Lords Chamber

Monday 12th May 2025

(began 7 months, 4 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:40
None Portrait Introduction(s): Baroness Spielman and Lord Jack of Courance
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the grace Charles III, by the grace of Charles III, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of our other realms and territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to all Lords Spiritual and Temporal and all other our subjects whatsoever to whom these present shall come, greeting. Know ye that we of our especial grace, certain knowledge and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958 and of all other powers in that behalf us enabling, do by these presence advance, create and prefer our trusty and well beloved, Amanda Mary Victoria spill To the state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness Spielman.

And for us, our heirs and successors, do appoint, give and grant unto her the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness Spielman. To have and to hold unto her for her life. Willing and by these presence granting, for us, our heirs and successors that she may have, hold and possess a seat, place and voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils of us, our heirs and successors, within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons.

And also that she may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron, duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed or as they do at present use and enjoy. In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent, witness ourself at Westminster in the Forenoon of the ninth day of May, in the third year of are in. By warrant under the King's sign- manual.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

On, Amanda Baroness Spielman, who swear by almighty that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the grace Charles III, by the grace of Charles III, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of our other realms and territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to all Lords Spiritual and Temporal and all other our subjects whatsoever to whom these present shall come, greeting.

Know ye that we of our especial grace, certain knowledge and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958 and of all other powers in that behalf us enabling do, by these presence advance, do, by these presence advance, create and prefer our trusty and create and prefer our trusty and well beloved, Councillor, Sir well beloved, Councillor, Sir Alistair William, a Knight Commander of our most excellent order of the British Empire. To the state, degree, style, dignity, title and degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Jack of in our honour of Baron Jack of in our county of Dumfriesshire.

And for us, our heirs and successors, do appoint, give and grant unto him the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Of . To have and to hold unto him for his life. Willing and by these presence granting, for us, our heirs and successors that he may have, hold and possess a seat, place and voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils of us, our heirs and successors, within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons. And also that he may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron, duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed or as they do at present use and enjoy.

In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent, witness ourself at Westminster in the Afternoon of the ninth day of May, in the third year of our reign. By warrant under the King's sign- By warrant under the King's sign- Do Do swear Do swear by Do swear by Almighty Do swear by Almighty God Do swear by Almighty God that Do swear by Almighty God that I Do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to
14:50
14:50
14:51
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
neurodiversity as it was more inclusive. Neurodiversity is very Is a very specific addition. Can I ask my noble friend to think again, perhaps and reassure the House that this umbrella term will not be used when responding to the review. There is a danger that the needs of autistic people will be overlooked and with the Baroness's permission to tell the House that she shares that view. What the Butland review

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is specifically about people with autism.. A friend for that question. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A friend for that question. I commend him for work in this area. The review reported to the last government and the last government, most of those were to employers. Several recommendations relating to Several recommendations relating to government are being progress including working to reform confidence. Boarding figures to confidence. Boarding figures to address all neurodivergent people, address all neurodivergent people, specifically those with autism. You have more than one condition. Our have more than one condition.

Our academic panel reviewing the evidence recommendations and the insight with the Buckland Review so insight with the Buckland Review so they do not get lost. It might reassure him to know that the panel specifically includes expertise on specifically includes expertise on autism. And although this government won't be responding specifically on
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
Baroness Gustafsson Portrait Baroness Gustafsson, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
Does or is she not as confused as I was to hear the ambassador to the US yesterday say that this was a finalised agreement and that has no impact assessment we have been presented within Parliament. When is that going to be laid before Parliament, the impact assessment? Film technology were included but there is no reference to that within the text that was announced of the framework to start the negotiations last week. And is it the government's intent that this will not be laid as a treaty which will then be ratified by Parliament, and if it is not, and it is not a preferential trading agreement, does she agree that we will have to apply all of the terms in this framework to all other countries under the rules?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To clarify, there are a lot of key sectors that are covered in this key sectors that are covered in this framework. And this framework is a final decision on how those key sectors will be treated with comes sectors will be treated with comes to trading between the UK and the US and those sectors are things like automotive, steel, pharmaceuticals automotive, steel, pharmaceuticals but also beef and ethanol that we have heard so much about. They are not all of the sectors where trade not all of the sectors where trade is a part of the UK and the US, and it could be area such as to the G and how we are thing about the relationship with that.

So yes, this is a final agreement for the sectors is a final agreement for the sectors that have been covered, but it doesn't necessarily cover all the sectors and there is still work to sectors and there is still work to be done to understand what those future trading relationships look like with respect to those other sectors. With regard to how this sectors. With regard to how this will be treated in parliament and whether it will be ratified at whether it will be ratified at Street, I couldn't comment on that.

I quickly run shallow of my Parliamentary journey of knowledge which is still at its early stages but I will be sure to write up to you on the specifics.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I refer to my declaration of interest, does noble Lord the Minister believe that British agriculture was four dignity will be increased or diminished by this arrangement?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

arrangement? What we are seeing in this relationship is thinking about the relationship is thinking about the US opportunity to presents to all of US opportunity to presents to all of our British industries and how we can open that up to best effect. I think when we think about farming, think when we think about farming, the key area, the trading beef, is a real opportunity here and for the first time what we have seen is the
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:34
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Third reading of the... Third reading of the Armed Forces

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Commissioner Bill, Lord Coaker. I beg to move that this bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

narrowed a time. -- Be read. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content". The contents have it. I beg to move the bill do now pass. I send my thanks to all noble Lords who have contributed to a detailed and meaningful scrutiny of this bill, everyone who has this bill, everyone who has contributed individually, I hope members will understand, there are a members will understand, there are a few specific cues. Could I thank Baroness Goldie and almond toe for Baroness Goldie and almond toe for their cooperation and efforts to improve the bill.

-- Almond toe. I improve the bill. -- Almond toe. I appreciate the productive way that they have contributed and I thank they have contributed and I thank them very much for that. If you could pass that onto the tile I would be great. And Baroness Smith, for the Democrats, to say thank you for the discussions and contributions, that is very much appreciated as well. Our private office and officials, the public office and various other officials of the House, the current ombudsman, and the German commissioner who was not his example we have used.

-- Whose example we have used. Finally, as a number of you will know first hand, serving in our Armed Forces is both challenging and rewarding for our serving personnel and their families. On all sides of the House we thank those men and women for their service, and for working tirelessly to keep us safe. We are our serving personnel and their families commissioner with a single mission, aiming to improve the service life. And with that I beg to move stopped
15:36
Baroness Smith of Newnham Portrait Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The question is that this bill do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now pass. From these benches are would like

**** Possible New Speaker ****

From these benches are would like to extend our gratitude to the Minister and his team for the courtesy and time they have extended to discuss some of the issues that to discuss some of the issues that we raised at various stages of the bill. And in particular I think it's appropriate at this time, obviously to welcome the Commissioner, the role of the Commissioner, but also role of the Commissioner, but also to note that one of the aims is to to note that one of the aims is to move on from the ombudsperson, but also add various stages of the bill also add various stages of the bill be talked about different categories of service personnel who might have issues the Commissioner will look issues the Commissioner will look into.

One said would be LGBT+ service personnel and I would like service personnel and I would like to pay tribute to the late noble to pay tribute to the late noble Lord Overton for the work he put into the reviewing the situation of LGBT service personnel in the past. We very much hope that the incoming Armed Forces Commissioner once this legislation does pass will not having to look at such difficult situations in the future. Again I would like to thank the Minister, would like to thank the Minister, the Liberal Democrat with soft, -- whips office, and I wish the bill well.

well.
15:37
15:38
Baroness Goldie Portrait Baroness Goldie (Conservative)
-
-
May I first of all thank the Minister for his very kind remarks and I shall ensure they get to the Earl of Minto. The passage of the bill, His Majesty Official Opposition has welcomed the bill from beginning, and it's been a privilege to participate in its passage through this House. The creation of the Commissioner is not only going to strengthen the service complaints system by facilitating the investigation of wider welfare issues but I hope it will also the confidence of our Armed Forces personnel that this is a real voice of independence for them, and any steps we can take to improve the offerings for our servicemen and women, we should vigourously pursue.

In that regard I have introduced a new duty on the Commissioner to investigate whistleblowing complaints. I want to thank all noble Lords who supported my amendment at report, particularly appreciative the contributions of noble Baronesses Lady Kramer, Lady Smith of Newnham, noble Lord Lord Adonis, Lord Wrottesley and the Right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for their words of support and encouragement for delivering that support in the divisional B. The resounding message, especially servicewomen who feel the voices have not been heard, is that we are on your side.

As this bill now goes back to the other place I entreat the government to reflect carefully on how the address my amendment. This is not the time for ambivalence and uncertainty. This is a time for an unambiguous and positive message to our Armed Forces, and I hope the government will accept, as this House overwhelmingly did, that the amendment enhances the bill. Finally, I think the noble Lord the Minister and all his officials for taking time to meet with myself and my noble friend the Earl of Minto.

I think the noble Lord Lord Coaker has been exemplary throughout the been exemplary throughout the passage of the bill. And I hope over the government appoints as the new commissioner will live up to the task that has been set. It's a high task that has been set. It's a high task that has been set. It's a high bar and much works still to be done but look forward to continuing his goodness the government efforts to improve the welfare and the lives of our armed forces personnel and I was our armed forces personnel and I was the government will in the creation of this new office.

of this new office.
15:40
15:42
15:42
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question... The question is that the Commons Amendments be now that the Commons Amendments be now considered. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment one, Lord Livermore.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that house agree with the comments in the amendment one. With the leave of house I will one. With the leave of house I will also speak to amendment two. I would like to thank noble Lords for their like to thank noble Lords for their continued interest and engagement in this important legislation. Some noble Lords will be disappointed to see the other place overturn the amendment inserted biologics house amendment inserted biologics house relating to the scope of the new mechanism.

I hope I can offer some mechanism. I hope I can offer some reassurance today on this matter. As noble Lords will know, this bill is noble Lords will know, this bill is intended to enhance the toolkit to the government has to manage the the government has to manage the failure of a banking institution. In particular it seeks to provide a new particular it seeks to provide a new source of funding to cover certain costs associated with resolution, and in doing so strengthen the protections for the taxpayer given the importance of protecting public funds in the event of bank fails.

That said, I'd understand the concerns noble Lords have about any potential costs that will be placed in the banking sector, if the bills mechanism were used to support the resolution of some of the largest banks. Here I would reiterate that is the government strong expectation that this mechanism would not be used to support the failure of the largest firms. Noble Lords will recall the government published draft updates to its code of practice in October last year which contained important language clarifying this expectation.

I also met with many noble Lords in person during the passage of the bill to listen carefully to concerns and to seek explain the government's views on this matter. Ultimately the other place has taken the view, the scope of the mechanism should not be limited. The government continues to believe is important to retain some proximity for the Bank of England and I would like to make three further points to help explain that position. Firstly as I have mentioned the government published draft updates to the code of practice to clarify our expectation in the Bank of England bailing all readily available that a bank holds on top of regulatory capital that must be bailed in before using this mechanism.

The government envisages that mechanism would only be used on larger banks as a backstop and any funds required would only be a top up to these other sources of recapitalisation. Secondly, land bank of again the option of using the recapitalisation mechanism on larger banks means it will be more able to respond to unexpected factors when resolving a bank. One of course the Bank of England works hard to ensure they are fully prepared for a failure scenario, the manner in which banks fail is because -- always highly uncertain.

It is important to ensure the bill is not overly restrictive in containing the bank's ability to use the mechanism flexibly. As we have discussed in previous debates, there are some circumstances where retaining this proximity could help to protect public funds. Although unlikely, there are circumstances in which large banks not be sufficiently capitalised to self- insure against their own failure, even if the banking question has been directed to maintain in-state requirements. An example of this might be if the firm was subject to a large dress claim resulting in larger recapitalisation requirements than envisaged.

Changes in the market value of the firms assets over time could also result in higher losses than expected at the point of failure stock and resulting in high recapitalisation requirements to manage the failure of the firm in question. While unlikely these demonstrate a clear benefit of having the Flex ability to source additional resources from the mechanism having already written Restricting the scope of the bill would prevent the mechanism being available in such scenarios, leaving public funds and the taxpayer exposed instead.

The government therefore considers the theoretical consideration that using the recapitalisation mechanism would prove a prudent step public prove a prudent step public Levying compensation scheme to recover funds, provided to the Bank of England will be subject to an affordability cap set by the regulation authority, which is currently £1.5 million, per year. In line with its safety and sales objective, they consider the affordability of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme a levy for firms, providing an important safeguard against the sector being hit by unaffordable levies to prop I do hope these points will go some I do hope these points will go some way to reassure noble Lords, that they will be able to support the bill, as it now stands.

I will also very briefly address Amendment two. very briefly address Amendment two. The noble Lords will note this is a straightforward amendment, to remove the Financial Privilege amendment inserted at third reading, but to move.
15:47
15:48
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
lot of confidence and confidence in his question. In the last six months, there have been various comments that have come from the Bank of England about the fact that this act, as it will be may allow them to take some banks out of the process. I just wonder if the noble Lord might wish to comment on that and whether there are any

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consequences the other way round? I have to say to the Minister I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have to say to the Minister I appreciate the explanation we just had, but I think I and others remain very disturbed by the government's very disturbed by the government's decision not to accept, what was it decision not to accept, what was it not just irrational but very well crafted amendment that was introduced, by your Lordships, into introduced, by your Lordships, into this House. The underlying bill was initially presented to the House as providing a mechanism to save providing a mechanism to save significant small banks, by recapitalising them from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, rather than having to turn Scheme, rather than having to turn to the taxpayer.

Regulated banks, as to the taxpayer. Regulated banks, as of this House will know are then required to replenish the FC FC, when it is depleted for any reason. But because the thrust of the language was around small banks, that was the intent. That is the that was the intent. That is the discussion that is in all the notes. This House I think very much agreed with just a few points of probing engaged. But thank goodness, we have a lot of very good brains in this House, I have to say that that combination of the Baroneseses, Lord notes, Lord Vere.

There was a significant loophole in the language. We did not realise in the beginning any of this could be applied to the larger banks, it was only as they were pursuing the legislation, became more aware of the locations of its content. Now we have a bill that permits the regulator to use the FSCS as it's a mechanism to rescue large banks. Let's be frank, it completely changes the whole profile of both the risk and consequences. The amendment, so effectively would have closed that loophole.

The larger banks, the Minister have said already have their own dedicated process to re- calculating failure. A processor that was introduced after the 2008 crisis. The Bank of England requires each large bank to hold charge, or if we speak in plain English, ailing bonds, which can be converted to capital, by the regulator, in the case of a situation where the consequences of the bank are there by rescued, by those bailing bonds. we need to understand why that is not considered to be an adequate system, by the government? The Minister has just said that actually the regulator will, if I understood it, require that bailing bonds are used first and the FC FC is a resource of last resort.

That is not in the legislation. The legislation allows the regulator to turn 1st to allows the regulator to turn 1st to the FS... Sorry, FS CS, to ignore bailing altogether. He will be conscious, the Swiss regulator the failure of credit Suisse, completely avoid the bailing capability and chose other routes to manage the risk of credit Suisse. Those who hold bailing bonds, the investors who buy them are extremely well remunerated. In order to carry the risk that is associated with a bailing bond.

I am trying to work out why they can now look at this legislation and begin to assume that they will have the benefit of receiving a risk premium for holding those bonds, but never actually find that those bonds are first into use, in case of a failure. How can we rely on just a code, to continue to determine that bailing will be the determine that bailing will be the first result and not a resort at all. If the government are now saying that there are many circumstances identified which bailing is neither usable or adequate.

I refer to the Swiss example. What are the consequences of that for financial stability? If we are sailing that bailing is a slightly busting system. Have there been blandishments of the various investments that have purchased bailing bonds. Trying to create an ultimate route. In the end, what are the consequences of our small and medium-sized banks, if the FSCS is depleted by big bank failure, the Minister says of course the , will not ask an unaffordable contribution, from the various banks to replenish the FSCS, but it is a mechanism that ensures small depositors accounts, who is going to do the replenishment, if the number is too great, to ask the banks to commit to that replenishment.

I am In responsibility where risk lies, is embedded in this bill. If the Minister is so so sure that the ideas should be giving us reassurance, why have they not been introduced, onto this bill as part of the legislation.
15:54
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
This is an important bill, providing the Bank of England with extra flexibility to manage bank failures, particularly that of smaller banks, in a way that strengthens protections for taxpayers. And it of course reflects proposals by the last government in the light of experience, with the devise of -- demise of Silicon It started in the Lords. It was a good example of expert scrutiny, across the House. Special thanks go to my noble friend, and predecessor Baroness Vere, to my noble friend, Baroneseses and Oakes and Baroness Penn, to the noble Lord Lord Vaux of Harrowden, to Lady Kramer and Lady Bowles and to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell.

And to officials on all sides, not forgetting the Whips. And above all to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Lord Livermore. I thank him, both the government amendments, notably that that was made to clause 3, on the Treasury Committee and the House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee and for the timely publication of the draft code of practice, which I believe helped us to overcome some substantial difficulties, as he is already Banking financial services are very important to the success of the British economy.

In 2022, the UK financial system held assets of over £27 trillion. And in 2023, the financial services sector contributed 208 billion to the UK economy. So legal regimes which govern how our banking and financial sectors operate need to promote growth and competitiveness. The need to be easy to navigate and use and they must balance ambition, with prudence. And understandable driver of this particular bill. Noble Lord will recall the amendment we successfully added, championed by my noble friend, Baroness Vere.

This sought to prohibit the use of the financial services compensation scheme to recapitalise large financial institutions. It reached an end state inquiry. The object was to reflect, in law, the government's stated objective of using the resolution framework, in the event of a smaller bank requiring intervention. Thus preventing the associated risk of contagion. The truth is that the banking act, 2009, provides a robust framework for dealing with the large banks. That have achieved MREL status. They and the Bank of England should not be taking comfort from the fact that they could fall back on an exposed levy of the banking sector, through the FCF sea in times of trouble.

Resources should be focused on SME banking sector, as the noble Baroness Kramer has reiterated. In view of this I'm joined by noble Lords across at the House and expressing disappointment that members in the other place voted to remove this amendment from the bill. We are confident that this would have improved the bill in meeting its objectives, and how to embed the balance at that I spoke about at the beginning. However, I think we must accept that Treasury Ministers, with their battalions of support, in the other place, which is to maintain flexibility, for example as the Minister has just explained, to deal with a large unexpected redress claim, left, left the taxpayer exposed.

Albeit, very much a backstop arrangement, with 1.5 billion cap as in the Minister has just confirmed. I do not propose to test the opinion of the House again. It was also disappointing to see the rejection of other prudent proposals put forward by colleagues, in the other place, in good faith. I hope the Government will, regardless consider these proposals seriously, as we try together to create a system that is balanced and simple, promotes growth and an objective We support the thrust of the bill, which continues the work that we did in government, in supporting our banking sector, in protecting consumers and safeguarding public finances.

However there are still outstanding questions, which I hope the Government can correct today, or in writing. They are even more important now that the fear amendment has been rejected. The financial conduct authority and the prudent potential regulation authority have proposed an SCS operating budget for the year, 2025 to 26 of £109 million. This budget covers the FCS's administrative expenses and does not represent the total funds available for compensation. Financial years and 2021 to 2024. The SCS paid just £10 million in compensation, relating to deposit claims.

Primarily due to 11 credit unions and one small bank. And the level of the Minister outlined the steps the government is taking to minimise the operating cross of the FSCS. It is a quango, in conjunction with another quango. The fact that it uses industry funding models doesn't change that fact. The money and the operating budget is a money that is not being utilised at the banking sector, which employs the needs of people and contributes billions to our economy and growth.

So does the noble Lord the Minister agree FSCS should focus on efficiency in keeping as much money as possible available to banks for their use and not tied up unnecessarily in their own operating budgets. And indeed like other gators they should have regard to the government's overall objectives. I end by saying this is objectives. I end by saying this is a broadly a sensible proposal designed to safeguard public finances and ensure the security of the financial sector and limit public risk.

We will support the public risk. We will support the government in their ambition to achieve the objectives of this bill. achieve the objectives of this bill. But I hope the level of the Minister will seriously consider the points that have been raised today and take the opportunity to clear up some of the opportunity to clear up some of the questions that have been asked.
16:00
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
I would again like to thank all noble Lords for their efforts, on this bill, since July, last year and all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate today. I'm also grateful to all three noble Lords for agreeing they were not oppose this bill further. I will briefly attempt to respond to the questions and points made, in this brief debate. Firstly, I would like to reiterate what Baroness Kramer and Baroness Neville-Rolfe said about the expertise in this House.

I was on the receiving end of much of that expertise and it certainly tested me. I do think to a large extent this bill was improved by the debates that we had, in this House. I'm grateful to all noble Lords for that. Lord Faulks spoke about the gap for us returning to this ping- pong session. That is somewhat out of my hands. I do agree with him, did feel like rather a long time before we debated these issues will he asked about the circumstances with which this power will be used.

I hope it did cover that my opening speech. He also wrote some of the The Bank of England sets requirements independently of government, but within a framework set out in legislation. The government has consulted on proposals to seek to ensure the regime remains proportionate and involves over time. The government is engaging closely with the Bank of England as it considers its responses to that consultation and this engagement includes consideration of the impact on economic growth. Baroness Kramer talked about Enbrel being used as the first result.

There, believes there are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that shareholders creditors are exposed to losses before the new mechanism is used, including the principal and legislation requiring the government to ensure shareholders and creditors balances on a banking institution fails. A set out in the draft updates to the code of practice the Bank of England would look to write down are otherwise exposed loss already available resources, before requiring recanalisation payment from the FACS. Noting these points the government believes specifying the extent of losses that must be posed before it is used would be an unnecessary restriction on the Bank of England's ability.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe asked about the budget and minimising operation costs is in fact a legal duty on them to minimise those costs, and I would expect them to adhere to that legal duty of course. She also spoke about the importance of financial services to growth of the UK economy, something I very much agree with her on. This bill plays a vital role in upgrading the UK's toolkit to manage... Which are in turn key to the government's number one priority of economic growth.

I look forward to the bill's enactment and I hope to the bill's enactment and I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting the amendments made in the other place. I beg to move.
16:03
16:05
Lord Vallance of Balham Portrait Lord Vallance of Balham, Minister of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
-
amendments made in the other place, starting with amendments 1 to 31. These will ensure that smart data These will ensure that smart data schemes can function optimally and that part one is as clear as that part one is as clear as possible. Similarly amendments 35 to 42 from the other place reflect discussions on the national register with the devolved governments. Finally, amendments 70 to 79 make Finally, amendments 70 to 79 make necessary consequential updates to the final provisions of the bill and some updates to schedules 11 and 15.

I will now speak to the amendments tabled by noble Lords starting with tabled by noble Lords starting with those relating to sex data. Starting with amendment 30 2A, which is with amendment 30 2A, which is agrees with the motion to agree subsection 3 and four in clause 28, and instead proposes changes to the initial drafting of these subsections. These would require the subsections. These would require the Secretary of State when preparing the trust framework to assess whether the 15 specified public authorities are able to reliably ascertain the data they collect, record and share.

Amendment 32, B, limits this assessment to sex data as defined through amendment 32, C. By definition limits sex to biological sex only and provides a definition of acquired gender. I think it also relevant to speak at the same time to amendment 52, A, which disagrees with the motion to remove clause 140 from the bill and instead suggest changes to the drafting. Clause 140 as amended by amendment 52, B, seeks to through a regulating, recreation making power give the Secretary of State the ready to define sex as the only biological sex as, in certain areas, or across public sector data processing more widely.

Let me start by making clear that this government accepts the recent Supreme Court judgement on the definition of sex. We need to work through the effects of this ruling holistically and with care, sensitivity, and dare I say it, kindness. In line with the law, taking care not to inappropriately extend its reach. This is not best done by giving the Secretary of State the power to define sex as biological in all cases to secondary. Without appropriate scrutiny, given the potential impact on people's human rights, privacy and dignity, and with the potential to create legal uncertainty.

Likewise giving the Secretary of State a role in reviewing how other public authorities process sex data in all circumstances based on that definition, would be inappropriate and disproportionate. Noting that the Supreme Court's ruling is specifically in relation to the meaning of sex inequalities legislation. The driver behind this amendment has been the importance of sex data being accurate when processed by public authorities. I strongly agree with that aim, accurate data is essential. This government takes data accuracy, including existing legislation, which requires personal data to be accurate, and data standards, seriously.

That is why we are addressing the question of sex information in public-sector data. First, the EHRC has updated its statutory code of practice support service providers in light of the Supreme Court judgement. Second, the Data Standards Authority is developing data standards and the monitoring of diversity information including sex and gender data, and the effect of the Supreme Court judgement will be considered as part of that. Third, the Office for Statistics Regulation published updated guidance on collecting and reporting data and statistics about sex and gender identity data last year, and fourth, the Office for National Statistics published a work plan in December 2010 before developing harmonised standards on data generally.

Finally, the department's currently considering the imitation of the Sullivan review published this year, which I welcome. When it comes to digital verification services, I can reassure noble Lords that these measures do not change the evidence that individuals rely on to prove things about themselves. The measures simply enable that to be done digitally. This government is clear that data must be accurate for the purpose for which it is being used and must not be fleeting. It should be clear the digital verification services what the information public authorities are sharing with them means.

For example, and this is an important one, if an organisation needs to know person's biological sex, this government is clear that a cheque cannot be made against passport data because it does not capture biological sex. Devious only verify logical sex using data which records that attribute specifically and not one that records sex and gender more widely. This is a concern of the noble Lord Lord Arbuthnot and I hope this provides reassurance. Data accuracy principle of GDPR is part of existing law.

That includes where data is misleading, a point I will return to. I hope noble Lords find this commitment reassuring and as such agree with Commons Amendment 32. I now turn to amendment 34, A, 34, B, and C, regarding the asset register. Security has always been at the heart of the national underground asset register. We have therefore listened to the well thought through concerns which fronted the amendment previously tabled by the noble Viscount Lord Camoys regarding cybersecurity. Following consideration the government is proposing instead and amendment we have drafted with the support of colleagues in the security services.

We believe this addresses the intention of ensuring the security of the national underground asset register data, with three key improvements. First, it broadens the scope from cybersecurity only to the general security of information kept in order obtained from the national underground asset register. This will ensure that front end users have guidance on range of measures for security good practice. For example personal vetting which should be considered for implementation. While avoiding the need to publish specific cyber security features that should not be in the public domain.

Secondly it specifies the audience for this guidance is, namely users accessing it. Finally it broadens the scope of the amendment to include Northern Ireland alongside England and Wales, consistent with the measures. Clearly, it remains the case that access to data can only be approved for purposes by eligible users with access controlled and auditable. I hope such noble Lords will be content to support government amendments 34, ABC. Turning to amendments 43 on scientific research, this removes the public interest test inserted into the definition of scientific research by the noble Viscount.

Whilst recognising the concern that the noble Viscount raises, I want to be clear that anything that does not count as scientific research now would not do so under this bill. We have tightened the requirement and added a test. The bill contains strong safeguards. Adding precise definitions on the face of the bill will not strengthen these productions but will impose significant new legal obligation on our research community. This is a time when in line with the good work of the previous government we are trying to reduce bureaucracy for researchers, not increase it with new processes.

The test proposed will lead to burgeoning bureaucracy and will damage our world leading research. Chilling basic and curiosity driven research, disproportionate step is not one that we can support. My Lords, I beg that we can support. My Lords, I beg to move that house to agree with the Commons and the amendment one with the leave of the House I have spoken the leave of the House I have spoken to the author amendments. -- Other amendments were stopped at the question is that the House to agree question is that the House to agree with the Commons in the amendment one.
16:14
Viscount Camrose Portrait Viscount Camrose (Conservative)
-
-
I will start first by thanking the noble Lord the Minister for his as ever clear and compelling remarks. I should also thank all noble Lords who have been working in the collegiate, collaboratively to find a way forward on the few but important remaining points of disagreement the government. Before I come to the issue of accurate recording of personal data, let me also thank the noble Baroness the Minister for tabling the government amendments on the national underground asset register and not least for her constructive engagement throughout the progress of the bill.

As noble Lords will recall, I set out our case for stronger statutory measures to require the Secretary of State to provide guidance to relevant stakeholders on the cyber security measures which should be in place before they receive information from the national underground asset register. I'm delighted of course that the government have responded to the arguments we and others made and have now tabled the own versions of my amendment which require the Secretary of State to provide guidance on the security of this data.

And we are happy to support them in that. Turning to the amendments 32, A, and 52, A, standing in mining, which seek to ensure data is recorded accurately, these motions amend the original amendment which my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Arbuthnot took three Lordship's House. My noble friends Lord Lucas is sadly unable to attend today but I'm delighted to bring these amendments forward from The conservative Frontbench table new clause 31 which would have delivered a conclusive solution to the problem.

We are now limited by the set of amendments, so we were not able to read table that, in my view, excellent amendment, in your Lordships' House macro. As several noble Lords said when we discussed this issue at report stage, we absolutely must have clarity on the recording of sex and gender. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord the Minister attest to this position, as well. The amendments I have tabled builds on Lord Lucas's amendment, in light of the recent judgement of the Supreme Court.

It is now very clear that we need accurate sex data recorder for a whole host of reasons, including medical research and for the protection of same-sex basis. There is no reason why gender may not also be recorded in a separate field. It is important that gender data is accurate too. The level of the Minister was kind enough to meet me this morning to set out his case. The bill, as it stands addresses our concerns. Even if it does so going forward, the Sullivan report notes that the data, is currently held by public bodies and may not be reliable.

In fact it is almost certainly not reliable, in many cases. Whatever the rules They were passing on inaccuracies, already present, in the sex and gender data. As was observed in a earlier debate, when it comes to databases, garbage in, garbage out. I know noble Lords on the benches that I left were satisfied by the noble Lord the Minister's previous assurances that workers already ongoing, in this area. Today I think we have the opportunity to take a step forward on this. I hope all noble Lords can take their opportunity to deliver the accurate data according to need, not least to protect the same-sex basis.

Finally, turning to the noble Lord Kobel's amendment. He has worked tirelessly on this issue. We understand the argument he is making unsupported as an amendment at report stage -- Lord Coe voile. The amendment is an element that is intended to tighten up this definition. I have course appreciate and recognise the government's concerns to avoid burdening researchers with unnecessary and. I am not yet satisfied that we have the right balance here, between regulatory burden and public good. I still feel burden and public good.

I still feel it is crucial to resolve this, we will therefore support Lord Colville will therefore support Lord Colville in the lobbies if he chooses to test the opinion of the House. Meanwhile I intend to test the opinion of the House when merged motion 32 a or motion 52 a are called.
16:19
16:21
16:22
Viscount Colville of Culross Portrait Viscount Colville of Culross (Crossbench)
-
-
Sandy supporter 43 a. I welcome so much of this bill. I want this to be a champion of technology and I too hope that becomes and attracts hundreds of millions pounds of investment in the development of AI. I understand the concerns expressed I am still pressing ahead with this amendment. This country to have control of their data and how it is used. This amendment is a pushback about the way that the AI companies have been abusing the data in training their AI models.

I only have to mention the way that last year, Meta reused data from Instagram users without their consent, to train up their AI model. Once that this was discovered that there was a huge outcry from the owners of the data and appeal to the ICO. Meta stopped the process and the ICO said it is crucial that the public can trust the privacy rights will be respected. I want to make sure that this bill becomes, when it becomes law, it will reassure the people of this country, it can trust the new technology.

The battle to stop the abuse of data is a concern, which is essential to my noble and indomitable friend, Baroness Kidron. Sitting beside me. Who's amendment is in the next group. In response to vector copyright, belonging to millions of creatives, including authors and artists by AI companies. As it stands, clause 67 gives a very powerful exemption, allowing AI companies to reuse data, without consent. If they can show that their work aligns with the definition of scientific research is set out in scientific research is set out in the bill.

I feel this definition is so widely drawn, it will allow AI models to reuse data, without consent, claiming that they are carrying out scientific research when in fact they are using it for product development and their own profit. I want to thank the Ada Lovelace Institute, for their constant support, throughout the lengthy progress in this bill. I expressed my concern that both the committee and report stages of the bill, in this House and she and very respected check the size technology innovation in the other place to put forward a similar amendment.

Despite meetings of Ministers they have offered nothing to assuage concerns. Which is a force me to push this amendment to the stage. Two a will tighten the definition of what counts as scientific research. Taken for the manual, developed by the OECD, in order to compare R&D efforts, made by different companies and identify what key features. The government supports the definition. The Minister of the committee stage said at the researcher test set out in this bill, that it will not operate alone any said it will be in the guidance.

The guidance are merely guidance and the codification would bring aboard and burdens. The codification of the existing standard set by the ICO. A central feature of this part of the amendment is that scientific research should increase the stock of human knowledge. The Minister has told your Lordships that not all scientific research will be new knowledge. Scientific research is often refuted, or confirmed as previous findings or some scientific research will fail. My Lords, if there is refutation or confirmation, that is an extension of human knowledge.

Even if the research fails, research will know that the experiment doesn't work. That My Lords is a new knowledge. The requirement for scientific research to increase the stock of knowledge is a sensible precaution, preserve data from abuse. Redirect that tech companies were piggybacking for their own profit. For the purpose of this amendment it is not just that definition, it is also to make sure that researchers have to consider it, when they start to deploy the exemption for the use of data.

May the noble of the Minister say it will lead to undue burden on scientists and stop research on going ahead. This definition is already being used by the ICO. The problem for whose data is being abuse. If they want to appeal against its use, without consent, have to go to the ICO and they have to apply the definition. The ICO's latest addition shows a data protection claims and not meeting the target. Surely that means it is too late for an appeal against the reuse of data, without consent.

The data will already have been absorbed into the AI training model and as we have been continually told it is harder AI researchers to identify data once it is included in the model. Two a of this amendment will stop this happening, by having a definition on the face of the bill that the AI researchers will have to do so before reusing the model for the data. It will stop them having to appeal to the ICO if they are concerned. The second part of this amendment to be response to the government's claim that the reasonably described tests, in this clause is a tightening of the definition of scientific research.

Over 14 of our leading law companies have looked at the governments test as set out in the bill and described it as, "Loosening, expanding, or broadening the definition. " Clause 67 asks the question whether research can be scientific. The ICO or the courts will have to consider is it irrational to call this a scientific research? It is a very hard to prove irrationality. It is a high bar. As we hope nibblers will agree, would a reasonable person conducting from scientific research perform this activity, in this matter.

This conduct actual conduct against an objective standard with what constitutes proper scientific research. The amendments realises what is already in requirement. Such research be conducted, in line with standards based in the UK research practice, research. It will ensure transparency the use of scientific research. I am sure during the course of the debate we will hear from scientists who say this debate will stifle research and stop work. This requirement is minimal and the information required is that which researcher should already have to hand.

I ask your Lordships to bear in mind, when you vote, that this amendment would give transparency into how people's data is being reuse. The new test laid out in my amendment will be a powerful weapon in the abuse of people data. I want the new technologies to be successful, but it will only be successful if we have the trust of the people of the country people think of the government caved into tech companies and allow them to pillage our data, for their own financial gain, rather than for the progress of human knowledge, most people will be outraged.

I ask the noble Lord the Minister to assuage these fears and to help that the bill provides data in the people's interest. Meanwhile I consider that interest. Meanwhile I consider that I will ask the opinion of the House? I will ask the opinion of the House?
16:30
Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)
-
-
I'm late, to this debate. I haven't participated here before and I would only have done so, because of conversations I had over the weekend and it really relates to a point by my noble friend. I'm not going to oppose my noble friends amendment, it may well be right. I didn't express my anxiety, because there were exciting so expressed by my honourable friend he came to see me. On the question of the judgement of the Supreme Court, I'm very much in favour of it.

I think it was wholly right and am very glad that the government has found finality. It does raise problems, which I do not think have yet been fully considered. That is what makes me reluctant to support my noble reluctant to support my noble Now, the friend who came to see me as a friend I have known for a number of years. In fact, she married and had a child. And she has then transitioned and transitioned fully to the female gender. And she is fully certificated.

And we discuss together the implications of the judgement for her. And although I strongly support the judgement of the Supreme Court, a number of points that she made were very troubling. Most particularly as regards people who have not fully transitioned and how they are going Lordships which is as regards passports. This is a woman who I have known for 10 or so years. In every material respect, she passes as a woman. That is what I have always treated her as being.

Her passport, at the moment, shows female. But where there is the requirement for sex she is deeply concerned that the passport may have to be altered to state mail because that is her natal gender. And she made if it is unclear what happens and if you go through immigration control or passport control either in this country or somewhere else where there would be a manifest divergence of appearance, on the one hand the passport says that she is male.

On the other hand, what she appears for all purposes. And the point that I took away from that is that there are still lots of things we are going to have to address. And my particular suggestion to your Lordships house is that we should set up a Select Committee in due time when this House is well first and able to do that. Set up a Select Committee to consider what the implications of a Supreme Court judgement are across a broad- spectrum of consideration.

If I come back, forgive me, I will not supported. Not because I think he is wrong, but because I think it is premature to come to statutory interventions when there is still a lot to be considered. And I would fearful that if this has accepted my Noble Friends amendments, and they may be right, they would be treated as unprecedented, which, it is at least conceivable, they would come to regret.
16:34
16:35
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I would speak to amendment 32 and 52, and as the Noble Lady has said, these appear to be eminently sensible. The Noble Lord the Minister, and I also grateful to him for the meetings he was able to join, has assured us that we can trust the digital verification service because it will be based on the data accuracy of the GDPR. But that principle has been in place for a decade, during which, as Professor Alex Sullivan recounted in her important report which the Noble Lord the Minister welcomed earlier, statistics have become utterly confused.

