Lords Chamber

Tuesday 14th October 2025

(began 1 month, 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
None Portrait Oral questions: The Jaguar Land Rover cyber attack
-

The fourth oral question mark folks. standing in my name on the all day paper.
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
None Portrait Business of the House
-

My Lords, that concludes oral questions for today and before calling next business of any members wish to leave at this particular All All business All business in All business in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All business in the House, All business in the House, the All business in the House, the Lord Privy Seal. My Lords, I beg to move. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move. The motion stands in in my name, on the order paper. My Lords, I would not normally remain on my feet are proposing that, but I understand the party opposite. The opposition have tabled amendment opposing the motion, so I thought it'd be helpful to your lordships House to be clear to your lordships House to be clear about what the motion does, what it doesn't do, and why it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Has been tabled. What this motion does is around the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which, by Infrastructure Bill, which, by agreement between the parties, starts its report stage on the 20th starts its report stage on the 20th of October. That's next Monday, and the House will debate and decide amendments over four days. On two of amendments over four days. On two of those days, the government asks that the House considers the bill for 2 the House considers the bill for 2 to 3 hours before oral questions, starting at 11 a.m.

Notice of this starting at 11 a.m. Notice of this was given on the 17th of September. The planning bill is central to the government's plan to get Britain building again and deliver the economic growth. We need to drive up prosperity and improve living standards across the UK. Aims overwhelmingly backed by the electorate just last year, it's crucial this bill is swiftly put on the statute book to help us deliver the 1.5 million homes and fast tracks, the 150 planning decisions on major infrastructure projects will be pledged in the plan for change.

And my Lords, as we know, planning and infrastructure is a topic that attracts interests from all sides of the House. Many of us have spent many hours in this chamber debating planning reforms, and the committee stage of this bill was no exception. And I'm grateful to the official opposition and to the Liberal Democrats for the who worked with us to ensure that the committee stage was completed in the agreed time, including some very late sittings. So. And we appreciated that.

Now, my Lords, I know there can sometimes be what I would call noises off about scheduling and what is happening in your lordships House. I would call the Fury. The opposition offices, then opposition offices. At the time, I should acknowledge my noble friend, the noble Lord Kennedy, after we had agreed the government's proposals on the timing of the lander build, and the then Prime Minister proclaimed that Labour was the cause of the parliamentary delay, which wasn't true. We understand that. So I want to say clearly that at committee stage an agreement was reached and all sides adhered to that agreement.

And we are grateful and we appreciate that. Turning back to report stage, so far, there are 134 backbench and opposition amendments have been tabled to the Bill for report. And I understand from my noble friend, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, there are at least ten issues. I think the official opposition want to tend to press further at report. The reason for tabling is motion is to simply ensure that the bill completes its report stage within the four days, and that on those four days, our deliberations and decisions can conclude at a reasonable time.

These two mornings provide an extra, up to an extra six hours of debate. It's a practical step on a single bill, reflecting the interest on the topic, and to ensure that we are able to effectively discuss and debate the amendments without sitting unduly late. My Lords, we do understand the difficulties it causes for members when a house sits very late and felt that this approach was the best interest of members across the House. What the motion doesn't do is permanently changed.

The sit in times of the house are set out in the companion to the Standing Orders. Now, I know a number of members are very supportive of such a change, but that can only happen through the settled will of this House. This motion is specifically for two Wednesdays, the 20th and the 2020 second and 29th of October. The motion doesn't give these benches any advantage. Now, I do not want to incur the wrath of my Chief Whip or cast any doubt on his booking process, but I have to say that I think that the numbers in your lordships House that the government might more easily be defeated at midday than at midnight.

As I said in my opening, this does not subvert the conventions of the House, but these are the house I have no desire to, as the opposition amendment says, systematically abandon our convention. I give the House that assurance. What the motion says is that the House may consider the bill before all questions. On two days in the next month, and then the 12 sitting days in October. The House will sit at our normal times. On all sitting days, all questions will be at an all time.

Amici. My Lords, this motion been brought forward to be helpful to your lordships House. There were questions raised with Mike noble from the Chief Whip from across the House, that it would be easier and better for the House to debate bills starting at an earlier time, rather than late in the later in the night. And in that spirit, this was brought forward to be helpful, and I hope all noble Lords will be willing to support what I think is a very pragmatic proposal to ensure proper and effective

**** Possible New Speaker ****

scrutiny of legislation. The question is that this motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this motion be agreed to amendment Lord through. Who? My Lords, can I thank the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Who? My Lords, can I thank the noble Baroness, the leader, for the constructive tone in which she spoke? I fear we may not be able to reach agreement at the end, but I appreciate the way she addressed the matter, and I want to make one thing clear at the start, my Lords, that we do recognise on this side the importance the government attaches importance the government attaches to this Bill and indeed we actually support many of the measures in it, and we've absolutely no intention of blocking its passage to Royal assent.

And since we hear mutterings assent. And since we hear mutterings off stage about the OBR, I'll let me make that clear to them as well. make that clear to them as well. Although, in fact, the OBR says nothing about requiring royal assent. All it asks for is assent. All it asks for is consideration. Our policy announcements, it asks. The government will provide the OBR with government will provide the OBR with details of any proposed policy changes, so the OBR can incorporate changes, so the OBR can incorporate these in its forecast.

Announcements have been made, my Lord, so the OBR can incorporate them. And let's leave that canna aside, my Lords, the issue that I want to raise today is not delay, not the OBR, not even actually the budget, which many people are looking forward to with some foreboding. The reason that I've tabled this amendment, and it is unusual, is that it's time, I believe, to review how we may best conduct our affairs, and this was in some ways implicit in what the noble Baroness was saying.

No one, my Lords, wants late nights. Many do not want morning sittings which interfere not only with those who have business to conduct outside the House, but with our own select committees. Yet because of the sheer weight of legislation, often ill thought through, and this is not a novel matter, we are slipping into both morning sittings and late nights. Both of them. My Lords, we best conduct our affairs by agreement in usual channels based on what I hold the sacred constitutional principle that the King's government must be carried on where, if greater scrutiny than originally envisaged is required, then more latitude is given to the revising House by the executive and where, on the other hand, if the government has extra need and good cause to make progress, the other parties agree exceptionally to sit outside normal hours.

Now I believe profoundly. The best way to go forward for us is a reinforcement and restatement of our conventions. In a spirit of give and take between all sides. Now, my Lords, the constant insinuations outside that your lordships House obstructs government business. And we heard it was even said quite wrongly, I took the previous Prime Minister to task on that, as the noble Baroness will remember, not this House does. My Lords, is scrutinised legislation. So let's look at the planning bill so far.

The government asked us in usual channels, as the noble Baroness told us, if we could undertake to complete committee stage before the recess. As good faith partners. We agreed to that not actually without cost in sitting hours and not without criticism, I may say from some of my noble friends behind me and my Lords, we kept our word. We sat for 65 hours in committee, including with our agreement and morning sittings, and with our agreement going late, there was no Tory obstruction, quite the reverse.

There was cooperation, as the noble Baroness has acknowledged, taking all business. However, in September as a whole, we sat 27 hours, 27 hours, my Lords, in three weeks outside our customary sitting times. And that's not just on the planning bill, but the specific problem with the planning bill was not any obstruction by any party in this House. It's the bill is too long and it's still being rewritten. We heard there were 134 amendments from these parts of the House.

My Lords had just been 67 more slapped down by the government. Now, when it comes to report, the right way forward surely is to proceed in the same way as in committee by agreement. But this is not what has happened so far from pursuing compromise, the government has unilaterally tabled a motion requiring, before even consideration on report has begun, that the House, contrary to the specific firm guidance of the companion, must sit in the mornings. And then after doing that, they unleashed a storm of press releases declaring the bill would be rewritten.

And then, after the media were briefed, the House will want to be informed that scores of new amendments 67, as I said, were tabled to the bill, including major new powers for the Secretary of State to override local councils that refuse planning applications and depriving local communities of due process where their villages were to be flooded for new reservoirs. Now, my Lords, such far reaching measures in normal circumstances might well justify consideration under committee rules, not report rules.

And then, long after this briefing was given to the media, an explainer of the measures was finally sent out to your lordships at 11:07 a.m. This morning. My Lords, I do not think that's an appropriate way to treat Parliament. It was bad practice when a coalition or conservative government did it, and it's bad practice now. And my Lords, our members of the other place expected to scrutinise these far reaching measures that will so directly impact their constituents. The bill that was already too big is being made even bigger, and the House is being asked to break our conventions and sit early to consider material we haven't even seen until little more than hours ago.

There comes a point, my Lords, and I think we are near that point where we must decide if we wish to keep what are described as firm conventions in our companion. These are that we meet in the afternoon, which lately we have not always done. We met at 11 a.m. On a third of the Monday to Wednesdays in the September session, that we rise at ten, which lately we've rarely done. We went off to ten on all but one of the Mondays to Wednesdays, ends in September session, and three times after midnight.

Unacceptable. I agree that we rise at 7 a.m. On a Thursday, which lately we have not always done. Indeed, we didn't do so once in September, and that we rise at three on a Friday, which we did on only one Friday out of three in September. My Lords, that's what's happening. It's happening. And maybe some of your lordships hadn't noticed. Now, if we don't wish to keep to these firm conventions, which are designed to protect our hard working staff, my Lords, as much as our own members, then let that matter be considered by the Procedure Committee and if need be, considered again by the House.

Though the last time we discussed changing our hours, the House voted to keep them as they are. My Lords, it's a slippery slope indeed. If the government of the day and what the noble Baroness did not, emphasises that this motion was tabled without the consent of usual channels. It's a slippery slope indeed. If the government of the day is to alter the sitting hours of the house at its own whim. And, my Lords, I give notice that where this is not agreed in usual channels, we on this side will almost invariably resist it with all the attendant pain and time that will be involved.

But wherever it is asked for, I say with equal commitment. As we proved in committee with reasonable, it's asked for with reasonable notice and just cause. We will always consider it constructively, just as we did in committee on this Bill. My Lords, I think no one wishes this House to go down the road of the other place where the executive determines the timetable, and as much time is spent debating timing allocated to business as it is to business itself.

This occasion should be an unusual one and never become the norm. So I do ask the noble Baroness, the leader of the whole House, to keep to an approach of agreeing progress across usual channels. If she withdraws her motion, I will withdraw my amendment and I give her a firm undertaking in the eyes of the House, that we on this side will approach the report stage of this bill in the same constructive spirit as we did in committee agreement, not unilateral action by Lords is the only sensible way forward for the House on this Bill and all other matters.

And frankly, if it means an extra half or half or days consideration within our usual hours to review a bill that ministers boast is being rewritten is avoiding that one odd day scrutiny worth breaking the precious jewel of consensus, that is the mysterious secret of managing this revising chamber. I submit, my Lords, that it is not. And I asked noble Baroness to continue the normal course of compromise and not to press her motion. If not, I reserve the right to test the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion of the House. We should be agreed to, since

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We should be agreed to, since when an amendment has been moved by Lord true to leave out all the words after that, and insert the words set after that, and insert the words set out on the order paper. The question I therefore have to put is that this amendment be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Lords. As a member of the usual channels, I regret that we not reached an agreement, but I think it reached an agreement, but I think it has to be recognised by the House that every government asked for help that every government asked for help when the legislation programme is under pressure, and that is inevitable in a house where the business is unpredictable in terms business is unpredictable in terms of the pace that it takes. And I have to remind Lord true, that he have to remind Lord true, that he was responsible for the procurement bill where we had 350 amendments bill where we had 350 amendments tabled at the committee stage.

So there's a little whiff of hypocrisy here, I fear, in in this amendment. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. three. Good arguments for opposing this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Good arguments for opposing this amendment. If we don't accept some flexibility, we're going to be here later and later at night. That's later and later at night. That's we're going to have more late session. So that's the reality. The latest sessions are not good for scrutiny. Not only should people our age be working late hours of the night, the reality is the reality is the reality is last night I was here at midnight for about 12 other peers in the chamber, scrutinising a very important bill.

And that's the reality of working late. And we also have and I accept Lord Trude mentioned this, but we do have a due care towards our staff and ourselves. Actually, in working these late hours that we've been doing, and we spend millions on security of this house, but we don't give much attention to the fact that people are leaving very late at night when public transport is no longer available. And we've got to show some flexibility. And obviously we have accepted this notion and we accept there's a quid pro quo that if we're going to meet early, then

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we finish at a reasonable time. And that's how the house should operate. Yeah. Lord some.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord some. Of course. I don't represent a considered view of the whole of the crossbench, view of the whole of the crossbench, but I would make 1 or 2 points. The first point is, I do think that one of the things that Lord Chu said of the things that Lord Chu said about making sure that we reaffirm the various conventions that operate this House would be a good thing, this House would be a good thing, and I certainly would play my part in trying to deal with that, because in some ways, this is a mild breakdown of conventions.

The second point I'd make is a very simple one, point I'd make is a very simple one, and that is that the report stage of this bill was right sized to fit this bill was right sized to fit into four days before the 67 amendments appeared. And I was amendments appeared. And I was looking at the 67 amendments here. And they are quite major amendments. And one would expect, therefore, And one would expect, therefore, there to be additional time required for the proper consideration of those amendments, particularly in view of the fact they weren't ahead of committee stage or of the second reading, or even in the House of reading, or even in the House of Commons.

And so I do feel that there's a possible that when the there's a possible that when the usual channels get to talk about this thing again, that there may have to be some further time for this, or we are going to sit very, very late on at least a couple of those days that are coming up.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And. The debate becomes more and more. Confusing as.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Time goes by. It strikes at the. Heart of. The. Way we manage. This house, where we ask.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This house, where we ask. The usual. Channels to meet regularly and come to agreements, and most of the time, that is exactly what is done to the advantage of us all. Even if to the advantage of us all. Even if some of us don't like the decisions that usual channels have taken, we accept them. Now. My Lords, what I accept them. Now. My Lords, what I do not understand in this case is why they have broken down so why they have broken down so catastrophically, particularly when my noble friend Lord Chu has explained the earlier stages of this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

explained the earlier stages of this bill. The opposition has worked very hard with the government. To be able.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To be able. To deliver the bill on a timetable. Now, my Lords, I would timetable. Now, my Lords, I would understand if the end of the session was a few weeks away or a couple of months away, but we know, my Lords, at the end of the session is not going to happen for another six going to happen for another six months. There is no rush, there is no no reason why we have to sit in no no reason why we have to sit in the mornings in order to complete this, this bill.

Furthermore, my Lords, we are a part time house in the sense that we meet in the afternoons and evenings, but I also speaking as chairman of the Constitution Committee, the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords, meets on a Wednesday morning at 10:00, and it means that members, very distinguished senior members of the House who sit on that committee, will be unable to come and listen to the deliberations of what the noble Baroness, leader of the House, and my neighbour friend, all who have recognised is an extremely important Bill.

My Lords, I echo my neighbour friend in saying, wouldn't it be better if the noble Baroness were to make both of these emotions were to be withdrawn, so that realistic discussions could be taken by usual channels in order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to come to an agreement? That's very. Yeah. Hi.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Hi. My Lords, I'll just. Make two very brief points.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Make two very brief points. One perhaps. Specifically aimed at. Lord true and the other a more general point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

general point. About the House and. Its procedures.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

procedures. The point I concerned about Lord. True is in the wording. Of his amendment, where he says the House should should continue. Normally to sit at the customary Normally to sit at the customary times. That's a long winded way of saying it should continue in the future, as it always has done in the future, as it always has done in the past, with no revision whatsoever. And I remind him if he. I'm sure he And I remind him if he.

I'm sure he hasn't forgotten this, but maybe remind some members of the House and maybe inform some newer members of the House that it's not so long ago the House that it's not so long ago when the customary times for meeting in this house involved Wednesday's in this house involved Wednesday's for private member's bills and Thursdays for government bills Thursdays for government bills starting at 3 p.m, we started on a Thursday. This is a house with people we hope coming from. All

**** Possible New Speaker ****

parts of the country. Didn't start the business of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Didn't start the business of the day until 3 p.m. It was a struggle to get that change through, but we got it through and I'm not aware of got it through and I'm not aware of anyone. Please stand up if I'm wrong on these benches or any other benches who thinks that we should revert to what were then the revert to what were then the customary times of sitting the other. The other point I want to other. The other point I want to make is about the procedures of the house.

The fundamental function of house. The fundamental function of this House is to scrutinise this House is to scrutinise legislation. That is what we do. If anyone is going to suggest to me anyone is going to suggest to me that we more effectively scrutinise at 1 a.m. In the morning than we do at 1 p.m. In the afternoon, then I ask them to reconsider the position that they've got. I watched day after day the attendance at this house. We know the figures.

We can house. We know the figures. We can look them up. We can check the voting figures when the house is voting figures when the house is sitting. Even at 930 at night. There's many a time when there are only about eight or 9 or 10 people in the House, two on the government frontbench, couple on the opposition front bench, someone in the chair, a couple of crossbenchers and maybe 1 or 2 with a particular interest in the bill that doesn't compare in terms that doesn't that doesn't compare.

Oh, sorry, I do apologise. It's an error I've made frequently in life. That was that was not uncommon at all to have that number of people in the House scrutinising. It is beyond argument that if we are looking at the detail of a Bill at a sensible time, that midday, one in the afternoon, more people will be in the house, more people will be taking part in the scrutiny of it, and if there are any votes, more people will take part.

It's a very simple, straightforward proposal from my noble friend the leader, and I really do hope the House has got the sense and the common sense that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to pass it. Being very involved in the committee stage of this bill, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

committee stage of this bill, and I have a number of amendments before the House at report stage. I think the very. Fact that the noble lady, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Fact that the noble lady, the leader of the House. Has brought her motion before us today shows that. Four days is insufficient. Even

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Four days is insufficient. Even before the government amendments were tabled. I would like to support very much the amendment in the name very much the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord true, but also support the comments made by also support the comments made by the noble Lord, the Earl of new. The bill originally looked at nationally significant infrastructure projects relating largely to energy. It has now been extended in large measure now been extended in large measure to water and other projects.

The impact on the countryside, which I impact on the countryside, which I hold dear is going to be huge, and I believe we owe it to residents of believe we owe it to residents of country areas and rural areas to make sure that this bill is properly scrutinised, whatever time it takes, scrutinised, whatever time it takes, however many hours we have to sit,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

four days is not sufficient. My Lords, I just thank those who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I just thank those who contributed to this debate and I think it shows. First thing I say it shows is a desire from all across the house to properly and effectively scrutinise legislation. The point by the noble lady said the extra time needed. This is why the proposal was brought forward, to provide some of that extra times, the time of day where members perhaps at their best and spiciest. I certainly think I'm better at 11:00 and morning than I am at 11:00 at night.

Just to address a couple of points made by the noble Lord. True, he talked about the planning Bill being far too big. I do remind him, I think we had the same discussions when we had about the pub bill, which was significantly bigger than the planning bill. The planning bill is 111 clauses and six schedules. Lup had 223 clauses and 18 schedules, and a significant part was added to and I know he's mentioned this before, but the number of amendments that were made to the bill, which was some, was 700 reports stage alone was 700 Committee 466 report, which over 200 of those amendments were from the government.

And this bill just went on and on. And late night. I think that's what we were trying to provide the time required without having these late nights. He talked about press briefing. I've learned for a very long time, particularly as we get closer to party conference season, not to rely too much on press briefings, but to see what actually what amendments say. And I take the point of the noble Lord, Colonel. But of those 76 amendments, over half of them, I think over 35, are actually from discussions with the devolved administrations to give effect to legislative consent motions, etc.

So it's not an unusually large number of amendments to have. On the issue of early sitting. So far in this session, there have been 196 sitting days. We've sat early on nine of them. That's 5% of the days. And that was in response. The number of people wanting to contribute and the number of amendments, for example, on the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, where there are large number of amendments, a number of members wanted to contribute, and we did that.

I have to say to the noble Lord that under the previous government, early sittings were used on bills, including on important bills, and he may be members. I've mentioned levelling up, levelling up report stage in September 23rd, and for the second reason of the legal migration bill and that committee earlier that year. Just a couple of examples. This isn't anything particularly unusual, and let's just address the elephant in the room. One of the reasons that we've had so much business with SAT so late in on longer hours is the number of amendments that have been tabled, which has been larger than usual, and also the preference of the opposition to have smaller groups of amendments to debate.

Now, both of those are entirely legitimate. I make no criticism of doing that, but just recognise that within the rights of members, it's within procedures. There's nothing untoward about it, but we have to recognise the reality that it does increase the time that is taken for discussions. My Lords, 67 amendments tabled. I say over half of them related to the devolved administrations tabled as usual week before the report stage starts. They were discussed with the opposition spokespeople on them.

I think the opposition have now asked for Keeley and schedule, which we pleased to provide for the most technical and most complex amendments. My Lords, I've been very clear. I have no intention of systematically abandoning, which I think the words in the Noble Lords motion, the conventions of the House. I think they're important. And he talks about further discussions. We'd welcome those discussions. I think it would be very helpful because moving forward, I think it's not conducive to good scrutiny. It's not conducive for members or staff to have so many late night sit ins and long sit ins, and those discussions can remain.

I will say to him, the additional time the required is provided for in this motion, but if he wants to have, and the other channels want to have further discussions, do, that would welcome those further discussions. My motion before us today is an enabling motion. If those discussions can reach an agreement in which it is not necessary to have earlier sit ins, then we would not use the what's in the motion, but we'd have that as a fallback if those discussions were not to conclude in a satisfactory way.

