Lords Chamber

Monday 7th July 2025

(began 3 months ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:37
None Portrait None
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, first My Lords, first Oral My Lords, first Oral Questions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order Paper. At the end of March, 2024, there were 38 mothers and 36 babies in the were 38 mothers and 36 babies in the mother and baby units. Currently, six mother and baby units across the women's prison estate in England providing specialist accommodation and support services. These enabled mothers were appropriate to have their babies with them in prison. Sentencing is a matter of independent judiciary, but this Government has a clear goal of reducing the number of women in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

children. I thank my Noble Friend that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my Noble Friend that Minister for that answer. As well as the mothers with babies there are the mothers with babies there are more than 200 pregnant women and, typically, babies parted from their typically, babies parted from their mothers in prison at 18 months. If mothers in prison at 18 months. If mothers in prison at 18 months. If these mothers are no risk to their babies, RDA risk to anyone else? Should they be in prison at all? Does my Noble Friend Minister think there are better arrangements that we could make for mothers with we could make for mothers with babies serving custodial services? For example, secure mother and baby

**** Possible New Speaker ****

homes in the community. To answer my Noble Friend question head-on, without these women should be in prison or not is women should be in prison or not is a matter to decide on each individual case. However, we have individual case. However, we have the on major changes to sentencing framework, including two short sentences to which 75% of women are sentences to which 75% of women are sentenced to which would help to reduce the number of women, including pregnant women, in prison.

On the question about arrangements for women and their babies just last week I was in the mother and baby week I was in the mother and baby unit at HMP Park speaking to the mums there. In my view, the facilities and support offered were exceptional and item grateful both the staff and the third sector the staff and the third sector organisations such as action for children who provide that support. We need to maintain those standards of care, but the real answer to this question lies in tackling the structural problems that leave these structural problems that leave these women in the Criminal Justice Bill system in the first place.

But as with the women's Justice Board, with the women's Justice Board, which I proudly check, is seeking to address. Early intervention, division from prison, community solutions, so that we have fewer women in prison, and that includes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their babies also. Six mother and baby unit are successful. However, 17,000 children per yer are separated from their mothers by imprisonment, having both children and mothers. The impact of
14:40
None Portrait Oral questions: Number of mothers with babies in prison and alternative sentence arrangements for child care
-

domestic abuse and drug addiction is overwhelming. ITV News ran an article last Monday in which the Noble Lord was interviewed and rightly described the prison for many women as a disaster. So, how quickly can we cut the use of prison for mothers and children to a minimum and provide women offenders with a therapeutic environment that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they so badly need. Thanked the Noble Lord for his question and he is exactly right that we need to do more and we need that we need to do more and we need to do it faster. That is why the women Justice Board is acting quickly and coming up with the answers in the next few months. And answers in the next few months. And the intent to supervision court models which we are very models which we are very enthusiastic about for female offenders and it is said going to prison with a feather wraparound support services so that they could stay out of prison and stay in the stay out of prison and stay in the community, but this also comes back to a subject out in very passionate about which is attachment and it is really important for mothers to be really important for mothers to be with their children so that they can with their children so that they can gain that attachment which they have if not secured in the early guess can cause significant problems later on.

As someone that has grown up with hundreds of children in my life, I am also well aware of the
14:42
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:48
None Portrait Oral questions: Estimate of unpaid tax each year and steps to address the issue
-

Second Oral Question. Order Paper.
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
None Portrait Oral questions: Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the sustainability and reliability of the news media Lord Black of Brentwood (Conservative)
-

Third Oral Question. Paper. I declare my interest as to be chairman of the Telegraph media group.
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:07
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
None Portrait Oral questions: Effectiveness of government recruitment and retention policies for the armed forces
-

First Oral Questions. Order Paper.
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
can say a bit more about how His Majesty's Government is trying to Majesty's Government is trying to The government have increased pay by 35% for new recruits, so in terms of the direct entry into that, that increase in pay is one of the ways we can do it. I think also, we can do it. I think also, personally I don't... I think we shouldn't underestimate the power of shouldn't underestimate the power of the sense of duty amongst our young people and their desire to serve.

Let me say as evidence, I know the noble Lord will have been involved. noble Lord will have been involved. Many noble Lords and ladies will Many noble Lords and ladies will have been as well. An Armed Forces day, and VE Day before it, wasn't it remarkable to see the number of remarkable to see the number of young people involved in those events across the whole of our country, across the whole of the country, across the whole of the regions and nations of the UK? I think that shows us that properly careers put in front of young careers put in front of young people, the duties put in front of young people, are really important but alongside that I think we should but alongside that I think we should never underestimate, however so much

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we decry our young people, of the sense of duty and patriotism. Abstract the single biggest difficulty was actually getting medical records out of the health service. To improve that?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First of all we have scrapped the number of the medical record requirements to make it, to get from some of the city things to do with some of the city things to do with for example dental records. We change some of those is one example. Also alongside that we have, we are Also alongside that we have, we are making sure that in the recruitment process, the electronic access to process, the electronic access to GPs records which means that instead GPs records which means that instead of days or weeks or months or trying to get those records they can be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accessed within a few minutes. Significant growing the size of the reserve for, that in mind, or
15:18
15:19
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
days at sea and the sort of better life balance requirements for the raw food look silly?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She has often raised the position of the importance of the Royal Fleet of the importance of the Royal Fleet oximetry to the Royal Navy and we will continue to look at what we can do with respect to the Royal Fleet oxen. Recently I was in Singapore oxen. Recently I was in Singapore oxen. Recently I was in Singapore where as blessing HMS $went to -- where as blessing HMS $went to -- RFA types fourth... I can't remember everything else apart from the name everything else apart from the name It is always good to see your own It is always good to see your own side mumbling behind you.

RFA tired side mumbling behind you. RFA tired share. As well as seeing the carrier, as well as seeing the various ships that were there, I various ships that were there, I specifically went to see the RFA ship to ensure that I spoke to them, discussed with them the importance discussed with them the importance of what they were doing and also any particular issues they had, and that informed the discussions we had.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Concludes Oral Questions. A message from the Commons that they have passed the absent voting elections in Scotland and Wales Bill, the animal welfare import of dogs, cats and ferrets Bill, the dogs production of livestock (Amendment) Bill, the licensing hours extensions bill, and the space industry indemnities bill to which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the desire the agreement of your Lordships. Absent voting elections in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absent voting elections in Scotland and Wales, I beg to move that this will be now read a first time.
15:21
None Portrait Business of the House
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill be read a first time. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Animal welfare import of dogs cats and ferrets Bill, I beg to move that this bill be read a first time. The question is that this bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

read a first time. Dogs production of livestock (Amendment) Bill, I beg to move that this bill be now read a first time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this bill be now read a first time. The question that this bill be now read a first time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The contents have it. Licensing hours (Extension) Bill, I beg to move this bill be read a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

first time. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not "Content", and of the contrary, "Not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content". The contents have it. Space industry indemnities bill, I beg to move this bill be now read a first time. The question is that this bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill be now read a first time. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". of the contrary, "Not content". Planning and Infrastructure Bill order of consideration bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

order of consideration bill. I beg to move the order of consideration motion standing in my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consideration motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. I think there will be a convenient moment for any members to leave the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Report Report of Report of the Report of the Renters' Report of the Renters' Rights

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. I I beg to move the House be now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the House be now upon committee on the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not "Content", and of the contrary, "Not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content". The contents have it. Before we start the debate on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before we start the debate on the first group I want to repeat the reminders from last week and declaring interests. As we set out, noble Lords who declared relevant interests at each stage proceedings interests at each stage proceedings interests at each stage proceedings on a bill. That means in a first contribution at report stage, noble Lords must declare any relevant financial interests in a specific but brief way. Declarations that do but brief way. Declarations that do not need to be repeated in subsequent speeches at report stage so if you made a declaration last so if you made a declaration last week you do not need to do it again.

As my noble friend the Chief Whip remind the House last week, it is no longer sufficient to say that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

interests are asset out in the register. In clause 11, Amendment 47.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In clause 11, Amendment 47. My Lords, I will start by declaring an interest in owning a dog that is subject to approval by a superior landlord in the flat in which we live. And that it has that which we live. And that it has that approval. At committee stage, the Minister laid out very clearly the government's commitment to enabling many more tenants to be able to have pets in rented properties, which of course is very welcome.

But in my, in reply, in her reply to my similar amendment that I've tabled today at committee stage, the Minister made the point that the government did not want to include superior landlords amongst landlords who could unreasonably refuse the right to keep a pet. Superior landlord of course, which owns the head lease, under which another landlord may come. And she gave two main reasons. The first was that there are practical challenges involved in engaging with superior landlords. In the second is that in many cases the superior landlord is not based in the UK, or that they are complex ownership structures and requiring them to give reasons for refusal for a pet might involve the tenant and/or the landlord in lengthy and costly processes.

That might make the obligation difficult to realise
15:26
None Portrait Legislation: Renters’ Rights Bill – report stage (day 2) - part one
-

in practice. The fact is, most superior landlords are quick to contact tenant when there is something that they don't want to have happen or there is an issue about money, so I don't really accept how difficult it is to engage with them. The Minister might give me some more examples. The fact that they are based overseas or have complex ownership structures simply isn't a good reason. The Minister did kindly say she would come back to me after she has looked at the quantum involved and I wonder if she has found that out now, as I have not heard anything.

She did go on to say that my amendment was not proportionate or necessary. In fact, it is necessary, given that there are about 24,000 property management companies, and the average size of portfolio is about 193 units. That would equal about 4.5 million units altogether, and the biggest superior landlords often manage about 144,000 properties, so that's not a lot of tenants, to whom this figure clause will not apply -- that's an awful lot of tenants to whom it will not apply.

On the question of whether it is proportionate given the size of the tenant base, without my amendment will not benefit from clause 12, I believe it's necessary, and desirable that when we legislate, we are as fair and equitable as possible. Since committee stage, I've noticed some warnings going out from those people who represent superior landlords, and I'll just quote a couple of them, one of them says that one proposal introduced by the bill is that landlords must not unreasonably refuse pets at a rental property.

In assessing what is reasonable in the circumstances, it is likely to be justified for the landlord to refuse a pet if that superior lease does not allow pets. If you do not want pets to be kept in your buildings, this may be a sensible clause to introduce. I say to the Minister, that's what's going to happen is that the superior landlords will all just introduce clauses even if they don't have them now. To preclude pets, so there could be an unintended, without my amendment.

Further, John Dee would for example, going into the of what grounds a glamour could reject a pet, and they talk about acceptable reasons include a superior landlord refusal. So I think that actually there is a real issue here that without including superior landlords on the face of the bill, the Minister will find that clause 12 was a nice idea find that clause 12 was a nice idea but actually doesn't work in practice. The Minister rightly said at committee stage that the government wants tenants to have the government wants tenants to have the right to own a pet.

We do not give superior landlords a free pass to discriminate in any other way and we shouldn't in this case. I hope the shouldn't in this case. I hope the Minister will agree. I beg to move.
15:30
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Portrait Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Amendment proposed, clause 11,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

page 18, line 9, insert the words as printed on the marshalled list. Rise to speak to amendment 48

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rise to speak to amendment 48 which stands in my name. I must declare my interest both as a landlord for my own part to a small extent and all properties in Scotland. And as a trustee and as a Scotland. And as a trustee and as a charitable trustee, their charitable trusts, also all trust in Scotland as well. At the early stages of the as well. At the early stages of the bill, it was reflected by a number bill, it was reflected by a number of noble Lords that pets promoted well-being among tenants, and that well-being among tenants, and that is something I very much agree with, and looking at noble Baroness Fuchs and looking at noble Baroness Fuchs and looking at noble Baroness Fuchs Presumption that pets should be allowed in rented property.

There are two protections for landlords. Firstly, they can say no if it is Firstly, they can say no if it is reasonable to do so, some things might not be so reasonable. And, secondly, the protection for landlords currently in deposits and insurance. But social how is not insurance. But social how is not included in the bill and is specifically excluded. It seems to me to be very unfair and, how should I say, I have been very grateful to the Noble Lady Minister and the team who I can see some of them sitting over there who have been very generous with their time and we have been over this topic a number of times in the meeting room upstairs.

But it does seem to me that people in social how in many ways are people who most need the sense of well-being that a pet brings, and so I would be very keen that we make that change. Now, in the meeting, I did not want to steal the Minister stunned but there have been a number of points made to me about this area, and I must say that I have been brought along with that and I would be very grateful if the Minister could tell the House everything she told me an IM sure I am looking at it just there and I think this would be very helpful to everyone for this amendment.
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:36
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendment 47 with the noble Baroness Miller and I speak as a landlord of properties in Norwich as declared on the register. Naturally, we should consider the rights of who own companion animals for that must go hand-in-hand with the rights of the landlord to you may be concerned about damage to property and the rights of neighbouring residents that may have to deal with the consequence of noise, mess, smells and so forth. And, once again, there is a balance to be struck and this amendment strikes the wrong balance in my view.

It is obvious that keeping a pet elevates the risk of damage, especially in the case of furnished accommodation and this will comes for all tenancies being the same, there are different sorts of properties. And in furnished accommodation, of course, the consequences of damage are higher. It fails to recognise the reality of different types of accommodation, whether they be listed or some other historic or archaeological mirror for whom it is incompatible with pets in the building. There are often circumstances with common courtyards, often where children play, and all of these different in detached rented homes in the countryside where there is much more space.

This bill contemplates a one size fits all, regardless to finish, unfurnished, countryside or flats or for different types of properties. It is absolutely reasonable in my view for a landlord to allow a large dog in a small flat. Where there is no outside space. You can find animal just does not but when they do the above, the upset neighbours and they must be considered. This bill is all about the tenant and I can understand but it is to the exclusion of any other stakeholder and that cannot be right.

The landlord must make a judgement and take into account whether perhaps eight nightshift worker with a large dog is suitable for the property. I will concede that there is a world of difference between the different types of pets, goldfish, spiders, dogs, cats and ferrets. My IP to first introduce the second reading, having just had the first reading of that particular bill. And to make those distinctions, just to call pets, we are denying the obvious distinction between two legs, phonics, 100 legs, no legs.

Fishy ones, skills and so on. There are different types of animal. And they are all contained within this catchall that we cannot make sense of. There is one point that I do agree on, Amendment 47, where it reveals that the personal opinion of reveals that the personal opinion of a tenant, the tenant should not follow predisposed opinions of the tenant. And I agree with that but not in the way that you might think. Now, I once had the Chief Executive of a County Counsel as a tenant.

Her cat ate my sofa. White polyester fluff was everywhere. I did not know where the cat ended and the sofa began. And these things happen. But my point is however well healed that particular tenant might have been, they had no control over the pit whatsoever. And it is really important that we consider the pet is the one that potentially has the damage, not the tenant, because this lady worked long hours, travelled widely, she was not there, and the chewing cat was incompatible with her lifestyle and my furnished apartment took the consequences.

Let's move on. This bill contemplates that the tenant with a pet has that pet at the outset. The bill and all of this amendment adequately takes into account the possibility of a tenant who may acquire a pet during the tenancy, or somehow mendacious Lee mislead as to the nature of an existing pet, or even hide it all away altogether. And I do think that when considering pets, it is probably a bit too late because it is enclosed for which was done last week, but I think we have to contemplate that insofar as pets if there is wilfulness description it does from a breach of contract.

I have no intent to be overbearing or heavy-handed, but these are examples where the rights of the tenant must coexist with the neighbours. And let me explain, I have another case at the moment actually a tenant who repeatedly allows a small dog to urinate against wall in the community courtyard. It is damaging the brickwork, which is for my account, but it is really for the kids because the only place for them to securely play away from the traffic passes outside.