Particularly in this area. Because sex and gender identity have been collected and conflated in a single data field. Such that the meaning of sex has been obscured. And, as he said, and I welcome his support for the supreme judgement, that judgement confirmed that sex and the Equality Act can only, has only ever meant biological sex. But that has been the case for 15 years. During which all of this has taken place. So, the Minister tells us that we can trust the Government to respect the judgement, and to ingest the amendments.

Before sort of considering that, can he just answer a few questions. Why is it not appropriate to ensure in this bill, which is a data use and access bill, specifically talking about a digital verification failure, why is it not appropriate in this bill to ensure that unreliable datasets are not used for digital verification? I mean, if not in this timely digital legislation, then when? He backs to the forthcoming ecology and human rights commission guidance, but I would suggest that in this particular area we do not have to wait for that guidance.

We have this bill and it is surely appropriate to enshrine everything the Minister has said in this legislation. And could I also secondly ask how the Government considers how the digital verification system will work? With what is estimated to be 100,000 people who have a different record for their sets across different public bodies, for example the birth register, the passport office, driving licence authority and the NHS. How is that going to pan out? How is the Government going to ensure that the mixed data such as the passport sets are not relied on as an authoritative source of answering the question in the DVS system? While respecting the concerns that the Noble Lord and Viscount have, rightly, raised.

So, the point is how are we going to ensure that the data verified for the sex field in irrespective any other field in the DVS is accurate and responds to biological sex? Will the Government publish clear guidance for data users so they know which sources of sex data can be trusted? And others which remain conflated. And how are they going to put technical measures in place to ensure that unreliable sources do not come through the information gateway. Is it impossible that a person who expresses themselves as gender fluid or non-binary could have two different digital verification services? Perhaps one that is female and one the other is male, both digital verification trust, I mean that may seem not going to be terribly common, but it is a possibility.

I think that we need an answer about. And, finally, the Government has argued it is very unlikely that digital verification services would be used for applications such as single sex services, and the points have been well-made about people, a woman who wants a woman healthcare provider at health screening. And, by the way, this is important for trans people as well to make sure that they are appropriately treated in services like health. If the aim of the DVS system is to provide trusted, interoperable digital identities which people can use to prove facts about themselves, isn't it likely that this will, in fact, be used in the services that the Supreme Court judgement spoke about? And advised with perfectly legitimate need to be kept as single sex based on biological sex.

If the Government does not like these amendments from the Noble Lord Camrose but agrees with their aim, I cannot honestly see why he should object to enshrining them in more than the data accuracy principle which, as I have said in the last decade, has been respected in the breach, than in the reality. I have not really had been reassured that his assurance, as much as I respect his sincerity, and his personal sincerity and integrity, are enough sincerity and integrity, are enough for us to rely on as opposed to having something actually on the statute.
16:41
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
I rise also to speak on amendment 32 a and 52 a, and just to follow on from the noble Baroness, I really appreciate if the Noble Lord the Minister understood the concerns of these amendments, but as the noble Baroness pointed out there have been reassurances given in this House over many debates, in fact, that there was nothing to worry about in terms of confusion in relation to sex and gender, and actually we now have ascertained via the Supreme Court that they needed some clarity and we have now got it, but I do not want us to make the same mistake again.

I did want to ask the Noble Lord the Minister to clarify one thing he said in his opening remarks. Which was that it would be overreached to ask the Secretary of State to declare biological sex as a material reality in all instances. I think that is what he said. But I would like to point out that biological sex is a material reality in all instances. And despite the comments of the Noble Lord in relation to his friend, I just wanted to clarify that it is not about passing or appearances.

It is about biological material reality. And, actually, in that instance, it is also the Noble Lord the Minister starting having called on us to have kindness. And, of course, we should all have kind as all of the time in every instance. But nobody here is trying to be unkind. But, to clarify, and something that the noble Minister said when he stated we must have a simple version of the truth on this. There needs to be a way to verify, consistently, and there needs to be rules, and I agree.

It is not about kindness or unkindness. It is about clarification. I also think that just in addition to what has already been argued that this surely has to be about trust. And I can tell the House that quite a lot of people that I have spoken to are actually rather distrustful of digital ID of any sort. They are already cynical and anxious about what is going on with the data collection. I am not raising that point other than to say that the one thing that we would want is that this particular measure is trustworthy in order to counter such worries.

And yet what we are talking about here is an officially talking about here is an officially sanctioned app that will allow the falsification of sex. Even if that is not its intent. And that is to quote an article from Joan Smith. It can be a form of self ID that appears to be endorsed by a Government trust mark based on Governments that could be based on gender identity rather than sex. A Government trust mark old to be trustworthy.

It is supposed to guarantee that the data it contains is accurate. And that includes sex. I think that something important happened with the Supreme Court clarification, but of course this is an ongoing discussion in terms of how it has implications on a wider range of public policy, and I understand that, but I do think there are times when people suggest that we should leave the Supreme Court on some sort of relativistic mishmash, I mean what is your reading of it? I do not think it is about the reading.

It is a clarification of the law, and I do think that if this is the bill inadvertently adding to that relative eyes tomorrow in excuse for dismissing the Supreme Court that would be an unintended consequence of what the Government is doing and it could be simply sorted out by the Government itself.
16:45
16:46
Lord Winston Portrait Lord Winston (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I sat through the Committee stage of this bill and did not speak then because I was so clear that the noble Lord Lord Colville's Amendment was inappropriate. Indeed, it was the speech of the noble Lord my honourable friend Lord Vallance that made you feel that speaking was unnecessary. I regret that because I should have pointed out something very important. The first thing to say is to just come back to what the noble Lady has just said.

The definitions in this bill are flawed to start with. The idea to devise new applications of available knowledge is not the work of scientists, it is the work of technologists. There is a big difference between technology and science. Technology has all sorts of downsides that we don't expect. Science does not have an ethical dimension. That has been stated by many very distinguished philosophers in the past. I want to suggest that every single invention that we make, every single innovation has a downside that we do not expect.

I would challenge the noble Lord, and would challenge the noble Lord, and I have set on a scientific committee with him and we have enjoyed each other's company, but I would argue there is not a single case where he can argue where there has not been an unexpected downside to every scientific invention. That is potentially why this is a flawed problem. Let me go through one thing. There are three problems I think that are facing humanity and the world at the moment. One clearly is nuclear war.

One clearly is climate change and perhaps the most important one would be risk of antibiotic resistance. It turns out that actually, all these risks were completely unseen when these technologies were started. Indeed, Marie Curie had no idea that the X- rays she was producing would be dangerous to her and would result in her death unfortunately at the end of cancer. She did not recognise there might be such a thing as nuclear explosions. When it comes to climate change, it's obvious the Industrial Revolution and all the things we have now, we would not want to avoid having, just as we would not want to avoid having X- rays, but we have to understand the control has come later.

And lastly, the most important thing, the possibility is that infection at the moment is one of the greatest problems that humanity faces on earth. The invention of antibiotics has made it worse because we have arising out of infections which are due to resistance. Therefore I begged the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I believe it is well-meaning and I understand what he is trying to say, but I hope the opposition, when they listen to this, will consider at least abstaining from voting.

Risky as it might bring the House of Lords into disrepute as it stands.
16:49
Lord Tarassenko Portrait Lord Tarassenko (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to speak on amendment 40 3A. As someone with regular day-to- day experience of scientific research. Since I started my PhD in 1981 I have had the privilege of spending more than half of my working life doing scientific research in the UK. The last 20 years working with very sensitive data. Most of that research has been carried out in an academic setting, but some of it has been in collaboration with Meditech, AI and pharmaceutical companies. This has required me to become familiar with many three letter and four letter acronyms.

DBS you will know about, but you may not know about RSO, and many others. I have spent hundreds of hours working with clinical colleagues to fill in integrated research application systems forms. research application systems forms. The system is used to apply for HRA approval for research projects involving the NHS, social care or the criminal justice system. I have appeared before not only medical research ethics committees, which test if scientific research is ethical and valid, but also other committees which consider the suitability of individual researchers and local issues.

I was involved in a research project which reuse data acquired from patients on a COVID isolation ward during the first two waves of the pandemic. Research projects ought to understand how nurses interpreted continuous data from the clinical grade variables we used to monitor these high-risk patients during COVID. It took our research team more than 18 months to obtain the relevant permissions to reuse the data for our proposed analysis. Our application was reviewed by the confidentiality advisory group, which provides independent expert to vice in the use of confidential patient information without consent for research a research purposes.

They already consider whether accessing the confidential data is justified by public interest. Its advice is then used by the HRA and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to make decisions about whether or not to grant access to the confidential data. My Lords, the existing provisions to allow access to data for research purposes are stringent in this country and it is entirely right that they should be. The UK is respected the world over for the checks and balances of its research governance.

Relevant safeguards already exist within the current legislation. Adding a further public interest test will only increase the amount of bureaucracy which will inevitably be reintroduced by the RSO's and the translational research offices of our universities, who are very good at doing this. The extra burden will fall on the researchers themselves. Some researchers may decide to concentrate their available time and energy elsewhere. This amendment I am afraid will have the unintended consequences of having a negative consequences of having a negative impact on research in this country and so I cannot support it.

and so I cannot support it.
16:53
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I think an onlooker might be forgiven for not perceiving a common theme in this particular group of amendments, but I do thank the Minister for his introduction and to the other noble lords and Viscount Falkland to their amendments so clearly. First of all, starting with the noble Viscount's amendments, I do acknowledge that these amendments are considerably less prescriptive than the Spencer amendment in the House of Commons in C 21 which seem to require public authorities to comb through every record to rectify data which went further than the Supreme Court judgement and potentially fail to account for the privacy afforded to GRC holders under the gender act.

However, the Liberal Democrats on these benches will be abstaining from votes on the proposed amendments were -- for several reasons. The EHRC is updating its Code of Practice to reflect the implications of the Supreme Court judgement on the meaning of set and the equality act. This guidance as I understand it will be specifically intended to support service providers, public bodies and others in understanding their duties under the Equality Act and putting them into practice in light of the judgement.

Therefore undertaking a public consultation to understand how the practical implications can best be reflected. These amendments in our view are an attempt to jump the gun, second- guess and or at the least pre-empt the EHCR's Code of Practice. In these benches we believe that any changes or clarifications regarding data standards should be informed by the official guidance and implemented consistently in a coherent and workable manner. We should allow time for the EHRC's guidance to be finalised, ensuring any changes or clarifications regarding data standards are informed by their advice and implemented consistently across public authorities in a inherent and workable manner.

-- In a coherent and workable manner. When we have concerns about clarity, although the Viscount's amendments are less prescriptive, we have concerns about the practical implementation. Questions arise about how public authorities would reliably ascertain biological set if somebody has a gender recognition certificate and has updated their birth certificate. I have long supported same-sex wards in the NHS, but I do not believe that these amendments are helpful in pursuing clarity following the Supreme Court judgement and, my Lords, we have heard what the Minister had to say about passports.

I welcome the clarity provided by the Supreme Court judgement, but there are clearly implications, both tactical and legal, to be worked out. I trust, such as those mentioned by the noble Viscount Hailsham, and I think he put his finger on many of those issues. I trust that the EHRC will deliver the right result. I agree that dating is to be accurate and I welcome the Sullivan report, as did my noble friend, but in summary, we will be abstaining.

We believe that the EHRC process needs to conclude and provide comprehensive guidance, while also reflecting concerns about the workability and appropriateness of specific legislative interventions on data standards at this time. I want to move on to the amendments put forward by the noble Viscount Colville. This amendment might not reinstate the precise wording conducted in the public interest, but it introduces safeguards that seek to address the very same fundamental concerns articulated during our debate at report stage.

It does two important things. First, it provides a definition of scientific research, clarifying it as creative and systematic work undertaken in order to increase the stock of knowledge and this directly addresses the concerns raised at report stage that the line between development and scientific research is often blurred, with developers positing efforts to increase model capabilities or study risks as scientific research. Having a clear definition helps to distinguish genuine research from commercial activity. Secondly and critically, amendment 40 3B is required to meet reasonable test.

The activity is described as scientific research and must be conducted along the frameworks, legal obligations and standards. This requirement sinks to embed within the reasonable test principles that underpinned our arguments for the public interest requirement at report stage. Is the same as the amendment put forward by the chair of the science in select committee, which ties the definition to the definition in the OECD's manual of research and experimental development and as creative and systematic work undertaken in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of humankind, culture and society, and to devise new applications of available knowledge.

The Frascati framework is used worldwide by governments, universities and research institutions to report R&D, to inform science policy and underpin R&D tax credit schemes. It serves as a common language and reference point for policy decisions related to scientific research and innovation. These frameworks, obligations and standards are important because they serve the very purposes we previously identified in the public interest test. Ensuring societal benefit, building public trust, preventing misuse for commercial ends, addressing harmful applications and aligning standards.

Amendment 40 3B is a for counterproposal. It is Parliament's opportunity to insist that the principles of public benefit, trust the responsible conduct rooted in established frameworks must remain central to the definition of scientific research that benefits from data reuse exceptions. I heard what the noble Lord Winston had to say in his very powerful speech, but I cannot see how the noble Viscount's amendment cuts across everything that he wants to see in the outcomes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of research. He might recall the situation only 45 years ago when there was only 45 years ago when there was massive public outcry about in vitro massive public outcry about in vitro fertilisation. When there were overwhelming votes against in vitro overwhelming votes against in vitro fertilisation in both houses on two occasions and finally a Private occasions and finally a Private Members' Bill was brought that would have abolished IVF in this country. have abolished IVF in this country.

If that had happened, this would have been, an amendment such as this would have prevented the research happening in England and would have happening in England and would have made a colossal difference to not only our knowledge of embryo growth, only our knowledge of embryo growth, but of ageing, cancer, all sorts of things that we did not expect from things that we did not expect from human embryology. I begged the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

human embryology. I begged the noble I have a misspent youth over the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have a misspent youth over the last 15 years and when I read the wording in the amendment I cannot see, as a lawyer, I cannot see the outcome that he suggested. This wording does not come across anything that he has had to say and I genuinely believe that and I understand how genuine he is in his belief that this is a threat. And I do not believe that wording is and I would say I understand entirely what the Lord has to say, but this was about the frustration and some of the controls over health data, and that does not apply in other areas of scientific set research.

And this formula is universal and well accepted and I think the viscount made an extremely good case that we should be supporting it.
17:03
Lord Vallance of Balham Portrait Lord Vallance of Balham, Minister of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
-
That -- might I thank the noble That -- might I thank the noble viscount for his amendments. I would reiterate that this Government has been clear and accepts the Supreme Court judgement on the meaning of sex for equality legislation. However, as the noble viscount says, However, as the noble viscount says, it is critically important that the Government works to the effect of Government works to the effect of this with care, sensitivity, and minding the law. When it comes to public sector data, we work through public sector data, we work through these impacts properly.

This would involve considering the scope of the judgement and the upcoming guidance. Critically, the Equality and Human Critically, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has the statutory code of practice for the purposes of this in light of the ruling and this this in light of the ruling and this would include some of the examples would include some of the examples used including the raised by my novel from the Baroness Hayter. Ministers will consider the proposals once the EHRC has updated proposals once the EHRC has updated the draft.

It is right that the Government and the Parliament fully considers this before amending the with the public authorities collect, hold, and otherwise processed data, a point that the Noble Lord has made about the EHRC. I set out in my opening speech this Government takes this issue seriously and that is why there were numerous existing work streams addressing the way in which the sex and gender data are collected and otherwise processed across the sector. The digital verification services amendments we have discussed today are misplaced because the bill does not alter the evidence and does not seek to alter the content used by verification services, in stead this requires them to do digitally what they can do physically and it is through organisations to consider what specific information they need to verify their particular circumstances and how they go about doing that.

Any inconsistency between what they can do digitally and what they can do physically what calls further confusion. What the Government understands and the primary imminence the consent about the way in which the process sex and gender data should be considered holistically, taking into account the effects of the Supreme Court ruling, the upcoming guidance and the equalities regulator, and the specific requirements of public authorities. It is very unlikely that the digital verification services would be used for many of the cases used by many noble Lords and we expect EVs to be primarily used for the right to work, age, address, or professional education and qualification.

The noble viscount Lord rightly highlights that the proposals have the potential to interfere with the right to respect with human for private and family life under the Human Rights Act. In effect, indiscriminately, indirectly pushing public authorities to record sex as biological sex in cases where it is not necessary or proportionate in that particular circumstance. And I raised the example that has been up several times by the noble Baroness Lady Fox. It is not relevant for the French passport officer to know your biological sex.

That is not the purpose of the passport. However, we do acknowledge that there are safeguards that address the concerns raised by noble Lords, including those by Viscount Camrose and regarding information under clause 45, but without presenting issues that cut across that and guidance. I would remind the House that the data accuracy principle is already included in law and the principle requires that only data accurate for the purpose for which it is held can be used. And there are, again, work streams looking at data use to answer the points raised by the Noble Lord.

And, indeed, by the Baroness Butler-Sloss. Baroness Ludford asked the question about why it was not accurate for 15 years, and what that means about our reliance on this accuracy. I am afraid the fact is that it sort of was accurate for 15 years because there is a model on what was being collected. There was no requirement to push for biological sex. That is the case now. And in response to the question of could you end up with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

different sources of verification showing two different biological sexes, the answer is no. I thank the House is indulgence

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the House is indulgence in the Ministers interruption here, but the fact is the Supreme Court but the fact is the Supreme Court has confirmed what was always the law. That 16 Equality Act movement law. That 16 Equality Act movement biological sex, so it is not true that the data accuracy principle has reassured that the law has been followed for the last 15 years. And followed for the last 15 years. And I am sorry, I find that answer a little dismissive and I do not think little dismissive and I do not think we can kind of rely on that sort of assurance.

I apologise for saying that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that. I apologise to the noble Baroness if she found that dismissive. My point was to say that actually there point was to say that actually there is a very clear imperative under the new situation to have biological sex verified as biological sex. As a result of that, not in all cases, have given an example where it would be inappropriate to have that information, but where you need that, it would not be possible to answer her second question. To have two different sources of verification that they gave two different biological sexes.

When information is shared through the gateway, it will be very clear what information, what that information represents, including a relation to sex and gender. In light of the Supreme Court judgement, I want to further reassure members by clarifying that before the information gateway provision commenced, the Government will carefully consider how and when the biological sex may be relevant in the context of digital verification checks and will take that into account when preparing the DBS code of practice. I hope that these commitments and the assurance about the EHRC will provide noble Lords with reassurances that their concerns will indeed be taken into account.

The amendments proposed do not fully take into account the fact that gender recognition act gives those with gender recognition certificate level of privacy and control over who has access to their gender history. It is essential the Government has the chance to fully assess the supreme court judgement and update guidance accordingly. Given the need to consider this area holistically to ensure that it will align with existing legislation in the guidance, the breadth of work already being carried out in data harmonisation and statistics and the specific reassurance on the accuracy principle, I hope the honourable member feels comfortable withdrawing his amendments.

Turning to amendment 43 a from the noble viscount Lord the scientific research is one of the U.K.'s great strengths. We are home to one of the four largest universities in the bill, one of the top three in terms of scientific outputs. Today's researchers depend on data, the UK data protection framework contains certain accommodations for those processing certain accommodations for those that meet the definition of scientific research in clause 67. I understand that noble Lords intention to avoid the misuse of these provisions, but the Royal Society has said the reason for this test in this bill provides accurate protection against this and the bill tightens this with the ICO able to use the reasonable test.

Reasonable does not mean this objective of an uninformed person, it means that objective, fair observer of good judgement and relevant facts. Such tests are well known to UK courts. The bill does not extend and expand the definition. If something is not considered scientific research now but will not be under the bill. Similarly, the bill does not provide any new information for reusing data for other research purposes. Moreover, further safeguards provided in clause 86 and the wider UK GDPR including the requirement that this be in effect.

This requires that they must have a lawful basis, putting an end to previous confusion on the matter. Adding further specific conditions to the definition of law would be unnecessary and impose a disproportionate burden on researchers that already said there has been too much time on redtape. The previous Government started to tackle the pernicious research. And bureaucracy. Should not add more. If nothing was, this could exclude genuine researchers. The manual provides useful guidance. It is not, however, a legal definition. Requiring researchers to start complying with any legal standard upon one that my change would undoubtedly create more committees, more bureaucracy.

The very thing that Mac spirits argued against in his guidelines on research. My Noble Friend Lord Winston has given powerful examples. Let me give two examples of where the proposals might cause problems. Does requiring research to be creative under the essential task, the really essential task of reducing or reproducing findings? Does the manual definition of systematic which means budgeted exclude unfunded very early research trying to get a foothold? Let's not dampen the U.K.'s world leading research active for production that was already included in the bill.

I was already included in the bill. I do sympathise with and let me say the bill contains a power to add to the existing sake of the narrow the search provisions if necessary full so the Government would not hesitate to use that power if it became necessary to tackle the issues. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the House to agree with the comments in amendment one. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment to the Baroness Jones of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whitchurch. With the leave of the House I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With the leave of the House I wish to move formally that the House do agree with the comments in their amendment to 231. The question is that the House to agree with the comments in amendments to 231 en bloc. As many as are of that opinion, say, as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it.
17:14
17:14
None Portrait Division
-

be data of high quality when it is currently today, as we know from the Sullivan report, as a result of all of his eloquence I beg to test the opinion of the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion 32 a, as an amendment to the Minister's as an amendment to the Minister's motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The the contrary, "Not content", The contents decided by a division. I contents decided by a division. I will advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now open. Clear the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. The question is that motion 32 AB agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents will go to the right by the throne. Not contents to the left by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion three

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion three

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, My Lords, they My Lords, they have My Lords, they have voted.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, they have voted. Contents, 200. Not contents 183. So My My Lords, My Lords, amendment My Lords, amendment 33,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, amendment 33, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch. I beg to move formally that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move formally that the House do agree with the comments in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their amendment 33. The question is that the House do agree with the comments in their agree with the comments in their amendment 33. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 34, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Big to move amendment 34 a formally and that this has to do agree with the comments and to propose amendments 34 amendments 30

**** Possible New Speaker ****

propose amendments 34 amendments 30 4B and 30 4C. The question is that motion 34 AB agreed to. As many as are of that agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 35,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With the leave of the House I beg to move formally that the House do agree with the comments in their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments 35-42 en bloc. The question is that the House do agree with the Commons in their amendments 32-45 en bloc. As many as amendments 32-45 en bloc. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 43,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move formally that the House do agree with the comments in their amendment 43. The question is that the House do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the House do agree with the Commons in their amendment 43.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am not convinced that my amendment. The research as amendment. The research as suggested. However it will detect user data as the technological user data as the technological revolution unfolds. So I moved formally and asked to test the opinion of the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion of the House. The question is that motion 43 as an amendment to the Ministers motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The Of the contrary, "Not content". The question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House division. I will advise the House division. I will advise the House when voting is open.

Voting is now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion The question is that motion 43 The question is that motion 43 AB agree to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", the contrary, "Not content", the contents will go to the right by the throne, the not content to the left

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that motion The question is that motion 43

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, they My Lords, they have My Lords, they have voted My Lords, they have voted content

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, they have voted content to hundred and 89, not content 168, Amendment Amendment 44, Amendment 44, Baroness Amendment 44, Baroness Jones Amendment 44, Baroness Jones of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whitchurch. My Lords, I big to move the House to agree with Commons in their
17:41
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
-
to agree with Commons in their amendment 44. I believe the House will also speak to amendment 45 to amendment 178. My Lords, there has, quite reasonably, been significant interest in the topic of AI and copyright. This is a hugely important issue, and a complex one. I hope noble Lords will agree with me as I set out the government's position which has been the subject of some misrepresentation in recent reporting. So, can I make it clear this bill does not introduce any changes to copyright law or wider intellectual regulation.

It does not introduce a tax system, nor does it contain any powers that would allow such a system to be implemented. All existing copyright rules continue to apply to the use of material for AI training in exactly the way it did before this was introduced. This Government recognises the enormous economic and social value of our creative industries. We saw that just last week as the nation came together to commemorate the anniversary of VE day. Our creative sector entertains and informs us.

It is the best of us as a nation. In our manifesto, quite rightly, pledged to work at the collective industries to unlock their potential after years of neglect. As noble Lords will know, the creative industries are worth 124 billion GBA and support to .4 lean jobs. Since 2010 they have grown 1.5 times the rate of the rest of the economy. And the creative industries are one of our eight priority strands within our industrial strategy. The January January 2025 as the first step to developing that strategy we announced that the British loan will enhance its support for businesses to help access the finances they need to grow.

That UKRI will strengthen support for the sector to drive R&D led growth. That shorter duration apprenticeships as a first step towards growing flexible skills step towards growing flexible skills levy that meets the industry and employers needs will be introduced. A commitment to devolved funding to seek priority mayoral authorities to drive the growth created. And a £19 million package of funding for programs, including the UK games fund, a global screen fund, using exports for growth schemes, and the programs.

The Government will build on the support from the upcoming industry sector plan which we will publish very soon. Our manifesto also recognises both the opportunities and the risks of AI. We pledge to take only action and one part of this was the launch of a detailed consultation on the future of copyright reform. To ensure that they are fit for purpose as technology evolves and its use becomes more widespread. That consultation closed earlier this year, and we are now analysing a very large volume of responses, something in the region of 11,000 and 5,000 and assessing the evidence we have received.

Our proposals will be based on that evidence, and what works and rather than any preferred option. This will take time to do properly, and as such the Government did not and does not believe that this bill is the right vehicle to take any substantial changes to the law on this issue. Yes, we must act quickly. But we must also continue our thinking and engagement to ensure that policy outcome is the one that best valances the potential of AI and the need to support rights of AI and the need to support rights holders.

Although we do not believe that this bill is the right vehicle for wholesale change to copyright law, we do understand the need to demonstrate that this Government, unlike others, once to follow best practice, engage them on all sides and come to the right conclusions. This is why the elected House took the decision to remove the relevant amendments passed the stages and insert new provisions to demonstrate our commitment to legislate on AI in a fair evidence-based way. Of course, we agree there should be greater transparency about the use of protective material to train AI models.

We agreed that there should be more work done to identify the technical solutions that would empower rights holders to decide whether and how their material is used. We must continue to talk to all sides and ensure a reformed copyright regime is carefully thought through, carefully and effectively supported by the ends. And as our amendment set out, we will report on full substantive areas within 12 months. These will clearly signpost what we want to deliver and how we propose to deliver.

We will also carry out an economic impact assessment of the proposed changes once we have come to a settled view. I applaud the to a settled view. I applaud the strong support, the dedicated advocacy, for the creative industries and your Lordships house, and I welcome the tireless campaigning from the Noble Lady Baroness Kidron and thank her for her engagement that we have had I also thank noble Viscount for his engagement. To do with the amendments in order, the text would add extra elements to the government's report including a plan regarding barriers for AI providers.

Extraterritorial uses of work and technological standards for machine-readable watermarks. The Should AI system may be considered in scope. These amendments are designed to be constructive and I thank the noble Lord for the 40 has put into them. I would however suggest that in the main they are already covered by government amendments. The noble Lord is a passionate advocate for a global digital watermarking scheme and as my noble friend has said on previous occasions there is merit in those discussions taking place. However as the noble Lord would readily admit, this would need to be a global effort and therefore would not be for the UK government to take unilateral action.

The amendments tabled by Baroness Kidron, 49 a and 40 9B on the Marshalled List, whilst well-intentioned are limited in their focus and would lead straight to implementing an outcome without affording time to properly develop the Wallace. They would require substantial policy change in one of the areas identified in the government's amendments to be implemented in the form of secondary legislation. Noble Lords may find it refreshing for a minister to say this from the dispatch box, but in our view it would not be an appropriate delegation of power.

We consulted for a reason and whilst we will act as quickly as possible, we must legislate properly. Arbitrary statutory deadlines will not create better policy outcomes. The government recognises the strength of feeling across your Lordships House and we agree wholeheartedly that there needs to be greater transparency and control over the use of creative works to train AI. We also share the wish of the noble Lady Baroness Kidron to see more licensing of content so our creative in share in the value created by those new technologies.

We must also ensure that AI companies are able to access the data they need to build leading models in a legal and efficient way. The British public and economy should be able to adopt and benefit from the most capable models available. We cannot pull up the shutters around our island, leaving AI development to take place overseas, outside of the influence of British right holders and legislators. So this is not an easy problem to solve. This is why we must use the best economic data and evidence that we can gather and follow a proper policy process to determine the best way forward.

We will get to the right outcomes and we will get those outcomes as quickly as we can. We want to work with noble Lords across the chamber to get there. However, despite the good intentions on display in these amendments, the government cannot

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support them. I therefore beg to move our amendments. The question is that the House do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the House do agree with the Commons in their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 44. I thank the noble Lady the Minister for setting out the government's case so clearly. I rise
17:50
Viscount Camrose Portrait Viscount Camrose (Conservative)
-
-
government's case so clearly. I rise to speak to my amendment, 40 6A, which seeks to improve the report which the government brought forward in the other place. This is needless to say an issue that is causing real concern for copyright owners and so many others in the creative in. Let us remind noble Lords that the creative in contributed £124 billion in gross value-added to the UK economy in 2023. The creative into outperformed the UK economy during the period between 2010-2023 in terms of growth.

The government is wisely and write prioritising growth over other concerns in the creative into going to have to be an essential part of this, but they will only be to the extent that they have a trusted and efficient marketplace for intellectual property. Our amendment improves the government's proposed report by adding consideration of extraterritorial use of creators copyright works by operators of web crawlers and AI systems, as well as considerations of establishing a digital watermark for identifying licensed content.

I take on board the point that this has to be international to work, but I suggest that few countries if any would have better or greater convening power to better or greater convening power to initiate the process of creating such digital standards. I urge the government to pursue that avenue. I should pay tribute to all noble Lords who have raised and continue to raise the issue of copyright in the passage of this bill. My thanks, of course, as I am sure I will be adding to the others, but thank you to Baroness Kidron in particular he has led such a powerful campaign on this issue.

Throughout the passage of the bill we recognise the serious concerns raised by the creative sector and at report stage tabled an amendment to bring forward a digital watermark to identify content and to protect copyright owners. I am very pleased that the government has taken the first step by amending the bill in the other place to put a report on the face of the bill. That said, we continue to feel the report needs to go further and if the government are unwilling to accept our changes, I will seek to test the opinion of the House when my motion is called.

Turning briefly to motion 49A, in the name of Lady Kidron, I again paid tribute to the work she has done to make progress on this. Whilst we have concerns about the drafting of her amendment in report stage, I am very pleased that she has tabled this motion today. With the additional parts of the motion specifically targeted at supporting small businesses and micro-entities, we are delighted to be able to support it today. It is increasingly clear that the government must do the right thing for our creative into and we are delighted to offer our support to motion for 9A.

I intend to test the opinion of the House amendment for 6A it is called. House amendment for 6A it is called.
17:53
Baroness Kidron Portrait Baroness Kidron (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendment for nine a in my name and I wish to offer my support to amendment for 6A in the name of the Noble Viscount Camrose. It's a sensible amendment and I hope the government will find a way to accept it without challenge. Let me start by rebutting three assertions that have been circling over the past few weeks. First, I wish to reject the notion that those of us who have raised our voices against government plans are against technology.

And here I quote the secretary of state, who I am dilated to see is below bar this afternoon who said to the FT, just as in every other time, there is change in society, there will be some people who will either resist change, or try to make change to difficult to deliver. Well, my Lords, creative people are early adopters of technology. Their minds are curious and their practices are innovative, and speaking personally in my former career as a film director, I watched the UK film industry transform from working on celluloid to the UK being a world leading centre of digital production.

And for the last five years at the Institute of ethics of AI in Oxford, where I am an adviser, I have been delighted to watch the leaps and bounds of AI development. Those at the frontier of AI development are creative thinkers and creative people are natural innovators. The government's attempt to divide us is wrong. The transformational impact of technology is something that all the signatories of this weekend's letter to the Prime Minister understand. Creators do not deny the economic value and creative value of AI, but we do deny the assertion that we should have to build AI for free with our work.

Then rent it back with our work. Then rent it back from those who stole it. Ours is not an argument about progress, it is an argument about value. The AI companies fiercely defend their own IP, but denied the value of our work. My Lords, not everything new is progress, not everything that already exists is without value, but we, creative into embodied by change we, creative into embodied by change The notion that we are standing in the way of change.

We are setting our right to continue to exist and play our part in the UK's future growth. Secondly, there is no confusion about copyright law in relation to AI, nor does the phenomenal number of submissions to the consultation prove anything other than the widespread outrage of the creative industry that the government sought to redefine theft rather than uphold their property rights. In our last debate my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss made an unequivocal statement to that effect, which has been widely supported by other legal opinion.

So the government's spokesman who has greeted every press enquiry of the last few weeks by saying government is consulting to sort out the confusion in copyright in relation to AI is at best misinformed. Let me be clear, the amendment does not change copyright, we do not need to change copyright law, we need transparency so that we can enforce copyright law because what you cannot see, you cannot enforce. Thirdly and finally I want to rebut the idea of this is the wrong bill and the wrong time.

AI did not exist in the public realm until the early 2020s and the speed and scale of which copyright works are being stolen is eye watering. Property that people have invested in, creative, traded and that they rely on for their livelihood is being stolen at all parts of the value stolen at all parts of the value chain. My Lords, it is an assault on the British economy and it is happening at scale to a sector worth 120 billion to the UK and an industry that is central to the industrial strategy and of enormous cultural import.

My Lords, it is happening now and we have not even begun to catch up with the devastating consequences. The government have taken our amendments out of the bill and replace them with a couple of toothless reports. My Lords, whatever these reports bring forward, whatever the consultation offers, we need the amendment in front of us today now because if this bill does not protect copyright, by the time they work out their policy, there will be little to save. The language of AI, scraping, training, LAM's, data modules, does not evoke the full picture of what is being done.

They are corporations, many of which are seeking to entrench their information seeking monopolies are not stealing nameless data. They are stealing some of the UK's most valuable cultural and economic assets. It is Harry Potter, it is the entire back catalogue of every single music publisher in the UK, it is the voice of Hugh Grant, the design of an iconic handbag, the IP of our universities, museums and library collections. Even the news is stolen in real time, or without payment, with economic benefits being taken offshore.

It costs UK corporations and individuals their hard earned wealth and the Treasury hard earned wealth and the Treasury much-needed revenue. And it did nudes the opportunities of the next generation because if work is stolen at every turn, then whether you are a corporation or individual, you cannot survive. The time is now in the bill in front of us is the vehicle. Amendment 49A superseded the previous package of amendments and I wish to pay tribute to Lord Stevenson's who wishes he could be with us, Lord Clement-Jones and his colleagues who have been uncompromising in their support and my noble friend Lord Freyberg.

Amendment 49 simply provides that a copyright holder be able to see who, what, when and why there work has been taken, allowing them a reasonable route to assert their moral right to determine if they wish to have their work used and if so, on what terms. It is a slimmer version of the previous package of amendments, but it covers the same ground and importantly, it puts a timeline of 12 months and bringing forward these provisions and it makes specific provision for SME and micro-entities and for UK headquartered AI companies.

My Lords, there are two terrible The first is that Government is undermining one of our greatest industrial sector is also the second as Government may be on a support to court for all 10 the U.K.'s opportunity to take its rightful lease in the world of AI as a global leader in the AI supplied. Generative AI depends on skill, energy for computers, and high quality data. We punch above our weight on skills, but are no match for the US and China without lowering our energy costs fivefold, the natural choice will be for AI firms to train elsewhere, but the UK has a disproportionate amount of quality data.

A huge proportion of which is the Intellectual Property Office by our powerhouse creative industries. We should be creating market conditions that ensure our creators can continue to contribute to the culture of soft power and the to the culture of soft power and the long-term sustainable growth of our four nations. The economic argument is overwhelming. It is a crucial part of our nations assets, and the foundation of its future in the AI economy. That cannot be replaced by a handful of data centres.

And the moral argument is unassailable. Creators work as the result of their Creators work as the result of their labour. It is their property and it is for them to determine what they do with it, so I do ask the Noble Lady the Minister how does the Government justify turning their back while offshore companies steal UK property and how can you stand, how can the Government stand tall in that light of pre-election promises to put creativity back in the DNA of the country? When their best offer is a review on an infinite timeline? And why is the Government not protecting UK growth? When we know the monopoly power of the US and Chinese tech giants means that the benefits will accrue disproportionately off-line.

Finally, my Lords, I have been inundated by people who are materially affected of this issue. Many of whom are watching our proceedings. Let me just finish with some thanks to the hundreds of creators of the emails Britain's spoken campaigns in support of this amendment, to the UK AI trade group who have shown that the grassroots UK tech industry and broader AI ecosystem, unlike the proxies of big tech, want to work with, not steal from creatives. To the UK businesses who put billions into building iconic brands who want that this policy puts their investments at risk.

To the security community, incredulous that this may carelessly legitimised where in a community where cyber security is of vital importance and the sector both here and in the US have made clear to me that diminishing copyright does not, as Ministers suggest, open the US market to the UK, but, instead, opens the UK market to anyone who wants to take our data offshore. To the news media who put aside their differences in the interest of protecting the future of news with their make it fair campaign, to the creative rights KPI coalition.

