recognised the important role that domestic pets play in people's lives and I do agree with the noble Earl and noble Baroness, and my noble friend, that social tenants should not face more rigorous conditions around the keeping of pets because of their tenure of housing.

And the important role that pets play in people's lives. Many social landlord already set out the pet policies within the tenancy agreements. And having tenants to keep pets where appropriate, providing they are well cared for and not negatively impact neighbours or the wider community. I remember when I was a counsellor, somebody in my ward came to say that something was keeping five dogs in a flat. Would I look into this because they were worried about the welfare. The dogs were not causing problems but they were worried, when we went into having looked, in fact, the dogs were exceptionally well cared for, very happy, well looked after, I do think...

I am making the point because it depends on a case-by-case basis how this is dealt with. We encourage all social vinyls to adopt similar policies to ensure a fair and consistent approach, however, I acknowledge the significance of the points raised by the noble Earl. I will reflect on these, I will be happy to discuss the issue further, I said that ownership should not depend on the tenure of the property, I mean that and I will give further consideration to the important issue that noble Earl raises in his amendment.

Therefore, for the time being, I hope the noble Earl will consider withdrawing that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. I wanted to give it my munition

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wanted to give it my munition to the Minister, looking here, of course, at a website to do with MHCLG, which talks about the one MHCLG, which talks about the one team approach, which they are engaged in, included in the one team engaged in, included in the one team approach, the first key principle is joined at delivery. I feel this is a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

strong case for A1 team approach. I thank the noble Earl for those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Earl for those comments, as I say, I am happy to have further discussions with him and take this important point back. and take this important point back. Amendment 124 would address grounds Amendment 124 would address grounds for vandals to refuse consent for a tenant to make a cat -- keep a cat tenant to make a cat -- keep a cat when they are in one-mile of a protected site. The government recognises the importance of recognises the importance of protecting biodiversity and environmentally sensitive wildlife areas.

However, we do not believe that such a blanket provision is necessary or proportionate in the context of this legislation, nor is it fair and tenants. Passionate affair on tenants. The framework set out already allows landlords to refuse consent where it is reasonable. The amendment would create an automatic exemption covering a significant number of properties near protected sites across England and Wales Cricket Board was of the tenants circumstances, or willingness to access. It would not affect anybody who is a private owner in the area.

It risks introducing an overly rigid restriction, undermining the aim of promoting fair and balanced access to pet ownership. Also, thinking about seeing tracking devices... Sometimes put on cat collars, how extensive their daily travel can be, I think the noble Earl referred to the extent of cat wandering, it would be very difficult to keep track on that for different places in different areas. It also places an unreasonable burden on landlords, requiring them to assess environmental designations and the distances between a property and a protected site, matters outside of the typical response butties.

For these reasons, I do not believe the amendment is necessary and I hope the noble Earl will consider withdrawing. Whilst I understand the intention between -- behind amendment 125, I do not believe it would be practical for the government to specify every scenario in which landlord could or could not refuse to... A request to keep a pet. There are too many variables to account for. The specific circumstances of the tenant and landlord, this amendment seeks to outline certain circumstances that might be deemed unreasonable when in landlord refuses a request to keep a pet.

However, the inclusion could inadvertently lead to any circumstance not explicitly included in the list being presumed reasonable by landlords, this could create unintended consequences, limiting sex ability, making it more difficult to fairly assess cases. The question of whether it is reasonable, as I said before, is best determined on a case-by-case basis, in most instances, this will be agreed upon between the landlord and. There will be guidance available on this. Where disputes arise, they can be resolved by the ombudsman or the courts, which will be better placed to consider the individual facts of each case.

It is important to note that landlords will always retain the ability to refuse permission where a superior lease prohibit pets. This ensures landlords are not placed in a position where they are forced to breach legal obligations. Given the safeguards, do not believe it is necessary to introduce additional provisions that could add rigidity to what should be a flexible and case-by-case approach. In light of this, I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing the amendment. Amendment 126 seeks to define specific circumstances in which it would be considered unreasonable for a period landlord to refuse consent for a tenant to keep a pet.

Such as personal opinion, the general fears past, and related experiences. Whilst I understand the intention behind this, I must resisted on the grounds that it could complicate the existing proposals necessarily, the government position is that superior landlords should retain the ability to refuse consent, without needing to justify the decision, particularly given the practical challenges involved in engaging with them. In many cases, superior landlords are not part -- based in the UK and that can make medications slow, difficult and costly, acquiring them to provide reasons risks drawing immediate landlords and their tenants at a prolonged and expensive legal or administrative processes.

The bill is designed to improve fairness and clarity, without overburdening parties with obligations that might be difficult or unrealistic to meet in practice, that is why I will look into the quantum that might be involved here and come back to noble Lady on that. For these reasons, I do not believe the amendment is proportionate or necessary and I hope the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing. I am grateful to the noble Earl for bringing forward amendment 126 and bringing forward amendment 126 and 124, amendment 126 would seek to place a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance on what constitutes a reasonable refusal of a pet.

And require consultation with annals before doing so. I recognise the intention behind this proposal, to provide greater clarity and insurance for landlords when considering requests, the concept of reasonable refusal is, by design, flexible. It allows landlords to take account of specific circumstances of each tenancy. What is reasonable in one case might not be reasonable in another. I assure the House that we will be publishing guidance and to help landlords and to understand how the provisions should work in practice.

However guidance of this nature should not seek to cover every possible circumstance, it will provide examples but it is vital that landlords retain the ability to exercise reasonable judgement based on individual cases. I do not believe the MM is necessary and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hope the noble Earl will consider withdrawing. I'm grateful for the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful for the noble Baroness for hard apply, -- her Baroness for hard apply, -- her reply, could I clarify one issue, if reply, could I clarify one issue, if a tenant wants to have a pet, that has got to be a written agreement, has got to be a written agreement, has that got to be a written agreement for every pet orders a pet cover a multitude of pet?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cover a multitude of pet? I think my assumption had been it was a pet, but I will come with a written answer on that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

written answer on that. It is relevant, because perhaps I
17:26
Lord Black of Brentwood Portrait Lord Black of Brentwood (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is relevant, because perhaps I want to take... Rent a property, and I am allowed a dog, and I have a I am allowed a dog, and I have a female dog, and she has puppies, I have now perhaps got 10 dogs in the House, but the agreement was that I should have one dog. Do I have to go to the landlord and say, I have got nine more dogs? But they will be on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a temporary basis, how does that work? I understand the issue and will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

respond in due course. My Lords, I am grateful to all of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am grateful to all of those who have taken part in this those who have taken part in this debate on this group of amendments, I knew it would be an interesting debate, and so hit has proved, I did not know, until we have the not know, until we have the appearance of Wilberforce the snake, it would be quite so wide-ranging as it has been. That has been the case. One interesting thing about this One interesting thing about this debate about Committee stage is that usually there is some disagreement with what the government has tried to do, has not been any disagreement today with what the government has been seeking to do here, we are just been seeking to do here, we are just seeking to make the noble intentions as effective as possible, I am pleased that the noble Lady the Minister responded in a constructive and positive way.

As Lord Lexden said, and opaque law cannot be satisfactory. The speeches from Baroness Miller and others have undermined that point -- underlined that point, there are too many uncertainties as things stand. In that most precious of relationships between a human and a pet, there does need to be certainty. This debate has brought that out. My anxiety is that some of the amendments that we have talked about, seek actually to employ more loopholes into the bill.

And given a nod greater power of veto and I'm disappointed that my noble friend, Baroness Scott, has fallen into the trap. I thank the Minister for her comments, which are very constructive and positive. She has talked a number of times about guidance, first of all on the issue of consent and withdrawal from consent, I am not a lawyer, I do not pretend to understand the intricacies of the contractual obligations she has been talking about. But I'm pleased to hear that they will be spelled-out in a campaigning guidance.

-- Accompanying guidance. I wonder if she would be prepared to talk to the animal charities involved in the sector about the drafts of the guidance and guidance on the refusal of consent. Those are going to be very important documents and I think that those who have got day-to-day practical experience of the problems that arise would be very good people to consult. I know that we will be grateful to her for saying that, on the issue of superior landlords, she will look at the quantum of data.

Perhaps she could do that before we reach report stage. And let the noble Lady, Baroness Miller, have that, and we can discuss further if there is a need for further amendment. Finally, the Earl of, the amendments have had strong support from every side of the House, the right to own a pet should be universal, it should not be dependent on the type of property that you live in. Very grateful to the noble Lady, the Minister, foreseen that she would look further into this and give consideration before report stage.

On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendments is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 119, Baroness Miller? Not Amendment 119, Baroness Miller? Not 120, Lord Howard, and advised.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 121, One amendment 121 seeks to probe

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One amendment 121 seeks to probe and address the inadequate definition of pet within the bill, definition of pet within the bill, something that has already been mentioned by a number of noble Lords
17:31
Lord Howard of Rising Portrait Lord Howard of Rising (Conservative)
-
-
during this debate. Part one Chapter one clause 12 section 2 inserts the following definition into section 45.1 of the 1988 Housing Act. Pet means an animal By the person, mainly for personal interest, companionship, ornamental purposes, or any combination of those. My amendment 121 seeks to probe whether pets that are considered dangerous and/or wild animals under the dangerous wild Animals Act 1976 or dangerous dogs act 1991, should be counted as pets.

Of course, this might sound like common sense. But I not convinced that under the current drafting of the bill, landlords would not be forced to consider giving consent for unsuitable, and in this case dangerous, animals. These acts already govern the keeping of dangerous animals, but it is good practice to ensure legal consistency, and it is not clear how they will interact with the bill before us today. For example, the dangerous wild Animals Act of 1976 does require a combination to be suitable as regards construction, size, temperature, lighting, ventilation and adjoining and cleanliness.

If a landlords property happens to fit that will, does this mean they would be considered a pet by the definition of this bill? As we will hear in the next group, we will hear in the next group, damage insurance is problematic, as it is for standard pets. Will any insurance provider give cover for the damage that could be caused by a dangerous animal? If the fact that an animal is dangerous and wild can be a reasonable ground for refusal or false outside the definition of a pet, would not be simpler to make that explicit by reference to an existing definition already in legislation? Why should landlords be required to make independent assessments to justify their refusal? The dangerous dogs act 1991 is another example.

It bans the keeping of specific breeds without an exemption certificate. And creates offences for dogs that are out of control, would cause injury or death. Again, it is unclear in this existing legislation interacting with this bill. If the owner of a band breed had an exemption certificate, body land will be able to refuse the animal in their property? Likewise, if a dog had been deemed dangerously out of control or injured someone, what risk would dispose to the landlord? There property agents and others who need access.

What risk would be considered acceptable if any? I hope that the noble Baroness the Minister can answer these questions. I have put to her. And clarify this. If she put to her. And clarify this. If she needs to write to me to any of them, I would be very happy to receive her later. And I would later reassure her that this amendment, along with others we will debate today, are being considered as they should be. Next movement. Proposed a clause 12 page 19 line 36, insert the words as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

listed on the Marshall list. My Lords, what is a pet? It is a pretty central question to everything we are discussing. Now, some of you will remember there once some of you will remember there once was a parrot, a Norwegian blue, to be precise, a very sick parrot. In be precise, a very sick parrot. In fact, so sick he was a deceased parrot. At least that is how his new owner perceived it. And no amount of kneeling that did Polly's feet to the perch could change that.

How we the perch could change that. How we miss Monty Python. The perceptions, rather like recollections, may differ. If this bill's definition of differ. If this bill's definition of a pet depends almost entirely on a pet depends almost entirely on perception. And I suspect it is likely to cause quite a few likely to cause quite a few feathers, so I put down to amendments, 131, and a consequential amendment 132, to prod and probe. First, as we have instructed, I should declare my interest as a pet owner, Percy is a rescue cat, a very happy puss, and he has trained my family exceptionally well, so well that if that I would ask mice family who they love more, me or Percy, I would soon be looking for lodgings.

As the explanatory notes set out, Not landlords not to unreasonably withhold consent for tenants to have pets. Despite the split infinitive, I would have thought that was the right target area. Legislation based on what is reasonable. The bill goes further. It howls at the moon in trying to define a pet. And it does this enable very peculiar manner. By defining a pet not for what it is but for how it is perceived. And it offers three definitions, as my Noble Friend has already pointed out.

A pet is defined as an animal kept one, for mainly personal interest, two for companionship, three, it is number three that mostly concerns my amendment. An animal that is kept mainly for ornamental purposes. It is a definition I think that we should
17:38
Lord Dobbs Portrait Lord Dobbs (Conservative)
-
-
consider getting rid of. What is a pet for ornamental purposes? Take a calf, for instance. Right now, the beautiful pastures around my home in beautiful pastures around my home in Wiley are filled with a number of calves. They are so cute and cuddly and grandchildren always want to and grandchildren always want to take one home, but I think we can agree that a calf is not really a agree that a calf is not really a pet. It is a would-be Carl.

Except it would seem to fall directly under it would seem to fall directly under the bill's definition of a pet. One, it is personally interesting to my it is personally interesting to my grandchildren. It is companionable, grandchildren. It is companionable, particularly as long as you have got some milk candy, and three, it is ornamental. The triple whammy. I remember Margaret Thatcher once remember Margaret Thatcher once cuddled a calf. I was with her in cuddled a calf. I was with her in Suffolk on the election trail in 1979 when she picked up this 1979 when she picked up this terrified young animal and embraced it.

Did the fact that she found it personally interesting or exceptionally ornamental and, as it happens, amazingly photographic, make it a protected pet? Could she have taken it home? Apparently, the daily Mirror appeared in 50 good to let them know if the poor thing died. Can you imagine the headlines? Maggie Thatcher, calf Archer. I digress. The problem is that once you try to define what a pet is or is not, in the way that the bill attempts, you start with a cat's cradle of confusion and end up with a dogs dinner.

People nowadays get very protective about their pets. And very litigious. We need to take care. Traditionally, working animals and pets have been regarded as separate categories. Not always, of course, it is not always clear cut, take Larry, the Downing Street cat. Isn't a working animal is not supposed to keep the place free of vermin? Good luck with that. Ever since the prime Ministers claim at his party conference that his main mission in life was to free the sausages, do you remember that? I suspect that Larry's been working even harder trying to track down all of these missing sausages.

But it is the third category that has really got me wondering. Clause 12, line 19, the defines a pet as an animal that is kept for ornamental purposes. Forgive me, but what does that mean? I am confused, does it mean, for instance, an Excel bully dog? Told that many owners got them as extremely attractive. It must be the way they smile or drool. But does that give a tenant unequivocal right to keep them? Does the landlord have no right to refuse? Even if keeping such animals might well cause fear for others, like their neighbours who have children, or who only own a small dog or cat.

As my Noble Friend has so eloquently pointed out, pet owners rights can become another pet owners nightmare. I should, perhaps, point out and for the purposes of this discussion I have decided this week to self identify as a two-hour, so hand on heart, poor on prostate, these definitions are barking mad. I really do not want to end up as breakfast for the next doors bully dog. No matter how cute he looks. Wouldn't it be simple enough, simply to require both tenant and landlord to be reasonable in their specific circumstances? The Noble Lady the Minister keeps coming back to the concept of people being reasonable, and it is a much stronger concept it seems to me than tying ourselves in knots, trying to define what a pet is in the ways that the bill currently attempts.

Our laws should offer clarity, not confusion. But no matter how hard we try to nail these definitions to the pouch, they are going to make about as much sense as a dead parrot, so there probably is not in the bill, but in that great Parliamentary literary in the sky. I would like to request the Noble Lady the Minister to go back and have a much closer look at the definition of what is a pet.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, firstly, I would like

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, firstly, I would like to declare my interest as a landlord of private property. It is becoming
17:43
17:44
17:45
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
Can I thank the noble Lords that have taken part in this very engaging debate? And particularly I thank my Noble Friend Lord Howard of Rising for bringing amendment 121 to the attention of the House today. And also to my Noble Friend Lord Dobbs as he has such a wonderful way Dobbs as he has such a wonderful way To highlight the To highlight the importance To highlight the importance of To highlight the importance of legal consistency, we have already discussed definitions during the passage of this Bill, I think we will discuss further definitions as we move forward with the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Howard, was right to draw attention to references to existing terms and legislation. We have particular concerns, as my noble friend, in what the government means by ornamental purposes., We question what this could entail, what consequences might be, sorry, I should say, how the tribunal judges are expected to interpret the meaning. Equally confusing is the inclusion of personal interest, although a colony of termites might sound unlikely, people do keep all kinds of pet and it is very possible scenario I would suggest, beyond weakening the structure of any property, such issues, we believe, could undermine the foundations of this Bill.

The government must address these concerns and compile a watertight definition to ensure that landlords are not forced into this situation. The definition is important and we must get it right, important and we must get it right, if the government cannot provide a clear and straightforward definition, this issue will continue definition, this issue will continue to rise repeatedly. And I hope the government will address these government will address these concerns and engage with us also concerns and engage with us also that we can get a meaningful...

A straightforward definition which straightforward definition which will, my Lords, ensure clarity, to Chloe if these go to tribunal's or court in the future. court in the future.
17:48
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I thank the noble Lords for the amendments relating to the definition of a pet. And to the noble Lord and noble Baroness and others for their comments on this debate and I think, even in these short debates that we have had this afternoon, we have seen the benefit that a House can add to legislation, including probing intensively a definition but, in the entertaining nature of the speeches, we are privileged to listen to. I thank Lord Dobbs for his entertaining intervention.

Amendment 121 seeks to allow landlords to withdraw consent for a pet if it is later found to be a dangerous animal. Under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. Or in breach of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. What I support the principle that animals posing a serious risk to safety should not be kept in rental properties, this amendment is not necessary, the keeping of Dangerous Wild Animals Act in licence is already prohibited under the 1976 act and the 1991 act imposes strict controls on specific dog breeds.

I presume that includes the XL bullies that were mentioned by the noble Lord. These laws already provide local authorities with sufficient powers and we would expect a request for a pet that full-size side that the solution to give 9/11 a strong case. Local authorities have powers to act and the amendment would duplicate existing protections and introduce unnecessary complexity into the Bill. For these reasons, we do not consider the amendment necessary and I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing.

Amendment 131 seeks to remove the line in clause 12 that includes keeping animals for ornamental purposes within the definition of a pet. Amendment 132 is consequential, I do understand this is a probing amendment, intended to seek clarity on the scope of the term pet, like the noble Lord, and watch Monty Python again, but I must respectfully resist these amendments. The line in question, referring to animals kept for ornament properties, is a deliberate and important part of the definition, it does not refer to dead parrots, but it does ensure that the bill captures a broad and inclusive understanding of what a pet might be, reflecting the wide range of animals people might choose to keep in their homes for companionship or decorative enjoyment and are not sure whether Wilberforce the snake was decorative, ornamental or a pet, but enjoying some body else company.

Removing this provision could risk narrowing the scope of the definition, creating legal ambiguity and potentially excluding animals which are commonly accepted as a pet such as fish and birds. To support implementation, the government will provide guidance setting out examples of instances where animals are likely to fall into the definition of a pet. I hope that will help to ensure consistency and clarity for both tenants and landlords, without placing restrictions on primary legislation. It is important to repeat that landlords are only required to agree to reasonable requests, a car that may grow into a cow is unlikely to be reasonable in a small flat.

I do not consider the amendments necessary and I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As my amendment also alluded to, the government definition of a pet the government definition of a pet is very broad and open. Although I believe that the Minister's remarks believe that the Minister's remarks were helpful. As we have heard, from my noble friend, the definition
17:52
17:53
Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Earl of Kinnoull (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I write to move amendment 127 and speak to amendment amendment 127 and speak to amendment 128, 129 and 130. I remind the House of different interests this time. I am I a director of Alpha insurance, which operates around £1 billion of which operates around £1 billion of premiums. I had shared ownership. The thrust of everything in this bit of the Bill is all about pets and I'm keen on pets in general.

Being in houses, as I pointed out, my Scottish interests, pets are usually allowed. When I looked at the insurance provisions, I was looking, of course, with a professional I come a very carefully, and I wanted to try and tweak for separate areas which I felt all needed something. First, proposition that the tenant would buy insurance and then that would be alright. Second, the proposition that the landlord could buy insurance, and build that back to the tenant, third, the possibility of aligning the England and we small, what happens in Scotland, where I have a lot of experience, and fourth, the issue of the definition of the word premium.