And that is just not really fair on everybody. So, I have mentioned the distinction between the goldfish and the Staffordshire terrier, between the spider and the snake. And of course I am not scared of spiders or snakes. Some are first and, of course, one of the clauses in the bill is predispositions to certain animals. In Skegness is a different sort of act and really that scared cat it is quite right and proper that those people with a predisposition against those sorts of animals are protected the.

I regret to say that the noble Ladies amendment is well-meaning but not live in the real world. The real world between the differences of location, different properties, different furnishings, different types of animal, further amendment, these are not branded in prejudice, there branded in the prejudiced there branded in the prejudiced welfare and the landlord has a role to act up treating everyone's benefits and I am afraid I cannot support this and I make no comment on that. on that.
15:42
Lord Sentamu Portrait Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
-
-
I stand to support Amendment 48. Because he is the convener of crossbenchers, although that is a bonus point, the reason I am standing, first of all, my family have never kept a pet. We have never. But why should I be part of a legislature that would deny somebody legislature that would deny somebody the consent, seeking consent, to keep a pet? Simply because they live in social housing. That, to me, is clear dissemination. It can't be right that you say because when social housing you cannot request consent of the landlord, it is the right to actually ask for consent.

It is not saying that it is giving an automatic right to the Social Housing Act to keep a pet. The other thing is this wonderful nation and the other three were being told constantly that their nations and wanting to say somebody in social could not be a pet lover. Who would want to say that? The final reason why I have stood is because our beloved Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, do you remember when somebody who was going through a lot of trauma, she actually invited this gentleman to comment spend time with one of her corgis.

And do you remember the said this has put my trauma in a prospective. May we, for those who want to keep pets, those that live in social housing, and because they are animal lovers, be given the same rights as others to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

request consent. My Lords, I would like to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. In particular, to the Earl Lord Kerr Noel for his thoughtful and balanced Amendment thoughtful and balanced Amendment 48. This bill must work for renters, but it must also work for landlords. but it must also work for landlords. We have discussed the issue and there's no denying that for many pets provide voluble companionship, pets provide voluble companionship, comfort, and emotional support.

It is no surprise therefore that this is no surprise therefore that this issue has attracted considerable issue has attracted considerable interest across the House. However, we recognise that this is not a bill about social. It is focused, about social. It is focused, rightly, on the private rented sector. The frameworks, obligations, sector. The frameworks, obligations, and operational realities governing social are distinct and we believe they are better addressed through they are better addressed through the appropriate regulatory channels. That said, we fully support the That said, we fully support the principle behind the noble Earls amendment and we hope the Minister amendment and we hope the Minister will take this issue forward.

There is a key opportunity to work with housing associations, local authorities, to ensure that fair, proportionate, and compassionate policies can be delivered in this policies can be delivered in this Turning to amendment 47, we understand the intention to provide clear guidance on what might constitute an unreasonable refusal by the landlord. With all registration, clarity is of the utmost importance. However, we have some reservations about the breadth and the subjectivity of the language proposed.

Terms like generalised fear and personal opinion may prove fear and personal opinion may prove difficult to define or enforce in difficult to define or enforce in practice. We are not unsympathetic with the spirit of the amendment but we believe that further refinement would be required to ensure legal would be required to ensure legal certainty and to maintain workable certainty and to maintain workable balance of interests. As we take this bill forward, we must not loose this bill forward, we must not loose out of its core objective.

And that is to deliver a rental market that is fair, functional and fit for the is fair, functional and fit for the future. Tenants deserve security and dignity in their homes. But also dignity in their homes. But also landlords deserve clarity and confidence in the law.
15:47
15:47
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I thank her noble Baroness Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer and that noble Earl Lord Kinnoull for the amendments on pets and for their continued engagement on these issues which has been incredibly helpful, and can I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, Lord Trees, Lord de Clifford and others. I have heard the passion of noble Lords on the issue of keeping pets and I hope there is overall support for the aim of the bill to make it easier for tenants to keep pets but to get the balance right between the tenants and landlords.

Amendment 47 seeks to set out a list of circumstances under which it would be considered unreasonable for a superior landlord to refuse foot tenant to keep a pet. These include personal opinion, general fear of damage or complaints, and previous negative experiences with other tenants stop while I completely understand noble Baroness Lady Miller's intention to provide clarity and against unfair refusals, I must respectfully say I don't believe that amendment is needed and I should also remark that our letter in response to the noble lady's questions that committee, was sent on 15th May, I'm sorry if she has not had that but I will make sure that gets sent out to her again today.

We don't believe it is appropriate or practical to draw superior landlord into the day-to- day running of the tenancy, requiring them to engage directly in case-by-case decisions about pet risks creating serious administrative burdens. We do believe it could also lead to complex and costly delays in decision-making, particularly where superior landlords are difficult to identify, contact or are located overseas. I know the noble Lady has quoted experiences where they respond quickly but I know from personal experience of dealing with having tenants try to contact superior landlords, it can be a very complete business indeed.

That said, we do intend to publish guidance alongside the bill to assist landlords in understanding what might constitute a reasonable refusal by individual's immediate landlord. This will help ensure clarity without looking specific samples into primary legislations and for these reasons I hope the noble Baroness Lady Miller or consider withdrawing the amendment and not pressing for a division. I would like to thank the noble Lord Lord Kinnoull for tabling amendment 48 and discussing this important issue further following the committee stage of the bill.

Like the noble Earl, this is an issue which is very close to my heart and I absolutely would not want to see a two-tier approach to this. It's right that requests to keep pets with tenants across all sectors are considered fairly, especially given the valuable role of pets play in people's lives, whether they be corgis or the veritable zoo quoted by the noble Lord Lord Fuller, they can provide comfort and company to those people who wish to keep a pet. Following committee stage, my photos have explored the issue further and I can confirm that many social landlords already set out their policy on pets within the tenancy agreements and publish these policies allowing tenants to keep pets where appropriate.

We have not been able to find any significant evidence that social tenants requesting a pet are not having the request considered fairly. Although tenants in social housing do not generally experience the same barriers to keeping a pet as those in the private rented sector, I recognise that it's important that we should have clarity and consistency across sectors. Therefore I intend to write to social landlords to ensure they are fairly considering tenants rights to request a pet and to share existing best practice in this area.

However, I don't believe it's important or necessary to add further provisions to the bill regarding tenants right to request a pet in social housing, for the reasons I have set out. Even if legislation were required, this bill is the noble Baroness Lady Scott pointed out is not the right vehicle for doing so and will create inconsistent rules within the social rented sector, that's because the provisions in this bill would only imply -- apply to tenants of registered providers who grant assured tenancies but not the majority of local authority tenants who are granted secure tenancies.

Given the current approaches taken by landlords in the social rented sector, the lack of evidence of issues warranting further regulation and the additional engagement by my officials, and manner taking that I will continue to monitor this, and if they do seem to be a need we will look at that, if we bring forward future legislation. Hope the noble Earl Lord Kinnoull will consider withdrawing his amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful for what she has said. I wonder if I could push has said. I wonder if I could push her a little bit more, and I think she was saying is that inevitably she was saying is that inevitably there will be a suitable bill for social housing that comes forward at some point, that it would be the some point, that it would be the government policy to bring forward at that stage and amendments to this at that stage and amendments to this so that, and for social housing so that, and for social housing there was a legal necessity to offer the viability of pets on the same basis as this bill will have.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

basis as this bill will have. I think we need to continue to look at the evidence. I think we need to look at the response to my letter which I will write out to social landlords, and then we will social landlords, and then we will take further action as necessary, if
15:53
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Portrait Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

it's needed in future legislation. My Lords, I thank everybody who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank everybody who has contributed to this debate, and I thank the Minister for her reply and I have found the bit where she talked about responding to the Earl of's amendment, which we do support, with a letter about clarity and consistency very helpful -- load of Kidal. I had a slight dread when Lord Pannick rose to his feet because I thought it would be something really tricky which of course it was. But it's the circumstances which superior landlords can have an opinion on specific pets.

The factors I'm trying to include superior landlords in the same way as the bill already includes landlords. And I will just say to the noble Lord Lord Fuller, I understand the issues he raised but they are the issues ready for the direct landlords, not the superior landlords. Because we did debate those very fully at committee, and it's the people with the portfolios of hundreds of flats that I'm concerned about, having a blanket refusal or not. He talked about a simple detached home in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

countryside. Does he want to intervene? We can bandy around the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We can bandy around the distinctions between the superior landlord versus the offshore pension fund with hundreds of thousands of fund with hundreds of thousands of dwellings but what about the small clarity that owns a list of building -- listed building, held in trust -- listed building, held in trust for hundreds of years. They surely must be entitled, to lay down must be entitled, to lay down certain provisions, because it isn't certain provisions, because it isn't just a large house in the countryside versus the flat.

There have to be guardrails.To say, does have to be guardrails.To say, does the noble Lady understand that as well-meaning as her amendments are, well-meaning as her amendments are, she's failed to consider some of those narrow points, and therefore it's incomplete, and I do find myself in huge sympathy with the Minister on this one. The amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is incomplete. I'm still struggling to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm still struggling to understand why the noble Lord is referring to something that is actually much more about direct landlords. It's not banding terms around. There is a specific legal around. There is a specific legal definition for a superior landlord and that is the only group that my amendment is talking about. It's not talking about individual landlords. So I thank the noble Lady Scott by Brooke for her comments, which were indeed more welcoming. And I do hope the Minister will consider some guidance to superior landlords, too, to address this situation.

In the meantime I believe to withdraw the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 48, The Earl of Kinnoull.
15:56
None Portrait Amendment:49 Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-

Amendment 48, The Earl of Kinnoull. Not moved. We now come to amendment
15:57
15:57
None Portrait Amendment:49 Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-

Not moved. We now come to amendment My Lords, I would like to start by thanking noble Lords for their rigourous detailed and good-natured engagement in the matter of pet damage insurance, in particular the noble Earl Lord Kinnoull whose extensive knowledge of the insurance industry has been a great assistance to ensure we get this policy right. Following much debate at committee stage, and further discussions with stage, and further discussions with sector stakeholders, including the Association of British Insurers and the British insurance brokers the British insurance brokers Association, we have reflected on our position and I would like to now our position and I would like to now our position and I would like to now move our amendments G, 49, 54, 56,, move our amendments G, 49, 54, 56,, 57 and 73.

I have listened carefully and Greg Knight is that while the insurance market adapts to public policy, there is a risk that relevant insurance will not, onto relevant insurance will not, onto the market sufficiently following implantation of the bill. To avoid a situation in which landlords could essentially be to tenants reasonable essentially be to tenants reasonable request to give prepared -- could essentially veto. We are withdrawing the pet provision from the bill. Tenants can request to have a pet in the home but landlords will not be able to require insurance to cover property damaged caused by a pet.

While our view was that a new market will develop for insurance products, following further engagement with the sector, we now accept this may not happen at the skill in his area. We are committed to supporting responsible pet ownership in the private rented sector and we do not want to leave tenants in a position where they are unable to comply within practical conditions that a landlord may place in the tenant as part of their pet consent. Noble Lords will rightly want to know what this means for landlords with concerns about potential poverty damage.

I want to -- property damage. Now satisfied that landlords will be suitably protected from damages caused by pets, particularly after noble Lords showed evidence at committee stage, for example the University of Huddersfield report showing that three quarters of pet owning tenancies... As such and content the existing five weeks deposit for typical tenancies will cover any increase damages caused by pet ownership. We will continue to monitor this closely after the implementation of the bill. If tenants with pets are regularly causing more damage than deposits can cover, we have a distinct gated poster show higher deposits will tenancies with pets under the current act.

I hope the House recognises we have listened and responded to the debate with pragmatism. Private rented sector treated fairly if they have reasonable requests for pets and our legislative framework should support that. I'm very grateful to all colleagues who have helped us to get to the best position possible and I beg to move government amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

49, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 73. Before putting amendment 49 I must advise the House that if it is
16:00
16:01
Lord de Clifford Portrait Lord de Clifford (Crossbench)
-
-
Pets can potentially cause damage or wear and tear to a property, therefore there was need to ensure therefore there was need to ensure this point to ensure potential costs and it is not now part of the bill. Divinity is to brighten alternative protection to landlords and tenants protection to landlords and tenants for the possible addition of costs that may be incurred by keeping a pet, to maintain the condition of property. The additional three weeks property. The additional three weeks rent as deposit would about an amount towards the costs.

Some would amount towards the costs. Some would say that the first five weeks would cover all forms of wear-and-tear. cover all forms of wear-and-tear. This amount sets aside human wear- and-tear damage. It's to create different types of damage. It is not different types of damage. It is not the case why currently so many landlords do not allow pets into their rented properties, and I note their rented properties, and I note the Minister's comments regarding the Minister's comments regarding the University report but there is a significant proportion that do cause significant proportion that do cause damage.

Pets are not humans and have their own minds, and therefore we do not have as much control over them as we possibly would like for some as we possibly would like for some the most significant area would either carpet and flooring. Human beings spend most of their time walking on these and dogs and cats sleep, live, play, scratch, and do other things, increasing the wear and tear. The cleaning of carpets professionally as a condition that most tenants today were pets are allowed on the property, this is not done by the tenant, it is the additional deposit would cover.

Lord Trees has kindly supported this man and his knowledge of fleas is vastly greater than mine, having spoken before at Committee stage on this matter. My own personal experience of dogs is they tend to find a spot in the home that is safe for them and they spend time lying and sleeping there which tends to increase the wear and tear in that place and this is done leaving their hair and dirt, despite cleaning. Continuing on the carpet theme, animals do have access, just the It needs cleaning up, so it is possible that the tenant with a sickle badly trained pet would find it is urinating or leaving fleas on the carpet.

This happens regularly then the cupboard would need replacing which would be at the cost of the landlord or the tenant, and this is what the deposit is four. Certain dogs and cats also enjoy the space of gardens to play in. Under times Leverton was state than when the tenant moved in, and of the cost to be covered by the landlord. None repairs. As more homes take pets due to the challenge of the bill, the change of this bill, more homes will need deep cleaning and there are many other prospective tenants who have allergies to pets, and therefore deep cleaning is required to try to move residue for pets so that future tenants do not react to the legacy of pets.

The noble the legacy of pets. The noble Baroness that Minister mentioned affordability in the five weeks would cover the additional cost of pets as well as human wear-and-tear. For many tenants, this would be the case. As tenants that look after properties get their deposit to return, this would be the case if there was a deposit paid as the tenant could ensure the pit was well behaved and cleaned up after them and undertake necessary additional cleaning and they would get reported back.

Unfortunately, not all tenants are the same, and do not keep their homes clean and well maintained. If these tenants were to have a pet with the same outlook on life reviewing further damage, cleaning and repairs, would need to be done at the end of the tenancy. Therefore, five weeks deposit would be used to reinstate the property to a good standard, and the additional deposit would be used to cover any pet damage. The additional deposit for a pet would be a challenge for someone on low income, but currently in Scotland landlords can ask for up to two months deposit, and this appears to be working and not causing maize attitudes.

When you take on a pet, you need to be aware that there will be additional costs to your personal or family budgets. For example, food costs, fluent winning treatment, cat litter, poo bags, equipment such as rubber touches and birdcages, and unexpected but no rebuilds. Therefore, if a tenant should understand that you may need to pay an extra deposit when renting a house, the benefit of the deposit of this amendment is that if they respect the property and maintain it, the deposit is returned to them at the end.