My Lord, we brought this forward as an offer to the House. It's pragmatic, it's sensible and to assist. And although there wasn't agreement on the use of channels, we'd much, much prefer to have that new channels. Noble Lord, the Chief Whip, Lord tenancy did have representations. So across the House. Who? Those who said we'd rather sit in the morning and have late nights. So I try to reflect that in this debate. But it is a matter for the House. If the House wants to sit late and members there's a large attendance here today, it's not quite so unusual for business.

The House motions. If members want to sit here fairly late, they are fully welcome and entitled to do so. That is a matter for the House, and I look forward to seeing a full house on those occasions. If that's the will of the House. But, my Lords, I've been clear that I think it might not benefit the government that scrutiny is 11 a.m. Think will probably be a bit more robust and thorough than it would be at 11 p.m, so we offer the option to the house that it's ultimately the house to decide.

We think it is helpful to the house. We can continue with discussions, and if we don't need that extra time because the noble Lord, the noble lady, can reach agreement with the Chief whip, then that would be great. But this is a noble emotion. It may be a fallback if discussions conclude satisfactorily, but, my Lords, I think we are responding to those requests that we want to be able to scrutinise legislation at a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time when we can do our best work. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, my Lords, I'm grateful to those who've spoken, and I'm grateful to the noble Baroness, the grateful to the noble Baroness, the leader. I'd come to her, her remarks at the end. I don't ought to refer to alerts. I don't want to abuse the companion. So I'm not going to make companion. So I'm not going to make a long wind up. I did I wasn't sure what the Lord Stoneham was saying. The Liberal Democrats view was that The Liberal Democrats view was that morning sittings should become the norm.

If that's the case, this should be a matter for procedure should be a matter for procedure Committee. I agreed with what Lord King all said. I'm grateful for him. Picking up my point on reinforcing conventions, which I think Noble Baroness has also picked up, and he highlighted the fact, also highlighted the fact, also highlighted by my noble friend Baroness McIntosh, that, yes, 67 amendments have gone down. And this amendments have gone down. And this is this is new material, my Lords, and that must have an effect on the consideration in report, notwithstanding what the other place might think of it, my friend Lord Strathclyde made a point I made about the difficulty of morning sittings for the committees of your lordships House.

The Lord, Lord referred to the words customary rules in the amendment. These were suggested to me by the clerk for the customary times, so said to me by the clerks, rather than setting out all the existing times, which led to a very lengthy motion. I'm certainly not wanting to go back to the traditions of long ago, when we sometimes met on a Saturday. I have to say I'm grateful for the tone of the leader, and I believe that it may well be possible to reach, and it should be possible, as it was in committee on this bill, and should be possible on all bills.

So that's always my aspiration. The noble Baroness referred to the lower bill. We actually let that bill run for 15 days in committee, over which I think many people in the House got to know something about what my view about th Lords, the planning bill has never got. I hope my noble friend is not behind me. The fundamental point I wanted to do was I say, I hope this occasion will be an unusual occasion and not a usual occasion, because the usual place should be the usual channels.

I am confident, if we do have the kind of discussions that the noble Baroness has talked about, the normal spirit of amity between the noble Baron of the captain, the gentleman at Arms and my noble friend Baroness Williams, that we can find a way forward on this bill, which will also allow for the time that may be required by the new material. But, my Lords, I don't care particularly to negotiate with the sort of equivalent of a revolver on the table.

I was disappointed that the noble Baroness wouldn't withdraw her amendment. So I am going to test the opinion of the House. But I would like to make, because I think this it should be marked that this is a business motion which has gone down without the consent of the usual channels. This is a moment in the passage of this House from the way we conduct our business, towards where it might otherwise go in the way of ours. Now the old Baroness has given us an assurance.

She does not want to go in that direction. I accept her word. But I do believe, my Lords, that we should mark our displeasure at this. And I therefore wish to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

test the opinion of the House. The question is that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the amendment and name of Lord Truby agreed to. This means that the opinion will say content. That it is not content. Not content.
15:58
None Portrait Division
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not content. Who does appear to be a disagreement. We will settle it by a division. I will advise the House division. I will advise the House when the voting is open. My word, that was quick. Voting is now open. Clear the bar.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For. The The Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. The question is that the motion of Lord two be is that the motion of Lord two be agreed to us, and I thought a point to say content, not content. It's to say content, not content. It's okay. Well, you know, we were going, but let me just remind you, the contents will go to the right by the throne and not contents to the left by the bar. For For your.

Time. Time. Yes, Time. Yes, yes. Time. Yes, yes. Okay. All All the I I saw I saw that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. The question is at the to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question was The question was it The question was it the The question was it the motion,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question was it the motion, the name of Lord truth be agreed to? There have voted content 211, not There have voted content 211, not content 261. Therefore the not content 261. Therefore the not contents have. My Lords to complete the business. The question is that the business. The question is that the original motion be agreed to so that the content is not we not that the content is not we not content the contents have it. Shall we take a little breather from the hurly burly to clear the benches?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords My Lords Select My Lords Select Committee My Lords Select Committee on My Lords Select Committee on the terminally ill adults end of life
16:12
16:13
16:14
16:14
16:15
16:15
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Lords, it's a great pleasure to bring the Renter's Rights Bill back to the House of Lords to consider the amendments and reasons from the other place. I would like to start by thanking my colleague in the other place, the Housing Minister, for setting out the government's position on the amendments agreed by your lordships. As he outlined, the government made a clear manifesto commitment to the people to modernise the insecure and unjust private rented sector. The Renters Rights Bill delivers on this promise by empowering private renters with more rights, protection and greater security of tenure.

I would like to thank the noble Lords Lord Da Clifford, Lorcan Bailey and the noble Baroness, Lady Gwenda for their amendments in this group, beginning with the noble Lord, Lord, the Clifford's Amendment in Law, Amendment 11 B, which would allow landlords to require an additional deposit equivalent to 1 to 3 weeks rent as the condition of their consent to a tenant's request to keep a pet, a requirement for a further three weeks deposit would cost the average tenant in England over £900.

This is unaffordable for most tenants and would greatly exceed the average deposit deduction for pet damage of £300. While I truly appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord, Dr. Clifford has considered these affordability issues to a degree in his amendment in lieu by stating the additional deposit may be from 1 to 3 weeks at the landlord's reasonable discretion. I am afraid that we still cannot accept this amendment. In practice, this provision would be effectively the same as allowing landlords to request up to three weeks deposit, as the original amendment did.

Many landlords, of course, will charge the full amount, giving rise to the same affordability challenges as the original amendment. As outlined at Lords report, the government has existing powers under the Tenant Fees Act 2019, which will allow Parliament to require a larger deposit where a landlord has consented to the tenant having a pet. We will continue to keep this position under review following Royal Assent, and if there is clear evidence that pet damage is exceeding normal tenancy deposits, we do have the Tenant Fees Act power which would allow us to remedy this.

Turning now to Lords Amendment 39, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brenda, introducing an annual reporting requirement on the quality of military accommodation. I would like to express my very grateful thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Brenda and Lady Thornhill for their continued engagement on this issue, and I would also like to extend my thanks to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord stirrup, for his tireless advocacy for service personnel and their families. I'm sure the whole House will agree that our armed service personnel and their families must live in safe and decent homes.

The government acknowledges the vital role that accommodation plays in their lives. We are determined to ensure that our personnel have access to safe, high quality accommodation that meets their needs and reflects the importance of their service to our nation. As I've previously outlined, the government is committed to driving up the standards of military accommodation. Further. Earlier this year, the Ministry of Defence announced an additional £1.5 billion investment in service family accommodation over the next five years above the committed.

And later this year, the government will publish a defence Housing Strategy, setting out clear renewal standards and further steps to improve the lived experience of our personnel. I welcome the amendment in law tabled by the noble Baroness, and I can confirm that the government supports this approach in principle. We have therefore tabled amendments 39 B and 39 C as amendments in Lo, which will introduce a statutory requirement for annual reporting on the extent to which service family accommodation meets the Decent Home Standard.

This amendment will place on a statutory basis, the commitments the Housing Minister made and the other place for greater transparency and accountability on the quality of military accommodation, alongside the government's wider actions that I've already highlighted, this will make a real difference in ensuring that service personnel and their families have the homes of the quality they deserve. I have discussed the government's amendment in low with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill and Lady Grinder and with Gideon Moss MP, who I'm grateful for his strong advocacy on this issue.

In the other place, they've indicated their support and I hope noble Lords will also support this amendment. Finally, turning to Lords, Amendment 26 and 27, which were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord King of Ely and would require local authorities to meet the criminal rather than civil standard of proof when imposing penalties for rental discrimination and rental bidding breaches. I I'm very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord King, for his constructive engagement on this issue. We believe that local authorities will enforce these measures against the relevant standard approach effectively.

However, we understand the concerns from noble Lords that if this is not the case, there is a risk of an unsatisfactory decision. With that in mind, I can confirm the government will include in the relevant statutory guidance to local authorities advice that a local authority exercises a quasi judicial function when imposing a civil penalty, and should therefore be satisfied by credible, reliable and sufficient documentary or other evidence on the balance of probabilities, the person has breached a relevant requirement before imposing a penalty.

Moreover, the bill already gives a person against whom a local authority proposes to impose a penalty a right to make representations before a final decision is made, as well as the right to an appeal by way of rehearing against a penalty. I am pleased to have come to an agreement with the Noble Lords Lord King of Ely on this issue. I hope this is sufficient to address the concerns of noble Lords, and they will agree to the motion not to insist from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

other place. The question is that motion A, b
16:22
Lord de Clifford Portrait Lord de Clifford (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion A, b agreed to a motion A one Lord. Two. Clifford.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clifford. Once I beg to move motion A1 as an amendment to motion A as inserted, and do propose amendment inserted, and do propose amendment 11 B in lieu. My Lords, firstly, I thank the know Baroness, the Minister, for her opening remarks and opening remarks. First, if my please note my interests in the register that I work for, and I am also a shareholder in a veterinary business that cares for many pets and also have the privilege of being a dog lover.

For many years. My updated amendment seeks to provide protection and reassurance to landlords and give tenants much more opportunity to fine a rental property that are our pets. The government quite rightly included in this bill the right of tenants to request landlords to allow pets, as currently there is a limited number of properties available. The government commenced commencement of the bill, wished to support landlords with a change with regards to the financial risk that pets may cause damage to property during a tenancy.

This proposed solution was an insurance policy which provided a level of cover. This proposal was supported by many housing and pet charities. Due to the risk profile of this type of cover, the insurance market was not could not provide the appropriate policies. As a result, the government withdrew this proposal from the bill. That risk still exists. The five weeks deposit is. It covers the risk tenants may cause damage to a property. Property. Housing a pet is therefore an additional risk and therefore asking for an extra amount of deposit is surely not unreasonable.

One of the government's objections is that, as already stated by the noble Baroness, the Minister was the increase in the deposit of rent, and I acknowledge that this does exist for some. Therefore, we have considered this in an updating and reducing the number of weeks deposit required as a minimum one week, and also an obligation on landlords to be reasonable when asking for the amount of deposit considered, the nature of the pets or number of pets. The government also said that the five week deposit will cover the damage of pets.

They use figures from the University of Huddersfield survey provided to the Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, saying 76% of landlords have no issue with pets. That leaves 24% of landlords with pet issues. That is not a small number. The summary does not define what those pet issues are. The report did quote that the average cost of a pet pets related pet damage was about £300 per tenancy. I believe the average weekly rent is about £300. As mentioned in the passage of this bill.

So one week's rent would cover the damage and maybe that a pet pet damages a property. A good tenant will repair it. Sadly, not all tenants are the same. So just just like we have a range of good and bad landlords. So if a tenant does have a pet that does cause some damage and is not repaired, is it not likely that if they if there are other repairs, they will not be repaired? That is what the five week deposit will cover, and an additional pet deposit could cover the pet damage.

There is good evidence that tenants with pets tend to stay longer, and many do take care of their problems to a high standard. One conclusion is, would be that these tenants do stay in certain properties for longer, due to the lack of supply. We will turn to rental property, which is which, happily, this bill wishes to address, but we need to support landlords with this change. By supporting this amendment, we will be supporting landlords and make the process of more landlords accepting pets without obligation.

So objection far greater reality so that they have the protection of additional deposit. It will hopefully be also encourage existing landlords to stay in the private rental sector market and potentially lunas landlords to choose long term tenancies over short term holiday and Airbnb lengths. And so maintaining supply of rental properties. A table, a table, a table in the university report asks landlords whether different policies or incentives would encourage them to consider pet owners as a tenant in the future.

53% are said having a tenant with insurance cover for a pet damage would help. Sadly, this is not available. 51% allow said allowing lounge to charge for deep clean would help. This would cover and be covered by a pet deposit. 43% said allowing landlords to allow to be allowed to hold a pet would help them. And this is what this amendment does. Pets provide so much to us human beings in terms of companionship, health benefits and providing friendship and support at difficult times.

When owning a pet, we have a responsibility to maintain their welfare and welfare and health. This is both a time commitment as well as a financial financial commitment for the owners. Therefore, if someone is possible, someone is a possible tenant with a pet. An additional deposit for a property should be thought of as part of that financial commitment. I hope my revised amendment will hopefully find some support with your lordships today, and we can find a balance between landlords and tenants to increase the supply of pet friendly accommodation.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was that motion A they agreed to. Since when motion A one has been moved as an motion A one has been moved as an amendment to motion A and it the end insert the words printed on the insert the words printed on the marshal list. The question therefore
16:27
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

is that motion A1 be agreed to. And my Lords, I rise in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And my Lords, I rise in particular to welcome amendments 39 B and C on behalf of myself and our B and C on behalf of myself and our most able leader on this bill team, my noble friend Baroness Thornhill, we are absolutely delighted that military housing is going to be held

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the same legal standard. As the private renters in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As the private renters in this bill. Putting this on a statutory footing fulfils the campaigning, the footing fulfils the campaigning, the wishes of this government and the campaigning work by some of my colleagues, particularly in the colleagues, particularly in the Commons MPs Gideon Amos and Helen Morgan, to name but a few. And I Morgan, to name but a few. And I would like particularly to thank Adam Bull in our committee, in our whips office, who's been working very hard on this over the recess.

In particular, I want to thank the noble lady, the minister, Baroness noble lady, the minister, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, for her her time and patience in discussing this time and patience in discussing this issue and in us getting to this very issue and in us getting to this very happy mutual agreement. And also Minister Penicuik for the time that he spared, and the noble Lord Coker he spared, and the noble Lord Coker as well, who has spent time on this, the noble Lords Beste and Stirrup the noble Lords Beste and Stirrup have provided wisdom, backing and advice, and I am grateful to both of advice, and I am grateful to both of them for this as well.

At the heart of this issue are those who give the ultimate sacrifice in the military and the families who live with them and stand by them. Let us hope, as a result of this change, that the appalling conditions that they have endured so far will change and will be a thing of the past. And we are enormously grateful for this change and looking forward to seeing it introduced. With regard to the noble Clifford, we have consistently not supported this, although we do recognise the eloquence of his arguments on this area.

But we continue to argue that this will place undue financial pressure on tenants, and could be exploited by rogue landlords to impose excessive deposit charges. We believe that tenants and owner occupiers and social tenants should be viewed on a much more equal footing, and this speaks to some of the speeches that both the noble Lady Thornhill and I have made on that. And therefore we feel we cannot support that. But I in particular, we're absolutely delighted with the amendment by the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government, and we look forward to its implementation. Yeah. My Lords. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Would like to speak to amendment. 11. Be. In the name. Of the noble. Lord.
16:30
Lord Black of Brentwood Portrait Lord Black of Brentwood (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord to. Clifford, which, as we have heard, seeks to allow landlords to request a pet deposit equivalent of request a pet deposit equivalent of up to three weeks of rent. Like many of the charities involved in the animal welfare sector who have campaigned tirelessly on this issue,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm disappointed we're having to return to this subject after it was clearly rejected in the other place. And.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Has been the subject of intense discussion. Charities including. Battersea Cats Protection and the Dogs Trust strongly support the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Dogs Trust strongly support the government's position. And so do I. The reason for that is clear. Such an obligation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Such an obligation. Would defeat the very purpose of the pet provisions in this carefully balanced bill, which is designed to balanced bill, which is designed to make pet ownership easier for tenants and remove the inequity that owning a pet is the preserve of the increasingly small number of people who can afford to own their own who can afford to own their own home. And I declare my own interests as the owner of a cat. And let us be clear, as I say, that committee for clear, as I say, that committee for tenants seeking to have a single pet in rented accommodation there is likely to be only a very minimal, if likely to be only a very minimal, if any, damage, and the standard security deposit is more than sufficient to cover any damage sufficient to cover any damage beyond standard wear and tear.

As a survey conducted by YouGov on behalf of the Dogs Trust and Cats of the Dogs Trust and Cats Protection in 2021 concluded and in rare circumstances. My Lords, where damage caused by a pet may exceed the value of existing security. Deposit measures already exist for landlords to seek additional compensation from the tenant. As such, charging an additional pet deposit is unnecessarily and wholly disproportionate, and this costly proposal would put the wonderful aspiration of pet ownership beyond the reach of many.

My Lords allow and also require a pet deposit equivalent to three up to three weeks rent could see tenants forced to find up to an additional £1,500 for a one bedroom flat in high rent

**** Possible New Speaker ****

areas such as London, a. Figure. Which is unaffordable for many.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Which is unaffordable for many. It would also introduce an unfair geographical disparity with those living in cities where rents are living in cities where rents are higher being far worse off compared to. Living those living in rural to. Living those living in rural areas. Another problem, my Lords, with the addition of a pet deposit is the potential lack of transparency regarding what a landlord decides should constitute pet damage and what constitutes the pet damage and what constitutes the type of damage which would otherwise be funded by the security standard security deposit.

Many landlords, I security deposit. Many landlords, I fear, would see this as an extra fund to provide an option to withhold more money simply for withhold more money simply for standard wear and tear. My Lords, the pet provisions in this bill have the pet provisions in this bill have been thoroughly and energetically debated both inside and outside this House. It's clear from all those House. It's clear from all those discussions that the standard secure deposit is more than adequate to cover any damage caused by a pet, and that this amendment is completely unnecessary.

Its only result would be to neuter one of the result would be to neuter one of the key planks of this vital legislation, destroying the hopes of legislation, destroying the hopes of so many tenants who dream of having a pet in their home. Today, my Lords, we should make that dream a reality. And I'm afraid if the noble Lord moves his amendments, I should be voting against it. be voting against it.
16:34
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I will speak briefly on two matters. First of all, the Ministry of Defence accommodation and the pet deposits. Firstly on the Ministry of Defence housing. We thank the government for listening and engaging so constructively on this issue. The concerns raised have been recognised and the government's response has been both proportionate and pragmatic on these benches. As ever, we strongly support our service personnel and the vital contribution they make to us and our country, and we are happy to support the government's motion.

My Lords, turning to the issue of pets and I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord, to Clifford on an issue that has filled my inbox. And I know that of my noble friend Lord James Jameson's as well. When the bill was first introduced, the government rightly sought to balance the cost of pet related damage through the requirement of pet insurance. But as, as we pointed out repeatedly, and as the noble Earl, Lord Conall emphasised, no such insurance product was actually existing.

Once the government accepted that fact, the requirement was removed, but nothing, my Lords, was put in its place. This amendment restores that missing balance. It offers a fair and proportionate settlement, ensuring renters can keep pets in their homes, while landlords have a reassurance that any pet related damage can be covered. And if there is no damage, it will be returned. Research by Property Marque recently shows that 85.3% of landlords and agents have incurred damage to their properties by pets.

Yet more staggeringly, staggeringly by laws, 57% of landlords and agents report being unable to recoup pet related damage costs, allowing an additional deposit of 1 to 3 weeks. Rent is therefore I, we believe, a reasonable and balanced step, one that protects tenants rights while recognising the realities faced by landlords, particularly small landlords. My Lords, landlords are not always wealthy investors. Many, as we have said many times in this bill, are ordinary people for whom second property represents their pensions or their life savings.

If a property requires major cleaning or repair. Those costs can be prohibitive. And in some cases, my Lords could drive properties out of the rental market altogether. So therefore, my Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord to Clifford chooses to test the opinion of the House once again, we on these benches will support him. Finally, my Lords, I just wanted to thank the government for their constructive engagement of the assurances given both in writing and from the despatch box on the standard of proof.

Those commitments provide a much needed clarity and reassurance on how this will be applied in practice, and we are grateful for the Minister's response on these. My Lords, taken together, these measures improve. We believe the Bill make it fairer, more workable and more balanced for both tenants and landlords alike.
16:37
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords have spoken in this section of the debate and I thank again the noble Lord Clifford and Baroness Gwenda for their very positive approaches throughout the course of the Bill. And can I thank the noble All Black for his support? And I'll come on to some of the points that he raised in a moment. And, Baroness Scott, I do think the responses to this part of the debate this afternoon are pragmatic.

I we can't accept Lord Clifford's amendment, I'm afraid. He did question about the government's. We didn't question. He mentioned the government's change in position on pet insurance. We did have an extensive debate, both in your lordships House and in the other place. And we did draw on the expertise of peers such as the noble Lord, the Earl of can or Lord Clifford, and Lord trees. And the government consulted further with the Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers Association.

And it was following that engagement that we concluded that we were no longer confident the insurance and underwriting sector would have sufficient or suitable products available for either landlords or tenants to purchase. In view of that, we didn't want to leave tenants in a position whereby they couldn't comply with conditions set as part of the pet consent granted by their landlord, as that would mean they weren't able to have a pet, and that would defeat the object of having pet provisions within the bill.