Where we have had many arguments in many jurisdictions over many years. I apologise in advance for disagreeing with counsel on that. Turning, therefore, to amendment 127, which is the first of those things. There is no market today for insurance where a tenant goes out privately to buy insurance. There certainly will not have been a single cent of premium written in the UK market up to 31 December last year, nor in any of the continental European life insurance markets that I am extremely familiar with.

There are now one or two products which appear on the market which provide some sort of partial cover, I am going to try and describe some. I am grateful in saying this, to the Department, and people supporting the noble Lady, the Minister, we have had quite a funny tour around this, we even had one exciting moment where an insurer who I never heard of, who turned out to be an insurance company of recent formation, was keen to sell insurance to British people weather would have been no protection of the financial services compensation scheme, no protection of the insurance ombudsman, let alone all of the tax and regulatory problems with an ankle insurer trying to settle a claim in the UK.

Leaving aside that insurer, they have been one or two insurers who have come along. They only want to ensure against accidental damage. However, against accidental damage. However, it is dressed up, I should say, when talking about insurers, it is important to understand the difference between the insurance carrier, who takes the bet, and the insurance intermediary, who is putting exciting things to try and putting exciting things to try and entice you. These are insurance intermediaries and there is only one carrier at the moment and that carrier is under half the size of a legal minimum for an insurance carrier and does not appear on the...

On the list of allowed insurers that major brokers have, it is not appear on any of those lists, it is exceptionally small and very it is exceptionally small and very weak. The problem with the cover that the three policies that appear online at the moment is that they are limited to accidental damage. Accidental damage is defined as unexpected damage which happens suddenly and has not been caused on purpose or inevitably. Now, I am immediately thinking that does not sound like very good cover, the other one goes a lot further, talking about the policy, it is not for damage caused by everyday wear and tear, for example the dog scratches at your door every day, that is not covered.

If a pet. The curtains but causes damages to a wall, this would be covered. This is vanishing small percentage of the loss cost. Most of the losses pets will be to do with chewing, or infestations and I am looking at my noble friend, Lord Trees, in the hope that he will tell us about infestations later on. The difficulty with trying to legislate so that a landlord can say to somebody, you can only have a pet as long as you buy a policy of insurance, and they be knowing actual policy of insurance that exists, no reasonable one, that is sometimes what I would call an Italian torpedo.

An Italian torpedo was a legal trick where you started a case in a different jurisdiction in order to slow everything down and the initial case never got decided. It would mean that the landlord could ask a tenant to go and find insurance he knew did not exist and the pet would never be allowed into the property. That is not the intention of this Bill and it would be wrong, therefore, select this option go forward. Which is why amendment 127 seeks to get rid of that option, it is not a probing amendment, it is a real amendment.

I want to talk about amendment 129, appeared a bit out of order, this is a probing amendment and covers the second issue on insurance, whether the landlord could buy insurance. Here I am more hopeful, I should point out, this type of assurance does not exist at the moment. But I have spoken to the underwriting managers at least two of the big players in the UK markets and I did leave those conversations feeling like it was possible that this type of insurance could come into existence and, in fact, just pursuing the internet, there is evidence that it might.

It is going to start with the accidental damage problem, so it is not a complete cover, landlords might not choose to exercise that option, as it does not really exist, but I feel it is unfair to ask landlords to the market to buy insurance. And they might not want to. The insurance would be terrible position where a landlord is being asked about a pet, the tenant cannot buy the insurance because it does not exist, or not in original form, the landlord also cannot buy insurance because it is in the early stages, I thought I should stay on the statute book because I do believe something helpful might come out of it.

I think what will come along is the type of insurance that would sit, for a small time, above the deposit I thought that 129 is a set of suggestions to increase the understanding of that option and about how much insurance the landlord might reasonably ask the tenant to therefore because that landlords cost of insurance is built back to the tenant. The financial million pounds with it would cost a lot of money which is not right, so the six months.

Moving on to amendment 128, which is also a probing amendment, in Scotland, of course, this is forward in my direct experience this is coped for by simply having a larger deposit. The deposit in Scotland is two months. I have earned a two months down which is why I have gotten to increasing the appointment to eight weeks for this. This would provide a level of cover and what has happened in Scotland as it drives the way in which landlords present the properties to present properties with hard floors where they have much less of a problem with investigations and present properties knowing they only property they have to replace, replace lower down bits of wood on the wall that might have been showed.

I feel that, therefore, there is, in Scotland, an operational market that has worked on this basis for some time and I felt that was a reasonable introduction of a separate idea, which would allow for the landlord to have some comfort when he was allowing a pet into the House. And I will finish by just briefly talking about amendment 130, which is an amendment that seeks to define premiums. As I said, there are anonymous number of fights, or there have been in the past, over what the word premium means in English law.

It is something that insurers, reinsurers, and all sorts of people, worry about the whole time, and therefore it is best, always, to be absolutely clear what you mean and it is clear, in my mind, that in this bill we mean premium plus IPT, i.e. The amount of money that can be reclaimed when the landlord buys the insurance is the insurance premium. And I think it is important to be clear that that, otherwise, inevitably, there will be questions put to tribunals and things that worry about this sort of thing, they will not have the scars on my back from 30 years of fiddling around in insurance markets, so think that it should be made crystal clear that was the intention behind amendment was the intention behind amendment 130.

I egg to move.
18:04
Lord Black of Brentwood Portrait Lord Black of Brentwood (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed across 12, page 20, leave outlines 28 to 31.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

When the renters reform bill was proposed, Battersea asked landlords what policies or incentives made them more likely to consider pet them more likely to consider pet friendly properties. It is an friendly properties. It is an important point to bear in mind. And to have insurance to require tenants to have insurance to require tenants to cover any damage or having them to charge for a deep clean and fumigation at the end of the tenancy. I understand there are concerns regarding the insurance to concerns regarding the insurance to cover pet damage in line with the requirements currently set out in requirements currently set out in the bill.

However, having talked with those with expertise in the with those with expertise in the sector, I believe the insurance market will adapt to new legislation, as it has done in the legislation, as it has done in the past with cyber insurance in the Data Protection Act 2018. An Data Protection Act 2018. An professional indemnity insurance for cladding remediation. And I think that there is already evidence of responding to market demand we are letting insurance providers pay with the debt shield and updating their content policies to include pet damage and care and Diane Abbott of other providers that are in the process.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The payment shield thinks it is offering accidental damage only and offering accidental damage only and offering accidental damage only and damage without remission, that is not ready because I do not know if you are talking to insurance

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you are talking to insurance providers or brokers, but the underwriting community that insurance (inaudible). My Lords, my general point was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, my general point was that I believe the market would adapt in time because that is the purpose of legislation, to push the purpose of legislation, to push the market on. And I know that that insurers who are looking at pet damage and that would be in place, we would have to see if that happens, but I would very much hope happens, but I would very much hope that it won't. And I understand that fears from landlords that pets may damage their properties, but I also damage their properties, but I also have to say that I believe pet deposits are not the solution to this area because they are unevenly proud and they are unaffordable to many.

I just make the general point that research has shown that fears that research has shown that fears around pet damage or often largely unfounded, again, research that was commissioned by Battersea with Huddersfield University showed that more than three out of four landlords did not encounter any damage caused by pets in their rental properties. There is very low risk, alongside evidence showing that pet owners tend to stay longer in their properties, I think demonstrates that pet owners can actually be financially beneficial to landlords in the long run.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

We put to him this point, so if there is currently today I hope you there is currently today I hope you will accept there is no reasonable insurance solution available for a insurance solution available for a tenant. If a landlord says I need you to go out and buy a tenants insurance policy, thinking, sneakily, that this does not exist, that the tenant will look forever that the tenant will look forever and never be allowed to own a pet, is that an acceptable solution for the noble Lord?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the noble Lord? Back to the point that the market

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Back to the point that the market may not exist at the moment, but the legislation is designed to push this legislation is designed to push this market along and I very much hope that by the time this act becomes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

law, that will have been enacted. This comes into being and I did make the point about insurance not being available for inevitability is, if the market does not come into
18:08
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Portrait Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
is, if the market does not come into play, then we will have created through this what would then be an act eight route for tenants for landlords who then prevent tenants from having pets.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Noble Lord book quoted from the University of Huddersfield's very excellent research the pet ownership and rental properties which I have read in detail and one of the most surprising things is there is more things to properties there is more things to properties from non-pet owners, which averaged from non-pet owners, which averaged out at 215, from non-pet -related damage, than there is for pets. But damage, than there is for pets. But perhaps that more relevant thing to this particular debate is that actually the cost when there was damage was, firstly, fully covered by the tenants deposit.

That was 38%, at the time. Repair costs 38%, at the time. Repair costs exceeded the deposit and the tenant cover the additional costs 80% of the time the repair costs exceeded the time the repair costs exceeded the deposit and it was covered by insurance. That finding is insurance. That finding is surprising, given that Noble Lord has told us, that is 13% of the time. And so on. So, actually, more than 60% of the time, there was not a problem at all, and only in a very short percentage of the time, did the landlord find themselves out of pocket.

The overall findings for pocket. The overall findings for this study was that it is a much exaggerated fear, rather than an actual problem. actual problem.
18:10
Lord Trees Portrait Lord Trees (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to support the amendments of 127, 128, and one to nine, in the name of my Noble Friend the Earl of Cano and others. Now, with regard to pets, the main purpose of this bill is to make it more likely that landlords will accept tenants with pets, that is the purpose of it, surely. And this is an objective I fully support, as a veterinarian. Particularly for elderly and lonely people as well as others, the benefits of pet ownership are very well-known, and there is a strong evidence basis.

Now, the three amendments, one to seven, 128, 129, are to ensure that the purpose of this bill, with regard to pets, is not confounded by unintended consequences. The current reality, and we cannot ignore realities, as the Noble Lord does, is that 40% of landlords currently are unwilling to accept tenants with pets. And another survey in which the Noble Lord black quoted showing that 27% of landlords, i.e. One quarter, who do accept tenants with pets have experienced problems, 1/4 of those who do accept pets have reported problems.

So, in order to boost the market, for pet friendly rentals, it is important that landlords are assured that were there to be negative effects due to pets, there is adequate legal recommends. And the bill recognises this. And the solution that it proposes is that the landlord can require a tenant to provide appropriate assurance. An the messages clearly articulated by my Noble Friend who is, of course, an expert in insurance, that it appears extremely unlikely that there will be, on the market, a product which a tenant could buy to ensure against the relatively unlikely, perhaps, problem, of damage.

And if that was the case, as my Noble Friend has started to explain, a landlord could debar a tenant by the simple act of requesting that they must provide insurance to cover any pet damage which, failing to find, would legitimately allow a landlord then to borrow them access with a pet to rental accommodation. It would conflict with the objective of the bill. Now, amendment 127 removes that possibility, and instead amendment 128 allows that an increased deposit arrangement can enable landlords to permit pets, confident in the knowledge that in the unlikely event of damage, it will be covered by the deposit.

It, and amendment 129, ensure that the level of recompense is likely to adequately cover relatively costly measures, like deep cleaning to remove allergens which has been referred to earlier, or the elimination of infestation with fleas which can be a significant problem if it occurs, and expensive to remove and I would love to tell you more about fleas. They are remarkable creatures. They can jump amazing distances compared to their actual size, but I am aware of the constraints of not repeating second reading speeches, so I will not.

I would also make the point that in order to do that, the deposit is more likely to be a fair and acceptable arrangement to a tenant than paying for an insurance policy, because obviously there is no cost, unless there has been a problem. So, to conclude, with regards to these three amendments, I strongly support them. And I think they would make it more likely that landlords could be persuaded to offer their property for rent to tenants with a pet than indeed any alternative.

Could I just make an additional point? I did raise at second reading. Which is pertinent to this issue. But has wider implications. And that is with regard to assistance dogs. We know regard to assistance dogs. We know that having a pet is very valuable to many, many people. In terms of their physical, and indeed mental health. The case of assistance dogs is very special. These are incredibly valuable animals that can alert to medical emergencies, of all salts, as well as provide physical support for disabled people, hearing support as well as, of course, other things.

And yet assistance dogs are not actually, officially recognised. There is no list or register of them. And I understand that there are problems that people with assistance dogs, sometimes finding rental accommodation. And I did raise this at second reading, but I hope the noble Baroness will excuse my mentioning again that she did say she would discuss this with officials and I would like us to ask if she could consider that again. And I strongly support the three

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am delighted to add my name to this group, I thank my honourable friend for leading on this section friend for leading on this section regards to pet insurance and I respect his deep knowledge of the insurance market. With regard to amendment 127 and 128, they seek to provide an alternative to protect provide an alternative to protect landlords from pet damage and the pet insurance route. As there is
18:16
18:18
18:21
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. The matter of pet damage insurance is an extremely important one. As it directly addresses this responsibility of the tenant in conjunction with the increased rights, that they may be granted under this bill. My Lords, in all our discussions on this question, we have acknowledged that allowing pets into rented properties brings with it a serious series of risks. There are risks to health, in questions around allergies and dangerous animals. Risks of damage to the property, and risk to the well-being of neighbours and other tenants.

Given this, we believe it is reasonable to grant a landlubber capacity to require the tenant wishing to bring a pet into the property to have pet damage I have listened carefully and I thank him for the work he has done, I think it is important work, but I am disappointed, there does not seem to be a product in the market for this. Which is very disappointing. But I do think we have to continue down the insurance route as well as Darren -- down the route of having any deposits.

I think it is important, as in my amendments, that before this section of the Bill comes into effect, there must be a final decision on an insurance product that is available. If that is going to come forward then, of course, we have to look at the issues that have been brought up in amendment 127 and 128 by the noble Lord. Which provides, as we heard, an alternative Avenue for redress, should any damage caused. I think this is a flexible addition to the Bill and discretion is going to be important.

I think it is important to give people the option here, whether it be through a deposit or, in the future, if the insurance product is through the market in that system. I think there is concern over the deposit because the deposit is very specific. When you add a further reason, which is damaged by pets, then I think the amount of deposit may need to be looked at again and the noble Lord brings up the idea of a pet deposit along with the deposit.

I thank -- think, the principle behind this is that when you have a right to have a pet, you also have responsibilities for that pet and it is correct that landlords should be permitted the ability to claim redress when the property is damaged and tenants should be responsible when choosing to have the pet and it is important we make sure that we have some form of redress for any damage caused if the landlord wishes to do so, some landlords will welcome pets without any further insurance or any further deposit.

Mary landlord wishes it, there must be some way for tenants to be able to have... At the beginning of the tenancy, some form of redress in case there is any issue with any pet damage or anything else.
18:26
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I thank the noble Lord for the amendments relating to pet insurance and deposits and Lord Black, Baroness Miller, Lord Trees, Lord Clifford and Lord Truscott have all contributed to this debate this afternoon. Turning first to the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, can I thank very much the noble Earl for his constructive engagement with myself and my officials in the department in recent months, the benefit of his expertise in this area has been valuable and appreciated.

I am grateful to him. Amendment 1276 to remove the requirement for tenants to obtain insurance. What I understand the concerns, I have to respectfully disagree with the approach, one of the key barriers to renting with pets is landlords concerns over potential property damage, as Lord Trees outlined, requiring tenants to have pet damage insurance provides landlords with the reassurance they need and helps to foster a more positive attitude towards pet ownership. I think that is the balance between rights and responsibilities.

Removing this requirement risks undermining the balance between tenants having a fair opportunity to rent with pets whilst protecting landlords from unnecessary financial risk. It is also important to note that we are seeing some signs that insurance product designed specifically for pet -related damage are emerging in pet -related damage are emerging in response to this Bill, as Lord Black said, these products will develop, meaning that tenants should have viable options available. This requirement is both reasonable and practical, ensuring responsible pet ownership without placing an undue burden on tenants or landlords.

And I would emphasise, in response to I would emphasise, in response to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the noble Earl, so... I thought the noble Lady was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thought the noble Lady was going to deal with, I declare my interest, is there a distinction in terms of reliability of a tenant whose premises, or the premises whose premises, or the premises which they occupy, being damaged during tenancy, is there a during tenancy, is there a distinction between the liability for something they have done rather for something they have done rather than a pet has done. If there is not a distinction, Kendell Arnold, a distinction, Kendell Arnold, presumably, does not have to -- then the landlord, presumably, does not the landlord, presumably, does not have to worry about how the damage was done but what it will cost to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

remedy it. I think the distinction is trying to encourage landlords who have previously been fairly resistant to tenants keeping pets to encourage them that they are able to give that concession to pet owners. I would emphasise, in response to the noble Earl, we continue to engage with the insurance industry and remain open to further information about the market and views on how it might develop. And to the noble Lord, I apologise he has not had a written response about assistance dogs, I will follow that up and get a response for him.

In terms of the noble Lord's comments, I wanted to clarify a point that I made previously, landlords cannot withdraw consent to keep a pet in case of antisocial behaviour but there are other steps they can take, landlords can seek to evict antisocial tenants for a range of behaviours, under ground 14, which could include behaviour related to noisy, disruptive or aggressive pets. They could also contact local councils and the police if behaviour persists, which can culminate in antisocial injunctions granted.

Which could... In that instance, it could ban the tenant from keeping a pet. The incident that Lord Truscott described was really frightening and I understand why he would have concerns about that. I hope that action I have described helps respond to his point. Amendment 128 also tabled by the noble Earl seeks to introduce an additional deposit, whilst I recognise the security this could provide, I have to resist the amendment for two reasons, first, it would place a financial burden on tenants, to collate those on low incomes who already struggle to raise the standard deposit, adding another upfront cost would make securing a home harder, disproportionately fine -- affecting those in difficulty.

It could also create administrative complexity for deposit protection schemes, making the system harder to navigate for landlords and tenants. The noble Baroness pointed out, in the evidence of the University of Huddersfield, that the incidence of pet damages are relatively low. We pet damages are relatively low. We I believe this strikes a balance between maintaining pet damage insurance and provides landlords with reassurance while avoiding large upfront costs. Amendment 129 increases security for landlords against pet damage.

While I understand the intention, I resist the amendment because it would make it more difficult for insurers to develop a suitable pet damage insurance product with risking of limiting the flexibility of the design of affordable, effective policy, overprescribing criteria could stifle innovation and reduce availability of products for tenants and plays an additional financial burden on tenants if insurance providers struggle failed to develop appropriate products and it increases making it harder rather than easier for tenants, particular those on low incomes, to meet the requirement.

And then 130 clarifies that in this section, the term premium includes premium taxes. I understand concerns about this but I do not believe the amendment is necessary because the term premium, he knows more about the insurance industry than I do, but I understand it is widely understood in the industry and in related contractual context to encompass statutory charges and insurance premium taxes and the existing wording also includes clarity of stakeholders without the need for further elaboration.

Inserting the clarification may introduce unnecessary complexity and risks creating potential ambiguity in the application of premium and complicating administration without delivering substantive benefits. These are the reasons I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment. Turning to the amendments from Baroness Scott requires the Secretary of State to consult with insurers before section 13 comes into effect. The amendment seeks to ensure that it covers the risk of pet damage and is available for landlords who rent to pet owners.

We recognise a key concern when considering is the potential for damages then they exceed the deposit. While they are limited in the options covering the risk of pet damage, we believe this is because there is discussion about allowing pets and cannot charge tenants for insurance under the fees act 2019 meaning there is little demand for such products. I look at the framework that encourages this and we believe this will drive the necessary adaptations in the insurance industry.

As I have mentioned, the department engaged in discussions and there are signs the new products are in development of anticipation of the passage and remain open for further discussions with those that know the market well. We do not support the amendment and I understand how well-intentioned it is but we believe it would create an unnecessary delay enabling landlords to require tenants to obtain the insurance and ultimately slowing down a key objective which was to ensure pet ownership is not a barrier to renting.

Amendment 285...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am confused where we go on this. We are hearing there is no this. We are hearing there is no product and this -- there are product and this -- there are differing views and the government is not interested in looking at deposits or extra deposits and understanding the reasoning for understanding the reasoning for that. If... If we don't have extra that. If... If we don't have extra deposits and there is no product, where do we go with this? When does where do we go with this? When does this come into effect? If there is this come into effect? If there is no protection for the landlord into the future? I am confused of the the future? I am confused of the timescale of this.