The initial proposal And this provides a smaller budget protection to landlords who are now having to accept pets and, in many circumstances, they currently do not. The right to have a pet, the right is making some landlords consider letting in the private sector or to deter led to Airbnb's where they can charge for pets, or even sell them, so this amendment helps to support landlords to remain in the private sector and the bill provides some well needed protection but also it needs to strike a protection, so an extra three weeks of deposit to provide some protection and it may be a struggle for tenants to follow and I note and I think that Minister for Health comments regarding her proposals, but I am not sure that they quite meet what this deposit would do and I look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness as a response as this is an important matter for landlords and tenants and would improve the bill.
16:06
Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Earl of Kinnoull (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise also to speak to amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise also to speak to amendment 53 a. Getting the balance right between landlords and tenants is something that has been stressed by a number of speakers in previous groupings. Indeed, including the groupings. Indeed, including the Noble Lady the Minister. And the bill amounts to the presumption that tenants who keep pets on the one hand and protection for the hand and protection for the landlords on the other hand in the shape of a deposit, in the shape of insurance, and the insurance is going to fall away because it was going to fall away because it was not available, because anywhere it would have been high costs if would have been high costs if insurance had been available the ratio would have been whatever the ratio would have been whatever the loss ratio was with value for tenants and good tenants would have tenants and good tenants would have lost all their money as opposed to the point just made by the Noble Lord Clifford that you get your Lord Clifford that you get your deposit back with the interests at deposit back with the interests at the end of it.

So, I do feel the deposit is a very good way to go, and that's why amendment 51 existed and that's why amendment 51 existed in the past, and I was disappointed in the appearance of Amendment 49 going to kill amendment 51 by way of pre-emption. And that was why amendment 53 is a very good idea. It's due damage buildings and we heard at committee a lot about it for the Noble Lord trees who may say something to remind us of all of the unseen things that pets bring into the home, and I afraid that I feel the academics at the University of Huddersfield is a rogue thing.

It does not accord with my experience at all, and the charitable trust is a reasonably sized landlord and I afraid that pets do damage things, but a deposit is a very fair way of adjusting the balance between the two people and that deposit in Scotland is set at two months and here if the correct level of deposit was five weeks and we add the risk of a pet on top of that that is going to be taken out by the insurance as originally proposed in the bill, it seems to me to be not a good balance that there should be increased in the level of deposit protection.

And in the original amendment 51 I had set the additional protection act three weeks because I thought that eight weeks was very similar to two months and that having some symmetry between Scotland and England on this point was a good idea. And I felt that also through experience that Scotland with two months of deposit was OK and the balance between tenants and landlords was OK where pets were concerned. And so I am pets were concerned. And so I am afraid that I do feel amendment 153 150 3A has tremendous merit.

One of the points that was made to me is that it would add a lot of expense to tenants in terms of the amount of deposit they had to put up. And I was just totting up how much our own two dogs cost to look after in one year. And it is a lot. Even though they probably eat better than some dogs, dog food, the inevitable visits to the vets copy do not buy insurance, but it would amount to roughly the same amount of money anyway as the insurance scheme.

All of the various other things that one has to do if you go away on holiday you need to find someone to look after the dogs many hundreds of pounds per year. And, indeed, the initial cost of the dog, same for other things, there's a website called pets for homes which has got 1625 dogs on it today and the cost of those dogs is between £403,000. I do feel that many of the people who are having pets and are in any way engaging in something that is reasonably costly, asking them to provide another three weeks of security is perfectly fair and proportionate thing, especially if they look after the property well, they get not only the interest on that money back the money back if they leave things well.

I am very pro amendment 53 a. pro amendment 53 a.
16:11
Lord Trees Portrait Lord Trees (Crossbench)
-
-
I to want to speak to 50 3A, but first I would just like to thank the noble Baroness the Minister and her team for their Amendment 49 and the consequential amendments which improved the bill substantially and I would like to thank her for the helpful letter about assistance dogs which was a matter that I raised at committee and second reading. I want to support 53 a. As many have already said, it is extremely important that landlords are willing to accept tenants with pets.

And that is an objective, I think, that all noble Lords would concur on. And this amendment is in further movement of that objective. I think it is quite significant. The costs incurred, occasionally, and it is only very occasionally, but it does happen, can be very substantial, and it goes way beyond the Noble Lord or a wallpaper of the wall, but as has been alluded to before, if one has got the deposition of potential allergens in the property, or if one has got a flea infestation, these things can cost hundreds, if not even thousands of pounds to clean up a real deep clean.

And those costs, inevitably, fall on the landlord, and there is a considerable potential incentive. We have heard figures from Huddersfield, but another figure was that 75% of landlords did not have a problem with pets. Well, that means 25% of landlords who currently are accepting pets have had some degree of their problem and I would point out that 40% of landlords do not accept having pets at all under the current situations. I think this deposit is proportionate and extremely important to assure landlords that if there were to be negative results of a pet, that the landlord would get reasonably acceptable recompense.

And as the Noble Lord control has pointed out, the deposit costs nothing if there is no problem. It is returned fully to the tenant. And as the Earl of Kinnoull has pointed out, keeping a pet, particularly a dog, and we are mainly concerned in this debate with what dogs can do, keeping a dog is eight major financial responsibility. And I would suggest should not be undertaken by people who cannot afford to put up the deposit of the sort of size that is being suggested, so I do support this amendment.

this amendment.
16:14
Lord Howard of Rising Portrait Lord Howard of Rising (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak in support of Amendment 53 in the name of the Noble Lord Clifford which has been spoken to so ably by the noble Earl Lord Kerr Noel. Whilst there is considerable improvement in the deposit limit, there will still be a good number of cases where the damage why pets will be more than the cost of the work which needs to be done. The first time ever, I have just refused a tenancy on the grounds that the pets would be inappropriate.

The proposed tenants wanted to have three Newfoundland dogs in a two-bedroom property. At Committee stage, the noble Baroness to minister said that the bill already permits landlords to refuse their consent unreasonable grounds, which are best judged on a case-by- case basis. Would my refusal of the three Newfoundland dogs in a small I doubt even eight-week deposit would cover the potential damage. The five weeks would be nowhere near adequate. Please could I urge the Minister to accept that this modest amendment which adds an additional three weeks, the present five weeks only covers about 50% of the cases in my experience, where damage has been done by pets.

It would be unreasonable to ask landlords to take on yet more liability on top of those already existing and the ever-increasing burden imposed by government. I would remind the noble Lord the Minister that the majority of landlords are private individuals with just one or two properties. They are already finding it difficult enough to manage the properties which is why they are fast disappearing breed. Drive them to extinction will only accelerate the demise of the rented sector with a disadvantage of landlords and those seeking a property to rent.
16:17
16:18
16:19
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
Once again I remind of my register of interest that I'm a landlord. Baroness Miller, I wonder if I might well before supporting 53, A, strongly, and looking around the chamber, that most of us travel a lot as part of our duties in this House if we live outside London and I'm sure my wife with the first to complain if I brought bedbugs back to our family home. Drawing on Mike's parents, not just as a landlord, but also as a managing agents, I know the costs of this bill will be that the additional costs, and Lord Clifford has rated most ably, the additional cost of damage, wear and tear, pest control and all those other things.

We'll particularly in blocks of flats be borne by those tenants who do not keep cuts and I just don't think that is right. Because Ponsonby, keeping a pet is an add-on to a tenancy and the additional cost to be borne by those people who bring the pets -- because personally. There are lots of examples where things can go wrong and I would like to give an example in my own lived experience with a tenant who declared he didn't own any pets at.

In due course he brought two large dogs to the property where he left them while he went to work and by and by, it became clear that my house was being used as a kennel. Not only were the neighbours disturbed by them all day and all night barking, and by the time the tenant had stopped paying rent, £15,000 worth of damage was caused. When he finally left to discover the most foul-smelling vaulting scene where one-bedroom had been used as dog lavatory four weeks, would have been even worse had the proposals.

Reclaim action, repossession action were extended to 8 to 13 weeks. This was a gross cakes in every respect -- gross case. However, and so was lucky in that case because the sum of money was so large to get an insurance claim. But that's not what we're talking about Germany in this bill. We are concerned not about granny who may be info Baroness Miller employed, during the table look and causing damage, or eating the carpet, we are talking about the meddling where it is of above and beyond the three weeks.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Howard that the additional three weeks isn't enough. But I accept that we ought to fight the battles we can win. It is a portion of compromise which I'm prepared to accept. Several noble Lords have mentioned that, and I agree with this, but of course if the pet doesn't cause any damage, the tenant gets the deposit back in full. With interest. I would just like to place in the record that in the statutory schemes, deposit protection schemes, interest is not normally paid, the deposit goes in and the cost of interest retained by the deposit scheme, presumably to defray the costs of operating in the.

I wouldn't want people watching outside the chamber to think were going to now introduce the requirement to pay interest if indeed the landlord does not accept that. What I'm thinking is, and I've listened carefully to what the noble Baroness the Minister said, that the ability exists for the government to increase the deposit through the tenant fees 2029 but I think we should accept here and now, and Amendment 53 sort of implies that but there are additional costs and risks for keeping pets.

And we should not wait for that, it is Sylvia's, let's have those provisions within the Tenant Fees Act 2019 introduced immediately, proportionately, so the goldfish is in charge at the same rate as the in charge at the same rate as the new thing, and in particularly in the case where there is furnished accommodation as well. I think we can have a good compromise that everybody can live with and finally, I don't really want to repeat at length, but I do believe that if we can come to that arrangement, then it benefits the tenant by having the deposit rather than pay because at least they get that back whereas in the case of, they have to buy a premium insurance policy, that will be an absolute cost because they would pay their was damaged or not.

A strong support 53 and if the noble Lord is minded to the opinion of the House I will follow him through the lobby.
16:24
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
The issue of pet -related damage is understandably a source of concern for landlords. This group of amendments raises important questions about how we balance this word balance again, the increased rights granted to tenants to keep pets with the responsibilities and protections that landlords need. It is simply not reasonable to argue that existing tenancy deposit which is designed to cover damage under current arrangements is also sufficient to cover the additional risks introduced for granting tenants a new right to keep pets.

The government itself has already accepted that pets pose a greater risk, by including pet insurance measures in this bill. That was a clear recognition that pets are likely to cause additional damage. However, as we consider these provisions, it is crucial to reflect on the experience already gained in Scotland, where tenants rights legislation has evolved to allow pets in rented properties while seeking to balance landlord protections. In Scotland, the introduction of pet friendly tenancy provisions and related insurance requirements has offered valuable lessons, while these measures have expanded tenant freedoms and encouraged pet ownership have also revealed challenges.

in ensuring landlords who are to be protected against damage and make sure that energy Chanel costs or deposits are fair and transparent. Either pets cause additional damage they do not. If the government now claims that they do not, then we they must provide clear and compelling evidence to justify overturning its original assessment. Without such evidence it is logically and fairly follows that the landlord should be permitted to take a separate pet damage deposit. We believe it is inevitable that some damage will result from pets stop that is why we support Amendment 53, A, which would introduce option of a dedicated pet damage deposit.

This would provide landlords with an essential route to recoup costs, will also protecting tenants from unfair charges by clearly defining that this is a separate and transparent element of the tenancy agreement which is what we have already heard, is that if no damage is done, they get this chargeback. I recognise that some landlords may choose to welcome pets without requiring additional deposits or in the future and insurance but they should be able to be free to do so but where landlords require further productions there must be a fair and transparent mechanism for tenants to provide it at the outset of the tenancy.

Finally, the experience in Scotland reminds us that implementing pet friendly rental policies is a delicate balance that must be tailored to the practical realities landlords and tenants face. As this bill moves forward, it is essential that it draws on such lessons to achieve frameworks that work fairly across the whole of the United Kingdom. My Lords, if the noble Lord the Lord de Clifford is minded to test the opinion of the house, and test the opinion of the house, and Amendment 53, A, we will support it.
16:28
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I would like to thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. It's hugely emotive and important issue. Many people we have had a good debate it today. I would like to thank Lord de Clifford for moving his amendment, The Earl of Kinnoull, Lord Trees, Lord Howard, Baroness Miller, Lord Pannick, Lord Fuller and Baroness Scott. I will turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Earl at the noble Lord Clifford. Amendment 50 is not required as our government amendments remove the insurance requirements regarding amendments 51, 50 3A, I understand fully the intention of the amendments with the aim to ensure landlords are protected from potential damages caused by pets.

However, we are content existing deposits which are capped at five weeks rent footer because tenancy is where the annual rent is less than £50,000 or six weeks rent for tenancies over £50,000, per annum, are enough to cover typical pet damages and no Lord Pannick illustrated clearly some of the complexities of this issue. Allowing a further three weeks deposit would cost the average tenant in England over £100. This is unaffordable for many tenants who will have worked very hard to save for a deposit for the property.

And greatly exceeds the average deposit deduction of £300 reported in the study, for damage. That study as I have quoted already found that 76% of landlords reported they didn't encounter any damage caused by dogs or cats in their rental properties, where there was damage this was an average of £300 per property, compared to... For non-pet rated damage. It shows that renters with pets tend to stay longer in their properties than those without pets, indicating financial and social advantages for landlords, in fostering both longer and more stable tenancies.

In the very rare cases where the insurance and the deposit do not cover the cost of damage, caused by pet, and landlord can of course take the tenant to that Small Claims Court by bringing a money claim to recoup any outstanding funds. In relation to the issues mentioned about Scotland, housing is a devolved matter in Scotland and it's for the Scottish Government to set deposit limits for private rented properties. I know the right to request but doesn't exist in Scotland yet. An agreed we believe the five weeks deposit will be sufficient to cover damages.

We also have concerns it will be possible distinguish between some damage caused by pet sentence themselves, which could leave pet owners with more exposure to large and reasonable deductions compared As I have always said, we have an existing power 11 landlords to give a larger where they have consented to the tenants having a pet, what we want to do is monitor how the pet provisions work in practice, consider using the power in the Tenant Fees Act, we see the pet damage is frequently exceeding the value of deposits.

Noble Lords, a similar amendment to amendment 52 was discussed at committee, I explained I don't believe this is the right approach as it may actively serve to discourage insurance from offering insurance products, rather than encourage them for however, as noble Lords are aware, the government position has now changed. The government's firm now changed. The government's firm in the view that tenants are not second-class citizens, which are determined to keep pets where this is reasonable, and as such... Yes, of course.
16:32
16:32
16:34
16:35
16:36
16:46
16:46
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 56, Lord Hope.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to speak to amendment 56, tabled by my noble friend who regrettably is unable to be with us regrettably is unable to be with us today. This amendment would require landlords to grant permission for landlords to grant permission for home adaptations that qualify as reasonable adjustments provided a reasonable adjustments provided a local authority assessment has been completed. The challenges faced by disabled tenants are many and their disabled tenants are many and their needs are often complex. Without needs are often complex.

Without clear provision to allow disabled tenants to make adaptations following a proper assessment. They risk being unable to remain in their homes long-term. Far too often disabled tenants are. To move frequently, encountering frequently, encountering unpredictable and inadequate modifications that undermine their ability to live independently. This ability to live independently. This is not a marginal issue. The 2023-24 is not a marginal issue. The 2023-24 English Housing Survey found that 37% of households include someone with a long-term illness or with a long-term illness or disability.

With that figure rising to a striking 59% in the socially to a striking 59% in the socially rented sector. According to a 2024 report by housing communities and local government Select Committee, one in three people with a disability lives in the private sector in unsuitable accommodation. The highest rate of any tenure type. Meanwhile a survey by Generation Rent found that more than 8/10, 86% of disabled private renters found that their disability or mental health condition has been negatively impacted by renting privately.

Following the Committee stage debate I am grateful to the Minister for highlighting the additional funding for the disabled facilities Grant, and for her comments on the review of the allocation formula, which is a very welcome step. I also appreciate the Minister's remarks regarding the ongoing review for the upper limit for the disabled facilities Grant. However, I would like to highlight that this upper limit has not been revised since 2008, meaning it has not kept pace with rising costs and the increasing complexity of adaptations needed.

While I agree that any review must be thorough to ensure fairness and sustainability, it is equally important that it is carried out with a sense of urgency. Delays in updating the upper limit risk leaving many disabled people without the full support they need to make their homes safe and accessible. A timely review and adjustment are essential to reflect the current realities and provide adequate assistance for those who need this vital funding. I would also gently urge the government to prioritise timely and efficient local authority home assessments.