I'm pleased to say that as the noble Lord black mentioned, Battersea cats and Dogs Ham have indicated their support for the government's approach, including the approach of not accepting this amendment. And I received just today a letter of very strong support from the Dogs Trust and the Cats Protection League, and another letter email from shelter expressing their support and hoping that this amendment would not be accepted because they didn't feel that it's in the interest of tenants or of their pets.

We so we did use the information from the University of Huddersfield as part of our consideration. But I think it's important to say that, as we noted, as I noted in my opening speech, we will continue to keep this under review. And we do have the powers to allow for higher deposits for pets if needed. And we are satisfied at the moment that the existing requirement for five weeks deposit for typical tenancies is sufficient to cover the risk of any increased damage by pet ownership.

And I know some landlords are concerned about potential damage that may be caused by pets. Landlords can deduct damaged costs from the normal tenancy deposit as they do now, and in rare cases, for example, where the deposit didn't cover the cost of the damage, the landlord could take the tenant to the small claims court and bring a money claim to recoup any outstanding amounts in line with the wider rules in the sector. We don't want to put tenants in a position where they can't have a pet, because there are no suitable insurance products available, or because they can't afford the additional cost of a deposit.

So we will keep this matter under review, and I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think your lordships, your thoughts and speeches, and also I'm pleased and support Baroness Glenda's change and amendment of
16:41
Lord de Clifford Portrait Lord de Clifford (Crossbench)
-
-
Glenda's change and amendment of being accepted by the government, and you haven't changed your position on that until support this. And I understand that that comments regarding that the deposit scheme referring to Lord Black of Brentwood. I'm just as passionate about allowing more people to have pets. And this what I'm trying to do with this amendment is to try and encourage landlords not to leave the sector by having pets. I would love more people to have pets and I realise how important it is, but I do think there's a balance to be struck here with, with this, trying to reassure landlords because they don't accept pets at the present time, there are very few properties that are on the market for, and this is a trying to create a balance between the between that and I appreciate there are some tenants who will struggle to find that deposit, but I believe by having this in place, more landlords will be willing to accept pets and there will be less disruption between landlords and tenants when they ask to have that pets.

And on the basis of that, I would like to test the opinion on the House on on my motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion A1 be agreed to as many as that opinion agreed to as many as that opinion will say content. Contrary, not content. And I think the not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. I and of course then. The question will then be decided

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question will then be decided by a division. I will inform the
16:42
None Portrait Division
-

by a division. I will inform the House when opening the vote. Voting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The. For For that. Yes. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Yes, yes. I. For you. My Lords. No, no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is the amendment be agreed to? As many as that opinion will say content. That's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's. Contrary not content. The contents will go to the right by the contents will go to the right by the thrown, the not contents to the left

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So. So. We So. We want. All. All. The.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In In my In my notes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In my notes. Order. I think. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. amendment be agreed to. amendment be agreed to. amendment be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords My Lords that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords that have My Lords that have voted My Lords that have voted contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords that have voted contents 192 not. Contents 239. So the not contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My lords, My lords, before My lords, before we My lords, before we turn My lords, before we turn to motion B, may I remind your lordships that during a division in particular, I need clear sight of the clock at all times. It is therefore strictly forbidden for any appear to move between the table and me, so that I cannot see the clerk. We now turn to motion B, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. I apologise.

Yes. The question is that motion A be agreed to? As many as that opinion will say content country not content to the contents have it. My apologies my Lords. And we now turn to motion B Baroness Taylor of Stevenage.
16:54
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Oh my lord. So I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Motion B that this House do not insist on its amendment 14 and to agree with the Commons in their amendment 14 aye in lieu with the leave of the House. I will also leave of the House. I will also speak to motion C, C1, D and d1, speak to motion C, C1, D and d1, which are grouped together. By my Lords. I would like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord young for their amendments relating young for their amendments relating to the no restriction.

Turning first to Lords Amendment 18, tabled by the to Lords Amendment 18, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, which is intended to reduce the no let period to six months, where the property to six months, where the property has been demonstrably on the market, and no suitable offers received for that period. The noble Order and I, that period. The noble Order and I, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, have discussed this amendment at length, and I would again like to thank them for their again like to thank them for their continued engagement on this.

The government understands there may be situations where landlords genuinely intend to sell their property but cannot do so. However, the re cannot do so. However, the re letting and remarketing restriction is one of the strongest safeguards we have in this bill. I know many we have in this bill. I know many noble Lords agree with the restriction in principle, but disagree with the length of the restriction. The government believes restriction. The government believes that the 12 month time period will make it unprofitable for a landlord to abuse this ground.

It is vitally important that these strong protections for tenants remain in place, and I want to be clear about the government's position and commitment. This is shared by members in the other place, and today I was pleased to receive strong support from shelter, citing research from the Nationwide Foundation that 1.5 landlord sale evictions do not result in sales. Turning to Lords Amendment 19, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, which would exempt shared owners from the releasing and remarketing restriction and other important restrictions.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord young for taking the time to meet, particularly the time during recess when he was kind enough to have meetings to discuss this important issue and for his continued support for shared owners. And I would also like to thank him for his amendments in law amendments 19 B, 19 C and 19 D. The government is very sympathetic to shared owners experience in building safety issues and the particular challenges that they are facing. We've already taken a number of steps outside of this bill to provide greater clarity for shared owners on what flexibilities and support they can expect from providers.

These include new commitments in the update to the government's Remediation Acceleration Plan, published in July. The Noble Lords amendments in law acknowledge the unique circumstances in which shared owners operate, whilst not compromising on the core aim of the bill to improve security of tenure in the sector. The government is delighted to support his amendments and we encourage the House to agree to them. We will continue to work with the noble Lord as the Bill is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

implemented. I beg to move. The question is that motion B be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion B be agreed to? As amended? That opinion was taken. Oh.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Shall I be up, Matt? Yes, yes. And that's correct. Yes. Forgive me.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Forgive me. My Lords. I'll address. Amendment 18, motion. C1 in place.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

C1 in place. Of motion. C. To recap. Very briefly on. The. Substance of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Substance of. The amendment. The bill. Punishes any landlord who serves. Notice on a. Tenant.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tenant. Because the landlord is selling. The property. But the property fails to sell.
16:58
Lord Cromwell Portrait Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

But the property fails to sell. Forgive me for interrupting, but we were on B, and I was under the impression that you wanted to speak impression that you wanted to speak on B, but it appears that you have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

gone to C. Am I correct? My mistake? My mistake? I will sit down and restart later.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sit down and restart later. They are the same. Then it's not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pregnancy? Well, I think. We could set this to music if you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We could set this to music if you wish. Now where did I get to? Oh, wish. Now where did I get to? Oh, yes. Not again I won't, I won't start again now, says two patient, but I will. I will start halfway but I will. I will start halfway through the bill does punish any landlord who serves notice on a tenant because the landlord is tenant because the landlord is selling the property, but then the property fails to sell. They are not allowed to relate it for a period of allowed to relate it for a period of 12 months.

The property must stand empty and rented for that 12 months. empty and rented for that 12 months. The amendment does not quibble with that punitive intention of the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that punitive intention of the bill. It accepts that in order to prevent a few bad landlords trying to abuse the system. All property.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All property. By all landlords that fails to sell will stand empty and impossible

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sell will stand empty and impossible to live in. For anyone seeking rental accommodation. The amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Simply sets that punitive period at six months and also requires the at six months and also requires the landlord to furnish proof to a court of a genuine and reasonable, including reasonable pricing including reasonable pricing attempts to sell the property during that time. My Lords, the House of. that time. My Lords, the House of. Commons debate on this amendment acknowledge the landlord being hit with 12 months of no income, along with 12 months of no income, along with the costs of their property and standing empty for a year is a standing empty for a year is a problem.

But this was considered to be, and I quote, relatively minor be, and I quote, relatively minor and simply I quote an inconvenience to a well-meaning landlord who is struggling to sell. It was claimed struggling to sell. It was claimed that I quote it was. It is far too easy to abuse the proposed period of easy to abuse the proposed period of six months. And I quote again one more time, any rogue landlord looking for an excuse to evict. And finally, that landlords give excuses that are perhaps not all they seem to be.

I'm sorry to say, my Lords, that no facts were presented, that no facts were presented, quantified or examine. No evidence was provided, just these dismissive

**** Possible New Speaker ****

was provided, just these dismissive anti landlord assertions. My Lords, at least. In this. House, and my thanks to the noble lady of the Minister and her team for meeting with the noble Lord, panic and myself to discuss this. We were given two reasons to justify the 12 month punitive period. First, that it would prevent bad landlords from pretending to be selling in order to evict a tenant so that they could relate at a higher rent level. Second, that the six month punitive period might be section 21 by the back door.

I'll take these briefly in turn. First, the rent hike theory. My Lords, a landlord seeking a justifiable rent increase would not need to go through the process and cost of eviction. They could simply seek a rent increase via the mechanism within the bill. So the need to evict a tenant at all is irrelevant. Turning to the mathematics and I will spare the house repetition of the calculations. A landlord on leaving the property empty for just six months, would then, in order to recover the losses and get into profit, have to hike the new rent by more than 2 or 300%.

And that, of course, would make the property completely uncompetitive in the rental market. In other words, my Lords, six months penalty is more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

than sufficient to make the rent hike strategy unworkable. I also ask Noble Lords to note

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I also ask Noble Lords to note data from Zoopla, which shows that within six months of putting a property on the market, it is clear property on the market, it is clear whether it is going to sell, so it could simply be made available to could simply be made available to rent after that six month period. I remind the House also that the amendment requires a landlord to amendment requires a landlord to produce evidence of genuine attempts to sell at a sensible price.

to sell at a sensible price. However, I was told in a meeting with the noble lady of the minister and her T that if a property does and her T that if a property does not sell at a proven sensible price, the landlord would be forced to keep reducing the price until a sale was reducing the price until a sale was achieved at any price. Otherwise they would face a period of 12

**** Possible New Speaker ****

months when their property must, by law, stand empty, unprintable and cutting. Off the income of a landlord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Off the income of a landlord. For a full 12 months. My Lords, I questioned the right and the questioned the right and the morality of a state to use so casually such measures to threaten all landlords with 12 months loss of all landlords with 12 months loss of income if they do not sell a property at a discounted level to a sensible price.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In terms. Of who will be affected. My Lords, HMRC, hardly a partisan player in this discussion identified in 20 2324. Some 2.86 million people as unincorporated landlords across across the UK with income from renting and according to the English Private Landlord Survey of 2024, 45% of all landlords, half of whom, incidentally are female, own just one rental property. And if we expand that to four properties or less, that is 83% of landlords forcing these people to take their property off the rental market for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

12 months. Means that a single. Property landlord's whole income simply ceases. While costs such as maintenance. Council tax services, etc. Continue to require pain. Finally, but crucially, my Lords sales typically do not fall through because of the fault or choice of landlords. Analysis by Quick Move landlords. Analysis by Quick Move now. Reveals that 41% of all residential property sales fell residential property sales fell through in the second quarter of this year. Of these transactions, this year.

Of these transactions, the vast majority failed, not due to the seller. In fact, 45% almost half the seller. In fact, 45% almost half of failed sales fell through due to a difficulty in the buyer obtaining a difficulty in the buyer obtaining a mortgage. Other reasons included a break in the chain 18%, the buyer break in the chain 18%, the buyer simply changing their mind 14%, and legal problems 9%. In short, the legal problems 9%. In short, the imposition of even six months no rent punishment negates the rent hike theory while still penalising hike theory while still penalising those trying to provide much needed rental accommodation.

But more proportionately than the excessive proportionately than the excessive 12 months penalty in the bill. Turning now to the this is section 21 by the back door argument. While I respect that concern, it is misplaced. My Lords, this is the. Bogeyman that has been used to reject practically every amendment proposed to this bill. And in the case of this amendment, it is wholly false. The bill very clearly sets out the four grounds on which a landlord can require a tenant to vacate a property.

Any landlord abusing these, for example, failing to produce evidence that a genuine sale has been tried and failed will be acting illegally, full stop.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whether it is for 12 months or. Six under this. Amendment, even if acting legally, landlords still face a punitive period of six months with no income to heat by the 12 month no income to heat by the 12 month ban. Yet further punishment on every landlord who fails to sell, even for sale falling through is not their sale falling through is not their fault is excessive, even gratuitous. It is to move the bill from It is to move the bill from rebalancing renters rights to inflicting a kind of renters revenge, instead of seeking to revenge, instead of seeking to strike a balance or a compromise.

It is wilfully irrational and punitive of all landlords, seemingly just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of all landlords, seemingly just because they are landlords. My Lords. There is much good in this Bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There is much good in this Bill which I have supported, including the ending of section 21, and I am no stooge for landlords, as my other no stooge for landlords, as my other amendments have shown. But there does need to be a realistic balance. does need to be a realistic balance. In the midst of a housing crisis. It makes no sense to have properties artificially held empty and artificially held empty and unprintable for any longer than is necessary, on the basis that a landlord has failed to sell a landlord has failed to sell a property, often through no fault of their own.

I urge the government to reflect and not to reject this amendment just because they can, or on the basis of a visceral hostility to landlords. This is a reasoned, rational and balanced compromise amendment that will achieve the objectives of the bill. A 12 month penalty is not only overkill, but by shrinking the amount of rental property available, actually acts against renters rather than for them. My Lords, this House needs to ask the House of Commons to think again and perhaps more importantly, to help those so desperately seeking property to rent rather than having it artificially held unavailable.

I therefore urge noble Lords to engage with the reasoning behind the six months to support the availability of property to rent and to support this amendment, in other words, to insist on its amendment 18 motion. C1 and I will be seeking support of the House in this matter.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, Lords. I support. Lord Cromwell's motion. C1 I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Cromwell's motion. C1 I declare the piqued my interest. My wife owns properties in London
17:08
Lord Pannick Portrait Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My wife owns properties in London which she rents out, from which I. Occasionally benefits. Can I thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank. The Minister. For meeting with Lord Cromwell. matter? Her engagement with us is very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Her engagement with us is very much appreciated. Can I. Emphasise what the Minister. Said in the House what the Minister. Said in the House of Commons when the Lords amendment was defeated? It's that column. 637 he said I quote, we recognise that there will be occasions when landlords regain a vacant possession of their property using ground one way, but are unable subsequently to sell it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Despite repeated. Attempts to do so. That's the end of the quote. So the government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the quote. So the government expressly acknowledge that there will be landlords. Who are. Unable to sell.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Who are. Unable to sell. Having intended to do so. And who are.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And who are. Acting in perfect good faith. And the issue. Is whether it's really.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is whether it's really. Appropriate in this bill to penalise. Such good faith landlords penalise. Such good faith landlords by preventing. Them from renting out their property for 12 months because their property for 12 months because of abuse, and there is abuse by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of abuse, and there is abuse by other landlords. Now, I. Think I. Suggest to the House. This. Is a plain and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is a plain and. Obvious case of a disproportionate sanction. It's a sanction against those who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a sanction against those who have done no wrong, who have acted in perfect good. Faith.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Faith. And this government is often

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And this government is often eager to emphasise the importance of human rights law. And it's important human rights law. And it's important to acknowledge that. Human rights law does not just protect prisoners,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

illegal entrants. It also. Protects law. Abiding citizens

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Protects law. Abiding citizens who own property and who wish to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

who own property and who wish to. Rent it out. It is a basic principle of the common law adopted. By the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Human Rights Act, that any interference with the right to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

property requires a fair balance between the interests of the. Property owner. And the interests.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the community. And I suggest to the House that to. Penalise a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Penalise a. Landlord who has acted. In good faith. By preventing them. From renting.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

From renting. Out their own property for 12 months, when they have done no

**** Possible New Speaker ****

months, when they have done no wrong, defies the need. For a. Fair balance.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is manifestly disproportionate. Lord Cromwell's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Cromwell's. Modest amendment to reduce the period to six months is fair, and it period to six months is fair, and it is balanced. And if he divides the House as he's. Indicated he will, he will certainly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will certainly. Have my support. My apologies to. That. If the rebel Lord is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wanting to speak. I'm perfectly prepared to give way to him. No,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he's that that I seem. To have the floor of the House. And, my Lords, that the never

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And, my Lords, that the never Lord or Cromwell has made out a very
17:11
Lord Hacking Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-
powerful case, supported well by the noble Lord, who's just spoken his name. I am Lord Paddick, and it's very, very, very well supported by Lord Pannick, my Lords, that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lords and others will remember. I supported him. On this measure.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In committee, and I think also in the report, it actually covers a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the report, it actually covers a wider ground than just the landlord who has been unable to sell. There's another.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There's another. Ground of where the landlord has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ground of where the landlord has to. Put members of the family. In that property. And I cited the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In that property. And I cited the example if having done that, and then one of the parents, let's say,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

then one of the parents, let's say, of his parents coming in, that gets a stroke, then the landlord needs. To do.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To do. Something with the property, and that's putting it back in the market. And in that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

market. And in that. Situation, the. Landlord is penalised in exactly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the same way as the noble Lord has described. When the landlord fails and the genuine. Attempt to sell.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Attempt to sell. My Lords. In committee. And I think also in report, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I think also in report, I actually propose what I think of is problem. problem. prohibition.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On any landlord, sir, putting. Property again on the market at a Property again on the market at a higher price than the price which existed at the time of the change of ownership. My Lords, I didn't.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Succeed in. That argument. I think I should have succeeded, but I didn't. But

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have succeeded, but I didn't. But I'm certainly supporting the noble Lord. Lord Cromwell, as. Supported by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Cromwell, as. Supported by noble Lord of panic. Who I'm sure correctly naming and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

identifying. So, my Lords, I do hope your lordships. Have heard the argument both of. The wrong common and not panic, and will support them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and will support them. On this issue. motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motion. D1 in my name, which the noble lady the minister. Referred to sympathetically at.
17:14
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

The beginning of our debate. At the moment, as we've heard, the Bill precludes a landlord who gives

**** Possible New Speaker ****

precludes a landlord who gives notice to a tenant because he wants to sell from letting that property for 12 months. If that sale.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If that sale. Falls through, and the government wants all tenants to be. Protected against abusive

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Protected against abusive eviction by landlords, and I have no difficulty with that principle. But difficulty with that principle. But in the case of shared owners, there are already safeguards against such abuse which are not there for conventional landlords, and also their sales are more likely to fall through through no fault of their own. My Lords, the amendment exempting shared owners from this provision was carried at report stage in your lordships House by the largest majority of any amendments on the Bill.

And whilst sympathy was expressed by ministers for the plight of shared owners and the other place, the amendment was overturned in the other place and last week the government tabled its motion asking your lordships not to insist on that amendment and October the 10th enable aid to the Minister. Follow that up by writing to all peers, hoping that they would support her motion, not to insist. Then last week we had a Damascene conversion, and here I obviously had more good fortune than the noble Lord, Lord Commonwealth.

I'm most grateful to the noble lady, the minister for the time she spent with me on this last week and indeed earlier, and to Matthew Penicuik and the officials and the amendment in my name is the outcome of those discussions and represents a deal which I can accept. To briefly summarise the case, my Lords shared owners are social housing residents. They own a portion of their property and they rent the rest of it from the housing association. They purchase a share of their home because they could not afford to buy on the open market.

They are a distinct, legally identifiable group of people, and they are actually precluded from some acting without permission from their registered provider. The group of shared owners that this amendment seeks to protect. Our principle of those who who bought a flat in a block that needs remediation, but who have subsequently had to move. Now, normally a shared owner would sell his or her own, his or her share in the block. But because of the difficulties of selling and a block that needs remediation because of the safety issues post Grenfell, that has often been impossible.

So they have had to sublet. And here comes the distinction with all the other landlords. Shared owners cannot sublet without the express consent from their registered provider because subletting is banned from their leases. Such concerns already gives robust protection to their tenants. Registered providers control and approve the rent that is being charged, in line with guidance set by the government, so shared owners cannot evict a tenant simply to jack up the rent. In addition, and this is a crucial point, registered providers can withhold permission to sublet at any point if rules are not adhered to.

Another effective lever to prevent the abuse the legislation seeks to ban. So these combined control mechanisms provide several layers of protection for tenants of shared owners. In short, the risks the government seeks to guard against with a 12 month re letting ban cannot materialise, and none of these control mechanisms are in place for traditional landlords who operate with any such similar oversight. So, my Lords, many shared owners have had to move and sublet, but the local market rent is often less than the mortgage and service charges, causing severe financial difficulties.

Hence, subletting is at best a temporary solution to enable them to move on while they wait for the buildings to be remediated, or they find a willing buyer before then. Now, sales of a shared ownership flat are more likely to fall through than a normal sale due to the additional constraints involved, they have to give first dibs to the registered provider, who then has to look for a buyer who qualifies for shared ownership. So there is a restricted pool of buyers.

The sale price is set by a Rics valuation, which shed owners have to pay for, and this also restricts the pool of buyers as that valuation may be more than they're prepared to pay. Then any purchasers lender can be reluctant to lend due to building safety concerns. So a shared owner may find a potential purchaser, then give four months notice to their tenant if they waited until contracts were exchanged before giving notice, they will almost certainly lose the buyer whose mortgage offer will expire.