How long will the government wait for a product to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

available? I understand the concerns and I have already mentioned the have already mentioned the department is talking to insurers all of the time and we are looking at the messages from them that they are making new product with anticipation as this goes through and we will keep monitoring that is the Bill goes through its passage. We do not want to create a delay that one of the key objectives which is that they are facilitating pet ownership and we do not want to put a blocker or barrier in the way of that, but we understand we need to keep dialogue going with the insurance industry to see where we are as the build progresses.

Amendment 285 ensures tenants have accessed to products that covers damage before landlords require such coverage and this is a similar point. I believe this amendment would similarly create unnecessary delay in giving landlords the confidence to rent to tenants with confidence to rent to tenants with pets. The insurance options tailored specifically for pets damage exists in limited numbers at the moment and that is because landlords had the discretion to refuse pets and they have used that to get round the insurance issue and it led to low demand for such products.

We believe the bill will change that providing tenants with a fair opportunity to rent with pets, giving landlords the reassurance they need and we do not believe a mandatory delay should be placed in law and those new products we hope come forward with the bill. If section 13 is postponed, tenants will continue the struggle to secure homes just because they have a pet. Once the law is in place and people accept more tenants with pets, we believe the insurance market will adapt, meet demand and delaying would only prolong the struggle of responsible pet owners.

Given the reasons I have set out, I hope Scott withdraw the amendment and we will continue to monitor the situation and carry on the dialogue in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

industry. I am sorry to ask further

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am sorry to ask further questions, but are we saying that landlords will be required to take landlords will be required to take pets without insurance or any pets without insurance or any further deposits if there is no product available? If that is the product available? If that is the product available? If that is the case? -- If that is the case and a product comes in six months or a year later, with that allow the landlord to ensure they get the insurance product or not? I'm not quite sure how that would look.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

With the amending of the tenancy act and landlords require the tenant to obtain insurance to cover the to obtain insurance to cover the risk of property damage caused by a risk of property damage caused by a pet and that would be the way it works and there will be a requirement that... There will be... requirement that... There will be... The owners will be to require the tenant to have insurance.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble lady has just again referred to my point, the need to change tenant fees act. Is she saying that it is in law a difference of liability for damage difference of liability for damage done to a property rented by done to a property rented by somebody, by them or by their pet? somebody, by them or by their pet? You know if they are struck by lightning it is not their fault. Is lightning it is not their fault.

Is there no liability for damage done as a result of their tenancy anyway

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and in which case... I have answered the question that
18:40
Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Earl of Kinnoull (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have answered the question that the idea of this specific pet insurance is to encourage landlords to accept pets, tenants with pets, and that is what the clause in the bill is there to try and incentivise and encourage landlords to accept and encourage landlords to accept

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pets as part of the tenancy. It has been a very interesting debate and I thank those who contributed to it all around and I will try to mention everyone. I will try to mention everyone. I would like to answer the question would like to answer the question about the difference between an insurance policy between a pet and human being and the answer is yes because the provisions of the standard insurance policy in the UK standard insurance policy in the UK would have two problems for the pet.

would have two problems for the pet. The first is total exclusion for infestation and insects such as what Lord Trees spoke about would be taken out straightaway, and secondly there is usually a heavy exclusion there is usually a heavy exclusion for gradually uprooting clauses and it would take out chewing and other it would take out chewing and other things that pets might do. There is things that pets might do. There is the policy over a century that have the policy over a century that have been aware of the pet damage issue.

It is not just landlords and tenants. It is a first party issue. Is that a thing you can claim on insurance? The answer is always no. This is the core of the problem. I did not have the good grace to talk to amendment 284 and 285 which are a good way of getting at the very problem I have been describing. I'm not sure I have been clear enough. There is no question of the market coming to eventually create something because it is not insurance if it is inevitable.

The difficulty of the first dollar in protection for a dog chewing something is that it is inevitable that there will be a loss. It is not something that any proper and underwriting manager would ever say yes to. A lot of brokers would be interested in saying yes because they would see the commission to be earned and underwriters will not see that. It is negative on the prospect of the chance of having a conference of policy for a tenant to ensure against a pet damaging a flat and that is why I have concentrated on trying to find other ways of doing this which will be the enabler and I want the enable of pets coming into flats.

If I could talk about amendment 130 where it is helpful with what the Minister said in that it can be referred to and although in the insurance market people will not the spots off each other about the definition of premium, but the helpful words will settle that and you could leave that amendment to one side. Going to amendment 129, it was trying to add something which I think is missing currently in the bill which is a better definition of what the landlord is able to buy and give the bill to the tenant on and at the moment the landlord could buy £5 million of cover and ask the tenant to pay for it and it would be expensive.

I think that there is more to be discussed and I hope the Minister will agree to meet with me to carry on going through these various insurance issues. In terms of what the Minister said about the complexity of administering an eight week deposit when there is a five- week one, the great thing is we can look over the border and we can see how complex it has proven to be and it is perfectly easy to handle that and all of the various agents who acted in Scotland in doing things, the big ones anyway, but they are also active in England and I assume they have the systems to manage it.

I don't feel the deposit system which is so successful in Scotland could not be applied and be successful in England and Wales. Finishing up on 127, my advice to the House is we will not get their on having this type of insurance. It would be very unfortunate to end up in a position with it on the statute book and it was possible for a landlord to use what I would describe as an Italian torpedo approach, which prevents people who wanted to have a pet in their home by simply asking for the impossible.

I'm afraid when I look forward to the occasion of her ministers excellent team and I hope we can find a way forward. In the absence of anything else, I big leave to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 128, Lord King all, not moved. -- Lord King all. Amendment 131 in the name of Lord Amendment 131 in the name of Lord Dodds. Not moved. 132? Not moved.
18:46
Baroness Janke Portrait Baroness Janke (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Dodds. Not moved. 132? Not moved. The question is that clause 12 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". Of the contrary, "not content". The The question is close 13 stand as part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. After clause 13, amendment 133.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 133 to the bill, in my name, and that of Lady Jones. This amendment would require landlords to grant permission for home adaptations that constitute reasonable adjustments, where these have been recommended by local authority assessments. Disabled individuals in a private rented sector often face significant sector often face significant barriers and accessing essential adaptations that allow them to live adaptations that allow them to live safely, independently and with dignity.

According to the English Housing survey 2022, 21% of private Housing survey 2022, 21% of private renters live in homes that fail to meet the Decent Homes Standard's and 16% of private renters with a long- 16% of private renters with a long- term illness or disability are in homes with at least one category 1 homes with at least one category 1 hazard, such as the risk of falls. These conditions are not only uncomfortable, they can actively endanger health, and undermine independence. The family resources survey from 2022-23, reports that 24% of people in the UK are disabled.

Amounting to approximately 16 million individuals. For such a significant proportion of the population affected, the case for making it adaptable and accessible is both moral and practical. We know that many disabled renters phase -- Faced long delays, when requesting simple modifications. Even a small adjustment, like installing grab rails, ramps, or stair lifts can make the difference between a person being able to remain in their home, or being forced to remove, rely on care, living unsafe conditions. This amendment seeks to remove those barriers by ensuring tenants can make necessary changes subject to the existing checks and balances of local authority assessments.

It offers a proportionate workable solution. That respects landlord rights, whilst uploading the basic needs of tenants. It would also help reduce demand on already stretched social housing by enabling more disabled people to remain in private accommodation that suits their needs. Given that nearly 1/4 of the population is disabled, the need for accessible and safe housing is clear and pressing. This amendment offers a practical step to those who need adaptations are not denied them by process delay or indifference.

I urge Lords to support this amendment to make real the promise of equality under law and to ensure disabled renters can live in homes that support their independence, health and dignity. My Lords, I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. Amendment proposed, after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, after clause 13, insert the following new clause, in the words as pointed on the in the words as pointed on the Marshalled list. -- As printed.
18:49
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled list. -- As printed. My amendments 178 and 191, along with amendment 133, in the name of the noble Lady. Highlights some of the challenges that face disabled people living in rented accommodation. Life is hard if you have to live with a disability and it makes sense if where you live can help you have as much of a life as possible. When we talk about disabled people, we are not just talking about wheelchair users, we are talking about people who might react badly to certain colours, or intensity of lighting.

And of course, step free access I think, these days, ought to be almost automatic because of our ageing population. The sad reality is Britain's housing stock has not been designed with disabled people in mind at all. And the provision of adaptations for disabled housing is quite scarce. An intimate 191 would give people reassurance that they can ask about and discuss disability adjustments when looking for somewhere to live, without being disadvantaged. And my amendment 178 takes this further and gives tenants the right to make mild adaptations for disabilities without needing consent from the landlord.

Taken together, this will support people with disabilities to live healthier, happier lives, by ensuring they have specific rights to meet their needs. I hope that the Minister can take this issue away, and look at it, as there are some simple ways forward that will make a huge beneficial impact for disabled people and their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

families. My Lords, I think the objective

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I think the objective of the noble Baronesses amendment is very commendable. I do worry,
18:51
Lord Empey Portrait Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
very commendable. I do worry, however, about a property is altered, it will be limited by the assessment made by occupational health and also within the limitations of local authority budgets and what they estimate the cost to be. I did some properties, particularly older properties, these alterations can be very substantial. The question arises, what happens if the tenant leaves the property. And the property has to be reinstated. Because if you have a straight safe stairway, that is a relatively simple operation.

But not all properties are like that. And indeed, if a lift were to be installed, that is a major structural operation. So, I just wondered if the noble Baroness could assess what the implications would Would come to leave the property and how it would be reinstated. And often, reinstatement can be more costly than the actual installation in the first place. With regard to undertaking minor amendments, it depends on what you mean by minor. If you do not require building control consent, and people go ahead and alter property, they can undermine the structure of the property very simply.

It is not difficult. A lot of older properties may not have the same structural integrity by more modern properties. And if people are able to say, well, that is only a minor change, my concern would be what is the boundary? Where is the limitations? If we haven't any definition of what a minor alteration is. So, you can see very quickly that if you start interfering with the structure of the property, without the requirement for building control consent, then I think you run into difficulties, because it can have implications for the adjacent property.

If you have a terrace of houses, and you find that you need various adaptations, it can affect properties either side of you. So, the removal of adaptations in the first place, who will pay for that? Secondly, I think the noble Baroness, whilst it is a very well- meaning amendment, amendments, I feel that people would, given an inch, people would take a mile, because they don't have to bother
18:54
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
with various consent and all of a sudden, you can find people undertaking quite substantial and maybe even risky amendments to property, without anybody's consent. And again, the question arises, how And again, the question arises, how My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Jones, for very important amendments on disability adaptions. My Lords, on disability adaptions. My Lords, this is a crucial issue, the government has a duty to find the correct balance again, between correct balance again, between assuring disability adaptions are available to tenants, and considering the significant impact that some provisions could have on our landlords.

Amendment 133, which our landlords. Amendment 133, which proposes an obligation for landlords to grant permission for home adaptions, following a local authority assessment under the authority assessment under the Equality Act 2010 rightly highlights the importance of accessibility. However, we must also consider the practical and financial implications. Landlords, particularly those with smaller portfolios, or operating on very tight margins, are already contending with a range of rising costs and regulatory pressures. While the intention of the amendment is clear and commendable, the government, we believe, must ensure any new duty is accompanied by adequate support mechanisms, so that the landlords are not forced to absorb potentially substantial costs that could threaten the viability of their businesses or the quality of their housing stock.

Amendment 178, which would allow tenants to undertake minor adaptions without seeking landlords consent. This, my Lords, is not merely a modest proposal. It is one that raises some serious questions. While the term minor reduction may sound innocuous, this interpretation is highly subjective. One tenants minor change may in reality be a significant alteration that affects either the structure, the settings, the marketability of a property. We must be clear, even small changes can lead to a loss of value.

Future repair costs or regulatory complications for the landlord, complications for the landlord, property is not designed to accommodate this may be vulnerable. This amendment seeks creating confusion, undermining confidence, and ultimately, my Lords, reducing the availability of homes to rent. Particularly in lower cost segments of the market. Landlords must, my Lords, in this bill, have clarity and they must be protected from unintended consequences and that we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, what happens when the tenant leaves? And who pays for reinstating the property? Amendment 19162 prohibited discrimination against prospective tenants, requiring adaptions addressing an issue of genuine concern.

We support the principle of tackling discrimination, wherever it occurs, however we must also recognise that landlords will reasonably assess the suitability of their properties, at the cost implications of meeting specific needs. To avoid placing landlords in an impossible position, any new obligations must be underpinned by clear guidance and where necessary, my Lords, financial support. I urge the noble Baroness, the Minister, to bring forward some proposals before report. That genuinely balance the rights of disabled tenants with the realities that face landlords.

We are, if we are to ensure that homes are both accessible and available for disabled people, we must avoid shifting the full cost burden onto the landlords, particularly without due process, without oversight, or due process, without oversight, or without compensation. The aim should be a system that is fair, proportionate, and sustainable, for all the parties involved, my Lords.
18:58
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for there amendments relating to home disability adaptations, the noble Lord, Lord Empey and Baroness Scott for their comments. Amendment 133 Amendment 1336 to require landlords to permit home disability at the patients when these have been recommended in a local authority home assessment. The equality act Protections for disabled tenants, but I recognise that such rights are not always easy to enforce in practice. I therefore agree with the noble Baroness we should take steps to remove barriers that unreasonably prevent disabled renters from getting a home adaptation they need.

However, I do not consider this amendment the right way to achieve it. In particular, there are significant risks to introducing a new requirement linked to home assessments. These assessments are carried out by local authorities, as part of the means tested Disabled Facilities Grant process. The amendment would therefore create a two-tiered system and could make it harder for people that are not eligible for the Disabled Facilities Grant to access adaptations. And I would just respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott's, comments by saying we do recognise how important those home adaptations are, to make sure older and disabled people live as independently as possible, in a safe and suitable environment.

I have seen it firsthand as I know she has the real difference these adaptations can make. That is why the government has awarded £86 million in uplift to the Disabled Facilities Grant for 2024-25, bringing the total funding to £711 million. That increased funding will allow more eligible people to make vital improvements about home, allowing them to live more independent lives and reducing hospitalisations. Governments also confirm that amount for 25-26. To ensure DFG, Disabled Facilities Grant, is effective as possible, we also continue to keep different aspects of the grant under review.

For example, as part of this, we are currently reviewing the suitability of the £30,000 upper limit. I have known cases myself where, because of the scale of the adaptations that are necessary, and the impact of inflation on construction work, that does need to be reviewed. Government is also reviewing the allocations formula, for DFG, to ensure the funding is aligned with local needs and will consult during 2025 on a new approach, with a view to as soon as possible -- Implementation as soon as possible after consultation.

The bill will already make a substantial difference to the experience of disabled people in the private rented sector, in relation to home adaptations. Abolishing section 21 will give tenants greater confidence to request adaptations, and challenge unreasonable refusals. While the landlord ombudsman will offer a new route of address for tenants that may be quicker, cheaper, and less adversarial than the courts. Discussion of these matters during the passage of the bill has pointed us to look at whether we can do even more to support disabled renters.

As noble Lords may be aware, the Minister for Lords may be aware, the Minister for State for Housing and planning recently wrote to MPs who tabled amendments on this issue in the other place, to set out what further action the government will be taking. I have sent have copies of that letter, but if anybody has not received one that wants one, let me know. One barrier is the lack of knowledge among landlords, tenants and agents. The bill includes the power to require landlords to provide a written statement of terms to new tenants, to provide information about the tenancy in both parties responsibility is.

Subject to drafting and scrutiny of the secondary legislation, we plan to mandate that the state sets out the duty on landlords under the Equality Act 2010, not to reasonably refuse disability adaptation We intend to work closely with the sector including those representing disabled people to deliver a programme of communication and engagement to raise awareness to ensure all parties are aware of rights and obligations in relation to adaptation. We believe there is a value in developing enhanced guidance. The government will engage with key organisations in the sector to update and strengthen guidance to help all parties effectively navigate the current system and seek to help landlords and tenants understand what constitutes reasonable for adaptation requests.

I consider the existing measures need further commitments with appropriate and effective ways of supporting disabled tenants and this avoids the significant risk of negative unintended consequences and as a result I asked that the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness withdraw the amendment. That is very positive in a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is very positive in a response. Could we have that in response. Could we have that in writing please? It would save going through Hansard as to those further measures the government intended to measures the government intended to take and if that will be on the face

**** Possible New Speaker ****

take and if that will be on the face of the bill or go like this. I will provide that in writing to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will provide that in writing to noble Lords. Amendment 178 revise the private sector tenants to carry out stability adaptations without obtaining consent from the landlord if the cost of the adaptation is if the cost of the adaptation is below a threshold set in regulation. below a threshold set in regulation. I accept and agree that barriers I accept and agree that barriers should be accepted in preventing the adaptations required but I do not believe this is the right way to believe this is the right way to achieve it and it defines what is minor in relation to cost and will not capture a range of factors that a responsible landlord would need when deciding to permit alterations.

These factors could include interactions with building requirement which is a very important set of requirements on landlords, the need for consent from third parties and how easy it will be to return the property to its original condition. Many of these factors are relevant on each individual property, but I do not consider it to be possible to define minor adaptations in a way that works effectively for all housing in a diverse private rented sector that we have. Given the factors we have, it is likely that some will make genuine mistakes and carry out adaptations that were not in scope of the legislation and it could result in negative consequences if successfully challenged by landlords in the courts such as being ordered to pay damages to remove the adaptation.

The risk of this happening could deter tenants from exercising their rights and creates a new rightful tenants alongside the existing obligation of landlords under the Equality Act 2010 not to refuse consent for disability - related improvement and it could be more difficult for tenants to navigate. I do not think this would be an effective way of supporting disabled tenants and it could risk making things worse. The government is taking strong action through existing measures of the bill and the further commitments I set out.

As a result, I asked the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. Moving onto amendment 191, we recognise very much the important issue that this amendment raises and agree strongly that people with disability should not face discrimination when accessing the private rented sector or be unreasonably refused the adaptations they require. We hope the transformative reforms to the private rented sector delivered through the bill will make a substantial difference to support disabled tenants. The abolition of section 21 and the PRS ombudsman address the barriers identified by the former Levelling-up housing and community Select Committee 2024 report on this which were retaliatory eviction.

Disabled people are afforded the full protection from the discrimination, from this coronation of the Equality Act 2010. Landlords and agents are forbidden for victimising or discriminating against the person based on a disability in relation to the offer of a tenancy and the return on which the tenancy is offered or the general treatment of that person. expanding on this manner will create unnecessary jewel systems and increased complexity and lead to an overlap and responsibility between local authority and the court. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before she sits down, could I come back to her on the statement come back to her on the statement issue. Perhaps there is something in that response in the other place she that response in the other place she referred to that would have covered this, but bearing in mind we think this, but bearing in mind we think everyone is at one in wishing to provide people with the best possible circumstances to enjoy their tenancy and if that requires their tenancy and if that requires adaptation so be it and it is something that statistically is something that statistically is important, but what I'm concerned about is some of these adaptations about is some of these adaptations can be substantial.

If you have a lift, you need to cut the floor out lift, you need to cut the floor out from ground floor to first floor, take the machinery out, you structurally have two leave a lift shaft. There is one example. Bathrooms are another. Stairlift as well. Take them away and there is a well. Take them away and there is a big hole. If the Minister got a response to that, how is it going to be repaired? In order for a landlord to be able to resell or relet the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

property? I understand the point the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I understand the point the noble Lord is making about reinstatement, but usually when the property is but usually when the property is adapted, the landlord can seek... If adapted, the landlord can seek... If the tenant does not wish to extend the tenancy at the start with its initial objectives, and this happens already whereas a tenant asked for a home adaptation to be carried out it will usually mean they will extend will usually mean they will extend the length of tenancy and then when
19:10
Baroness Janke Portrait Baroness Janke (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
the length of tenancy and then when the tenant decides to move out, the landlord can find somebody else to benefit from the adaptation. On that point about the reinstatement cost should it be necessary, I will come back on that. Landlords will be able to find an alternative, another tenant who will benefit from the adaptation that has been included in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the property. I am grateful to the Minister and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the Minister and I look forward to seeing her letter and the various assurances she has given today. This amendment stems given today. This amendment stems from the fact that refusal by landlords has been a major obstacle landlords has been a major obstacle in the private sector to disabled people trying to get adaptations and people trying to get adaptations and so it seems to me there are a number of measures now within the bill of measures now within the bill which are going to start to tackle this particular problem.