For many disabled people delays in these assessments means living for months or even longer in unsuitable or unsafe conditions. The challenges facing disabled people in the housing sector highlighted deeply concerning evidence from again the local government Select Committee. Some individuals waited 22 weeks just to complete this first stage of their disabled facilities Grant application, leaving them without access to an adaptive kitchen or bathroom during that time. Well understand the concerns about creating a two tier system, the central aim of this amendment is to ensure that once a professional assessment has confirmed a need, there is a clear pathway to delivering those adaptations.

I hope ministers will continue to engage with the spirit of this proposal and the practical ways to remove unnecessary barriers to independent living. I'd also like to express my support for amendment 72 and 86, tabled by Baroness Jones. Amendment 72 proposes a new clause to establish a right to minor home adaptations for accommodating a disability. This is an important and practical step that would enable disabled tenants to live more independently without unnecessary delays or obstacles. Amendment 86 six to prevent discrimination against prospective tenants who may require adaptations or accessibility.

This is a vital protection to ensure that disabled people are not unfairly excluded from the rental market because of their needs. Both amendments reflect a fair and proportionate approach to improving accessibility and inclusion in the private rented sector and I hope the government will give them serious consideration. While I do not intend to divide the House at present, I hope the government will listen carefully and reflect on the proposals contained in these amendments. The aim is not to impose undue burdens, but to support disabled people in thing independently and with dignity in their homes that meet their needs.

I To continue engaging constructively on this issue and consider how we can work together to improve the system so it is more responsive, more equitable and more attuned to be relatives faced by disabled tenants across the country. I beg to move. move.
16:52
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker. Lord Geddes (Conservative)
-

After clause 12 insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled

**** Possible New Speaker ****

List. I rise to speak to my amendments
16:52
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to my amendments 72 and 86. I thank the noble Lady for giving such a good explanation of these two. I also wish that I had of these two. I also wish that I had lobbied the noble Lady the Minister more because I think these are, the three of them, are good amendments and very sensible. I was talking to a friend last night he has very severe disabilities and he was saying that what he has noticed is that whilst landlords are very slow at actually making these improvements, or adaptations, and allowing their tenants to do so, in fact retail business particularly is moving ahead.

He talked about a new retail development in Yeovil town where everything is accessible. It is rolling, rollout and people with disabilities in wheelchairs or whatever have for access. It seems businesses are taking this seriously, so why isn't the government and landlords? Renters of all ages face challenges, it is not only the older ones amongst us. Older people are particularly vulnerable for more reasons. They are likely to have health issues or disabilities that mean they are more at risk of becoming ill because of poor housing and they are also more likely to live in poor quality homes.

It just seems to me that this would be, in view of our ageing population, this is not just a good thing to do, but also entirely necessary. That was for amendment 72. One amendment 86, I welcome the support of the LGA because promoting equitable housing access and preventing discrimination is fundamental to our society. It's essential that tenants upper deck from unfair discrimination when seeking housing. I do hope that Labour listens. We have seen what happens when Labour doesn't listen to the needs of disabled people with their welfare reforms.

These are simple changes, but I think they are important and they will change lives for the better, now and in the future for our ageing population. Really that is what a progressive government should do. government should do.
16:55
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, would like to thank both noble Baronesses for speaking in this debate. It is a sensitive issue. It concerns adaptations for some of the most vulnerable in our society and touches on those who require the greatest compassion and care. We do need to support people to live in their own home, to live independently. It is one of the reasons why I as a council leader was proud because we built fully access to affordable home. However I access to affordable home.

However I have concerns with amendment 56. This is a bill focused on the private rented sector, yet the amendment introduces provisions relating to social tenancies, as my noble friend Baroness Scott has alluded to earlier in today's debate. Social housing providers have not been widely consulted in the lead up to this bill, infusing new requirements on them without proper consultation and discussion would be inappropriate. Any such change rightly belongs in a dedicated Social Housing Bill, and I note the comments of Lady Taylor earlier about her seeking to write to social landlords and perhaps this is another opportunity for her to do so.

Furthermore, the amendment is riddled with gaps. It lacks clarity on the important matters, such as what happens when a tenant leaves? Is responsible for reinstatement, it's cost and the loss of rent when work is being carried out in reinstatement? There was also the issue of ensuring work is carried out to a high standard and structural integrity is maintained. These issues are vital to ensuring the value and usability of the property and the amendment fails to address them adequately. Turning to amendment 72, table by Baroness Jones.

An openly defined minor change as including structural alterations. I am afraid structural alterations highly seem minor. Whilst I appreciate the intention and compassionate approach, this is a complex issue and I strongly believe my strike a balance between compassion, cost and deliverability. We must do so in a thorough and considered manner. I hope that your Lordships House agrees. Lordships House agrees.
16:57
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 amendment and to the noble Baroness for moving it so ably. Also Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb for her amendment. I thank Lord Jamieson. He may remember I visited some of the housing he developed when he was a council leader to pinch some ideas for my own local authority. It was very, very accessible. Amendment 56 from the noble Lord requires landlords to allow disability adaptations when a local authority has carried out a home assessment and recommended changes to be made.

Whilst the Equality Act 2010 already provides protections or disabled renters, I accept that they are not always well understood, or is well understood as they should be. It is right we consider how to address barriers preventing disabled renters from getting the home adaptations that they need. However as stated that committee I do not consider this amendment is the right way to do this. That is because a new requirement linked to local authority home assessments would create a confusing two tier system.

As a consequence, even these well- intentioned measures might make it harder for people who are not eligible for disabled facilities Grant to access adaptations. As I've previously set out the government has committed to take steps to clarify matters further to disable disabled renters. We all recognise what a vital issue this is and what the changes can make to someone's lives to have adequate access to the property. We will look to ensure that the written statement of terms landlords will have to provide to new tenants includes the duty on landlords not to unreasonably refuse tenants request for disability tenants request for disability adaptations.

We intend to deliver a communications program to raise awareness of disability right and obligations amongst tenants and landlords and we will explore enhancing guidance to help landlords and tenants better understand the current system. This is in addition to existing provisions in the bill that empower disabled tenants to request a home adaptations they need. For example, by abolishing the section 21 evictions we will remove the threat of retaliatory eviction and the ombudsman will give tenants a new route of redress when their adaptations are refused.

The government has also increased funding for disabled facilities Grant, as the noble Lady mention. We have increased the grant by £86 million, bringing the total amount to £711 million. Just to speak a little bit about local authorities in this. They must provide a decision on the facilities grant application within six months of receipt and the works must usually be completed within 12 months of the approval date. I appreciate that can fill a long time when you are waiting for an adaptation, but guidance has been published to help support efficient local delivery of the disabled facilities Grant, including speed of delivery.

I do appreciate that in some areas the availability of occupational therapists to do the assessments varies. Many local authorities are looking at this and I know they will be taking steps to address it. We also continue to fund an organisation to act as a national body for disabled facilities Grant and home improvement agencies, providing expertise and support to local authorities around disabled facilities Grant and home adaptations delivery. There is a lot going on to support the work that is being done in relation to disabled facilities grants.

I hope the noble Baroness on behalf of the noble Lord was agreed that the issues I have laid out will improve the lives of disabled renters and I asked that the amendment withdrawn. Turning to amendment 72. I was delighted to hear about the accessibility of the The government recognises it is not as easy as it should be, but the measures taken by this amendment, in relation to cost alone, doesn't account for the key factors relevant to whether disability adaptations can be made, as I mentioned at committee stage, this is factors of the need to obtain consent from third parties, Building Regulations requirements, consideration of how the property might be returned to its original condition, as mentioned by the noble Lord, and such issues will generally depend on the features of an individual property.

These fundamental challenges to defining minor adaptations will inevitably lead to ambiguity and confusion that can risk making things worse for both tenants and landlords. The amendment would also add the next layer of complexity by creating a new right, in addition to the existing Equality Act 2010 obligation on landlords, not to refuse consent, for disability - related improvements. I therefore do not consider this amendment is the right way to address the barriers preventing disabled renters from getting home adaptations they need. As I outlined at committee stage, the government has promised already to take action that will improve matters for disabled tenants.

Namely, we intend to use the new written statement of terms to set out the duty on landlords, not to unreasonably refused disability adaptation requests from tenants. We have pledged to work with the disability sector to raise awareness of disabled tenants' right and explore updating of guidance. I really feel these combined measures will be a simpler and more practical solution to the issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, raises was finally, amendment 86, which would extend the mental discrimination measures to those who require -- For those who require it, disabled people should not faces come 5Rights Foundation while facing the PRS.

We still consider this amendment is not the right way to meet its aim, though we understand the aim it is intending. Disabled people are already afforded the full protection of discrimination by the equality act 2010. Under which landlords are forbidden from discriminating against a person, based on disability. Adding this cohort to our measures in the bill would unnecessarily increase complexity and cause confusion. With little benefit and would model the local authorities who are responsible from for forcing this, and the Equality Act measures.

For this reason, we kindly ask the noble Baroness withdraw the amendments.
17:04
17:05
17:06
17:07
17:11
17:19
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker. Baroness Morris of Bolton (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, they have voted. Contents 213. Contents 209, so the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order.
17:19
17:19
17:24
17:31
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Scott. My Lords, this bill brings forward significant changes to the way our housing market functions and to the government's role within the private rented sector. It introduces new controls, grants new powers to the Secretary of State, imposes new finds, and restricts on what landlords and tenants can do. These are not minor or technical adjustments, they are fundamental shifts in how the private rented sector will operate. My Lords, a bill of this scale and consequence will require a clear well planned implementation strategy it cannot be a bill that promises change at some undefined point in the future.

With no clear roadmap for how landlords and tenants will be taken along that journey. Effective communication and timely guidance will be essential to ensure the secretary is not left in a state of uncertainty. The only implementation, this bill will alter the underlying dynamics of the market. The government's active involvement will inevitably shift the balance of supply and demand, change price signals, affect future capacity, influence rational expectations and, my Lords, alter incentives for both the landlords and for tenants.

These are not unintended side-effects, they are the direct consequences of the choices made in this legislation. That's why we have to be so passionate about the need for proper accountability and monitoring. That is why we tabled amendment 118. Which will require an impact report on the effects of this bill as a whole, covering the housing market, rent levels, house prices, and availability. My Lords, it is clear to us this bill will not enhance the availability of homes. Indeed, it risks diminishing it.

It will not ease the pressure of the unaffordable rents, but may exasperated. Nor will it drive improvements in the rented accommodation, quite the reverse, it threatens to hasten its deterioration. We believe therefore, that the government should be required to return to both houses with the report on the impact of this legislation. Not merely a review, a review can be very, take time, be inconclusive and be lacking in accountability and expense. A report, by contrast, must provide evidence, analysis, and a clear assessment of the outcomes against the stated aims of the bill.

My Lords, if we are to legislate with such ambition, we must also commit to transparency about the consequences of this government's bills. Finally, my Lords, I wish to draw the House's attention to amendment 60. Which would require the Secretary of State to provide an annual report on the financial assistance to local housing associations. This, my Lords, is about transparency and accountability. When public finances are under strain and fiscal outlook is bleak, taxpayers deserve to know where their hard earned money is going.

I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, will consider how we can strengthen oversight, win significant sums of financial assistance are involved. My Lords, on the broader principle of scrutinising the bill's intentions and implications, I am pleased that we have found common ground with the noble Baroness, Baroness Thornhill. My Lords, the noble Baroness, the Minister, the government may find this group frustrating. But we believe the onus is on us to ensure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the predictions are tested and instincts are aligned with reality. I beg to move. Amendment proposed, after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, after clause 16, insert the following new clause as printed on the Marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendments 90 and 93, in the name of Baroness Thornhill who unfortunately is not able to be here for this group. These are thoughtful and
17:35
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
group. These are thoughtful and constructive proposals that seek to strengthen the effectiveness and accountability of this bill. Amendment 90 would require a review of the impact of part one of the act within three years. Specifically to address its effect on renters security and stability. Given the significant of the forms introduced by this bill, it is entirely reasonable to build in a mechanism to evaluate whether these changes are achieving their intended outcomes, and to put those before Parliament. I am aware that the Department conduct their own review processes, a legislation of this kind.

But I would welcome assurances today from the Minister that these reviews would be thorough and fully account for the various impacts of the act across the private rented sector. Amendment 93 also tabled by Baroness Thornhill proposes a review on how well tenants understand their rights and obligations under the act and where they are most likely to seek that information. This speaks to a critical issue. The bill makes a number of positive reforms, particularly in strengthening the rights of renters to challenge unfair practices.

Such as unlawful rent increases. Poor property standards. Or breaches of their tenancy agreements through accessible routes, like the First- tier Tribunal. However, as we have discussed again and again in committee stage in the second reading, far too many tenants are either unaware of these rights or lack the practical information and support needed to exercise those rights. Without clear and accessible communication, even the most well- intentioned reforms risk falling short. This amendment would ensure the government is proactive in identifying how renters seek advice and whether current methods of communication are effective in reaching them.

It is only through this kind of follow-up that the bill's protections can be meaningfully realised in practice. Amendment 60 tabled by Baroness Scott would require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on financial assistance, provided to local housing authorities. The amendment as drafted it does not, in our view, clarify the contents of the review. And as such, information it suggests is already available. We are much more supportive of amendment 118, requiring a broader view of the act's impact on the housing market.

Something we attempted to introduce on day one of report. As we argued then, given the scale of the reforms to the private rented sector, a review of this kind would provide a useful opportunity to assess the acts wider consequences. We hope the Minister will take these considerations into account, these amendments do not seek to undermine the bill but rather ensure its implementation is informed, effective and fair. Any pack review to how well tenants understand and can access their rights would damage the government is serious about delivering lasting change, in the private rented sector.

It would also offer a valuable opportunity to defy where further support or clarification may be needed, and help to assure the forms achieve, as we all hope, therefore, their potential.
17:39
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I thank the noble Baronesses Lady Scott and Lady Thornhill, again, ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for their amendments. Management 60 would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement of the financial assistance provided to local authorities, in connection with their powers, to impose civil Related to issuer tenancies. The statement would need to be laid before Parliament within 12 months of section 16 of the bill, coming into force. And then annually for an indefinite period.

It is clearly important that local authorities are prepared to fulfil the duties placed upon them by the bill. However, requiring the government to produce annual statement of the nature outlined in this amendment will create a significant administrative burden, we believe, for little benefit. We know the enforcement duties created by the bill will present an additional net cost for local authorities. That is why we will ensure that the additional burdens created by the new system are funded in line with the New Burdens Doctrine.

We will continue to work closely with local authority stakeholders, as the bill is implemented, to ensure a smooth transition to the new system. And for these reasons, we would ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw her amendment. Turning to amendment 90, from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, which seeks to prescribe the groups to which the department would be required to be consulted part of this process. My Lords, I know there is a large amount of interest within this House, on at the impact of this legislation.

I have previously set out to the House the approach we will be taking to monitoring and evaluating the impact of the bill. The use of a broad range of data is at the heart of our approach. As well as existing data, we will use data from stakeholders, such as local authorities, and data generated from the reforms themselves. I agree, it is important that our evaluation makes use of interviews, surveys, and focus groups, and we have committed to conduct these with a range of stakeholders.

This amendment would require the government to speak to renters, landlords, local authorities, as part of our evaluation. My Lords, we have already committed to speaking to these groups, in fact, we plan to go further and also draw on the experience of letting agents, third sector organisations, delivery partners, the courts and tribunals service, and government officials. The information we collect from speaking to these stakeholders will be used as a key part of our evaluation of the program. I also recognise this amendment places a particular focus on the impact of the bill, on levels of homelessness and the use of temporary accommodation.