In the meantime, if the sale falls through a void of any length, let alone a 12 month period as proposed in the bill would cause severe financial hardship and put their home at risk, they would immediately be exposed to arrears and risk defaulting on their mortgage, rent and or service charge, and would trigger possession claims. Following discussions with the Minister. And again, I repeat my thanks. I've table three amendments in lieu. Amendments 19 B, 19 C and 19 D these collectively fully exempt shared owners from the 12 month no reset period, provided they meet a certain set of criteria that demonstrated the shared owner had made a genuine attempt to sell.

And these amendments in lieu meet the core aims of my original amendment, whilst also providing the safeguards needed for support. I needn't go through all the amendments in detail, but there is one point I want to make. One condition is that the shared owner must have informed the assured tenant in writing at the outset of the tenancy of this exemption, and this is to ensure that the tenants are aware of the circumstances of the tenancy they are entering, and this is consistent with other areas of the bill.

But can the Minister give an assurance that provisions will be made during implementation to ensure that existing shared owner landlords with an existing tenancy will have an opportunity to provide this information to their tenant after the bill comes into force. Because as the bill stands, they are not covered. These conditions, taken together, will ensure that the shared owners are genuine in their attempt to sell. Finally, amendment 19 C includes a power to end the exemption in the future. For example, once the building safety programme has been completed, however, the amendment does not put a date on this to ensure that the exemption remains in place for as long as necessary.

My Lords, I hope when the time comes the House will agree to this motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, on the compromise he's achieved on this important amendment. I must declare a family interest. My wife owns a family interest. My wife owns rented property in Dorset. My Lords, I rise to speak in opposition to the I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment to motion C in the name of my noble friend, Lord Cromwell. Well-intentioned, though I believe Well-intentioned, though I believe it is, my noble friend's amendment would mean that a landlord who has gained possession of a property using the grounds of an intention to sell, would be able to relate that sell, would be able to relate that property after six months if it has not been sold, rather than having to not been sold, rather than having to wait up to a year as specified in the bill.

Now, in normal circumstances, one would expect a sale to be agreed within around six months, or if not, the landlord months, or if not, the landlord would still want to go for a sale rather than relate the property so rather than relate the property so the issue would not arise in most instances where this grounds for instances where this grounds for possession could be used. But the government wants to prevent an unscrupulous minority of landlords unscrupulous minority of landlords using these grounds for eviction as a way of bypassing the bill's fundamental intention of giving renters greater security.

The fear is that the landlord professes to be wanting to sell, but has no such intention. They simply want to evict the tenant. The landlord may want to switch to more profitable Airbnb style lettings, or they may want to replace a tenant who is complaining about the landlord's neglect of essential repairs. They want to find a more malleable and or a more desperate tenant. There is some evidence of this cheating behaviour from Scotland, where similar legislation has not had constraints on how quickly a vacated property can be released.

So the government wants to prevent abuses. The bill needs to ban re letting for long enough to deter a landlord from misusing these grounds for possession. The question is how long a pause before re letting is permitted would be long enough to take a case where a renter is complaining about damp and mould. The property needs, say, £15,000 to be spent on rectifying various defects. If the tenant is paying 900 a month, it would be advantageous for the landlord to go without six months rent.

That's £5,300 to be rid of that tenant and find someone who will tolerate the poor conditions. But having to forgo 12 months rent well over £10,000 in this particular case before re letting would present a more robust deterrent against using this no fault eviction route to removing the tenant. I can see that a compromise of a nine months ban on re lifting would probably be acceptable all round, but in the absence of that halfway house, I think it is safer and more foolproof to stay with the bill's 12 month

**** Possible New Speaker ****

term and reject this amendment. My Lords, first of all, I. Really

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, first of all, I. Really also want to join Lord best in. Really praising. Lord. Young for his tenacity and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

commitment to. Shared ownership. Owners. They really are. Are the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are the. Raw end of the market, and they get a raw deal in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

get a raw deal in. Many different ways. And I think he. Has really shown. His his mettle. In his. Commitment to this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Commitment to this. But also it's. Fair to say. To thank Baroness Taylor for
17:24
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
listening and actually doing something about it. And I hope that a commitment to share donors continues in other areas that we're actually going to be looking at. But let's turn to the amendment 18 from Lord Cromwell, which we will, it would appear, be voting on. It's very difficult to follow the eloquence of Lord Paddick and Lord Cromwell, but I'm going to try to make my sincere apologies. Yes, my sincere apologies about about that. But I'm going to try and I'm going to say why we oppose this.

Lord Best has already highlighted what we call revenge evictions, and I guess we're coming at it from working for many years. In the case of my friend Baroness Granda, with renters groups and renters charities. So you really do get an idea of what is happening at the sharp end. And the sharp end isn't quite as narrow as we might like to think it's. There are actually probably more unscrupulous landlords out there than the amount of sales that take over a year to actually sell.

And I think on revenge evictions, the fact that a tenant will be kicked out because they ask you gave a very good example there, but there are there are many others. And in certain parts of the country where rents aren't quite so expensive, the six months rent would certainly make it worthwhile. Kicking, kicking somebody out on that ground if they ask for even some modest accessibility improvements and things like that. So we're arguing really over six, 9 or 12 months.

And the truth is, only time will tell. So what I would be seeking from the government is some reassurance that this will be looked at, because that could very well be the case. Lord bless mentioned Scotland and it's really interesting that 1 in 5 evictions that were used on this repossession ground then turned up on their database are still being for sale, which does give weight to the fact that people are prepared to do it because in Scotland they have no period for actually not relaxing.

But as was mentioned during several debates, I refer to the fact that I chatted to my women friends who are who are landlords. I referred to them as my landladies, so I put this to them and they looked at me as if it was a bit of a weird question. They said, well, if I was concerned about my property sitting empty, I am actually able to sell my property with the tenants still in the property. While the For Sale board is up at the door, up and the door.

So I wouldn't serve. I would talk to them and say that you know, the sale boards go in up, but I certainly wouldn't be serving notice until I was certain that I had a buyer, because the statistic that hasn't been bandied about is the length of time it sometimes takes to actually sell your house. So interestingly, they didn't actually see it as the kind of emotive, big, terrible, unfair problem that the noble Lords have made it out to be.

Most importantly, by keeping your tenants there, you're getting the rent. But much more importantly, in our view, is you're actually giving your tenants more time to find a home.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My Lords, first of all, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. My Lords, I'll speak briefly to. Support the two
17:28
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
important motions before us. Those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, on no relate provisions, and by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, on shared ownership on motion C1. As the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell has clearly explained under the Bill as drafted, where a landlord seeks possession to sell a property, and then that sale falls through, as it does in around about a third of cases, that the landlord is prohibited from relating for the property for 12 months now. In practice, this means perfectly good homes must stand empty for a whole year.

The amendment before us does not undermine the bill's purpose. It retains the requirement for a genuine sales process and safeguards against abuse. It introduces the vital element of proportionality. A six month restriction would still deter bad actors, while avoiding unnecessary loss of rental supply at a time when demand and rents are rising sharply. My Lords, we have a housing crisis and we must take every opportunity to improve the supply of housing and homes, leaving homes empty for 12 months does not help those desperately looking for a home to rent.

Turning to the shed owners, I'd also like to extend my appreciation of the dedicated work of my noble friend, Lord Young of Cookham, and we support the motions in his name. He's made a compelling and deeply fair case on behalf of shared owners who, through no fault of their own, have found themselves trapped by the complexities of the shared ownership system. And I want to thank ministers for listening to the concerns raised across the House and for working constructively with my noble friend on this issues.

We would support my noble friend if he takes this to a vote. But my understanding from what the Minister has said that the government is supportive of it and therefore we hope the vote is not necessary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords are. I'm grateful for all of those contributions to our ongoing
17:31
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
contributions to our ongoing discussions on these matters. If I can first turn to the failure to sell points, noble Lords Cromwell and Pannick queried why we are determined not to reduce the no let period to six months. If the landlord can prove the property is not selling on the open market. Of course, it's imperative that we do provide the very strong protections against backdoor evictions. So renters have more security and stability, and they can stay in their homes for longer, build lives in their communities, and avoid the risk of becoming homeless.

The noble Lord Pannick referred to a disproportionate sanction, but we've carefully considered the balance between the rights of the landlord and the security of the tenant, and I think that is where we've come to the conclusion that the current 12 month restriction on letting being introduced will prevent abuse of the possession grounds, for example, by potentially opening up the practice of backdoor section 21 style evictions to unscrupulous landlords. This length of time will make it unprofitable for a landlord to evict a tenant with the intention of relating the property to another tenant at a higher rent, and any of us that have dealt with housing cases will know of cases where that has undoubtedly happened in in areas where the markets are very hot, it happens even more.

The restriction also ensures that landlords cannot pursue the retaliatory retaliatory eviction so. Clearly outlined by the noble Lord best. And we do hear of frequent examples of that as well. I think the liberal order, Cromwell referred to me talking about people being forced to reduce the price. I don't think it was a matter of forcing people to reduce the price. I just feel that the if the property is on the market for that 12 month period, it does give the opportunity where landlords or sorry, it discourages landlords from marketing their property at a price which they know will not sell, and it will give the time for that property price to be reduced over time, and means it's less likely to encourage those.

Section 21 evictions by the backdoor. The noble Lord Jameson talked about properties being empty for a whole year. Well, there's Baroness Thornhill, very ably demonstrated there is no need for those properties to sit empty. They can be marketed while the tenants are still there. If notice, you know, notice being given. So there's no we don't need to have this this protection reduced to six months. I think it's very important. And I've had a plea from shelter in particular, but from other renters organisations over the last few days that we do not water down this provision in the bill.

It's a very important part of the protection for tenants. And as I said, we genuinely believe we've got the balance right between the rights of the landlord and the protections for the tenant on the issue around shared owners. And as other noble lords have commented, I've been very impressed with the way that the noble Lord young has championed the cause of shared owners. We all realise the very difficult situation they find themselves in, and I think I would also like to thank the Shared Owners Network, who have been very good in their briefings to all of us and helping us to come to the conclusions we've reached on this.

They do find themselves in a very difficult position. I think the noble Lord young describes them as reluctant landlords, and we know that's where they are. The noble Lord asked how the requirement for a shared owner to inform the assured tenant of the exemption will work for existing tenancies. The government will make provision during implementation to ensure that shared owner landlords with an existing tenancy will have the opportunity to provide this information to their tenant after the bill comes into force.

We want to take time to make sure we get the right approach to that and ensure we find a solution that works for shared owners, and we intend to do this using the delegated powers to make transitional provision provided by clause 147 of the Bill. And I very much look forward to working with the noble Lord young on this point as we prepare prepare for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

implementation of the bill, I beg to move. My Lords, the question is that motion B be agreed to as many that opinion say content contrary, not content. The contents have it motion content. The contents have it motion C Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, moved formally. The question is that moved formally. The question is that motion C be agreed to a motion c1 Lord Cromwell.
17:35
Lord Cromwell Portrait Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Cromwell. I understand that this stage I should be very brief, so I'll simply say to Baroness Thornhill, I also say to Baroness Thornhill, I also speak to many landlords and tenants and groups, and indeed have put amendments down on behalf of tenant groups during this process. I'd like to thank all those who've spoken. I particularly admire Lord best ability to see into the mind of landlords who failed to sell their property and what they would do next. I do question his maths, but perhaps we can come to that outside the chamber.

Selling with a sitting tenant is going to definitely be a different matter to selling without a tent on board. But I would simply say this it is clear to me, and I hope to the House, that a rational basis suggests that 12 months are. Inability to rent out your property is disproportionate, six months is still punitive, but it is effective. I have sought compromise on this in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

vain, and on that basis, I wish to test. The opinion of the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House and beg to move C1. The original question was that motion C be agreed to, since when motion C be agreed to, since when motion C1 has been moved as an amendment to motion C to leave out from the words house to the end and insert to insist on its amendment 18. The question, therefore, is amendment C one big retailers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment C one big retailers content. Third. The country not content. Think
17:37
None Portrait Division
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The country not content. Think the question will be decided by a division and I will remain on my division and I will remain on my feet until voting is open. Voting is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And. And. Okay And. Okay we've And. Okay we've got. Very Very complex. Very complex. We're Very complex. We're going Very complex. We're going to Very complex. We're going to come Very complex. We're going to come Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is. The motion C1 be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is. The motion C1 be agreed to the opinion of the say content contrary, not content. The content contrary, not content. The contents will go to the right by the thrown, the not contents to the left

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Yes. What What What do What do you What do you think? What do you think? The. What do you think? The. What Yes, Yes, I. Yes. Yes. I. Yes. I. Yes, Yes. I. Yes, yes. Yes. I. Yes, yes. Okay. Yes. I. Yes, yes. Okay. Yes.

Yes. I. Yes, yes. Okay. Yes. I Yes. I. Yes, yes. Okay. Yes. I that Yes. I. Yes, yes. Okay. Yes. I that Yes. I. Yes, yes. Okay. Yes. I that Yes. I. Yes, yes. Okay. Yes. I that I. Will. I. I. Will. I. I I. Will. I. I do I. Will. I. I do that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that motion The question is that motion c1 The question is that motion c1 be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion c1 be I, I, I I, I know I, I know that I, I know that that. Yes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My lords My lords they My lords they have My lords they have voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My lords they have voted My lords they have voted content 204 not content 215. Therefore the 204 not content 215. Therefore the not contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Must therefore not. The question is that motion C be agreed to as many that opinion will agreed to as many that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents have it motion d

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The contents have it motion d Baroness Taylor, of Stevenage moved formally. My Lords, I've already.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I've already. Spoken to motion d that this House do not insist on its amendment 19 to which the Commons have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

disagreed to their reason. 19 a I beg to move. The question is that motion d be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion d be agreed to motion T1 Lord young of. agreed to motion T1 Lord young of. The original question was a motion d be agreed to? Since when motion D1 has been moved as an amendment to has been moved as an amendment to motion D at end? Insert quote and do propose amendments 19 B to 19 D in propose amendments 19 B to 19 D in lieu. The question is therefore the motion D1 be agreed to, as many of that opinion will say.

Content the that opinion will say. Content the country not content the contents have it.
17:49
None Portrait
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Motion e Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. My Lords have already.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords have already. Spoken to motion that this House do not insist on its amendment 26, to which the Commons have disagreed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to which the Commons have disagreed. There is in 20 6AI beg to move. Question is it. Motion e be agreed to as many that opinions say content contrary, not content. The contents have it motion f Baroness Taylor, of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Stevenage. My Lords, I have already spoken to motion f that this House do not insist on its amendment 27 to which the Commons have disagreed. There is in 20 7AI beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in 20 7AI beg to move. Question is it motion f be agreed to as many that opinion will say content contrary not content. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content contrary not content. The contents have it motion g Baroness Taylor, of Stevenage. My Lords, I have already spoken

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I have already spoken to motion G that this House does not insist on its amendment 39, to which the Commons have disagreed for the the Commons have disagreed for the reason. 39 a and do propose amendments 39 B and 39 c and though

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. Question is that motion G be agreed to a motion G one Baroness Cressida.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Cressida. Moved. The original question was a motion g be agreed to, since when motion g be agreed to, since when motion G one has been moved? Actually that is not necessary. The question is that motion G be agreed to is that opinion say content

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary, not content. Contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Motion H Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. I Lords I move motion H that this House do not insist on its amendment 53 to which the Commons have disagreed, for there is an 53 a with the leave of the House. I will also the leave of the House. I will also speak to motions j, k and k one, which are grouped together. I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord to Clifford for their amendments
17:51
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
to Clifford for their amendments relating to grounds for possession. My Lords Amendment 53, tabled by the noble Baroness. Lady Scott, would remove the restriction from ground for a which limits it to students. Only students living in HMOs. This would allow students living in self-contained one and two bedroom properties, for example, to be evicted each year. We have been clear from the outset that this ground has been carefully designed to ensure the cyclical nature of the typical student market is maintained. We believe the ground applying to typical groups of undergraduates living together in a shared house is the right position, while, for example, a postgraduate couple who put down roots in the area may live in a smaller property should benefit from the full set of protections the bill gives to tenants.

Noble Lords have expressed concerns about the impact this restriction will have on the supply of one and two bedroom properties in the student market. With respect, I do not think these fears will be borne out. There will continue to be demand for these properties and many students will continue to move out in line with this academic year, even when not evicted, renting to students continues to be a buoyant market, and I do not believe the bill will dampen this. As I have stressed at length.

One of the core principles of this bill is that tenants should have more security in their homes. Removing this restriction could lead to students who need more security of tenure, being evicted more regularly. And I would therefore ask that the noble Baroness does not insist on her amendment. Turning next to Lords Amendment 64, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, which would introduce a new ground for possession for the sole purpose of allowing a landlord to regain their property, to house a carer for themselves, their spouse or child.

I thank the noble Lord for his thoughtful amendment in law. He has carefully considered some of the points I raised when we discussed his previous amendment. It is more specific on the type of care to be given, and ensures that the ground can only be used where the dwelling is very nearby to the person requiring the care. The government, of course, recognises the vital work that carers do to support people to live independently and with dignity. We will continue to look at what steps we can take to support the care sector.

Phase one of Baroness Casey's independent review into adult social care should report next year. While we are profoundly sympathetic to the needs of those who require care, I am afraid we cannot support this amendment. I would like to remind the House that we have already strengthened possession grounds to cover some situations, such as housing employees. In these cases, we believe the needs of those involved can be deemed to overrule the general principle that renters deserve security of tenure and should be able to put down roots in their long term homes, providing security for tenants in the private rented sector is the government's priority, and we have put much thought into the design of the possession grounds to ensure that they balance the needs of landlords and tenants.

There must be a compelling case for new grounds, with strong evidence that it is justified for a tenant to lose their home. This proposal does not meet that bar. We engaged extensively with stakeholders throughout the development of the bill, and there have only been very limited calls for a ground for landlords to require care. Any added ground increases the complexity of the system, which allows more potential for abuse. This amendment could lead to a long term member of the community losing their home to house a carer required only for a short period, and there have not been significant calls for it from the sector.

I therefore asked the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment in lieu. Turning now to Government Amendment 62 a, I would like to extend my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the National Farmers Union for their very constructive work with the Department to find a solution to the concerns that they raised. As the Housing Minister explained. In the other place, the government has reflected on its position and tabled amendments in lieu which narrowly expand ground five A to allow agricultural landlords to evict assured tenants in order to house both employees and non employed workers engaged in agriculture.

We believe this is a small technical change that supports the government's ambition to ensure the agricultural sector can continue to function effectively without compromising security of tenure. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington and the National Farmers Union have indicated their support for these changes, and I hope that noble Lords will also support this amendment. I beg to move.
17:56
17:56
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I beg to move a motion H one as an amendment to motion H leave out from house to the end and insert do insist on its amendment 53. My Lords, I speak briefly to two important possession grounds, those concerning students and carers. And can I also thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for her her support on Lord Carrington's amendment, which this side of the House supported strongly. First on students, as your lordships will no amendment 53 a sought to expand ground foray so that it also applied to one and two bedroom properties let to students.

Extending this ground would maintain essential. Essential stability in the market, ensuring that students arriving each autumn are not left without somewhere to live. Without it, landlords may be unable to gain possession in time for the new academic year, reducing availability, pushing up rents and increasing uncertainty. My Lords, this is not simply about convenience, it's about fairness and inclusion. Many of these smaller homes are occupied by students who need quieter or self-contained accommodation, often those who are neurodiverse who also or but also find shared living environments particularly challenging for them.

Access to such housing is not a preference, but my Lords, it's a necessity to exclude these properties from ground foray risks creating a two tier system that leaves the most vulnerable in our society behind. And I hope the minister and indeed our Liberal Democrat colleagues who once spoke so passionately in defence of students and will reflect very carefully on the points I bring forward. My Lords, we have a number of case studies that illustrate the implications of this ill conceived plan, from Cornwall and Portsmouth to Loughborough.

In Portsmouth, my Lords are letting agent and property Mark member reported very high numbers of students renting one and two bedroom flats, accounting for 20 or 30% at 30% of their portfolio. Not a small number, my Lords, and those included many international students in Loughborough. Feedback from another property mark agent on student tenancies showed a lower number of HMO lets compared to houses and flats. The evidence flatly contradicts the government's claims that one and two bedroom student properties account for only a small fraction of the market.

Regional variations exist, but the pattern is clear these homes are a substantial and vital component of the student housing sector, and by excluding them from ground foray, the government risks creating a two tier system both geographically and between students themselves, particularly those with specific or additional needs. My Lords, turning to carers and I rise to express my strong support for the amendment from the noble Lord Lord to Clifford. As I said at the report, this amendment is tightly drawn and provides for flexibility in exceptional circumstances where a property close to home could be used to care for a loved one, enabling people to live independently and with dignity rather than entering into the institutional care system.

Property market has also highlighted helpful precedent from Wales, where under the Renting Homes World Act, carers can have succession rights if the tenant they care for dies. While that provision does not apply, I understand that to landlords carers, it does demonstrate, my Lords, that such flexibility is possible in law and can be delivered responsibly. My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, chooses to test the opinion of the House, we on these benches will support him. I also beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move motion H1. The original. Question was that motion HB
18:00
18:01
18:02
18:03
Lord de Clifford Portrait Lord de Clifford (Crossbench)
-
-
possession for a family in need, to provide a full time carer for a family member. Can I just regarding comments made in the other place, can I just confirm that I have no direct interest with regards to any property? With this, my interest only came through contacts with rural letting agents who have clients that might need a care of themselves or family member and wish to use their property to house a carer. The amendment had been. The member has been revised since the Commons debate on the 8th of September.