Despite the this particular problem. Despite the Equality Act requirements, it still has not prevented landlords refusing tenants who requested this. As the tenants who requested this. As the Minister says, the business of reinstatement is not always reinstatement is not always necessary. It might be that there is more needed to be reinstated, but more needed to be reinstated, but there is a huge shortage of rental places available for people with minor disabilities so some bathroom improvements all stairlift that can be a great effect and make the property more in demand because they are in very short supply.

I accept that there may well be at some stage some reinstatement necessary, but you need to look at how the demand for property is before you have to reinstate them after someone with a disability has left them. The fact that the tenants have a long period of tenure as a result is an important factor. The point in this amendment was in getting it in the facilities Grant means local councils would have the of them and some form of supervision is meant to be a safeguard to ensure they weren't getting things done in an ad hoc way or unsafe ways.

That is how we answer that particular point. I am pleased to hear the disabled facility grant has been boosted because the fact there was so little money in it is a major impairment to getting these improvements. Having said that, I'm looking forward to hearing the assurances from the Minister and seeing the letter and I will withdraw the amendment. will withdraw the amendment.
19:13
None Portrait AMDT: 134 Baroness Janke (Liberal Democrat)
-

The amendment is by leave withdrawn. After clause 13,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 134. I rise to move amendment 134, and 135 in my name, and in the name of Lord Black of Brentwood and Lord Lord Black of Brentwood and Lord Best. I am grateful to OpenReach for raising this issue with me and Generation Rent and the good things foundation for their support. These foundation for their support. These foundation for their support. These amendments introduced the direct of the full final port band installation and tenants would be able to request from their landlord directly to make a decision with a directly to make a decision with a specified timeframe and landlord consent would not be unreasonably consent would not be unreasonably refused.

Broadband was historically delivered through electrical signals delivered through electrical signals in copper phonelines, but this technology faced limitation technology faced limitation including vulnerability to weather and limited information carrying capabilities. A demand for capabilities. A demand for connecting multiple devices grew and corporate networks have been increasingly replaced with fibre- optic cables enabling more reliable broadband and faster download speeds for households and businesses across the UK. Four years ago, less than 1/4 of British homes and offices good access full-fibre broadband.

Today, seven in 10, 20.7 million, have access to full-fibre gigabit networks and it has increased from 40% in 2021 to 83% last year. This progress has been commendable, but there are still challenges to building this vital infrastructure which is why I've introduced these amendments to resolve a pressing matter. Although the provision of ultrafast broadband has been mandated in new builds since 2022, tenants in older properties must rely on freehold permission to upgrade existing copper to full- fibre.

This poses significant challenges to the provision of gigabit-capable broadband for residents. If landlords are difficult to identify or unresponsive to request for access, it is estimated hundreds of thousands of multidwelling units across the country whose tenants could be disenfranchised with the lack of capable broadband. Whilst the rights to communal areas of blocks and providers cannot use the right to upgrade tenants to the latest technology despite the benefits it brings. Although the telecommunications code was amended in 2022 to help ban providers access multidwelling units by providing tribunal process, this route is very ineffective and takes a great deal of time and cost and result in properties being bypassed.

The law properties being bypassed. The law only provides a supplies to go through tribunal when they asked for the service. If they don't have a fibre network, there is no service available for the tenant on request. As a result, tenants in low-income areas are left with slower outdated broadband options, restricting their ability to act as vital public services, work remotely and access This amendment would enable all network operators across the country to play their role in tackling the digital divide caused by a failure to enable renters to access full fibre broadband.

Amendments 134 and 135 provide a solution to this urgent and pressing matter. And there is no reason why someone in a third-floor flat should have less opportunity than someone in a terraced home. My amendments to introduce the right to request full fibre from the landlord would empower more households to access fast and reliable broadband sooner. It is a cost neutral lever the government can pull now to help close the digital divide, whilst supporting their commendable digital inclusion aims and ensure premises across the country are not left behind with their tenants unfairly disadvantaged, socially and disadvantaged, socially and economically.

I am looking forward hearing the Minister's response, I am wondering whether she has alternative solutions for addressing this particular problem. I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. Amendment proposed, after close
19:17
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, after close 13, insert the new words as printed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

13, insert the new words as printed on the Marshalled list. My Lords, I have added my name is to amendment 134 and 135 from the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, noble noble Baroness, Lady Janke, noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood. The amendment seeks to address a very real problem, as the noble Baroness has described. Some renters are being prevented from getting advanced broadband because their landlord has not given consent for the installation of fibre to the premises, FTTP fibre to the premises.

Open reach, by far the 900 by far the biggest provider, estimates over 900/900,000 houses are affected. Access to broadband is vital to make a GP appointment to use a bank account, communicate with friends and family, to shop online, and it is essential for homeworking. Today, adequate digital connectivity is almost as important a service as water or electricity. Speaking personally, my home was upgraded from a hopelessly unreliable copper from a hopelessly unreliable copper network to an FPTP broadband, to improve access to all wonders of the internet.

Why would any landlord fail to approve the installation of the necessary digital infrastructure? After all, better broadband would make their property easier to let, and increase its value, at no cost to the landlord. It seems that this is not a problem landlords rejecting requests, for example because they wrongly fear the process would be disruptive. Rather, it is because the landlord would be hard to identify or simply fails to respond. The landlord may be based overseas. They may simply not be bothered.

The amendment overcomes this problem, by giving the tenant the right to make a request for fibre to the premises, a request which must be considered within a fixed timescale, and cannot be unreasonably withheld. Just like the new renters' rights to request permission for keeping a pet. My Lords, full fibre broadband is mandatory for new homes, and landlord consent is likely to be obtained relatively easily from social housing providers. But, some private sector renters are missing out unnecessarily and this needs to change.

Meanwhile, my Lords, as well as representations from Open reach for the needs of this amendment, I have also heard from two other installers of fibre and from the independent network's cooperative Association incur, these have expressed some concerns, avoiding the need for the landlord's participation in the installation process, would, they fear, give unfair competitive advantage to Openreach which also has an engagement with the premises, through its provision of the old copper wire system from yesteryear. The Assembly network providers are worried that because open reach is best able to install fibre without landlord consent, the amendment could give Openreach more of a monopoly.

The smaller providers points to the value of their approach, which involves them forming good relations with landlords and bringing the landlord on board ensures they know where best to drill holes for new cables, install wires across common areas, and obey fire regulations et cetera. While not addressing the problem of digital exclusion caused by uncooperative or absentee landlords, the case for ensuring A-level playing field for competing providers does also deserve attention, so if government is mounted to accept this amendment, and I hope it will, for the sake of the tenants that can otherwise be denied all the huge benefits of denied all the huge benefits of fibre to the premises, the new rigorous -- The new regulatory measures that accompanied the amendment need to take on board the Assembly provider's perspective.

Assembly provider's perspective. Without these comments, I am delighted to support the amendments.
19:22
19:23
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Hi rise to echo my support for amendments 134 and 135, in the name of my colleague, Baroness Janke, and the noble Lords, Lord Black of Brentwood, and in his usual stand, Lord blessed has added some quality dimensions to that discussion. And Lord Cromwell, his usual sort of, just a little nudge about something we might forgotten. In short, these amendments offer a simple cost neutral solution, to a growing problem, too many renters are still denied access to fast reliable broadband, and there is a real risk of growing the digital divide as a result of this.

The ability to work remotely, to access education, and vital public services are basic needs in the modern world. Reliable broadband is not a luxury, it is a necessity, as fundamental as water or electricity, in our lives today. Yet over 900,000 households are being left behind. Often simply because, as has been said quite clearly, landlords are hard to reach in relation to requests for fibre installation, or really just are not bothered. These amendments will introduce a clear fair process that ensures tenants can request for fibre broadband, and receive a timely response.

This is not about forcing landlords to pay, but about removing a passive barrier that is harming renters access to full fibre broadband. It is good to know that these measures are backed by many organisations, like Generations Rent and the Good Things Foundation, and offer a cost neutral way for the government to improve digital inclusion, particularly for those low income renters. And importantly, hey, landlords benefit as well. With fibre infrastructure, adding clearly a long-term rental value to their properties.

This is a fair and practical step to commit more people, and strengthen our digital infrastructure. So, we strongly support these amendments. No surprise there. And urge other colleagues to do the same. I look forward to the Minister's response.
19:25
Earl of Erroll Portrait The Earl of Erroll (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I would just like a few words particularly in response to the last comments, by my noble friend, Lord Cromwell, about loading the cost onto the landlord. The problem is, if you are in the countryside, they could want to charge a huge amount to get it to you. We have got one or two cottages and to get fibre cable up to us, we have been quoted at £15,000, and would be collecting about five properties at the end of it, rented properties, and also another house.

The applications, if one of them is a business or anything like that, they have different rules for what they are allowed to charge and you will find enough a lot of it is in the original regulations of how, what BT has been told they have to do, and the other networks do, particular when BT is trying to block the people having access to the houses. And there are a lot of unfairness is which I think Ofcom never dealt with properly. Not sure where it has got to know, lots of wars going on, but it can be very expensive, it is just a matter of going out and collecting something to the roadside, as it is in the city.

You find you can be laid with enormous costs and they won five year leases and things, as you can tell how the prices get slashed, tell how the prices get slashed, they will make a big sales pitch trying to get you to take on a five year commitment to five grand a year year commitment to five grand a year or whatever, and then actually, it will go up in a couple of years time for stoppages not quite as simple as that.
19:27
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Thank you. I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Baroness Janke, for bringing amendments one Freefone 135 to the attention of the House today for these amendments rightly highlights the growing importance of the fibre to premises broadband and the many benefits that come with high-speed internet connectivity. In today's world where remote working has become increasingly common, where online applications are used to complete everyday tasks like banking, where fast reliable internet connection is essential. Applications that require real-time communication, such as zoom and Microsoft teams, not to mention watching the odd video, depend on high-speed connectivity, to function effectively.

For the working day to run smoothly and a strong stable connection is essential. My Lords, we are all familiar with the dreadful buffer face, that puzzled expression we adopt as we wait for our devices to respond. What should be a simple task becomes an exercise in frustration. Because of poor internet infrastructure. As many noble Lords have mentioned, there are a large group of people that are excluded because of a lack of fast fibre. Fibre to the premises is a significant step forward.

It is far less susceptible to weather-related interference offers future proof capabilities. We are supportive of ensuring everyone has access to high-speed broadband, and it is essential if we are to have a successful dynamic and modern economy. However, there is a need to consider some of the complications, as the noble Lord, the noble Lord Best, the mobile Lord Cromwell, and the noble Lord Errol have pointed out. As the noble Lord, not Errol, raised, rural broadband is a big issue, and many broadband providers, while they offer contracts with no upfront installation fees, the reality is some properties do require additional work such as laying new ducts or trenching, which, for some homeowners, may lead to excess construction charges which can range from a few hundred to several thousand pounds.

How will this be addressed? And while installing in a stand-alone dwelling may be relatively simple, a number of noble Lords raise the issue of multidwelling units. Such a block of flats. Where there are significant additional complexities. The potential logistics, if every single flat tenant could claim to have their own separate installation. All ensuring the building's integrity and things like fire safety are maintained in the building. The impact on other flat owners and so forth, from multidwelling units, this needs to be done on a system basis.

Working with the owners and the tenants. There is a need to make the process simpler and to ensure that there is landlord engagement. My Lords, it is essential the government look to address this Unaffordable costs do not fall unfairly on landlords and tenants, but the capacities of installation, in multidwelling units, are addressed. The government should actively promote awareness of initiatives that may help to offset initiatives that may help to offset these costs and fight solutions to complexities. Clear communication and guidance can also help property owners better understand their existing infrastructure and anticipate potential expenses.

My Lords, the government should Lords, the government should consider how best to promote fast fibre internet with affordable fibre internet with affordable practical solutions. Looking to address potential costs and to deliver those practical solutions to the more complex multidwelling the more complex multidwelling the more complex multidwelling
19:30
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Can I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for her amendments, regarding the right for private rented sector tenants to request the installation of telecommunications apparatus, and the noble Lord Best, Lord Cromwell, Baroness Thornhill, and the noble Lord Jansen for their comments on this group. I completely understand the reason why the noble Baroness brought forward and raised this important issue. Digital infrastructure absolutely underpins the UK economy. It is a key driver of productivity. It will only grow in importance over the coming decade.

There is no going back on this definitely. That is why the government is committed to delivering a gigabit coverage by 2030, reaching a minimum of 99% of premises, in the UK. No one could deny now that digital infrastructure is as vital as all the other utilities we expect to have access to. As of March this year, just under 87% of premises in the UK can access a gigabyte capable connection, but the government is very aware of concerns about the speed of deployment in the multiple dwelling units, such as blocks of flats, the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, just referred to.

Amendment 134 would introduce an implied right for tenants to make a request in writing, for the installation of fibre to premises fibre-optic cables. These cables are capable of providing gigabit broadband, directly to the home. The amendment would provide landlords may not unreasonably refuse such a request and they may respond to the request within 28 days. Amendment 135 sets out the formalities of such a request, and provide circumstances where it is reasonable for a landlord to refuse it, including where the landlord will be in breach of an agreement for a period landlord.

It also sets out how these provisions may be enforced. These amendments are intended to reduce delays in deploying broadband infrastructure improvements in rented properties, however, the government is aware issues with the speed of deployment in urban areas have related to multiple dwelling units such as blocks of flats in particular. Rather than the rental sector in general. These amendments may not address the problem of slow deployment in multiple dwelling units. For example, leasehold flats in multiple dwelling units that are not rented, which outnumber rented flats within those units, would be Leasehold flats would not benefit from the right to request fibre to the premises because of the requirement for superior landlord agreement.

We believe further consideration of how an intervention should be targeted is required before any intervention is undertaken. We understand that network operators have strongly differing views on whether and how government should intervene here, as mentioned by Lord Best and Lord Cromwell and that how government should intervene may have concerns if any intervention would have unintended consequences. In particular, there are concerns intervention without proper concern may impact the operator market in such a way that could harm competition and investment and slowdown deployment rather than speed it up.

Given these matters, we do not consider amendments to the appropriate, but that does not mean the government is turning a blind eye to the issue. We recognise more could be done that ensures residents left in blocks of flats are not left behind as the rollout continues at pace across the UK. We received positive responses to our work with local authorities and housing associations facilitate deployment in multiple dwelling units and officials are considering options to identify the best interventions to facilitate gigabit broadband in multiple dwelling units and we are actively working on that.

In terms of the point made by Lord Cromwell and Earl Errol, about the cost to landlords and the potential cost in rural areas of implementing this, I don't have an answer but I will talk to my colleagues and come back to the noble Lord on those points. I hope this provides reassurance, but the government is seriously considering what we consider to be a very important issue. I would therefore ask the baroness to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw her amendment. You said specifically that it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You said specifically that it would connect 99% of misses but that would connect 99% of misses but that is not enough. People are moving around travelling. If you are not on the premises, we rely on broadband connections for satnav's and connections for satnav's and stopping during a road thing because you need to connect with work over broadband and we need to cover the broadband and we need to cover the whole country, not just premises. That was the problem early on.

That was the problem early on. Please do not make the same mistake early on and don't forget BT owns OpenReach. It has been legally separated, but it is not completed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

yet. Beware what you are told. He makes an excellent point and
19:36
19:36
19:37
Baroness Janke Portrait Baroness Janke (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I am very interested to hear how the government will move forward on this and having rejected this particular amendment I would be interested to hear the measures that will be taken because whatever reassurances we have there are large numbers of people who are digitally excluded and as other members have said, they are entirely reliant on broadband connection for so many things, medical appointments, work, economic reasons, and it is an inequality and great exclusion if they cannot have reliable connection.

I hope that this will be a priority and we will hear that the Minister will inform us of the developments taking place and perhaps a letter and by when. She mentioned targets and dates and I will be interested to see them. With

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. The amendment is by leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 135, not moved?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not moved. I beg to move the House the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the House the resumed and it will then move to consider the SI debate. I think we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will not return to the bill before 20:17. The question is the House be resumed. As many are of that opinion resumed. As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". Of the contrary, "not content". The contrary, "not content". The contents have it. It might be for the convenience of the House if we the convenience of the House if we have a short pause to allow for the Genetic Genetic decision Genetic decision regulation, Baroness Hayman.
19:40
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
I beg to move that the House approves the draft genetic to precision breeding regulations 2025 which were laid before the House on 25th of February. These regulations implement the genetic, precision breeding Acts 2023 four precision bred plants in England which provide practical and technical detail to implement and use a proportionate regulatory system for these plants as set out in the act. The territorial application of these regulations is in England only and covers the environmental release and marketing of precision bred plants as well as their use in food and feed in England.

This includes a process administered by DEFRA to confirm plants are precision bred and not genetically before they can be marketed. It establishes a food and feed marketing authorisation process administered by the Food Standards Agency which allows products to be placed safely on the market. The regulation also outlines details for public registers and enforcement. The government recognises the concerns raised in Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report and the regret motion tabled by Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle.

Most notably about precision of inflammation and impact on the devolved government. -- Implementation. This work to understand and mitigate implications is ongoing. The department recognises the transparency that is important and will be establishing public registers to ensure information about the precision bred organisms authorised for marketing and for use in food and feed is available to consumers, farmers and landowners. We are also looking at ways to enhance this further and have recently closed a public consultation seeking to gather views on how to improve accessibility of information on these precision red plant varieties and plant reproductive material.

We are continuing to engage regularly with the devolved government on the legislation. In addition to monthly meetings at official level and regular ministerial engagement in ministerial group, ministers like as farming Minister is organising discussions with his counterpart in the devolved government to consider any concerns in more detail. Some of these talks have begun and we value the progress being made. We also note discussions taking place between devolved government and key stakeholders across industry on this policy area and we look forward to hearing updates as this develops.

I believe we have struck the right balance with an enabling regulatory framework proportionate and evidence-based whilst providing measures for transparency and regulatory oversight. Today my passing of secondary legislation believes we have the opportunity to transform and modernise the food system, making it fit for the future. The 21st century agriculture system faces significant challenges. It must provide enough food to meet growing demand whilst becoming more sustainable. It must also survive the threat to productivity posed by climate change.

Food security is national security and to help us achieve this we need innovation in fundamental sectors like plant breeding. Precision breeding would be transformative for the sector, enabling innovative products to be commercialised in years instead of decades and we don't have decades. Through precision breeding, crops candy can be developed that are more resilient to climate change, pests and diseases and more beneficial to the environment. In turn, this increases food production, reduces the need for pesticides and fertilisers and lowers emissions and reduces costs for farmers.

However to capture the benefits, we need a regulatory framework with a sound science base that encourages innovation. The scientific consensus across key advisory committees and institutes is the provision bred organism posing no greater risk to health or the environment than traditional bread organisms. The existing legislation carries a significant burden. According to the agricultural food infrastructure, current regulations and a stifling 74% of the cost of marketing for businesses. This deters investment and limits the type of companies and products that can be brought to market.

Countries that have kept pace with the science and introduce regulatory saw significant investment. The Americas attracted over 80% of venture capital investment while only 5% comes to Europe. It is paramount that we act to change this. Through the secondary legislation we are establishing an approach that is more proportionate to the level of risk. Based on the scientific advice we are treating precision bred organisms more like their organisms more like their organisms more like their By capitalising on the UK's existing strengths and our reputation for scientific excellence, we have the potential to be a leader in this growing sector internationally.

The new regulatory framework will place us at the forefront across Europe and will allow us to attract innovators to start and grow their businesses here. Exciting research is already taking place in anticipation of the new regulatory framework with the potential of some products to be on the market in the next few years. Tropic, which is an SME based in Norwich, has developed, for example, a non-browning banana that can reduce food waste and the new farm revenues by 50%.

Another product because the market is a precision-bred strobe, making one of Britain's favourite foods available to purchase beyond the summer months. We have worked with industry from the outset. The answer is clear on the opportunities that precision breeding presents and is confident in the policy direction we are taking. The government's pro- taking. The government's pro- science, it is pro-innovation, and we are confident the provisions in we are confident the provisions in the secondary would translate the benefits of precision breeding into a reality.