We already collect robust data through the homelessness case level collection. Local authorities provide quarterly data returns on their actions under the homelessness legislation. This allows us to effectively monitor homelessness including temporary accommodation breakdowns. My Lords, no approach to tackling homelessness can rely on a single action. Instead, we are determined to address the homelessness crisis we inherited and deliver long-term solutions. That is why we have already made £1 billion investment in homelessness and rough sleeping services this year, at 25, 26, and a £233 million increase on the previous year.

In addition, we are developing the cross government strategy, to get us back on track to ending homelessness. We are committed to moving away from the system focused on crisis response, taking a holistic approach, to preventing homelessness in the first place. And driving better value for money in interventions. Amendment 93, also from the noble Lady, Baroness Thornhill, would introduce a legal requirement for the Secretary of State to conduct a review to the extent to which tenants in any private rented sector understand their rights and obligations.

I know the House will share my view that the successful implementation of the Renters' Rights Bill is firmly rooted in how widely its provisions are known and understood and I completely agree with Baroness Grender in that respect. I therefore want to reassure the House the government's committed to raising awareness of the full range of Renters' Rights Bill reforms, across the private rented sector. This will be done through robust and extensive stakeholder engagement, providing the sector with a full suite of guidance on the reforms.

And an overarching communication campaign, along with partnership marketing. This extensive a targeted work will ensure each part of the sector fully understands their new rights and obligations. The government has already committed to a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation program of the reforms, drawing on a wide range of data sources and stakeholder input. Including a requirement for a review of tenants understanding, of the rights and responsibilities on the face of the bill, therefore represents an unnecessary step. On the basis of these arguments and our clear commitments, I would ask the noble Lady to withdraw her amendments.

Finally, turning to amendment 118, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, I appreciate the concern that underpins amendment 118. Namely, the potential impact of the Renters' Rights Bill on the housing market in England and whether it might discourage landlords from remaining in the sector. As we consider this issue today, it is important to reflect on the evidence already reflect on the evidence already available. The 23-24 English Housing survey shows that the size of the private rented sector has remained broadly stable since 2013, 14.

This suggests that despite ongoing discussions about Reform, since 2019, landlords have not exited the market in significant numbers. My Lords, the government remains confident that the measures in this bill will not destabilise the rental market, on the contrary, our proposals make sure landlords have the confidence and support they need to continue to invest and operate in the sector. My Lords, I won't repeat the details are set out in committee of this government's commitment to thoroughly monitoring and evaluating the private rented sector reform program, using a wide range of data sources.

And stakeholder input. However, for the benefit of the House, I will briefly set out plans for publishing the findings, from this evaluation, which I believe is what the noble Baroness Scott was asking me. In accordance with the policy set out in our evaluation strategy, the department will publish its assessment of the Renters' Rights Bill on gov.uk, at two key intervals, two years and five years after implementation. To ensure the reports are publicly accessible, copies will be formally launched in the ivories of both Houses of Parliament at the time of publication I would also like to reassure the noble Baroness we are committed to carrying out a robust evaluation of the Renters' Rights Bill.

We will disseminate its findings widely, so that tenants, animals, local authorities and wider stakeholders will be able to see and scrutinise the impact of the reforms in a timely way. For these reasons, I would ask the noble Baroness withdraw her amendment.
17:46
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I would like to thank It has allowed us to explore the further impacts of the bill and what it entails. It is clear from the discussions today in the lead up to the report that there is probably not sufficient report in this House for amendment 60, so I will not be pressing that today. But it has been very clear from the outset to us this is a poor deal. We believe it will have serious consequences for both landlords and tenants.

A reduction in rental supply is not good. It pushes up costs for those already just about managing and in many cases removes the entirely reasonable option of renting a home altogether. We therefore wish to test the opinion of the House on amendment 118 when the opportunity to do so arises on the next day of report. If the government are confident in this bill, then we believe they should have nothing to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hide. I big to move. Is at your Lordships pleasure that amendment 60 be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 61, Baroness Kennedy. Amendment 61, Baroness Kennedy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 61, Baroness Kennedy. I declare my interest as a trustee of the nationwide foundation. Amendment 61 in my name six to address a growing and deeply concerning issue in the private concerning issue in the private rental. The overuse and often misuse of guarantor requests. This of guarantor requests. This amendment was expertly move my noble friend Baroness Lister at committee and I thank her for her support today, along with the noble Lady Baroness Grender and the Right Baroness Grender and the Right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, all of whom have given Manchester, all of whom have given support to this issue regarding the overuse of guarantors.

Landlords should retain ways to embellish should retain ways to embellish financial risk, however the increasing risk of guarantor requests is creating a new form of requests is creating a new form of exclusion, particularly for vulnerable renters. This is what amendment 61 is about. It's not about banning guarantees, but restoring proportionality and restoring proportionality and fairness to their use. Guarantors become a significant barrier to
17:50
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley Portrait Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Labour)
-
-
housing for many. Recent data from Generation Rent shows that almost Generation Rent shows that almost 30% of renters who moved in 23-24 were asked to provide a guarantor. A further survey by Shelter and YouGov further survey by Shelter and YouGov showed that due to the inability to showed that due to the inability to fulfil guarantor requests. However, landlords have not claimed rent from guarantors, despite so many being guarantors, despite so many being asked to provide them.

They are often never pursued when payment often never pursued when payment issues arise. Why you may ask? A survey asked exactly why and 25% of private rent landlords when private rent landlords when questioned said they asked for a questioned said they asked for a guarantor because my letting agent advise me too. Another 16% said, I thought it was standard practice. Another 12% said, I had heard from other landlords it was a good idea. So simply put, guarantors are over requested, largely unused and worst of all they increasingly serve as a proxy for discrimination.

When a tenant can show that they can afford the rent to a standard affordability assessment, the additional requirement of a guarantor becomes unnecessary and unfair. In many cases it as to an already substantial financial burden, alongside the five-week deposit and the first months rent in advance. The evidence shows that this practice disproportionately affects people on lower incomes, those without access to financial support networks and groups already at greater risk of housing discrimination. Women, single parents, people with disabilities, black and Bangladeshi tenants.

These figures show a pattern. We've also heard about older renters being asked intrusive questions and then being asked to provide a guarantor. We heard a self-employed single mother was asked to provide a guarantor even though she was earning £45,000 a year. Too many renters simply do not have someone in their network who can act as a guarantor. Unless this issue is addressed, there will be a two- tiered system in the rental market. The justification of these requirements often rest on an overstated fear of rent arrears.

Yet government figures show that only 2% of private renters were in arrears in 23-24. It's not negligible but it doesn't warrant such widespread and disproportionate use of guarantors and there is an eviction procedure. Guarantor should only be requested when a tenant cannot fully demonstrate that they can afford the demonstrate that they can afford the rent. So this amendment, amended 61, strikes a balance, allowing landlords to use guarantors where genuinely necessary, while protecting tenants from unjust exclusion.

It is supported by a wide range of voices. Shelter, independent age, the Mayor of London and others. It's also worth noting that this amendment calls not only for legislative clarity, but invites the government to go a little further by introducing national guidance on affair and proportional issue of tenant referencing. It will prevent local variation from undermining the housing market. In summary this amendment is proportionate, reasonable and does not remove the landlord's right to safeguard their interests, but ensures that its exercise in a way that is just and consistent.

I hope Baroness Taylor of Stevenage is minded to accept this amendment. But if that is not the case, can I ask for critical questions. We guarantor requests becoming standard process rather than when they needed, the government issued guidance to landlords and when to request one? Will the government look at what support it can provide people who are at risk of homelessness because they cannot find a guarantor? Will the issue of guarantors be examined in detail as part of the postal implementation work? And will my noble friend commit to working with Shelter, the renters coalition, noble Earls in this House are many others on these issues and find other ways to support the growing number of renters being locked out of the PRS because of the overuse of guarantors? Without this amendment and government action to address the issue of guarantors, tackling discrimination will undermine the practices it wishes to help.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise briefly to talk against cruel 61. This is well-meaning, but cruel 61. This is well-meaning, but I'm afraid it is a blunt increment full of unintended consequences. I full of unintended consequences. I do not deny that to require a guarantor for most tenancies is disproportionate and unnecessary,
17:54
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
and the bill makes welcome provisions to regularise what has become standard practice for the most part. But I do want to alert your Lordships House to some perverse consequences for particular types of tenant, among which are the quietest voices. There is the foreign students, the groups of students, as well as those with the impaired reputational difficult -- impaired reputations and difficult circumstances. Let's dwell for a moment on the foreign student. They have come from away.

They have no reputation, there is no covenant strength, they may not have arrived in the United Kingdom yet. Probably don't have a UK bank account or UK mobile phone either. The only way in which they can secure in many cases a property for them to living before they arrive is to have a guarantor. The guarantor allows them to have a roof over their head. We have groups of students. I'm referring to cases such as my daughter when she went off to Newcastle.

There were seven students, friends, but they didn't know each other that well. There were no family bound to tie them and this bill contemplates that the tenant is a single tenant. It is quite reasonable for a landlord renting to students who can't have payment in advance, and I won't one about that because we discussed that on day one of committee, but they need to supply some side of guarantors so the downside risks can be compensated. Without those guarantors, and not all of them want to live in expensive horns of residents.

They are disadvantaged in an early part of their lives. I am thinking if I may about those with the impaired reputation. People who may have left prison. People suffering from domestic abuse, or family breakdown. I have been a guarantor for this sort of family in this type of situation, but the government seeks to make my well- meaning interventions unlawful. So let me explain. Sitting in your Lordships House the moment as the noble Baroness the Minister. Lord Jamieson and myself, all of whom have been leaders of councils.

We know that councils have to step in certain circumstances to avoid homelessness. We know there are not enough registered social landlords and we know that the private sector landlords are our friends. They are part of the solution, not the problem. But we cannot expect the private sector landlord to be the only one that takes a chance to get that person who may have fallen homeless to get a roof over their head. In common with other councils, my councils, and I am proud we push this hard, we had rental guarantees.

We stood guarantor for somebody in difficult circumstances so that the private sector landlord, who was prepared to take a chance with us, could do so. This has been an essential part of managing the housing market. It's about supporting the most valuable. It works, it is a success, it is something, I have been a council leader, and I'm sorry, I failed to recognise the noble Baroness Scott who has also been a council leader. Being a guarantor helps to get people back on their feet.

When you consider amendment 61, in what universe can this misguided and counter-productive amendment help those with the quietest voices get a roof over their head? Providing a guarantor is the way in which the unvented can be rented, and there is nothing fair about keeping people in bed and breakfast if they could find a guarantor and get housed. I cannot support this amendment.
17:59
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-
Iron police to support my noble friend and grateful to her for taking over the amendment. She is much better place than I am making and has done so very persuasively. The noble Lord Lord Fuller called it a blunt instrument and was hyperbolic at the end when his objective to describe the amendment. objective to describe the amendment. But according to Shelter, the bill and this amendment would restrict scenarios which landlords can legitimately request a guarantor if a prospective tenant cannot prove the event is affordable to them.

It doesn't mean that the amendment excludes the groups the noble Lord describes. If it does so, perhaps we can have a refined of it, but the fact is that there are problems without an amendment of this kind. My central argument in committee...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble Lady talks about the burden of proof and in the three examples I gave, proof is not available. So gave, proof is not available. So those people promoting amendment 61, and I can understand the intent and and I can understand the intent and well-meaning this behind it, but if it forms part of the bill, you need to ask yourself how our those people in those difficult circumstances going to demonstrate the proof, because they can't, so a guarantor

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is the only way forward. This amendment doesn't preclude the use of guarantors, it just limits the use of guarantors, but I will leave it as that. As I said at will leave it as that. As I said at committee, the better way of doing committee, the better way of doing it as I said at committee, if there is a better way of doing it, then is a better way of doing it, then fine. I'm not convinced that there are any unintended consequences.

Anyway there was a welcome provision in the bill that will prevent in the bill that will prevent landlords requesting multiple months rent in advance which my noble friend the Minister explain can be friend the Minister explain can be used to discriminate against certain used to discriminate against certain marginalised groups. Then warned that the requirement of a guarantor could easily become an alternative to discrimination, as my noble to discrimination, as my noble to discrimination, as my noble It would not prohibit guarantors but would limit their use, to avoid discriminatory impact.

I am afraid my noble friend the Minister did not really address the argument in her response at committee, did she not accept the evidence I have presented, and my noble friend has presented, today that requiring a high earning or home earning guarantor is all too often used in a discriminatory way. I am thinking particular, as my noble friend said, of Social Security recipients, disabled tenants, members of racial minorities, who at this proportionately likely to be as a guarantor.

Given the discriminatory stance, which of course, I'm very supportive of, I am a loss as to why my noble friend, the Minister, didn't take this argument more seriously. Perhaps you could address it today and ideally except the case made by my noble friend all commit to bringing forward her own amendment, at third reading, and would perhaps address the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, raised. At the very least, I hope that she will be able to answer the questions my noble friend posed as a kind of broad back option.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I have my name against this amendment, and am absolutely this amendment, and am absolutely delighted to support it. In the name of Lady Kennedy of Cradley, and we of Lady Kennedy of Cradley, and we spoke about this at committee stage. spoke about this at committee stage. But I still feel there is an opportunity here. This is not about the banning all guarantors. If acne the banning all guarantors. If acne is clarified. And that is made very clear in the wording of the amendment.

-- If that needs clarified. This is about blanket use of guarantors, which I'm afraid is of guarantors, which I'm afraid is in use and is highly, highly discriminatory. The noble Lord discriminatory. The noble Lord Fuller references student groups but Fuller references student groups but I am a little confused because the student groups that have been touch student groups that have been touch -- In touch with me the last three days about his amendment, my understanding is they support this amendment. Unless the noble Lord has amendment.

Unless the noble Lord has any examples of student groups that have been in touch with him against have been in touch with him against this amendment and I would be happy to sit down and allow him to tell me.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

me. I canvassed student groups, but I know the example of my own family, when my daughters went to Oxford and of course Newcastle, the restrictions placed, I'm talking from my personal experience, rather from my personal experience, rather

**** Possible New Speaker ****

than the presenter -- Representatives of other organisations. It is my understanding the student groups are happy with this student groups are happy with this amendment and again, the blanket use of guarantors. Because the current of guarantors. Because the current use of guarantors is, I'm afraid, a proxy for cremation against vulnerable groups. There is evidence vulnerable groups. There is evidence there -- A proxy for discrimination against vulnerable groups. There is evidence, it is so profoundly shocking, it benefits repetition. shocking, it benefits repetition.

66% more likely to be asked for a guarantor if you are black. That is guarantor if you are black. That is just shocking. If you are on benefits, 60% more. If you have a
18:05
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
benefits, 60% more. If you have a disability, 20% more. If you are older, in other words, the great Equality Act of 2010 is being driven over with this, with the use of guarantors. And I am delighted to support it. I read with a lot of care the frontbench speeches in the committee stage with this. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, suggested guarantors can be a lifeline for those with poor credit or no rental history. But my Lords, we genuinely believe on these benches that nothing can be further from the truth.

The harsh and stark reality is that 550,000 private renters were unable to secure a desired home in the last five years, because they lacked a guarantor. There is not a single campaigning organisation, that I'm aware of, who campaigns and advocates on behalf of people who could be described as those who need that kind of lifeline. Who are on no incomes or low incomes, who are advocating or opposing this amendment, that I'm aware of. And that includes working class international, estranged, and care experienced students who struggle to find suitable guarantors.

Why do they struggle to find suitable guarantors? Because they do not know anyone in those highest quartiles which are the only guarantors that many landlords will accept. They just do not have those contacts or connections. He further suggested tenants have market discussion or choice, if a landlord is imposing a blanket guarantor policy. That defies the logic of the current marketplace, whether low income tenant is never in the luxury position of shopping around. Again, the choice rests only with those whose income is in the higher quartiles.