One of the concerns, as already mentioned by Baroness Taylor Taylor, the minister the amendment is drawn to widely and open to abuse. The new restricts who the carers can be used for. For this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

being the landlord, their spouse or child or child, would they have legal responsibility for? We have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have. Also changed change this to land or wish to give notice. They must provide evidence with the eviction notice that a full time carer is required to care for one of those individuals. This significantly individuals. This significantly tightens the range of the clause and therefore the ability of an unscrupulous landlord to use it in unscrupulous landlord to use it in the wrong way. I do, I do acknowledge having spoken with housing charities, that landlords do housing charities, that landlords do hold the power in the tenant landlord relationship and to approach and challenge a landlord is difficult.

With these changes, the onus is now on the landlords to prove the fine evidence rather than prove the fine evidence rather than the tenant, and then the tenant can go to an appropriate authority to challenge the eviction if no challenge the eviction if no evidence is provided. We are looking. We are. We are not looking to change in any way the four months to change in any way the four months notice period that a landlord would have to give for a family member needed needed the house, and knowledge that these grounds will be knowledge that these grounds will be used on very few occasions, but when used on very few occasions, but when it is used, it will be by a family, by a family at a very challenging time.

When full time carer is time. When full time carer is required for an immediate family member. Landlords will only evict if they believe they need a carer for a significant amount of time e.g. An elderly person or child with a long term illness and a disability. They find that is fortunate enough to be in the position to be in a position where the appropriate accommodation that meets the criteria of this amendment could, and most likely will be in location with limited supply of ability or alternative properties such as rural settings or cities and towns with high demand for rental properties, which is currently many.

I do acknowledge that a tenant does need to leave the property, and will have caused causes for upheaval, stress and potential cost to that family or energy. But surely a family has the right to use what possessions they have to maximise the quality of care for family member and support the rest of the family at a time of needs. I look to look forward to your lordship support on this amendment and if I need to, I may test the opinion of the House.
18:06
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Portrait Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Labour)
-
-
Thank you. I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Clifford's proposed amendment to create. A new position. Ground for. Carers at 64 V.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Carers at 64 V. I know. Every noble Lord here. Appreciates and values.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The important work that. Carers do in our communities. It goes without saying.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It goes without saying. step. Possible. Every step we reasonably. Can. To help them. In their work. And the noble Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the noble Lord. Lord delivered has been. Both thoughtful. And very. Considered throughout these discussions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these discussions. And clearly has the best interests of carers at heart, as he's again shown. I understand that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he's again shown. I understand that this is a difficult issue and appreciate the arguments both that landlords. Who organise their. Own. Care are.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Care are. Not burdening the state and that they should be able to utilise their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they should be able to utilise their other. Hand. I note that previously in these debates and indeed the noble Lord that Clifford has mentioned them again today highlighted the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

again today highlighted the example. In. Rural communities.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the scarcity of housing in rural areas also raises. The. Counterpoint of the plight of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Counterpoint of the plight of the tenant. These tenants may be the local teacher or work in the post office. Long term members of the community who don't own their own homes to evict them, to house a carer for a. Landlord who may possibly only be in the area for a couple of years, will upend their lives and leave them potentially struggling to remain in the area. And I think it's worth adding, my Lords, that currently the only way, the only way to test whether there

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is a genuine need for a carer ever having to is if the tenant. Challenges their.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Eviction and the landlord has to go to court to obtain the possession order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Unfortunately, I'm afraid won't. Do that. As they will simply leave without

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As they will simply leave without the landlord ever having to prove a carer was really required. And I appreciate this is very much a balanced argument, but on balance, I'm of the view that allowing I'm of the view that allowing tenants to be evicted through no fault of their own in order to house carers to landlords is not the right approach to this. The threat and disruption this would cause to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tenants, and the scope for wider misuse of this ground. Because I don't think we should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because I don't think we should underestimate, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill said, the danger that this could become a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

loophole. For unscrupulous landlords. And there are enough of them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And there are enough of them. experience. In the private rented sector. To realise. That this could. Be a real danger. I think there

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are. Dangers and the scope for. Wider misuse and I don't think in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wider misuse and I don't think in my view, therefore, the that that should be allowed to outweigh or that the benefit to a relatively narrow group of landlords should be allowed to outweigh that, that disruption. So I hope that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment is not moved to a vote. I know it's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know it's. as. The joint owner. For a small cottage. In the village where I live.
18:09
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the village where I live. I strongly. Support the noble. Lord, Lord. Clifford's Amendment. 64 B it's had the support of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

64 B it's had the support of the noble lady Baroness Bowes, and of caring. Organisations who would be helped

**** Possible New Speaker ****

immediately. Not just. As. It were condemned to wait. For the Casey. Review.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Which we're all very. Keen to see. The amendment has been tightened up considerably by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

been tightened up considerably by the noble Lord Lord together to avoid any abuse. In response. To comments that. The Minister herself.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister herself. Made in committee. And I think that is very helpful, and I think.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

response. Is an example of the government's unwillingness. So far. To.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Take the demise of carers seriously. Being able to provide accommodation for carers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accommodation for carers. Can make a real difference. To. The. Availability of carers, you know,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Availability of carers, you know, not every carer wants to be a living carer, especially if they have carer, especially if they have families. Yeah, and yet we need growing numbers of carers. This is because there are ever growing numbers of the aged and the disabled, and a scarcity of care home and hospice spaces. Yet there is an acute shortage of housing and a scarcity of short term term accommodation. Partly as a result of this very bill.

At the same time, we've got smaller families, we've got more couples having no children and more and more people seeing their relatives working or moving overseas. So the need for hard carers is increasing and the carers need short term accommodation. It can be sometimes for years as they move over time from job to job in different locations. We do need to look at this, my Lords, and I think this change would be a small and systemic positive that would help both the caring sector and families in need.

And I do invite the Minister to think again.
18:11
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Portrait Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speak to Lord the Clifford's Amendment, as. Previously I declare interest as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Previously I declare interest as a private landlord. And in. The context of this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I did have a relative to whom it would have applied. That interest no longer applies, as the Bill. Has.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Has. Caused plans to be advanced and the tenants. In the relevant property given.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Notice under current law. But of course. That does not take away my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That does not take away my general concern on this topic. This replacement amendment now has a narrower scope, applying only to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

narrower scope, applying only to. Homes needed to. House carers. In. The. Immediate family i.e. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Immediate family i.e. The landlord, spouse or children. Thus. It closes a. Loophole perceived by some of the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by some of the. Of it being. Used by. Those with an awful lot of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Those with an awful lot of relatives, as was discussed with the minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

minister. others. May need more than one carer. Or have progressive conditions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Or have progressive conditions. And whatever the. Reason. Whether financial. Or. Availability.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It may not be possible. To have one large. House to accommodate all the future.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Carer needs. Under one. Roof, nor sustain. Expenditure on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Such a property. Before it's required. People do have to. Plan for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Plan for. Future deterioration. Of the. Person needing care.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Person needing care. And of the family members. That are part. Of their support. Some may have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of their support. Some may have invested in an ideal adjacent. current. Law.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Law. As it became. Available. especially.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

especially. In. The instance of. Children needing to plan. For when.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For when. Parents are no longer around, such plans have to be scrapped under such plans have to be scrapped under this bill, most likely resulting.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In property sales and earlier evictions. It may be. A one off readjustment. Because nobody.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because nobody. Will make such plans in future, but is it really necessary to hit

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but is it really necessary to hit damaged. At birth?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because that is amongst what we are. Doing. And to suggest it is easy for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

affected people to sell up and move. resources. Of more than one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Property, is cruel. Avoiding upheaval can be an important factor, both for reasons of. Health of the impaired person

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of. Health of the impaired person property. All the equipment, bars.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All the equipment, bars. Ramps. Bathroom locations and so forth. This is really.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forth. This is really. Not fair and it's not caring. And I therefore. Do support this amendment.
18:15
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Do support this amendment. And with the narrower scope. I believe.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I believe. It is a fair suggestion. My very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a fair suggestion. My very briefly, we oppose Baroness Scott's briefly, we oppose Baroness Scott's amendment at report stage and we see and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have reflected carefully. Upon it. My noble friend Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Upon it. My noble friend Lord question. And was very much in conversations with Lord Willetts. And we finally came to the conclusion that the, the government conclusion that the, the government have probably got this about right for the reasons given by Baroness for the reasons given by Baroness Taylor, and we are very pleased that Lord Carrington's diligent work has Lord Carrington's diligent work has finally got the concessions that I think he deserves. Turning to the think he deserves.

Turning to the more difficult and emotive issue regarding carers, I hope that regarding carers, I hope that there's no one in in the House that can doubt our commitment to carers, can doubt our commitment to carers, but we feel it has now become very narrow and in in reality a very narrow and in in reality a very niche issue, affecting a very limited number of people who happen limited number of people who happen to have two properties in close proximity to a person who is needed proximity to a person who is needed care.

But we did feel it was an issue worthy of being raised. And I issue worthy of being raised. And I thank the noble Lord to Clifford and my noble friend Baroness Bowles for raising it. And, you know, thought has gone into it in the in the meantime, we were content with the Minister's answers and the reason for refusal. And I think it's about actually we have to remind ourselves when a. Lot of emotive things mentioned today, and we would agree with all of them.

Yes, it would be terrible if this happened to this, but actually this is fundamentally about expanding the repossession grounds in order to evict a tenant. And the emotive phrases that you've mentioned could equally apply to the tenants in the existing home that are about to be evicted. And the reason we eventually came down on saying that we weren't going to continue with our support. And I know, to the disappointment of my noble friend, is quite simply, we do not believe that monitoring this is remotely possible.

Monitoring some of the other grounds is going to be challenging, but this one will be nigh on impossible. And certainly trying to enforce it will be equally difficult. So we absolutely are developing a potential new loophole that could be abused. We have absolutely no, no doubt about that. However, I was we are concerned about the impact of the act on the wider family of carers, and we are sincerely looking forward to the Casey report and I'm sure the noble lady, the Minister, will expect us to hold their feet to the fire on the recommendations therein, and we really hope that the government will work with the carers charities in order to bring more fairness and just more humanity into the system.

But we do not believe that this fairly niche and if I'm at ease, there were fairly elite group of people. Yes, I'm sorry. But you are. You are actually every single person that uses this is evicting a set of people. And the bill is about protecting tenants in their place. And it is very, very few people who are going to be in that privileged position. So the government and ourselves, we have to make decisions about where that balance lies. And that decision has been made that way.

I'm sorry if it offends some people, but it's something that has to be considered when you're actually making a decision of this sort.
18:19
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Yeah. have contributed in this debate. And there has been some emotive discussions. I'll come on to those in a moment, but very thoughtful and considered responses to the amendments, and I'm grateful for that. I'll start with the potential expansion of ground for a. The government, of course, recognises that the new tenancy system will have an impact on the way the student market operates. While we believe the ground covers the majority of the market, there is no one size fits all solution that covers all circumstances.

We think it's reasonable that the ground will apply to full time students in larger house share situations. Removing this restriction could lead to students who need more security of tenure, such as single parents living with their children or post-graduate couples living together put down roots in the area being evicted more regularly. And there's I took my degree as a mature student. I'm very sympathetic to people who have to run other side, other parts of their life alongside their student life. So they may be working, they may have families or caring responsibilities to cope with alongside their student life.

Noble Lords have raised concerns that the bill could cause severe shortages of student accommodation or forced students into expensive, purpose built student accommodation. We don't expect our reforms to have that that level of destabilising effect on the rental market. And I would just like to quote from shelter's email to me today, they say this amendment would deny a group of renters the security and stability offered by the Renters Rights Bill, many of whom will be in employment or with caring responsibilities that sit alongside their student life.

And that's when stability is absolutely the key. And we don't believe they should be denied that stability. We will continue to work with good landlords and their representative associations throughout the implementation of the bill. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Dr. Clifford, for the amendments he's made. But as I've already outlined, everyone in the House is aware of the remarkable and vital work that carers do to support families and individuals in difficult circumstances. However, given the risk of abuse and the very limited circumstances, and I think Baroness Thornhill put this very well that in which this might apply or could be used.

We don't believe this new ground is warranted. We've ensured that possession grounds are fair to both parties, giving tenants more security while ensuring that landlords can recover their property when reasonable. So, for example, if the carer is a family member as set out in ground one, a landlord can use that ground to gain possession, enabling them to accommodate the carer. I was grateful to my noble friend Baroness Warwick for illustrating some of the issues that may arise, particularly in the kinds of rural communities in the illustrations we've had in the chamber around who may be evicted as a result of this ground.

But I would also like to add that to the list of those who could be evicted. The fact that an existing carer living in a rural setting, where there might be very scarce housing, may face the possibility of eviction under this. So you may have to evict one carer to put another carer in place. And if there is scarce housing in that area, you may end up in that circumstance. Of course, the government will continue to look at ways it can support carers, and I can reassure the noble lady, Baroness Thornhill, that we will.

Once the Casey review is published, we will be looking at all of the issues around carer support. Once again, I'm grateful to the noble Lord Carrington for his comments. I know he wasn't able to stay in the chamber for the end of the debate, but we did have specific issues raised by stakeholders, including the National Farmers Union, and that was we did listen very carefully to what they said, and we have ensured the ground has appropriate protections in place now, preventing landlords from evicting assured tenants in order to house very short term workers.

So I hope that I'm glad that that met the noble Lords requests in terms of the amendment that he submitted previously. And I beg to move.
18:23
18:24
18:24
18:36
18:36
18:36
18:36
18:37
18:37
18:40
18:40
Viscount Camrose Portrait Viscount Camrose (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. My Lords. We.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Unequivocally oppose the government's dangerous mandatory digital ID policy, both in principle

**** Possible New Speaker ****

digital ID policy, both in principle and in practice. If allowed. To become.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To become. risks. Being. Subject to an extraordinary. Expansion of state power, one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Expansion of state power, one that comes not only at the expense of personal freedom, but at great

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cost to the taxpayer. Before I. Outline our objections. To this proposal, it is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

important. First to. Understand the wider context in which this policy has been announced

**** Possible New Speaker ****

over. The. Year in government. An estimated 50,000 people have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

An estimated 50,000 people have entered the country on small boats. The. Largest recorded number to date.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Largest recorded number to date. But the Secretary of State has. Claimed digital IDs will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Claimed digital IDs will. Deter these illegal migrants. My lord. Where is the evidence for this claim?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Criminal gangs and illegal workers already operate outside formal employment and taxation systems.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

systems. They don't care about. Paperwork or credentials. They work illegally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Beyond the reach of existing regulation. They subvert existing. National insurance requirements.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

National insurance requirements. So why would we expect digital ID to be different? To suggest that a digital ID. Would somehow deter.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would somehow deter. These. Operations is untested. It is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Operations is untested. It is unfounded. It is too optimistic to unfounded. It is too optimistic to be convincing. Were concerned, too, about the. Vast scope of this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about the. Vast scope of this programme. The government has also. result. In.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I quote. More joined up public services, saving people time from. Having to. Restate personal details to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Restate personal details to multiple departments here. The government seems. To me to. Conflate separate issues. More

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Conflate separate issues. More effective public services and. Kerbing illegal migration. They promise an end to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They promise an end to. Bureaucracy while simultaneously. intrusive. Systems of state. Surveillance in our.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Surveillance in our. Nation's history. This is vast in its objectives, slight in its

**** Possible New Speaker ****

detail, and frankly, creepy. In its reach into. Our privacy, better online

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Our privacy, better online services. Do not require a centralised identity regime. We already have mechanisms such as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

already have mechanisms such as right to work checks and. DBS verification. These are all being designed with consent and privacy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consent and privacy. In. Mind. With nobody. Forced to pursue. The digital route. Labour's policy the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Labour's policy the. Government's policy. Would herald an end to that freedom. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. This policy was not even in the. Government's manifesto. There is. No democratic mandate. For.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For. Digital ID. Nor is there any appetite for it. In fact, over 2.8 million people have already signed a petition opposing it. If all of that said, the government does go ahead with the government does go ahead with this policy, then we urge them to mitigate the risks and the costs in mitigate the risks and the costs in three ways. First, can they please ensure the system is designed as a ensure the system is designed as a decentralised tool, using the blockchain to give citizens privacy blockchain to give citizens privacy and security? Second, to ensure some adherence to its stated goals, we adherence to its stated goals, we urge the government to adopt agile approach, test and iterate rather than a build once model.

And third, can the government please clarify and limit the stated goals? The current scope is simply too broad to be realistic. Digital IDs, my Lords, fundamentally shift the burden of proof between citizens and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government. In a. Free democracy, it is the state, not citizens, that must justify its

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not citizens, that must justify its actions. Under this scheme. One's ability to. Rent, to open a bank account,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rent, to open a bank account, even, or to order a drink would be conditional on the possession of a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

conditional on the possession of a government issued digital ID. When the. Ability to work. Is conditioned on digital, state

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is conditioned on digital, state approved credentials, meaningful consent ceases to exist. The choice between non-participation and never

**** Possible New Speaker ****

between non-participation and never being able to work again. Is no choice at all. My Lords. Last week, the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Last week, the. Foreign Secretary. Proposed issuing. Digital IDs for those as young as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Digital IDs for those as young as 13. Once implemented, this policy will further infringe. On people's lives. Today, it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Today, it. work. Tomorrow. It could be the right to vote or to travel.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to travel. Digital IDs are. Accompanied also by litany. Of. Practical problems and challenges, not. Least.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Least. The enormous and real. own. Sign on system was.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sign on system was. testing. Centre. Is yet.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is yet. To endorse the scheme. Further, 8.5 million. Adults lack the. Requisite digital.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Skills. To make use of these IDs. Many do not own a smartphone or. Have reliable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Have reliable. Internet access. action.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Plan is currently inadequate for need, and does not account for the structural barriers. That vulnerable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Individuals face. Finally, this presumably comes at a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very considerable cost to the taxpayer. Perhaps when he speaks. The noble. Lord, the Minister, could. Give us.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Give us. Some estimate of the likely costs for hardware. Software.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Development and operations of the system. proposal.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proposal. For digital IDs is costly. Controlling and risky. We do not think. It will stop the boats. We do not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It will stop the boats. We do not think it will streamline services without very. Significant and. As.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As. Yet unknowable investments. we.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we. Are concerns. We are concerned it represents. encroachment. On.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On. People's privacy that they themselves are forced to fund.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We are deeply alarmed. Okay, Lord, my Lords. The introduction of compulsory digital ID represents another fundamental error by this government. The Liberal Democrats government. The Liberal Democrats strongly oppose this proposal, which is a serious threat to privacy, civil liberties and social civil liberties and social inclusion. We thank the Secretary of Minister.
18:46
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
For repeating the Secretary of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

State statement today. But my. Disappointment and opposition. To the government's plan more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the government's plan more than mirrors. That of my own. Friend, Victoria Collins in the Commons yesterday. The core issue here is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The core issue here is. Not technology, but freedom. The government insists this scheme is non.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

non. Compulsory, yet. Concurrently confirms that it will be mandatory for right to work checks by.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for right to work checks by. The end. Of this Parliament. This is. Mandatory digital ID in all but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mandatory digital ID in all but name, especially for working age people. As my party leader, Sir Ed Davey has stated, we cannot and will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Davey has stated, we cannot and will not support a system. Where citizens are. Forced to hand over private data

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Forced to hand over private data life. This is. State overreach, plain and simple. The Secretary of State quoted Finland in the ability of parents to register for day-care. parents to register for day-care. But my Lords, I think the Secretary of State needs to do a bit more research. That is a voluntary scheme, not a compulsory scheme. My Lords, we've already seen the clear danger of mission creep. My own danger of mission creep. My own friend, Victoria Collins, rightly warned that the mere discussion of warned that the mere discussion of extending this scheme to 13 to 16 year olds is sinister, unnecessary and a clear step towards state overreach.

My Lords, where does this stop? The Secretary of State sought to frame this as merely a digital key to unlock better services. This dangerously, dangerously conflates genuine, a desirable public service reform with a highly intrusive, intrusive mandate. Firstly, the claim that this will deliver fairness and security by tackling illegal migration is nothing more than a multi-billion pound gimmick. The Secretary of State suggests that it will deter illegal working. Yet, as my colleagues have pointed out, rogue employers who operate cash in hand schemes will not look at ID on a phone.

Mandatory digital ID for British citizens will not stop illegal migrants working in the black economy. Secondly, the claim that the system will be free is disingenuous. As my own friend, our home affairs spokesman Max Wilkinson, demanded, the government must come clean on the costs and publish a full impact assessment. Estimates suggest creating this system will cost between 1 billion and £2 billion, with annual running costs of £100 million. This is completely the wrong priority at a time when public services are crumbling.

Thirdly, the promise of inclusion rings hollow. This mandatory system risks entrenching discrimination against the millions of vulnerable people, such as older people and those on low incomes who lack foundational digital skills. A smartphone or internet access. The greatest concern is the government's insistence on building this mandatory system. On gov Dot, I've got UK's one login, a platform whose security failures have been repeatedly and publicly criticised, including my own correspondence and meetings with government. There are significant concerns about one login security.

The government claims that one login adheres to the highest security standards. Despite this commitment, as of late 2024 early 2025, the system was still not fully compliant. A Gov assure assessment found that one login was meeting only about 21 of the 39 required outcomes in the NCS Cyber Assessment Framework. The gov.uk one login program has told me themselves that it is committed to achieving full compliance with the Cyber Assessment Framework by March to 21, 2026. Yet officials have informed me that 500 services across 87 departments are already and currently in scope for the one login project.