I beg to move.
19:47
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
Is that this motion be agreed to. Amendment, Baroness Bennett.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, rising to move the amendment standing in my name. For clarity, I express this is a regret motion, this is due in part to an error of mine, that I am choosing to error of mine, that I am choosing to regard the -- Regard this as an opportunity that many members will opportunity that many members will not vote for a fatal motion but here is your opportunity to show your concerns about this deeply for instrument performers. I will listen to the debate before deciding to the debate before deciding whether.

You do not have to take my word I am sure many memos of the House will have already seen the 15 page, yes, 15 page report from our hard-working Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, to which the noble Lady, the minister, referred. Which contains a great many concerns about the basic ability of what is about the basic ability of what is here before us today. Issues that I will get back to, but which has, here in bold on the front page of here in bold on the front page of the committee's report, a suggestion that the House may wish to question the Minster further on the concerns raised by the lack of requirements, despite apparent strong consumer preferences for mandatory labouring.

-- Labelling. Also may want to ask about the impact of trade and organic producers. I might add and we might want to hear more about the issues of impact on Scotland and Wales. I am confident these issues will be at the centre of our debate and the Minister will be pressed on these issues. But basically, trusting our food system and thus a label will tell you what you want to know is in the packet, is obviously crucial. We have seen in the US, yes, I will use the phrase make America healthy again, deployed very often.

This is what happens when interest breaks down. There are already signs of growing concern here in the UK. I point noble Lords two article in the Independent published yesterday, headlined A Mobile App Told Me My Kids Food Isn't Healthy, Now I Am Emptying My Kitchen Cabinets, the writer comments, like many mums, I have been hooked on the app, namely to check if the food I feed my kids is any good for them. Before I get back to that, and in deference to the fact many members have joined your Lordships house since we debated the legislation behind the statutory and, I'm going to put in a little is explanation and background.

Many will remember the public concern about the possibility of genetically modified organisms getting into the food system in the UK, and starting in the 1990s. And public concern here, and around the world, has not faded. Courts in the Philippines and Kenya, to take just two examples, have recently ruled against GM foods. In January, responding to a foods. In January, responding to a , according to the president, we , according to the president, we do not want GM, we are a sovereign country.

But we are told what was imposed on the legislation was different. Rather than introducing genes from other species, the gene organisms this covers would only allow genes from other organisms that would have interbred naturally, or genes that had been deleted from the original organisms. But that is not really what is happening. Handily, research has released news in the past month to help me illustrate the point. It has proclaimed success, it had proclaimed success in the gene editing, about which there are concerns.

This week might be handy for the many factors of processed snacks, since it is classed as a process contaminate that needs to be monitored. As with so much of this regulation, we are talking about benefiting biotech companies and food manufacturers, not benefiting consumers. But it acknowledged to Euronews it had encountered snack. Foreign DNA introduced into the wheat, not wheat DNA at all, had proved impossible to breed out. So, this week cannot meet the -- This week cannot meet the definition of G edited and remains a GMO full supply lines up with the formative slide, rather technical slide, I would be happy to share with many noble Lords, that a doctor from Ross instead presented at a Westminster forum on a gene editing, that I chaired last week.

It identified challenges to gene editing, including limits to the understanding of the genetic networks controlling key traits in crops. The difficulty of changing multiple genes at the same time. And Of Of gene Of gene editing Of gene editing for Of gene editing for some Of gene editing for some this Of gene editing for some this is Of gene editing for some this is a difficult process, not a provision process. As a said in grand committee last week, putting the terms engineering and biology together, reflects a profound misunderstanding of how life works.

Engineering is fine for machines. But not for biology. Now, in that debate, I pointed to the astonishing new discovery that mitochondria can migrate between cells. Another new discovery this week, there was a report scientists made a discovery about that upends our beliefs about how cells divide. Something we do not understand, like a child dismantling a clock, and throwing the pieces into a microwave to see what happens. I hope that explains the legislation that already unfortunately exists. So, I turn now to the practical problems of this instrument.

Many of the problems outlined so clearly by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. In the interest of time, I will be brief. I believe other noble Lords will be picking up some of the points I make now. I have already referred to the failure to require the labelling of G edited crops. The noble Lady cabinet minister, spoke about the register that you might be able to lookup online. I think the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee sets out how utterly inadequate that is for the consumer that, like the independent writer, that is there in the supermarket, wondering what to buy for her children that night.

Labelling is common in our food system, it is what allows us to choose free range, organic milk. Fair Trade coffee or tea. Or which items are halal or kosher, indeed, we still do not know how the certifications will regard this gene editing. Labelling allows consumers to meet their own personal food needs and to shop their values, which is surely the cornerstone of a democratic food system. Now, the other issues, some of which the committee has already covered, for organic farmers and food producers.

Jean editing organisms remain GMOs and must be excluded from the supply chain. This regulation does not chain. This regulation does not allow them to do that. Now, the noble Lady cabinet minister, spoke about implemented the legislation, but in fact, the government has not yet sorted the issue of the fact that none of these organisms can be sold commercially unless they are first on the national seed list. And are they going to be a separate listing on the national seed list? This is very much unclear.

I'm going to briefly mention the devolved nations, because I have confidence this will be discussed by other members. But let's set out where we are at. An English producer can sell a bag of G edited -- Gene edited grain or tomato into Scotland or Wales, and the internal market acts means that cannot be stopped. But once those commodities further processing, they become flower or become tomato sauce, then under Welsh or Scottish law, they have to be labelled. As a GMOs.

I really do not see how that is going to be solved. And in terms of trade issues, going beyond the other nations, a new legal opinion published in the European Union says that not labelling what we are calling PBOs directly contravenes the protocol for which the UK is a party, which aims to prevent potential harm to biological diversity, caused by the movement of GMOs, across international borders. We could see the EU lay down a marker that says unlabelled English PBOs will be rejected at the border.

Now, they are considering the possibility of bringing in something like these rules. The labels are Nji T1 and Nji T2. -- NGT1 and two, I will not go into that here but they have a different system as to what this recreation introduces. The application is, I am happy to talk to any noble Lords that wishes to discuss this later, are very high. Finally, I will note that while we, everyone in this legislation, is talking about food crops, we are in fact talking about legislations affecting any plants, including ornamental plants., and including wild plants.

Of how we could be messing with our already much messing with our already much depleted national systems. But we are going to hear and we have already heard from the nobility, the minister, about feeding the world. I am going to go to catcher, Professor of Plant ecology at the University of Tubingen in Germany, who spoke to Euronews about the difficulties. She said we do not need any new varieties to feed the world. Food security is not an issue of which varieties we have, it is an issue of how food is distributed and what is happening with it.

I am absolutely pro-food security. I am pro agroecology, I am pro-working for farmers and consumers, not for multinational food companies and giant agrochemical companies. I am pro healthy food system. And so, I beg to move.
19:59
Lord Cameron of Dillington Portrait Lord Cameron of Dillington (Crossbench)
-
-
The regulations laid before the House on 25 February be approved, since when an amendment has been moved by Baroness Bennett, at the end, to insert the words set out on the order paper. The question therefore I have to put is this amendment agreed to?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It will be no surprise to anyone in this House that I strongly support this statutory instrument. Precision breeding is a method of plant breeding, it is safer and more plant breeding, it is safer and more precise than the random selection methods of existing traditional breeding. Above all, it is the speeding up of the process, of speeding up of the process, of developing new and urgently needed varieties, that make it so important in today's world. If you have got in today's world.

If you have got 15-20 years to spare, and you are dog it enough to pursue your single issue target, with the millions of issue target, with the millions of options available to you, from the options available to you, from the 200-300 hybrids breeding a year, 90% of which you destroy, you might be able to produce a variety of the characteristics you want. But we do characteristics you want. But we do have the time for the 20 hottest needed for the random chance that such breathing provides.

We urgently such breathing provides. We urgently and desperately need multifaceted improvements to a whole range of improvements to a whole range of crops. And I'm particularly talking here about my interest in African agriculture, where the population is going to double in the next 30 years, and where climate change is already accelerating out of control. My Lords, unless we act quickly, we will be responsible for human tragedy on a very large-scale. We have to ask ourselves, how do we breed plants that can resist the many different diseases and pests present in every country without using chemicals? How do we breed plants that can resist the all too frequent droughts or plants that resist flooding? How do we breed maize that is salt tolerant or a plant that is resistant to mildew? Or perhaps, more appropriately, how do we breed crops that give children access to vital vitamins and minerals? Deficits of which can cause blindness, stunting, and cognitive degeneration.

We precision breeding now. Without the dangers of too many of target characteristics, inheriting the random mutations of the traditional breeding process. We in the UK also need new varieties, which can be grown by farmers without the chemicals that affect their biodiversity. Varieties with a longer shelflife in our supermarkets, to reduce the need for practice -- Plastic, we can have wheat with minimum gluten content, to have coeliac's, or tomatoes, small plants covered with food, covering walls and window boxes.

All of the projects I mentioned are at various stages of development across the world and in my view, they are actually safer than the random mutations used in traditional I agree it should be made clear that a particular variety evolved from gene editing and there will be a registered recording that this variety was achieved by precision breeding, but by the time a new variety is sold to a farmer, let alone to a consumer, it will be several generations away from gene editing.

I should point out that the Food Standards Agency get involved before the seed reaches the marketplace. To put flesh on that, from a reading company editing a variety of wheat for improved quality, it would have in-house testing for off target characteristics and for stability through generations. I'm advised this testing takes three or four generations spanning the same number of years, but you have two years and two generations of statutory testing and that point sees a recommended listing and you probably have one or two years of multiplying the seed for the farmer to so.

It is a long process and I'm not sure that a final crop of wheat could be called gene edited. It is six or seven generations down the line. Turning to the consumer, how does your local village baker who uses a mixture of flour and puts the loaves on the shelf without a label, how does she inform customers the type she has used in the bread? She would have to have a general notice above the door of the shop saying the products sold in the shop may contain flower that is remotely descended from a plant that was once precision bred.

Such a statement would be meaningless to any member of the public. I completely understand the desire for transparency and that is what the register is for, but I do not think specific labelling inherent in the amendment would be achievable with any degree of accuracy or certainty. Even with modern scientific techniques, it is almost impossible to distinguish between gene edited variety and a traditionally bred variety. I do not believe it is necessary. I would support the view taken by other countries like Canada, the US and Japan do not require labelling for precision bred require labelling for precision bred products.

I strongly support the Statutory Instrument. Statutory Instrument.
20:05
Lord Rooker Portrait Lord Rooker (Labour)
-
-
I support what the noble Lord just said and I don't intend to support the intended aspects of it. I hope I can deliver the commonsense view of it. Backed by the science. That is what we are about. It is not genetic modification, whatever anyone might say. In 1998, I was the food safety minister before the FSA existed when the campaign was laid against GM foods. This technique was not available and if it had been available then we would not have even tried to go down the road of GM.

Although we have got the American population as being the sitting duck samples of GM food technology for 30 years and to the best of my knowledge no one has ever died from any of the food. I am quite critical of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I feel sad about this because it does not take a full range of evidence and I'm not going into further criticism, but I think it deserves criticism. It is a shame because they are normally incredibly good.

As Lord Cameron said, it was a long time ago I went to Norwich to look at the laboratories there. The amount of time spent on traditional breeding which if you look at it, traditional breeding is gene edited but they did not know that they were doing it. That is the problem. It is randomised. They are not certain. The products that come out are safe, the science says they are safe, and the FSA says they are safe and it should be good enough for most of us.

Those would think that organic farmers do not use medicine for the animals. They do. The idea that they are completely natural, we know that is absolutely preposterous. I think some of the advantages and we have done this debate where we put the legislation through in 2023. The other place had a sprinter's long on it with the experience I have in both houses. I think the idea that most people and myself as well before I was completely ignorant about the breeding of plants, I mean the technology, the randomised nature of it, the hit and miss view of it, the time spent on it, it is enormous and is happening all of the time.

The fact is reading is taking place on a regular basis. We don't worry about it. The products are safe, not labelled, and that is my criticism of the report. If you cannot check it is different, how can you label it? I would be much more keen of having the method of slaughter of animals but everyone is against that. If you cannot tell the difference, how can you possibly ladle it? It is scientifically preposterous. I think the view...

I do not deny the scientists taking this view. We had this 20 years ago with a scientist who said that something was wrong with potatoes in GM technology and he was checking raw potatoes. The advice is do not eat them because the chances are they will kill you. There is a real problem with odd scientists, the general scientific community, and I hope I won't be contradicted in a moment, is generally in favour of this system. It is safe, and advance on the science, it helps consumers, it helps the environment, and I cannot see what the problem is in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

slowing it down. I will be brief and in doing so I
20:09
Lord Wigley Portrait Lord Wigley (Plaid Cymru)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will be brief and in doing so I will draw attention to my registered interest in the published register. interest in the published register. I am torn on this matter. I am a scientist by background and as such I have welcomed progress made by science, but I believe with the immense impact of this progress, we have a responsibility to be extremely careful and to take steps forward when we are certain we are doing the right thing.

Lord Rooker took me back to the early days of devolution in 1999 when the question of GM products was controversial and caused immense difficulty across England and Wales and the north-east Wales area with Cheshire. These needs to be thought through in advance otherwise we will be in the same mess we were around that time. I would ask the Minister responding to this debate to clarify further where exactly discussions have gone with the devolved government where responsibilities live for these matters in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The Minister indicated discussions were taking place but in putting it in those terms, the implication is they have not reached a conclusion. Should we be steamrolling an order like this through when the conclusion has not been reached and aspects may not have been discussed at all. Why is the government bringing this before the House before concluding procedures to which they themselves signed up with their own labour government in Cardiff? They want to have their own time to discuss this and come to a conclusion.

I welcome the fact that there is a regret notion because we believe they should move down this road if that is the consensus and is agreed it is safe, but only doing so through proper procedure. If we are not going through proper procedure with regards to the constitutional reality, how can we be saved? The other procedures are vital. I would ask the Minister to think again with regards to the timescale as to when further thoughts can be given to the matter.
20:12
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
It will be no surprise I support these given I was Secretary of State when we took primary legislation through the House and I will remind Lord Wigley it has been through the House and Baroness Bennett, House and Baroness Bennett, including, when the amendments were tabled about marketing and labelling and similar and the House did not agree with the amendments. The House had a say already in the decision about how to take forward technology and I'm conscious there will be challenges about the UK Internal Market Act, but I will remind your Lordships that in the days when we were part of the European Union it was the UK government listening to responses and views of the devolved administrations, but made that determination and relied on the votes of what was determined across the European Union as a whole.

As a consequence, all of that regulation was implied without any say of House of Lords or House of Commons at that time. This is a difficult situation to reading the arguments when we had intense debates and were right to be had, but they were had in this place and I am grateful to take this forward. It is a reminder that 40% of crops are lost globally every year because of flooding, pesticides, and other events and that is why it is important for agriculture and why it is important for food security to take science and make the best use of it.

Today we had a question about the Climate Change Committee subcommittee on adaptation. There is climate resilient agriculture. To my surprise, the subcommittee does not refer in any way to climate resilient agriculture to think about the use of devices like this, about how we can make sure we can improve insecurity by referring to this. I do think it is important to embrace technology as has been referred to in Norwich and it is a particularly good example, but there are others around in that way.

As has been well said, gene editing is the acceleration of natural processes and we will see food productivity increase and that is why it is important to recognise the climate incidents we have witnessed on our own shores in the past four years and that is why having crops that are drought and disease resistant, reducing the risk and use of fertiliser and that is what we must do to ensure and help biodiversity across the country to improve the state it is in at the moment.

It is important to respect the UK Internal Market Act. There are a variety of things, 40 pages of legislation, and I appreciate my time as Secretary of State I got frustrated about the time it took to generate after we had done primary legislation and how we got on with the detail, but I commend officials in the FSA and DEFRA for proceeding with this, but this matters that we get sensible science-based decisions right, not worry too much about concerns that people artificially make candidly when there are accelerations of that.

We are experiencing AI in that. We are experiencing AI in society and there are concerns, but the scientists are speaking and our the scientists are speaking and our farmers are speaking and if it is forced into division I will support forced into division I will support forced into division I will support
20:16
Lord Trees Portrait Lord Trees (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I strongly support these regulations. The UK is a leader in technologies, and exploiting and implementing them will be an integral part of our bioscience expertise to help drive economic growth in the UK. But much more than that, they will help us critically to help us feed not only ourselves in the UK but the world, in the face of a growing population, constantly emerging disease threats, and environmental challenges. I and environmental challenges. I would just like to point out the rather obvious, that the fruits and vegetables crops we grow and consume now are very different from their national natural progenitors and have been subject to changes by humans over hundreds of years, by selective processes, of which we have no knowledge whether their genes might be affected.

We have been eating genetically modified food for years and years and years. Historically, the world and especially populations in some of the poorest countries in the world, benefited from the green revolution in the decades after the Second World War, when particular varieties of wheat and rice were improved, such that many people could feed adequately in those countries, that was again, achieved by traditional methods. The modern techniques enable us to make changes extremely quickly and an incredibly sustainable and environmentally friendly means to benefit humankind by reducing parasitic sides and chemicals and fertilisers, and even water by reducing food waste.

So I find it difficult why our colleagues in the Green Party and Baroness Bennett oppose them. My Lords, I have confidence in our medical biologists and other plant scientists and the regulations that are in place in these regulations. For these reasons, I support the government strongly but I would urge them to press ahead, with similar enabling regulations to permit precision breeding technologies in animals. They offer, for example, the prospect of creating avian flu resistant chickens which would not only prevent disease in chickens but could reduce the opportunity of spillover into humans, and pathogenic influenza, strain H5N1, which has the potential, therefore, if you could do that, to prevent the possible adaptation from human to human transition.

So I strongly support these regulations for plants and urge the government to consider similar enabling relations for similar enabling relations for animals for this House as soon as possible.
20:19
Baroness Freeman of Steventon Portrait Baroness Freeman of Steventon (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, my career has been in the communication of science and communication of evidence, and helping to give people the information they need and want to make decisions. And there have been 25 years of studies on the communication of genetic modification and all of these techniques. Some of them done by the FSA, and I will quote from them, they neatly summarise the decades of research. Consumers see the range of risks and benefits to food, on balance, they felt the balance outweigh the risks, and regulate PV food, but they wanted labelling to enable them to make choices at the point-of-purchase.

And the FSA say the power to decide on the mandatory labelling in England sits with DEFRA. FSA officials have shared the results of the consumer research and public consultation with DEFRA. I am really concerned about the lack of labelling here. Because going against what consumers want carries with it risks. DEFRA said, precision bread plans is no better than precision-based counterparts, focused on the feeding technology used is not appropriate. We have heard arguments by noble Lords here today already full the problem with this is a lot of people's concerns for this technology is not safety based.

And ignoring the fact that people have other concerns and I feel their concerns are not being listened to my create a public backlash to this technology. Often people find they feel something is going to be fair here. They are worried about it benefiting the big players and the rich, over the smaller players in the world. DEFRA's response focused only on the food safety, it doesn't even make sense. Because labels on food, as we have heard, often about things that are not direct food safety.

We have labelling of country of origin being mandated for example. It allows consumers to make decisions when they are buying things about point- of-sale that they want to decide on. And I worry that if the government continues on this path of not having mandatory labelling then organic producers, who cannot allow genetic material into their supply chains will have to take the responsibility to do all that tracing of labelling of products themselves and that is going to be very difficult. As we have all know, to already trace a product from register all the way to the supply chain.

If people are going to be able to do that work or it is going to be expensive, how is the organic labelling supposed to work? How are consumers supposed to If we go further, we find a paragraph that says about labelling, this is likely to add extra costs, providing this an additional verification and assurance for all PB food would add extra cost to the whole PB food market, making it less affordable reducing the incentives for food businesses to innovate and bring new products to market.

Incentives for food businesses is the sort of phrase that is likely to trigger that sentiment that we have already experienced around the genetic modification and around the fear the government is pandering to big multinational companies, allowing their profits to overwrite concerns about the environment or small businesses, like small farms. What would be far better, to do a positive solution here for the government, rather than making organic and small brands, usually SMEs, label their products as GM free or choose whatever label they want, and thereby, causing resentment in the public about the costs of small businesses and worries about the lack of transparency, it is forging edited products to be clearly labelled with what modification is being done to them and why.