To the Minister's pointed the same discussion, about guarantors providing confidence, we must ask at what cost to fairness. Landlords already have really robust tools, a five-week deposit, the first months rent upfront, affordability checks. Indeed, as the noble Lady, Lady Kennedy, said, guarantors are rarely invoked in practice, and like him, I am currently a guarantor for my son who was a student, so I completely understand that is what we currently do. But less than 3% of landlords have ever attempted to claim lost rent from a guarantor in the past two years.

When they did, it was 16 times more likely to be difficult and easy. Landlords have other much more appropriate business risk more appropriate business risk management tools, such as rent guarantee, insurance, rather than relying on a tenants family member, so many of these tenants do not have a family member who is earning way above the median income, which is what is demanded. Even before this legislation has come into effect, there is a worrying rise. Generation Rent 2024 survey, found that 24% of renters who had moved in 23-24 had been asked for a guarantor, up from 22% who had moved before, in 2019.

Always in this context, I fear the debate is held on the assumption renters like responsible ditty somehow, unlike other 10 years. -- Lacks responsibility for but as Lady Kennedy said, tenors reported arrears in 2024, most tenants, the vast majority are responsible individuals. Either way, they often come with other things, like eating and eating, in order to pay rent, because they understand the consequences and because the market a limited for them. This is not a radical proposal.

As generation Rent and Shelter argue, it simply ensures guarantors are used sparingly and appropriately and only when absolutely necessary. Only when a prospective tenant generally cannot demonstrate they can afford the rent. And this entirely aligns with the national residential landlords Association's own current guidelines. When the Minister responds, I would ask if the government are unable to stop this loophole for discriminatory practice. Usually at least, either today or perhaps in a letter to follow, make clear guarantors should be only used as a last resort.

At the Equality Act should be used if there is further evidence of discrimination. And that, already, landlords have the means to ensure tenants pay through other mechanisms. I hope, my Lords, her words today will ensure that widespread use of guarantors is not the next version of no fault of evictions.
18:10
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. Can I thank the many who have spoken of this debate, particularly the three noble Baronesses who have spoken very passionately on the issue that we need to support. Some of the most vulnerable in our society. And I agree, we do need to support them. And as my honourable friend, the noble Lord Fuller, many councils use the fact they can use a guarantor to enable many to access home where under other circumstances they would not be able to do.

There is a role for the guarantee. I think, the noble Baroness Grender has just mentioned, there is a shortage of rental accommodation. I think the figure is something like 12 people chasing every available rented home. I think we need to think about this when discussing the spell and how we encourage more people to seek to read their home, so we have a more dynamic market and there is more availability there. So, with that, I would like to say, is widely recognised we need more rented homes, and the importance of small landlords, particularly in the rural area.

But we also need to recognise that for many of these landlords, they only have one or two homes. Many of these are a substitute pension. Many of them have mortgages on these homes. And if they are going to do that, they need security that they are going to get the rental income, it is just too high a risk, and some noble Lords have mentioned the risk is small, but if it is your only asset and you have got a mortgage on it, you may not feel able to take that risk.

As we have discussed before. Without this, many would have no choice but to exit the market. Meaning fewer rental homes and fewer people able to access a home. More people on the street. That is a particular issue in rural areas with these small ones, it provides A-level of security, giving landlords assurance the event will be paid, even if the tenant is experiencing frontal difficulties. As mentioned earlier, a tenants, particularly students and young people, or those without a strong credit history, a guarantor can be key to securing a home, which might otherwise be out of reach.

This, my Lords, is partly why we are so passionate about enabling rent in advance. That vision would have been especially helpful for individuals facing barriers. Such as overseas students without UK credit records. All -- Or those who simply don't have anyone to act as a guarantor. I understand why the noble Baroness, has bought this amendment, however, I regret to say on the side of the House, we cannot support it. Firstly, it is overly restrictive. And would constrain landlords from making what is, in many cases, a reasonable response to financial risk.

Second, preventing landlords from providing a guarantor in such circumstances can have the unintended consequence of discouraging them from renting to high-risk tenants altogether. Third, it undermines a market led approach, to risk mitigation. Finally, the amendment affords a broad and, we believe, inappropriate delegation power. Combined together, my Lords, this will, as I said earlier, reduce the supply of available homes, increase the cost to a tenant, and mean fewer people are unable to get their own home. For these reasons, my Lords, we cannot support this amendment.
18:14
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I would like to thank my noble friend, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, for her amendment 61. And for bringing her own expertise and experience both to today's debate and discussions we have had previously on this issue. And indeed, as is my noble friend, Baroness Lister, when she moved a similar amendment at committee for I would also like to thank Lord Fuller and Baroness Grender, the noble Lord Jamieson for speaking. The use of guarantors in the private rented sector is an issue which I know is of great interest to the House.

Let me start by saying the government recognises the fact that obtaining a guarantor can be a difficult task for some tenants, and I understand concerns it can be used as a further barrier to tenancy in some cases. As the noble Baroness Grender said, and indicated, where it has been used to discriminate, then equalities law may apply, and I will consider for our information exercise on the bill, whether there is anything we can do to inform people in this regard for some however, it would be irresponsible for any government to legislate to tackle one issue, without considering the impact of such action on the system as a whole.

This amendment would make it unlawful for a landlord to accept an offer from a prospective tenant, to provide a guarantor, in a very broad set of circumstances. Including in the case of any tenant who has paid a tenancy deposit. My Lords, we must not underestimate the risk of such action proposed, for those who rely on guarantors to access the private rented sector. Without the option of providing a guarantor, many prospective renters, including those moving out of home for the first time, self-employed, those with historic debts, would find it difficult to secure a private tenancy, and some will find it impossible.

While this scope of the prohibition contained in the amendment is broad, I recognise there is also interest within the House in a more targeted restriction on the use of guarantors. Why should, for example, a tenant who can demonstrate an income of three or four times the annual rent be required to provide a guarantor? In answering this question, I must stress to the House that landlords generally take account of several factors, in addition to income, when determining whether a potential tenancy is likely to be sustainable.

This includes the prospective renters former employment, rental history, and broader financial If we were to say that renters with a certain income didn't need to provide a guarantor, it would prevent an equal footing. Without the ability to offer guarantor and all else being equal, it is likely that, giving one example, a self- employed renter find it challenging to secure a property if facing competition from someone on a permanent contract with the same income. All this being said I recognise there is interest in this House in cases where a person is unable to find a guarantor and particularly where a person is at risk of homelessness.

I the House will allow me to set out the support and options that may be available where this is the case. First, the measures we are introducing which restrict payments of rent in advance at the start of the tenancy do not apply to local authorities. This means that local authorities will means that local authorities will continue to pay upfront rent to help people on low incomes or at risk of homelessness to secure property. Local authorities may offer guarantee schemes, as the noble Lord fuller commented.

These local authority guarantors can be important for example for care leavers leaving care who do not have, may not have a guarantor otherwise, or for a domestic abuse victim who has fled and has to avoid contact the people that may be guarantors. And in some cases professional guarantor services can help prospective tenants acquire a guarantor in circumstances where they may not have been able to do so. My noble friend asked if guidance would be issued to landlords.

I recognise the concerns that underline this question. We have no plans to publish guidance on the use of guarantors, but I will consider whether we need to give further guidance on when that may be discriminatory. This is because there is no one-size-fits-all approach to determine whether a tenancy will be sustainable. Landlords must be able to make informed decisions when selecting tenants. Good landlords assess tenant suitability in line with each individual circumstance and they do not apply blanket policies to their tenant assessment process.

I'm also happy to confirm to the House our evaluation of the impact of the bill, the approach I set out when we debated the previous group of amendments, will include an assessment of any changes in the use of guarantors. In addition we will continue to speak to stakeholders across the set about the use of guarantors as a way of supporting renters into homes. To respond to Baroness Kennedy, I'm happy to meet with her, Shelter, renters coalition with her, Shelter, renters coalition and others if it will help to debate the issue.

There is a supply and demand imbalance in this country which the government is seeking to tackle through our ambitious milestone of building 1.5 million five -- safe and decent home in this Parliament. However whilst we are in this situation where there is strong competition for privately compensation in some parts of the country it will not be helpful to support a measure that will do more harm then good to renters. I hope that on that note my noble friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will not press her new clause to a vote. I thank noble Lord is for
18:20
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley Portrait Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank noble Lord is for speaking in this group. I do want to reassure my noble friend Baroness reassure my noble friend Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Lord Fuller and others that the intention behind this is clear. It's not about banning guarantors. I'm sure and all sides of the House we appreciate landlords have to manage their financial risks. They have a number of ways of doing this. This amendment is simply about ending discrimination and ensuring that guarantors a overused and commonplace, they argues when they are generally needed and it's about restoring proportionality and fairness the use of guarantors.

I thank Baroness Tyler for her reply and engagement on this issue, continually meeting with me and other stakeholders in the understanding of the issue. We are disappointed that the government will not accept this amendment. I am particularly disappointed about the guidance not being issued. I'm appreciative about the guidance about discrimination and the discriminatory nature of the overuse of guarantors and her commitment towards evaluation of the impact of the bill. And always happy that she will meet with myself and other stakeholders.

Family of the belief, as I am sure other noble Lords are, as Baroness Lister and Baroness Grender have reiterated, we are often believe that the overuse of guarantors implements the discriminative aspects of this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

However, I will withdraw. Amendment by leave withdrawn. In clause 21, amendment 62, Lord Shipley.
18:22
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move amendment 62 and speak to 63, 65 and 66. At Committee stage I raised some problems with the honourable lady Bull was drafted the honourable lady Bull was drafted for joint tenants in respect of notices to quit under assured tenancies, defined in clause is 21 and 22. It was anticipated at Committee stage that the issues raised will be examined further, and I thank the Minister for having done this. The problem was that with joint tenants had a breakdown in , there could be unforeseen consequences for one joint tenants, who might be unaware, for example, that a notice to quit had been served by the other joint tenant.

I am grateful for the assistance provided by Citizens Advice, his frontline staff identified this problem and proposed solutions, and to the work done by the Minister and her department in drafting amendments 64 and 67, which I welcome. I look forward to the Minister's explanations of amendments 64 and 67 in the expectation that I will withdraw the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments in my name in this group. Clause 21, page 38, line 34, leave out has and insert and any leave out has and insert and any

**** Possible New Speaker ****

joint tenants have. My Lords, I rise to address this group of amendments relating to joint tenancies and procedural requirements for serving and requirements for serving and responding to notices to quit. The amendments were put forward by Lord Shipley and seek to ensure that provisions within clauses 21 and 22
18:24
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
provisions within clauses 21 and 22 apply expressly and fairly to all assured tenancies. The spirit of these amendments is to promote transparency and fairness, ensuring that no tenant is left unaware or disadvantaged by unilateral actions. As we have discussed in this debate and in the Committee stage, joint tenancies are an important and increasingly form of tenancy arrangement, particularly amongst families, couples and shared households. Given that multiple tenants hold equal rights and responsibilities, it is only right and fair the bill reflects this reality by requiring all parties to be kept informed of significant developments affecting their tenancy.

These amendments proposed sensible, procedural safeguards. The requirement that any notice to quit is served by one joint tenant must be communicated in writing to all other joint tenants is fair. Similarly, where a landlord serves notice, all joint tenant should be notified promptly. It is also noteworthy that some amendments specify that certain agreements, such as those shortening notice periods or drawing notices to quit, must involve consent of all joint tenants rather than just one. This is a balance recognition of the collective nature of joint tenancies and the importance of mutual consent in such decisions.

As this bill continues to evolve it is our shared goal to ensure a rental market is fair and workable for all parties involved. Though we fully understand and respect the intentions behind these amendments and we welcome the constructive debate they have smart, it's important to consider the practical implications requiring unanimous consent when detailed notice procedures could add complexity delay, especially in situations where tenants circumstances change rapidly. Therefore whilst we support the principle of ensuring fairness and transparency in joint tenancies, we urge careful consideration and balance between protecting tenants rights and maintaining workable efficient processes for their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

landlords and tenants alike. I would like to thank the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank the noble
18:27
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank the noble Lord Shipley for his amendments and Citizens Advice who have provided the benefit of their significant expertise throughout the bill's expertise throughout the bill's passage. I also would like to thank Lord Jamieson for his contribution. Turning to amendment 62 and 66, the government's position is not that the joint tenants could end the tenancy unilaterally or tenant should not have the ability to drop another. The government has tabled amendments 64 and 67 which achieve the same effect as those laid by the noble Lord law Shipley.

Government amendment 64 would apply where a tenant he wants to quit a joint tenancy six to agree a shorter notice period with the landlord. All other landlords will need to agree this in order for the notice to quit to be valid. This would ensure tenants will not be able to agree short notice periods for a notice to quit without other joint tenants being aware, preventing tenants from finding out at very short notice their tenancy is pending. I'm pleased to clarify this issue beyond doubt.

Government amendment 67 will clarify that all joint tenants must agree alongside the landlord for a notice to quit to be withdrawn. All tenants must agree to sustain tenancy and make clear that one tenant cannot trap another in the tenancy indefinitely. These changes will ensure that joint tenancies continue to operate effectively in the future tenancy rating and ensure maximum clarity for all parties. As such I hope the noble Lord of -- I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendments.

I have great sympathy with the noble Lord's intent. We all agreed that tenants and landlords should communicate transparently with one another and take action to ensure that all parties are aware that the tenancy is coming to an end. With regret I'm unable to support Coady final requirement for this in law. The government is concerned that in certain circumstances this may place individuals at risk. This is particularly true for victims of domestic abuse who may not be able to safely inform the perpetrator that a notice to quit has been served.

Indeed some victims may choose not to serve a notice to quit at all. I also have practical concerns about this amendment. It might give rise to frustrating and counter-productive disputes among tenants and cause them to question whether a tenancy is being validly ended. And that 65 would allow a tenant to serve one months notice if a landlord is served a possession notice. This will be a reduction from the usual two months notice required by the bill. While I appreciate the intent is to offer tenants flexibility to find a new property, we think the bill strikes the right balance.

Landlords must now be formats notice when using these grounds. We think it is reasonable that the property be occupied for at least two months of this period, unless there is specific agreement to a shorter period. I would also note that allowing shorter notice periods automatically place other joint tenants in a difficult situation. For example, if they have not found alternative accommodation. This is recognised in the noble Lord's other amendments. In many cases the landlord would be supportive of the tenant moving out sooner than would be otherwise permitted.

In these cases all joint tenants and the landlord need to agree a shorter notice period. Given careful consideration to these amendments and have accepted those where we feel the bill could be strengthened. While I fully appreciate the intent behind the other amendments. I therefore would asking to withdraw those amendments for the reasons I those amendments for the reasons I
18:31
18:31
18:32
18:33
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
away the questions raised in this group, to assess whether further amendments are needed at third amendments are needed at third reading. The amendments in this reading. The amendments in this group seek to prevent a landlord from serving a notice under section 8 of the Housing Act eight, to seek 8 of the Housing Act eight, to seek possession of a property where a tenancy deposit has not been tenancy deposit has not been properly protected, or the relevant statutory requirements in relation to the deposit have not been to the deposit have not been complied with.

Citizens Advice have advised me that the tenancy deposit protection scheme will be significantly weakened if it remains significantly weakened if it remains the case in the bill that landlords will not need to protect tenants will not need to protect tenants deposits prior to serving notice, and this would be a departure from and this would be a departure from the current position. So reverting to the requirement that a landlord must be compliant at the point must be compliant at the point notice served would give far greater certainty and would avoid wasted court time in cases where a tenant may not have known up into the may not have known up into the last-minute whether a valid defence existed.