There are other criticisms I could make, but essentially the foundations of the digital ID scheme are extremely unsafe, to say the least. To press ahead with a mandatory digital ID system described as a honeypot for hackers based on a platform exhibiting such systemic vulnerabilities is not only reckless but risks catastrophic data breaches, identity theft and mass impersonation fraud. Concentrating the data of the entire population fundamentally concentrates the risk. The Secretary of State must listen to the millions of citizens who signed the petition against his policy on these benches.

We urge the government to scrap the costly, intrusive and technologically unreliable scheme and instead focus on delivering voluntary privacy, preserving digital public services that earn the public's trust rather than demanding compliance. Well, I'd like to thank the noble Lords Viscount Camrose and Lord Clement Jones and the points they've raised for the government. And unsurprisingly, this is.
18:51
Lord Vallance of Balham Portrait Lord Vallance of Balham, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)
-
-
An area that will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House. I have no doubt. I will start, though, by.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will start, though, by. Just reminding the. Noble. Viscount cameras of the comments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Viscount cameras of the comments of Lord Hague that the arguments against digital id of paper thin. I will start.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By. Addressing the concerns that have been raised by both Viscount. been raised by both Viscount. Camrose and Lord Clement Jones in the context of the Data Use and Access Act. We were clear, but the services under that legislation were not mandatory, nor were they ever

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not mandatory, nor were they ever designed to be. And they cover many discussed. So far.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So far. This new national digital ID will. Be required.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be required. For and specifically for, and only for right to work checks by the end of this Parliament. It is a very narrow use for a very specific

**** Possible New Speaker ****

purpose, but we have always believed and continue to believe that there are huge upsides for. A digitally enabled.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A digitally enabled. Society, one where everyone feels able to participate, everyone. Feels a sense.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Feels a sense. Of agency, and everyone's. Lives. Are made easier by a digital key. That does indeed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Unlock access to services, something that is a big upside to digital, digitally. Enabled society digital, digitally. Enabled society and those businesses that enable this. And we've seen this in other countries that have introduced a countries that have introduced a digital ID, and the services that those businesses provide will have an important role to play. We expect the digital identity market to be built and able to build on the national digital pass and offer value add services for individuals and businesses in.

Countries where and businesses in. Countries where digital ID is well established, the private sector has built a wide range of services around it, making range of services around it, making everyday tasks like open banking, renting a flat, applying for a mortgage all faster, simpler and more secure. But that is not a mandatory use of this. The required

**** Possible New Speaker ****

mandatory use of this. The required use is for right to work. Let me turn. To the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the. Subject of illegal migration, a problem that obviously has grown problem that obviously has grown enormously over the past 10 to 15 years. I would absolutely agree that years. I would absolutely agree that there is no silver bullet to solving illegal migration, but ensuring that illegal migration, but ensuring that there is a single digital system to prove that you have a right to work

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will simplify the process and drive up compliance, making it easier for businesses and providing the home office. And I think.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I think. This is an important point with an. Overview of employers. Conducting checks they can use.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Conducting checks they can use. To audit those suspected of hiring illegally, it will be possible for them to see where there

**** Possible New Speaker ****

possible for them to see where there are a large number of employees, but only 2 or 3 that have been. Checked for work.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Checked for work. Ultimately, this should be easier for honest, legitimate employers to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for honest, legitimate employers to get started and harder. Much harder. For those. Employing illegally. The noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Employing illegally. The noble Lord will come in. Jones said that this was an invasion of privacy and civil liberties. I don't agree, and civil liberties. I don't agree, and I think those countries which have introduced it would not agree. Digital identities preserve and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Digital identities preserve and increase privacy by limiting the information that individuals have to share when proving. Something.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Something. About themselves. The credentials

**** Possible New Speaker ****

About themselves. The credentials that in part in play here are name, date of birth information on date of birth information on nationality or residency status and a photo. That is what you need for a a photo. That is what you need for a right to work check. And the display may be as simple as a yes or no, with none of the information shared with the third party, and we will ensure that strict safeguards are in place to prevent illegal tracking or misuse of data by the government or been.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

works. Do we end. Up with a big target.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A honeypot? This would be a federated system. As quite rightly pointed out, it should be a federated system, not a single repository. Increasing security and not creating that honeypot of data. The question that was raised about The question that was raised about those aged 13 and upwards. This is a system designed for 16 year olds and above their will, as part of the above their will, as part of the consultation, be consultation about younger age groups and whether there may be utility for them.

Any use of personal data will continue to be regulated by the Independent Information Commissioner's Office. Information Commissioner's Office. And our consultation, which will be launched later this year, will consider whether further safeguards consider whether further safeguards will be needed or appropriate. The question of cost was raised and whilst I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can't. cost. What I can say is it will be met within.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The. Existing SR. Budget over the SR period. One login was raised and indeed there were problems at the beginning and that is. Not unusual for the system as it's getting set

**** Possible New Speaker ****

up. Those problems date from 2023. Those problems. Have indeed been resolved, and the National Cyber Security Centre is working hand in hand to get the 1 in 1 login system in the place that it needs to be. The National Cyber Security Centre will be central to getting this set up as well. Finally, I want to talk about digital inclusion. A really key point raised by Viscount cameras and an area that's increasingly important for the times we live in.

That's why this government has made digital inclusion a priority. We set

**** Possible New Speaker ****

out a range of first steps in the Digital Inclusion Action. Plan. Published in February of this. Year. And are working across government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And are working across government to improve inclusion. We know that those. Who don't own or can't. Afford.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Afford. A smartphone don't already have photo ID or have additional

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accessibility requirements will require. Special attention. And 1 in 10 people already

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And 1 in 10 people already struggle to prove their identity and access the service that they have a right to. Because they.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because they. Lack a photo ID, but this scheme is an opportunity to get them. A free.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A free. Digital credential that proves their identity and helps them access those services. We will deliver a those services. We will deliver a comprehensive inclusion programme, including face to face support, to ensure everyone eligible is able to access the new digital pass and benefit from it if they want to, including those using it for right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

including those using it for right to work checks. And it's. Only. The right to work checks, which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The right to work checks, which is the required need for this. This will provide targeted support to those who currently struggle to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those who currently struggle to engage with digital services, including options for digitally enabled physical alternative for those without a. Smartphone.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Smartphone. Or may experience a data poverty, such as those unable to afford the data used on their phone. We've already started to engage with a range of expert organisations and community groups, including the Digital Inclusion Action Committee, and we look forward to continuing to do so throughout the credentials design and development, a process that, as the noble Lord, Mike Cameron has pointed out, must be done in an agile way and will require both external input and indeed government technical needs.

So this is an area which I think is it's a narrow use, it's an important development. And there is indeed or is a narrow requirement is a broad use that I think many people already take advantage of in different forms in this country. Digital ID will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

make life easier for people. My Lord. Underpinning any.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Underpinning any. Individual I.D. Scheme. Has. To be an individual. ID number. Other countries. Are normally seem.
18:59
19:00
19:01
Baroness Hoey Portrait Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
-
-
if the bill or the minister could tell us just. How many people at the moment don't even have a mobile phone. Never name all the extra.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is needed. And when the government talks about inclusion. This. Is one of the most exclusive kind

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is one of the most exclusive kind of. Suggestions. manifesto. But could I ask. Him if by any.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Him if by any. Chance. This actually. Did go. Through and become law? Can he give. An. Absolute commitment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolute commitment. of. The United Kingdom, and that the government would not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government would not. Listen to those people who are saying that somehow digital

**** Possible New Speaker ****

saying that somehow digital mandatory ID in Northern Ireland. Would be contrary. To the Belfast Good Friday

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Agreement? I think the noble lady, for her point, in terms. Of. The digital.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The digital. Inclusion. We know, of course, that not everyone has a mobile phone, the everyone has a mobile phone, the vast majority to, I think the figure is 92% of people that do. I think that there are those who already use that there are those who already use equivalent to some sort of digital ID form in banking and other areas as well, but there are people who as well, but there are people who don't, and that's why we're so keen to make sure that we have a digital inclusion stream right from the very inclusion stream right from the very beginning, to try and identify what the needs of those individuals are and how we deal with people who and how we deal with people who don't have a smartphone.

And there will, of course, be no requirement that you must have a smartphone. There will be a workaround for those that don't, which will enable them to have a physical manifestation of something that has a digital imprint. In terms of the very important question about Northern Ireland, I can guarantee that this applies to everyone eligible to work in the UK. It will, of course, take full account of the of the Northern Ireland situation and indeed those from the island of Ireland who are eligible to work in the UK, and they will be eligible to be part of this as well.

as well.
19:02
19:02
19:03
19:04
19:05
19:05
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top Portrait Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the two frontbenchers opposite or anyone else wants to come with me to a hub where they are doing. This now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This now. With people who never. Thought they would ever get near

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it, and who have now got digital. Devices which we have. Organised for them to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Organised for them to. Get and get them free and get them properly. Used and properly supported. Then

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Used and properly supported. Then I would love to take you to see it. Next week is Digital Inclusion Next week is Digital Inclusion Action Week, and I hope that some of you will take some members will take care of that. The reality is, for many people who are socially excluded, the proposals that the government had will make a huge difference. If you are homeless, you frequently can't get into a hostel because they can't work out who you are.

You can't get benefits because you've got no means. You've not got an address, so you can't get the benefit. You can't get a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bank account. We're working with the banks to actually change that. We're working actually change that. We're working with not just the excluded but with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the industry, with the. The not for profit. Organisations that are involved

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Organisations that are involved with local government. And there is enormous enthusiasm for this because enormous enthusiasm for this because I have met people whose lives have been changed, and they want to know been changed, and they want to know that they have the government on their side and that they don't have their side and that they don't have to rely on everything else that is produced. In America. We do not have produced. In America. We do not have any security of digital ID, and you're all using iPads and phones you're all using iPads and phones now, and they're controlled in America by people like Elon Musk, America by people like Elon Musk, who could not care less about your well-being and what happens to you.

Let us make this secure so that Let us make this secure so that people here can have confidence that their digital it is protected, and their digital it is protected, and they don't have to rely on people outside who don't care about them.
19:08
19:08
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Young people who want to go up for a drink at night want to engage in the Night-Time activity, go to in the Night-Time activity, go to cinemas. They have to prove their age. We are moving. We are seeking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move from a purely physical card. To a digital card. So I'd like. To echo. The confusion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The confusion. Expressed by the noble Lord. Folks. Where are we with. With with. Digital ID? Because if it's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because if it's. Only going to be for one purpose, right to work, you're excluding from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

from. Activities those. Young people who currently are willing to buy either a physical card. Or a digital card for a very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

card. Or a digital card for a very modest sum, and yet they. Will be excluded from from this. Free scheme because it's. Only for the right to work.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Only for the right to work. I can quite. See where the government's coming people. Who cannot.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Who cannot. Prove their identity or their age because they don't drive, so they don't have a driving licence. They don't travel, so they.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They don't travel, so they. Don't have a passport. But I think there is a bit of confusion at the moment in the government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the moment in the government thinking. Between proof of age, age verification. And digital. ID, and if that could be clarified as soon as possible, it would be.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would be. Extremely helpful. Yes. And I. Let me just try and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. And I. Let me just try and be clear about a point that I think is important, which is the required is important, which is the required element of this is the bit that is to do with right to work. The notion that this is available for all sorts of other things, which people can choose to be part of or not part of, is completely separate. It's the same structure that will be used, same structure that will be used, but the only mandatory part is the ability right to work.

You have to show this, and the noble lady is show this, and the noble lady is quite right that of course there are lots of things that people want to use this for now, and that's why use this for now, and that's why work's going ahead already on the digital wallet and the ability to use those things. They are, of course, separate from the question of, of a requirement to have this for right to work.
19:10
19:10
19:11
19:12
19:14
19:14
19:14
19:15
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Portrait Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

When I think that they abandoned it back in 2010, 2011, the work that was being done and how we've fallen so far behind, and how we've seen the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Number of people coming into the country. Working and unregistered.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country. Working and unregistered. Not paying tax. Not being. Part of society in the fullest sense. Whereas if we'd had the digital

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whereas if we'd had the digital system operating. Even the old fashioned ID. System, we would. I'd have. Much bigger income coming into

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Much bigger income coming into the country, and we would have had a much better state of affairs than we have at the moment, and would have have at the moment, and would have deterred people from coming in, which is one of the major factors behind it. So I hope we will move quickly on that part of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

quickly on that part of. The exercise. On the second part, extending it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On the second part, extending it over wider front. I welcome that to on the cost of it. I hope that the government will be innovative. That government will be innovative. That they will not think simply in the old public service terms, it is that departments doing that, that departments do not. I hope that we can have an umbrella. Organisation can have an umbrella. Organisation created, which will be governments. Local authorities extend the public Local authorities extend the public to charities that we have the private sectors involved and that we extend right to citizens.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

extend right to citizens. And give them. An incentive to join up. As

**** Possible New Speaker ****

mentioned by a noble lady, about rights for young people to go and drink and cover. Issues like.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That within the ID system, and. That we will try. And have a completely new structure compared to what we've done in the past. Well, I thank my noble friend's comments on on noble friend's comments on on migration. I agree this is one way in which one can detect whether there is illegal employment going on, and it will be a deterrent, because the ease with which people can be employed here is part of the reason it's an attractive place to reason it's an attractive place to come in terms of the way in which we go about doing this.

I think in addition to the points that my noble addition to the points that my noble friend has raised, it's worth looking at what has happened in other countries where businesses
19:17
19:18
19:18
19:19
19:19
19:21
None Portrait Statement: Security Update - Official Secrets Act Case
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Act case. My Lords, the matter before us today is a grave and serious one,
19:21
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
today is a grave and serious one, and I am glad that we have another opportunity to discuss it. Following my neighbour friend Lord true success in securing a nCCU on the matter yesterday. My Lords, the collapse of the case against Mr. Cash and Mr. Berry goes to the very heart of this Parliament. What is at stake is nothing less than the dignity and security of members of both houses, and of those who work within them in its handling of the matter, the government has shown a grave failure of responsibility.

My Lords, the statement issued by the Security Minister in the other place on Monday was woefully inadequate. This dispute turns on one simple question why did the government not give the Crown Prosecution Service the evidence it needed to pursue the case? In both his statement and his replies, the security minister failed to clarify four central matters. First, he proceeded on the false premise that the previous government did not regard China as a national security threat. The record shows that it did.

For example, the head of MI6 in 2021 said that China was one of the biggest four threats to the UK, alongside Russia, Iran and international terrorism. Secondly, like the prime minister, the security minister seemed to argue that it was not open to the current government to give the Crown Prosecution Service evidence that differed from the previous government's view of the threat from China. In other words, he seemed to have assumed that the present government could not form its own view of the threat during 2021 to 2023 or provide a statement to that effect that was wrong.

Nothing in law or practice stopped the government from doing so. Thirdly, he cited the risk of judgement as though it had narrowed the 1911 act. It did not. The Court of Appeal made clear that enemy includes any state acting against the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, whether or not we are at war with it. Fourthly, he assumed that only the government can determine who falls within that definition. There is no such requirement. The question is one of fact not fit, and may properly be assessed by a jury on the evidence before it.

And I might stress that noble Lord should not just take my word for it. The Prime ministers and the ministers and the Prime Minister's argument has been refuted by no less than one former DPP, two former cabinet secretaries, one of whom was a national security adviser, two former heads of MI6 and a professor of public law at the University of Cambridge, who said this week that ministers statements so far are misleading about the legal position. The experts are all clear that Mr.

Cash and Mr. Berry could have been prosecuted under the old legislation. Are we to believe that the government's, the government's position that they are all wrong and that they, the government, are right? Indeed, my Lords, this case is only one symptom of a deeper, deeper failure in the government's approach to China. Ministers are still intent on allowing the Chinese Communist Party to build its new embassy on the Royal Mint site, within sight of some of the most sensitive financial and communications infrastructure in the country.

They have done so despite clear and repeated warnings from our allies in Washington and from our own intelligence agencies, that the project poses a serious espionage risk, those warnings have been brushed aside and key details redacted from public view. The decision to transfer the Chagos Islands to Mauritius tells the same story. China's ambassador there publicly welcomed the move, congratulating Mauritius and confirming its attention to join Beijing's Belt and Road Initiative. Now, even as evidence of Chinese interference has reached into parliament itself, the government's response has been remained slow, confused and complacent.

This is not an isolated failure, but a pattern of neglect, one that leaves the United Kingdom exposed at a moment when China's ambitions are clearer and more aggressive than ever. My Lords, before I conclude, I have several questions for the noble Baroness, the Minister. It is not for ministers or officials to determine what evidence meets the threshold for prosecution. That judgement belongs solely to the Crown Prosecution Service. The government's duty was to provide all relevant information to the C.p.s. When asked, it did not.

The question is who decided that the Crown Prosecution Service would not be provided with further evidence? Was that decision taken by ministers, officials or advisers? Everyone in government knows that a matter of this kind would have gone to ministers. To pretend otherwise is not credible. To blame a single official is wrong. Did the national. Did the Deputy National Security Adviser act without ministerial oversight in determining the evidential basis of the case? If so, who authorised that arrangement? Were any ministers or special advisers shown? Did they clear or were they consulted on the Deputy National Security Adviser's draft statement before it was sent to the CPS? When the CPS requested further material, were ministers showing this request and did they clear the revised version? And will the noble Baroness, the Minister, publish the internal guidance that allowed the Deputy National Security Adviser to act without interference from ministers, as well as the correspondence between the Cabinet Office, the CPS and the Foreign Office concerning the drafting of his statements.

Furthermore, how many current investigations rely on the 1911 act and have been have only been paused following receive. What part of that judgement which produced six convictions, prevented the CPS from proceeding in this case? Did any official or Minister advise that received made prosecution under the 1911 act impossible? And will that advice be placed in the library? Mr. Justice Hilliard cited the evidence of Matthew Collins, the deputy national security adviser, as authoritative in Russia. Why is the same officials evidence deemed unusable when applied to China? Why is guidance to members only being launched today, when MI5 and the National Protective Security Authority have been aware of active Chinese interference since at least 2022? And finally, will the Minister confirm whether Sir Olly Robins has been instructed to make clear to his counterparts that the United Kingdom regards China as a national security threat and to set out what discussions he is authorised to hold.

My Lords, this is not about one prosecution that failed. It is about whether we still possess the will to defend the institutions that safeguard our liberty. It is about whether those charged with protecting this country still understands what it means to act in its defence. When foreign powers reach into our parliament and ministers look away, it is not only our security that is breached, but our sense of who we are. A government that will not face the truth invites its own humiliation.

A nation that tolerates such weakness endangers itself. Britain's strength has never rested on wealth or size, but on the courage to confront those who were tested. That courage is now being tested again. The government must speak plainly, act decisively, and show that this country will never be cowed, compromised or complacent in the face of the ambitions of China. I urge the noble Baroness, the minister, to answer not with evasion, but with candour, and to meet this moment with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

seriousness our duty to the nation demands. Well, my Lords, I don't think I
19:28
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

followed the Baroness Finn's. Before in the. Past. And it's a great pleasure. And I'm happy to say that there

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I'm happy to say that there are still. 1 or 2. Things left to say. My Lords. This statement is clearly an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This statement is clearly an attempt to put to rest the issue of prosecutions. But so.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But so. Far it's not. Only failed in that. Ambition. It's at the same.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's at the same. Time it's resurfaced. Other issues. Regarding China. And our relationship that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Generate increasing. Concern and regarding. Minister's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Statement and the government's adamant. View that it is. Not concealed. Evidence or suppressed anything,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Evidence or suppressed anything, it will be. Very easy. For the. Government to publish all of the relevant documentation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

all of the relevant documentation. It has nothing. To hide. We know that they have told us and we trust them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and we trust them. So will the government. Publish all. Of the. Relevant. Documents as. Set out by the. Noble Baroness Finn?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble Baroness Finn? And will it publish. The correspondence. Between all officials. involved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

involved. With the CPS? It's time for the government. To. Properly protect. The. citizens. the. legislative.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Options to make sure. That these two individuals have their time in the court. And face.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And face. A jury and able to plead their case? These are the ways the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

case? These are the ways the government can put this issue to rest. By openness. And actually seeking to, to, to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To. To prosecute more widely, this. Case has. Exposed appalling gaps.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Exposed appalling gaps. In the government's. Willingness to challenge. China's considerable espionage efforts. But I am pleased.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But I am pleased. That the government does recognise we have a problem. The report is clear we fully.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

report is clear we fully. Recognise that China. Poses a series. Of. security.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

security. The report says, but its actions fly in the face. Of that reality.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of that reality. My Lords. Are former director. General of. The of the Security. Service has warned that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

warned that. Chinese espionage. Is being carried. Out on. An. Industrial scale. Including by seeking influence.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Including by seeking influence. Over. Parliament as well. As in industry. And in education. This has been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And in education. This has been clear for some. Time and why. And that was. Why we. Warned that exempting China.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Warned that exempting China. From the enhanced tier of the. Foreign influence. Registration scheme. Under the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

National Security Act was a terrible mistake by this government. So will the government now undertake.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To. Include all Chinese officials. Hong Kong Special. Administrative Region officials

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Administrative Region officials and Chinese. Communist Party linked. Organisations on the. Enhanced tier of the foreign

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Enhanced tier of the foreign more. Than. That, the government, supported by the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by the. Conservatives, exempted. Government administration. And public. Bodies in their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

entirety from. The first scheme. So can the Minister. Now undertake to listen to the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now undertake to listen to the. include. People performing. In these activities. In the enhanced.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Layer of furs? Finally, as. We've heard, now, it's time for the. Government to come to its.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Government to come to its. application. For the Chinese Mega embassy. We know that through its embassy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We know that through its embassy in the UK, China has been coordinating transnational.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Repression of people who are carrying out normal and. Legal activities. In the United Kingdom. So will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the United Kingdom. So will. The Minister confirm that the intelligence. Agencies agencies were

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not consulted before. It approved. China's new super.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government. Now take. Heed and halt that project. Until a full.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Until a full. National security review.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is completed? My Lords, that is a significant

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, that is a significant number of questions which I. Have written down. And now Laos. Thank you. I will.
19:32
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Try to I will endeavour to answer all of them. I also obviously. Review Hansard. Anything like I am. Unsuccessful in responding to. I will make sure that I correspond on it. May I thank the noble Baroness Finn and Noble Noble Fox for their participation and for their genuine interest in this. I think, for all of us. Let's be very clear that matters of espionage, especially those that have seemingly been conducted in your lordships House, but also in within Parliament, are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the utmost seriousness. My Lords, I want to begin by reinforcing that this government reinforcing that this government remains extremely disappointed by the collapse of the Christopher Kash and Christopher Berry trial. Yesterday, during the thankyou, I committed to update your lordships House on the facts surrounding the collapse of this trial, as well as collapse of this trial, as well as government actions to counter state threats. As my noble friend and Security Minister Dan Jarvis made

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clear yesterday. My Lords, the decision. Not to prosecute was made independently by the CPS. It is a independently by the CPS. It is a bedrock principle of our democracy. The decisions of the CPS are independent of ministers and of the independent of ministers and of the government. The Director of Public Prosecutions has written to the chairs of the Home and Justice Select Committees, setting out that Select Committees, setting out that the CPS decision not to take this case to trial was because the case to trial was because the evidential test was not met.