Which is something The Royal Society mentioned in the concentration response. For example, genetically enhanced contain more vitamin C. To give people more understanding of the potential benefits and letting people know that people care, but the reassurance is there that it has been traced through, and just a response Lord Cameron's point, if something has been edited and shown stability through the generations, it doesn't matter how many generations later you are, that edited gene is present in the product and is therefore a reason.

It is why people are doing this work, because we want these beneficial genes. So, giving people that understanding through labelling that it has been enhanced to do whatever it has been enhanced to do allows people to make an informed consumer choice and minimises the cost and places them fairly on the I urge you to listen to people's concerns, they are not irrational or misunderstanding science, it is about establishing trust and about establishing trust and priorities, that they are the same as the public's priorities.

If you do not act in a trustworthy manner, you cannot expect people to trust you cannot expect people to trust you, and once you have lost trust, we know what happens, we have been there before on this issue.
20:25
Lord Pack Portrait Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Given my experience with polling, I wish to focus on one particular statement made by DEFRA which underpins this statutory instrument. In the impact assessment, it says that " Polling commission by DEFRA YouGov 2022 found that over half, 57%, of respondents in England thought that use of gene editing in , while 27% thought this was unacceptable, 16% undecided." What I think it is unfortunate, it did not publish the assessment online but only making it available on request, the department also seemed reluctant to share further details of the polling.

As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee's report on this note in paragraph 38 " DEFRA has not published this survey." It remains the case even Asked for information about it. As a result, I contacted directly, and found out under their own industry recreation, they appear to be required to publish the details of the poll, which I'm glad to say they did, and to be fair, I know DEFRA has since added the link to the details of the poles of the impact assessment.

But this sequence does suggest, I think, an unfortunate reluctance to be as transparent as possible about the evidence being used for decision-making. Why should the details of a pole, paid for by the taxpayer, and being used to justify legislation being put to Parliament, be obscured in that way? Moreover, now that we do have the full details of the poll, they pose further questions. Because in the polling factor, the full 52% said they have not even heard of this technology. Moreover, a 48% that have heard of it, only 3% said they were very well informed about.

It means overall, only 1.5% said they were very well informed about the topic they were being asked to give their views on. Now, the specific question which DEFRA cited, whose wording we now know, despite the early reductions, is not an awful question by any means, but the wording is problematic, I think, given how DEFRA has chosen to use its results. Because of the question wording provides positives about PBOs, without providing any mention of possible drawbacks. Now, there is an obvious and clear risk of skewing answers.

If you ask a question in the capital about which only one 5% say they are well informed, and in that question can only provide benefits but mention no possible drawbacks. I hope, therefore, the Minister will address both these points. Firstly, why the initial reluctance to publish full details of the poll? And secondly, can I request the Minister on whether a question in a pole, where only 1.5% of people say they are well informed of a topic and with wording that of a topic and with wording that only provides positives for the policy, really provides the solid evidence which the impact assessment presented as being?
20:28
Earl of Caithness Portrait The Earl of Caithness (Conservative)
-
-
I was very briefly like to support the statutory before us. There have been very many good speeches and some ones I disagree with that fighting battles we have already fought, and discussed at length, and voted on. And here we are, still raising them. And then you bring in the 'Red Herring' of genetically modified foods. That is not what we are talking about at all. There has been quite a lot about labelling, my Lords. Let me just repeat, what the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said.

All the food we eat now has been genetically altered. It is not labelled. There was no labelling on Golden promise, that wonderful barley of the 1950s. That started life in a nuclear reactor, subject to gamma rays. There has been no labelling about that. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, says, by the time it gets into the food chain, it is a very different plant from what originally happened. I believe that the government have absolutely got it right. They have struck the right balance.

The noble Baroness, Baroness Bennett, says she wants healthy food. We all want healthy foods. But the foods we are eating which is healthy as all genetically modified. The noble Baroness connection was really healthy food, goes back to basics, when mankind first appeared on the planet, she would be dead of starvation. She hasn't got a hope. My Lords, I wish to also support the noble Lord, Lord Trees, asking the government to move forward on the animal front two. -- Animal front as well.

These revelations are hugely important for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

animals, -- Farmers, consumers and feeding the population of the world to come. I just want to briefly agree with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just want to briefly agree with my noble friend Baroness Coffey, and
20:30
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
my noble friend Baroness Coffey, and indeed, with Lord Rooker, about the points they were making. I will not repeat them, but I think it is really important for us to ask the question whether it is right really to be using a debate on Statutory Instruments Act try to revisit arguments, which were, as far as I am concerned, were thoroughly discussed in the passage of the originating legislation. Likewise with the second village committee, I think they should not have -- Secondary committee, I think they should not have treated people raising concerns with them as a basis for asking questions to the Minister, they should have examined some of those themselves.

I want to declare an interest. You can register, you will see I am an adviser to low associates, a Brussels based company. In that context, the company has been concerned with promoting innovation, in the European Union. And involved in the new genomic techniques regulation, which the European Commission published in July And involved in the new genomic techniques regulation, which the European Commission published in July 2033. Environment correctly. In that context, for example, I chaired a meeting of English farmers talking to Polish farmers, in December, in anticipation of the Polish presidency.

And of course, it was a fascinating discussion with the Polish farmers were really interested and hopeful of the opportunity for them, forex, to benefit from increased wheat yields, particularly to benefit from things like drought resistant crops and so on. And the benefit of precision- bred plants. Of course, we call on precision-bred in the European Union, they would call the new The point, I think that two things are wrong from the Baroness Bennett. One, though there is a difference in the precise characterisation of NG GTs as compared to precision bread, the basis for the European commissions proposal is, essentially, that there should be a distinction between those that are GM or and are transgenic from those plants that are able to be produced plants that are able to be produced in ways that this indistinguishable through traditional breeding techniques.

Where this is relevant to our debate today but Wales, Scotland, have opportunities to join in the legislation chose not to do so. I remember at the time I think it was principally because they wanted to align with the European Union legislation rather than the English legislation only applies to England and as it happens the Polish presidency has agreed in the Council of Ministers and the internet a trial today and so we are making progress in the European Union.

As far as I can see, that answers Baroness Bennett central question. How can we achieve something which is comparable across the United Kingdom? Because there is no reason. I hope within a reasonable period that we will have both legislation that we will have both legislation for precision bread organisms and plants in this country and, indeed, provision for N GTs which are not under the GMO regulations in the European Union. European Union.
20:33
Lord Krebs Portrait Lord Krebs (Crossbench)
-
-
In so doing declare my interest as a scientific to Marks & Spencer. And I do not want to repeat what has been said and I would agree with the Noble Lord that much of the debate this evening has been a repetition of what we heard in the committee and report stage of the primary legislation, however I do just want to recap on the question of mandatory labour which has cropped up in a number of noble Lords contributions and I think the point that we made, the Noble Lord rocker made the point that it would be very difficult to enforce mandatory labelling because you cannot tell the difference.

That is the whole point of decision bread as defined point of decision bread as defined in the bill, organisms that could be produced by traditional breeding. If I've an enforcer I would not know where to start. I think the second point made by my Noble Friend Lord Cameron is that in due course the editor precision-bred products will be pervasive in the foodchain. Once there is with that can grow without application of pesticides or it grows more effectively in our climate it will become pervasive in the foodchain.

Where does the labelling start and end? And the third point which was made by my Noble Friend Baroness Freeman is that it may be up to retailers on a non-mandatory basis to label the benefits, so here is a tomato that is better for you and it may be labelled like that. It is not a process. It is the end product that matters. But if we do insist on the process and I agree with the point that the noble Earl said, we should be equally willing to put labels on organisms, apples or other products, bread, that says this product has been reduced by bombarding gametes with nuclear radiation.

That is a process and it is the equivalent of gene editing, but on the other side of the fence. And my final point is about cross contamination. If I were a farmer producing gene edited wheat, I would be really worried about cross contamination from a neighbouring organic farmer. I good to have guarantees that our organic farm is not going to contaminate my gene edited crop, so it is at the same time the organic farmer looking same time the organic farmer looking at me and saying I do not want his stuff contaminating my crop, so it is interesting on both sides to figure out ways of reducing or minimising the risk of cross contamination, so it is not a one- way street and I strongly support the secondary legislation.

the secondary legislation.
20:36
Lord Dodds of Duncairn Portrait Lord Dodds of Duncairn (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
I want to very briefly intervene in the issue that has been highlighted in the secondary legislation scrutiny committee report on the impact of the UK in, and as we have heard, the issue that products or precision really that our preferred sale can be sold into Scotland and Wales and we have had a bit of discussion on that, but at paragraph 47, the committee did say that in relation to Northern Ireland, DEFRA explained on the framework mutual recognition does not apply to precision-bred organism gestation.

Therefore, precision-bred products must comply with GM legislation in Northern Ireland and the committee in paragraph 48 said that because PBOs are not currently recognised in the EU, therefore in Northern Ireland since we are under EU law and jurisdiction, despite Brexit Mac, despite this they will have to label their products as GMO free trade with Northern Ireland or the EU. This is a matter of concern. And talks about submissions that were made, raising fundamental questions about ability to trade with our EU neighbours, and therefore I would like to ask the noble Baroness the Minister when she comes to reply just explain, just to clarify what is the position as far as Northern Ireland? What is the impact on northern Ireland of this particular situation that Northern Ireland finds itself in compared to Scotland? And Wales.

And the fact that these issues as the committee says in paragraph 49 could not be addressed in any detail whatsoever through aid to minimise impact assessment. As Lord Wigley has said there are discussions happening with the devolved administration and I the devolved administration and I would be interested to hear what they said. What is the discussion that is happening with the Northern Ireland minister? Because I Ireland minister? Because I certainly have not heard anything be reported in the Northern Ireland assembly on this matter.

I would be grateful if the noble Baroness the Minister could just clarify that particular important issue that has been highlighted in the report as far as Northern Ireland is concerned. concerned.
20:39
Baroness Hayman Portrait Baroness Hayman (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to speak very briefly on this issue. We follow the Noble Lord rocker into that portfolio which was something of a poisoned chalice at the time and the very bitter and very divisive debates around GMOs and I work, often, very close to the noble Baroness Bennett, but I did not agree with anything that she said this evening. And, at the time, 1/4 of a century ago, the debate was almost impossible to have with any clarity and with any lack of high emotion.

And I think that was terribly destructive on all sorts of levels. And particularly, and the Noble Lord said this, that somehow a technology in itself became something that people either believed in or did not leading. Instead of looking at the application of that technology, but its effects were, whether those were effects that should be allowed, but people should be aware of the effects, or whether they are effects that had no consequences, no traceable consequences, and therefore labelling was, in some ways, itself, dishonest.

I think the noble Baroness frame and made a very interesting speech about trust. And I agree with her. But I do think there is a problem if we pretend that there is something that can be identified and that ought to be flagged up against the advice of the FSA, Parliament, of all those who spend years of their life looking at these issues. Because one and 1/2% of respondents of the survey were asked specifically is this something you would like to inform us about, say that they think that is a good idea.

They could put the most enormous list of things that one half % of the population would be interested in being informed about when they buy something. I think it is a really interesting and important debate, but I do not believe it is relevant to this subject. And all I will say is I formed my view on this issue. Not only on that sort of rational scientific grounds, but because I went to the centre very early on in my ministerial job, and I met their young scientist 's, young Bonner mists, from Africa, who were so enthused and grateful for the opportunity to spend time in that scientific institution, because the thought of the relevance that this work could have for their populations, their agriculture, I went back a few months ago with the action against hunger group and that same commitment, not to the industry conglomerates, not to business, but actually to improve crops that will help the world.

And, yes, help in this country. But how it could have such potential was still there. They had kept the faith over those 25 difficult years when we did not make progress, so I am absolutely delighted to support these regulations tonight.
20:43
20:44
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to support the aims of the Statutory Instrument from these benches but also to work on the questions raised by the noble Baroness Lady Bennett in her motion. The Liberal Democrats have always made clear from these benches that we are not antiscience and support the idea of encouraging a science- based approach to technology such as gene editing for the precision reading. We believe that such methods can be helpful in addressing challenges like climate change, reducing the need for pesticides and fertilisers, and mitigation against disease and pest issues, for food and food crops.

And Matt my Lords, we recognise, as has been mentioned by other noble Lords, the scientific consensus from bodies like a.k.a., and I would also mention the European Food safety authority, that these organisms posed no greater risk to health or to the environment than traditionally bred counterparts. I also thank the noble Lords rocker and Baroness Hayman for their fascinating historical context and insight, and especially the important information about when not to implement those, which I will take with me. However, the point of the regulatory processes to manage both the benefits and the risks inappropriate way while the existing legislation carries a significant burden.

These draft regulations do raised some questions. They do appear to take away some of the safeguards that apply to other genetically modified organisms, such as mandatory risk assessments, public notice, traceability, One of our main concerns is whether this has hit the right level. Ministers have stated that food and feed from precision bred organisms are unlikely to need labelling but public opinion is at odds with that, as described by my noble friend, here on the benches, first speech after his Maiden speech.

The consumers do, as outlined, there is a danger that consumers want this kind of information. Our own policy paper set out our food -- vision that empowers users with as much information as possible. In other words, allowing consumers to shop their values. We would like to know how the public register, if the noble Lady doesn't feel it is adequate, does she share concerns that the lack of traceability and labelling has implications for farmers and whilst it is, we recognise, a small percentage, as the noble Lord made clear, impact on the organic sector is a question we would raise in particular, that issue of when you have a boundary between one farm and another, one is organic, what the dangers are of that organic farm no longer being able to declare itself organic because under organic law, precision , , and , and even , and even more , and even more expensive.

, and even more expensive. And , and even more expensive. And this covers issues such as the National Cedar list, labelling on seed packets, making it difficult for any farmer or grower to identify precision bread seeds. Finally, we understand this issue of territorial application, and it is England only, application, and it is England only, and I do... I thank the noble Lord for some insight into how it came to this situation. Devolved nations like Scotland and Wales currently treat precision bred organisms as GMOs and therefore have come to express concerns about these relations.

It also poses risk to trade with the EU, the Polish example that the noble Lord has raised is fascinating and it gives hope that this does not create a barrier to any future objective which we hold very dear on these benches of improving the terrible trade deals with our current nearest neighbours. In conclusion, whilst we support the potential precision breeding, we have questions for the Minister, in particular, given the overwhelming public desire for labelling and implications of that for the organic sector, why has the government definitely ruled out any kind of mandatory labelling? And whilst recognising, as I said, that it is a small percentage of farmers, can a Minister tell us what measures are being taken to ensure that the integrity of the organic supply chain is protected? And that organic farmers are not burdened by the lack of traceability, as I have earlier described.

This House needs clarity on these points before we can be truly confident, especially in the public acceptance of these regulations. We agree with many noble peers on the broad support for this statutory instrument and look forward to hearing the Minister's response. response.
20:50
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, this statutory instrument enacts policy from the groundbreaking genetic act brought in 2020, and is a fantastic innovation that we should welcome, this legislation permits us to use safe science to speed up when nature has been doing for millennia. Britain has used Brexit freedoms to bringing a tried and tested procedure and we now see the EU considering following behind us. I commend my old friends in the FSA for the simplified regulatory regime for these plans and a proportionate plan for precision bred animals to ensure that animal welfare is safeguarded.

I was on the board when we agreed the regulatory regime and we took into account every representation made, including consumer concerns. Trying to muddy the waters by claiming that gene editing is the same as genetic modification was attempted by the noble Lady and Baroness Bennett and a few others in the other place when the Bill was going through. That argument was rejected by all major parties in the Commons and Lords and crossbenchers. Parliament, especially this House, debated this in detail and resisted...

Rejected ideas produced by the noble Lady. I therefore deplore the emotion in the name of the noble Baroness, I deplore the words... She adds misleading words " $$CAPITALISEGenetically precision bred organisms." I agree with Baroness Hayman, that is my policy as well, sit down and say no more. I better stick to my script. Gene editing simply makes changes that could occur through traditional breeding methods. It takes about eight years to produce a new variety of strawberry, 10 to 15 years for a new variety of potato and about 25 years for a new variety of apple, gene editing produces a natural but faster process.

In precision breeding, there is no foreign DNA, all of the genes edited belong to the species. If Houston had found wheat with GMO in it, the problem is it will not be approved by DEFRA or the AC NFP, there is no threat to consumers, as the Professor of the consumers, as the Professor of the excellent institute said, it relies on the creation and selection of genetic changes to produce beneficial traits, precision breeding is a way of creating the same genetic changes that could have been made through traditional breeding but much faster and more precisely.

All new varieties are subject to strict standards and this will be the same for precision breeding, the new regulatory framework maintains protection for public health and the environment and scientific advances that support sustainable agriculture. They will be brought safely to market with consumer confidence, offering enormous benefits to farmers, and the environment. We warmly welcome the government decision to follow the Conservative policy and ladies regulations, should acknowledge that genetic editing allows precise improvements to crops, making them more resistant to diseases, decreasing the need for pesticides and increasing tolerance to extreme weather conditions.

These advances help to ensure a stable food supply, despite environmental challenges. This increased resilience, others have said tonight, is vital for enhancing food security, not just in the UK but in other countries where farming communities are especially vulnerable to challenging climates. Stronger, healthier crops, farmers can produce more consistent harvest with fewer resources, lowering the reliance on pesticides and fertilisers which are often expensive and environmentally damaging. Gene editing supports more sustainable and efficient agriculture by investing in this technology we can help ensure that future generations have access to nutritious food.

Genetic editing, using tools, involves making precise, targeted changes to an organism's existing DNA without adding foreign ones. It is often used to fix genetic defect and enhance natural traits. I understand some things being worked on the moment are banana trees resistant to Panama disease and, as the Minister said, bananas that do not go brown within hours. I would love to find in the supermarket bananas that are actually yellow instead of bright green. They are working with druggies and matters which will be mildew resistant, wheat can grow in hot and dry climates, broccoli that will prevent heart disease, there is work to eliminate rice blast disease which destroys enough rice crops to feed 60 million people per annum.

Gene editing will give us tomatoes hope we will get matters which are right and Street when you get them in the supermarket because they are picked when their bright green, stored 12 degrees and zapped with a gas to turn them red, that is another benefit we might get in the future. Precision breeding is not an alternative to conventional breeding, we get all these benefits described with conventional breeding described with conventional breeding if we are prepared to spend 20 to 30 years working with crossbreeding techniques and rejecting 95% of failures.

As others have said, these products will not be on the shelves next year or the year after, since they have to go through the strict testing in the final Food Standards Agency regulatory regime. 55 clauses and five schedules. Yes, the regulations are complex, we have to demonstrate to consumers that we have built in all of the necessary safety features, which I believe that the government has. I understand potential UK developers are taking it carefully and slowly and that must be the right approach to reassure the public.

I'm also told that those who are developing things are small, start-up companies, not the huge chemical companies of the world. It is all small companies. The FSA and its expert scientific committees adopt a strict approach and if they are satisfied with the safety of any gene editing product approved, placed on the new register, you can bet your bottom dollar that it is very safe. Talking of dollars, want an assurance from the noble Lady, the Minister, if we do a trade deal with the USA and it involves food, we will not permit any product produced on lower standards than ours or treated with drugs or chemicals we have found.

We should not permit any US gene edited products into our shops without going through the safety and environment testing regime that we have invented in these regulations. No matter how safe the Americans might think they are, we have got to reassure our own consumers. They are no different from species that have been created slowly, then labelling is also nonsensical. When I can't get English apples, I bite Gala apples, invented in New Zealand, 90 years ago.

Since then, Gala has been crossbred and tweaked up to about 36 times, I believe. If we label any new gene edited version, logically, we have to label the other 36. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is right, we expect and Lord Rooker was white, Parliament rejected calls, expert scientists pointed out it is impossible to label something as different if it is just the same as the other varieties of the same species. That was bluntly put by Lord Rooker in usual style.

Those who are calling for labelling want to discredit gene editing by trying to show the product is somehow different and it is genetic modification through the back door and dangerous. Labelling rightly will not happen. The noble Baroness was also right, if you ask consumers 100 questions are different things they'd like to label, there will always be somebody who will say they want it labelled, you would need a label with about 200 different things, we will all say the same thing, we have all got our personal things we want to see labels on food, if any government try to apply all of them, the label would be free feet long.