The tenant may believe that they have an offence because the deposit has been taken and not protected but then find the landlord protect or return to the deposit to them at very last-minute, potentially on the morning of the court hearing. This makes it very difficult for tenants to make informed decisions about defending a claim. As it stands, the bill says that where a tenancy deposit has been paid, in connection with an assured tenancy, the court may make an order for possession of that dwellinghouse, left on the assured tenancy, only if the tenancy deposit
18:35
18:35
18:36
18:38
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord Lord Shipley for raising these points and to Citizens Advice who have discussed them directly without department. And to the noble Baroness got for her comments. What they have great sympathy with the intention of amendment 68, six and nine, 70 and 71, " 27 already ensures that deposits will be protected at the time of the position hearing, which we think is a more proportionate approach. Landlords have until the court hearing to comply with the rules.

This ensures landlords can still gain possession on ensuring the tenants deposit is protection before the tenancy ends. I also note this approach is far stronger than current restrictions which only prevent the use of section 21 and not section 8 of the deposit is not protected. I believe the noble Lords approach goes too far. Most notably if a landlord had failed to protect a deposit within 30 days of receiving it then they would be permanently prevented from serving notice on any ground for possession except antisocial behaviour.

Let me be clear, such a landlord should have complied with the law, of course they should. But there are other more proportionate mechanisms available to enforce that compliance. This includes an ability for a court to award tenants up to 3 for a court to award tenants up to 3 times the amount of the deposit if it was not protected properly. In conclusion, the current bill balances tenant protection with the need for legitimate cases to proceed. I would therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

amendment.
18:39
18:41
18:42
18:43
None Portrait Amendment:74 Lord Best (Crossbench)
-

which the noble Baroness Lady Thornhill and to my delight, noble Baroness the Minister, have added Baroness the Minister, have added their names. I declare my interest as a vice president of the Local Government Association and the chartered to trading standards. Trading standards officers are going Trading standards officers are going to be important in the enforcement of key provisions in this bill and amendment 74 is intended to support their work. I have brought for this amendment at the Bills committee amendment at the Bills committee stage.

It is intended to extend the matters covered by the special matters covered by the special primary authority scheme. The scheme enables local course at local authorities to provide assured advice that property agents can rely on in seeking to fulfil their obligations. With this amendment, letting agents and those that advise them, like property market and the property ombudsman, with the able to property ombudsman, with the able to obtain clear guidance on their responsibilities for meeting regulatory requirements, under the regulatory requirements, under the tenants fees 2019, an important piece of legislation that has been piece of legislation that has been left out of this advisory scheme to date Tenant Fees Act this amendment would help trading standard officers to assure compliance and is beneficial to property agents wanting to do the right thing.

The amendment was proposed to by the senior manager of the trading standards team to whom I offer many thanks. I thank noble Lords on the opposition benches for supporting this amendment at committee stage. I'm very pleased the government has decided to back this amendment and I'm grateful to the noble Baroness the Minister for adding her name to this amendment. It may not be the most exciting measure before us but it does represent a most welcome addition to the bill and will reduce
18:44
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker. Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (Crossbench)
-

pressure on overburdened local authority and enforcement teams.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In schedule two, page 207, line 13, at the end insert the words as
18:44
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
printed on the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support amendment 74 and the name of the noble Lord Best, noting it is signed by my noble noting it is signed by my noble friend Lady Thornhill. This is a characteristic amendment from Lord characteristic amendment from Lord Best who has become the amendment Best who has become the amendment expert when it comes to housing, capable of spotting small but significant changes that can make a difference. And we are absolutely delighted that the noble Lady the Minister has also signed the Minister has also signed the amendment.

We have long supported efforts to raise standards and efforts to raise standards and professionalism amount managing and property agents. We fully agree with the findings and recommendations of the findings and recommendations of the 2019 report on the regulatory property agents shared by the noble Lord Best. Is it really six years Lord Best. Is it really six years since its publication on 18th of this month? And how many of its accommodations have actually been accommodations have actually been implemented? Either -- its implemented? Either -- its recommendations.

And still the noble Lord's amendment go someway to helping trading standard local authorities to work more effectively with those good agents who want to with those good agents who want to raise standards for all and weed out the bad guys. Doing so, knowing that the assured advice they receive will be very clear and comprehensive in ensuring compliance in meeting their obligations under the Tenant Fees Act and I look forward to hearing My Lords, My Lords, we My Lords, we are My Lords, we are in My Lords, we are in unanimous agreement.

I also thank Lord Best agreement. I also thank Lord Best for this amendment and I approve of his technical knowledge and can only his technical knowledge and can only agree with the noble Baroness. Just occasionally. Thank you.
18:46
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I hope that the next session of report stage will go just like that. It would be wonderful. My Lords, I would like to thank the Noble Lord 74. As Noble Lord has noted, I have added my name to his amendment and IM delighted to do so. The Government is very pleased to support the amendment. Technical as it is, as the noble Baroness has said, it will make a real difference, a real positive difference. I am grateful to Lord Best for bringing this forward.

The amendment is a positive step for creating a fair and transparent rental market with a more streamlined regulatory process. And we want to ensure that letting agent businesses are able to receive reliable devices on complying with regulations under the fees act 2019. The amendment will allow for primary authority scheme to be set up for the Tenant Fees Act 2019. That She would advise issued by the primary authority is recognised by other local authorities and this helps businesses about costs, difficulties, caused by different local authorities interpreting and enforcing the same rules inconsistently.

The primary authority scheme also promotes greater cooperation between distances and regulators, fostering a collaborative environment that, ultimately, increases compliance rates, by lowering enforcement costs and reducing administrative buttons. So, the Government only supports the amendment, recognising its potential to significantly improve the rental market and I hope the whole house will support it also.
18:48
18:48
18:49
None Portrait Amendment:g75 Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-

amendment 75, Baroness Taylor of
18:49
18:49
18:49
None Portrait Amendment:gov.75 Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-

legislation exempting providers for the framework by reference to their membership of the code of management practice. This amendment will allow building managers not just traditional landlords who own the building to be exempted. In the event those managers are members of the housing management code. These abundance are designed to reflect the diversity of commercial arrangements in the PBS a sector. Secondly, there are amendments that aim to smooth the transition for the sector by providing access to a modified ground for landlords of existing PBS air tenancies after the transition date.

I am grateful to stakeholders from the sector for working with Government to ensure that these clauses work in the way that is intended. I will now go briefly through the amendments one by one. Amendment 123 is a consequential amendment that updates the numbering in paragraph 13 of schedule six. Amendment 124 is not related to PBS a, but rather pre- existing cross-reference area contained in paragraph 13 of schedule six. Turning to the first , the government's intention is to exempt private PBS air from that new issuer tenancy system in recognition of its unique operating model and the need for alignment with the academic calendar.

We will do this using the delegating power in paragraph 8 schedule one to the Housing Act 1981 that we are also amending. However, the powers power of the Housing Act will only allow if you tenancies to be exempt if they fall within the scope. As a result, tenancies entered into prior to the commencement of the bill will follow outside of the scope of the exemption, and therefore will be subject to the provisions of the new issuer tenancy system. To apply the exemption retrospectively would carry significant risk, as it would turn one of the existing PB essay tenancies into what is known as a common-law tenancy.

For example, a tenancy almost entirely regulated by what is in the tenancy agreement. This could cause unintended consequences, such as the PB essay tenancies containing significantly fewer rights for tenants than the issue at short old tenancies that they will have signed. It will also cause problems for the landlords and was tenancies in the event that this does not give them forfeit rights. We do not consider this to be the right approach, therefore to simply exempt pre-existing PB essay tenancies from issuer tenancy status, that said, it is important that PB essay landlords under these existing PB essay tenancies, can still access position grounds, in, grand for a full so to ensure the exception operate as intended, amendment 125 defies ground for a win looking at pre-existing qualifying student tenancies.

These are PB essay tenancies. In other words, ensuring this can be used despite those tenancies not usually being H is, nor does it require the landlord to serve the section 8 notice between 1 June and 30 September. Reflecting the fact that this reflection does not apply to PB essay tenancies in the old system nor does it apply to fully accepted tenancies full so this will ensure that existing PB essay landlords retained the ability to regain possession at the end of the academic year, and therefore live the tenancy.

This is consistent with the treatment of new PB essay tenancies established after commencement where they will not be subject to the issuer tenancy framework. Amendment to 75 where they will not be subject to the issuer tenancy framework. Amendment to 7577, 76 and 78. We are seeking to make the existing exception for student tenancies more comprehensive. This exemption is currently set out in paragraph 8 of schedule one to the Housing Act 1988. Amendment 75 therefore amend the exemption to ensure it applies where a landlord is appointed a person to manage the tenancy on their behalf, or to manage the building and that person is a member of a recognised student housing management Code of Practice.

Amendment 77, therefore, insert a new subparagraph into paragraph 8. This will allow for regulations to make the attainment provision on particular circumstances by reference to a specified building when combined with the specialised person acting on behalf of the landlord. Amendment 76 and 78 on amendment 77, ensure new subparagraph to CA as cross- referenced to wear appropriate in the rest of paragraph 8. Amendments 80, 85, 82, 83 and 81, there is often a delay between a student tenancy being handed in and eight student tenant actually taking possession.

In light of this, in paragraph 8 contains exemption to ensure that it tenancy that meets the exemption in the point at which the tenancy is granted will be exempted permanently essay for particular situations. These situations will include where, at the time the tenancy was exempt, because that landlord or person acted on their behalf was a member of the Housing Benefit Code of Practice. However, at the point the tenant expedition, the landlord or the person managing it is the person of a code, it will also include where, at the time of the grant, that there were regulations in place under paragraph 8 that did not prevent the tenancy from falling within the exemptions.

At the point at which the tenant is entitled to a exemption to regulations to prevent the tenancy from being caught by the exemption. This is achieved by amendment 18, 85, 82, 83 and 81. These amendment are designed not only to ensure the exemption is granted solely to those PBS air providers who are here to write robust standards but also to guard against any potential for the exemption to be misapplied or exploited. Amendment 79 is consequential on amendment 75 and ensures that regulations made elsewhere in paragraph 8 can specify classes of buildings that are subject to a housing management Code of Practice specified for this purpose under81 specified for this purpose under81B.

Amendment 84 is consequential of amendment 125 that provides that a tenants will be exempt if the person discharging in relation to the building is a member of a specified housing management code. Amendment 84 defines management functions to include
18:56
18:56
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
beginning to is in line for and insert that words as printed on the Marshall list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I would like to gain by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I would like to gain by thanking the noble Baroness the Minister for Exports clearly setting out the government's amendments relating to purpose-built student relating to purpose-built student accommodation PBS is. I am also grateful to her for taking the time grateful to her for taking the time to meet me and my Noble Friend ahead of the report stage to discuss this of the report stage to discuss this matter in detail. Is that minister were student accommodation is a matter of considerable importance to many of us.

Indeed, an area of many of us. Indeed, an area of particular concern in this bill. Ensuring that we have sufficient student accommodation of the right student accommodation of the right type, available in the right places, and not operating with the academic and not operating with the academic calendar is vital. This is not simply a matter of logistics, but one of availability and affordability. And adequate supply of accommodation helps to keep rent manageable which is especially manageable which is especially important for students from less advantaged backgrounds.

This is why advantaged backgrounds. This is why we raised concerns around clause 4A, particularly with regard to the particularly with regard to the importance of preserving the cyclical nature of student tenancies. The cyclical model is central to the viability of purpose-built student accommodation and indeed to maintaining affordability for students. We therefore welcome the government's amendments in this area that rightly acknowledge the unique nature and operation of the PB essay. In particular, I am very grateful for the clarification offered in subparagraph to which states that the tenancy of student accommodation will not be considered an assured tenancy if the person acting on behalf of the landlord is a member of a housing management Code of Practice.

However, I would be grateful for further clarification. Could the Minister confirm whether this provision refers specifically to recognised codes such as AR new K or unit pull that unipolar code or whether it includes other housing management codes and practice as well. It would be helpful if the Government could set out explicitly which codes are deemed applicable under this provision. Furthermore, in the case of newly established accommodation, how would providers be expected to demonstrate adherence to an accepted code? Specifically for the purpose of continuing to provide fixed term tenancies.

I am sure the noble Baroness agrees that providers must have and maintain an up-to-date understanding of their obligations. With that in mind, when does the Minister intend to update the relevant guidance? Particularly regarding the practical steps that PBS is will need to take to ensure that they can continue offering fixed tenancies. The relevant codes of practice are indeed based around a specific character as a student accommodation, covering matters such as health and safety, maintenance, and the management of relationships between providers and their tenants.

In light of the changes introduced by the bill. Does the Minister have any plans to review or amend those codes? And, if so, how will such changes be communicated to those operating in the sector? And finally, does the Minister agree that one of the key benefits of code membership is the ability to provide student accommodation outside the assured tenancy framework? If flexibility that underpins the viability of the sector. My Lords, I hope that the Minister will continue to keep up review of the impact of this bill on students.

And to consider carefully any future changes that could make it harder for students to secure suitable accommodation. My Lords, students must be at the forefront of our considerations. Not only in considerations. Not only in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for those comments. I will attempt to answer her will attempt to answer her questions. I may have to come back about the point amending the quotes. Pre-existing will continue to Pre-existing will continue to benefit. For nearly signed telescopic actions will be provided through the housing management code through the housing management code of practice approved under section 233 of the Housing Act 2004. These codes set out clear and robust standards and compliance with the codes is a condition for exemption.

codes is a condition for exemption. In respect of the approved codes, the approved IN UK and unipolar codes have mechanisms in place including regular audits, complaint including regular audits, complaint processes and extension conclusion for non-compliance and that is why they are important codes we focused on in this regard. Landlords must maintain membership and demonstrate maintain membership and demonstrate adherence to the code standards, if they fail to do so they will lose the exemption so that's very the exemption so that's very important and if they lose their important and if they lose their coach membership may tenancy they will no longer be entitled to rely on the exemption for any new tenancies, however existing tenancies will continue under the terms otherwise that wouldn't be fair to the students concerned.

I hope that the noble Baroness's questions. I would like to thank everyone for their contributions to this debate. We debate other issues around student accommodation extensively on the previous day of report. I hope the whole house will agree these amendments will ensure that this PBS exemption works effectively and is intended and I hope the whole house will support them. them.
19:02
19:04
19:04
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My focus today is firmly on our youngest children but the impact will be much broader. This will be much broader. This government is building a stronger, fairer society and will lay the foundations in the earliest years of our children's lives. And because we are determined to tackle the root causes of problems, not just the symptoms, we begin at the start. The inequalities that stay in our country, the way in which opportunities heaped on Sam but hidden from others.

Those disparities don't spring up in adulthood, our babies are born to an unequal world and the inequality grows with them. Right from those very first days when we carrying them home from hospital. Those very differences in the support their families can get, in the early education and childcare their parents can access, and the opportunities they have to start exploring. These are the differences, these and many more is, that we all know take hold early on. The winds of fortune fair already on the first day of school.

A gale at the backs of some, a blizzard in the face of others. These are the differences that means some children arrive in the classroom not yet ready to learn. These are the differences that mean while two thirds of children reach a good level of development age 5, a don't. These are the differences that fuel the injustice that half of our children on free school meals miss that milestone. A Labour government will not tolerate our children being failed like this. Within months of taking office we set out our ambition in our Plan for Change, for our record share of children reaching a good level of development by the age of five.

Because it matters so much for those young lives. But it goes further, it sets the tone. 40% of the disadvantage At the age of 16 is already there at age 5. Next month we know that many young people across our country will pick up their exam results. Some will do well, but sadly some others will be disappointed. And those results day stories of smiles and frowns, though stories for our young people, those stories begin to be written in the first years of their lives.

So if we want to build an education system where every child can achieve and thrive, if we want to grow a society where the opportunity to get on is open to all, if we want to deliver the change this country so desperately needs, we have to focus on the early years, we have to give every child the best start in life. That is where my priority as Secretary of State lies and why just 12 months after entering government I am proud to be here today to set out our best start in my strategy which we are determined will change this country for good.