As demonstrating the complete uniformity of the movement across the sector from the biggest record labels to freelance photographers just starting out to those on both houses on all sides of the political spectrum who have chosen to stand with the creative industries sometimes against the wish of their whip. And, finally, to the young people who have contacted me furious that the Government Ministers who so recently have been given the privilege of fulfilling their own ambitions are carelessly throwing away the possibility that the next generation of creators fulfil theirs.

Whatever your party allegiance is, I ask you to make clear to the 2.4 million people who make up the creative industries to their dependents, to the would-be creatives of the future, and to the citizens of the UK that enjoy and benefit from their creativity, that their property, their labour is worthy of your protection. Because apart from anything else, it is not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ours to give away. The deputy chairman of the
18:06
Lord Black of Brentwood Portrait Lord Black of Brentwood (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

The deputy chairman of the Telegraph media group. It is a great pleasure to follow the Noble Lady. I pleasure to follow the Noble Lady. I strongly support Amendment 49 in her name. All who value the creative life of our country or her an enormous debt of gratitude for her campaigning and I agree with everything she said about thanking all those who have taken part. At the heart of this debate there are two complex policy issues and the Noble Lady the Minister made that point.

These are complex issues. The rapid development and regulation of AI and the operational copyright law. Both can seem a bit daunting to those not directly involved. And this is scary and complex and many would be forgiven simply for wanting to steer clear, but not one of us can turn our back today with impunity on this issue. All of us have a responsibility today because if you strip this debate back to its basics, there are three very simple principles at stake that affect all our lives and our central to everything that this House stands for.

The first is the defence of property. A century since the Copyright act of own nine since an individual has crated something, a film, April, they have retained ownership of it. It is their property and the law protects them. That is centuries old and under threat for the first time because the Government refuses to properly apply the law to Artificial Intelligence, allowing simply that plugging of someone else's work and profiting from it. It is putting AI beyond the scope of the law by failing to give great is the transparency they need to inform it.

At heart, this is dead simple. Unless this bill is amended, it is the equivalent of saying to a home owner, once you have bought a house and filled it with your possessions, the Government once you to leave the front door wide-open, invite anonymous passers-by to come in and take anything they want for free, allow them to go away and sell it for their own profit, and you have no protection at all in law. It is legalising theft. This amendment simply allows those who create content in an age of rapacious AI to put a lock on their door and protect their property by letting them know when theft is taking place and giving them a form of redress.

If this House stands for anything, it must stand for protection of property. Second is the nurturing of human creativity. It was, I think my Beethoven, the Noble Lord Berkeley will correct me if I got this wrong, who once said there is a divine spark of creative genius in all of us. Whether we paint a picture, taking photograph, write a piece of music, we all have something in us that allows us to express ourselves and enrich the lives of others in doing so.

It is copyright that protects our ability to do that. That is why the creative right of the UK has always been so vibrant, colourful, entertaining, colourful. It is why our creative industries flourish and play such a vital role in economic growth. But if you take away copyright protection, you snuff out that divine spark and endanger the livelihoods of those who depend on their creative ability. If this House stands for anything, it must stand for creativity for the divine spark.

Finally, and most importantly, the defence of democracy itself. It has been said once in this House, it has been said 1,000 times, democracy depends on the existence of a free independent press empowering the electorate with reliable information and scrutinising those in power. That role is even more important in the age of disinformation and unverified unregulated AI generated content with editorial judgement oversight overtaken buyout rhythms and the tyranny of recycled distorted circular information, but the provision of independent verified regulated news will be among the very first victims of AI if this amendment is not passed and we act very soon.

I do not say this lightly, and having spent almost my whole career in the media, I am choosing mime words very carefully, but I have to give the House this morning. AI has the capacity to utterly destroy organisations because it feasts on the millions of articles written by journalist without any attribution or payment, destroying the business model that makes the free pass possible. Without action this day, news will die in the cold darkness of cyberspace were no legal framework exists.

The advertising that supports taking platforms is content stolen by AI. There will only be a husk left. The answer is this amendment which will turbocharge an embryonic licensing market to ensure fair payment for creators and access to high-quality information and AI models. If the AI developers are forced to declare whose content they are taking, then they will know they will end up in the courts if they do not negotiate a license. The term existential threat is bandied around too much.

But this is not crying wolf. Unless we introduce transparency, control over content and fair renumeration within make licensing market, the threat to free media is generally existential, and as a consequence, the threat to democracy itself is also, genuinely existential. If this House stands for anything it must stand for democracy. We have to act now. The bills laissez-faire approach to copyright protection and craven obeisance to the platforms means that we will not get any action on transparency until well neither the end of the parliament, but for many public publications, for that point, the end will have already come.

And once lost, there will be no way of recreating the plural competitive media that has sustained parliamentary democracy for centuries. It is game over. That may sound alarming, but it is absolutely At stake here. Any Noble Lord considering voting against this amendment, I say it is already 11:55 for our free press and our democracy, and unless we back this today, this will damned the House with its most deadly words. Too late. late.
18:13
Baroness Benjamin Portrait Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, my noble Lords, friends, and those of a creative disposition. Lend me your ears. Even though I have come late to this bill, yes, I wonder what Shakespeare would have had to say about AI. Last night I presented the special BAFTA award for ITV4 commissioning that landmark drama, the debates versus the post office, which is British television at its best. And I wondered if AI would have had the intuitive instinct to create such an important drama which brought about societal change.

That is why I rise to strongly support my Noble Friend, the intrepid Baroness Kidron on amendment 49. And I declare an interest as per register. As this Span a fascinating and perhaps unsettling crossroads in the world of creativity. And the rise of Artificial Intelligence is no longer a futuristic fantasy. It is a tangible force reshaping the very fabric of our creative industry. And, potentially, stealing livelihoods. And, most of all, our children's future.

Does the Government really want that to be part of their legacy? My Lords, for centuries, the essence of acting and singing has been a unique connection between a human performer and an audience. We pour our emotions, experiences, and understanding of the human condition into convincing characters. Telling stories that emotionally connect. Now, AI is stepping onto our stage. Offering digital doubles, synthesised voices, and the potential of entirely AI generated programs, including animation, children's programs. The immediate impacts already being felt, AI tools can now replicate an actor's likeness, and act as voice, raising concerns about the unauthorised use of identities, both living and deceased.

The ability to create digital doubles or stunts or even entire scenes would reduce the Some argue that AI will be a tall to enhance our craft, aiding and adding to voice training, accent, or even music and script writing. The underlying anxiety about job displacement is real and valid. My Lords, our ability to connect with an audience on an emotional level, to bring authenticity and vulnerability to a role remains a uniquely human attribute.

Thousands and thousands of people tell me I did just that when they watched me almost 50 years ago on Playschool. It had a lasting emotional effect on them, right through to the .org because as I always say, childhood lasts a lifetime. My Lords, it terrifies me to think that future generations of children may never experience a human being connection with them, with their souls, either on-screen or onstage, or inspired them to pursue a career in the creative in.

No government should have that on their conscience. It requires us to legislate for ethical guidelines, for regulations and transparency that protect our copyrights and intellectual property, our professions, our creativity for the sake of our children. This is our responsibility to do just that. Without doubt we must collaborate with these new technologies in ways that enhance rather than replace the human element of creativity. My Lords, let us not shy away from this challenge, no. It may in vertically affect our children's future.

We need to confront it with open eyes and United voices, ensuring that the art of creativity in all its human richness can continue to thrive in this evolving world. My Lords, for these reasons I wholeheartedly support Baroness Kidron's amendment and urge others to do just the same.
18:18
Lord Rooker Portrait Lord Rooker (Labour)
-
-
This is my first contribution on this bill, although I have sat in every debate on this issue going back to Committee stage. I do not have a creative nerve in my body. I have nothing to declare, but my life and hundreds of millions of others has been enhanced by writers, actors, music makers across the world. And it is sad in a way, and this is not a criticism of anybody personally who is around at the present time, but the nature of labour in Parliament has changed.

When I arrived in the Commons 51 years ago, on the Labour benches was Morris Edelmann, a writer of fiction and non-fiction of note. My near near neighbour was Andrew Foulds. Jet Morgan in Journey into Space. I have been thinking how the little people, the little helpers for the Prime Minister in the other place would cope with Andrew today. He was a formidable character who could scare the life out of his friends. 30 years after that I joined this place.

Ruthven Dell on the benches. David Putnam joined some years later, a world-renowned producer. My noble friend, Lord Cashman. I make this personal. I don't speak for any of them. I haven't spoken to anybody about what I would say, although I indicated I was going to speak to Baroness Kidron at the weekend. I am being asked to deliver wholesale the work of these people to Big Tech. Well, I am not doing it. I have not got the slightest intention of doing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it and that is why I shall vote for this amendment. As I said at the previous stage
18:21
Earl of Dundee Portrait The Earl of Dundee (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

As I said at the previous stage of this bill, it surely goes without of this bill, it surely goes without saying that our United Kingdom copyright law has to counter the increasing theft of intellectual property from Artificial Intelligence companies. As the noble Baroness is present -- as the noble Baroness's amendment shows we should allow copyright holders to identify when and from where their work has been taken. I am sure all your Lordships would agree with that aim.

As well as being well aware of the strong human rights backup support to ask with the 46 state affiliation of the Council of Europe of which the United Kingdom is a prominent member. As many of your Lordships no first and foremost article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to privacy, including of personal data. Article 1 of its initial protocol protects property rights, including intellectual property rights in intellectual property rights in copyright.

Article 5 on cybercrime prohibits system interference by, for example, the transmission of computer data whilst article 10 stipulates offences relating to infringements of copyright and related rights. Thirdly, article 11 of the 2024 Council of Europe framework safeguards privacy and personal data. Regarding copyright also and it emphasised at the earliest stage of our discussions that we can be justly proud of our own United Kingdom records which granted legal protection to the publishers of books.

We must uphold the high standards of that the high standards of that tradition. The United Kingdom should guide the good practice and I am here today supporting the noble here today supporting the noble Baroness's amendment. It is the Baroness's amendment. It is the clear example of it being a liability not to.
18:23
Baroness Freeman of Steventon Portrait Baroness Freeman of Steventon (Crossbench)
-
-
I speak because it's a simple amendment. It's putting the principle of transparency of these models on the face of this bill. We need to know what goes into these models and we need to know for two reasons. One, so that any form of copyright can be prosecuted. So at the moment, even our current copyright laws, how can we know whether they have been broken if we do not know what goes into these models? It does not matter if the government is thinking about changing the copyright rules, whatever copyright rules we have, we need to know what is being used in the models.

And the other reason is because of the outputs of these models. We need to know what these models were trained on in order to know their strengths and weaknesses. The noble Lord said it himself in order to answer an Oral Question from Baroness Cousins. If the data that has gone into the model is not transparent, we cannot ascertain its strengths and weaknesses without extensive Roxy measures and probing. On these two principles it's important that this simple amendment goes through today, and the fact that it has got some added benefits in terms of being able to legislate separately for smaller need enterprises, micro industries and UK businesses as to the fact that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment has been carefully crafted to give us exactly what we need in this bill today. Baroness Benjamin posed a very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Benjamin posed a very appropriate question. What would Shakespeare make of AI? I think the Shakespeare make of AI? I think the answer so far is rather like the proverbial million monkeys on their typewriters. So far it has failed to
18:25
Lord Brennan of Canton Portrait Lord Brennan of Canton (Labour)
-
-
typewriters. So far it has failed to reduce a credible version of Shakespeare, but it has provided several improved versions of The Art of the Deal. I rise also to speak to Baroness Kidron's amendments and the government's amendments that have come back from the other place, the House of Commons. I thank the Minister for her engagement on this in the briefing she gave to noble friends and colleagues across the House. And also to my good friend Minister Chris Bryant, whose charismatic presence I've felt around us, almost as if he was observing our proceedings earlier on.

And also to the Secretary of State for confirming fire 1/3 party in last weekend's press that the government has changed its position in relation to having the opt out in the consultation as the preferred position. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that on the Minister could confirm that on the House of the -- on the floor of the House today. It was delivered by a spokesperson rather than the Secretary of State. It is a helpful change and I welcome the fact that the government has made some movement in the amendments it has put forward.

I hope it is now part put forward. I hope it is now part I am I am a I am a member I am a member of I am a member of the I am a member of the musicians I am a member of the musicians union and I draw attention to my entry in the register. Just to say that creative remuneration has been, for me, one of the central issues that I have worked on as a parliamentarian in the 23 years I was in the House of commons.

Certainly on the front benches in opposition, and also as the sponsor of the Private Members' Bill in the Commons, which although it did not get into law I think had it did not get into law I think had quite a significant influence. The copyright remuneration bill which is sitting within the offices of the intellectual property office. There has been strong ministerial engagement from Minister Chris Bryant, trying to hold to account everyone concerned in the music industry to improve remuneration for musicians.

I have never understood, and this is not just about rights holders, I've never actually understood why anybody in the creative into started of, for example, with a love of music and got involved in being an Executive in the creative industry, could start off with a level of music and creativity and some thinking they are worthy of being paid more than the people who actually create the wonderful content that Lord Rooker was speaking about earlier on. How can somebody reward themselves with greater remuneration than the entire remuneration of every songwriter in this country as a music industry Executive.

There is only one explanation and I think it is by the personal attrition of their soul, but that is another matter altogether. But in this instance it is an opportunity that we have, I think, within this bill. The key point is this, yes, obviously the elected House should have its way. I believe that very strongly as a former member, but it is important that this House has its say along the way, if you like, and that transparency is absolutely key. We cannot enforce copyright, rights holders cannot enforce their rights unless there is transparency.

This particular bill, this particular bus, the government should be getting on it, rather than waiting for a bus several years down the road in the form of future legislation. There is an opportunity for compromise and should be sent the amendments back to the other place, the government should look for a way to give commitment to ensuring it can through this bill take powers in order to regulate in relation to transparency in the near future. I was fortunate enough last week, and this is an absolutely blatant namedrop, but I was fortunate enough last week to accompany a member of ABBA.

I note that Lord Vaizey objects, he would never do such a thing. He introduced me to the founder of Motown records on one occasion in these corridors, but he would never do something similar himself. When I showed him the role gallery, he took particular interest in one of the murals and asked who is that in that mural. Sorry, it is not a mural, it is a fresco. He asked who is in the fresco. He asked who is in the fresco.

I told him. I said somebody should write a song about that and he said, yes, that is a great idea. It could be a metaphor for a love affair. I said, I'm surprised you have not thought of that before. We never mentioned the word Waterloo once.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords... I think it is the crossbenches

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think it is the crossbenches turn. Noble Lord law black mentioned, and in declaring my interest as a composer I should also mention that I have acted as an expert with this in cases of musical
18:31
Lord Berkeley of Knighton Portrait Lord Berkeley of Knighton (Crossbench)
-
-
copyright. While doing that I was asked by one of my learned friends what constitutes something is worthy Because that in terms of the law is a substantial idea. So the whole notion of copyright comes down to something which is valuable and it doesn't matter how long it is or how short it is. Creativity in the UK is already, I'm afraid and somewhat hollow state, and any erosion of copyright will be adding yet another cut to noisy wounded body.

The noble Lady the Minister mentioned technology, and of course we all use technology. We all want to use technology. The famous composers, the songwriters who have headed the letter to the Prime Minister, Paul McCartney, Elton John, Sting, wonderful songwriters, have used technology to great effect. And with the greatest respect, I think it slightly insulting to say to them they are pulling the shutters, we are pulling the shutters down, because we want to know who is using our music.

That cannot be something intellectually which holds water. People need to know how the music is being used, they have the right to know. Why also is an important factor. Let me give you an example which I mentioned once before, of what happened with screaming. In other words we have been bitten once already. -- With streaming. In a way I welcome opening music and the arts to the whole world through the Internet and streaming certainly does that.

But what did it do? Very well musician said to me other day, a top-10 artist, word us -- would at all this money go? It doesn't go to us. If you ask or Elton John hosting how their royalties have changed over the years, they will say they've gone down massively. This is not just about famous musicians. McCartney, Elton Jean, Sting, will be the first to say, this is also about the little-known songwriters who at the moment make a pittance but who are hoping to make something.

It's also, we are led to believe, obviously those famous names attract attention and it's quite right they do and I'm really grateful for their support. But there's also a whole other section, the contemporary classical music sector, and I know they support the local four lead at the Baroness, and this is a very dangerous bill if we cannot curtail, and I'm glad the lady is listening and wants to help and wants to find a way through because I believe that if we don't make improvements to this, we really could be shortchanging something that brings an absolute fortune into the Treasury.

But not just a fortune in terms of money. The fortune in terms of joy. I've mentioned Paul McCartney, Elton John, Sting. Think what they brought into people's lives. And although my section, the contemporary classical section may be less famous and less well-known, they, too, have a right to be heard and therefore is that if you allow, for example training, it suggested that maybe it would be OK to allow people to use our products in training. But we know that that is the thin end of the wedge.

When streaming came in the record industry virtually disappeared. I know, the manager of a classical record company, who said to me, why would we want to record this piece? It's already out there on the Internet. You have to think about what follows on from opening this World Cup and I think the government is listening. And I think many noble Lords have pointed out exactly what the dangers are. So I certainly will support the noble Baroness, my noble friend Baroness Kidron.

She has done sterling work. I don't think we are making a fuss about nothing. I think this is the thin end of the wedge and we have got to try and curtail it now, for the future of music in this country, and indeed all the other arts. other arts.
18:36
Baroness Stowell of Beeston Portrait Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Conservative)
-
-
I welcome the government additions to the bill, and I endorse my noble friend Viscount Camrose's amendments today, especially that relating to removing barriers to entry. Because it is vital that AI does not end up controlled by the same tech firms who dominate cloud search and social media. And this in my view, this important nature resents opportunity for challenge fans and new markets to emerge. And much of what I will say in the moment is very much with them in mind.

As to the noble Baroness Lady Kidron's amendment on transparency, in the context of copyright, she is right to prioritise transparency. As I've argued before, whatever kind of solution is eventually adopted, opt out or opt in, transparency will be necessary for that solution to work. I also think the noble Baroness is right to press the urgency of this, content creators really cannot afford to wait, so she has my support and my vote. And indeed, with the support of both the Conservative and LibDem benches today, the government could well be defeated and in my view that would be most welcome.

I'm sure the noble Baroness the Minister doesn't like me to say, but that is my view. However, that said, I do think there are some aspects of the noble Baroness Lady Kidron's amendment which may be at this juncture a little bit too prescriptive for primary legislation ahead of a policy decision on the solution for how to copyright, so what I want to focus on briefly is what happens next, if the government is defeated tonight. And what I would strongly urge the government not to do is what it can, which is just to remove the clause that the noble Baroness Lady Kidron would add to the, once Lady Kidron would add to the, once it got back down the other end.

I would as the government to bring back an amendment in you. -- In Leigh. We all want a future for a eyewear the creative industries and the tech sectors, ' can be confident that the playing field for competition is fair, and when it comes to the use of copyrighted content, that they can strike mutually beneficial deals. We may be a little way off from achieving that way forward, as is reflected in the government's additions to the bill and the work that it has promised over the next 12 months.

But that work should not preclude the government taking power in this bill to bring back secondary to address transparency as soon as it's finished work client in the amendment 46. -- The work outlined in amendment 46. Transparency is needed now and as I have said, it will be relevant to whatever solution the government decides. So a requirement contact in this area is not unreasonable. And from the perspective of content creators, who it has to be said may well be immensely powerful in ensuring that they get publicity and coverage of the cause, the future looks highly uncertain.

A binding commitment with a deadline to bring forward transparency regulations, at this juncture, as in whilst this bill is going through Parliament, is reasonable if such a new clause is not overly prescriptive. And so that is what I would advise the government to do next, assuming they are defeated tonight. I rise to speak as the friend of
18:40
Lord Tarassenko Portrait Lord Tarassenko (Crossbench)
-
-
two nice burnouts and I draw the house's attention to the founder of house's attention to the founder of the University of Oxford uses IIF healthcare application. And the author of three copyrighted books. author of three copyrighted books. Since these amendments were last debated in the House of Lords, there has been a lot of high-profile has been a lot of high-profile comment, but very few attempts, if any, to bring AI developers and any, to bring AI developers and creators together in the same room.

creators together in the same room. During the same period however, more businesses from the creative industries and the publishing sector have actually agreed content have actually agreed content licensing deals. That's because access to curated, high-quality access to curated, high-quality content to fine tune large language models, the step after the models, the step after the pretraining which then provides higher greasy responses, is increasingly being monetised. Even increasingly being monetised. Even the Guardian Media Group, a strong supporter of the creative industries, announced in February the strategic partnership with OpenAI to ensure compensation for the use of its high quality journalism.

That shows it is possible, without any change in the law, for the creative industries and Big Tech companies to come to licensing agreements. The main technological development since our last debate is the demonstration that training LLMs no longer requires a massive computer facilities and huge data centres of the Big Tech companies in the US. Since the beginning of the year, Chinese company deep sea because least open source LLMs hundreds of times smaller than the models like GPT-4.

These models, typically with 10 billion rates, have been developed through the process of distillation, and they achieve almost the same level of performance as the hyper- scale models. So why is that important? It means users of LLM no longer have to send queries to the hyper- scale models which are then processed by OpenAI, Google or anthropic, using the huge computer facilities, with thousands of GP using the data centres. Instead, any AI developer can now train and run versions of this LLMs, locally on their laptops.

Deep sea because the first AI company to show how powerful the process of distillation is in the context of LLM. Other companies are jumping on the bandwagon. A new LLM was created, a model that can be run anywhere from smartphones to laptops and has the ability to handle text, images and short videos. The point is that these open source LLMs are now being used by thousands of AI developers in the UK and elsewhere, who are training and fine tuning them using content, some of which may be copyrighted, publicly available on the web.

Training and LLM on the laptop using data from the open web will become as commonplace as searching the web. This is already happening, both in our computer science department UK universities but also within the rich ecosystem of AI start-ups and University spin out in the UK. A survey of 500 developers in the UKAR ecosystem carried out by jail partners last month had 94% of them, reporting that there work relied on AI models built using publicly available data from the web.

If the data laws in the UK were more restrictive than elsewhere, 66% of them reported their projects would move to other countries. So we need to consider the impact on the U.K.'s AI industry of these transparency provisions. The requirement to provide copyright owners with information regarding the text and data use in the pretraining, training and fine tuning of general-purpose AI. The use of content from behind pay walls or from pirated databases such as books 3 or Lib Jan is clearly illegal.

However for data publicly available on the open web would like to do a simple thought experiment to show that the transparency requirements in amendment 49, A, R unworkable. In the UK, unlike the US, there is no copyright database. Usually a copyright rests with the author of the work there are exceptions. Such as when the work is created by an employee in the course of the job, and copyright may also be assigned or transferred to a third-party. I'm going to assume it might take only one second, just one second on average, to ascertain the copyright status of an article, book, image or video recording on the web.

Just one second. If it only takes one second, it would require 31 years and eight months to check the copyright status of the 1 billion data points in typical LLM training. No mind setting up licensing deals with the millions of rights holders. For the distilled models now being trained or fine- tuned by UK developers, is excellent, these are 100 times smaller but the copyright status check would still require 1/3 of the year, still an entirely unworkable The DCMS task force which the government committed in last week's debate in the other place, to set up, should work with international bodies, such as the internet engineering task force to Information in a machine-readable way, using formats such as the creative Commons right expression language, for example.

That is one suggestion on how copyright, protection may actually be implemented in the age of AI. There are also bound to be any other helpful suggestions, amongst the 11.5 thousand submissions to the copyright and AI consultation which closed at the end of February. Entrepreneurs, within the U.K.'s AI industry do not understand why this amendment has been tabled. Some of them are amongst those who put in a submission to the consultation was not as one of the signatories related to the DSIT Secretary of State, which was published today said to me, why have a consultation if restrictive legislation is going to be introduced, before we know about the response to the consultation? This amendment, Amendment 40 9A, will not prevent UK content creators having their content creators having their content scraped, or operating in other jurisdictions.

However, it will harm the development and use of AI, in the UK. It will make a very difficult, if not impossible, for a UK AI start-up, developer software product, for example for optimising cancer treatment. Using LMMs, trained in fine tuned on a combination of our sovereign NHS dataset and the last two seconds of oncology exports and research. Most of which are copyrighted material. I agree Amendment 49, applying the Companies and differently to UK registered companies is attractive. But there are difficulties, for example what would have happened when a deep mind, a UK company was acquired by Google.

I do not believe that amendment 40 9A will have much other impact on the big tech companies. They continue to train their models, outside of the UK. It is very likely to inflict serious damage to the U.K.'s AI start-up and spin out ecosystem. We should wait for the outcome of the copyright and AI consultation, engage with the task forces and, with more appropriate ways of helping both our AI and our creative industries to thrive. I was IP Minister for nearly 3
18:49
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
years and I been a long-standing years and I been a long-standing member of the IPP. I was hoping to speak to support the noble Lady, speak to support the noble Lady, Baroness Kidron and her amendment and my noble friend Lord Camrose and and my noble friend Lord Camrose and his. What concerns me is we are witnessing an assault on a sector worth £160 billion to the UK, as we worth £160 billion to the UK, as we have heard.

Actually, I suspect that is an underestimate, because IP and is an underestimate, because IP and copyright are to be found in the nooks and crannies of so much of our nooks and crannies of so much of our life and our industry. There is been life and our industry. There is been a lot of mention of music and media, a lot of mention of music and media, nobody has mentioned racehorses, or information on art and antiques, or close to my heart, the design by close to my heart, the design by young graduates of gorgeous new clothing and fancy footwear, that I wear.

It is the small, small operators who are most at risk. That is why I am speaking today. I think we are going to too slowly. I think amendments have been knocked back, Baroness Kidron has been trying her hardest, with a great deal of support, right across Britain. And as time goes by, the AI models are stealing more of our creativity, hitting UK businesses. I believe that the government must get on. It is not easy, but it is a challenge they have got to rise to and rise to very quickly.

very quickly.
18:51
Lord Freyberg Portrait Lord Freyberg (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to support Baroness Kidron in her amendment, Amendment 49 and I also want to address the claims that we've heard repeatedly in this debate, the transparency of AI data is technically unfeasible. This claim forcibly pushed by technology giants, like Google is not only unsupported by evidence, but deliberately misleading. Someone with a long standing background in the visual arts and is a member of DACs, the copyright Society have witnessed how it can be exploited without consent or compensation.

I've listened very carefully to the concerns, both emails to colleagues today and the letter from entrepreneurs, to the Secretary of State. Well I deeply respect their expertise, and commitment to innovation, I must firmly reject their assessment, which echoes the talking points of trillion dollars to corporations. The claims by tech companies that transparency requirements are technically unfeasible has been thoroughly debunked. The dataset already meticulously documents over 5 billion images, with granular detail. Companies operate crawler services on this dataset, to identify images belonging to specific rights holders.

This irrefutably demonstrates the transparency and scale is not only possible, but already practised, when it suits corporate interests. Let's be clear about what is happening. Seo companies ingesting billions of copyrighted works, without permission or payment. Claiming it would be too difficult to tell, creators which works have been taken. This is a theft on an industrial scale, dressed up as the inevitable technological progress. The claim that these amendments would damage UK AI start-ups are sparing US technology giants is entirely backwards.

Transparency would actually level the playing field, benefiting innovative British companies, while preventing larger firms from exploiting creative works, without permission. I must respectfully suggest the concerns about potential harms to AI start- ups should be balanced against the devastating impact on our creative industries. Thousands of small businesses and individual creators, whose livelihoods depend on proper recognition and compensation for their work. Their continued viability depends, fundamentally on protecting intellectual property rights. Without transparency, how can creators even begin to enforce these rights.

The question answers itself. This isn't about choosing itself. This isn't about choosing technology and creativity, it is about ensuring both sectors can thrive, through fair collaboration, based on consent and compensation. Transparency isn't an obstacle to innovation, it is the foundation upon which responsible, sustainable innovation is built. Google's preferred approach would reverse the fundamental basis of UK copyright law. Placing an unreasonable burden on the rights holders to opt out of on the rights holders to opt out of having their work stolen.

This approach is unworkable. And would effectively legalise a mass copyright theft, to benefit primarily American technology corporations. Rather than waiting for a consultation outcome that may take years, while creative works continue to be misappropriated, this amendment offers a practical step forward, that benefits both the tears, while upholding existing law. tears, while upholding existing law. I urge that this House to support amendment 49 I urge that this House amendment 49 I urge that this House to support amendment 40 -- 49
18:55
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Than a Baroness Kidron has open the floodgates to expressions will of creativity today. I think of taking her amendment. I also thank the Minister for setting out the government's position and their support for the creative industries. I suppose I straddle the world of AI and creativity as much as anybody in this House. I co-founded the All- Party group on AI and I have been a member of the All-Party intellectual property group is not that is reflected in my interest both as an adviser on AI policy and regulation and as chair newly appointed of the office licensing collecting society.

I do declare those interest My Lords which are more than merely formal. So, the subject matter of the amendments, in this group, My Lords are of profound importance for the importance of our creative industries and the development of AI, in the UK, in terms of the critical intersection of AI training Law and specifically, the urgent need for transparency. As the number Baroness Kidron has described, the rapid development of AI, particularly large language models relies heavily on vast volumes of data for training and this is brought into sharp focus the way copyright law applies to such activity.

Until My Lords it was impossible to miss the letter, over the weekend, from 400, really important creatives, media and creative business leaders, urging creative business leaders, urging support for her amendment, 49A, in the marshalled List, My Lords. Rights holders from musicians, authors, and visual artists are rightly concerned about the use of their copyrighted material, to train AI models, often without permission or renumeration, as we have heard today, My Lords. They seek greater control over their content and renumeration, when it is used for this purpose, alongside greater this purpose, alongside greater I beg to Baroness Kidron, who throughout the passage of this bill has brilliantly championed the cause of creators and the creative industries, in her tabling of a series of crucial amendments.

Her original report stage amendments passed in this House, but deleted by passed in this House, but deleted by the Government in the Commons, then re-tabled in the Commons at report stage, by my honourable friends, aims to make existing UK copyright law enforceable in the age of generative AI. Core argument behind those amendments, which, encapsulates the essence of the previous amendments, today, is there innovation in the AI field should not come at the expense of the individuals and industry creating original content.

The central plank of the noble Baroness's proposals, today, and one we strongly support, on these benches, is the requirement for transparency from AI developers, regarding copyrighted material, used in their training data. Remember 49A specifically requires that the Secretary of State to make regulations, setting out strict transparency requirements for web trawlers and general-purpose AI Disclosing the identity and purpose of crawlers used to identify the owners and crucially keeping records of where and when the copyrighted material is gathered. This transparency is vital for ensuring accountability and enabling copyright holders to identify potential infringements and enforce their rights.

The Minister described the consultation process, in the consultation on AI and copyright published last December, that consultation proposed text and data mining exception which would allow AI developers to train material, and less the rights holder expressly reserved their rights, or opted out. The argument against this proposed opt out mechanism are compelling and have been made by many noble Lords have been made by many noble Lords today. And have been voiced by many outside as we've seen.

It shifts the burden onto creators to police the use of their work and to actively opt out, placing undue responsibility on them. This approach undermines the fundamental principles of copyright, effectively rewarding the widespread harvesting, or scraping of copyrighted material. It has occurred without permission or fair remuneration. The proposed text and data mining exception, which it appears that the government is no longer proposing, as the number Lord Brennan asked, perhaps the Minister can clarify, the government's position and confirm that that is indeed the case.

Risks harming creators of a small group of tech companies. It could erode trust in the AI sector. As the noble Baroness has observed, this approach is selling the creative industries down the river. Voluntary measures for transparency, proposed by the government or insufficient, clear government or insufficient, clear It is already some point out that innovative AI developers already demonstrate business models based on licensing datasets from creators, and indeed the noble Lord pointed that out. Those licenses are available but I'm afraid the noble Lord actually misunderstands the way in which collecting societies operate.

Those models are available and collecting societies could administer them perfectly well and can testify to that. This proves that opt out is not the only viable path and it's notable that organisations such as UKAR do not support the government's opt out position -- UK AI. Tom Flagg, CEO said UK AI concludes that existing copyright law is adequate and should not be changed to an opt out model. The proposed opt out model would significantly harm the creative sectors to achieve minimal gain for a small group of gold changing the copyright law will erode public trust and create unnecessary conflict.

This will undermine economic growth more than any benefits the opt out could deliver. And that is UK AI which represent a very large group of AI developers. We have however seen some positive developments and I do welcome the amendments that the government have tabled which require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on the use of copyright works in AI development and an economic assessment. The should have been offered at the very beginning of the AI and copyright consultation but they don't go far enough.

Commitments along with lines do not provide the necessary legal framework for the immediate transparency needed to protect creators. We have heard from noble Viscount Camrose in opposing his amendments which seeks to ensure the report considers aspects like the -- impact on UK copyright holders and identify barriers to market entry for developers. We welcome these and indeed the change of position by the Conservative frontbench Germany on the absolute need for transparency which I'm sure is very welcome on the benches behind him.

His amendments were strengthen the government proposed reporting but they remain additions to the reporting requirement, not the substantive legal change that is required. What is needed is substantive provision in the bill itself that mandates transparency and this is precisely what Baroness Kidron's amendment supported strongly on these benches throughout the passage of this bill aim to achieve. They seek to inject transparency in what has been described as a clandestine lab box, making it technically feasible and easy for rights holders to understand when and how their work is being used.

So I would say to the government, and I do very much like the phraseology used by the noble Lord Lord Brennan, get on the bus,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my Lords. I did stand up when Lord Clement-Jones stood up but unfortunately as is so often in my life he completely ignored me. I'm life he completely ignored me. I'm going to sleep in after him and before our frontbench and I declare before our frontbench and I declare my measure of interest is adviser to a company that seeks to pay royalty
19:05
Lord Vaizey of Didcot Portrait Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Conservative)
-
-
a company that seeks to pay royalty is to creators for the use of the content in AI models. It was good to see not only the Secretary of State being cast standing at the bar but also the creative industries minister, Chris Bryant, shows that something is up and they were very clearly wanting to be seen by the 400 also creatives that roach the newspapers over the weekend expressing concerns about the government AI legislation. And also government AI legislation. And also to see as we all did carry favour with Baroness Kidron who has led so well on so many of these issues.

As she was speaking, and making the point that creatives and technologists are not a part of but not a part at all but are together, it reminds me that I was the creative industries minister and the reason I became a technology sister is that I was the only minister meeting the technology companies and the reason I was meeting the technology companies was because the technology companies were busily ripping off the intellectual of the creative industries. At that time in 2010, you would sit down with Google and say, anyone can search for any material on your website and come up with it illegally and stream it and download it without paying the creators of that material.

They said that they would not do anything. The Labour government had passed legislation which was included in the wash up in 2010 which effectively criminalised, to coin a phrase, the teenager in their bedroom downloading the music just as perhaps some of us who were teenagers might have taped music from the radio the past. I knew when I became minister that legislation was completely unworkable, it was pointless to be prosecuting teenagers and you should be taking on Big Tech. But actually the music industry found a solution by using the fraud act, and began to take action in the courts against websites that were completely ripping off IP which allowed courts to order those websites to be blocked.

I also knew that there would be no solution until there was a commercial solution. And in fact that commercial solution has come about. In 2010 people were predicting the entire death of intellectual property, the death of the music industry, the death of the film industry, the death of television. They have never been healthier because there are commercial models because more people are prepared to pay a subscription to Spotify or Netflix or Amazon Prime to get great content for a reasonable price.

So a commercial solution is possible when people work together. And it was interesting hearing Lord Clement- Jones talking about the opt out model because the opt out model implies that you can have a conversation between Big Tech and the creators, the creators can either opt out or opt in. We have referred earlier to licensing deals. It is, if anyone reads the FT weekend, in fact everybody in this chamber does, it is the Bible of the chattering classes. Sam Walker is of course lunch with the FT and an honour he shares with Baroness Kidron, I texted her when she had lunch with the empty, and I said that is better than a period.

At the beginning of the luncheon says the FT has a licensing deal with OpenAI. It is possible to have licensing deals. What I think none of us can really stand as the other hypocrisy of people saying that we have two, for the national interest, have to rip off intellectual property. It is completely hypocritical and nonsensical. You wouldn't find a single text you saying, I think it's fine if people take our patterns because that is how you get economic growth, just take my pattern.

In fact you will not find CEO saying that, you will hear them saying in court I have been ripped off and I want my money back. That is intellectual property that Big Tech is prepared to fight for yet it is still prepared to tell us that... They can only grow by ripping off the IP of the creative industries. And let's face it, there may be a start it's that need AI, it's But we are still talking about Big Tech, we are talking about Microsoft, OpenAI, ex-AI, and matter.

You talking about the role of the United States. Donald Trump wants to make Hollywood great again. This is where he could start. This is where he could start.
19:10
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, firstly, of course I would like to thank all noble Lords from across the House for their many adequate and well-made speeches. And of course, the government share with a passion that has been displayed About the creative sector, we all want to see them flourish. We want to find ways to make that a reality. What we are talking about here is the practicalities of how we can do that in a proper way and that is what we are addressing delay.

Nobody doubts the absolutely fantastic contribution the creative sector makes to the UK and I thought that I would set out some of that, some of those issues in my opening speech but I'm very happy to confirm it again. In terms of the practicalities of this, the amendments tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Kidron sets out wide- ranging obligations on witnesses who make AI models available in the UK and would require the Secretary of State to nominate a body to enforce them.