-- Three feet long. A survey conducted by the FSA showed that 65% of the population would eat a precision bred product if it had health benefits, 64% if it is was better for the environment, 64% if it was safer for people with allergies. 61% people with allergies. Ultimately, as explained by the professor, he said, the resilience of the U.K.'s food supply ends at farmers and growers, in order to grow the crop. This legislation unlocks agricultural innovation, accelerating the Department of crop varieties with high yield and enhanced disease resistance, enabling farmers to System System and System and PRS System and PRS which System and PRS which costs System and PRS which costs around System and PRS which costs around $3 billion per annum in destroyed animals.

We could cut that use even further in the UK. We are doing quite well at the moment, however I am concerned the Government might be tempted to go further than gene editing of cropped and stop short of gene editing animals. As we see public acceptance for gene editing implants delivering the expected benefits, the Noble Lady the Minister can confirm whether the Government will push on with it? The FSA has adopted a two-tiered approach, simple machine for marketing precision bread plants and animals in England, including new systems for those products.

A new science-based authorisation process for food and feed products developed for breeding and a proportionate regulatory system for precision-bred animals to make sure Anil welfare is safeguarded. I conclude by stating our strong support for the defence, however I look to the Noble Lady the Minister to guarantee that the Government will not sell out the EU and precision gene editing in any and precision gene editing in any deal with the EU. I do not blend the deal with the EU.

I do not blend the Noble Lady the Minister and any DEFRA message because we all know that DEFRA has been sidelined by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary. The Government take us back into the The Government take us back into the EU? We know that the Government will send out fishermen to get some send out fishermen to get some meaningless deal to get us back under the European code, but I plead with the Noble Lady the Minister to save green energy.

It is a great British success story and it must British success story and it must not be sacrificed in any EU gesture and I support the relations. and I support the relations.
21:03
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
Can I thank you for your contributions and comments? In what has been a very interesting debate. And I think in most cases for your support, for the regulations. We But I want to reflect on the importance of implementing the legislation because without it, the potential of precision breeding cannot be realised. The existing legislation carries a significant burden, limiting which companies can bring companies to market and which crop species and traits we can benefit from. Our understanding of the science has advanced.

It is not proportionate to apply the existing legislation to plants produced by technologies. When the overwhelming scientific advice is that they pose no greater risk than traditional varieties. The secondary legislation we have been discussing today will change this, providing a science- based approach that is proportionate to the level of risk. As my Noble Friend Lord Young said, we are taking an evidence-based and balanced approach. I do recognise there have been concerns in the number of issues raised, so I will turn to these now.

Devolved Governments was mentioned by the Noble Lady Baroness Bennett and also by the Noble Lord weekly and Dodds. Clearly, we recognise the value of the concerns noble Lords have raised within the divergence in the UK which is why we continue to regularly engage with the devolved Governments. And my colleagues have recently been speaking to our devolved Governments and invited them to discuss the issues in more detail. And this work is going to build on the regular monthly meetings that we have in the devolved Governments already.

On progress and timing we are making good progress in discussions, and as I have already said before the devolved Governments are considering their positions and holding discussions with key stakeholders that were impacted by them. But we just want to crack on. We do not have the time to wait to realise the potential benefits. We have, as noble Lords have said, gone through this long winded debate on the legislation, but we directly rise the importance of working closely with the devolved Governments.

Northern Ireland which Dodds raised, I want assure the noble Lords that this is an important issue and we are continuing to engage stakeholders in Northern Ireland in order to properly understand the potential impacts of both the short-term and long-term and that short-term and long-term and that includes recent engagement with the Minister and Daniel Zeichner has specifically met with him to discuss the implications of precision reading. We are also engaging with the EU and the UK a culture food group on the implications of the proposed regulatory framework for Northern Ireland.

The impact on the organic sector was raised by a number of noble Lords. This is one of the areas were we have worked ongoing, and our engagement in the industry suggested that the first products that would come to market would be those that would not undergo significant further processing, so can be kept separate from traditionally bred material which would mean the exposure of organo- production to decision would be very limited in the short-term. This is working closely with the sector to prepare for the medium and longer term impacts by discussing non-legislative options for supply coexistence.

That is including facilitating discussions to establish which measures that are currently used by the industry could be used by farmers to enable coexistence between precision-bred and non-precision-bred crop production that is in line with how things are approached. Internationally the Noble Lord talked about cross contamination to get this right and DEFRA has also worked with the organic sector to look at any further potential issues in the widest approach. Labelling came up, many noble Lords talked about this, and of course it was a key area of debate with the passage of the act and we felt we were visiting that to a certain extent, as noble Lords has said the Food Standards Agency board concluded there was no justification for the provision of labour grants and consumer safety since there was no scientific evidence that precision- bred organisms are intrinsically more hazardous than traditionally bred organisms, and because this was not considered to be a safety issue, the mandatory labelling to indicate the process does not align with the principles, and it also raises costs for businesses and consumers.

Methodist production and voluntarily enabled and can be catered for by enabled and can be catered for by the market if there is the demand and that follows the approach taken by many partners abroad, including the current EU regulatory proposal. However, I think that we would support the suggestion that voluntary labelling of benefits could well be very helpful, so we have tried to get the right balance here, however just out of interest for noble Lords, there are discussions within DEFRA at the moment about how that labelling for consumers could potentially be improved, so this is something that we are also currently looking at, so we are also currently looking at, so coming to consumers with that transparency, the Noble Lord Freeman mentioned this.

The FSA regularly gathers consumer views on a wide avenger of topics and the most recent data shows that the price of food remains the top concern for consumers. Alongside food poverty, food inequality, and sustainability. And the healthiness of the food that is being eaten. The FSA is continuing to undertake regular insights to track the public attitudes. What we do know is the public understanding is low and public sentiment is more in favour. And while I am holding this the Noble Lord mentioned it was published, they were carried out by you.golf to look at public perception and all three were designed for internal use to enable us to chat with our communications around this.

It has now been published and can be found on the Governments website. Plant varieties and seeds were mentioned by a number of noble Lords, Baroness Bennett, Baroness Grender, the Noble Lord Caro. Plant varieties must be registered on the Great Britain and Northern Ireland variety list before seeds can be marketed. To be listed, a new plant variety must undergo testing and is the genetic testing moves to 2023 to presenting organisms for genetically modified organism regulations and requirements in England only, the precision-bred plant variety list for England is proposed in addition to the existing variety lists.

The EU position was raised just now by the Noble Lord Lancaster and I am sure he will not be surprised to know that I cannot comment on the recent discussions, and also noble Lords, Lord Lansley in particular, was talking about the EU commission for the proposal of the regulation of plants. The NG Tees, again, mentioned by the Noble Lady Baroness Bennett. We are monitoring the position closely, and we have noted recent progress made in the European Council on the draft proposal, and actually it is quite similar to the genetic technology precision breeding after 2023 that we are talking about today, that clearly it is going to take some time for the new legislation to be implemented in the EU.

On this state, just to reassure the Noble Lord Lancaster that all products from the United States will need to go through the regulatory system in order to be placed on the market. Environmental and health and safety risks were talked about. Understandable, given the controversy around genetically modified organisms in the UK. Historically mentioned by the Noble Lady Baroness Hayman and my Noble Friend Lord Brooke which is why it is so important to take an evidence-based approach and to work with experts as we develop policy.

And as the Noble Lord made so strongly in his contribution, that scientific evidence is clear. The risk of precision farming proposed to the environment is dependent on its characteristics, rather than the technique used to to develop it. Lord Cameron mentioned the impacts Of the act was to encourage investment in research and development, innovation in agriculture, which, of course, has huge potential for climate change in countries like Africa and developing countries that need to be forwarded in agriculture. An noble Baroness coffee in her very important speech when this was first developed talked about the importance of climate resilient agriculture, which, of course, is what this will be able to support.

The Noble Lady furnace mentioned safety and I would start to reassure members that the advisory committee on novel foods and processes advised there is no evidence that precision-bred organisms are intrinsically more hazardous than traditionally bred organisms. Animals and the further movement of the act towards animals as well as plans was mentioned, the Earl of Kath Ness and Lord Blencathra. As you are aware, the scope of the recognition is just for plants, but we do recognise there is strong support in relation to animals and members are keen to know more about the government's plans and approaches to any potential timelines, so just to inform us, we are currently continuing research on this, but while the research going forward we will not be bringing forward any legislation on this and the final question, the Noble Lady Baroness Bennett talked about the protocol.

We do remain committed to our international obligations in the protocol and our proposal is consistent with our obligations as a signatory. And by speech, I outlined the challenges that we currently face in the system and recent world events have really shone a spotlight on the urgency of addressing these, so we must take advantage of the opportunities presented by new technology and advancements in scientific understanding. We cannot afford to inhibit innovation through having outdated recognitions. Harnessing innovation and precision breeding can help us to achieve several priorities, bolstering food security and championing British farming.

Helping to mitigate and adapt to climate purchase or drive the government's missions and growth the government's missions and growth and health. The growth potential is evident. We have the opportunity to be right at the forefront. Voting to appear the regulations today if the Noble Lady decides to call a vote is the only way to implement the act in the only way to implement the act in relation to plants and to realise the potential benefits of precision reading for farmers, consumers, and the environment. I beg to move.
21:15
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
My Lords, I think the Noble Lady the Minister for her response, and indeed all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which I think I apologise to those that said it would not take more than one it would not take more than one it would not take more than one The issues around the organic sector, the words are rich to work, a lot of work, and I'm pleased that the Minister has acknowledged that there is an issue there and the work needs to be done.

The noble Lady reflected on contributions by the noble Lord's, there are big issues that need to be worked through with the administrations. I make no apologies for returning to the issue of labelling, I would point out, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also returned to the issue of labelling and we had a very powerful contribution from Baroness Freeman about how this is not just around issues of safety or issues of technology, it is about public confidence. That was one reason why I started in market introduction to the regret mission on that.

I am going to note the comment the Minister made in response to the noble Lord, the government does not have any plans to take this forward with animals, I will point out, the noble Lady herself did move an amendment when we debated this under the previous government, to take animals out of this act altogether. I hope the noble Lady will stay and the government will stay within that position. I particularly want to highlight the contributions of the noble Lord who, I honoured...

This was his first post Maiden speech, I think this will be more significant than most such speeches, because I think any government department is going to look closely at its future use of polling and what kind of transparency it does with polling. I would reflect on the contribution of Lord Blencathra, I think he was using polling, that others had pointed out the issues with. Lord Cameron and others spoke... And credit to the noble Baroness, the situation in Africa, a young and fast-growing population, et cetera.

But only 11 of 54 African nations have approved GM crops and 2023, for example, was the year of Millard's, there are many traditionally existing crops in Africa which have been swept aside in the colonial era that have huge potential in terms of public health and all of the other characteristics. Two short final points, the noble Lord's and others, whether we are talking about genetically organisms, the act specifically designs... Defines precision breeding as objectively -- genetic modification and then creates exemptions.

This there is no question that they are genetically. Just on being able to identify so- called PBOs, the FSA ordered a literature review by an adviser to the government chemist that made it clear that it is possible, and should be done, to create methods to detect organisms that have been genetically in this way, and radiation breeding is not used anymore, since it had, quite a lot. I can, however, count, and, on the basis of that, with reluctance, I have no alternative but to withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my amendment. Amendment is by leave withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is that the original The question is that the original motion be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The
21:20
None Portrait Legislation: Renters’ Rights Bill - committee stage (day 4) - part two
-

21:20
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Committee on the Renter's Rights Bill. Baroness Taylor of Stevenage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill. Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. The House do now again resolves itself into a committee upon the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill. The question is the House do now adjourn resolves itself into a committee upon the bill. As many are committee upon the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The of the contrary, "Not content". The In clause 14, amendment one 36,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. I will start with government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will start with government amendments 136, 138 and 139. These make provision for the requirement to provide a written statement of to provide a written statement of terms for tenancies that become insured after they have begun. A tenancy may be during his lifetime for a number of reasons, for example, because it becomes the tenant principle home or rent becomes payable on the property. Landlords should be able to comply with the requirement to provide a written statement of terms. These amendments will therefore require landlords to provide a written statement of terms within 28 days of the tenancy becoming assured.

Without this, and not will be left in limbo, unable to comply with the duties in new section to provide a written statement of terms at the out state of the tenancy, them liable to penalties. It would also lead a tenant without a written statement of terms, a key benefit of the new system, despite the tenancy having become insured. I move the amendments.
21:22
21:23
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
widely known. There is quite a lot in this Bill that we feel needs to be widely known and we have had concerns about the level of knowledge. But all that I will say, with my tongue in my cheek, frothing standard Road, all the more reason to regulate those who act for landlords, such as letting agents, to make sure that they act professionally and inform the tenant correctly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause 14 aims to strengthen the transparency of the rental agreements by requiring landlords to provide written terms at the outset of a tenancy, this is a welcome step of a tenancy, this is a welcome step to ensure that tenants are fully informed about their rights and obligations and landlords are held to account for the terms of the offer. Amendment 140, tabled in my name, recognises that vegetation name, recognises that vegetation alone is not enough, we must ensure that tenants, landlords and indeed that tenants, landlords and indeed any third party contractors involved any third party contractors involved are informed and empowered.

By requiring the Secretary of State to requiring the Secretary of State to issue clear, accessible guidance, we hope to make these rights and duties hope to make these rights and duties usable in practice. Without such, usable in practice. Without such, potential legislation risks becoming an abstract concept rather than a meaningful tool for change, this is meaningful tool for change, this is why it is crucial that the government takes proactive steps to ensure that everyone involved in the rental process understand their roles and responsibilities.

Amendments 136, 138 and 139, tabled by the noble Baroness the Minister, seek to refine the process through which written statement of terms are provided, the intention, as I understand it, is to ensure that landlords are held to account for providing these terms in a timely manner, which is certainly a step in the right direction, however, we must be careful to consider whether the amendments fully take into account the diverse needs and circumstances of both tenants and landlords. The government has a clear opportunity here to provide a system that is not only fair and transparent but also practical and achievable for all of those involved.

We must ensure that these provisions do not overburden landlords with an administration task, but at the same time, protect the rights of tenants by providing them with necessary information to make informed decisions about the tenancies. Whilst the intention is to create more transparency, it is equally important, we feel, that we do not add unnecessary complexity or redtape that could inadvertently discourage smaller landlords or make the rental process more cumbersome. In light of these considerations, I want to ask the Minister one or two questions, first, is the Minister confident that the 28 day requirement for landlords to provide written statements will not lead to confusion or delays, this timeline, was designed to allow time for landlords to issue the statement, might create gaps in communication, potentially leaving tenants in a state of uncertainty about their rights and obligations, and how does the government intend to mitigate these potential delays.

Furthermore, how does the government plan to ensure that smaller landlords, who might not have a dedicated administration teams, how will they be able to comply with these provisions without facing excessive burdens? Smaller landlords, who often play a crucial role in our rental market, could face challenges keeping up within increased administration requirements without support or resources and we must be mindful not to inadvertently create barriers that make it harder for these landlords to continue offering tenancies. In conclusion, whilst we acknowledge the government intention to improve transparency, in the tenancy agreements, and better protect tenants, we must consider the real-world impact of these changes, we must ensure that reforms are workable for both tenants and landlords without increasing the complexities of the rental process or creating unnecessary barriers to housing, the amendments, whilst positive in some respects, do not fully address the practical challenges that landlords and challenges that landlords and tenants face.

I asked the noble Baroness, the Minister, whether she Baroness, the Minister, whether she is confident that these provisions will not place undue burdens on landlords, especially those in the landlords, especially those in the small end of the market, and whether they will effectively protect tenants rights without creating new tenants rights without creating new avenues for confusion and non- compliance. The legislation, my Lords, must strike a balance that promotes fairness and transparency whilst also being workable for all parties involved. parties involved.
21:28
21:29
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
The question is amendment 136 be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 137.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move amendment 137 in the name of my noble friend, the name of my noble friend, Baroness Scott, the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Baroness and in my name, within this group, seek to limit the financial group, seek to limit the financial penalties by a local authority and probe the process on which nonjudicial process is sought. nonjudicial process is sought. Whilst it is right that those who deliberately flout the rules should face financial penalties, it is also right that these financial penalties are proportionate.

And they apply fairly. With fines of up to 40,000, which in many cases, could be the equivalent of several years of the rental income, is this reasonable? rental income, is this reasonable? We made a system that is balance and just, to both the tenant and the landlord. I wish to start this group by drawing attention to amendment 114... Sorry, 144, tabled in the 114... Sorry, 144, tabled in the name of Baroness Scott. This seeks to prevent local authorities from issuing fines for offences that could be considered in courts against the legal standard of proof Movement is important because it protects you process and individuals by ensuring penalty five is not imposed without history.

Credit as the noble Baroness the Minister to clarify how this process will operate? Furthermore, does she agree that any termination requiring legal scrutiny should be conducted through a formal legal process by individuals with appropriate legal training? Next, my Lords, I wish to speak to amendment 146 and 147. These amendments seek to limit the local housing authorities powers to impose financial penalties. I ask the noble Baroness the Minister have they determined £7000 as an appropriate upper limit for a financial penalty? Specific conduct would constitute a £7000 fine? Any fine, especially one imposed outside a quote court of law, must align with the principles of proportionality.

We must not accept disproportionate penalties that make -- may unfairly harm those of unfortunate ends. Many landlords are not wealthy. Industrial, not wealthy. Industrial, professional ties to tycoons. People that own a single property. Perhaps they inherited from a parent. Perhaps they rely on it as an alternative to a pension, or perhaps they became what some call accidental landlords. Owning a property does not automatically confirm great wealth and it does not equip an individual to shoulder disproportionate financial penalties.

We therefore wish to probe Governments in position of the £7000 remit. How did the Government reach this figure? Why have they chosen it? And who have they consulted with to get this right? Simply, is this fortunate? On the theme of proportionality, amendment 147, tabled in my Noble Friend the noble Baroness Scots name, would Define not against some arbitrary figure, but against a sum equivalent to two months rent under the relevant tenancy agreement. This amendment wishes to probe once more the thinking of the Government.

Find should not treated as the cost of doing business. They should be seen as a deterrent. At the same time, they must be fair. Implemented correctly. And be realistic that reflects a single landlords ability to pay. Next, I wish to draw the houses attention to amendment 134 which seeks to probe the Governments reason for granting local housing authorities the power to impose a financial penalty of up to £14,000. Local housing authorities across the nation are facing significant cost pressures.

Factors which are well rehearsed, such as population growth, homelessness, and housing and security, has collided with timed budgets and increasing costs. Global inflationary pressures. The price of building materials, maintenance, stuffing, and temporary accommodation. These pressures are not going away. The OBR forecasts that inflation is set to rise in the Chancellor's inflationary policies will hurt the providers further. Simultaneously, authorities are being tasked with additional responsibilities, including the enforcement new housing standards and regulatory duties most notably, the new consumer standards, and although on these benches we agree with high standards, we must understand that the growing regulatory burden is another strain on local houses associations.

With this in mind, again, how did the Government derive a figure of £40,000? In the Baroness the Minister again set out please how the Government has reached these mitts? And I trust the noble Baroness considered the ability to pay with the right to redress and proportionality of the finds when reaching her conclusion. Finally, my Lords, I wish to speak to amendment 157. This would require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on the financial assistance provided to local housing authorities.

This amendment provide transparency and clarity and thereby help to uphold accountability, when public money is tight and the fiscal landscape is located right for taxpayers to know where the hard earned cash is headed. I hope the noble Baroness the Minister would consider the ways in which we can promote accountability and transparency when large sums of financial assistance are provided. At the heart of this group of concerns, lies a simple question. Why? Why has the Government chosen these specific figures? And why have they set the threshold where they have? The Government has a duty, not only to explain its overall policy, but to justify the rationale behind the specific numbers it has adopted.

If we are to fulfil our role as his majesties Royal opposition, we must be able to scrutinise the methodology and the final outcomes. For the interest of the House in amendments 137 and 141, 149, 150, 151, 156, to 164, and 293 and 294, consequential amendments to the five main amendments in this group. I hope that the noble Baroness the Minister, if she is unable to provide clear answers for today, returns to the House in due course with explanation of the Governments reasoning.