And as the Prime Minister has stated, to remind noble Lords, also a former DPP, well, if we start, if we're citing former DPS has stated the citing former DPS has stated the policy position of the current government was immaterial to the CPS assessment. The legal test required consideration of the government's policy at the time the alleged offences were committed between December 2021 and February 2023, when it was members opposite of your lordships House who were in government at that time.

The previous conservative government described China as a systematic challenge in the Integrated Review in 2021 and an epoch defining challenge in the Integrated Review refresh in 2023. They did not designate China a threat nor an enemy, and that is at the crux of the issue. I want to be clear, and I am genuinely horrified by the suggestion that accusations that the government concealed evidence, withdrew witnesses or in any way restricted the ability of witnesses to provide evidence are entirely untrue.

The Director of Public Prosecutions has given his assurance that the CPS was not influenced by any external party, any member of this government, nor any senior civil servant or special adviser. As the Security Minister set out in detail yesterday, evidence was provided to the CPS by the Deputy National Security Adviser, who is highly respected and has the full support of this government. All of. This evidence provided by the Deputy National Security Adviser was based on the law at the time of the offences and the policy position of the conservative government.

At that time, the NSS did not materially change his evidence and was under no pressure from anybody to do so. Given the question that was has been raised, but it was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gove yesterday. It is not for me to make decisions about the publication of evidence that may be used in further ongoing legal processes, as was raised by both the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and also the noble Lord, Lord Brooks, to do to do so, or not to do so would likely affect the would likely effect witnesses in coming forward and hamper the interests of justice.

I understand that many noble roles are also rightly interested in the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of the facts around the collapse of this case. The government's approach will also will always be to make as much information available as possible through the appropriate processes, given the national security considerations, I welcome that National Security Adviser will be giving a private briefing to the Joint Committee on National Security

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Strategy on next month. With regards to our.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Approach to China, this government is unequivocal. China poses a series of threat to UK poses a series of threat to UK national security, from cyber attacks and foreign interference, to the national to the transnational the national to the transnational repression of Hong Kong. As this government fully. Recognises the government fully. Recognises the gravity of these threats. However, we must also recognise that China presents opportunities. It is the presents opportunities. It is the world's second largest economy to act in the UK's best interests.

We must adopt a long term strategic approach, as.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The. Last government did. This means a consistent and pragmatic approach to economic engagement without compromising our national security. With regards to some of the other specifics that have been raised, my specifics that have been raised, my Lords, at one point I want to raise in response, I want to respond to you from noble Lord, Lord Fox, in terms of the China Embassy, my terms of the China Embassy, my Lords, there's been no such decision made. The noble Lord knows that we made.

The noble Lord knows that we have been clear throughout the process. We have considered the breadth of national security considerations and publicly and considerations and publicly and publicly outlined necessary security mitigations that we would need to see to support an application. National security has been our core priority throughout the process. A final decision will be made in due course by ministers in the House and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in their quasi judicial role, and we expect a decision imminently. But, my Lords, we do not underestimate the impact of national security as part of that decision.

And also, as I said yesterday in response to the P and Q and with regard to the furlough scheme, no decision has been made on China. We are talking about a scheme that is three and a half months was only being undertaken for three and a half months. The decisions on China will be brought forward, will be brought to your lordships House. No decision has been made to exempt China or to include China. A decision will be brought forward. And just to bear with me are in terms of the 1911 act and the specific questions.

My Lords, it's a matter for CPS, what legislation they're using in terms of prosecutions and in terms of arrests. I will not have access to that data. That would be for the CPS. But I do want to just to clarify, for Noble Lords, there is a reason why many hours were spent in your lordships House debating the National Security Act in 2023, supported by these by my colleagues, to put on a cross-party basis to update the Official Secrets Act. My Lords, we are.

It is unfortunate that the 1911 act was the basis of this prosecution, but there is a reason why we all had to update it, and that is because of the very definition of espionage an enemy. This was a piece of legislation that was written prior to World War One. On that basis, the world has changed and the threat level has changed, but also how people undertake threat has significantly changed. I think I have touched on all evidence. What I would say is about the deputy national security adviser, my Lords, he operated within the confines and constraints of the policy direction of the previous government.

We are fully committed to his work. He can only operate within the confines of the of the situation of the moment. And on that basis, there is nothing more, in my opinion, for him to answer. Finally, let me reiterate this government's unwavering commitment to our national security. Yesterday, MI5 National Protective Security Authority launch new guidance. Building on previous guidance, it was not brand new to protect our democratic institutions from foreign interference. I urge all noble lords to read this vital guidance.

Furthermore, the government continues to hold China state linked actors accountable for cyber espionage. The National Cyber Security Centre recently hosted a US led technical advisory calling out Chinese state sponsored actors for targeting global networks, including in the UK. My Lords, we will continue to take all necessary action to tackle state threats, including those from China. That is the primary responsibility of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government. But cannot begin by just saying

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But cannot begin by just saying to Baroness Finn, as chair of the ISC, I do not recognise some of the comments she made that she
19:41
19:41
19:42
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hindered in receiving it. I thank my noble friend for the work that he does as part of the IC, but also for his work in these areas but also for his work in these areas for several decades. I would expect full cooperation with the committee in terms of what happens next. We do want to be as open to scrutiny as possible, but given the issues, talking within the appropriate processes and ISC is one of them. But that would be a matter for his committee and future conversations.

My Lords, I think that we do just need to remember that this was an independent decision made by the CPS. We genuinely believed that this case was going to proceed until just before the we were informed by the CPS just before the embargo, and we provided full cooperation to the CPS within the country. And I am reassured within the constraint. However, within the constraints that were available to the Deputy National Security Officer at that advisor at that time, based on what had been said.

My Lords, I think we just need to be to remember noble Lord is absolutely right. It wasn't until 2019, I believe that the Integrated Review first mentioned China at all. Up until that point, the previous government did not consider China even worthy of mentioning the security review, but also really importantly, at the point that we are discussing the then Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly said when asked about whether China was a threat, said it was impossible, impractical and most importantly, unwise to sum up our relationship with China with one word.

And as I said yesterday, the now leader of the opposition when she was trade secretary, we certainly should not be describing China as a foe, but we can describe them as a challenge. My Lords, that is the constraints within which the deputy NSA gave his evidence. We

**** Possible New Speaker ****

need to be very clear about what was government policy two years ago. Lords, come. I ask the noble lady to clarify

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I ask the noble lady to clarify the answer she gave to Lord Fox on the important subject of transparency, because Lord Fox asked
19:45
19:45
19:47
None Portrait Legislation: Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill - second reading
-

Second reading of the deprivation of citizenship orders effect during appeal Bill, Lord Hanson or Flint.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that the bill be now read a second time. There is no. More.
19:47
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

More. Important task, my Lords, of any government, that to keep its citizens safe. And this bill will citizens safe. And this bill will form an important part of the government's ability to do just that. The Bill, I remind noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, is very narrow in its scope and intent. It contains just one. Substantive clause.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Which is focussed solely on closing a specific loophole in the existing deprivation of citizenship

**** Possible New Speaker ****

existing deprivation of citizenship process. My Lords may recall its substantive. Provision in. Clause one, which addresses a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause one, which addresses a recent Supreme Court ruling and three xay versus the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

State for the Home Department. The effect of this ruling is that if an appeal against the deprivation decision is successful, or if. A deprivation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A deprivation. Of citizenship order is withdrawn, that initial order will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdrawn, that initial order will will. continued. To be British. This means that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people who have been deprived of automatically. Regain that status. Before any. Further avenues of appeal.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Have. Been exhausted. Now, the effect

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of this judgement creates two risks. Firstly, that someone who poses a. Significant threat to public

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Significant threat to public safety could return to the UK before all onward appeals are determined, and I am sure. That the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That the. Situation noble Lords would not wish to see. Secondly, it could allow a person who's been deprived of citizenship on the grounds that of citizenship on the grounds that it is conducive to the public good to undermine further deprivation action by renouncing their other.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Nationality. Before all onward appeals are determined. And this is because they would be then putting themselves in would be then putting themselves in a position whereby reinstatement of a deprivation order would render.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a deprivation order would render. Them stateless. This bill. Simply intends to maintain the status quo by closing these status quo by closing these loopholes, which may arise in a very small number of deprivation appeals. I think it's important that I just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think it's important that I just say to noble Lords at the outset that. The scope of. This bill does not touch on any

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This bill does not touch on any wider areas of the deprivation process. It's important to say that because this bill does not amend the because this bill does not amend the existing deprivation power, it does not extend its potential application to additional individuals, and it to additional individuals, and it does not in any way widen the reasons for which a person could be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deprived of their citizenship. It rights. Of. Appeal, and it does not place any

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Appeal, and it does not place any new restrictions on individuals who are subject to a deprivation order. Now. It is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is. Self-evident that. Deprivation of citizenship is a significant power, and I know that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

many noble lords. Have strong feelings. On its use. However, Parliament

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On its use. However, Parliament has enacted the power entrusted the Home Secretary with using it, including to protect the UK from those who mean US harm. The existence of this power is not the matter, however, before us today. Rather in this Bill, it is the specific provision that relates only

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the potential period between a determination. On.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On. The case. In order to explain, I think, why it's so important that this power remains effective, which is what the Bill seeks to achieve. I just want to set out briefly, if I may, the circumstances in which the power is used and therefore the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

power is used and therefore the types of threat. That the bill will help. Protect society from deprivation,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Protect society from deprivation, is an important part of the suite of tools available to the government to maintain public safety and preserve maintain public safety and preserve national security. The use of deprivation where it's conducive to the public good, our decisions to be taken personally by the Home Secretary. This is used against some of the most dangerous. Individuals of the most dangerous. Individuals who pose a threat to the United Kingdom, including terrorists. Extremists and. Serious and organised criminals. Someone who has been deprived of their citizenship been deprived of their citizenship and is in the UK, no longer has any immigration status.

Steps may be immigration status. Steps may be taken to remove them from the UK. They may be held in immigration detention in the interim if they're overseas.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

overseas. When deprivation decision. Is made, they would not be permitted to enter. The UK. And in these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The UK. And in these circumstances, this is clearly an effective way to disrupt the threat posed by dangerous individuals. I don't know the Lords will be interested in the volumes of this power, and it is a power used sparingly from 2008 to 2023, which is the entire period of the last government's usage of this power. It averaged 12 people a year, deprived of their citizenship when it was determined to be for the public good. There will be an interest, undoubtedly, in this debate, and the safeguards within the system, as I've set out, the existing safeguards will not be affected by this bill.

Deprivation decisions are carefully considered and made in accordance with international law. Following advice from officials and lawyers. Each deprivation case is assessed individually, along with many of the things we've been discussing this week. This regime complies with the UN convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and always comes with a right of appeal, and in relation to the specific provision in the Bill before the House today, I also want to reassure noble Lords that there is indeed grit in the system to ensure that this bill, once enacted, is not used for any spurious purpose.

Rules of court set defined timescales within which any application by the Home Secretary to appeal must be made, and in addition, the decision to grant permission for such an appeal lies solely with the courts and is contingent on the presence of a properly arguable point of law. This means that the government cannot rely on the provisions of this bill to maintain deprivation of a person's citizenship following successful appeal, without proper legal grounds or justification. Finally, noble lawyers will be aware that the deprivation power can also be used where someone has obtained citizenship for which they were never entitled on a fraudulent basis, for example by providing false documents.

Indeed, the majority of the deprivation orders fall under this category as from 2018 to 2022, there were an average of 151 cases in that category per year. However, I would like to be clear up front that the effect of the bill will not apply in such cases. This is because where citizenship has been obtained fraudulently, a deprivation order is only made once all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. Such cases will therefore not be impacted by the narrow scope of this bill.

As I've stated and illustrated, I hope to noble Lords, this bill is extremely narrow. In fact, it's probably in my near 30 years in different houses of Parliament, the smallest bill I've had the pleasure to introduce, but it seeks to ensure in its smallness that deprivation power remains effective by ensuring that the status quo remains in place. I think it's important, just in finishing to place on record a tribute by the Home Office team and myself to our world class law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

They work tirelessly to keep us safe. We owe them a tremendous gratitude for that. And this bill is, again, another tool in our toolbox to ensure that we are required to preserve our national security. And I hope noble Lords can obviously examine the bill in detail. It is a small bill. I hope they will support it. And I look forward to discussing the bill with members of this House today. And that committee stroke report at a later date.
19:55
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
Will be narrative. Second time. to follow the noble or the minister in opening the second reading of this short but highly important bill. There is a lot that we disagree on in this House. Indeed, in politics in general, it would be fair to say that myself and the noble law, the Minister, do have differing views on a number of issues, but.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We all have the same end goal, and we want to see this country thrive. And to do that, it must be thrive. And to do that, it must be safe and as secure as possible. And to that end, I fully support this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to that end, I fully support this bill. The Minister has given a detailed account of the events. That led. The government to seek this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The government to seek this change to section 40 of the British. Nationality Act, 1981. As he said, it arises out of a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As he said, it arises out of a Supreme Court case earlier this year. In that ruling, the court held that where an appeal against the deprivation is successful, the order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deprivation is successful, the order is considered to have had. No effect. That means that. Also the Home.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Also the Home. Secretary's further. Appeals are pending. The person would be able to enjoy their full rights of citizenship. The point here is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That. That the power to deprive is used as a last resort. There was some as a last resort. There was some talk in the other place that this power has. In fact, not been used power has. In fact, not been used very sparingly. And this is not the case, because between 2010 and 2024, case, because between 2010 and 2024, 222 orders were made on the grounds that deprivation was conducive to the public good. That is an average of 15.8.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of 15.8. Per year. 858 orders were made for fraud.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

858 orders were made for fraud. For context, there were 269,621 grounds. For British citizenship.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In 2024 alone, and since 2010 there have. Been at least 100,000 there have. Been at least 100,000 grants of citizenship every single year. We are therefore talking about a very small proportion of people.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Who have had. Who have the. Citizenship destroyed when.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Compared to the number of new citizenship grants that have been made. It is evident that the power made. It is evident that the power is indeed used sparingly in cases of the utmost seriousness. It is not wholly right, therefore, that in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wholly right, therefore, that in cases of such gravity the deprivation order should continue. To have effect during. The periods. Of a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of a. Is it not right. That in cases of such gravity, the deprivation order should continue to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should continue to. Have effect during. The period of appeals or particular importance? Here is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here is. Where a person is currently abroad in whom. The Home. Secretary rightly deems to be a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

national security risk. The deprivation order would. Prevent that person. From returning to the United Kingdom. Under the Supreme Court's Kingdom. Under the Supreme Court's new interpretation of the law, if that person were to. Successfully appeal in absentia their right to appeal in absentia their right to enter the country unhindered would be reinstated automatically with no regard to the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Potential risk. I present. To the British public. This is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Surely an untenable situation. This new interpretation is also legally inconsistent with asylum and legally inconsistent with asylum and immigration decisions. With asylum claims. The refusal continues to have effect until all legal.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have effect until all legal. Processes are completed. The asylum. Status is not simply automatically granted by a court

**** Possible New Speaker ****

automatically granted by a court Now. The process.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The process. Requires one to exhaust the full spectrum of legal challenges first. So this bill. My.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, is not about attempting to subvert judges or to amend the legal process, nor does it make easier it process, nor does it make easier it easier to deprive a person of their citizenship. Rather, it is about reasserting a simple fact. It is for reasserting a simple fact. It is for Parliament to decide what British citizenship means and the expectations we place upon those who expectations we place upon those who are granted it. Citizenship is a privilege, one that demonstrates the privilege, one that demonstrates the bond of trust, those who violate that trust and openly threaten our society, or who utilise fraudulent society, or who utilise fraudulent means to gain it, should have.

No, I should have that privilege revoked. And the Government of right to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the Government of right to ensure that deprivation can continue during the. Appeals process. And they are right to bring

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward this bill. And, my Lords, this piece of legislation, while described by the government as small and highly
19:59
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
focussed, does carry constitutional significance and poses risks to significance and poses risks to fundamental rights, which is why it needs the very rigorous scrutiny which this House can provide. The government's stated purpose for this bill is clear. To safeguard the UK bill is clear. To safeguard the UK from individuals who pose a threat to national security or public safety, this bill seeks to amend safety, this bill seeks to amend section 48 of the British Nationality Act 1981 to ensure that Nationality Act 1981 to ensure that if the government strips a person of their British citizenship, the deprivation order remains in effect throughout the entire appeal process.

This measure is a direct response to the Supreme Court judgement in. In Fraser Davis, Secretary of State for the Home Secretary of State for the Home Department, that judgement established that when a person successfully appeals to deprivation successfully appeals to deprivation order, their citizenship is automatically and retrospectively restored. At that point, the government argues that this bill is necessary to provide prevent high necessary to provide prevent high harm individuals who are overseas from returning to the UK, and to from returning to the UK, and to stop persons seeking to undermine deprivation action by renouncing other nationalities in order to become stateless.

While an appeal remains ongoing, I understand the government's duty to keep the country safe, but we must question. This measure is on whether it is right, proportionate and the only tool available to achieve that goal. I'm going to raise some of the contradictions which I believe are have been raised in the other place, and also to look at some of the solutions that might be for them and then pose questions to the minister, which I think will help to clarify the questions that I've just asked about the right rightness, the proportionality, and being the only tool available to achieve the goal.

The Bill proposes to overturn the ordinary presumption that court orders take immediate effect. The legislation delays the restoration of citizenship until all governmental appeal rights are exhausted. This diminishes the only mechanism for scrutinising the Home Secretary's decisions, and thus could be used as an assault on the rule of law. The bill grants the government unwarranted power to ignore court rulings that finds its actions unlawful. The bill also, respectively, retrospectively to appeals brought, but not yet. Finally determined.

This means that any individuals currently caught in the legal process will have the rules changed against the need appeal, so the principle concern relates to the severe consequences this bill poses, particularly for vulnerable individuals and potentially including British children. Under the current regime, the UK employs deprivation of citizenship orders more frequently than most other countries in Europe. The practice of citizenship stripping disproportionately targets ethnic minority communities. Some affected are stranded overseas, exposed to severe harm, such as detention, cruel treatment and death without considerable concern, consular protection, or the ability to return home.

Even when courts ruled in their favour. The case of Entries Day is instructive. A child born in the UK to a British father, whose citizenship was later ruled to have been unlawfully stripped, was initially denied recognition as a British citizen. The Supreme Court ruled that the father should be treated as having retained his citizenship throughout the deprivation period. This bill reverses that meaning. Future children in similar positions could be left without UK state protection until their parent's final appeal is exhausted, which potentially could soon be some years later.

We know that British children are already detained in inhumane conditions in places like north east Syria. Available information indicates that all British adults detained there have been stripped of their citizenship, leading to the creation of stateless or effectively stateless children. The bill would expose these children to these extreme risks for a significantly longer period, even after a court has found they have a valid claim to citizenship. The bill impairs an individual's ability to participate meaningfully in legal proceedings.

Individuals challenging deprivation from overseas face insurmountable barriers to accessing justice, making it difficult to instruct lawyers or access documents even after winning. At first instance, the bill prevents the individual from returning to the UK to fully participate in the ongoing appeals process. UK courts have already acknowledged that appeals from those detained in north east Syria would not be fair and effective, forcing an individual to continue participating in this admittedly ineffective process compounds the unfairness. So I need to press the minister on why the government has chosen this blanket approach, rather than legislating for more targeted solutions, and why crucial safeguards have been either omitted or rejected.