Of course I agree with the noble Lady that the creative sector have always been early adopters of technology and that the creative and AI sectors go hand-in-hand together, and number of noble Lords made that point and it's a point very well made. And I also completely recognise the value generated by the creators, again a point well made a number of noble Lords, and their great cultural and economic contributions to society, as the noble Lord Lord Black, Lord Berkeley, Lord Brennan and many other speakers spoke about.

It's the government a few, and moreover morally right that creators can licence and be paid for the use of the content. The government has always been clear we want to see more licensing by the AI sector. The obligations in the noble Baroness kitchen's amendment they would affect a wide range of businesses and would require detailed disclosure of information. This would include a mechanism to identify individual works but it's very uncertain whether it would be possible to meet this requirement when a significant proportion of the material on the Internet doesn't have clear method data to facilitate this.

The scale of the impact on those businesses is unknown. But without a proper impact assessment is a real risk that it could lead to AI innovators including many home- grown British companies thinking twice about whether they wish to develop and provide their services in the UK. We agree that if transparent, transfers the obligations are to be created in this way, they will need to be provision for their oversight and enforcement. But that isn't something that can be dropped on the first brigade that comes to mind.

There is currently nobody with the skills and resources to perform this function. There needs to be a proper discussion about funding, clarity over what enforcement powers are needed and a whole range of other questions that need to be answered. It should also be noted that one of the main issues that creative industries are struggling with at the moment is enforcement of their rights under the current rules. And as has been said earlier, and I'm happy to reiterate it, we are not saying that the copyright laws are broken, it's the question of enforcing that's at the heart.

Whilst transparency would help with knowing what is being used, it alone will not be a silver bullet for small creators and businesses seeking redress through a legal system. There are as many noble Lords will know life court cases in train at the moment both the UK and in other key jurisdictions. And of course I and the government recognise the urgency of the problem, as fantastically put by the noble Baroness Benjamin. This is why DCMS and the setback ministers are parroting meetings with the creative and AI stakeholders to discuss potential solutions as a top priority.

And indeed have already held meetings and discussions with both sectors in September last year. We have moved quickly to consult and hosted roundtables and bilateral meetings with creatives and their representatives will stop these have been a great value and we will continue to hold those meetings. However, all these moving parts mean that something needs to be developed as a full working approach. The noble Lady Baroness Kidron's amendment does not offer an instant solution either. Instead asking the government, with regulations in 12 months.

We cannot make such significant interventions without properly understanding the impact. This is why our position is to report on force substantive issues within 12 months and set out our proposals in that time. And as I said in my opening speech, our proposals will be based on the evidence from the 11,500 responses, evidence from the 11,500 responses, and indeed will concentrate on what works rather than any preferred option. As noble Lord Lord Tarassenko said the solution must indeed involve preachers and AI developers being in the same room and this is what we will endeavour to do.

I agree with the noble Lord that AI shouldn't become a way to whitewash copyright privacy, the government supports strong action against copyright piracy and we will continue to do so. I also agree it's important to support transparency. I can't say this strongly enough. Overlords seem to suggest that we were taken that seriously. Of course we are stop the government fully supports and is encouraged by the work of the IETF and other fora who are developing new standards to help identify meta data which will make this easier.

I would also add that there has been some misinformation on the government's position. Let me on the government's position. Let me be clear, as I say, there has not been proposed any changes to the copyright in this bill, there has not been an opt out system put into the bell and copyright continues to apply for the use of materials for AI training as it did before this bill was introduced. So what we're looking at is as I say, an issue of enforcement. I would also like to turn to amendments 46, A, and B, the marshalled list, the Sudan extra elements to the government report including a plan to reduce barriers to market entry for AI developers, the impact on UK copyright holders of extraterritorial uses of their work and technological standards They also They also define They also define what They also define what might They also define what might be They also define what might be in scope.

I recognise that these amendments are constructive and I thank the noble Lord for the 40 is put into them. I would suggest that they are already covered by the government amendment. In the case of watermarking as I said earlier, that may not be possible for the government to meet. Amendment 46 a will require the government to publish a plan to reduce barriers relating to copyright and data access. But that is already the main focus of subsection 3B. Any report under that section, would naturally consider include consideration could be done to improve the situation.

Looking at the impact of extraterritorial activity on copyright holders. This is already in report. If it is a useful I am happy to state on the record that the report should include these international effects. The other element of amendment 40 6B is to require the government to report on technological standards for machine readable watermarks, identifying licence content, including the publication of the proposed standard -- 46, D. Technological standards and measures support holders and their content including access to that content and its licensing and is very important.

This is what the government has committed to reporting on the technological measures and standards in a clause 46, subsection 8, this will include consideration of watermarks and their use, to identify content and relevant licensing information. As I've said before and I think the noble Lord acknowledged I feel that the proposal for the government to publish a standard in this area may be unworkable. We are encouraged by standards that are emerging in this space. These are rightly been developed by industry.

The government may indeed want to recommend the development of one or two industry standards and implement measures to do this. A government standard may well not be the right approach on this. Our reporting commitment will however allow us to consider this and other ways to achieve the objectives of this amendment. And will make recommendations on technological recommendations on technological standards. In light of this I would request the noble Lord withdrawals of those proposed amendments, but I would very much welcome a conversation with him about the material he would like to see included in those reports, before officials are tasked to produce them.

The finish I would like to reiterate that the government is not making any changes to copyright as making any changes to copyright as part of the law. We are committed, instead, to a proper robust and transparent approach to determining the right policy, which will deliver the best outcome for all parties. Allow us to support both the AI and Allow us to support both the AI and And we won't be developing this policy in isolation. As a my noble friend, the Minister, stated in the other place, we have a task force of several departments working hard on this.

And we will be engaging with experts from the relevant sectors through a working group that is being set up as well as talking to international parties. There are lots of voices in this debate we want to make sure we have heard all of them. To be clear this is not a case of picking a side or putting AI developers against creators. These sectors are already working together and have the potential to really supercharge each other. We want to support them both in a way that is fair to everyone involved.

So my Lords, I hope the noble Lords will consider withdrawing their amendments and give us the space and time to bring all those forces together, to find a real proper workable solution to the challenges

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the been debated this afternoon. Big to move. The question is that the House do agree with the comments the House do agree with the comments on the amendment 44. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 45, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, moved

**** Possible New Speaker ****

formally. I beg to move formally that the House do agree with the Commons in their amendments 45.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their amendments 45. The question is that the laws do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the laws do agree with the Commons. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content" Of the contrary, "Not content". Of the contrary, "Not content". Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, moved formally? The question is that the formally? The question is that the House and a group with the Commons and their amendments 46? Amendment 46 amendment 40 6A.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Having heard the turn of the debate, it is clear that the focus and energy of the House is more on the noble Lady, Baroness Kidron's amendment. I am very happy to take amendment. I am very happy to take up the noble Lady the Ministers offer of a further meeting and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

offer of a further meeting and I make leave to withdraw my amendment. Not moved. And then it is not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not moved. And then it is not move. Amendment 40 6B, Viscount move. Amendment 40 6B, Viscount Camrose. Not move. The question is that amendment 46 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. content". The contents have it. Amendment 47 Baroness Jones of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whitchurch? With the leave of the House appeared to me formally that the House do agree with comments in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their amendments 47 and 48 en bloc. The question is that the House do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the House do agree with the Commons on 4748 en bloc? As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 49, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch? Speak the question is that the housed do agree with Commons macro and amendment 49?
19:23
19:24
None Portrait Division
-

show the creative industries that show the creative industries that this House has their back. A 49 this House has their back. A 49 The question is that motion The question is that motion 49A The question is that motion 49A 49 The question is that motion 49A 49 be agreed to. The question will be decided by division, I will advise decided by division, I will advise the House when the voting is open. The The question The question is The question is 49A The question is 49A that The question is 49A that be The question is 49A that be agreed to.

As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The concerns will go to the right by the thrown the not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that motion The question is that motion 49, The question is that motion 49, A

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion 49, A

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They They have They have voted They have voted content, They have voted content, 272, They have voted content, 272, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They have voted content, 272, not content, 125, so the contents have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment Amendment 50. Amendment 50. Amendment Amendment 50. Amendment 50,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 50. Amendment 50, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch. With the leave of the House I beg to move formally that has to agree with Commons in the amendments 50

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and 51 en bloc. The question is that the House agree... As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 52, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch moved formally. The questions that house to agree with the Commons in the amendment 52. Motion 42, A. Motion 42, A.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a little time has a lapse but I beggarly to test the opinion of the House. The question is that motion 52, A

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion 52, A be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The question will be decided by division and I will advise the House when and I will advise the House when

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the questions My Lords, the questions that motion 52, A, be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The The contents will go to the The The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not The The question The question is The question is that The question is that motion The question is that motion 52A The question is that motion 52A be My My Lords, My Lords, they My Lords, they have My Lords, they have voted My Lords, they have voted content 164, not contents 152, so, the 164, not contents 152, so, the Amendment 53, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch.
19:49
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Portrait Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
Big to me that the Holes do agree with the comments in the amendment 54, with the leave of the House will also speak to amendment 54 to 74 and amendment 79. We all agree that tackling the abuse of intimate images and image deepfakes is incredibly important. I'm delighted that these provisions are returning to this House having been strengthened in the other place and enabling us once again to discuss key issues. First of all I would like to take this moment to extend my heart felt thanks to Baroness Owen for her dedication on this issue.

I'm also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Pannick, who is unfortunately not in his place today, Lord Clement-Jones and others, who have generously given much of their time to discussing this issue, with me. Their engagement with me and my ministerial colleagues has been instrumental, as we have refined our approach to this important topic and I think it has been a fantastic example of parliamentarians working, across the House to get policy, in the strongest possible position. During the third reading, in this House, I committed that the government would bring forward further amendments, in the Commons, including on the issue of solicitation and time limits.

We have delivered on those commitments. Let me begin with the Commons Amendment number 56, introducing the requested offence, which addresses the commitment made on solicitation. This replaces and delivers the same intent as the amendment your Lordships are made, to the bill. It is comprehensive, comprehensively criminalising asking someone to create a deep fake intimate image, for you, without the consent of the person, in the image, or your belief in their consent. This is an offence regardless of where the person you are asking is based, or where the image was in fact created.

Turning to the commitment on time limits. Commons Amendment 63 was passed to extend the statutory time limit, so that prosecutions can be brought at any date, that is both within six months from when sufficient evidence comes to the prosecutor's knowledge and within three years, from when the offence was committed. This means that perpetrators will not get away with creating or requesting the creation of a deep fake, just because no one knew about it, at the time. A further change, made in the Commons was Commons Amendment 55, to add defence and reasonable excuse to both the creating and requesting offences.

I know this is likely to be the subject of much debate today, so I will spend some time setting out the government's position. First I want to reassure that the government's priority is to create comprehensive, robust offences that ensure perpetrators cannot evade justice. It is not our intention that the defence provides them with Is important to stress, for the creation of the section defects which are so extraordinarily harmful. In our view, it is extremely unlikely that there will ever be a situation where someone creating a deep fake, that is a sexually explicit, will be able to prove that they have a reasonable excuse.

Indeed, we anticipate that defences would apply, wholly in an extremely narrow set of circumstances, such as a fought covert law enforcement operations, it is also our view that for a very small minority of cases, such as the creation of genuinely satirical images that are not sexually explicit, that relates to the creation of this is needed for it to be compatible with the UN convention of human rights. Without the reasonable excuse defence, we consider that the creating offence will not be legally robust.

And that any legal challenge to its compatibility with article 10 is likely to be successful. This will not provide the best protection for the victims. Let me labour there is a very important point. Our intention is to create a robust offences that will ensure that those who request intimate deep fake images, without consent, particularly sexual deep fake images particularly sexual deep fake images face grave consequences. I also want to stress that abuses will not be able to evade justice, by using spurious excuses.

The defendant must provide enough evidence to prove that the creation, or that particular request, without consent was reasonable. They cannot just say this is art, or satire without sufficient compelling evidence. It will be for the courts, not for the defendant to decide whether some is in fact art, or satire. From my many years as a magistrate, I can also reassure this House that it is simply not the case that the defendant can offer up any excuse and assert that it is reasonable.

The CPS will challenge spurious arguments and the court are extremely well equipped and used to dealing with such arguments quickly. Government, the government shares in this House is a desire to ensure that criminal law and these defences, in particular work as well as the government intends. I therefore speak to support the noble therefore speak to support the noble , by putting it on the face of the bill. As part of this review, we will carry out targeted engagement with external stakeholders and subject matter experts, to ensure that we make a broad and informed assessment of the defence.

I hope this addresses the concerns, about these defences. The best way to protect victims is to ensure that Parliament passes legally sound robust offences, that can bring perpetrators to justice. And I urge this House to do that by supporting 55C 56D and.
19:56
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge Portrait Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Conservative)
-
-
I declare my interest as a guest of Google at AI policy conference. I would start by thanking the level of the Minister and Minister Davies Jones for taking the time to engage on this issue and for their endless patience. I know they have worked incredibly hard to secure progress on this. I'm grateful for the efforts. We are down to the issue of where we believe a person can have a reasonable excuse to create content that looks like a photograph or film of another person, without their consent.

Noble Lords will recall that this House overwhelmingly indicated that they did not believe a reasonable excuse should be included as a defence and highlighted concern that it may be misinterpreted, or viewed too widely. I have concerns over the position of the government outlined in their letter from Minister Brian to the joint committee on human rights. Mr Bryant argues that the inclusion of reasonable excuses are necessary as without it, the offence would breach the UC HR, due to limiting the person's freedom to create photorealistic, satirical art of scenarios such as the person on the toilet, or in boxer shorts.

Additionally they argued the need to be able to ratify against this defence. I share the Government is a strong desire that we do not want this bill to have a memorandum on it, warning that it may breach the ECHR. However precarious the arguments laid out maybe. Because I do not want those who abuse women in this way to claim that the prosecution may contravene a human rights. With this in mind, I turned to my first amendments, 55 With this in mind, I turned to my first amendments, 50 5C and 50 6B.

Offering the government of the implementation of reasonable excuse, for both creation and requesting offences after two years. I'm grateful to the level of the Minister for the compromise. He will know the conflicts I feel about this issue and the great concern I have that without guardrails, reasonable excuse may be used to allow those who abuse others in a similar way to escape justice. I know the noble That the courts will be used to hearing precarious excuses. However my concern is the noble Lords no, the image based on sexual abuse has been consistently misunderstood, with the Law Commission themselves only arguing three years ago the harmful creating a non- sexual content was not strong enough to content was not strong enough to criminalise.

They found a steady year-on-year increase in recorded offences for image-based abuse, only 4% of the offenders would charge. Even when a conviction has been a achieved only 3% of cases result in the perpetrator being deprived of the images used for the offence. We see consistent failure by prosecutors to understand and tackle the issue. I therefore have a very real concern that by allowing reasonable excuse to sit in this offence, we risk it being misunderstood and the offence being undermined. Further whilst I'm grateful for the offer of a review, I am worried that if after two years we find reasonable excuse is allowing perpetrators to evade justice, there will not be a legislative vehicle in which to correct the issue in the time it takes to correct may be lengthy.

I would be grateful if the noble of the Minister could offer reassurance on this point. Additionally, I am concerned by the very premise of the argument that legislation, without reasonable excuse would breach the ECHR. Having sought legal counsel, the noble Lord Pannick AC who apologises for not being here this evening, he believes that the inclusion of reasonable excuse, in the defence is not necessary in order to be compliant with the ECHR. The noble Lord Pannick advised, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights has already highlighted in their letter, the Government has previously stated that prosecutorial discretion is sufficient to ensure that an offence that could violate a qualified right under the ECHR is nevertheless compliant with it.

And additionally, all legislation must, so far as possible, be read and given effect to, in a manner which is compliant with the ECHR, according to section 3 of the Human Rights Act. Even if the government, even if there were to be a prosecution in the sort of circumstances contemplated by the government, the defendant could rely on article 10 rights. Thus meaning an all-encompassing reasonable excuses not necessary. Additionally, I would be grateful if the noble of the Minister, could outline to the House reasons why tech companies cannot rating by prompting with the images who do consent.

Therefore not requiring a reasonable excuse should the role fail and a knuckle creating the content it is trying to avoid. I would go as far as to say that testing prompts on a model, using the image of a person who does not consent would be deeply unethical. It is my view, it is my belief in the view of the NAB Lord Pannick and the noble Baroness Lady Chakrabarti that such specific examples do not justify general reasonable excuse. To quote my noble friend and human rights advocate, Baroness Chakrabarti spurious ECHR arguments for weakening cyber sex offences do not help the cause of those seeking to defend human rights from its many We are talking about this with fortunately sexist forms of abuse and it is of huge concern that the government's view that satire may be a reasonable excuse, legitimising the continued abuse of women in the public eye, by allowing the possibility that photorealistic images and videos may be created of them on the toilet, in their underwear, in order to not breach the creative freedom of expression under the ECHR.

Not a cartoon, a photorealistic image. However, given the place we are in, I have tabled further compromise amendment to 50 5A the uses the examples laid out by the government that seeks to limit the scope of that reasonable excuse only and how a narrow set of cases stop reduces the definition of intimate state in the Sexual Offences Act to ensure that reasonable excuse cannot be used as a Trojan horse. It means that under no circumstances would anyone be allowed to use reasonable excuse if they had created content were person was participating in an act which a reasonable person would consider to be a sexual act.

Or the person doing the thing which a reasonable person would consider to be sexual. However it would allow for the circumstances that the government suggests required to be compliant with the ECHR, such as images of people toileting or inbox shorts. However it puts cartwheels around it to ensure no content is created where a person has been given less coverage in the same or greater extent than would typically be covered by underwear or to cover a person's genitals, buttocks or rests as the case may be.

-- Rests. While I'm unhappy that any reasonable excuse is included the 6 to put guardrails and prevent a Trojan horse at inside the offence. My final amendment, 50 the offence. My final amendment, 50 Noble Lords will have heard me speak on multiple occasions about the sickeningly degrading nature of forums where this content is created., Requested. I'm grateful for the way the government is listened to get this amendment to the place it is however I cannot envisage any reasonable excuse for a person to request this content of another without their consent.

Jodie the survivor who inspired this offence had to endure degrading content of her being requested on online forums and said, the inclusion of reasonable excuse defence undermines the very purpose of this offence, survivors should not be forced to navigate yet another legal loophole that allows perpetrators to justify abuse. Prosecutorial discretion would exist to protect legitimate cases, this clause risks giving abuses cover and eroding trust in the law. The law eroding trust in the law. The law My understanding is that the government does not believe the removal of reasonable excuse in a separate offence would breach the ECHR.

I'd be very grateful if the government would accept this amendment in order to make this offence as comprehensive as possible and ensure that no abuser slips through the net. I conclude by asking the Minister to give his assurance that were reasonable excuse to remain in these offences that no court in England and Wales would interpret reasonable excuse as a perpetrator claiming they were creating content for artistic purposes. The baseline should always be a woman's consent. There is nothing more important.
20:05
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
I rise to pay tribute to the noble Lady Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge. We need to be crystal-clear that we would that would not be here, we would not have come as far but for her work. Her entry into your Lordship's House was greeted by the most shocking barrage of misogynistic innuendo and abuse. Including, from sexagenarian veteran of progressive journalism, you really ought to have known better. It was ghastly to watch.

However, it has been a joy of equal measure to witness the noble lady's response to her critics. The best kind of response. This one. For with her campaign, supported by supporters across the House, looking no Lord Clement-Jones, but across the house, and all her supporters in civil society and in the Academy, she has made, in less than two years, a greater contribution to the most vital parts of the work of this House, the legislative work of this House.

A greater contribution in less than two years than many make in decades. So perhaps the young have something to teach their elders after all. And about the new continent of the Internet in particular, the all too lawless continent of the Internet that we have been discussing for some time today. After nearly 30 years of the interface between criminal policy and the ECHR, I share the analysis that harm caused by this 21st- century cybersex offence, the analysis offered by the noble Lady Owen and by noble Lord Pannick.

By contrast, I'm afraid, I fear that Whitehall has displayed a breathtaking lack of empathy, for the mostly women and girl victims of this conduct. A lack of empathy at times verging on the produce. And this has gone on for some years -- verging on the obtuse. Hence, by the way, the time it took for the government to agree to the offence being imprisonable, but I'm glad we finally got there. Now, at the 11th hour, I, too, fear the sheer breadth of the government's reasonable excuse defence.

Which I think might drive a coach and horses through the protection. This kind of degrading conduct is no light-hearted matter. To create a deepfake intimate image without a person's consent is capable of destroying their dignity, the mental health, a lie. -- Their life. More broadly it is capable of changing the whole flavour of our society, in the classroom, in the workplace, wherever men and women rub along together. That is what is at stake. It was a very unsettling experience, even more than that.

Reasonable excuse defences are appropriate and necessary, in the context of broad, strict liability offences, capable of catching otherwise innocent behaviour. So the classic example is a strict liability offence of being in possession of a blade public place. If we think about that my Lords, that that reasonable excuse defence, any of us could be criminalised on the way back from the kitchen department at John Lewis. There's a novice reason for reasonable excuse defence to that strict liability event -- there is an obvious reason.

I put it to the House that we would not dream of a reasonable excuse defence to sexual assault. The offence requires intention, action and the sexualised aspect. Once these are established, there simply is no reasonable excuse. I believe that the creation of a deepfake intimate image is equivalent to sexual assault if it is without consent. The government, and learning, is apparently considered about freedom of expression in the context of creating deepfake intimate images without someone's consent.

Let's please remember that freedom of expression is not an absolute. It must be balanced against a portion of interference to protect the rights of others. Hence breach of copyright, sorry to go back to that one, child pornography, etc etc. All over the world, including in the United States, famously the land of the first amendment. So I'm afraid I really best price my noble friend the Minister -- I must press my noble friend the Minister to explain in some detail, more than we have heard so far, why the noble Lady Baroness Owen is tighter reasonable excuse defences, of red teaming, and political satire, don't do the trick.

In other words, what are these other reasonable excuses for pernicious conduct of this kind? And why any reasonable excuse for the solicitation of events? Where is the freedom of expression in soliciting someone else creating this deepfake image? I notice the introduction of this concern about COVID policing, I think my noble friend the Minister raised COVID policing, but surely he raised COVID policing, but surely he recalls the COVID human intelligence act, very controversial, I'm still very concerned about it, act, off 2020 which allows the authorities to grant advanced immunity to people committing criminal conduct in the course of their COVID surveillance.

I'm a bit concerned about that, suddenly popping up as a reasonable excuse of government at the 11th hour on this offence. I'm afraid that without further specifics, I'm really concerned about the impression the government just doesn't get it. But it's not totally understanding what is being perpetrated online. And it's not properly taking the protection of women and girls sufficiently seriously. And I would so regret that. I would so regret that. This is the cold face of human rights at this moment in the 21st century so I really hope there is still time for really hope there is still time for the government to listen further to the compelling argument of the noble the compelling argument of the noble Lady Baroness Owen and think again.

Lady Baroness Owen and think again.
20:13
20:14
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
It's a pleasure to follow the three noble Baronesses, and are, too, want to start by congratulating noble Baroness are in for her magnificent and successful campaign to outlaw the making and requesting of nonconsensual images. First with her private spill and then amendments to this bill, and she has footage with huge skill and determination, and rightly she has pushed into the wire in terms of wanting the most robust offence and the tightest defences possible. And I also want to thank the Minister for his flexibility, that he has shown, so far, with the emphasis on so far.

The amendments that the noble Baroness has put forward today, I now represent a compromise given strong and rather extraordinary opinion of the Attorney-General, and the defence of reasonable excuse is needed for the defence to be compliant with the ECHR, that therefore the whole bill risks being non-compliant if that isn't contained in the defence for these offences. That is the equivalent of a legal recall. -- A legal brick wall. And despite what I thought was an excellent opinion from Professor Claire McGlynn, which in my view demolished the Attorney- General's case, which seems to be based on ensuring the ability of Big Tech companies to read team that models on images used without consent, which is rather peculiar basis.

Why can't the Big Tech companies use images with consent? And therefore they would then beat red teaming in a rather different I did find the exchange of correspondence, the noble Baroness is referred to rather baffling. She is entirely right to put forward her compromise and seeking escape with a reasonable excuse to only a narrow set of cases that the government has outlined. Especially given the fact that the government, as previously stated, that prosecutorial discretion is sufficient to ensure that a defence that could qualify under the ECHR is nevertheless compliant with it.

And, of course, she is right to require the review of the way the defence operates, My Lords. As she says, as regards to her amendment fifty-five a, it uses the definition as she said in her opening speech. It uses an intimate state in the Sexual Offences Act to ensure that reasonable excuse cannot be used, as a Trojan horse. In addition,, in principle, we very much support her amendment, fifty- six a. It is clear that the reasonable excuse is not required for the requesting offence, to be compliant with the EHRC the stop that should be deleted, in our view and we agree with that, My Lords.

There are, however even, where we have got to so far going to be many people who will be grateful for her efforts, given an extraordinary one in fourteen adults have experienced threats to share intimate images in England and Wales, rising to one in seven among young women. As we know there is a clear link between gender-based violence and image- based abuse and a great many women will feel safer as a result of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Baroness is efforts. I happened to be in the House when Baroness Owen was taking her
20:18
20:19
Baroness Cash Portrait Baroness Cash (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just wanted to declare my interest as a commissioner at the interest as a commissioner at the EHRC, first, and I've also been a campaigner and defender of free speech. I do not approach this subject are likely, at all. I have some sympathy with the government's position, that reasonable excuse is required to be compatible with article 10. However, the definition of being as broad as it is, it does reinforce the worries of the noble Baroness Owen and of Lady Chakrabarti.

I wasn't really clear, I'm concerned though, as noble colleagues have already alluded to why the defence is drafted so widely. I wasn't sure whether this was coming from EU law and if that were the case, I wanted to draw the house's attention to the very most recent EU directive on violence against women and girls. And preventing it. And if we look at that directive, clause 19, section 19, they have unequivocally decided that deepfakes should be criminalised and that such production, manipulation, I'm reading from section 19, should include the fabrication of deepfakes, particularly where these resemble existing objects, places and so on.

They then go on in a section 20 of the directive. I appreciate of course that we are no longer bound Bailly law. Given that this will be applied by the ECHR, under which we do still operate. It is interesting to note that under section 20 -- EU law. They have knowledge to the article 10 obligation. But have narrowly defined it. I have a reason to draw attention to this and to ask the government that they do take it into account and will reassure this House that they will urge guidance to be issued, if this defence has to go forward, as is currently drafted.

Any reasonable excuse, defence, retained in this clause is clearly retained in this clause is clearly confined, by guidance issued, as as soon as possible, by the CPS.
20:22
Lord Markham Portrait Lord Markham (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend, Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge, her amendments fall into categories and we support all her amendments. I would like to start by joining Baroness Chakrabarti and others, in terms of paying tribute to her tenacity and by standing up for women who should not have to live in fear of becoming victims of sexually explicit deepfakes. As mentioned, she has won the deep respect of this House and at the same time, one many, many friends from her action.

And I think the cross-party support that she has managed again for this, I believe it shows that this House at its best. A House that I am proud to be a member House that I am proud to be a member of. Firstly, my noble friend has tabled reviews to ensure the offence that is being created as a result of her tireless campaigning is effective. We support her in these motions and we agree with her that we must do everything we can to ensure the law is robust and effective, in protecting women.

Secondly, like many others, I have been puzzled by the EH CR reasonable excuse approach being used by the government and it was very helpful, as ever, have experts on hand, in this matter and Baroness Cash, to be able to bring her expertise and agree with the position that whilst we understand it it is a very, very widely drawn, as is currently set up. Again, I think it is very sensible that what my noble friend sensible that what my noble friend is trying to do, in this, by seeking to tighten those definitions of a reasonable excuse and remove the reasonable excuse, in the case of requesting a sexually explicit deepfakes in her amendments fifty- deepfakes in her amendments fifty- five K and fifty-six A.

I completely understand what she's brought these understand what she's brought these amendments and why they would appear amendments and why they would appear to be instead of the reviews, we for my noble friend is a right to challenge the inclusion of reasonable excuse as it relates to reasonable excuse as it relates to these affixes. And with that she has complete support. complete support.
20:24
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Portrait Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the arguments of noble Lords, in this debate. Particularly the arguments in favour of the noble Baroneseses amendment fifty-five B, which seeks to replace the reasonable excuse defence to the creative offence with any targeted offence for routine software testing and reasonable political satire. We share the noble Baroness as a desire to ensure any offence to the Operates tightly, only a narrow and limited circumstances would a person have a reasonable excuse for the creation of such images, without consent.

We believe that is how our reasonable excuse defence will apply, impact those, which is why the government believe that the the government believe that the However, we are unable to agree to these targeted defences she proposes, to the creating offence, in place of a reasonable excuse defence. This is a novel offence, tackling behaviour that is changing rapidly, along with the technology itself. We cannot anticipate all the ways in which people will use technology as it develops. The defence of reasonable excuse, which as I have said, we believe will be interpreted very carefully by the courts, will ensure that the offence can be used effectively to target culpable perpetrators, even as technology and its uses changes.

The targeted offence as proposed by the noble Baroness, will also crucially not eliminate the risk of successful legal challenge, which I explained in my opening speech. We believe that such targeted defences, creating offence, with successful challenge, in the courts, leading to uncertainty and reduce protection for victims. Returning briefly to amendment fifty-six A, which is the requesting offence. As I set out, it is the government's view that the reasonable excuse to requesting offence will only apply an extremely narrow set of circumstances, such as covert law enforcement operations to stop the legal issue which applies to the creating offence does not apply to the requesting offence.

However, we always aim for consistency and parity, across similar offences. And so would urge that this House not to pass amendments fifty-six a, we also think that without the defence at the comments included for the requesting offence, law enforcement and intelligence officials maybe unable to effectively carry out their functions. To conclude, we make a manifesto commitment to ban the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes. This legislation, as amended, in the Commons are just a start. For the first time there will be a protection for victims and punishment for the perpetrators who create or ask other people to create intimate deep fake of images without consent, or reasonable belief in consent.

These provisions represent an important and necessary response to image deepfakes. As I have said, the government is clear that these offences are comprehensive and robust. Whilst we think defence is a reasonable excuse to both offences that are necessary, it does not provide a get out clause, for the many perpetrators creating intimate deepfakes. Especially sexual deepfakes, without consent. We remain firmly of the view that this is the most effective way to protect victims from this appalling abuse. It is our duty to act decisively, for those reasons, I urge your lordships to support, with confidence, motion of fifty-five C, which containing amendments in a Lua fifty-five D and fifty-five EE and amendments fifty-six B and I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Owen to withdraw her motion fifty-five a and amendment fifty-six a.

Turning to some of the questions which are asked by the noble Lady and others. She asked about deprivation orders, we share the frustration with her. There has been, in place of the ability for a court to put deprivation orders in place and they have not been used as extensively as they could be. And so the judges are looking at guidelines to try to see how that lack of implementation and defence help orders can be remedied.

... The other questions by my noble friend, Baroness Chakrabarti... She asked whether offenders of the requesting offence would also be deprived of images of the court. The answer to that is yes they would be, because we want to ensure parity across both the creating and the requesting offence, so that includes their computers and any images that are stored, anywhere. I think most generally, I think what I will say is a number of noble Lords have expressed scepticism about whether the courts would adequately apply reasonable excuse defence.

That really is a issue we are debating now. I have had this discussion many times with the noble Lady, in private. I would say, as a magistrate for nearly 20 years, we often hear completely ridiculous defences. It is not unusual. Not in crown courts but certainly in magistrates courts. Magistrates and judges are well able to deal with those types of defences. I know the noble Lady is sceptical of that and that is the reason, one of the prime reasons why we have put the review on the face of the bill, she will know it is very unusual for governments to commit on the face of the bill, to have a review.

Because we do understand that this is a new area of law. We do understand that the way we are defining a reasonable excuse is a politically contentious area. I do urge her to continue to work with us, which I am sure she will do, in any event, but I encourage you to do that. And I would urge her not to move her amendments, to a vote. I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the House do agree to amendment 53. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment 54, contents have it. Amendment 54, Baroness Jones of the church, moved formally. The question is the House formally. The question is the House to agree with the comments on amendment 54. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it.

Amendment 55, contents have it. Amendment 55, Baroness Jones of the church, moved formally. The question is at the formally. The question is at the House to agree with Commons on amendment 55. Motion 55 acre amendment 55. Motion 55 acre amendment 55. Motion 55 acre Baroness Owen. Not moved. Motion 50 Baroness Owen. Not moved. Motion 50 5C proposed, leave the last post in motion 55 a and in circle 50 5C as motion 55 a and in circle 50 5C as printed on the Marshall list.

The question is that the House do agree with the Commons on their amendment 55. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", 56 moved formally. The question is that the House to agree with the Commons on their amendment 55 as amended. Agree with amendment 5C, I big your pardon. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment 56 Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, moved formally. The question is that the House do agree with the Commons on their amendment 56.

Amendment 56 a, Baroness Owen. 56. Amendment 56 a, Baroness Owen. The question is that amendment 50 6B moved formally. 56 a has not been moved. Moved formally. The question is that amendment 56 a has not been is that amendment 50 6B as an amendment to the Commons 56 a has not been moved. Moved formally. The question is that amendment 50 6B as an amendment to the Commons 50 6B agree to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it.

The question is now that amendment 56 as amended B agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment 57, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch. The question is that the House to agree with Commons in their amendment 57 to 79 on lock. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The
20:35
None Portrait Legislation: Renters’ Rights Bill - committee stage (day 5)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Taylor. My Lords, I big move that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I big move that the House do now again resolve itself into a committee upon the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

into a committee upon the bill. The question is that the House do now again resolve itself into a committee on the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The Of the contrary, "Not content", The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Clause My Lords. Clause 145, My Lords. Clause 145, Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Scott. My Lords, before we start the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, before we start the debate in the first group, it may not surprise noble Lords that I would remind the House again of the protocol around declaring interests. protocol around declaring interests. As I mentioned last week, noble Lords should declare relevant interests at each stage of proceedings in the bill. That means a Committee stage, relevant interest should be declared during the first group in which noble Lords speaks. The Noble Lord declares an interest during the last two days of committee, that is sufficient.

But if this is your first contribution, any relevant interest should be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

declared. If I might thank the Noble Lord for what he has just said, reminding us of the importance of declaring an interest where it has not been interest where it has not been declared so far. Could I ask him whether he could make a statement to the House about what its plans are the House about what its plans are for further consideration of this bill. Given that we were promised we bill. Given that we were promised we would have six days of consideration.

We lost over two hours last week on general business. Today, for extremely good reasons, we have lost now over five hours of consideration. And I hope the Government has now decided that it must give this committee and extra must give this committee and extra day because we were promised six days and we have not had six days days and we have not had six days and I hope the Government intention is not simply to go through the night tonight and through the night night tonight and through the night on Wednesday which would not be reasonable discussion of the 132

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments which still stand to be debated in your Lordships house. Thank the Noble Lord for those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the Noble Lord for those comments, but just to say that we
20:38
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
will try to resolve this through the usual channels, but this is the fifth day of six days. We want to make progress today and we want to commit on the sixth day which is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wednesday this week. In clause 17, amendment 145, Baroness Scott. Thank you my Lords. Can I just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you my Lords. Can I just make it very clear that we will not have had six days with the Noble have had six days with the Noble Lord. My Lords, I do not feel I can open this group without paying open this group without paying tribute to the late noble and it Lord. His amendments are why we are Lord. His amendments are why we are debating this important issue tonight. We will miss his insightful contribution to this bill and to the House more broadly.

We are a poorer House more broadly. We are a poorer place without him. And I send my place without him. And I send my heartfelt sympathies to both his partner, his friends, and his family partner, his friends, and his family for their loss. May his memory be for their loss. May his memory be able. This group follows on from a able. This group follows on from a previous group at the last committee day, but it focuses more specifically on the burden of proof applied in the determination of penalties.

I will be brief, as on these benches we simply have too question is for the noble Baroness the Minister. May I draw your Lordships attention to the probing amendments 145 and 1452. We are concerned about the government's proposal to grant local housing authorities the power to determine whether a person is guilty of an offence under section 16 without proper due process. And could the Baroness Taylor Minister the noble Baroness the Minister kindly set out for the House how this provision is intended to operate in practice.

And whether it will be subject to any appeal or review process. Next, I wish to draw attention to the principal reason for these probing amendments. The selected standard of proof. We are seeking to understand why there appears to be a lack of consistency in the standard of proof applied across different parts of this bill. I have no doubt that many distinguished lawyers of your Lordships house will address this matter with far greater clarity and precision than icon, however the question remains why should different standards of proof apply within the same piece of legislation.

I appreciate the noble Baroness the Minister is not themselves a lawyer and may wish to themselves a lawyer and may wish to take some time to reflect and return to the House with a considered response, but could the noble Baroness kindly set out either today

**** Possible New Speaker ****

or at a later stage the rationale behind this apparent inconsistency. I egg to. Amendment proposed, clause 17,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 17, page 26 line 24 leave out beyond
20:41
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
page 26 line 24 leave out beyond reasonable doubt and insert on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

balance of probabilities. I rise to speak to amendment 148,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 148, 197, 242, on behalf of the noble 197, 242, on behalf of the noble Earl. But, first, may I start by Earl. But, first, may I start by joining my Noble Friend in expressing some sincere condolences to the family and friends of the to the family and friends of the late noble and learning it Lord. His late noble and learning it Lord. His reputation as an exceptional legal mind represents the very best that mind represents the very best that this House has to offer.