At present, it is difficult to see how she can stand behind figures that appear arbitrary stop stop
21:37
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed, page 22, 930. Leave out section 161, 1A. Amendment 137.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendments 153, 201, 217, and 241, in the name 153, 201, 217, and 241, in the name of noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, who cannot attend the Etherton, who cannot attend the House today, and I know that house will join me in wishing him well. These amendments seek to limit the financial penalty which local authorities can see as penalties for offences in these clauses. And in offences in these clauses. And in Lord Etherton's absence, I will briefly set out my reasons for briefly set out my reasons for supporting his amendments to the group.

I should declare an interest, group. I should declare an interest, as a practising solicitor, for over as a practising solicitor, for over 50 years, that I am always concerned about penalties. Which are outside the judicial process. And my concern increases when the level of financial penalty is as high as it is. And I agree with Lord Etherton, that the level of financial penalty set by the spill is extremely high. And a financial penalty of £40,000 would be ruinous for most landlords.

According to the Governments own property rental income statistics, 2024, the average income from UK property remained relatively stale at around £17,000 between 2018 and 2019. And 2022 to 2023. So, in effect, the £14,000 penalty, would represent over double the rental income of an average property. In certain egregious cases, a penalty of that severity may seem appropriate. Those cases that can be dealt with by the courts, we must ask ourselves what effect this new level of financial penalty that can be opposed by local authorities will have on landlords today.

We have serious concerns that the risk of a large financial penalty is being opposed and may encourage existing landlords to leave the sector and discourage new landlords from entering it. A more reasonable level of financial penalty would prevent that effect. And I heard the words of my Noble Friend on the front bench, Lord Jamieson. An, also, I do know that my Noble Friend on the front bench, Baroness Scott of Bybrook, will surely agree with Lord Everton on this, and consider the warning that we have given.

Of course, we accept that the course, we accept that the Government will have its bill, and the bill should be effective in the bill should be effective in delivering its objectives, but we are very seriously concerned and are very seriously concerned and worried about the impact of these excessive financial penalties on the rental market.
21:41
Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Earl of Kinnoull (Crossbench)
-
-
Sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord hunt for introducing these amendments so introducing these amendments so well. I spoke to Lord Etherton before his illness about these amendments and two or three comments that I recall he made to my. The that I recall he made to my. The life changing amount of money I think was the way that he put it at think was the way that he put it at £40,000, I have my iPad here because he referred to the civil penalties under the Housing and planning act under the Housing and planning act 2016, which the MHC LG positioned 2016, which the MHC LG positioned because it is so complex that it needed a 20 page note for local authorities to tell them how they were going to implement this.

The were going to implement this. The maximum under that is £30,000 and I maximum under that is £30,000 and I do not quite see why they have certainly got a £40,000, but the £30,000 was reserved for a relatively small number of offences, and in each case of those offences it was knowingly doing something it was knowingly doing something purely evil and wrong. And so I do feel that, as a principle, yes, as it were, conceded, although I do feel the £30,000 is a bit rich, and therefore the £40,000, I do not quite understand how we have had to go from £30,000 and what will come in the next group to this issue of knowing and recklessness, which is a deeply serious thing in wealth.

Just reporting very briefly on some of the amendments, amendment 153 refers to the schedule. And this is one of the ones where there is up to £40,000 currently, it is referring to a very complex schedule, and yet there is a recklessness trigger for a fine of up to £40,000. It seemed to me that it was not as serious as some of the things that are £30,000 offences in 2016. And so I was dubious about whether or not that dubious about whether or not that was truly worthy of a £30,000 lump and I agreed, therefore, very much with the £7000 which is well Lord Etherton had come to.

Just moving on, amendment 241, there are a couple of things that trigger the £40,000. And, again, recklessness is for mistakes made in giving to the new database data that is a recklessness thing. When people give data to databases, that is quite boring. And things can go wrong. And recklessness is an incredibly recklessness is an incredibly difficult thing to cope with, as we will discuss in the next thing, so I do feel that this, again, is very different from the £30,000 tribute from the housing in 2016 and, again, I felt that there was a strong case for moving the maximum £37,000.

That line of thinking, thank you very much indeed, that line of thinking, and I will stop there, on the analysis, but that line of thinking of bringing it down to £7000 from 40 was really intended to improve standards of justice, because of people had been truly evil and truly people had been truly evil and truly wrong, then the courts are there for that, in fact they are made for that, in fact they are made for that. And they can go and be a lot heavier with people.

But with local heavier with people. But with local authorities I think £7000 or very roughly per offence could be multiple offences, of course, 50% of proportionate.
21:45
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I spent some time looking at this and I have listened very carefully to the amendments in this section by the Baroness Scott and Lord Jamieson and the work of Lord Hunt and the Noble Lord control. As it did correctly the first time. It is getting late. No, I am neither a lawyer or a solicitor, but, in particular, we are troubled by amendment 144. Which would, in effect, delete all of the new section 69 of the Housing Act 1980, that is being inserted in by clause 18 of the bill.

And, in doing so, we move the ability of local housing authorities to issue civil penalty for range of offences, pushing them into the courts. Now, having listened to the Noble Lord Hunt and Elk in all, I think that there probably is a debate to be had about what should be pushed out to the courts. But what I am saying is, in general, I see a legitimate role for the local authorities to issue penalty notice. I also feel that in much of the bill we talked about the courts capacity to deal with things, so it would be a little bit reluctant to increase the burden upon the courts, which we are upon the courts, which we are Albeit with a much lower Albeit with a much lower maximum fine.

To us, it undermines the regime of the bill that empowers local authorities. This is part of the tools in the box to give local authorities more powers to enforce the various sections of the bill. The one objective is to raise standards and root out rogue landlords, the Bill is right to give greater powers to local authorities to do so and raise the level of fines to be an effective deterrent. At this point, I would like to say, when Lord Jamieson pointed out that one person who has inherited a House and this and that, I don't think there's landlords need to be worried at all about this.

This is not the people that the Bill is aimed at, there is a tiny degree of scaremongering. The aim, as I understand it, is that we are looking at the bottom end of the market. The answer to the landlords mentioned in the list is, if it is so ruinous to you, do not do it! Do not do the thing that will impose that fine. Which I am certain the majority of good landlords will go nowhere near it, but actually, some of the worst things, as the noble of the worst things, as the noble Earl said, do terrible things.

It is often a shock to talk to the people who deal with bailiffs, evictions and all of that, to actually see the conditions that some landlords will subject human beings too. I think it is illegitimate are going to say what should go to court or not. As a result of what we have been talking about amendments in this group seeking to reduce the amount that a local authority can charge the civil penalties will be generally resisted by ourselves. Precisely because this Bill enables these fines to be used as revenue to provide resources for a strong and effective enforcement service.

The capacity and capability of local authorities to carry out positive enforcement is a serious matter and, of course, we will cover that in the next group. Councils keep the finds that they impose, whereas fines from the courts go to the Treasury. Although it must be said that the LGA are still concerned that there will be a funding gap, the amount of which is going to be fairly speculative at this stage, which makes the reason for wide-ranging reviews, which we discussed in later groups, to be imperative.

Perhaps the Minister could give reassurances on funding. This amendment, 144, removes the power of local housing authorities to enforce several provisions in the bill that we agree with. Such as purporting to end a tenancy by serving a notice to quit already or serving a purported notice of session, in other words, not using the section 8 process. In other words, conning a tenant that they have to leave, councils must have the right to enforce this as it goes to the heart of the Bill.

Amendment one 44 reduces the powers of local housing authorities to enforce and the other amendments, 146 and 154, go on to reduce the penalties that can be imposed, which we opposed. As are all of the amendments come in are all of the amendments come in the names of Lord Etherton and others, amendment 147 and 155 are an interesting variation on that theme. Using rental payment as a measure of the penalty. I can see some logic in doing that, given that rents vary enormously, depending on the property.

Two months rent in a small House in Lancashire might be several hundred pounds, whereas a similar property in Hertfordshire several thousand. There is a fairness argument there which is probably why there is a range of fines the authority can use. I'm sure that the noble Lady will enlighten us. noble Lady will enlighten us. Finally, amendment 157, upon which we can agree, the burden on local authorities cannot be understated. authorities cannot be understated. Therefore it should be contingent on the government, specifically to look the government, specifically to look at this aspect and not just rely on the LGA and others pointed out.

We the LGA and others pointed out. We are not convinced it needs to be on the face of the bill, it should be a genuine commitment. genuine commitment.
21:52
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I thank Lady Scott and the noble Lord for moving those amendments and Lord Etherton and I send my get well wishes to him as well, and Lord Hunt, for moving Lord Etherton's amendments. The noble Earl for taking part in the debate and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. I think it might help if I start with a bit of context, we are taking a clear, escalating the approach here, across the Bill, less serious, one- off breaches, will only be subject to the maximum penalty of £7000.

It is only if landlords persist in not signing up to the database or the ombudsman where they become liable for the maximum civil penalty of up to £40,000, and it is up to 40,000. Where they fail to remedy unacceptable conditions, they may face a civil penalty of up to £40,000 or criminal prosecution. Where there is evidence that landlords and letting agents continue to discriminate in the letting process, they can face multiple fines, but as the noble Lady, Baroness Thornhill, said, good landlords, and there are many, will not be subject to any of these fines because they do not commit the offences that would lead to them.

So, the answer is, to follow the outlines in the Bill and there will not be any need for landlords to be fine. If I go through the amendments, starting with 144, this will remove the ability of local authorities to impose financial penalties for non-compliance with the tenancy requirements where these were not a criminal offence. Effective enforcement against lentils who flout the rules is a key part of ensuring our reforms deliver their full benefit. Across the provisions in the Bill, we have taken a consistent, proportionate and escalating approach to penalties.

The civil penalties of up to 7,000 for less experienced non- compliance is an important part of the approach will stop removing the ability of local authorities to impose civil penalties for noncriminal beaches of requirement would create a gap. How would landlords who failed to issue tenants with a written tenancy agreement or ended a tenancy illegally be held to account. Transferring responsibility for determining fines for these breaches to the court would be a poor alternative and, as mentioned, they would unnecessarily create increased pressures on the court.

We have had many debates about that in response to other areas. In response to the noble Lord's question about the capacity of local authorities to deal with this, local authorities have significant experience of imposing civil penalties, I do not see a good reason for excluding breaches of tenancy requirements from this well-established actors. Amendments 137, 149, 150, 151, 156, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 293 and 294 are consequential and remove references to new sections 16 of the Housing act which amendment 144 delete.

Amendment 146 would reduce the maximum penalty for a breach of the tenancy requirements from £7000-£5000. Amendment 147 would, in the alternative, set the maximum penalty at two months rent. 154 would reduce the maximum financial penalty for a tenancy offence from 40,000 to 30,000 for a tenancy offence from 40,000 to 30,001 55 would set the maximum penalty for tenancy offences at 12 months rent. Amendments 153, 201, 207 and two for one would reduce the civil penalties for offences in relation to tenancy reform, illegal reflection and the ombudsman from £40,000 the ombudsman from £40,000- £7000.

It needs to provide an appropriate punishment and act as deterrent to future non-compliance. To respond to the noble Lord's question about the level of fines, we have set the maximum for offences across the bill at £40,000. This mirrors existing maximum civil penalties for offences under the Housing act 2004. Which are currently £30,000 but this takes account of inflation since those came into force. We also intend to increase the Housing act 2004 maximum penalties to £40,000 by regulations to reflect the changes in the value of money.

The £7000 maximum penalty represents a similar percentage operating to reflect inflation compared to a maximum fine of £5000 for less serious non- compliance in other housing legislation, for example, the Tenant Fees Act 2019. Increasing maximum fine levels to reflect inflation ensures the deterrent effect of penalties is maintained. I would emphasise that these are maximum levels, they will not be the normal penalty levelled, local authorities need to look at circumstances of each instance of non-compliance and take account of aggravating or mitigating factors and arrive at the final penalty in line with the policy.

When considering whether to issue a civil penalty, local authorities are required to issue a notice of intent, allowing time for landlords to make representations, the Local Authority needs to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the landlord has committed an offence. If the landlord disagrees, or the amount of penalty, they will be able to appeal to the First-tier

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tribunal. Setting maximum levels... For a point of clarification, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For a point of clarification, the noble Baroness has made very clear that there will be a range of fines that a Local Authority will be able that a Local Authority will be able to impose, as the noble Lord pointed out earlier, on the 2016 act, there was a very clear... Very extensive guidance on what would constitute a fine and what burdens of proof, fine and what burdens of proof, whether it was knowingly, reckless or unintentional, is it the intention of the government to intention of the government to provide clear guidance to councils as to what level of fines they as to what level of fines they should impose relating to what level of offence and so forth.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

of offence and so forth. Of course, local authorities need to have a clear rationale for why they have set a civil penalty at a particular level and apply particular level and apply aggravating and mitigating factors to that, but local authorities need to pursue penalties at a high enough to deter landlords from committing offences but not so high that they are unfair. I take the point about guidance and will come back to him on that point. If that is OK.

So, when... Sorry, I will go back to the point of making before. If the landlord disagrees with the imposition or penalty, they can go to the First-tier Tribunal, setting maximum levels by reference to rent receipt on a property introduces unnecessary complexity and runs counter to well-established practice, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to the issue of whether it could be set at levels of rent. Local authorities might take account of rent levels when arriving at the penalty but it is simpler for the maximum to prescribed and be the same wherever in England the same breach or offence is committed.

Amendment 157 with required sector state make an annual statement to Parliament of the funding provided to local housing authorities to support their enforcement of the tenancy requirements. To respond to the point about the cost to local authorities, we recognise the enforcement duties we are placing on local authorities... Local housing authorities and they represent an additional net cost. In accordance with the new Birkenstock ring, we will ensure other they offended, we will set out the funding we are making available in due course.

We would expect enforcing the new requirements to be a significant part of the additional costs on local authorities, local authorities will have flexibility in how they use the funding provided, a point made by Baroness Thornhill, we do not intend to specify the detail of what it should be useful. For the reasons set out, I would ask the noble Baroness and noble Lord to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would to thank the Noble Lord for their contributions to the group for their contributions to the group and pay particular gratitude to the noble and learned Lord with the 10 noble and learned Lord with the 10 and I also wish him all the best for his recovery. For bringing the amendment to this House. These amendment to this House. These amendments, while similar in respect amendments, while similar in respect to was go even further in addressing the limits placed on local housing the limits placed on local housing authorities.

The noble and learned Lord 30 and is right to highlight both the challenges faced by local authorities, the significant scale authorities, the significant scale of the proposed fines. Now, as there appears to be a little bit of confusion, let us be absolutely confusion, let us be absolutely clear. We do need powers to hold to account rogue landlords who deliberately and maliciously break deliberately and maliciously break the rules to the detriment of the rules to the detriment of tenants. And that is something we can all agree on.

However, we do need a system that is fair and proportionate and does not ensnare essentially innocent landlords who inadvertently or not maliciously do for foul of the rules and they do need to be encouraged to stay in the mental game as my Noble Friend Lord Hunt said, we need more rental homes. We need people to stay in the rental market and we need more people to come into it and we need to be very wary of coming up with systems where they fear very significant fines.

They may perceive could be arbitrary. And, hence, I was very keen to get clear guidance from the noble Baroness the Minister on how these fines would be placed in our levels and I look forward to hearing further from her on this. I also appreciated what the Noble Lord said about the 2016 and the importance of the guidance on that. I thank the noble Baroness for applying the commitment to share, it appeared, anyway, some reasoning for the figures you have arrived at and some guidance, because without insight to the rational figures selected in the threshold proposed, we are left pretty in the dark for scrutiny to be effective Government must provide not just partial explanations but a full transparent account for how these conclusions were reached.

Only then, can Parliament properly fulfil its role in holding the executive to account and I am thankful to the noble Baroness the Minister and will hopefully enable us to do this by sharing some of that Governments reasoning, and further guidance on how the fine will be brought forward. Getting penalties right is not a technical detail. It is fundamental to the fairness and effectiveness of a system designed to remedy the effects, significant fines and significant penalties for landlords are appropriate and proportionate, however, as I said earlier, significant fines for someone who, unintentionally, calls someone who, unintentionally, calls foul of the law, will be inappropriate.

We need to be careful and calibrated to ensure that they and calibrated to ensure that they do not deter offences do not disturb do not deter offences do not disturb the functionality of the housing market. While wanting to address rogue landlords, we want to thriving market and avoid deterring good market and avoid deterring good landlords who might perceive the significant risk of large arbitrary fines. I will finish with this fines. I will finish with this message was not a well designed penalty framework should uphold the law, encourage compliance, and support the functioning of housing authorities.

The success of this legislation depends, not just on legislation depends, not just on good intentions or practical deliverability, balanced deliverability, balanced implementation, and trust in those who must operate within it.
22:04
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Withdrawal.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just ask in your time when you were Chair of Government Association and leader of the Association and leader of the reputable authority, did you really feel that local authorities were dishing out fines willy-nilly? Were disproportionate in their measures disproportionate in their measures when they were considering things? I found the opposite. There were times when I actually wish we would be a bit tougher and a bit stronger and go a bit further. I do not recognise this picture that you are painting this picture that you are painting that landlords might perceive that it is terrible and might feel bad about it.

I genuinely believe most about it. I genuinely believe most good landlords have nothing to fear. It is not those that the bill is coming for. And I think we have a duty to convey that message and not to make good landlords feel to make good landlords feel threatened by the fact that there is an escalation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

an escalation. Thank you very much. You are absolutely right. Most councils in this country are very good and there proportionate and they do not levy fines or whatever Willie Nelly and I absolutely agree with that. However, it is very much in the eye of the beholder, and I do think we need to do everything we can to encourage a successful and thriving rental market with good landlords. And, within that, one does need to think, what will that single one, two, three, and Lord look at and see the potential risk of £40,000.

And it is perception. I absolutely concur, councils are appropriate in many instances, but if a landlord feels that there is a risk, particularly when that risk can be two or three, or in some cases in the north of England, four years rent, they may just say I do not want to take that risk. I will sell my property. And that is one less house for somebody to rent, that is one more person on a council housing waiting list.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the Noble Lord sits down, I am sorry, I have got to challenge that because I think the opposite to that. I think that most good landlords are actually waiting for landlords are actually waiting for this to come in place because it damages their reputation when we have rogue landlords who, of course, there tenants are the source of there tenants are the source of problems we are talking about and you will not recognise the penalty regime unless you are the sort of regime unless you are the sort of mantle that causes those tenant issues.

It is those types of landlords that have the risks to act landlords that have the risks to act on. And just to clarify the point on guidance, we will be issuing a revised guidance on settling revised penalties to provide a national framework for local housing authorities that will help ensure authorities that will help ensure the consistent approach which takes account of the offence and the harm account of the offence and the harm caused to the tenant and will help reduce the likelihood of reductions.

But I do want to be absolutely clear But I do want to be absolutely clear that this whole regime, the enforcement regime, is aimed at enforcement regime, is aimed at those bad landlords we have heard so much and too much about. And landlords want us to do this, they landlords want us to do this, they want to see that the people that do not do the job properly or getting an appropriate penalty for it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I just ask a point of clarification? You talked about publishing guidance. With that be available before the report stage to see in that context?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Good point. Is at your Lordships pleasure that amendment 137 be withdrawn? that amendment 137 be withdrawn? Amendment is, I believe, withdrawn. Amendment 138 and 139, moved formally, Baroness Taylor of formally, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. The question is that these two amendments be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment 140, Baroness Scott, not Amendment 140, Baroness Scott, not moved.

The question is clause 14, as amendment stands part of the bill. amendment stands part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. In clause 15, amendment 141, Baroness Scott, not moved. 142, already Scott, not moved. 142, already debated, not moved. 143, not moved. debated, not moved. 143, not moved. The question is that clause 15 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it.

The question is the closest stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moved. My Lords, I baked a move that the House be now resumed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House be now resumed. House that we resumed. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The Of the contrary, "Not content", The My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
14:00
14:01
22:16
14:01
14:01
14:02
14:02
14:03
14:04
14:04
14:05
14:05
14:06
14:06
14:07
14:08
14:09
None Portrait Oral questions: Climate Change Committee report: "Progress in adapting to climate change: 2025 report to Parliament", published on 30 April Lord Krebs (Crossbench)
-

14:09
14:09
14:10
14:12
14:12
14:13
14:13
14:14
14:14
14:15
14:15
14:16
14:17
14:18
14:19
14:20
None Portrait Business of the House
-

22:38
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page