Giving every child the best start in life begins with families. Becoming a parent or carer is full of joy and wonder. But it can sometimes be hard and it can feel isolating to. So parents and carers need-to-know that they can tap into a community of support. They need to know they are not alone, but we are falling short. One in four families with children under five struggle to get trusted advice must offer families on low incomes it's one in three.

And it wasn't always like this. There was a time when the government cared deeply about children's development. Members across this House will know about., About the quiet revolution is in the lives of our children Sure Start. Sure Start was one of the proudest achievements of that Labour government and I am proud today to build on its legacy. Because we remember all the good did for our children, for our communities, and for our country. Sure Start raised exam results and reduced hospitalisations.

It improved early identification. It boosted physical health. It boosted mental health. It reached disadvantage families and made a difference to their lives. Sure Start was a triumph but of course it wasn't perfect. But then, no programme ever is. But it worked. In so many ways, and for simony families. But never more so than when it stuck to its principles, when it brought together the excellent services that parents need. At the heart of its success were the children's centres. One- stop shops where families knew where they could go for help.

A comforting, and consistent offer of support, all in one place. There are many ways in which 14 years of Conservative government damaged our country and society. But the vandalism they inflicted on the lives of our youngest children, tearing the services out of communities, deepening inequalities, abandoning families, they should never be forgotten. And today, this government will write that terrible wrong and restore hope to families. Our best start service will honour the proud legacy of Sure Start. Today's Labour government stands on the shoulders of those which went before.

But to look forward to the better future our children deserve, not back to the past. That's how we will deliver for a new generation of families. Will introduce a new start family service, lived through best start Family Hubs. The first step to a national family service that ensures they can easily get the right support for their children from conception to age 5, giving parents the freedom to focus on loving their children. And today, as we announced the National year of reading for 2026, we want to give parents more time to read with their children.

To grow a love of learning that starts in the home and flows -- best start hubs will be open to all. They will work with nurseries, childminders, schools, health services, libraries and local voluntary groups. A community coming together around one goal, to give children the best possible start in life. And our best art digital service means we are ready for the future. Linking families to their local best start Family Hubs and exploring how the power of AI can help parents to find the best information.

And will make early education and care more affordable and easier to access. From the day this government won the backing of the British people, we have set about delivering the entitlement of 30 hours of government funded childcare a week working families. Backed by funding reaching £9 billion next year. Last July, we inherited a pledge without a plan. But this government is delivering on our promise to parents. I know how much that matters, but promises made promises. To the future of our country, and to that trust between families and the government.

The trust of cold a Chaco no longer pressing parents out of jobs they love, is the dose and freedoms to work the hours they want at an average of £7500 a year back in their pockets. I want to thank all those who are working with us to drive that change. From private to school-based nurseries, group based providers to childminders, dedicated professionals and early years educators transforming life chances. And with almost £370 million provided by the Chancellor, at the Spending Review, we are building and expanding all nurseries in primary schools.

With the first of the 6,000 extra places from September this year. Soon enough, 80% of childcare in this country will be government backed. The message is clear. This Labour government is on the side of families. The Labour Party is the party of the family. But it also means that childcare must be better linked to educational priorities, better geared to closing attainment gaps, better focused on all of our children's succeeding at school. Our early years educators are too often the hidden heroes of our communities, it's time we backed them.

We will raise the status of our workforce. The new professional minister, because working in early years is just that, a profession. More high quality training for staff. Guided by a golden thread of the best evidence. And we will train more early years teachers because we know the difference they make to our young ones. Under stronger practice hubs will double in number. And offer new financial incentives to attract and keep great early years teachers in nurseries that serve the most disadvantaged communities.

Every child deserves a great education and a great early start in life. And that includes children life. And that includes children with SEN D. Early intervention can work wonders to lower barriers to learning so under this government, inclusive practice will become standard practice. This government is driving a decade of national renewal. But there can be no decade of renewal for our country without a decade of renewal for our children. And this is urgent. Because children only get one chance.

If opportunities are missed, if parents don't get what they need, if the greatness were down the road hasn't been built yet, that's it, there's no going back. For 14 years, children's lives marched on as services were ripped away. I won't stand by and watch as more and more children are let down. Through this strategy, I'm bringing change. Change for all of our families, change for all of our community is, but above all, change for our children. It's for them as strategy was written.

It's for them we will see it through. To each and every child from the first day in this world, the Best Start in life. I world, the Best Start in life. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

commend this statement to the House. I'd like to thank the noble Baroness the Minister for repeating
19:14
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
the statement made by her right honourable friend earlier today and of course, we welcome the government's focus on early intervention and support for children in the early years before they go to school. And clearly, some key elements of the government strategy formed part of the previous Conservative government's approach including major expansion of free childcare and the development of Family Hubs. That's why, and I appreciate the tone in the other place is a bit different, but I don't know whether she felt uncomfortable or not at the tone of the statement, but I thought Gerrard slightly.

And this is an area where long-term policy is hugely important The continuity is important. And it was Ronald Reagan who said, there's nothing you can't achieve if you We also acknowledge the Government plans to go further, and if they are successful, we improve the staff so that many children would have a better life and that is something that we want to see across all benches in this House. So, my questions will focus on some of the detail and aim to get clarity from the Government on how their plans deliver on the ambition.

The strategy document talks about Best Start Family Hubs in every local authority and the Noble Lady talked about her pride in the shoe start children's centres, but we are not clear with that they will be actually a physical location in every local authority or how they will differ from the current family hubs and start teams. And obviously one of the key ingredients supported by the evidence that the Noble Lady, rightly, referenced, as a driver in the government's approach, is that they offer support to a much wider range range of children because despite the joy that the Noble Lady referred to at bringing home one's child mixed with a little fear from the hospital, that joy mixed with a little fear, in my experience, can continue for some time.

It would be good to know what would happen to the support that was offered to older children, including those in care, under the government's new plans. Could the Noble Lady also just set out for the House briefly how the additional expenditure will work. How will the £500 million annually, I think, that the Government has talked about, how much will go to family hubs and how much will go to the other activities the Government has referenced? And how much, roughly, will each local authority receive? Can she, I thought one of her amendments on the pledge without a plant line was about the family hubs.

There are currently 641. I do not think it is a pledge. I think it is actually hubs on the ground. I am assuming that they will continue within Governments 1,000 target, so perhaps you can confirm that, and that there will be 360 361s. We also welcome in the plan the image of build stronger links between nurseries and reception classes, but I not clear what the Government or how the Government intends to recruit additional teachers for early years settings, outside of the disadvantaged communities where there is going to be an additional payment to work there.

So, how many teachers does the Government plan to recruit and will this have any impact on the government's target for 6 1/2 thousand more expert teachers in our now secondary schools only and colleges? And the Government also published the best start in life goals. Can the Noble Lady say anything about what the government's vision is for how screens will be used for very young children if she is aware from our work in the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill that the real concerns are the introduction and the presence of screens in very young children's lives.

I wondered whether she could confirm that screens will not be used as part of delivering on those goals. And can she also clarify the government's plans for SEND support in early years settings? Again, this is obviously a merger workforce challenge. The noble Baroness the Minister knows that there are two elephants in the chamber. If they would both fit. The first is, perhaps, a slightly smaller but still quite large elephant which is the impact of the National Insurance contribution on the financial stability of our nursery providers.

The government's decision to, in relation to national insurance, leave nurseries up and down the country close to the brink financially with 95% being forced to increase childcare and one in 10 facing closure. And how they can address the fragility of nursery providers. And the largest elephant is the future of education Health and Care Act plans and in-house we recognise the need for reform of the system for parents that are worried and they need clarity. The noble Baroness talked about some promises in Governments keeping their word, so can she confirm what the government's intentions are in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

relation to this? First of all, thank you for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First of all, thank you for the statement. We welcome any measures statement. We welcome any measures to tackle child and improved earlier support. The family received. Early years has, for so long, been thought of as an add on, and absolutely the of as an add on, and absolutely the most crucial part of education, early years identification of early years identification of problems or issues and early support problems or issues and early support for those problems.

The ambitious aims must be matched to the aims must be matched to the sufficient funding to ensure the sufficient funding to ensure the effective implementation. Initial funding for earlier specialists is welcome but with schools currently welcome but with schools currently finding efficiency savings, a mention was made about the national mention was made about the national insurance rises. And there is a real risk that investment will simply paper over the cracks rather than deliver lasting improvements. And the earlier system, many will continue to meet demand retain experienced staff.

My colleague in The Other Place told that they have campaigned tirelessly following the heartbreaking death of one that lost their lives in the nursery and failed to find correct procedures. So, we welcome the announcement that OFSTED inspections will become more frequent in early years settings. An nurseries. Giving children that best start in life also means giving parents the fix ability and support to make the right decisions for themselves and their childcare arrangements. Currently, low rates of statutory, maternity, and paternity pay are not high enough to give the parents aerial choice.

While the UK statutory maternity leave lacks behind far more advanced economies. High quality early years education is the best possible investment in the future and the most effective way of narrowing the gap between rich and poor children. As we have heard from the Baroness LEA early years allowance reported one third of providers are at risk of permanent closure next year and for attempts if they would reduce the number of places for three and four-year-olds. Early years
19:25
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
education is so important it needs to have high quality provision with to have high quality provision with well-trained staff and to see a career strategy training and all career strategy training and all staff having worked together for an early years qualification. early years qualification. Childminders are invaluable part of the early jazz system. With the Minister consider replacing the three different current registration processes with a single childcare processes with a single childcare register? Given the staffing crisis in early years education, what in early years education, what assurance cant that Minister offered that will be sufficiently qualified that will be sufficiently qualified professionals to staff on thousand professionals to staff on thousand hubs by 2028? Family hubs will make a real difference to Children and a real difference to Children and Families Act.

The investment to take the total number as we have had to the total number as we have had to rent 1,000 x 20 28, and be supported as we have heard by the new digital family hub to be supported by the family hub to be supported by the National Health Service. But does the Minister think that we need to the Minister think that we need to consider measures to ensure that most disadvantaged families actually access the services offered by these hubs?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank the noble Lords for their response and welcome to the their response and welcome to the their response and welcome to the statement. And I assure the noble Baroness Lady Barran I did not feel uncomfortable at all. It took me
19:25
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
uncomfortable at all. It took me back and I have to say, nevertheless, the challenge and the contrast bite my right honourable friend the secretary of state setting out in The Other Place was wholly fair. On the issue of family hubs and the question of funding, on the point about family hubs the difference that this is making is a tripling of investment in those hubs over the Spending Review.. So, whilst currently over 138 have access to the funding to support that now tripling of investment will ensure that all local authorities will be able to develop the best start family hubs and of course alongside that as well as I suggested in the statement developing that further through the digital offer and the access for parents and the information and I agree with the Noble Lady here mostly from the very earliest stages, not only of their children being alive but also of pregnancy in order to be able to support them.

Children's hopes will be able to continue. Although there is a focus on the statement on the very early ages of children because that is the right place to start to make a difference, children's hopes will still be able to respond to children and I think she identified some of the areas where we would expect that support to continue to be. On the early years entitlement, where the noble Lords of asked about funding could I be clear that in delivering that 30 hours entitlement for the sector will be providing £8 billion for that funding entitlement as well as delivering a 45% uplift in the early years pupil premium.

And providing £75 million for the early years expansion grant to help to provide to meet them and their local demand, so we have responded to concerns around funding in the way that we have increased that investment. It frays pledge without investment. It frays pledge without a plan related to the early as entitlement and the Noble Lady is right, it was announced by a previous Government and did not have the funding allocated to it to enable it to be delivered to it and it is the hard work of the sector that they have been willing to put into it to meet that entitlement this September.

However, the noble Lords are right, because without sufficient recruitment we cannot deliver that, that is why we have, as I have outlined in the statement outlined in the strategy, we will be investing in the recruitment of early years workers through the foreign have thousand pound financial incentive for workers in the most disadvantaged areas but across the system by improved training for early years workers and, of course, through that focus through the develop movement of a register to recognise the professional status of those that work with our youngest children and I think those would be the ways that we can welcome and attract more people into the sector, along with our do something big recruitment campaign and the emphasis we are putting on supporting better practice a range of areas for early years practitioners.

Both the Noble Lady and that Lord Storey are rightly raised the issue of early years provision and, with respect to the early years, we know the crucial importance of children's earliest years and they can, of course, make a really important difference, both to children's development health and life chances and also to identify any special educational needs at the early stages that the child might have and that is why the funding training for up to 1,000 early years special educational needs coordinator's in 2025/26 targeted at settings in the most disadvantaged areas and last year we launched free online child development training to support early years educators working with children with individual needs and develop mental differences and we continue to fund the community sector partners, supporting family hubs delivery of services and home learning and earlier special educational needs and disabilities and this includes funding in the early years SEND partnership for the 2025 /26 The noble Lady also asked about the concern around the continuation of education health and care plans.

We often in this chamber talk about the parlous state of this country's special educational needs and disability system. The struggle parents face to get the support that they need for their children, and the length of time that it takes to get education health and care plans, and the lack of trust that parents now have in that system. All of those things, we are determined to rectify. To clarify, there will always be a legal right to the support with SEND needs and we will protected but this government is prepared to grasp the nettle and reform broken system that the, that noble Lords opposite resided over, and that they themselves of course have described as a lose lose lose system.

We will ensure every child in this country gets the opportunity to achieve and thrive at school and get on in life and we will do that by bringing forward early identification and inclusion of all children while safeguarding the support that those with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities need. In relation to the point raised by the noble Lords story about the tragic case of GGR, I very much commend her parents for the campaign that they have done. They had the opportunity to meet with my honourable friend the Minister for, for early years, Stephen Morgan.

-- GGI. As noble Lord said, the improvements in OFSTED inspection of early years provision I think I important here, with a commitment that within 18 months of early years setting being registered, it will receive an inspection, and reduction in the length of time between inspections from six years to 4 years. I think we will see better inspection, therefore better cut ability, and with the investment this government is putting in, better results as well. better results as well.

 Could you write to me about the point almost about childminders registration and ensuring that we get disadvantaged children to use the facilities. that.
19:34
19:34
19:36
19:36
19:37
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Canada care and a counsellor in central Bedfordshire., Also welcome the statement. We recognise how important it is to support families in the early starts of life. The noble Baroness the Minister made reference to Sure Start. I became a council leader and I had to deal with Sure Start which was great because we had this shiny new building but they lacked long-term funding which put councils in a very difficult position when that funding ran out after three years. The second point I discovered, was they did not integrate with other services such as school, health and support services.

Somebody else When we took the overreaction started doing more of that and took them out of some of their shiny buildings and put them in places where they were much more accessible. Given what the government is now proposing, and given that real-time cuts government is making to local council funding that they give it, can -- bonus the Minister assure the House there will be long-term funding for this going into the future? And also can she assure the House that they will enable local councils and local partners to have the facts of the T2 tailored to their local area and its needs to deliver for their communities.

As noble friend Baroness Barran says, building the previous government was not good work with Family Hubs and look at the wider age range. I don't want to been a situation where you have a newborn baby and you can ring that along to the hub but you can't bring your three-year-old a five-year-old which actually stops you going to the heart.
19:39
19:41
19:42
19:43
19:44
19:45
19:46
19:47
19:47
19:48
19:49
19:50
19:51
19:51
19:52
19:53
19:53
19:53
19:54
20:01
None Portrait Oral questions: Number of mothers with babies in prison and alternative sentence arrangements for child care Lord Lemos (Labour)
-

20:01
20:01
None Portrait Oral questions: Number of mothers with babies in prison and alternative sentence arrangements for child care Lord Lemos (Labour)
-

20:15
20:23
None Portrait Oral questions: Number of mothers with babies in prison and alternative sentence arrangements for child care Lord Lemos (Labour)
-

20:23
20:26
None Portrait Oral questions: Number of mothers with babies in prison and alternative sentence arrangements for child care Lord Lemos (Labour)
-

20:26
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page