And, this House has to offer. And, secondly, I just remind that noble Lords of my interest as a practising Lords of my interest as a practising solicitor. These four amendments solicitor. These four amendments seek to make two substantive changes to the bill. First, the removal of the word recklessness will ensure a landlord is only guilty of an offence if it can be proven that they are wrongly relied on grants for possession with actual knowledge of the offence.

Secondly, the replacement on the balance of probabilities with beyond reasonable doubt raises the standard of proof for these offences when the local authority is determining the case. Now, I expect that the noble Baroness the Minister will oppose these amendments on the grounds that they will make it less easy for a local authority to find a landlord guilty of an offence. But surely the crucial point is that it will put a proper check on the incorrect prosecution of landlords that may arise from this new system which would be imposed by local authorities.

There is also a legitimate question on how we can be certain that local authorities will have the resources they need fairly to assess cases where landlords are accused of an offence. We, surely, have to have a system that ensures landlords are held to high standards, but surely that system has to be seen to be fair. Any system that makes landlords feel that they are perennially at risk of being found of being guilty of an offence without their knowledge would only land to the chilling effect of this bill on our rental markets.

I also agree that the standard of proof or a local authority is making the decision on a case without recourse to the courts should be had. Local authority offices should be absolutely sure when making these decisions. So, I have two questions for the noble Baroness the Minister stop can the noble Baroness the Minister please take this opportunity to explain how a landlord who has been found guilty of an offence by a local authority will be able to appeal that decision, and, secondly, can the noble Baroness that Minister please answer the question that appropriate local authority resources to enable local authority resources to enable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, first of all can I echo
20:46
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, first of all can I echo sincere condolences from our benches to the husband of the Noble Lord to the husband of the Noble Lord Etherton, his husband Andrew and his family. They really do have our sincere condolences. I would also like to echo the concerns that were delivered in a rather measured weight from my noble friend Lord Shipley regarding the way things have gone along. Just to say I have communicated this with the noble Lady the Minister also.

We come to another key part of the bill, perhaps one less explored, but in our view important, that of enforcement. It's important to remind ourselves of the current state of affairs in the enforcement world, albeit very briefly as this is not a second reading. The reality is that after decades of cutbacks councils have gradually been reducing the number of staff in the area of housing enforcement, Decent Homes Standard tenant matters. It's arguable as a result of this they have failed over that same time to carry out proper proactive enforcement work, inevitably leading to more substandard housing.

Let's be blunt the rogue landlords no they can likely get away with it. The big change of course is clause 107. It's an important section in the bill and in short it very boldly states that it is the duty of every local housing authority to enforce landlord legislation in its area, a very powerful change. It is not optional nor desirable, it is mandatory. The landlord legislation wraps up other requirements from other acts, such as the 1977 Protection from Eviction Act and various housing acts.

It is a real step change from the current situation and it cannot happen too soon, but our concern is that our local authorities tooled up for this? Are they ready and will they have the right resources? This is not the blame game, but it is actually the reality. The bliss we discussed in a previous group allows the two main activities to fund their enforcement activities. Civil penalty notices, as previously discussed, and rent repayment orders, which we get to at some time later.

The importance of these funding streams is why we opposed any reduction in the previous group and why we have amendments in the next. The amendments in this section centre around the burden of proof that local authorities can apply when taking civil action and I agree with the noble Lady Baroness Scott that we need to understand the rationale for using the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt as opposed to the civil standard and the balance of probabilities and vice versa. The more so given that the increased powers that have been granted under this bill.

It needs to be stated that there are actually many and they are quite complex. I have confessed earlier that I am no lawyer, but even I could see that perhaps even some of our offices need to get their heads around some of these changes. But given that I have argued previously that local authorities are going to need this money to fund enforcement activities, amendments 145 and 152 would seek to lower the burden of proof to on the balance of probabilities, thus making it easier for local authorities to impose civil penalties.

Whereas amendments 197 and 200 seat the opposite. I also note that in the Renters (Reform) Bill clause 15 had the higher proof, so I look forward to perhaps the reasoning from the noble Lord who will sum up as to why there has been a change from their perspective. In short, my Lords, these are legitimate questions, consistency and clarity are essential and I look forward to the essential and I look forward to the noble Lady the Minister's replies, particularly on the notion of recklessness and the culpable mind recklessness and the culpable mind in amendments 242 and 148.
20:50
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, can I say how sorry I am to have two deal with the noble Lord's amendments after he said passing. I didn't have a long time to get to know Lord Etherton, but during my time in this House I have truly appreciated both his engagement and wisdom in this bill and he's courtesy and kindness. I know he will be greatly missed by the House and I would like to add to what other noble Lords have said in sending my condolences to his husband and to his close friends and That his wonderful legal brain will be a sad loss to this House and we were all missing.

So I am very sorry that he is not here today to complete the work that he started on this bill. As the noble Lady Baroness Scott said, may his memory be a blessing to all those who knew him. I thank Lady Scott and Lord Hunt for speaking on behalf of Lord Etherton in this debate. The amendments on financial penalties, and Baroness Thornhill for her comments on these items, too. I will make the declaration upfront that I am not a lawyer either, so I rely on others for legal advice for this section of the bill.

Starting with the amendments in the name of Baroness Scott, the criminal standard of proof will be replaced with breaches of the tenancy agreement that were not criminal. This can form part of a criminal offence. We consider that it is necessary therefore for the criminal standard of proof to apply. Amendment 152 would reduce the standard of proof from beyond reasonable doubt to on the balance of probabilities where local authorities were imposing civil penalties as an alternative to prosecution for tenancy offences.

Where civil penalties are being Criminal prosecution, it's necessary for the same standard to be applied. That is already the case for civil penalties imposed as an alternative to prosecution for offences under the housing at 2004, such as failure to comply with an improvement notice. For these reasons I would ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendments. Turning to the amendments tabled by Lord Etherton, amendments 197 and 200 conversely require local authorities to meet the criminal rather than the civil standard of proof winning please -- when imposing civil penalties.

Unlike other breaches rental discrimination and rental bidding breaches cannot lead to a criminal offence if the conduct is repeated or continued. As such rental discrimination and rental bidding cannot result in the landlord being prosecuted, or given a £40,000 penalty and are only subject to the lower £7000 penalty. We therefore think it is appropriate that local authorities to prove these reaches to the civil standard on the balance of probabilities rather than the criminal standard beyond reasonable doubt.

The noble Lord Hunt raised the issue of resources. I answer that with two points. One, the government has committed to assess the financial impact on the local authorities and has committed to new burdens funding, but also those fines will be available for local authority use for this purpose or other purposes if they wish to use them for that. Secondly, the noble them for that. Secondly, the noble Lord Hunt asked about appeals. I'd just like to say that local authorities can consider evidence and decide whether the individual concerned was aware the information they provided might be.

Misleading and whether it was reasonable for them to submit it. The legislation also provide safeguards. In prosecution cases it will be for the court not the local authority to decide whether the individual had been reckless. The landlord has the right to make representations before a penalty is imposed on a right of appeal against the imposition of the penalty or the amount of the penalty. Amendment 148 narrows the offence of misusing grounds of possession where position would not be obtained on backgrounds.

It does so by removing the element of recklessness. Amendment 242 narrows the offence and provides information that is. Misleading. In order to commit the first of these offences a landlord or person acting or purporting to act on their behalf would need to know that the landlord would not be able to obtain possession on that ground. If the landlord or person acting or purporting to act on their behalf was simply being reckless as to whether the landlord could do so, it An offence.

Landlord should not be penalised for minor mistakes, but recklessness goes beyond making a mistake. It entails taking an unjustified risk and landlord should not take an unjustified risk when there action may result in someone losing their home. It is the case that the offence is only committed if the tenant actually surrenders possession. Making enforcement in every case dependent on being satisfied to the criminal standard that the landlord or those acting or purporting to act on their behalf knew that the landlord would not be able to obtain possession using a ground for possession would make it too easy for unscrupulous landlords and agents to escape enforcement.

To require knowledge to be proved in every case would make it to easy for purported compliance. It is well established in legislation for offences relating to misleading information to include the mental element of recklessness, including in housing legislation. It is used in relation to the provision of. Misleading information to local authorities. An offence that is prosecuted by local authorities. We considered that the mental state of recklessness is one that is appropriate to apply to the serious offences.

I asked that the noble Lord considers I asked that the noble Lord considers withdrawing his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. Can I first say that I am really disappointed because the number of disappointed because the number of noble Lord who have been involved in all these debates over the last four days are not able to be in their days are not able to be in their seats because of the late time of seats because of the late time of day. I think that is not going to help us scrutinise this bill as we should do. My Lords, I would like to begin by thanking all those who have begin by thanking all those who have contributed to 48,, 148, 1497 and contributed to 48,, 148, 1497 and others.

Noble Lord is our right to others. Noble Lord is our right to highlight the issue of consistency, an issue we on these benches intended to race today, but he also intended to race today, but he also introduces an important new concern, the threshold of proof required by local authorities before a financial penalty can be imposed. It is vital penalty can be imposed. It is vital we draw on the expertise of the legal profession to improve the drafting of this bill. I hope the noble Lady the Minister will seek wise counsel.

The financial penalties under consideration are significant, as pointed out. Many landlords are small-scale or so- called accidental landlords who may not be in a position to absorb such fines. It is therefore entirely appropriate that this House seeks clarity on the methodology, the consultation process and factors such as the ability to pay, used in determining these thresholds. Even the scale of these penalties the standard of evidence and the threshold for their imposition must be carefully examined and my noble friend set out with clarity the issues that may arise without sufficient burden of proof on the legal argument underpinning these amendments.

There is legitimate concerns about penalties being applied without adequate legal scrutiny, potentially undermining due process. We welcome these amendments and believe Lord Hunt has made a compelling case. When large fines are at stake rigour in the legal standard must be applied. Any concerns should not be dismissed too readily and should be carefully

**** Possible New Speaker ****

considered, but at this point I will draw my amendment. Is it your logic pleasure that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your logic pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. The Amendment is by leave withdrawn. The Amendment one faucets, 147, not Amendment one faucets, 147, not moved, Baroness Scott. -- Amendment 147. Amendment 148, not moved. 147. Amendment 148, not moved. Amendments 149-152, not moved en Amendments 149-152, not moved en bloc. Amendment 153, Lord Kinnoull, bloc. Amendment 153, Lord Kinnoull, bloc.

Amendment 153, Lord Kinnoull, not moved. Amendments 154, one 162 -- 154-162, not moved en bloc. The question is the clause stands part of the bill. The contents have it. Amendments 163 and 164 en bloc, not moved. The question is that clause 18 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not Not moved en bloc, Lord Hacking? Not Not moved en bloc, Lord Hacking? Not moved. The question is that clauses 19 and 20 stand part of the bill.

As 19 and 20 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content" of that opinion say content, Of the contrary, "Not content, Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. That brings us to the second group, in brings us to the second group, in clause 21, amendment 167, Baroness Scott. Scott.
21:02
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
The amendments I have tabled in these groups are to probe the government's decision to define a family in the way they have in clause 21. The Explanatory Notes to this part of the bill explain subsection 4 provides that where there are two or more tenants and one of the tenants is a family member of the guarantor, if the family member dies, then the guarantor will not be liable for rent on or after the date of their deaths.

And the bill defines family member in such a way that excludes anyone more distant than a first cousin. It is essential that in the definition of family in law reflects the family unions we have seen in our day-to-day life, and in many tightly knit communities in this country, families still live closely together with many cousins both near and distant having strong family ties to each other. In these communities, it seems very likely that a second cousin might step into help as a rent guarantor, and surely that person falls within the intention of this part of the bill.

It seems strange that Government would seek to recognise relationships between two first cousins, but ignore the relationship between second cousins. The example I gave shows how a second cousin might because of their close family ties help a family member out as there guarantor, but this bill would not include that person within the tightly defined family under the bill. So, I asked the noble Baroness the Minister would she please explain why the Government has defined the family in this way.

Can she also explain why a second cousin who act as a guarantor for her family member is treated as a second-class citizen compared to their other, closer cousins. We are also interested in the case of smaller families where perhaps an only child chooses to help a family member who is more distant on paper but is in reality their nearest kin. There will have to be a definition of family in this bill. We understand that. But we do need an explanation as to why this definition of the family is being proposed.

proposed.
21:05
21:05
21:06
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

cannot see any reason for refusing Can I thank the noble Baroness Lady Scott for her amendments relating to guarantors and family relating to guarantors and family members and the noble Baroness and members and the noble Baroness and the Noble Lord for contributing to the debate. Amendments 167, 168 and 169 would expand the definition of family member used in clause 21 to include ants and uncles as well as siblings and grandparents. This would absolve these individuals from liability after a tenant has died when they act as guarantor.

I understand the noble Ladies motivation in probing this motivation in probing this definition of family, and I would definition of family, and I would like to say she sometimes accuses me of not listening or thinking these things through, but I have carefully considered the balance of these considered the balance of these provisions. They do protect bereaved guarantors from potential hardship while allowing them to keep guarantors in place when it is reasonable to do so most of the reasonable to do so most of the definition of family member reflects the need to encompass more distant family members who might commonly be used as tenancy guarantors.

While we understand that more distant relatives covered in the definition may rarely be used as guarantors, defining family members for the purposes of this legislation means that a line needs to be drawn somewhere. This definition does not seek to disregard or downplay many family links between relatives that are not included within that definition. I think that some of my second cousins might have something to say if I tried to do that. It is to say if I tried to do that.

It is worth noting that landlords holding guarantees liable in these scenarios is already uncommon and most is already uncommon and most landlords would already act compassionately to a deceased tenants family. Furthermore, by tenants family. Furthermore, by removing fixed term, personal representatives of the deceased representatives of the deceased The landlord to months notice. We believe this strikes a balance that this data tenants, guarantors and landlords alike, and therefore I would ask the noble Baroness Lady Scott to withdraw these amendments.
21:08
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Minister for her Baroness the Minister for her response, but I do not think we have quite gotten to the better understanding of the Governments reasons for defining family in this way, just that they're going to define a family in this way, and I point out that many families once again are different shapes to the one described in the bill, and we feel very strongly that it would be a strange outcome if slightly more distant cousins were not protected by the legislation, but close cousins are.

And we have set out clearly that many people have very close family ties with their slightly more distant cousins and we feel Government have failed to adequately explain why those individuals should not have the same rights based on their family ties compared to other members of the family. We do reserve the right to come back to the Supreme Court stage, but we hope the Ministers will listen to the argument we have made today and consider improving this part of the bill to properly reflect the family relationships reflect the family relationships

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that many people have now in this country, but at this point I leave to withdraw my amendment. Is a urologic pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendments 168 and 169, not moved. Not moved. The question is that clause 21 stand 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. That
21:10
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-
brings us to the third group after

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause 21, amendment 117. My Lords, arise to move amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, arise to move amendment 117, 265. Both of which aim to strengthen the very com antidiscrimination additions to the bill. I am grateful to the colleagues that have added their names and shelter for help. Amendment 170 set out circumstances under which landlords may not under which landlords may not require a tenant to provide a guarantor. Practices that has increasingly become a precondition in tenancy for certain tenants, naming those for security, lack renters, women, families, and disabled renters.

And when that could therefore be used as a way of circumventing the bills antidiscrimination clauses. The spirit of the amendment is the same as that behind the Government amendment in Commons. To prevent landlords requiring multiple months landlords requiring multiple months rent up front. To quote the rent up front. To quote the independent age who are among the many organisations supporting our amendment, this is a sensible measure that safeguards against the risk of solving one problem, excessive rent in advance demands, only for it to be replaced with another excessive reliance on guarantors.

Who are already, over the last five years, 550,000 private renters were unable to rent a home they wanted because they did not have a guarantor that met the landlord's requirements. I know and respect that the Government does not want to prohibit the use of guarantors altogether. My Noble Friend the Minister explained why in her health proposed second reading letter. At this amendment would not do that. It simply sets out the circumstances in which a landlord cannot ask for a guarantor. In these circumstances they reflect the national residential landlords Association guidance on appropriate guarantor use.

Likely wary tenant cannot prove they can afford to pay the rent. However, recent research by Shelter has shown that in practice, guarantor requests often do not follow this guidance. Thus, the amendment is not radical, but early serves to ensure that guarantors are used as intended. The case for ensuring their use is limited is a strong one. Very much in line with the aims of the bill. First, it helps to safeguard the bills antidiscrimination measures. Requests for a high earning or homeowner guarantor are too often used in the disciplinary manner.

Renters who receive their security, have a disability, or members of racialised minorities are all significantly more likely to be asked for a guarantor, similarly as independent age, requiring a guarantor can be a way for landlords to discriminate against older renters. Second and related groups most likely to face a guarantor requests are also those least likely to be able to meet one. 45% of benefits recipients and 43% of families struggle to provide a guarantor compared to just 24% of those not receiving benefit or without children.

This would make a huge difference to student renters, especially working-class International, estranged or care experience to face difficulties finding a guarantor. And become the highlight of finding a guarantor by care experienced by young people more generally. The research found only around two in five local The guarantor scheme for them. Third, in practice, fewer than 33% of landlords attempt to pursue a guarantor for unpaid rent in the past two years. Moreover, insurance offers a sensible option of recovering this risk. For, the argument that the unfettered freedom to request a guarantor provides an essential lifeline for tenants before credit and annual problem debts, this shelter argues a disingenuous one because there is evidence that landlords already avoid such tenants because of the manner in which a tenant referencing is done.

These are not the tenants who are most likely to be able to find a suitable guarantor. As well as the renters reform coalition of which Shelter is a member, calling for limitations on the pasture require guarantors, including the Mayor of London. I very much hope that my Noble Friend the Minister will be willing to discuss what is possible between now and the court, but if he cannot accept this particular amendment, would he consider proposing an alternative? Otherwise, I fear that some of the good protected by the bills antidiscrimination measures will be undone in practice.

Turning now to amendment 265, this would repeal the right to rent in the immigration act 2014. It requires landlords, including those taking lodges and letting agents to check for tenants in immigration status to confirm they have the right to rent in England before granting tenancy. Letting a property to someone without the writer rent can now be punishable with up to £520,000, or a five year prison sentence. The report on the windrush lessons review Wendy Williams described it as one of the most contentious aspects of hostile environment.

It has been criticised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I was a member, the chief inspector of borders and immigration questioned its efficacy as a tool to encourage immigration compliance, and the UN special temporary forms of racism who deplored its racialised impact and the way it deputised immigration enforcement to deputised immigration enforcement to A common concern is that it would become a discriminatory tool. The Home Office had not considered the impact on those with protected characteristics, particularly Windrush generation, when the legislation was developed.

During the passage of the legislation Lord Kennedy of Southwark warned that the government runs the risk of landlords playing it safe by renting only to those with British passports, therefore creating a whole new area of discrimination and injustice whereby people with foreign names, foreign paperwork and foreign passports are routinely refused accommodation. British passports can also include poorer white citizens, as Baroness Meyer of Basildon pointed out. A decade and we can only conclude that so it came to pass.

A joint briefing from housing and migration organisations spearheaded by the large agents representation group is title Shop out -- Is Titled Shut out. Many landlords are making decisions on a discriminatory basis. Abolition of the scheme is a key step towards the bill's aim to prevent discrimination against tenants. A High Court judge argued that the scheme doesn't only provide the opportunity for landlords to discriminate, but it causes them to do so. A mystery shopping exercise found that people with white sounding names receive 25% more responses to their rental enquiries than those with salvation names.

A survey of 2,000 landlords by a charitable organisation found by a charitable organisation found that 60% of landlords said they could not rent to those without passports and said it was due to failure to comply with the renting legislations. Nearly half of landlords survey found that the right to rent cheques to difficult or time-consuming. As well as encouraging discrimination against British it into cannot easily prove their entitlement, the scheme contributes to homelessness amongst refugees and regular migrants who are disproportionately reliant on the private rental sector for housing.

Hibiscus warned that discrimination against migrant renters is currently baked into the housing and immigration systems. Their research shows the right to restrictions is one of them major barriers to securing housing to black and migrate women making them more vulnerable to exploitation. It's unusual for a measure to unite landlords, tenants and migrant organisations in the way that opposition to the right to rent scheme does. A corporate's abolition has also come from the Mayor of London and the society for labour lawyers.

The scheme is incompatible with the government's commitment to nondiscrimination and fairness in the private rent sector. Its abolition would please landlords as it would release them from the role of acting as immigration enforcement of acting as immigration enforcement officers. Landlords are not trained immigration officers and should not be responsible for verifying immigration status. They support the removal of this counter-productive policy, allowing lenders to focus on providing safe and secure housing. I therefore hope that the government will take seriously this opportunity to call time on it in the interests of both landlords and prospective tenants, many of whom are in the most vulnerable circumstances.

I beg to move. to move.
21:21
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley Portrait Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Labour)
-
-
Amendment proposed, after clause 21 insert the new clause is printed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the marshalled list. I just want to rise briefly to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just want to rise briefly to speak in support of amendment 117. I declare my interest as a trustee of declare my interest as a trustee of the nationwide foundation. There is a growing use of guarantors in the a growing use of guarantors in the PRS. Generation research found last year that 30% of renters who moved in 23 -24 had been asked to provide in 23 -24 had been asked to provide a guarantor. Requesting a guarantor is being overused and is moving towards being standard practice.

A guarantor in many cases has proved guarantor in many cases has proved to be unnecessary. Shelter found that only 2.9% of landlords pursued guarantors for unpaid rent. That is guarantors for unpaid rent. That is despite showing 1.85 million renters have been asked to provide a have been asked to provide a Where a renter through an affordability assessment can prove they can pay the rent, a guarantor should not be asked for. Amendment 117, or an amendment like it report stage is a necessary addition to the bill.

I would like to ask my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage the Minister if she will consider favourably this amendment and bring an amendment like it very close to it back to report stage, and if she it back to report stage, and if she will also consider using development of national guidance for fair and of national guidance for fair and proportionate referencing. And though we may took about this tomorrow, will she also consider adding information on guarantors to adding information on guarantors to the private-sector rental database.

the private-sector rental database.
21:22
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to support amendment 117, to which I have put my name, along with amendment 265. As the two previous beaches have explained the endless attempt to ensure that the dangers of discrimination are not and intended -- unintended consequences of this bill. As we dismantle one source of insecurity, namely the abolition of section 21, we must be vigilant that new discriminatory practices do not simply rise in its place. Requiring a guarantor is often presented as a simple piece of standard referencing, a lifeline for vulnerable tenants, but in reality it is quite the opposite.

It adds a significant, often insurmountable hurdle for many prospective tenants, typically impose in addition to demanding a deposit, the first months rent in advance and passing an affordability assessment. Landlords already possess simple tools to assess a tenant's ability to pay and to mitigate potential financial risk. Tenant referencing, rent guarantee insurance and deposit protection schemes provide those robust safeguards. When tenants can demonstrate they can afford the rents, requiring a guarantor becomes unnecessary and serves only to narrow the pool of renters.

The demand for guarantors is an unnecessary additional hurdle, which disproportionately impacts those on low incomes, those from low income backgrounds, goes without family support networks, benefit recipients, women, single-parent households, black and Bangladeshi households in particular and most shocking of all, people with disabilities. Indeed a renter with a disability is 20% more likely to be asked for a guarantor. A black renter 66% more likely. This is not a lifeline for the vulnerable, it is more like drowning.

Independent Age tells us it's a problem for older people to. An older renter who can afford the rent has recounted facing questions about their income and bring us for a guarantor. A self- employed single mother who could pay six months in advance, topped up with Universal Credit, was asked for with Universal Credit, was asked for a guarantor with an annual income of £45,000 per annum. And there will be people who do not know someone with that level of income.

We have heard much throughout our debates about arrears and sometimes as if it is endemic, but government statistics state that 2% of private sector rented tenants reported in arrears in 23-24, or even the English Housing survey put it around 5%. Whilst that is still too high, it does not reflect certain assumptions that all tenants are inevitably going to be in arrears and therefore need a guarantor. Amendment 170 176 to bring sense and portion Aliti -- and proportionality to this.

As the noble Lady Kennedy so ably put it, landlords over the most recent two year period, only 3% of them have attempted to claim lost rent from a tenant's guarantor. When landlords have attempted this route, it has proven much harder than the standard insurance products to indemnify against non-payment. The government has rightly listened to because to limit excessive upfront payments. If we tackled one former financial barrier, we must tackle the other to prevent some landlords simply switching tech six, which is -- switching tactics.

Everyone who supports this amendment, the -- that is the greatest fear. There could be a wider reliance on guarantors. This sensible step will ensure landlords can still use guarantors when genuinely needed, was protecting vulnerable renters from being unfairly shut out of the market. I hope the government will consider and adopt this amendment, or agree to discuss a possible alternative.
21:28
21:29
21:30
21:31
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Think you very much. I think we have heard some very compelling arguments from across the House on this very important issue and can I think the noble Baroness for her very cogent and careful explanation for the reasons of bringing this forward. The issue we are addressing today is of great importance, particularly given that the bill removes the options for tenants to pay rent in advance. Furthermore, the Noble Lady the Minister has declared, sorry, declined to support our amendment which would have allowed for an arrangement between two consenting adults to agree on such infrastructure.

This is a missed opportunity. Of those majesties has not we share the serious concerns that have been raised and I will try not to repeat the many arguments that have already been made. Unfortunately, the government's proposal in their current form. To pay a little more than lip service, in practice they fail to provide this in the rental market. Let's be clear about the deficiency of the amendment 172065. These amendments specifically prevent landlords from requiring a guarantor. In a wide-ranging circumstances.

Yet there remains ambiguity as to whether the amendments would still allow landlords to accept a guarantor for profit and can I thank the noble Baroness the Minister of put aside for actually being very clear that they could still accept it and that does create some ambiguity. While we recognise that requiring a guarantor can be a significant barrier for many, particularly those from vulnerable backgrounds, this where it is proportionate the guarantor system does serve a legitimate function. It can provide a safety net for tenants with limited financial history such as students, individual supported by local councils, those who circumstances my be traditional expectations of landlords.

The government's approach to rent in advance is inconsistent with the rest of the bill. Tenants are not allowed to offer rent in advance as an alternative to the guarantor we must ask how the Government would ensure a fair proportion of mechanism put in place to assess risk. The private rental market is not a one size fits all model. It encompasses a diverse range of tenants from students and graduates to care givers and renters. How does the Government plan to accommodate those who may not have access to a guarantor but are still financially reliable? And, crucially, where does this exist in the framework? Mutual agreement, the choice between two consenting adults, tenants and landlords.

Furthermore, the Secretary of State power to ensure alternatives to guarantors raises significant concerns. We ask the noble Baroness the Mr Howarth accessible these products are likely to be and what steps are being taken to ensure that they do not create another costly barrier for tenants. As it stands, the insurance model seems unlikely to provide a fair and proportionate solution to the challenges tenants face. These are not abstract concerns. With provisions as drafted placing undue strain on tenants and their families without achieving the balance the Government claims to see.

Unless there are significant revisions, this issue will, undoubtedly, return with force. The bill has generated substantial interest across the rental sector and has us already been mentioned with campaigns led by students, the NUS, being particularly striking. Students across the UK, especially those from marginalised and underrepresented backgrounds are sounding the alarm, guarantor requirements have emerged as one of the most significant barriers to accessing stable, affordable housing. As the NUS has clearly outlined these requirements disproportionately affect working- class students, care experienced class students, care experienced young people and estranged use and international students.

Groups already navigating considerable challenges in their pursuit of education. Many of these students face an additional margin. They do not have a family member in the UK that can meet the often arbitrary financial thresholds demanded by landlords. As a result, they are forced to either pay up to one years rent in advance, and impossible ask for many, or to turn to expensive guarantor services. We now find ourselves in the situation where it costs more to rent a home if you are poor.

Guarantor requirements contribute to this divide by insisting that students find someone, often someone that earns up to 80 times the monthly rent and is based in the UK to guarantee their tenancy while systematically blocking out those that cannot meet these criteria. No one should be denied the opportunity to pursue academic excellence simply because of who they know and, more importantly, who they do not know. This is why these amendments fail. This is why the NUS student representatives work so tirelessly to bring this forward in The Other Place.

This is why it is so vital that we do not let this opportunity slip through our fingers in this House. While I have focused much of my speech and the barriers faced by students, it is essential to remember that this also affects many other vulnerable groups. None more so than caregivers and might speak as the next leader of the council were ice been much time in the position of caregivers. Having already overcome considerable challenges in their lives, they should not face yet another hurdle in their pursuit of independence.

How can we, in good conscience, expect K givers to comply with a condition they simply cannot meet on their own? But this also demonstrates the complexity of the situation. As, often, their local councils were often willing and keen to provide them in order to ensure they were uneven playing field competitive those with better financial backgrounds. As I have outlined today, restrictions on rent in advance, the lack of objective criteria for when a guarantor is required would only entrench existing inequalities, penalising individuals who may be financially reliable but lack family support and financial connections to meet the arbitrary thresholds demanded by landlords is unjust.

This is not just an issue of housing. It is an issue of fairness, opportunity, and basic dignity. Housing is not merely family, it is the foundation of stability and opportunity. When we deny people access to housing because they cannot meet arbitrary demands of a guarantor, we are not only closing doors to homes, closing doors to education to create advancements to future independence. The noble Baroness list also raised a very valid issue regarding the right to rent.

The fact that introducing what may seem quite a sensible rule does lead to complications and does place landlords in the awkward situation landlords in the awkward situation if they do not fully understand the legislation in front of them and we have heard earlier today in this House from number of noble Lords and furnaces that admit they were not lawyers. It is unreasonable to expect every landlord to be a lawyer when the law is complex and we need to make it simple and easy to comply with.

I think this is one of our major concerns with this legislation. In conclusion, I asked the noble Baroness to minister to listen to the voices of those who are most affected by these provisions. Two students, care givers and low income tenants making necessary changes to ensure that this bill delivers fairness for all.
21:40
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Before I respond directly to amendments, I would just say in response to the noble Lords last comments, he talked about denying people access to housing, students, caregivers and people on low incomes. The fact that so little social and affordable housing has been provided over the last 14 years is a very strong reason why we are in the situation we are in now. And the fact that those people have not been able to find affordable housing is largely due to the housing policies of the previous Government.

And I will not, as I give my answers for my Noble Friends amendments, I want to just put that on the record first. Can I thank my Noble Friend the Minister for her imminent relating to guarantors underwriter rent? Can I add thanks to hers to shelter. Shelter provided so much help and support during the passing of this bill and I very grateful to them. Can I also find that noble Baroness Kennedy, noble Baroness, the noble Lords, for their comments. Amendment 170 would restrict the circumstances in which a guarantor could be required by a landlord and I would appreciate that underlining this amendment put forward with her characteristic clarity commitment and compassion by my Noble Friend is concerned that those do not have access to a guarantor would find it more difficult to find a home in the private rented sector than those who can obtain a guarantor.

I would like to make it clear to my Noble Friend that is the beauty that our approach to this particular issue was underpinned by the need to provide tenants with the recent protections they deserve. At the same time, we wish to God against the unintended consequences that may, some tenants, make renting more challenging. I recognise that obtaining a guarantor can be difficult for many prospective tenants. The Government is clear that landlords should consider tenants individual circumstances when negotiating rental contracts.

And just to clarify the noble Lords gem as seem to indicate some sort of compulsion that landlords find a guarantor. If they wish to come to an agreement we would be more than happy and able to do that but what we cannot do is require significant sums of rent in advance under this bill because that is what was really discriminating against people into most highest sums of rent in advance while making it difficult for people. However, it is important to acknowledge that in many circumstances the use of guarantors can provide landlords to let their companies to tenants and they might otherwise find it difficult to secure tenancy within the private rented sector.

This includes tenants with histories of entries, for example. People with incomes that fluctuate from month- to-month and those with no previous rental history, for example students or young people moving out of home for the first time. And prohibiting landlords from accepting large amounts of rent will benefit all tenants by giving them the confidence that the maximum financial amount they need to secure tenancy will not exceed the cost of the tenancy deposit on the first months rent. The Government recognises that providing a UK-based guarantor may be difficult for some students, including international students under the renters rights bill they will continue to offer tenants who cannot provide a UK- based guarantor the alternative of purchasing a rent guarantor insurance.

Leave that that measures set out in the amendment tabled by my Noble Friend would inadvertently risk blocking certain types of renters from accessing accommodation in that sector altogether, despite the amendments honourable intentions. And can I just respond to the noble Baroness Kennedys questions on guarantors, the Government is clear that they should consider these things, as I said, each stands individually, including when it is appropriate to require a guarantor. They should not apply blanket requirements for guarantors to all tenants.

In response to that question, the database will act as a record of properties rather than individual tenancies, and therefore it would not be appropriate for landlords to record the risk mitigation measures from the tenant on the database. She also made the point about guidance on guarantors and I will take that away in the and I will take that away in the Department to consider that further. I wish to assure the committee that we have carefully considered the extent to which different practices act as barriers or enable us to accessing the private rented sector sector.

That is why we have taken the action we have to limit rent in advance from the bill, of course we're always happy to meet with my Noble Friend to discuss this further. But for all of these reasons I hope my Noble Friend will withdraw that amendment. Turning now to amendment 265 which would abolish the writer rent scheme which applies in England, the restaurant scheme was introduced to ensure only those was introduced to ensure only those lovely in the United Kingdom could access the private rent sector, and, this is important, to tackle unscrupulously in flood is who exploit vulnerable migrants, sometimes by letting properties that are in very poor condition indeed.

Some landlords who rent to those who Some landlords who rent to those who are here illegally are criminal operators and we all have a shared objective to drive them from the market. Think everybody around the chamber would agree with that. We have been absolutely clear that discriminatory treatment on the part of anyone carrying out the writer rent cheques is unlawful and the dreadful examples given my Noble Friend illustrated that. The cheques apply equally to everyone seeking accommodation in the private rented sector, including British citizens.

And I would just like to operate a bit further on that. The writer rent scheme is carefully being operated proportionally by landlords and letting agents in all cases. The very purpose of the statutory code of practice will avoid unlawful disconnection when conducting checks, recognises and seeks to address the risk of disc nation. There is list of documents available that tenants can provide to prove their writer rent. Codes of practice required under the writer rent legislation sends out what landlords I would simply add that there are no current plans to end the right to rent scheme.

Again, happy to discuss that further with my noble friend, but for these reasons I asked that my noble friend withdrawals the amendment. amendment.
21:47
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-
I am grateful to everybody who has spoken. I will not go into any great detail, given the late hour that it is. I don't think my noble friend the Minister answered the question posed by the noble Lord Lord Hope, which was has the right to rent had any effect in reducing illegal migration. I don't know if she would care to answer that question now?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do not have any direct

**** Possible New Speaker ****

statistics in front of me, but I will come back to noble Lords on that point. Thank you. I am grateful for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I am grateful for the support I have received. I was slightly confused by Lord Jamieson. slightly confused by Lord Jamieson. I wasn't sure if he was supporting my amendments or not. He said they were ambiguous, but I think his approach was a bit ambiguous and I approach was a bit ambiguous and I can't resist pointing out that the can't resist pointing out that the right to rent was introduced by his government and we are now saddled with it.

I am disappointed and perhaps not surprised that my noble perhaps not surprised that my noble friend said that there is no plan to friend said that there is no plan to be shot of it now, especially as the be shot of it now, especially as the noble lady said in light of today's White Paper. It's not conducive to White Paper. It's not conducive to it, but it is important to come back to the point. I was a bit disappointed that my noble friend did not feel able to give a bit more on the question of guarantors.

She said that the proposed amendment would inadvertently block certain groups and could have unintended consequences. I think everyone who spoke to this, maybe this amendment isn't quite right, but it is aiming to do something which actually supports what the government is trying to do. I had hoped that, although she very kindly said she is willing to discuss it, but I did not get the sense that there is a willingness to discuss it in terms of bringing forward a government amendment to achieve what we are trying to achieve.

But given the late hour, I give leave to withdraw my amendment. my amendment.
21:49
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Is at your Lordships pleasure that this amendment is withdrawn? The amendment is by leave drawn. Clause 22, amendment 171, Lord Shipley.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There are four amendments in this group on notices to quit. I wish to group on notices to quit. I wish to move amendment 171 and speak to 172, move amendment 171 and speak to 172, 173, 174 and 175. The background to 173, 174 and 175. The background to these amendments have been raised by frontline advisers of Citizens Advice and I want to thank them for their contribution to our their contribution to our consideration of this bill and I hope the Minister will be able to allay the concerns they have allay the concerns they have expressed when she responds.

These expressed when she responds. These concerns relate to how tenants serve, withdraw or reduce notice in serve, withdraw or reduce notice in joint tenancies, and the length of notice tenants must give to leave notice tenants must give to leave before the expiration of an eviction notice they have been served using notice they have been served using the new no-fault grounds one and 1A. It may come as a surprise to some It may come as a surprise to some that in joint tenancies one tenants can serve a notice to quit to the landlord, ending the tenancy for all tenants without the other joint tenants knowing this has happened.

Tenants remaining in the property might not know that a notice has been served until the landlord expresses an intention to issue a claim for possession on the basis that the tenancy has been ended by a notice to quit. This will put the remaining tenants in a very vulnerable position. At risk of homelessness and liable for court costs. This is the status quo with periodic tenancies, but it could become a more common problem when all tenancies become periodic. It is important for one joint tenant to be able to end a joint tenancy unilaterally, I accept that, but the mechanism is essential to ensure that all joint tenants are notified.

Similarly, whilst it is welcome that the bill will provide for reduce notice by agreement between Landlord and Tenant Act, it should stipulated that this is only where oil -- all joint tenants agree in writing. If not there is a risk that parting joint tenant and the landlord will agree to bring a tenancy to an end quite quickly without the remaining joint tenant being aware. In terms of the withdrawal of notice there is a similar problem.

In theory one joint tenant would issue a notice to quit and the other tenant and landlord may agree it is withdrawn. The agreement of all joint tenants should be needed for the withdrawal of a notice. There is a further issue this is where a tenant serves notice when the other tenant would have sought to transfer the tenancy solely to them if they had known that notice was being served. This happens mostly when joint tenants go through a relationship rate down and the tenant who leaves serves notice to quit, sometimes with the intention of harming the remaining tenant.

A court injunction could be sought, allowing the tenancy to be transferred to them. The remaining joint tenant would maintain the security of the 10 year and not be made homeless. It's important to note that many of these cases involve children. Finally, when a tenant receives an eviction notice based on the no-fault one and one... In the fast moving rental market tenants have to move quickly to secure an appropriate new home before the eviction notice transpires.

Tenants may have to start a new tenancy before their current one has ended in order to avoid homelessness. So there will be a new deposit, first months rent and often household bills on the new property and their current home. This creates a high cost burden for tenants and could push those on lower income into significant debt or at the risk of homelessness if they cannot find a property and aligning tenancy start date. This will be amplified with the increase in tenants notice from one month to two.

This group of amendments would require joint tenants to be notified by both the landlord and any tenant giving notice that a notice to quit has been submitted and the tenancy will come to an end on a specified date. We should note this amendment reflects the notification requirements of section 130 renting homes Wales Act 2016. Secondly the amendments will ensure that a tenant notice to quit can be reduced or withdrawn through agreement with the landlord only if all joint tenants agree to it in writing.

Thirdly, it will allow withdrawal other tenant notice in circumstances where a transfer or assignment of the tenancy to a remaining tenant is a viable option, which would remove the need to anticipate and pre-empt a notice to quit within injunction. Finally, it would reduce the notice tenant may give to one month were notice has been served to give much needed flexibility to tenants and help them manage the high cost of moving, which is unaffordable to many low income renters.

I hope the Minister will give due consideration to those issues. I think they are really very important. I have learnt a little bit about joint tenancies that I did not know before Citizens Advice got in touch. So I just hope that the Minister will be willing to give further consideration in detail to this said that at report stage we can produce the amendments that are necessary to solve the problems that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have been identified. Amendment proposed, page 40, line
21:56
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, page 40, line 13, the House and insert and all joint tenants have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was intrigued by Lord Shipley's MMS today. It's interesting to hear they have come from the Citizens they have come from the Citizens Advice bureau. I am intrigued because I'm conscious and savvy evolved over time and he mentioned evolved over time and he mentioned in relationship -- he mentioned in relationship -- he mentioned relationship breakdowns. Renting with other people, there is a risk with other people, there is a risk that someone will walk out and you will be left liable.

I guess I am trying to understand, perhaps I was trying to understand, perhaps I was not listening quite closely enough, not listening quite closely enough, but to get the point of where will they start to drive the situation of instead of having people coming together, will it drive more accommodation into going into housing with multiple occupation? I give you my own personal experience. It is when I was working for a very large company. I moved to another large company.

I moved to another city to reflect the job situation that I needed. There's no doubt I deliberately sought out situations where it wasn't exactly an HMO, but where individual contracts and tenancies were allowed with the landlord so that it didn't fall on my shoulders to think about these issues. I suppose I am trying to understand how this amendment really will address the situation of making sure there are enough tenancies and accommodations available without putting more burden on the landlords.

I understand why the government set this in their manifesto. I appreciate there may be differences on the impact, but differences on the impact, but perhaps in his follow-up be useful perhaps in his follow-up be useful genuinely how much of a problem this really is as opposed to a theoretical problem.
21:58
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'd like to thank the noble Lord draw Shipley for bringing noble Lord draw Shipley for bringing these amendments to the House. As we have on this side consistently said throughout the committee we support the bill's overarching aim to create a more secure and fairer private rental sector, but if this is to deliver on that promise, it must engage with the way people rent in reality, not in theory. Joint tenancies are a common and practical arrangement, whether between couples, friends or flatmates.

Yet as currently drafted the bill leaves considerable uncertainty as to how these tenancies will be treated, particularly where one party wishes to leave. Amendments 171 and 175 rightly seek to bring joint tenancies fully and clearly within the scope of the bill. Without this clarity both tenants and landlords could be left navigating ambiguity with little guidance in law and potentially significant consequences in practice. Similarly, amendments 172 and 174 focus on the mechanisms 172 and 174 focus on the mechanisms for ending the joint tenancy.

It's not just a matter of legal process, it is a matter of fairness and practicality. Tenants must be afforded flexibility, particularly in cases of relationship write- downs, or changes in household arrangements, while landlord should not be left in legal or financial limbo. In this context I believe it is also right to raise this issue of subletting, which is closely tied to how joint tenancies evolve and adapt over time. When a tenant is not using although even part of their space, subletting enables more efficient use of under occupied homes and this is particularly important in areas facing housing shortages where every single room matters.

Subletting arrangements can offer a pragmatic solution for tenants trying to manage their finances, respond to personal changes, or simply avoid exiting tenancy altogether. It can also help to maintain housing stability where one joint tenant moves are by allowing a new occupier to contribute to rent without formalising a new tenancy agreement from scratch. Moreover subletting can play a role in addressing the chronic supply issues affect the rental market. It offers access to more affordable rents, supports tenants incomes and introduces more flexibility into an often rigid system.

Yet many shared ownership leaseholders for example face restrictions in their leases that prevent them from subletting altogether, or from setting rent at the market rate. This was not designed with today's housing pressures in mind. Without reform we risk trapping leaseholders between outdated terms in new regulatory obligations with no room to renegotiate. So this is about proportionality. It is about flexibility and modernising the rental framework to reflect the real experiences of those people living
22:02
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I would like to thank the Noble Lord for his amendments. Which relate to tenants in assured tenancies and joint tenancies and in doing so can I thank him for raising the very important issues prompted by the citizens advice. They have been in touch with the Department as well. And can I thank Citizens Advice and the stakeholders for engaging with our officials on these issues. And can I think the noble Baroness coffee and the noble Baroness Scott for their comments to Chris on amendment 171, or joint tenant has served a notice to quit, this amendment would require any agreement to a notice period of less than two months to not trust the landlord as the currently requires with all other joint tenants as well.

Whilst there is merit to this approach, I genuinely am cognizant of the potential impacts on tenants who do not wish to inform their co- tenants they are leaving and there may be a number of reasons why that might be the case. Any change in this direction we would need to give careful consideration to make sure we understand any impacts that might have that we are currently working through that. Amendment 172 would allow a tenant to only provide one months notice to end a short tenancy if the landlord had already provided a notice of their attendance to seek position, using one one.

The Government understands tenants might find new properties to let within a four month notice period and the landlord has given them and that market pressures would ideally good goal when they need to and it is right and fair that they provide them with the two months notice so that landlords have sufficient notice and they might have to change or alter their plans as a result. We think this strikes a fair balance was tenants will benefit from slightly longer notice periods that are right that the landlord can plan the ending of the tenancy also.

And I should also point out that nothing prevents the agreement of a shorter notice period will still be expect at in many cases landlords would gladly facilitate a quick rent for tenancy to allow them to sell or move in more quickly. The noble Baroness got raised several strings around this which I will come back to her on those points. Amendment 171 would require joint tenants to notify each other when serving a notice to quit for an assured tenancy and landlords to provide joint tenants that such a notice has been served and provide a copy of the notice.

The bill as currently drafted does not require tenants to inform each other of the tenancy. Understand the point that there is an inherent risk that tenants might not find out until later in the notice period that their tenancy is ending, however at the moment the Government is concerned about the potential impacts, which, for example, domestic abuse victims are being required to inform the perpetrator that they are ending the tenancy, possibly in order to flee. In the balance of risks we believe domestic abuse victims must be allowed to prevail, although I recognise it is a difficult decision and we are giving it further consideration.

Finally, amendment 175 would require altering tenants to withdraw a notice to quit. This is unnecessary as it has already been established in law that all joint tenants must agree to positively sustain the tenancy. It is very unlikely that a court would is very unlikely that a court would determine a single tenant could determine a single tenant could withdraw a notice to quit because there is not the positive consent of all tenants and for these reasons of the Noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
22:06
22:07
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
clause 22 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Enclose 23 amendment 75 Lord Shipley, not move. The question of that clause 23 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 clause 20. 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 ****

Enclose 25 amendment 176. I rise to move amendment 176 and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move amendment 176 and also speak to amendment 177 which stands in my name. Before I begin, I refer the committee to my register refer the committee to my register of interests as set out in the register as a farmer, landowner, and residential landlord, in particular I have a number of houses that are occupied by employees under insured agricultural occupancy. These two agricultural occupancy. These two amendments are probing amendment. Intended to allow the committee to understand better how the Government understand better how the Government sees these provisions of the bill operating but also to probe whether impact of the bill in this area may impact of the bill in this area may have unintended consequences that need to be resolved.

Before moving to a detailed discussion I would to a detailed discussion I would look to follow my Noble Friends Baroness Scott who, in an earlier group, underlined the importance of group, underlined the importance of being able to offer on-site accommodation to agricultural employees. Have three heads people employees. Have three heads people and one relief hotel man who rise dearly around 3:30 AM in the morning dearly around 3:30 AM in the morning to milk. A short work from the hood and this is critical to their employment conditions.

Those heads people also take primary responsibility for animal health within the herds, as well as the link to young stock. Again, being on-site is vital to allow frequent inspection of the animals to ensure they are doing well. There is also an important security consideration of having employees on site and able to deal with any malicious trespass, animal escapes, et cetera. In short, this may not be a matter of huge general interest but it is critical to farming in general and livestock farming in particular, that accommodation is available on-site .

When they leave, it needs to be available for their successes, however we must also recognise that farmers like this may have lived for many years and even decades in their community with options to stay in the area, even when employment ends are desirable. Again with amendment 176, Explanatory Notes indicate that leaving out this paragraph is intended to probe why the Government has sought to remove section 21, 25, one, of the 1998 act. Since the 19 Since the 1998 act it appears agricultural occupiers with a short and cultural occupancy are entitled to remain in that occupation, even if they leave the occupation of the landlord, as long as they remain in agricultural employment.

And this section from the bill it could mean that agricultural occupiers retain protection, even after the qualifying employment ends. I asked the noble Baroness to Minister whether that is the intention. The removal of this section may be because it refers to fixed term tenancies which the Government is seeking to abolish in this bill, however, in this case, it is linked to fixed term employment. It appears that the Government not have considered the importance of this link and the necessity for landlords to be able to recover agricultural accommodation in links to employment.

I also asked the noble Baroness the Minister what impact this will have in the short agricultural occupancy in the entire agricultural dwellings and whether they are employed in agriculture it may well be a breach of planning regulations. Amendment 177 is a similar probing amendment. Around 16 for recovery possession of a short cultural occupancy at the end of employment was omitted from the 1998 housing act. This created a headache for agricultural employers, but in practice the implications of this have been rather limited, as the departing employees often leave for other employers with accommodation included, or because the open market rent for policy of rural accommodation tends to be unavoidably high for those working in agriculture.

In the renters rights Bill, the Government has continued to omit the ability to recover accommodation at the end of employment, or at least that is what I thought. The noble Baroness the Minister earlier groups said we appreciate the agricultural sector has distinct requirements, and it is often vital for workers to live on site and carry out their duties, as the noble Baroness very Emily described to us, that is why we have included this ground. However, it does not appear that it is applicable to landlords and assured and cultural occupants to ensure houses can be recovered in active employment as it is emitted as being a grants.

I would be most grateful to the noble Baroness the Minister if you could explain how she sees it working in practice for agricultural players to recover vital accommodation at the end of employment. These assured agricultural occupiers will also beginning to protection given that grounds to ZC and to said they are not available for use. I asked the noble Baroness the Minister by the Government thinks this is appropriate. Why are agricultural lands being treated different to other landlords and not able to regain possession of properties after the landlord changes under section 18 of the Housing Act 1988 or after taking over tenancy.

And a previous group the noble Baroness previous group the noble Baroness And making two zippy and to set see discretionary. This introduction of legal uncertainty in our view would make the conflict city even worse. From my limited exposure to this bill, I am natural how easily anyone could see all tenancy is captured by the bill without this. This description may elevate that base level of expertise through actually been practising at the bar, given it is largely estate agents and tenants that manage them I think it is important to me provisions to the bill as clear-cut as possible.

I would also ask the noble Baroness the Minister without the Government has considered the impact of this bill on a particular practice which will deliver, we believe, unintended consequences. Many agricultural employers when housing employs have understandably sought to avoid creating short and cultural occupancy is by serving those before occupancy is by serving those before a tenancy begins and ensuring it is a short all tenancy. This allows serving section 21 notice with certainty on how to is going to be recovered at the end of employment and ensure it is available for the next employee was not as a consequence of this bill, those will now begin what appears to be greater protection than originally intended.

The noble Baroness the Minister consider adding provision to ensure all landlords and employees disposition have the opportunity to change the status of those tenancies to potentially short agricultural occupancies before this takes effect? I beg to move stop effect? I beg to move stop
22:14
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
Lost 25 page 1 line 35 leave out paragraph a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 18 to speak to amendment 182 in my name. I am a great supporter of the policy and writer require. I think policy and writer require. I think it is one of the best policies in the last 50 years, making sure that people add investment in their people add investment in their communities, able to determine how different things in their homes looked, and basically make sure that we had a greater proportion of owner we had a greater proportion of owner occupiers.

I think it was during my occupiers. I think it was during my time as a member of Parliament that I had not realised that in effect there had been discrimination against people living in the countryside. And I discovered this when we were propagating some of the when we were propagating some of the latest policies in my party putting latest policies in my party putting forward to the hat it said to me very squarely on the doorstep in particular housing estate in particular housing estate in Windlesham in Suffolk.

What a load of good I was doing, but frankly it meant nothing to them because they had already tried to acquire their housing association home and been told that they could not. The question of housing actually is really an important one. I think we have got to contend with increasing housing demand, we have certainly had stagnant wages, though I appreciate your going up again recently. Also significant It's a method that people in the countryside are wealthy. It's a myth that somehow salaries in places like Liverpool are much lower than in places like Sunny Suffolk.

It's a complete and often myth -- Artemis into terms of housing costs as well. That's why was concerned to learn that this in effect discrimination goes all the way back to 1997, when I should declare to the house by the way I had hoped to discuss some other amendments alongside this today which initially weren't deemed in scope but now have been, it is the genuine belief I have that we shouldn't be treating people in rural communities significantly differently than somebody who lives in a town perhaps less than 20 miles away.

So these schemes such as right to buy and right to acquire have traditionally favoured tenants, it's important in my view they should have equal opportunities. It promotes fairness and stability. I think it also encourages community development to see local development and individual empowerment. There have been long struggles with these sorts of issues, unlike urban areas where the challenge is often density, rural areas face lack of supply and investment, we know some of the challenges of a rapidly ageing housing stock.

I'm also concerned in other clauses we will consider later that this situation is being made far worse due to some of the policies being put forward by Ed Miliband when it comes to renting homes. I think it will have a real knock on impact, particularly in rural areas including those not connected to the gas grid. Many rural tenants as a consequence depend on housing associations for stable accommodation, because the private rental market can often be almost going into holiday lets or like after COVID where people moved out of the cities into more rural areas.

There has been progress in terms of housing policy, but I must say rural tenants have often been ignored. While urban tenants have benefited from being able to purchase their homes at discounted rates, that certainly has not been the case in rural areas. Homeownership does remain rightly a key aspiration to many people, bringing a sense of security and belonging. But also that stability of local community. In terms of where economic opportunities can be more limited, homeownership is a rare pathway to upward mobility.

By allowing tenants to acquire their houses government would be empowering individuals to take control of their situations. One of the things that drove me into looking at those, I've already mentioned about knocking on doors and speaking to people and their sense of missing out simply because they lived in this rural village, in particular Rendlesham in Suffolk which is built principally on former U.S. Air Force housing stock which was somewhat handed over and as a consequence has also been designated a growth village in the local plan.

And at the same time, housing association in other parts of what might be considered leafy counties, in particular examples of where the housing association is selling off housing association homes in a market tender through an auction, not the process of where people can get a mortgage in order to bid in the auction. In order, they say, to build more homes elsewhere. One of the challenges we are seeing is with housing associations getting bigger and bigger in the areas they cover, what's been happening is that by selling off property in areas like this they are building more homes, but they may be closer to Cambridge and really faraway from the areas where actually that housing is still desired and still wanted by families that want to live there.

Or indeed as we've heard, the need for expansion in some way of housing in areas. As a consequence, I am concerned that people are missing out in that opportunity. In terms of one frequent argument against allowing people to purchase their homes is the risk of diminishing affordable housing stock. One of the things I would say is that once people acquire these homes it's not like they suddenly disappear, they still need a home, they are still there. The lordships will be aware I'm sure that there are certain rules still attached to the right to acquire.

And if anyone who has acquired a home seeks to dispose of it within the first 10 years, things change, people might need to move elsewhere, then the housing association is the first port of call in order to be able to reacquire that particular home. Of course, there is opportunity to balance sales with reinvestment. We are already seeing that with a different amount of money when being sold out on auction, which doesn't necessarily always get the best value. But there is still an opportunity for capital to go back in the housing association.

We also know many rural areas of piloted schemes with retention, community land trusts could also be away of having a covenant on the land. But it's important we continue to make sure that we do have that opportunity to build a buy in to the prospect of homeownership. The core issue is one of fairness. Rural tenants are no different from urban tenants. They just so happen to have grown up in that village, they may have been working, their parents may have been working on the farm or the dairy, and that's where they are now.

That's where they want to form their lives, that's where they have their networks. That's where they want to live. If it so happened that they were living just a matter of 10 or 20 miles away or in a major town there wouldn't be any question about whether or not they could buy into having that security and tenure, and that opportunity to own a home. From my perspective, this is really an issue of fairness. Denying people in the countryside the same rights that other people have.

It's just generally unfair. I also want to just briefly speak to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Roborough, and I suppose I have a slightly different perspective in this regard. It worries me we are starting to see in particular Herefordshire, it seems to be in this situation. My noble friend referred to this situation where often properties can be initially acquired at quite a low rent, or indeed a low capital purchase because of the covenants and restrictions that have been put on it.

If nobody reports this or if the council isn't that interested in enforcing them what we are seeing is people with considerable wealth getting a very good deal by actually having lied when they acquired that particular property. Then they can apply after 10 years to say nobody has made a complaint about it, you haven't kicked me out of my house or done anything like that. I don't think we will should be rewarding unfairness in that regard. Some of the points my noble friend referred to in trying to make sure property does stay linked into the sector I think is really important, to major we continue to have a society in that regard.

Not one where people lie in order to gain.
22:25
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to say if you words about Amendment 182 in the name of Baroness Coffey. I'm afraid not in support of her amendment. Is it fair that residents residing in rural properties should have a different treatment to those in the rest of the country? I have to confess I've done a number of rural housing schemes myself, being responsible for them. And indeed I've just recently chaired the Devon housing commission, looking at the issues facing the communities in Devon.

I would suggest there are a number of reasons why it is fair to treat tenants in rural areas rather differently than in the rest of the country. First of all, it's much more difficult if property is sold and over a period of time therefore doesn't come back for re-letting, we now know from the right to buy being a matter of history that after a period of time you will not get the rillettes, the opportunity for more people to enter those properties in the years ahead.

It is more difficult to replace properties in a village than in a town. If we lose the six houses we have built in that village they are gone forever, it has taken years often to acquire a site to convince the parish council, to deal with the landowners, it's taken a very long time to get those six homes built. We don't want to lose them if we can help it. Because in the future we will regret that. My second reason is that the amount of social housing housing association and council housing in rural areas is appreciably less than in the rest of the country.

It's about 11% for areas classified as rural locations, compared with 17% for the rest of the country. Including double areas. -- The rural areas. There are already signs of acute shortage in areas of affordable housing, we catapult to lose what we've got. The third reason is that most of the developments in rural areas, in village areas, are small developments and therefore there is no requirement to do affordable housing, to have a proportion of the homes available on subsidised loan rents.

So most of the developments that are going to happen in rural areas being less than 10 homes is not going to have any of affordable housing attached to it. We have to hang onto the properties that we have got, then re-elected them later on. -- Re-letting them later on. Prices are higher, but wages are lower. It's much more difficult in rural areas for people to find housing they can genuinely afford. There are retirees moving in in the case of Devon, from the south-east very often into the south-west.

There are more affluent commuters paying more than locals can afford on their salaries. There is second homes, and we are going to be talking soon about short-term lets, talking soon about short-term lets, Airbnb, holiday lets. Locals are priced out and it becomes a very priced out and it becomes a very precious commodity to retain those few rural social houses. So I'm few rural social houses. So I'm afraid I'm unable to support amendment 182.
22:28
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
These benches recognise the vital importance of our rural and agricultural communities who operate under more specialised and long- standing tenancy agreements. Such tenancies often span many years, involve successive generations, and reflect a connection between the land and those who work it. Going well beyond the norms found in other areas of the rental sector. We fully appreciate the challenges that tenants and landlords may face under these arrangements, particularly when legislation risks creating ambiguity or disruption. And it's the height of irony that when I looked at these amendments it struck me that discretionary rather than mandatory powers would be a very useful thing to have.

So it's hugely ironic that the noble Lord rubra has raised my own amendments on this issue, I would have thought some discretionary approach for any decision in the courts may well be a useful thing in this context. However, while we are sympathetic with concerns raised that sympathy doesn't translate into ready support for amendments 176, 177, and 182. It's our understanding that this bill will not apply to residential property let under the farm business tenancy or the agricultural holding act tenancy, but will apply to a holding as subsequently being sublet previously on what we now know is a short hold tenancy.

It will have in future grounds for possession as set out in other parts of the bill. We also understand that a process will be in place for landlords to avoid inadvertently creating assured agricultural occupancies. And we fully back the words of the noble Lord best, as ever, with regards to rural communities and retention of in particular social housing. And we believe very firmly that local authorities should be given the powers to make decisions over those social homes.

With the right level of localism and autonomy over that. With that said, we look forward with interest to hearing the noble Lady
22:31
22:31
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
remained unconvinced by these three If I would like to thank the Noble Lord Roborough and the noble Baroness coffee for their amendments Baroness coffee for their amendments that the Noble Lord best and their comments. Turning first to amendment 176 and 177 in the name of the Noble 176 and 177 in the name of the Noble Lord Roborough, amendment 1766 to reverse the bills removal of section reverse the bills removal of section 25.1 from the Housing Act 1988. The 25.1 from the Housing Act 1988.

The Has answered and the answer Has answered and the answer he Has answered and the answer he will be pleased to know is a straightforward one, after the bill as amended section 151 of the 1988 actual BA spend provision so that is actual BA spend provision so that is to say it will have no effect. That is because it deals with happens when a statutory periodic tendency arises a cross the end of a fixed term and assured agricultural occupancy. Statutory periodic tendencies will no longer exist after the bill is implemented, nor will fixed terms.

In fact, all tenancies including assured agricultural tenancies will be periodic tenancies. The provision included in clause 25 is purely a consequential amendment tidying up the spend provision from the 1988 act following our reforms. Amendment 177 our reforms. Amendment 1776 to allow the eviction of tenants with a short agricultural notice under grant 2ZC. This would reduce the security that these tenants currently enjoy. The Noble Lord Roborough has highlighted and their seeking to probe whether bill is expanding directions on when assured agricultural occupancies would be evicted.

With respect this represents a misunderstanding about the provision is doing. " Five contains technical consequential amendments to the assured agricultural and occupancy regime that aims to maintain the status quo in the light of our reforms and includes preventing landlords from evicting these tenants under the employment in five-point see as well as grants a and the new superior landlord rent. These are covering circumstances were tenants under assured agricultural occupancy cannot currently be evicted. These grants are being amended or introduced by the bill and may pose a risk to their security in the new system rather than expanding the restrictions on evictions for these tenants, this will broadly maintain the status quo, and for those reasons I would ask the Noble Lord to withdraw his amendments.

Turning now to amendment 182 in the name of the noble Baroness Lady Coffey, which would prevent any secondary legislation led under the power to Lord 65 from exempting the rural sector from the right to acquire and widely seeks to ensure that residents and properties in rural areas have the right to acquire and the provisions in clause 65 another Secretary of State to lay regulations specifying types of assured tenancies towards the right to require would not apply. This consequence shall allows the Government to consider whether the existing exemptions and apply to that shortfall tenancies should be transferred across to the new regime.

The noble Baroness would prevent this power from being used to prevent the rural sector from the right of reply. Rural properties are currently exempt in designated rural areas which are generally settlements with fewer than 3,000 and the Noble Lord mentioned already that the housing commission which he has chaired and made me aware of the conclusions of that commission, conclusions of that commission, these are designed to protect affordable housing in areas both rural and urban where replacement is often non-viable due to the high cost of replacement planning restrictions, or land constraints, for example, and as necessary to ensure the supply of rural and affordable housing.

The Government does not have any plans to change this and it might be helpful if I comment briefly on the right to require and to qualify for that tenants must have spent at least three years as a public sector tenant and occupy property that is also eligible, that price without therein rural or urban areas, however there are important exemptions such as those in the rural sector and for properties built by or acquired by its housing associations using their own funds. These strike a balance between promoting homeownership and Social Housing Act areas or situations where it is most needed and the noble Baroness reflected some of the reasons why that might be the case.

The Government recently consulted on the reforms directed by seeking eligibility criteria in the maximum percentage discounts and protections for those and replacement of homes sold. The consultation closed on 15 January and we are considering the responses to those that we received and we will receive more information on the next steps in due course. The writer require was not included in that consultation, so the Government will consider whether any changes should be made to the writer require and future changes to the right to buy, but, for now, we have no, sorry.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The nobility the Minister before she sits down I wonder she might consider addressing the situation where housing associations are where housing associations are selling off rural housing to the selling off rural housing to the open market to the highest bidder rather than to the tenants.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rather than to the tenants. We hope to provide more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We hope to provide more sustainability and financial terms to housing associations through mechanisms and I hope that will prevent them from the need to do
22:37
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
prevent them from the need to do that. In relation to the right to require, the Government does not have any current plans to change this. On that basis, I would ask the noble Baroness Lady Coffey to withdraw her amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, and in particular to my Noble Friend on agricultural Noble Friend on agricultural dwellings and I also grateful to the Minister for providing very helpful clarification. I think that the dwellings that have an agricultural restriction on them and employees after the cease to become employees after the cease to become employees but are potentially protected in tenancy under the bill remains open tenancy under the bill remains open and I hope that she might mention the right on that one.

But, in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

meantime, I would like to withdraw. As many are of that opinion will say content. No, sorry, you do not say content. No, sorry, you do not have to say content. Amendment 177, have to say content. Amendment 177, not moved. The question is that clause 25 stand 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. The question as clause 26 to 29 stand question as clause 26 to 29 stand part of the bill en bloc, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it.

After clause 29, amendment Baroness Jones, not moved. The question then is clauses 30 and 31 stand part of the bill en bloc, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. In schedule two, amendment 179 and 180, Baroness Taylor, moved formally en bloc. The question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it.

We now come to amendment 101, Lord Best.
22:39
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to move amendment 101 and I repeat my declaration of an interest as the Vice President of the chartered trading standards Institute as well as the Local Government Association. Trading standards represent an important ingredient in achieving the objectives of this bill stop there are the frontline in enforcement of key measures of good practice by property agents carrying out lettings activities. To assist local businesses of all kinds and the trade associations that represent and advise that there are arrangements in place for primary authorities that local authorities are able to provide specialist advice on a range of consumer protection legislation primary authorities cover different aspects of property matters and support property agents and their trade association property market and the petit ombudsman.

These arrangements enable authoritative, assured advice to be given to property agents who could then rely on that advice in dealing with any query or dispute and relieves local authorities enforcement teams from dealing with queries, complaints of misdemeanours that could be avoided if she would advise was available. Demand for high quality rises is likely to grow as a result of the renters rights Bill stop more landlords are likely to make use of letting agents to ensure all regulatory requirements are being met.

The letting agents into need the best possible advice on the extensive legislative measures that affect their client landlords. A problem here, however, is that current arrangements for assured advice do not extend to aspects of letting activities and the tenants fees act 2019. This legislation bans agents from charging fees to tenants as well as to landlords. Since the introduction of that legislation, local authorities have shut in this area of letting agency work to be included in the assured advice arrangements.

This small amendment would mean lettings advice covering the Tenant Fees Act would at last be available on which property agency businesses can rely on local authority enforcement authorities can act with confidence. It is an entirely helpful tidying up piece of defective legislation and fully supports the objectives of the renters rights Bill. I am not expecting a passionate expression of support from lots of your Lordships for this somewhat technical amendment, but I do hope that the noble Baroness the Minister will be able to say that it meets with the Government approval and I pleased to move it.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

199, 196, at end insert the words
22:42
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
as printed on the Marshall list. Appoint to you, Lord Best, because I feel I will rise very briefly because I think this ties in very neatly with your later amendments on the letting agents become more professional and having better qualifications. Any means that will actually reduce the pressure on local authority enforcement teams is to be very welcomed. It is techie but simple. And I think could be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

effective. My Lords, can I also thank the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, can I also thank the For bringing forward this very sensible amendment. It is thoughtful and well considered. The integration and well considered. The integration of Tenant Fees Act 2019 into the framework for regulatory and the sanctions act 2008 through schedule sanctions act 2008 through schedule three is not just a technical improvement. It is a step towards greater improvement in clarity in what is already a highly complex what is already a highly complex area of legislation and bill of this scope and detail, ensuring that our scope and detail, ensuring that our legislative frameworks are aligned and complement one another is not only sound lawmaking, but essential only sound lawmaking, but essential for those responsible for implementation on the ground.

Is implementation on the ground. Is that passionate enough? The practical implications of this amendment deserve the houses close attention. In essence, it allows primary authorities to give assured, primary authorities to give assured, legally backed advice to letting agents on how to comply with the Tenant Fees Act 2019, supporting letting agents through legislative transitions in this way will help avoid confusion and will ensure compliance from day one, the key goal for any regulatory Chair. This amendment would also bring pressure on local enforcement teams at the noble Baroness Don has mentioned, many of whom operate with limited resources, both financial and capacity and by reducing this where possible we enable the teams to concentrate on the most serious breaches, rogue landlords, unsafe housing, exploitation of vulnerable tenants or intervention is most urgently needed.

This approach is not without presence, organisations such as the lettings ordinary council has called for greater guidance, clarity, in how regulations are enforced across local authorities. Integrating the Tenant Fees Act into the structure directly supports those goals and shows that the Government is listening to those working on the frontline regulation and compliance. We are therefore sympathetic the spirit of this amendment also it offers practical benefits to tenants, agents, enforcement agencies alike and we believe it will contribute to a more effective, fairer, streamlined regulatory

**** Possible New Speaker ****

inquiry. I am not sure if it is the late

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am not sure if it is the late hour, but my which just sent me a hour, but my which just sent me a hour, but my which just sent me a dancing emoji, as if to tell me to show passion, so I will do my best. I would like to thank the Noble Lord best for his amendment which would best for his amendment which would allow for the Tenant Fees Act 2019 to be included in the primary authority scheme. This will provide state agency and businesses the right to have assured device when complying.

The scheme allows a local complying. The scheme allows a local authority nominated as a primary authority to provide assured advice to businesses that operate across multiple local authority areas and multiple local authority areas and this helps the businesses comply with regulations. The scheme has the potential to streamline interpretation of regulation for the business. It can also be a more efficient approach to regulation for local Government. I welcome business numbers of how sharing their views numbers of how sharing their views on this matter and we will undertake to consider this amendment further and for now, though, for those reasons, I would ask Lord Best to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 182, Baroness Coffey, and Amendment 182, Baroness Coffey, and not move. 183, Baroness Taylor moved not move. 183, Baroness Taylor moved formally. The question is this amendment be agreed to, as many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary, "Not content", the of the contrary, "Not content", the contents have it. The question now is that scheduled to as amended be the second schedule to 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. We now come to clause 32, amendment now come to clause 32, amendment 184, moved formally. The question is that this amendment be agreed to, as that this amendment be agreed to, as many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The question now is that clause 32 as amended stand part of the bill, as amended stand part of the bill, as many as are of that opinion, say, "Content".

Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. After clause 32 amendment 185, Lord Best.
22:47
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
I apologise for having to win a road. Amendment 185 in my name and the names of the noble Lord Truscott and Lord Young and Lady Barran as Thornhill -- Baroness Thornhill, would require planning consent before assured or short hold tenancy's can be converted into short-term lettings. The definition of short-term letting is defined in the levelling-up and regeneration act 2023, these lettings are often referred to as Airbnb lets. Although several companies handle them.

I should begin by noting the amendment does not affect the letting of spare rooms to supplement family income, or temporary use of an owner occupier's home for example when they are away on holiday. Instead, the amendment covers the switching of privately rented properties from ordinary longer term ratings for those living and working locally to short-term lets for visitors. This phenomenon is having a serious impact on housing shortages in a number of tourist hotspots. In some places the loss of PRS lettings has reached critical proportions, from seaside towns to national parks to historic cities.

Appallingly there are many examples of landlords serving notices to quit evicting tenants so that long established renters can be replaced by higher paying lettings to tourists. According to air DNA for example, which tracks the lettings by Airbnb and similar companies, York saw a increase of 30% in short-term lets in the city between August 2021 and 2023. York has now more than 2,000 such lets. In Coniston in the Lake District, 50% of homes are not lived in full-time. In the picturesque town of Salcombe in Devon it's understood around 40% of the accommodation now comprises second homes or short-term lettings.

I commend the relevant section from the Devon housing report on this. The switching phenomenon also has particular relevance in London. The survey by the property consultant saddles around 117,000 homes listed for short-term lettings on the Airbnb and another website in last year in just 12 London boroughs. The survey found more than half were let for the permitted days in London, and in the central London boroughs 40% of the private rental sector was let on a short-term basis. In many other European and American cities action is being taken to address this problem, indeed Wales and Scotland have legislated to reduce the impact of losing homes for locals to rent.

In England the levelling-up and regeneration act 2023 has provided the basis for a start to be made. The act requires the Secretary of State to introduce mandatory registration for short- term lets. This measure would provide local authorities with an evidence-based on which to decide whether the level of short-term lettings in their area should be restricted. Regulations under the levelling-up and regeneration act would prohibit the use of short-term lets of nonregistered properties. Introducing registration would be a good starting point, but so far no action has been taken.

In February 2024, Michael Gove, then Secretary of State, announced government would be taking this issue to the next stage using the planning system to control switch overs to short-term lets where the local planning authority deemed this necessary. To inform the details of this new regime a government consultation considered the introduction of a new use class for planning purposes, this would enable local authorities to refuse a change of use for long- term to a short-term letting. This produced nearly unanimous agreement, such action would be a valuable mechanism to discourage further expansion of the so-called Airbnb sector in specific places.

The government of the day pledged to take this forward at pace. Sadly, no action followed. The previous government did reform the tax regime for furnished holiday lets, this has now come into force. The change removes a strong incentive for flipping properties from long to short-term letting, but more landlords may be tempted to flip their properties introducing -- making the introduction of a new use class all the more urgent. This amendment 185 is intended to provide the opportunity for government to progress the action needed to amend planning law by creating a new use class for short-term lettings, empowering each local authority to decide whether it's in the interests of their community to permit changes of use from long to short-term lets.

The Minister for Housing and Planning Act place, Matthew Pennycook, has demonstrated an appreciation of this issue and has promised to take further action. But when? If the noble Baroness the Minister is not able to accept this amendment it would be helpful if she could update the committee on the timetable for introducing first the long-term lettings registration scheme, and second the legislation to create a new use class for short-term lets. Action now is overdue. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

After clause 30 to insert the new
22:53
Lord Truscott Portrait Lord Truscott (Non-affiliated)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

After clause 30 to insert the new clause as printed on the marshalled list. As mentioned previously in committee I declare my interest as a landlord and a former tenant in the long-term lets sector. The noble Lord best has made the case convincingly. As much as the government should include this amendment in the current bill because there is -- and the exponential rise in Airbnb and other short let platforms, a register while welcome would chart the expansion in this area which is already having such a deleterious effect on long-term accommodation for locals in their communities.

The noble Lady the Minister may say this is not a matter for this bill, but it is. The bill before your Lordship's House would accelerate the trend of short-term lets unless amended. It would simply introduce another class of short-term lets protected by law. The PRS has not grown in the last nine years, as I mentioned previously in committee. The current bill, by prohibiting upfront rental payments and fixed term tenancies, will mean more landlords moving to short lets. This trend is ignored by the bill but will follow as surely as night follows day.

Tenants will be able to give two months notice under proposed legislation. Why should they do that? Once tenants move in the length of their tenancy will be impossible to police. If tenants move out only after a month rather than the minimum two, how will that be monitored and by whom? It will result in widespread short lets by result in widespread short lets by the back door. The tourists can simply move into what was previously a long let, give two months notice and save thousands of pounds.

It would just take a little fib on the part of the tenant. A landlord would have no way of knowing the landlords -- the tenants real intentions so will put up the rent, assuming all long lets can become short lets. The distinction between the short and long-term lets will disappear. Neither the prohibition of fixed term tenancies nor advanced rental payments were in Labour's manifesto, I'm at a loss as to why these two measures that provide stability and certainty to the market have become nonnegotiable.

The majority of tenants actually want fixed terms, so I fail to see why HMG think they know better than tenants themselves. Ever more landlords gravitate towards more profitable short term lets, 10 rents go up -- rents go up. The noble Lord best mentioned London and Devon, I have quoted before how some London housing plots have become over 90% Airbnb or similar short lets. Local residents be done. I know Devon well, Lord Best mentioned sulk. Similar cases can be found in Wales.

It's not just coastal resorts and historic cities like Bath, which I also know well, and York which are affected. Areas around Birmingham have also become short let hotspots. Of course, it's not only the UK. Airbnb and the like has reached saturation point in Spain. Both in cities like Barcelona and on Tenerife. It has become so bad with locals priced out of accommodation that tourists have been assaulted in restaurants and on beaches. The fact is short lets are far more profitable for landlords than long lets.

Airbnb and other short let platforms are becoming increasingly dominated by professional landlords, as regulation is either non-existent or a very light touch. By way of comparison, long let residential properties already governed by 170 laws and regulations. The attractions for landlords moving to short lets is obvious and will be enabled by this bill. Apart from the further regulatory and legal provisions in the bill, long let landlords will be asked by HMRC to make quarterly tax returns by April 2026. And new regulations code cost 2026.

And new regulations code cost anywhere from £15,000 per property. Airbnb I suspect tax evasion is rampant. Renting out flats or rooms on Airbnb or other short let platforms undermines long-term rentals, legitimate B&Bs and smaller hotels all of whom must pay taxes, abide by a host of regulations, employ local people and support local economies. With more and more remote professional landlords, Airbnb does none of that. The idea that Airbnb and other similar platforms allows a few grannies to innocently rent out spare rooms is far from the true picture.

The impact of short lets is also pernicious, undermining the sense of community and can be a security risk to blocks of flats. With Airbnb tenants having parties and coming at all hours of the day and night. Researchers found half of London's 117,000 short let holiday lets are being rented out. Councillor Adam Haag, where over 50% of residents living short-term property, said short lets hollow out the area, giving significant noise disruption. In 2015 there were fewer than 30,000 short lets in London, which more than doubled throughout 2016, peaking at over 100,000 in 2019.

As The London Mayor deputy said we need to bring these back into long-term properties or properties for people to buy or live in and occupy. This bill as drafted will legalise ever more short lets as tenants will be able to legally move out of the property after just two months. I had experience of an Airbnb rented flat in a block where short lets were banned under the lease. The owner was fully aware of the fact and kept denying the property was rented out on Airbnb.

Despite the property being advertised openly on the website. Airbnb takes no action in these situations. In our case it took over two years for the owner to be forced to abandon Airbnb, despite his flat being the only short let in the block. People were coming and going every few days, concerns for security were considerable. The only action which reigned in the current lease holder was a threat by the excellent managing agent to forfeit the lease. They previously said this option will be banned, so I wonder how such situations will be resolved in future.

I retained the nuclear option of forfeiture for relatively minor transgressions. It's interesting to see how other countries are dealing with the likes countries are dealing with the likes In Barcelona, the city has bank short-term rental since 2021. Majorca band MP and be rentals with certain conditions. A ban on air beyond be style accommodations and beyond be style accommodations and the info/ regulations, including property rentals and empowers one of the largest markets in the world for air.

And be, in 2015 the Government crackdown on these apartments at up specifically for short-term rentals. Earlier the ban on air. Be unsure to rentals in 2015 being on the back of that restriction in 2018 and in California and many of its coastal cities including Santa Monica short-term rentals are either banned or tightly controlled. So, the UK is well behind the international curve on regulating and banning short term rent. In conclusion, I support Lord Best's amendment and furthermore urge his majesties Government to think about the dire consequences of stimulated the shift to evermore shorter let properties at the expense of the availability of long

**** Possible New Speaker ****

lights, local residents, and communities. I too have added my name to Lord Best amendment and want to add a Best amendment and want to add a very brief amendment to the two speeches that have been made. It is
23:02
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
speeches that have been made. It is at times like this that we risk the contribution of the Noble Lady baroness of Parks who we will Forcefully when they were mentioned, reminding us of the erosion of rented property in London. Also as Lord Truscott has mentioned some problems in large blocks of flats with short term tenants not conforming to the normal rules. What we need here is a balance. There is a role for short-term lettings to play as part of a portfolio of opportunities in a coastal resort or indeed a capital city, but what we have at the moment is a one-way street of the erosion of long-term property for rent to a short-term letting, and if we are to have a balance and get the balance right it should be the local authority who should be in a position to strike that balance, and the distinguished leader of the local authority the Minister as I sure they would agree that local authorities are best placed to do this, I think I am right in saying that until fairly recently we did actually need planning permission to move from long-term letting to short-term letting.

But in a move to deregulate and make it easier to move from one class to another, in the 2010 or 2015 that requirement to get that planning consent from one to another was waived. Apart from London and it was retained in London and only in London where if you want to short- term rent property you can only do so for 90 days. And this is effective unless it is enforced and local authorities find it difficult to enforce it.

And what this amendment is seeking to establish is whether the Government are minded to extend from London to other parts of the country. That type of restriction. Two, as I said, stop what is, at the moment, a one-way street. Just a reminder to what Lord Best has suggested, planning to go from long-term to short-term, do think you need to have planning consent to go the other way. In other words, it should be a hurdle to get over, but if you want to evict a long-term continue should not have to go through the process again.

But if one looks at various parts of the country, in some coastal areas shop term homes one in 10 are now that or roughly 24 homes a day are being lost through this process. So, I hope the Minister will be able to respond sympathetically to the thrust of this bill. And said that while plans to give local authorities the powers which I think they need to get the right balance in the tenure in their area.
23:06
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
I live not far from Aldeburgh, not too far and I are very conscious of the issues that have arisen from people acquiring homes and then turning them into short-term rentals. It is a really important part of the coastal economy, but I would suggest in a different way that I am sure the changes made to the tax situation where it is possible to offset mortgage and all sorts of expenses led to a significant increase in the price that people were prepared to pay for houses.

And as all this in Southwold when I got a lot of angry letters, admittedly, from people that had done such a thing. But what happened is that a neighbouring house that had been priced only if you years earlier for something like three or £4000 they were now selling for over £1 million. And this was done on the basis of the short-term property and rental that was possible. However, what concerns me about this is it does not account for those people that are moving in place to make it a permanent home and this is suggesting in this amendment that if it is being used at all for long- term tenancy then it is to be excluded or need further planning permission.

And what I would suggest is there are plenty of people that are trying to make whether it is in the rural or coastal areas a long- term home. But I do want to take advantage of the times when the Jews themselves to go on holiday in order to get some rental income. It is a perfectly sensible way for people to move away in potentially the higher season to get that extra income, so while I am sensitive to the issues raised by the Noble Lord best and my honourable friend the Noble Lord of Cookham, I do think we need to explore what happens when the property transitions from one owner to another so that they can use their new family home in the best way possible.

Not only to enjoy that home, but to make sure it gets used all year round.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support amendment 185

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support amendment 185 in the name of Lord Best and signed
23:08
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
in the name of Lord Best and signed by the Noble Lord young, Truscott, and by myself. And explained very much full and in detail, so needs no further references or expansion from me. Indeed, from our many and various discussions, Oral Questions during house business, we are only too aware of the problem, both here and abroad. The loss of properties from the long-term private renting sector into the much more lucrative and less regulated short-term lettings is causing considerable problems in some parts of the country, as outlined in detail by Lord Best.

It is a fact that some communities, I am sorry to keep stressing that, but I feel it is important to keep us at sea balanced perspective on this, that some communities are being hollowed out as locals cannot find somewhere to rent for the longer-term and nor can they find somewhere that they can actually afford to buy, so therefore landlords from reflecting as outlined by Lord Young would also be supported by us. We do recognise that willingness and the difficulties of both the previous and this government's efforts to balance the needs of tourists, homeowners, and local residents.

And it is a tricky one because balance it is a tricky one because balance is the key and individual local plans should be able to reflect each local authorities own needs and circumstances. Now, to help local authorities, as we have already heard, was the proposed mandatory registration scheme proposed by the last Government and that was a very positive thing as it would improve transparency and ensure compliance with local regulations, but I note that in parliamentary debate relating to this bill, the housing minister stated that the previous administration's proposals to clampdown on holiday lets did not go far enough.

And that his Government is considering what additional weight to give local authorities unable them to better respond to the pressures they face as a result of what is being called excessive concentrations of short-term lets and holiday homes in some parts of the country. Therefore, to keep brief and to some up, I think what would be very welcome before report stage is an update on the mandatory registration scheme, and any other powers that are being taken forward, whether in this bill or in other legislation, including actions on companies who take no action, as was very well outlined by the Noble Lord Truscott.

So that we can judge whether this amendment is a helpful addition to take forward at report, or completely unnecessary. I look forward to the noble Ladies response. response.
23:12
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I think the Noble Lord best for proposing this amendment. It does raise suspicion to one of the acute processes following this sector, the supply of housing. Can I also think the Noble Lord Truscott, the Noble Lord young, and the Baroness Coffey and Thornhill for their comments. It does seem that this House has a fair degree of support for this from all sides. But noble Lords will remember that this is one of the themes that we on these benches have been most concerned about.

I Noble Friend Baroness Scott highlighted the production and housing supply on the first day of committee. They have reported that they have seen a 42% reduction in the number of rental properties on their books in the first quarter this year. Data involved for the national residential landlords Association and at 41% of landlords say they plan to cut the number of properties they plan to rent out in the next 12 months. This is highly concerning, given that the supply of available rental properties is already falling.

20 has found that the supply of properties has dropped by 1% compared to 2024 and plummeted 22% below 2019 pre-pandemic levels. Currently, only 284,000 rental homes are available nationwide, a decline of 18% from last year and 23% in 2019. The first quarter of 2025, 15.6% of new property listings for sale were previously rental homes. This is a sharp increase from 9.8% in the same period in 2024. And renting is no longer simply a transitional phase or fallback option for many people, it is a deliberate and legitimate long-time long-term housing choice, renting office flexibility, freedom from the financial practical burdens of homeownership.

But tenants cannot benefit if there is simply not enough supply. The Noble Lord Truscott raised, as did many others, the risks associated with this current bill of actually accelerating this trend in short- term debts of the air B&B and other types. That is why this amendment from the Noble Lord best would contribute to the solution where there is not enough supply of available rent accommodation and many landlords are planning on working to reduce the amount of short-term lettings to protect currently available supply and, hopefully, prevent further reductions.

Planning consent helps local authorities manage the shift and safeguard the rental supply, especially in high demand areas. This is especially true given the highly regionalised disparities in supply, deficits, of private rental housing. I would add that as the bill goes forward we do need to ensure that local authorities have submission capacity in their planning teams and, in this context, whether it might also be better to consider whether licensing may also be an effective tool in this area.
23:15
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I would like to thank the Noble Lord best for his amendment which would seek to restrict the conversion of a shared rental properties into short-term until the Noble Lord trusted and Lord Young, the noble Baroness coffee and the noble Baroness Thornhill and the noble Jamieson for taking part in this debate. The Government recognises that while short-term can benefit the tourist economy, they can also impact on the availability and affordability of housing, including the private rented sector sector.

And I understand noble Lords frustration that little had been done to assess the impact of this and its development, as its development has accelerated over As we discussed at earlier stages landlords may be leaving the long- term rental sector to give short- term lets. Some figures were given about reductions in the rental market, but I would say statistics released on 28 April from right moves rental tracker told a different story. They found the number of new properties coming to the market in March was 11% ahead of the same period last year, while the overall number of rental properties is 18% up on 2024.

Just months before the legislation is set to come into force this summer. So there are differing opinions about the impact. But in order to address the issues noble Lords have raised, the bill includes provision to ensure landlords will not be able to evict tenants simply to return the property into a holiday let. As many noble Lords will be aware, we also abolished the furnished holiday lets tax regime, as a result of this measure landlords will no longer be incentivised by the tax system to make properties available as short- term holiday lets rather than longer term homes, for people who want to live and work in the area.

The government will also introduce a short-term lets registration scheme, as legislated for in the levelling- up and regeneration act 2023. The scheme will collect crucial data on the sector to ensure all providers of short-term lets are aware of their legal responsibilities to ensure health and safety standards are met in their property. And in respect of the comments made by Lord Best and Lord Truscott and Lord Young, and Lord Jamieson, I would add we are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the reform program, and we have set out how we are developing our approach for the bill.

It builds on the Department's long-term housing sector monitoring work, and we will conduct our process impact and value for money evaluation in line with the departments published evaluation strategy. We won't just drop the bill and leave it, we will continue to monitor the situation. Lord Best and Baroness Thornhill asked about when the register will be operational. The government is keen to introduce the registration scheme full short-term lets in England as soon as possible. With the initial phase of development complete, public testing is planned to start in the next 12 months.

During this next phase of work we will test a working interface with a small number of users to make sure the systems and processes are robust and effective before publicly launching a first version of the service. So it's on its way, we have started working on it and will bring it forward as quickly as we can. Lord Truscott asked a question about energy performance standards for PR (BLEEP) and short-term lets. On 7 February this year day Naz Mike DESNZ introduced standards in the private rented sector, the private rented sector, the consultation includes an EPC or equivalent by 2030.

DESNZ are also seeking views on whether short-term lets should be included in the scope of these changes to help ensure a common standard across all private rentals properties. The proposed amendment to this bill seeks only to allow councils to place restrictions on the change of use from a private rental property to a short-term rental property, and would not affect the change of user. The amendment will not have the intended effect, as the use classes order does not permit the change of use in the way proposed.

I want to assure you all we are carefully considering what additional powers we might give to local authorities to enable them to respond to the pressures created by short-term lets. However I also recognise the complexities of introducing these types of restrictions, therefore I believe we need to explore the various potential levers that could help achieve that better balance we all want to see between housing and tourism economy before moving forwards. So I would therefore ask Lord Best for now to withdraw his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. To seek a point of clarification from the noble Baroness the
23:21
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
from the noble Baroness the Minister, you just made a comment that this legislation will take force this summer. I just want to clarify, does that mean everything will be in place including things like the database and ensuring there is capacity and so forth.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The comment was related to the finishing of the bill, there may be finishing of the bill, there may be subsequent work to be done on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bail after that. -- The bill. I'm grateful to noble Lords for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to noble Lords for their support all round the house for this amendment. My thanks to for this amendment. My thanks to Lord Truscott, he emphasises the Lord Truscott, he emphasises the urgency of the situation of the position in so many other major cities, Paris, Barcelona, Menorca, Santa Monica, other countries are getting ahead of us in taking action getting ahead of us in taking action that we should probably be learning that we should probably be learning from.

He mentioned and Lord Young mentioned the disruption to other mentioned the disruption to other residents, which comes from short- term lettings. The nuisance of parties, fly tipping, security parties, fly tipping, security problems, that is not the main reason for the proposed amendment. But it is an important additional factor that gives emphasis to its importance. The noble Lord Young said we must strike a balance, and the local authorities best place to do that. Between the interests of the tourist industry and the interests of those who are looking for somewhere to live.

Baroness Coffey was a bit worried about owner occupiers being badly affected, not being able to let out their properties for example when they are on holiday. I think the amendment takes care of that, but it certainly should. It is not the individual owner that lets a spare room or even the whole house for a week or two that we are talking about here. It's the businesses that operate at some scale. I'm grateful to the CPRE, The Countryside Charity for helping formulate this amendment.

And with many thanks to the noble Lord Jamieson, who made important points, we must protect the current supply of accommodation at a time when we are worried about the loss of any homes that are badly needed. I will withdraw the amendment. But just to say, thank you to the Minister for telling us about registration. I think the time scheme you for the -- think the time scheme you for the -- timescale for the registration is over the next 12 months, with a first version then being tried.

All good stuff, but it sounds slightly slow. The as soon as possible bit was the best bit. The noble Baroness the Minister also said other solutions alongside the possibility of introducing a use class in a way that works as part of it are being considered. And pulling the right levers is obviously going to be important, but I think if government takes away the message that, yes, they are prepared to do something but the speed at which it is done is going to be important as well.

We can't let this fester much longer. With those comments I do badly to withdraw the amendment. -- Begley to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was reading his amendment where it says where a property is being let subject to an assured tenancy or let subject to an assured tenancy or short hold tenancy any time in the preceding three years it must not be preceding three years it must not be let as a short-term rental property until a change of use is being permitted. What I was trying to understand from his amendment was understand from his amendment was when there is a change of ownership, not just any old renting out if someone goes away, at the moment someone goes away, at the moment that would prevent a new owner that would prevent a new owner occupier from being able to do what is suggested without planning permission.

I'm trying to understand

**** Possible New Speaker ****

his own amendment. Thank you for that point, which sounds entirely valid. And may need sounds entirely valid. And may need us to refine still further the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment we are working on. Is a your Lordships pleasure the amendment be withdrawn? Amendment by amendment be withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 186, leave withdrawn. Amendment 186, debated, moved formally. The question is that amendment 106 be agreed, as many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary, "Not content". They contents have it. Amendment 187, already debated, moved formally. The question is that amendment 187B made, as many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary, "Not content".

The contents have it. The question is that clause 33 as amended sang part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary, "Not content". Contents have it. The question is that clause 100 -- amendment 188 be made, as many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The question is that clause 34 as amended stand part of the bill, as many as are of that opinion, say, "Content".

Of the contrary, "Not content". They contents have it. Amendment 189, Lord Young of Cookham. Already debated. Not moved. The question is that clauses 35 and 36 en bloc stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 190, Lord Black of Brentwood.
23:27
Lord Black of Brentwood Portrait Lord Black of Brentwood (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to speak to amendments 190, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96 and 98 in my name, which are also signed by Lord Lexden. And with the exception of amendments 193 and 198 by Baroness Coffey. I am grateful to them. Given the hour and as we are discussing animals, I think it right to acknowledge there are clearly night towels. The purpose of the amendments is to insert new clause 36 to extend pre-tenancy discrimination protections to pet owners.

In an earlier debate on this bill in committee I set out why this legislation is so important, and why pet owners need certainty and clarity about its application. This set of amendment yields on that debate on a further very specific issue. Whilst the current version of the bill provides protections after tenancy begins for pet owners, requiring landlords to consider pet requests reasonably, I am concerned these are rendered ineffective if pet owners are excluded before tenancies are offered. As I made clear before, I'm delighted this bill rightly seeks to prevent pre- tenancy discrimination against tenants with children and benefit claimants.

It should also be extended to tenants who own pets and are seeking a new place to rent, currently the are in protected. Without such a measure there's a real risk landlords will automatically disadvantage or reject applicants simply based on the issue of pet ownership. The truth is that pet ownership is regrettably already currently treated as a de facto disqualify by many landlords. Applicants can be dismissed outright on the sole basis of owning a pet with no requirement to rectify the decision.

This renders any post tenancy pet rights in the bill practically inaccessible for existing pet owners who are moving home, who are barred from progressing past the application stage in the first place. As the noble Lady the Minister rightly highlighted in the debate last week, the pet provisions in the bill are fundamentally based upon the principle of reasonableness. And that's absolutely right. However, as it stands landlords are not technically required to consider any form of a pet owner at occupant and can reject them outright without any safeguards in place.

This creates a gap, while existing tenants may have protection prospective tenants looking to move may not have legal support to make a reasonable request to keep a pet at the point of applying for a tenancy. I fear this will continue to result in pet owners facing that heartbreaking decision of having to choose between a home and their pet. As many thousands of homes will remain closed off to them. The proposed clause and consequential amendments of a balanced solution.

It does not require landlords to accept pets unconditionally, instead it prevents landlords from automatically rejecting applications on the grounds of pet ownership. While retaining their ability to refuse consent on reasonable grounds after an application has been successful. That seems to me the right way to deal with this matter. Government statistics indicate tenants with dependent children represent less than 19% of the private rental sector, and those receiving housing support approximately 25%. Yet both groups are rightly recognised in the bill as warranting protection, due to their increased vulnerability in the housing market.

In contrast, pet owners or those aspiring to own a pet make out a significantly larger Only 8% while 676% of tenants who wish to do so. The disparity between the availability is striking and lack of legislative protection arising from this bill exacerbates this mismatch. Furthermore, as I noted before in committee, figures from Battersea dogs and Cats Home show that 39% of homes come from renters, underscoring the direct impact that a lack of housing has on pet ownership.

This demonstrates the risk of pet owning tenants facing in the sector where a tenant can easily reject applications without explanation, often forcing tenants to give their pets to access housing. Indeed, this is the second most common reason animals are sadly surrender to Battersea dogs and Cats home. This clause is essential to tackling the first barrier tenants face when they are entering the private rental market. Being excluded before even securing a excluded before even securing a tenancy. Without such a small and tenancy.

Without such a small and proportionate practical change, this bill sadly risks following a little short of its goal of ending the blanket ban on pet in privately rented homes and broadly creating a rented homes and broadly creating a fairer and more inclusive rental fairer and more inclusive rental system for all. I beg to move.
23:32
Lord Lexden Portrait Lord Lexden (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed after clause 36, insert the following new clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as printed on the Marshall list. I am God, as always, to support my Noble Friend Lord Black, whose commitment to animal is well-known. commitment to animal is well-known. His proposed new clause and his amendments in this group represent a further stage of his determined further stage of his determined efforts on behalf of beloved pets efforts on behalf of beloved pets and their owners. The principal underlying these proposed changes is simple. Fairness in the rental market must apply at the very first stage of the process which is where stage of the process which is where an application was made for tenants.

My Noble Friend has pointed out the My Noble Friend has pointed out the bill rightly prohibits pre-tendency bill rightly prohibits pre-tendency discrimination against those with children or in receipt of benefits. Similar protection should be Similar protection should be extended to those with pets, who at the moment face rejection for an application for tenancy on that one ground alone. The new clause does not compel noble Lords to accept pets unconditionally, it simply introduces fairness by ensuring that applications cannot be dismissed out of hand just because a pet is involved.

As my Noble Friend has made clear, we need to therein mind the terrible position in which the absence of fairness places pet owners at the moment, the heartbreak that infers to choose between a home and a companion animal is one no tenant should have to make. I hope the Government will give very careful consideration to my noble
23:34
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
Put my name to these amendments. I must confess I did not quite understand amendment 193 and 198, so understand amendment 193 and 198, so I did not put my name to it but I'm grateful to the explanation that my Noble Friend has given. There is no doubt that the availability of doubt that the availability of private rental in having pets is considerably smaller. I am conscious considerably smaller. I am conscious that when I moved to Suffolk I think it was back in March 2010 when I was looking for places to rent, not holiday rent, to rent properly as a holiday rent, to rent properly as a home, my recollection is that my availability if I did not have this at the time was over 200 properties.

When it came to actually landlords that would even encounter having a that would even encounter having a dog it was reduced to four. And this dog it was reduced to four. And this is an area of 300 mi. It gave me a very clear insight into how people very clear insight into how people who want to move with their family and pets are often considered part of that family, what restrictions are put in there. And, of course, as has been mentioned elsewhere, certainly a premium to pay as a consequence of what property was available in my opportunity to be able to have Brazil come and visit on a regular basis.

I think one in particular that we have tabled with particular that we have tabled with the preferences. I think I was pretty horrified to learn that in the majority of caseworkers over the years about these artificial restrictions and people had taken up that simply said I am not allowed to do so. And that is why we send my Noble Friend amendment, as my Noble Friend has said this is just plain discrimination they had not been able to secure a home in a particular area and I believe these are for the bill to welcome the opportunity to try to move these exclusions on pets into homes where people are renting, and that is why I hope that we can still look kindly on these particular amendments to make sure that this part of the potential loophole right now is addressed.

addressed.
23:37
23:38
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, could I thank my Noble Friend Lord Black Brentwood for his amendments and also the contributions from my Noble Friends Lord Lexden and Baroness Coffey and Baroness Hayter who made it very clear that we have to have a balance. And, my Lords, this group seeks to address the growing concern among renters but we also must consider the values and practical concerns of landlords. While these proposals aim to prevent blanket bans on the properties it is essential to recognise that there must be a legitimate reason for any restrictions.

Many tenants may view their pets as family members, as we have heard, but we also must acknowledge the potential challenges and consequences of allowing pets in rental properties challenges that can affect property maintenance, insurance costs, and, also, the well-being, as we have heard from other tenants. A balanced approaches needed. On that considers both the rights of tenants and the legitimate concerns of landlords and property owners. Landlords are often responsible for the upkeep of the property and ensuring the safety and comfort of all tenants, allowing pets may also complicate insurance policies needed to hire premiums, or even exclusions in certain cases.

These concerns are not trivial, and These concerns are not trivial, and must not be dismissed likely, but treated in a way that is both fair and proportionate and the amendment recognises the need for a balanced approach that takes into account both the rights of those tenants and the legitimate interests of landlords. We on the benches have made our position clear on previous days of the committee and we continue to offer a balanced solution that respects both the needs, as I have said, of the tenants and of property owners.

Ultimately, these amendments contribute to a more equitable housing market, were tenants and pets are not excluded from their right in the home that suits their needs. They also ensure that the landlord can continue to manage landlord can continue to manage their properties responsibly with the appropriate protections in the appropriate protections in
23:40
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I would like to thank the Noble Lord block of Brentwood for his amendments relating to pets in rental discrimination, and the Noble Lord Luxton and Baroness Coffey, my Noble Friend Baroness Hayter and the Baroness Scott for their comments on this group of amendments. Amendment 190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 and 198 would extend the core rental discrimination provisions of Chapter three to prospective renters with pets, protecting them from any unfavourable treatment in the letting process.

We know that pets bring a huge amount of joy to their owners, even the snake that we heard about the other day. We are committed to supporting pet ownership in the private rented sector, however it is our view that extending our rental provisions in this manner would be proportionate and no is it necessary. The bill already contains measures to ensure that landlords cannot unreasonably withhold consent when a tenant requests to have a pet in their home and they must consider the request and provide valid justification is consent is refused.

This ensures that tenants are not unfairly treated from keeping pets while still allowing landlords to consider legitimate concerns such as property, suitability, restrictions, for example. We discussed the other day around the leases and clauses around pets or potential issues with other residents as the Baroness Hayter mentioned. Tenants will be able to escalate unfair decisions and they will have strong powers to put things right, such as compelling put things right, such as compelling a landlord to take a specific action, issue an apology underwater financial compensation.

As such, I would kindly ask that the Noble Lord would kindly ask that the Noble Lord consider withdrawing his amendments.
23:42
Lord Black of Brentwood Portrait Lord Black of Brentwood (Conservative)
-
-
I am very grateful to all of those that have taken part in this short debate. My Noble Friend in particular who pulled us quite rightly about the heartbreak that followed when tenants have to choose between home and a pet, something between home and a pet, something that happens far too much which this bill is determined to diminish. Also, I very grateful to my Noble Friend Lady Coffey who brought to my her considerable experience and expertise in this area.

And takes it very seriously. I say to the Noble Lady Hayter of course I understand the issue that arises and I am unfortunately allergic to pollen and there is little that I can do to avoid that, but you are absolutely right, that is why we had to strike a balance, as my Noble Friend Lady Scott said, this is all about balance between the rights of tenants and landlords. I believe these amendments strike that balance, which is why I have brought them and am grateful to the Noble Lady the Minister for her comments and understanding.

She has been very constructive in all the discussions we have had on the pets in the committee and I thank her for that. When we discussed matters in committee, I think it was last week, she was talking about some of her guidelines being drawn up alongside this legislation when it comes into force and it just occurs to me that this might be one of those areas where there occurred be some form of guidance that would help to ameliorate some of the problems and perhaps you would be happy to do so and talk to the various animal charities concerned I think they would be happy to help.

But, in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendments. The question is that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment 191, already debated, not Amendment 191, already debated, not moved. Amendment 192, already debated, not moved. The question is debated, not moved. The question is that clause 37 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment 193, already debated, not moved. The question is that clause 38 stand part of the bill.

As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment 194, already debated, not moved. The question is that clause 39 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment 195, already debated, not moved. The question is that clause 40 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it.

Amendment 196 are not moved. The question is that clause 41 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment 197 already debated, not moved. Amendment 198, already debated, not moved. The question is that clause 42 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", The contents have it, The contents have it. Amendment 199, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, not moved. Not here. Not moved.

Be very hard to move it. Under those circumstances. The Under those circumstances. The question is that clause 43 to 57 stand part of the bill on block. As many as are of that opinion, say, many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. content", The contents have it.
23:46
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
My amendments in this group are intended to probe the government's decisions on rental bidding and to better understand the rationale behind this section of the bill. I begin by drawing your Lordships attention to amendment 199 a tabled in my name, I wish to understand why a tenant or prospective tenant offers a lower rent than the value the landlord is prevented from accepting it. If a tenant is able to secure the property at a more affordable rate, this seems a and beneficial outcome.

If the proposed letting value is set unrealistically high then allowing offers below that figure provides an important market correction, one that benefits tenants. This is particularly relevant in weaker rental markets when negotiating powers often lies proportionately with the landlords. I simply ask the noble Baroness Minister, did she consider this before putting it forward? On these benches we recognise the difficult balance the government is attempting to strike between preventing unfair and unaffordable rent increases and ensuring the proposed letting value reflects market conditions.

Market conditions of course are determined by the supply of homes, and the market rent must still incentivise landlords to stay in the sector to provide housing capacity that we urgently need. This brings me to the amendment in my name, to oppose the question that clause 58 stand part of the bill. The rent setting process must be transparent and it must be free to function. We should not pretend we can fix prices without distorting the market signals that allow for an efficient and well resourced housing market.

We must be careful not to introduce policies that mask the simple fact that we need more homes of all types. We on these benches are committed to working with the noble Baroness the Minister to that end, but I ask first of all has she considered whether these measures might actually obscure the true demand in the rental sector. Understanding that demand is key to finding the right supply, the right homes built in the right places. As the Minister considered the impact on labour mobility? Tenants in rent controlled units may be discouraged from relocating for jobs or education.

Thus reducing workforce mobility. With over 800,000 vacancies we should not be inadvertently curtailing the movement of our workers. Finally I wish to probe whether the government has fully considered the potential impact on new renters compared to existing tenants. No one on these benches doubts the Minister's intention, we simply fear the Department has not given pause to fully reflect on these key issues. Now turning to amendment 199B, tabled in my name. I will cheekily anticipate the Minister may say in response to this probing question, yes.

The bill attempts to define the term relevant person, in subsection 6. But before the Minister reaches that definition I wish to question its adequacy. And its clarity. Is there any formal process to designate someone as a relevant person? Or is this determined on a case-by-case basis? Furthermore, how is the term "Acting indirectly" to be interpreted? Does this involve other parties? Crucially, what is meant by reporting to act? -- Purporting to act? I'm sure some in this house will argue this is a loaded term which depends heavily on loaded term which depends heavily on interpretation.

I would be grateful if the Minister could offer her understanding on it, and importantly explain how consistency in interpretation will be ensured. Clause 58 represents a significant Clause 58 represents a significant shift, and with that must come clear answers. I hope the Minister will help your Lordship's House understand the government's thinking more fully today, so I beg to move. more fully today, so I beg to move.
23:51
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
I speak to these amendments, and I have two different things going on here. One is not allowing the market to work, so I'm trying to understand what the amount of evidence there is to suggest this is a real issue. I might go on a little bit of a personal story, thinking about when at University a group of us wanted to rent a house and the rules of the University whether Jew could only live a certain distance and so on. We were particularly attracted by not wanting to take on a 12 month tenancy to seek out the houses that would only require a nine month tenancy.

And actually the landlady we were involved with did this in a particular way. She used to make money, considerably more rent in the summer with tourists and short-term lets, and gave students the opportunity to not take on the liability for the year. It helped keep rents relatively low. I'm sure your Lordships can imagine such a scenario, while it may seemingly, was very important to students at that time. So was the availability of the houses in reflecting that opportunity.

I'm not going to pretend, it's nothing to be embarrassed about, in effect gazumped by being prepared to sacrifice a living room and turn it into an extra living room, and also give more rent to that particular landlady. This is one of the factors, when she had I think 46 groups that went to see this particular house and wanted to secure the tenancy in that regard. While I completely understand that we don't want to, there may be some intentions in this clause getting into ridiculous bidding wars, I am surprised that with particularly in surprised that with particularly in certain parts of the country where there is a real scarcity of private there is a real scarcity of private sector rental why we would want to unnecessarily put such handcuffs on unnecessarily put such handcuffs on the landlord, to only accept the the landlord, to only accept the rent they advertise, not being creative about the situation prospective tenants may find themselves in.
23:53
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Can I thank Lady Scott for tabling her amendments relating to rental bidding and Baroness Coffey for contributing. I will respond to the probing amendments in a moment. First I want to set out to the committee why I consider her fundamental objection to clause 58, which will end the unfair practice of renters being pitted against each other in bidding was, to be misplaced. The measures contained within clause 58 will require landlords and people acting for them, letting agents for example, to state a proposed rent in any written advertisement for the property.

Landlords will then be prohibited from asking for, encouraging or accepting bids above this price. In response to the noble Baroness Lady Scott's comments, these are not rent controls. The landlord may advertise the property at the rent they wish to achieve, what they can't do is then increased the rent as other bidders come along. Currently too many tenants suffer from a lack of transparency in the letting process. I can't imagine the heartbreak of thinking you found a property at a rent you could afford only to discover the landlord or letting agent has pushed other tenants to offer more.

Their experience wouldn't be one of a viewing but of a curbside auction. The impact on renters is clear, our measures will end it for good. This is a specific problem we are trying to target and a majority of landlords do not engage in rental bidding. But we are trying to stamp out the egregious practice of a minority of landlords who exploit the fact that particularly in hot rental markets there is a lack of supply relative to demand. Tenants can be pitted against each other in ways that ensure the rent of a tenancy escalates to a point beyond which many of them can afford, or if they can afford it puts an incredible financial strain on them.

I visited a housing site in Greenwich this week, I heard that in some parts of London a house in the private rented sector will cost 94% of the renters salary just for the rent. These measures will improve the experiences of prospective tenants across England and provide clarity to all those involved in the lettings process. Turning to amendment 1998, this would remove the prohibition on landlords inviting or encouraging a tenant to offer an amount of rent that exceeds their stated rent.

If this was taken forward landlords with only full foul of provisions if they accepted a rate above the stated rent. While I welcome the scrutiny, I am concerned this amendment would risk allowing a form of rental bidding to continue.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

While we are talking about this, does the noble Lady the Minister not think that what could happen and think that what could happen and what may happen is that the level of what may happen is that the level of rent will be above what they would normally be, because the landlord is going to try and go for the absolute going to try and go for the absolute maximum they can. Is that not a danger?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

danger? I think I answered this question under a previous group on a previous under a previous group on a previous day, this is not intended to be a rent cap, it's intended to stop the rent cap, it's intended to stop the practice of changing the rent once the rent for that property is published. It will be up to published. It will be up to landlords to advertise the property at a rent they believe they can at a rent they believe they can achieve for that property, and once they have advertised it at that price they won't be able to increase that rent when things subsequently that rent when things subsequently come along.

Under the amendment a landlord could lawfully encourage landlord could lawfully encourage bids above the stated price and use any bids used to establish that price to relist the property. I think that would have an inflationary effect on rents. I don't say this would be commonplace, but it would be lawful. If it were to occur it would be at the detriment of tenants. I consider that our belt and braces approach of prohibiting both the accepting and encouraging of bids to be the right one, I would ask the noble Lady to withdraw that amendment.

Turning finally to amendment 199B, this seeks to remove the words by any other relevant person from the definition of stated rent in clause 58 subsection 4B. The rental bidding causes prevent a landlord or someone acting for them from inviting encouraging accepting a rent higher than the stated rent, stated rent is defined as the rent originally proposed in the written advertisement either by the person now doing the inviting, encouraging or accepting of higher offers, or as the case may be any other relevant person.

A relevant person could be either the prospective landlord or a either the prospective landlord or a person acting or purporting to act on behalf of the landlord. The latter would usually be a letting agent, could also be a more informal agent, could also be a more informal relationship such a is a friend of the landlord. It's necessary to avoid a loophole whereby the avoid a loophole whereby the landlord publishes the statement then asks a friend or letting agent to carry out the auction.

The bill is drafted deliberately to ensure is drafted deliberately to ensure the prohibition applies in those circumstances, as well as the more circumstances, as well as the more straightforward scenario in which it is the landlord which publishes the advert then proceeds to carry out the rental auction. I would ask the the rental auction. I would ask the noble Lady to withdraw the amendment.
00:00
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to thank the noble Baroness the Minister for her reply, and for Baroness Coffey and her insight into this issue. On these benches we recognise the challenging balance the government is seeking to achieve detecting tenants from unfair and unaffordable rent increases, while also ensuring the proposed letting value remains aligned with the functioning market. These market conditions are shaped by the availability of housing, and any rent setting approach must still offer sufficient incentives for landlords to stay in the market and continue providing the homes our communities so urgently require.

I thank the noble Baroness the Minister for her answers, but I do urge her to truly reflect on the points we have raised, carry them back to her department alongside her, and if necessary come back with her continued engagement with the house. This group of amendments, like many others, is not overtly political. It consists of serious and practical probes into serious and practical issues. In our pursuit of stronger protections for tenants we must be careful not to deter landlords or make it unfeasible for them to continue to provide the homes our communities badly need.

These are concerns many landlords share, and we believe they must be at the forefront of the government's thinking. We do ask them to go back and reflect on what we have brought forward, and I ask the noble Baroness administered just to step back and consider any unintended consequences of this part of the legislation. Or at very least, acknowledge the genuine concerns and voices of those who do oppose this part of the bill. But saying that, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is ideologically pressure that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is ideologically pressure that the man is withdrawn? Amendment is, the man is withdrawn? Amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment 119, not moved. The question is that not moved. The question is that clause 58 stand part of the bill. Is
00:02
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
clause 58 stand part of the bill. Is that a motion that you wish to debate? The question is that clause 58 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment 200 already debated, not moved. The question is that clause 59 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment 201, already debated, not moved because of the question is that clause 60 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 that clause 61 stand part of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill. Lord Jamieson. Yes, I speak to the amendment in the name of my Noble Friend Baroness Scott which rightly brings the issue Scott which rightly brings the issue of abandonment to the attention of of abandonment to the attention of the House today. I wish to be brief but take the opportunity to pose several question so that the noble several question so that the noble Baroness the Minister can set out the government's position. The Government is correct to note in its Government is correct to note in its Explanatory Notes that part three of the planning and Housing Act 2016 the planning and Housing Act 2016 which sought to address the recovery of planning properties has never been brought into force, however, in been brought into force, however, in light of the significant changes now on these grounds ask the noble Baroness the Minister has the Government sought to revisit this? Government sought to revisit this? For the departure of section 21 and the insistence that landlords must rely on specific grounds as outlined rely on specific grounds as outlined in schedule one, what options are available to a landlord if a tenant available to a landlord if a tenant abandons their property? I welcome some clarity on several practical matters, for example is there a requirement for specific types of evidence in terms of format, scope, or detail? How many attempts must a landlord make to contact a tenant? I understand this may appear later, as the Government has refused to implement these changes gradually, they really are burning questions.

Next, with no distinct legal ground, how does the Minister propose to ensure that landlords understand how to use grounds eight, 10, or 12 which appear to be the only potential avenues in such cases. Additionally, I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what is the current average wait time for a court order in such circumstances? What if anything is being done to underdressed -- not address the underlying cause? I fully recognise underlying cause? I fully recognise this issue extends beyond housing policy, however, ensuring that tenants are able to remain in their homes and feel secure in doing so is not only beneficial to them but it is vital to the health of our wider society and economy.

In connection with this, I would also ask from a landlords perspective how is one expected to assess the risk of a tenant returning after a property is believed to have been abandoned? It appears there is currently no specific legal ground for position on the basis of abandonment and while the Minister might point out that the incidents of abandonment are low, I would argue that this is not a justification for leaving the issue underdressed. Particularly now when the framework for position is being overhauled.

And getting abandoned properties back into the rental market will actually allow others to benefit from that tenancy and also a tenant who has abundant air property not accumulating further unpaid rent. Finally, may I ask whether the Government give any consideration and in part three of the housing and planning act, especially in light of the proposed removal of assured tenancies which part three originally referenced. I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to provide clarity and, where necessary, commit to reviewing this further and I look forward to her response.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the Noble Lady the Minister stands up to respond, may I Minister stands up to respond, may I just make the point that it has gone midnight. We will start midnight. We will start consideration of committee until 8:30 this evening stop it has meant that people have gone home without that people have gone home without actually having had proper scrutiny actually having had proper scrutiny on the last few groups. The House has done amazingly well to get as far as it has, but it has now gone

**** Possible New Speaker ****

far as it has, but it has now gone midnight. I do not know what we intend to do with the House. Sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry. I will resume at the appropriate time. This is not the first time time. This is not the first time where debates have gone beyond midnight. The Great British Energy midnight. The Great British Energy report stage day one went until 1 o'clock in the morning. I do not o'clock in the morning. I do not intend to take this much further. I want to stop at amendment 206, which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

want to stop at amendment 206, which is another two groups and then that will be it, so hopefully we will be finished very shortly. Penultimate group, the reason we are in the penultimate group is because people have not actually been in the chamber to be able to move their amendments at committee, so very short debates on committee, and some very important groups in committee have just been glossed over, that is my point.
00:07
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
, we want to get to 206. There is , we want to get to 206. There is only one amendment that has not been moved, and like I have said, there have been other debates that have gone until 1 o'clock in the morning. I think if we spend less time I think if we spend less time discussing this aspect we could be discussing this aspect we could be An essential aim of the renters rights Bill is to give tenants more security in their homes.

Landlords must not be able to evict tenants must not be able to evict tenants without ground for possession, as defined in section 8 of the Housing Act, 1988, which we are expanding and refining to ensure landlords can gain possession where this is proportionate. The noble Baroness proportionate. The noble Baroness Lady Scott supported by the Noble That That they That they do That they do not That they do not support That they do not support clause That they do not support clause 61 standing part of the bill.

This clause will repeal part three of the housing planning act 2016 which, if brought into false, would have allowed landlords to take possession of the premises they believe to be abandoned without a court order. However, part three of the 2016 act was never brought into false. It also wholly pertained to a short hold tenancy. Those tenancies would cease to exist in the private rented sector after the implementation of this bill. At the repeal of part three, therefore, is necessary to maintain a coherent statute network.

As I mentioned, part three of the 2016 act would have enabled landlords to reclaim properties under a short hold tenancy that has been abandoned without a court order, providing they had issued three more notices without response, and the tenant was in rent arrears. While we acknowledge that genuine abandonment can present challenges, I think for years and years, not only for landlords but for the wider community, these provisions would not be appropriate solutions. At the time, they were criticised as a rogue landlords charter and it is appropriate that they were never implemented.

Where abandonment has occurred, landlords would need to establish ground possession. It is likely that in abandonment scenarios tenants would also be in rent arrears, making those grants for position. Landlords may also rely on breaches of tenancy agreements such as clauses prohibiting prolonged on occupancy, or on grounds related to deterioration of property. In clear-cut solutions, as situations implies renters may also apply, for example where tenants have returned the keys and the landlord has accepted them, even if no formal accepted them, even if no formal notice was given.

It is vital that tenants have access to justice when facing the loss of their home. Landlords must not be enabled to take possession without a valid ground. Clause 61 ensures the removal of these redundant provisions from the statute work and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I commend this clause to the committee. The question is that clause 61
00:10
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that clause 61 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content",.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the contrary, "Not content",. Thank you very much. I would, I will not do a full closing speech, will not do a full closing speech, but really the whole purpose of this was for the noble Baroness the Minister to give us some thought on how you might deal with abandonment rather than have to go through a lengthy court case when it is quite clear that the property has been abandoned, so I would be very grateful if the forecourt we could go to the report stage of the noble Baroness the Minister could give some thought.

I do not think any of us want abandoned properties. We do want to have them back into use and available. We do not want to have people accumulating rental deficits that have to be chased through court which is clearly a special case here that needs to be considered and I look forward to the noble Baroness the Minister coming back and giving us a thoughtful response before report stage as to how we can address the issue of abandoned properties because I do not think anyone on either side of the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would want abandoned properties. My apologies to the Noble Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My apologies to the Noble Lord. The question is now that clause 61 The question is now that clause 61 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 now is that clauses 62 and 63 stand part is that clauses 62 and 63 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contrary, "Not content", The contents have it.

Amendment 202,
00:12
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
contents have it. Amendment 202, already debated, moved formally. The question is that amendment to hundred and two be made. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment 203,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Best. Is likely longer amendment, but I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is likely longer amendment, but I will take it at a brisk pace, if I may. In mid-203 and 204, in my name, may. In mid-203 and 204, in my name, or the names of the noble Lords young of Cookham and Truscott and young of Cookham and Truscott and the noble Baronesses lady Adrian of Kentish Town and Lady Thornhill relate to the implementation of recommendations on governmental recommendations on governmental recommendation of property agents working group aimed at protecting consumers from dodgy or inept estate agents, letting agents, and managing agents.

Your Lordships have agents. Your Lordships have considered and endorsed the case for regulating property agents on a number of occasions since the report was published by the Government in 2019. Your Lordships Select 2019. Your Lordships Select Committee on the industry of regulators endorsed the recommendations only last. Indeed, recommendations only last. Indeed, to Matthew Pennycook has made clear that the Government accepts the case for regulation of the sector, so there is no need for me to rehearse the arguments again indeed the professional bodies and trade associations including the chartered surveyors and property institutes, property market, the lettings industry Council, have persistently supported the agenda.

Those who would be regulated are as keen on regulation as those consumers that would be protected. However, I fear that the housing minister feels that the new measures will have to wait until a later date. It is possible that the forthcoming leaseholder in common reform bill will include regulatory measures for the right please hold agency, part of the property agency sector where there have been many complaints of abuses and incompetence. However, that bill and incompetence. However, that bill only covers any sold property and is unlikely to incorporate lettings agents and its timetable is uncertain.

The renters rights Bill does present an important opportunity to take a first step towards creating a proper regulatory framework for the property agency sector. This bill is concerned with the deal faced by renters and letting agents involved with half the properties in the PRS, so this is a chance to raise standards in a timely way. The working group in recommending the creation of a regulator for property agents emphasised the need for proper qualifications, as well as adherence to a code of practice, at present anyone can set up a property agency business overnight with no experience in property matters.

Amendment 203 would require the relevant agents to have or be working toward mandatory qualifications. Since this bill relates only to lettings, it is a requirement for proper convocations to only affect lettings agents, and since setting up a fully fledged regulator just for letting agents could be seen as disproportionate, this amendment is strictly prohibited to the requirement for qualifications which is the most basic of a regulatory regime. However, without the establishment of a regulator, how can even this somewhat tentative step taken towards creating a more professional property management sector? How, in the absence of regulators can enforce the new regulatory requirements for qualifications set out in amendment to all three? Local authority trading standards officers could check that legal requirements are met in their area, but to protect the consumer a robust national mechanism is needed to operationalise this amendments requirements for agents to hold the necessary qualifications before acting for landlords taking responsibility for rental properties.

A solution comes in Resolving disputes between tenants and property agents and between landlords and property agents, that is the redress scheme approved by government. Currently the property ombudsman scheme and the property redress scheme, but in the future by a single ombudsman service. Since membership of the redress scheme is a legal requirement for a property. Amendment 204 would make it a condition of membership of the ombudsman scheme to comply with the new requirement for mandatory qualifications, failure to comply could lead to expulsion and an inability to carry on the property agency business.

Is this an adequate basis for enforcement of the professionalisation of letting agents? No, it's not. But it takes a first step in the right direction. The bill has presented an opportunity to up the game of the agents who look after Property Management for so much of the private sector lettings. Billions of pounds of assets and millions of lives renting households are affected by the quality of service and competence of lettings agents. And landlords also will increasingly need to use agents to ensure adherence to all statutory requirements.

These amendments indicate a direction of travel, they would demonstrate the government's willingness to finally address a serious national concern which has the strongest support from those representing landlords, agents, and move.
00:18
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment moved, after clause 63 insert the new following clauses set out in the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I follow in the slipstream of Lord Best, and I added my name to one of his amendments. I commend the one of his amendments. I commend the work he has done on this particular subject. The only point I want to subject. The only point I want to make is this, to draw attention to the growing gap between the qualifications that are needed to qualifications that are needed to manage a block in the social sector as against those needed to manage a as against those needed to manage a block in the private sector.

I take the view that whether you live in a the view that whether you live in a block managed by a social landlord or a private landlord you are entitled to the same quality of entitled to the same quality of management, the same professionalism, the same professionalism, the same competence. Two years ago we had the social housing regulation Bill. That set out requirements of qualifications for those in the registered social landlord sector. And it required some 25,000 people to go out and get qualifications.

Senior housing managers will have to have a level IV housing qualification, senior housing executives will need level V. One could make the case that requirements are even more necessary in the private sector, because the private sector does not have the overall protection that the social housing sector has, by the local authorities or registered social landlords. There is now a growing gap between the relative qualifications you need, depending on whether the block is in the public or private sector.

Although some progress has been made in driving up the standards of letting agents, there is still some way to go. So I hope the Minister will be go. So I hope the Minister will be able to express them interest in able to express them interest in these amendments, if not we will be back with the leasehold bill earlier -- later in the session.
00:20
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Portrait Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour)
-
-
I also put my name to Amendment 203, I declare a nonfinancial interest as chair of a property. Regulation of all property agents. Amendment 203 is about safety, security, good management of people's homes. I think we all agree residents deserve to be safe in their homes. But in rented accommodation it's impossible for owners to do -- for residents to do everything themselves, because the building and environment is owned and managed by the landlords. As Lord Young has intimated, in the case of social housing it took the death of someone to bring forward mandatory qualifications for those who manage social property.

But there is no equivalent for private property, where unqualified and even rogue agents take responsibility for a vital part of the buildings upkeep, its safety, its exits, its insurance and legality. Unlike other professions handling legal and financial transactions, most of whom are regulated, there are no mandatory qualifications or any minimum requirements for property agents, even when they are managing the money of sure tenancies. The absence of regulation can clearly lead to mismanagement of deposits, rents, legal non-compliance very often through ignorance not wickedness.

Managing shared buildings, particularly tall ones, is extremely complicated and demanding, and growing so. There's a lot of new energy efficiency rules, rightly. There are increasing tenant demands for involvement, quite rightly. The rising cost of insurance. There's more focus on legislation on health and safety, particularly after Grenfell. All of these are complicated issues, and need to be handled by a professional in the private rented sector. Which houses many vulnerable people. The private rental sector is often the home of people who can least afford to pay for any additional services, and if they are paying too much on rent they can't even heat the property.

That can be because of mismanagement. It should be obvious, without having to wait for a death in the private rental sector, that all managing agents looking after them should be properly competent and qualified. It is a job for professionals, not amateurs. This amendment is a way forward, and we are not talking about an expensive thing to run. It's not asking for very much. It's simply asking that those who are paid to manage rented properties know what they are doing, have the qualifications to prove it, so that landlords would only employ agents capable of managing homes legally and honestly.

So let's not wait for a tragedy, let's do it now. wait for a tragedy, let's do it now. We owe it to all residents to ensure the state requires those managing their homes to know what they are doing.
00:24
Lord Truscott Portrait Lord Truscott (Non-affiliated)
-
-
I rise to support amendments to 03 and 204, I declare my interest as a leaseholder as well as a landlord and former PRS tenant. Noble Lords supporting these amendments are already made a cast-iron case for property managing agents to require relevant training and qualifications. And that these requirements should be legally enforced. I have dealt with a number of Property Management agents, some have been excellent, others have been quite appalling. It seems extraordinary to me that property agents who may deal with millions of pounds of property and revenue are currently not required to have any professional qualifications or training whatsoever.

Some agents I've dealt with in the past have no collocations and little or no understanding of property law or lease enforcement. There is no other sector I'm aware of where individuals dealing with such large amounts of money and such valuable assets can be wholly unqualified and virtually unregulated. Anyone can set themselves up as a property agent with little or no knowledge of the sector. Many property agents are of course very professional, but rogues and amateurs to undermine the reputation of the whole sector.

This must end, and for that reason I wholeheartedly support these two amendments and urge the Minister to accept them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I stand to oppose this amendment. It's rare that I'm out of step with Lord Young of Cookham, but I am Lord Young of Cookham, but I am concerned that the overregulation on concerned that the overregulation on aspects of employment is something that is, how can I put it, a solution waiting for an extensive solution waiting for an extensive problem. One of the things these amendments go into is giving amendments go into is giving considerable powers to others to set all sorts of training expectations, all sorts of training expectations, and candidly there is simply in the private market too many sectors private market too many sectors where government and Parliament seeks to rip away control, instead of the individual having that engagement and relationship.

We already have in place the property already have in place the property redress scheme, which letting agents redress scheme, which letting agents have to be part of. Including those people who manage properties as well. Don't get me wrong, there are well. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of landlords at the moment you are not necessarily doing what they should. But there are already mechanisms to put this in place. Don't believe qualifications or training schemes are going to make that particular difference.

I'm conscious also of what happened with the social housing situation, particularly some of the significant failures we saw, sadly, in aspects of local government and housing associations in that regard. There was a feeling that something must be done. So I'm conscious that does not mean we need to treat every particular letting agent or property manager with the same brush. For me, this is overreach on behalf of Parliament. And I would like to see the evidence on why we need to go to this extent, yet another profession that has minimal regulation today now needs to be heavily regulated, and again a barrier that will put up costs in terms of agents fees.

These are the reality of having to deal with this sort of legislation. The person who pays is the renter, not the landlord, the renter. You have to bear in mind in this cost of living challenge we are facing, still the number one issue for the electorate in the country, we here tonight are considering an amendment that will continue to put on costs to people when they are trying to pay their rent. This is the sort of economic situation that we really need to consider on every regulation when we are adding extra barriers to entry in order to make sure that we keep in mind the people who want to just get on with their lives, have good relationships, and of course in good relationships, and of course in the private sector can change which is much harder for people in the social sector, even then we may have social sector, even then we may have gone slightly too far.

But we must continue to consider the economic impact on people in this country. impact on people in this country. With every regulation that we pass in this house.
00:28
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Portrait Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Labour)
-
-
I rise briefly to support the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise briefly to support the noble Lord best, and I declare an interest as chair of the property ombudsman board. Perhaps I can ombudsman board. Perhaps I can provide some of the evidence the noble Baroness Coffey wanted, noble Baroness Coffey wanted, because in 30 years of dealing with complaints about property agents property ombudsman has seen many disputes that would probably not disputes that would probably not have occurred had those agents undertaken formal training and undertaken formal training and qualifications.

In 2023 the latest qualifications. In 2023 the latest statistics we have, the ombudsman resolved 200 letting disputes, over resolved 200 letting disputes, over resolved 200 letting disputes, over half concerned the main issues of organising and communicating repair. The dissatisfaction in these disputes concerns simple and consistent communication around repairs, and in general managing repairs, and in general managing expectations. Training for agents on how to manage tenant and landlord expectations would stop many disputes arising in the first instance. In addition there were over 500 disputes which related to complaint handling, again agents currently take a consistent approach to complaint handling, which often leaves tenants and landlords frustrated.

It became clear to me in my time at the property ombudsman that you provide a professional consistent level of service to tenants and landlords many letting agents would benefit from formal training. Not only would it help agents provide a better service, it would also set consistent expectations for consumers meaning the relationships between agents, tenants and landlords would improve. In my brief intervention I wanted to reinforce Lord Best's report recommendations, and reinforced by the work Baroness Hayter did. The elements required to implement a elements required to implement a training and qualifications regime are already in place.

I hope it wouldn't be too significant a leap wouldn't be too significant a leap for the government to make training and qualifications a mandatory and qualifications a mandatory and qualifications a mandatory
00:31
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Talk about save the best till last. Penultimate, apologies. The breadth and depth and knowledge and understanding and experience of the names backing these amendments is fascinating and extraordinary, and I thank the noble peers. I am speaking also on behalf of of my Noble Friend Baroness Thornhill who also put her name to both these amendments. She signed these amendments and we backed these amendments because it is so astonishing that property agents still, today, have none of these qualifications.

That any can these qualifications. That any can be set up and become a lettings agency. It is staggering given the amount of expertise that they really need in order to advise landlords and tenants on the significant, complex legal issues. In exchange for the not insignificant amounts of money they get for doing that very job. Property market and others are pressing for this. They know that there are people out there who are not doing a good job as the Noble Lord Truscott described.

And that there letting the side down and giving good lettings agents a terrible reputation. It is in everyone's interest that this aspect of the private rented sector is regulated precisely because the UK property market is very heavily regulated already. With strict laws governing tenants rights and landlords obligations across many different acts and the training and that is absolutely critical and the qualified property agents should possess the knowledge and expertise to navigate through this minefield. The compliance and risk management is essential and the list of what they have to do already is long and complex and this bill will add to it which is why a transition timeline is essential with unclear guidance as to what is expected when and to whom.

Balance and landlords are rightly worried about this and I hope the Noble Lady the Minister can reassure the sector on this particular issue of the timeline. It is worth stressing that without these qualifications, agents risk costly legal battles, fines, and damage to their own professional reputation. We have heard that there are already qualifications out there and the sector is keen to get going and roll them out but they need that motion, that degree of compulsion. These two amendments, amendment to a three and 204 provide that.

Demonstrating that the agent is knowledgeable about market trends, property evaluations, also, really importantly, ethical practices and transparency itself. All of these things are needed. It creates a virtuous circle and boosts tenants confidence, it makes landlords more likely to trust their investments with a qualified agent who would also be able to conduct property inspections, manage maintenance and repairs financial management, surely this has got to be done with real professional skill, reducing the risk of dispute and maintaining property value.

Those agents who get ahead of the curve themselves are qualified now and will become the best. They will stand out from the crowd in a competitive marketplace. This Elizabeth raising the standard in the private rented sector, routing it out and making a once in a generation shift. This is such an important part of the equation. Government has gotten on with it Government has gotten on with it because at the end of the day it is because at the end of the day it is not just bricks and mortar.

It is people's homes and livelihoods. If not this will, where and when?
00:35
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I would like to thank the Noble Lord best for bringing a man meant to three and 204 before your Lordships house today. These amendments which proposed insertion of a new clause after clause 64 will rightly focus on training property agents and the enforcement of the qualifications. Can I also thank the qualifications. Can I also thank the Noble Lord John who raised the very important point for the parity with the social rented sector and also Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town hooray fact that actually this is very complete and people do need to understand it.

And there all frequently inadvertent mistakes or omissions made. And also Baroness Warren who made the point that those statistics which I did not draw quickly enough but I am sure I will get hold of them sooner or later is there. I also think Baroness Coffey made a really important point which I will come back to about proportionality and the risk of overregulation. Something you may have heard once or twice from this side of the chamber. Can I also thank Lord Truscott and Baroness Brenda who I will come back to.

Your Lordships house is correct to consider the value were proper training and qualifications and the benefits this knowledge can bring to the property market. I wish to focus my issue on the impact that training can have with reducing the risk of regulatory impact and the benefits to tenants. Well trained agents would not only develop a product, more cohesive understanding of the law, but their potential for breaches arising from a simple lack of understanding would also be greatly diminished. With this significant benefit would also be felt by local authorities as fewer cases of regulatory breaches would important to their attention to resolution.

This reduction in caseload is particularly important at a time when local authorities remain tasked with implementing the reorganisation plans as I outlined in the devolution white paper. As your Lordships house will be well aware local authorities are currently operating under immense pressure facing financial constraints, staff shortages, increasing responsibilities, and it is not just a case of money. I certainly know from my experience with local authorities and housing teams it is actually a lack of enough trained people, so we really do need to seek to minimise the amount of pressure we put on them.

We must explore proactive measures, such as ensuring property agents are properly trained from the outset. By doing so, we not only improve standards across the sector, but also allow local authorities to focus their limited resources on strategic priorities rather than enforcement. That said, my Lords, as my Noble Friend Baroness Coffey raised, there is an issue. We must ensure that any powers get past the Secretary of State and are proportionate and can be implemented. While that ministerial oversight is of course necessary in certain respects, we must be cautious at top-down regulation on key aspects of trading and enforcement.

If we are truly committed to getting this right, we must resist the temptation to defer action or consign the matter to deal with the later category. This argument has been and will no doubt continue to be clearly articulated across this House. Not raising provisions on the face of the bill is not only inadequate but it will also raise more questions than answers. We must understand the Minister's intentions fully before we consider renting such significant powers to the Secretary of State.

Nevertheless, my Lords, the intention behind these is well placed. Educating letting agencies vital. The offer and play a vital role in the housing market and a direct impact on whether tenants are direct impact on whether tenants are treated both fairly and lawfully. Exploring ways to enhance tenant protection without compromising protection without compromising protection without compromising housing supply should be front and centre of the government's thinking. It is vital that we establish clear, accessible means to ensure landlords understand their rights, responsibilities, and regulatory framework in which they operate.

Property agents must be at the heart of this ambition.
00:39
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I would like to thank the Noble Lord best for his amendments relating to the regulation and property agents. And also the Noble Lord young, the Baroness, the Noble Lord Truscott, the Baroness Coffey and Lord Jamieson, who have all spoken in this debate. And my Noble Friend, Lady Warwick and Lady Hayter. Starting with amendment 203, this amendment enables the Secretary of State through subsequent secondary legislation to introduce professional collocations of those who manage initial tendencies. I am very good filter the Noble Lord best for his continued engagement on such an important topic and ideal regard it as a very important topic.

He is an ardent campaigner for the driving standards across all property agents, not just letting agents but other folks in this amendment. The housing minister and I have had a number of conversations with Lord Best on how to best raise levels of professionalism. We recognise the challenges that tenants and landlords can face when using letting agents. Many agents provide good service, but some do not. The Government is committed to ensuring that landlords are those living in the rented and leasehold sectors are protected from abuse and poor service at hands of unscrupulous agents.

And on the Noble Lord young point about parity with the Social Housing Act, we do want to ensure consistency with our work to drive up management standards in the Social Housing Act sector. We are aware that in some blocks, including those managed by social landlords managing agents will be providing services for both leaseholders and Social Housing Act tenants. It is important to ensure that any measures would bring forward on managing agents and regulation take full account of the other legal requirements, including qualifications proposed from the Social Housing Act.

There all ready our protections in place to make sure that both tenants and landlords are treated fairly by letting agents and how to account. This includes the act from 2019 which brands most letting fees and Tenancy deposits paid by tenants in the private rented sector in England and the requirement for all property agents, including letting agents, to be members of the redress scheme. The housing minister made a written Ministerial statements on 21 November, 2024, which set out the government's intention to revisit Noble Lord bests 2019 report on regulating the property ageing sector.

We continue to engage across the sector to improve standards among property agents and welcomed the ongoing work being undertaken by the industry itself as well as by the Noble Lord best and my Noble Friend Baroness Hayter. We are continuing to consider this issue carefully and we have already in announced our intention to announce minimum intentions for police and resale properties and state managers and freehold estates. And to consult on this issue this year. We will set out our full position on the regulation of letting, managing, and estate agents in due course and can I thank my Noble Friend Baroness Warwick for the strong evidence she provided in this regard about why that is necessary? Turning to amendment 204, this element has the effect that property agents managing issue attendances may only be part of a mandatory redress scheme if they make the relevant qualification requirements.

In practice, this amendment places responsibility for ensuring the appropriate property agent has the relevant qualifications on the property ombudsman and property redress. It also gives the redress scheme is the power to award a financial penalty for non-compliance will stop the main role of redress schemes is to deal with individual complaints by tenants against their agent, the existing redress schemes have a number of leavers at their disposal, including the ability to award compensation to a tenant or a landlord where things have gone wrong.

They may also expel members from their scheme. However, redress schemes are not designed to be enforcement bodies, so it is not appropriate to give them powers to issue a financial penalty. Such measures should be reserved for enforcement authorities, such as local authorities. Furthermore, expulsion from or failure to join a redress scheme not expressly prevent them from trading, although it does mean the agent is in breach of regulations and liable for regulations and liable for enforcement action via the local authority. The question of who is best placed to enforce convocation best placed to enforce convocation measures is important.

And yes certainly something the Government is taking into account as part of its consideration of the regulation of managing, letting and estate of managing, letting and estate agents. As I have and should before, will set our position on this in due course. I am happy to meet with the course. I am happy to meet with the Noble Lord best and any other Noble Lord to discuss this issue further, however, with these assurances but hope that the Noble Lord will withdraw his amendments.
00:44
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
I am deeply grateful to all of the noble Lords who have spoken. Lord Young drew attention to the fact that Social Housing Act providers are now required to have qualifications and the same should go for the private sector. Perhaps even more so. Baroness Hayter introduced us and reminded us of our law introduced by the previous Government after the death of Isaac Mark and the dangers of housing management not operating smoothly for the safety of the occupiers.

She said that this business was a job for professionals for properly qualified people. Grateful to the Noble Lord trusted who made the point that managing agents, property agents, letting agents deal with millions of pounds with of compliance money, it is actually billions, rather than millions. It is a really serious commitment that is required of these agents. Baroness Coffey was not so sure that qualifications and training would make any difference. I think this is, a bit out of step with the sector itself.

The profession which is asking very urgently for regulation to drive out those that are not worthy of being part of the profession, just as we would expect accountants, doctors, lawyers, also have qualifications before they undertake important tasks. Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe brought I preceded her as chair of the ombudsman for several years. That was compelling staff, the people who deal with the complaints, the ombudsman service, saying they desperately need support and the need for a regulator.

I'm most grateful to the noble Baroness, one needs knowledge and understanding she said of all aspects of the many laws and complexities, and managing agents must be trained and have qualifications to perform these roles. She asked for a transition timeline so we could see progress step-by-step, I think that's a really important suggestion. Lord Jamieson supported the amendment, thank you for that support. Local authorities are under pressure, and this relieves pressure. If property agents do their job properly and don't require a lot of enforcement and time on the part of over committed local government officers.

I'm grateful to the Baroness the Minister for her commitment to protect tenants, to professionalise the sector. She mentioned leasehold legislation is coming down the track, this will be a chance to do some more. I hope before that bill comes to this house we can have some conversations about the ways in which its scope might be a little broader than just managing agents of leasehold property, but could include letting agents, the subject of this bill. I wasn't so keen on the phrase that this was all going to happen in due course.

We have heard those words and words like them so often before. She agreed that enforcement was key, and the ways in which that can be best accomplished is well worth further meetings between now and when the leasehold bill comes to pass. With leasehold bill comes to pass. With those banks and with much appreciation to all noble Lords who have spoken, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
00:48
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 204, already debated, not moved. Amendment 205, already debated, not moved. Amendment 206, Baroness Bennett.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All the bright-eyed and bushy tailed members of the House who are tailed members of the House who are still here at at 12:47 AM will note that I am not Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, my noble friend is the green lark and I'm the green owl. So green lark and I'm the green owl. So you get me after midnight. I would have to agree with the comments of have to agree with the comments of Baroness Williams, that the hashtag I often use is no way to run a I often use is no way to run a country.

I take the systematic country. I take the systematic approach to this, and this House needs to urgently think of a reset of our sitting hours. I come to of our sitting hours. I come to Amendment 206, this is a very straightforward positive, friendly amendment, aiming to assist the government to ensure this legislation can be enforced and can legislation can be enforced and can make a real difference. What amendment to 06 would do, and we amendment to 06 would do, and we know that so many renters are trapped in mouldy homes, with leaking roofs, with heating systems and hot water systems that aren't working.

When renters find themselves in those situations this amendment would give them the right to pay the rent to a third-party body. Baroness Jones has suggested the new ombudsman, but I'm open to other suggestions as well. Other ways of doing it. The amendment has written it in a neutral way. This is to deal with a situation where a landlord refuses to carry out essential repairs, yet of course the tenant is in a situation where they still have to keep paying for this utterly inadequate accommodation.

The arrangements under this amendment is that if a landlord carries out the works and ameliorates the problems the independent third-party would send them the full amount of rent due, if not the tenant can get the full or partial refund. Which otherwise they might well have to go to court to try and recover. This is both a and effective provision, it punishes landlords and doesn't impact on good ones. From the government's point of ones. From the government's point of view, this is a constructive suggestion to help make sure this legislation delivers on its stated legislation delivers on its stated aims.

Widows -- with those brief aims. Widows -- with those brief remarks I beg to move.
00:51
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
Insert the following new clause as hinted in the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The situation, in effect this is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The situation, in effect this is creating a escrow. One of my proudest achievements was to organise a students renters strike, organise a students renters strike, admittedly a while ago. This was because at the time the University accommodation was due to be dismantled at the end of the year, and as a consequence it felt like the University was not taking the University was not taking various matters very seriously. I happened not to be a paying student happened not to be a paying student at the time, I was a vice warden at the residents.

So I did help them, but I insisted that if I was to help but I insisted that if I was to help them they would have to pay rent, in them they would have to pay rent, in order to avoid being evicted. We did that by handing the money to the that by handing the money to the student union, to effectively act in escrow. I do believe, and as a escrow. I do believe, and as a consequence repairs were made and everyone ended up happy apart from the University who didn't like my role in that at all.

The reason I tell that story is I actually think it does matter that tenants should be able to withhold cash going directly to a landlord when the landlord is frankly taking the Mickey. Clause 63, which we didn't specifically address but already he's extending that to the private sector, I welcome that, but it does matter to me that we need to work out a much easier way of how people can effectively deploy this escrow approach. That's why I'm supporting the bill.

Sorry, the amendment. I think it's fair to say we need to make sure any such processes are easy to administer. Going a little bit further, I was very conscious it's a regularly read out statistic that something like 15 to 20% of housing benefit or housing support, direct housing benefit or through direct Universal Credit, is thought to to go to properties not fit for rent. I went into a reasonable amount of detail with this with officials, the philosophy explained to me by the Permanent Secretary was that the state thus far had not -- should not be determining on behalf of the renter where they are going to live, it was an important right for the renter to make that choice.

Even though it felt repulsive to me that taxpayers money was being spent in frankly some pretty ropey places. On my visits to some different housing, I have to say it was quite extraordinary what was going on. But sometimes I'm afraid the dilapidation was the consequence of the tenant, and the tenant not allowing repairs to be undertaken. That is a minor side, but the point is we need to try and make sure whether it is private money, your own money, the states money going to a private landlord, it matters that a private landlord, it matters that we have habitable accommodation.

Therefore I strongly support the Therefore I strongly support the amendment made by the noble Baroness. Baroness.
00:55
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
This group has raised a serious and emotive issue, the reality of tenants living in Paul housing conditions and what remedies are available. It's an area where frustration and vulnerability can run high. An amendment, 206, proposes remediated rent pauses. Under this model renters could pay rent to an individual other than their landlord when repairs are not carried out within the expected framework. But we must also be clear eyed about this.

How would this operate in practice? Who would this individual, independent individual, be in real terms? Would it be the redress scheme ombudsman? If so, if that is -- is that appropriate or realistic for them to be holding and distributing rent payments? Would they have the resources, legal authority or financial infrastructure to do so? It is overcomplicated. There's also the question of safeguards, what mechanisms would ensure this process is fair to both parties? What happens if a tenant withholds rent on the basis of a dispute that turns out to be unfounded? How long might rent be withheld, and what impact would that have on smaller landlords with limited financial resilience? It is entirely right landlords should meet their obligations to maintain safe and decent, but we should be cautious about creating a system that effectively withholds rent before any formal adjudication.

That could introduce significant uncertainty into the private rented sector. With this approach encourage resolution, or would it risk entrenching disputes? Might it push responsible landlords out of the market while rogue landlords simply continue to ignore the rules? In short, while the amendment is well- intentioned and we of course our sympathise with all individuals battling with irresponsible and careless landlords, it raises complex questions about implementation and unintended consequences. And on balance, we are not persuaded that this provision as drafted would be workable in practice.

But there must be a better practice. But there must be a better more practical way to ensure tenants are protected without creating are protected without creating further layers of bureaucracy and pushing good landlords out of the market.
00:58
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I would like to thank the noble Baroness Lady Jones, ably supported by Baroness Bennett in moving amendment to 06. And the noble Baroness Coffey and Baroness Scott for taking part in this debate. Amendment 206 would allow a tenant to pay rent to an ombudsman rather than the landlord if the landlord failed to make legal requirements on housing quality. I strongly agree with the desire to ensure landlords remedy hazards in due time, -- in good time.

I fear like I feel the existing prose provisions allow this. They allow tenants to challenge landlords through the court if they failed to comply with requirements such as timescales to remedy hazards. Alongside this it will allow us to apply Decent Homes Standard to private rented sector, very important move. The PRS ombudsman would provide a new route of redress for tenants, and would investigate complaints about standards and repairs. The bill would also strengthen rent repayment orders including by increasing from 12 months to two years the amount of rent a tribunal would be able to award a tenant.

Tenants can seek rent to be repaid where an offence is committed, including those relating to housing standards such as failing to comply with a improvement notice. This amendment has the potential to be administratively complex and risks unintended complicate -- consequences that may lead to worse outcomes for tenants. For example rent being held by the ombudsman could delay repairs in some cases if it made it more difficult for landlords to fund the required landlords to fund the required works, a point the noble Lady referred to.

Existing measures in the bill place legal expectations on landlords about the quality of their properties, and give tenants access to compensation if they landlords have not met obligations in relation to standards. As well as providing mechanisms through which landlords can be required to carry out repairs. Therefore I would ask the noble Lady Bennett to withdraw the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. I thank the noble Lady the Minister for her response. And those Minister for her response. And those who have taken part in this short but perfectly formed debate. but perfectly formed debate. Particularly Baroness Coffey for her support for the amendment, it is support for the amendment, it is something we might come back to and look at working on down the track. Also for the fascinating tale of Also for the fascinating tale of student days which I think took many of us back to our own student days.

Responding to the noble Lady Responding to the noble Lady Baroness Scott, I think there was Baroness Scott, I think there was also an expression of support for the intention if not the exact drafting of this amendment. I would stress we are of course not wedded stress we are of course not wedded to the precise drafting, talking to the precise drafting, talking here at committee stage. We are looking to work on the detail of the drafting when going forward. I think just responding to the noble Lady just responding to the noble Lady the Minister's response, I'm afraid the Minister's response, I'm afraid there's a phrase which I'm sure was in the Civil Service handbook, inadvertent consequences.

That seems Think that what we can challenge to the courts they can appeal to the ombudsman, they can be orders done for action. Those are all things that have differential levels of access, depending on people's capacity, people's awareness of people's ability to access those things, people's time and energy and costs, whereas the action proposed by this amendment to us is a really straightforward and simple way to give tenants the power to have control to have agency for themselves, not relying on other themselves, not relying on other bodies.

Having said all of that, of bodies. Having said all of that, of course this is Committee stage and I will give your matchups house consent to withdraw the imminent, but that leaves them with that.
01:02
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page