My question is for Minister as follows. Firstly, the government's stated motivation is to maintain the ability to exclude individuals who pose a threat. Why was the alternative alternative approach suggested by reprieve and others of legislating to clarify the rules governing stays in the first tier tribunal and the allowing the government to apply for a stay of a successful order on a case by case basis where justified, rejected in favour of a blanket suspension. Secondly, given that the duration of the appeals process could be considerable, potentially lasting years, and resulting in British children being stranded overseas, why has the government resisted establishing an expedited appeals route to ensure unlawful deprivation? Orders do not continue to have effect for prolonged periods of time.

Thirdly, the government has rejected judicial discretion to suspend the effect of a successful appeal, asserting that national security accountability rests with the democratically accountable Secretary of State. However, in the House of Commons, a proposed amendment, the so-called Malthouse Amendment, would have provided judicial discretion to prevent severe hardship. Specifically, if a person faced a real and substantial threat of serious harm, or if the continuation of the order would significantly prejudice their ability to mount an effective defence. Will the Minister confirm why the government did not accept these basic judicial safeguards to protect against the most egregious cases of abuse and harm? And finally, I'm sorry.

And fourthly, the current power to strip citizenship is already criticised for placing excessive power in the hands of a single minister under the subjective test of being conducive to the public good. Will the government commit to reforming the entire deprivation process, as called for by the Liberal Democrats, to require the Home Secretary to apply to a court for permission to make a deprivation order in the first instance, thereby ensuring judicial oversight before the power is exercised. And finally, fifthly, following concerns about transparency and oversight, will the Minister commit the government to publishing annual reports detailing the use of deprivation of sensitive powers and ensuring their regular review by the Independent Reviewer of terrorism legislation? My Lords, this bill grants greater authority to the government in a context already marked by high levels of citizenship, stripping and minimal checks.

It threatens to legislate away the authority of British courts. Your lordships House has a constitutional role as the final check on government overreach to ensure that if this bill is to proceed, we can preserve judicial oversight and prevent British people, particularly children, from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

being left at risk of serious harm. My Lords, I declare an interest

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I declare an interest as the author of a report required. By. Statute and published. Almost ten years ago now. On
20:08
Lord Anderson of Ipswich Portrait Lord Anderson of Ipswich (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Almost ten years ago now. On citizenship removal. Resulting in statelessness. It was a short report, since that power was a short report, since that power introduced by the Immigration. Act 2014 and always intended to be highly exceptional, had at the time never been used. So there was nothing to report on. But my crash course in citizenship deprivation, a concept with which, as an overlord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

notably. More at. Ease than most of our European and North.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

American neighbours. Did prompt three reflections of a general nature that may still be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

relevant. First, they conducive. To the public good threshold. which.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which. In 2006. Replaced the previous threshold of seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, is a remarkably low one. There is some comfort in the There is some comfort in the self-imposed guidance that governs the interpretation by government of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this elastic and subjective phrase, but that comfort. May not survive the arrival. Of another government less keen

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of another government less keen on self-imposed guidance. For my part, I hope that we will return part, I hope that we will return someday to this issue of the threshold. Secondly, a point made by speakers as different as Kit speakers as different as Kit Malthouse and Bill Ribeiro added in Commons committee citizenship. Deprivation discriminates by its very nature against individuals and groups who. Are or who have or who groups who. Are or who have or who are entitled to another citizenship.

Jews and those born in Northern Ireland were mentioned, but of Ireland were mentioned, but of course there are many others too. The power to strip people of their citizenship, however sparingly used in practice, reminds naturalised citizens in particular that the citizenship that they went through so much to achieve is precarious in a way that my citizenship is not. A few years back in the Nationality and Borders Bill, the proposal to allow the removal of citizenship without notice was greeted with an outcry, including a petition signed by more than 300,000 people that I believe is a consequence not only of clause nine of that bill, but at the sense it conveyed to some people with dual heritage that they were second class citizens.

Thanks to your lordships House. That outcry was channelled into the much improved section ten of the act. Thirdly, there is a gap where review of citizenship deprivation should be. The Minister in the Commons pointed correctly to reviews by the independent Chief Inspector. Of Borders and Immigration that were published in 2018 and 2024. But the purpose of those inspections was seizure, as it was described in the 2018 report, to examine the efficiency and effectiveness of the Home Office's processes, and even that procedural exercise had its limits.

The 2024 inspection looked only at the Status Review Unit, which deals with deprivations prompted by fraud or related to serious organised crime. What were described as conducive cases where sensitive intelligence is relied upon to make a decision or handled by the Special Cases Unit, and were acknowledged to by the independent Chief Inspector to be out of scope. Published figures are welcome, but do not answer all the pertinent questions. What was the intelligence case for the sudden surge of conducive deprivations from 14 in 20 16 to 104 in the following year? What were the circumstances of those subjected to it, and why was deprivation used in preference to the many other tools in the counter-terrorism and state threats armoury? The reality is that deprivation of citizenship on conducive grounds is a power used for national security purposes.

Like

**** Possible New Speaker ****

other such powers, its exercise should be reviewable by. The. Security cleared independent

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Security cleared independent reviewer of terrorism legislation as successive holders of that office, successive holders of that office, including me, have recommended. My Lords, having got that off my chest, I turn to the bill. It is one of a I turn to the bill. It is one of a growing number of bills that seeks to change the law, as it has recently been declared by the Supreme Court. Indeed, the next one Supreme Court. Indeed, the next one will come along on Thursday in the Crime and Policing Bill.

There was nothing constitutionally improper nothing constitutionally improper about that. The courts try to make sense of what we decide, which in sense of what we decide, which in this field has chopped and changed several times since 2002. As the Supreme Court's judgement made Supreme Court's judgement made clear. It is also relevant, as it seems to me, that both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, after Court and the Court of Appeal, after consideration of all factors, including the UN convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, declared Reduction of Statelessness, declared the law to be, as the government now seeks to clarify it by means of this seeks to clarify it by means of this bill, the Supreme Court took what it described as a middle position under which the Secretary of State is which the Secretary of State is bound by the result of a successful appeal for all purposes other than in respect of the validity of in respect of the validity of immigration enforcement action taken on the basis of the deprivation order up to the time the appeal against it is allowed.

By doing so, the Supreme Court sought to banish the unwelcome spectre of damages claims in respect of past immigration enforcement action, while requiring the individual to be treated as having always been a British citizen for all other purposes, including in the hard case that was before it. By passing that citizenship to any child born during the currency of the deprivation order, I am persuaded by the Minister, and I thank him for his time and that of the Bill team. But there are good reasons for preventing a person from regaining their British citizenship, even following a first instance victory in society.

Until such time as the Home Office has exhausted its appeal rights. These are, in summary, the prospect of empowering a person who endangers national security to enter the United Kingdom, possibly forever. The risk that the tactical renunciation of other citizenships will render deprivation of British citizenship impossible, and the desirability of having immigration powers such as detention and immigration bail, pending the resolution of appeal rights. Those are reasons enough for me to support the thrust of this bill. The bill might be considered tough on infant children like a in the Supreme Court case.

For that reason in particular, I see the case for a limited judicial discretion along the lines proposed by Kit Malthouse in the Commons. And I will listen carefully to the debate. If a similar or narrower amendment is tabled here. But I am not as struck by this as the Noble Law Journal. There is surely consolation in the fact that the appeal process is finite and can be expedited by the courts, and that the child's citizenship will still be recognised if the Home Office is unsuccessful.

At the end of the day, the bill is retrospective in its operation, resembling in that respect court rulings including the judgement of the Supreme Court, which it seeks effectively to reverse. The Constitution Committee, which I am a member, asked the government why retrospectively applied across the board and could not be limited to conducive cases. The ministers answer that deprivation orders on other grounds are not made until the person has exhausted their rights to appeal, with the result that the bill does not apply to them.

Sounds pretty conclusive to me. Finally, I had in mind the fact that people may have their citizenship removed when inside as well as outside this country, and that views on deportation, including in this country, appear to be hardening in some quarters. Quite alarmingly, I expressed to the Minister my concern that a government less scrupulous than this one might take advantage of the bill to remove a person's citizenship on conducive grounds, and then to take advantage of their new status as a non-national to deport them.

Even after South had declared the removal of citizenship to be unlawful, I was told that this fear was unfounded. In summary, as I understand it, because the deportation order does not come into force until in country appeal rights, including on human rights grounds, have been exhausted. And because section 78 of the nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 prohibits such a person from being removed while any in-country appeal is pending, on the face of it, that is reassuring, at least for as long as we have the Human Rights Act.

But I would welcome the Minister putting his detailed explanation on the record, either from the despatch box or in writing, so that it can be scrutinised by those more expert than me. This is not something that would have seemed worth worrying about ten or even five years ago, but I am sure that your lordships would not wish to pass a bill that could facilitate the future use of unlawful citizenship deprivation as the means of affecting the arbitrary or large scale deportation of British citizens who are objectionable or unwelcome to the government of the day.

My Lords, subject to that clarification, this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill has my support. My Lords. It is a pleasure to follow the
20:17
Lord Verdirame Portrait Lord Verdirame (Non-affiliated)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lord, Lord Anderson. Of. Ipswich, who brings so much. Expertise and wisdom to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Expertise and wisdom to. This debate. This is a short bill. Yes, on a narrow point, but it bill. Yes, on a narrow point, but it does raise some very important constitutional questions. It concerns the power of the Home.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary under section. 40 of the British Nationality. Act. To deprive a person of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

British citizenship. As we know, under this provision, the Home Secretary made a private

**** Possible New Speaker ****

person of. Citizenship on. 2 in 2 cases. First, if she satisfied. That the deprivation would be conducive to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

conducive to. The public good, and second, if she satisfied. That citizenship was obtained by fraud, false representation or concealment of a material fact. I do not have any

**** Possible New Speaker ****

material fact. I do not have any problem with the second scenario. It is the first one which is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is the first one which is intensely problematic. There is a limit to the exercise of this power and deprivation. Order may not be and deprivation. Order may not be made if that person would be rendered stateless, and does.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Result in a breach of our obligations under the Statelessness Convention. But this limit, however Convention. But this limit, however important, is insufficient in practice. As has been mentioned before, people with two before, people with two nationalities like myself, are British. Citizens only for as long British. Citizens only for as long as the Home Secretary of the day is satisfied that depriving us of our citizenship would not be conducive citizenship would not be conducive to the public good. Under the law as it is, it is easier for me to be stripped of my British citizenship then of my barony.

This rule is based on an idea of citizenship that is simply. Unfit for a modern liberal democracy. Yes, the power is used sparingly, the minister has said. But we are, as Lord German pointed out, a country that uses this power in Europe to an exceptional degree. We strip citizenship at rates that are higher than almost any other country in the world, as was noted by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its recent report on accountability for Daesh crimes.

The Independent Review for Terrorism Legislation observed that there is a sharp contrast between the high number of deprivation orders in these cases, which are usually national security cases and the low number of prosecutions or temporary exclusion orders. And just to be to put these things in perspective, from 1972 to 2006, only ten people were deprived of citizenship, whereas from 2010 to 23 there were 1080 deprivations of citizenship, and of those, 222 were on the basis of the conducive test, 104 of those deprivations in one year alone, 2017.

As Lord Anderson has said, we need to think of how this power would be used by a home secretary who comes to office with a rather different conception of the public good from that of his or her predecessors. And we have to be very alive to those risks. There is little in the language of section 40 to which we could point to invite restraint if faced with a Home Secretary determined to make even more extensive use of the power of deprivation that has been the case so far.

The problem with this bill is that it makes a power that is already excessive. Even worse, by reversing the decision of the Supreme Court in the n3 za case, the Supreme Court ruled that a person deprived of British citizenship automatically and retrospectively regains their citizenship following a successful appeal. It is still possible, even after the Supreme Court ruling, for the deprivation order to be made and enforcement action pursuant to that order to be taken in spite of the effective person bringing the appeal as a matter of principle.

It seems to me that given that the power of the Secretary of State is already so extensive, and in light of the severe consequences that that power, the exercise of that power has, it is wrong to allow deprivations which our courts have found to be unlawful, to continue to have effect pending an appeal. It seems to me even more important for a power like this that we should stick with the ordinary approach, which is that the decision of the court should take effect pending the appeal.

And were circumstances justified, the government could seek a stay or, as law German explained, there could be some work around identifying the grounds on which such a stay should be granted. Another problem with the bail that seems to me, is that it creates an incentive for the government to pursue every possible point in order to preserve the continuing effect of an order, and on matters of such importance. If anything, the incentive should be the opposite. Last, but certainly not least, British children born during unlawful deprivation periods find themselves in an even worse limbo.

Under the Supreme Court ruling, and three children would acquire British citizenship. If their parents appeal is successful and they would do so immediately. Under the bill, children would not acquire citizenship, even though the most authoritative, authoritative determination of the law at that point would support their acquisition of citizenship. I appreciate that the consequence of the Supreme Court's approach is that a child would be treated as a British citizen during the appeal period, and that if the government is ultimately successful, that child would have to be regarded as never having acquired British citizenship, but as a matter of principle, I'd rather we erred by treating a non-citizen child as a citizen temporarily, than by depriving a child who was a British citizen all along of the benefits of British citizenship.

And I have two questions on this point which echo points raised by Lord German and the national security reason, which is stated as the main justification for this bill, does not apply to children being the child of an individual who may pose a threat to national security is not a national security concern. So what is the reason for extending the consequences of the measure to the children? And secondly, would the government be open to considering ways of mitigating the effects of the bill on children in light of the fact that there particular the consequences for them cannot be justified under the underlying principle underlying justification for the Bill, namely, national security? And my Lords, I do not have any objection in principle to Parliament taking the view that a law is interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court must be changed.

It does not mean that the Supreme Court was wrong about the law. As lawmakers, we have a different perspective from that of judges. Our law is to our role is to make the law and sometimes change it. And that may at times require reversing a decision of the Supreme Court. In this case, however, I see no legislative reason and no reason of principle that justifies a fundamentally different conclusion from that reached by the Supreme Court. And certainly as far as the position of the children of the British.

Individuals who have been deprived of the blessings have been deprived of British citizenship. I think there is a very strong reason for considering forms of mitigation. It seems to me that by extending the powers in section 40, as the Bill requires us to do, we are going in exactly the opposite direction of that which we should be taking, which is to restrict a power that has been on the statute books for very long. But that is way too

**** Possible New Speaker ****

liberal and too exorbitant. My Lords, it's always a pleasure to follow my. Noble friends.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble friends. Who have just spoken. Though I don't. Agree. With them. Altogether.
20:26
Lord Carlile of Berriew Portrait Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Altogether. I had prepared a much longer necessary. So I'll just make a few points.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So I'll just make a few points. First of all, I think that my noble friends are much too pessimistic and friends are much too pessimistic and are not actually exercising the role which we have today. And I would respectfully include an old friend of mine, Lord German, in the same comment. My observation of the law relating to the deprivation of citizenship is that it is extremely valuable that the decision is made by the Home Secretary herself. She will be advised in a proper way and will ensure that the advice is properly given and the decision we make is about the situation we're in today.

It's not about some future in which a malign Home Secretary might come into existence. I don't think it's right for us as legislators to take that view of the future, unless there is hard evidence of imminence of such a person being appointed. We can rely on our courts and on the separation of powers to protect us from that kind of situation, and indeed on lawyers like my noble friends, to be part of that protection. The legal process by which these orders are tested through the court system are extremely rigorous.

Siak has the advantage of having special advocates who have access to all the irrelevant material upon which the case is decided. The Appellate Courts Act likewise, and I think we can be confident that courts will provide protection in terms of the essence of this UN Bill. It is extremely important that national security should protect us from those people who have been deprived of their citizenship, and that is what that bill is about in the here and now. And in broad terms at least, I fully support that aim.

As to my noble friend Lord Anderson's question about whether we should improve the test from conducive to public good to a more strict test, I would like to hear the noble Lord, the Minister's response to that. I think we might improve the law during the course of the passage of this bill. By such a change, if it can be drafted. I also agree that the independent review of terrorism legislation should be inserted into this process. There are two of us here who have been independent reviewers of terrorism legislation, and I can see it being something that the independent reviewer could do easily.

Lord Vader, my friend Lord Durham, made some comments about the numbers of cases in which citizenship deprivation orders have been made and the increase over. Actually, it's the period when I was independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, the period since that is nothing to do with me. It's just a consequence of the change in terrorism and the change in the cases that we have had to face up to. And it's no surprise to me that the there is a need for a greater number of deprivation orders in 2025 than there was in 2007.

That's just an evolution. I'm afraid of the very unpleasant effects of terrorism. As for the situation with children, I'd like the Minister, if he wouldn't mind just to explain to us again the protection that children that children have during the period when appeals are pending. But in principle, I'm afraid I can see no reason why we should change an old existing situation in which there is no birthright to British citizenship applicable to children who happen to be born there.

Some countries have that birthright, some countries, I can name one in the European Union has that birthright. If the father was a citizen of that country, but not if the mother was a citizen of that country, there are all sorts of laws dealing with the nationality of children, but I see no reason to change our law, particularly under the particularity of this bill. So broadly, I support the bill. I think we should get it through this House as quickly as possible, so that we can ensure that the measure that is, that is intrinsic in it is able to protect our citizens as quickly as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

possible and as well as can be done. My Lords, I interview. With some hesitation after

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With some hesitation after speeches by such a phalanx of crossbench lawyers. I understand the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reasoning behind. This bill as. Set out by. The noble Lord, the. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. In introducing it. I understand too, that it would put us. On more or less the same footing
20:31
Lord Jay of Ewelme Portrait Lord Jay of Ewelme (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

On more or less the same footing as like minded countries. appreciate. That the. Bill has.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill has. Cross-party support. But I have two concerns. And the first. Is I have explained to the noble.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord. grateful. To the. Noble. Lord. The. Minister, for. His letter

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister, for. His letter responding to. My concern is over. The implications. Of the bill for children,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the bill for children, especially children born between. A successful. Appeal and the final determination of. The.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Case. And I. Share the concerns. Here raised. By Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chairman and my noble friend, Lord. Rama. Consider a child. Born to a successful. Applicant.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Applicant. Whether in Britain or abroad. Under the present draft.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Under the present draft. Bill. The child. Unless born in Britain. With one parent with British. Citizenship. Will be.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deprived of. Citizenship even. Though his or her parent. Has.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Has. Successfully appealed against deprivation of citizenship. If the next.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If the next. Stage of the appeal. Were quick, this might be acceptable. But the gap.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But the gap. Between the. Successful appeal and. The. Hearing of the. Government's counter appeal.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May be. Five, 6 or. 7 years. And during that period the child

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And during that period the child will be deprived of all the benefits of British citizenship. And if the parent and child are abroad, the child may be in a far worse child may be in a far worse situation. Subject, as we are seeing at the moment in northeast Syria, at the moment in northeast Syria, for example, the illness separation from his or her parents or terrorist from his or her parents or terrorist attacks. Now the obvious way forward, and this is my second point, is to speed up the appeals process.

The noble Lord, the minister, says in his letter to me, minister, says in his letter to me, and I quote, provisions already exist to enable the courts to exist to enable the courts to expedite such appeals, and it remains within the judiciary's discretion to determine the suitability of such measures. Indeed, my Lord, but five, 6 or 7 years? That is too long. I understand, and I fully support the independence of the judiciary. But may I ask the Minister, at least to give an assurance that the government's views of the desirability of a speeded up appeals process will be made known to the judiciary?
20:33
Baroness D'Souza Portrait Baroness D'Souza (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, this is a small bill, but a very important. that it raises have already been spoken to by noble lords. But I think some of them about repetition to my mind, I know this is yet another bill that depressingly, seeks to make indents on our constitutional, judicial and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

democratic rights. The bill, as presumption. That court orders take immediate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That court orders take immediate effect, and clause one of the bill enables the government of the day the power to overrule the courts the power to overrule the courts decisions by ignoring court rulings that are found. The government's actions to be unlawful. So, in brief, the bill will deny citizenship to those individual citizenship to those individual cases which the courts have already ruled eligible for further appeal. This denial persists until the last This denial persists until the last of all possible appeals have exhausted.

And as again, we've heard exhausted. And as again, we've heard in some cases this may amount to years, individuals and especially that children awaiting appeal or vulnerable and whatever conditions they find themselves, they are they find themselves, they are precluded from consular or any other protections. In effect, this clause protections. In effect, this clause renders individuals stateless and their children open to all kinds of their children open to all kinds of other abuse, including forcible recruitment to armed militias from recruitment to armed militias from the age of 12, and ought to have compulsory to join compulsory training camps, as has happens in northern Syria.

Those UK citizens in northern Syrian camps, for example, have already languished awaiting a court decision and in some cases, life threatening conditions. This bill, given its retrospective mandate, will add years to their detention and render their children's as yet unborn vulnerable for years to come. The purpose and the outcome of the bill, my Lords, to quote from a recent reprieve briefing, is to prevent individuals from exercising their rights as British citizens, even after the courts have ruled their deprivation unlawful purely to maintain the Home Secretary's unchecked ability to exclude them from the UK.

However grave the abuses to which they risk being exposed. As we know, again, that was an attempt in the other place to introduce an amendment by Maud Malthouse which proposed, amongst other elements, that a judge would be able to determine that an order had no effect during the appeal period if the individual faced a substantial threat of harm due to the order, and such an order would adversely affect the ability, for example, to mount an effective defence and or the duration of the appeal period was excessive, due perhaps to actions or omissions by public authorities.

My Lords, current levels of deprivation of citizenship in the UK are already very high and again, depressingly, disproportionately affect those from ethnic communities. The Home Secretary's authority is considerable in being able to issue an order to deprive a person of his or her citizenship on the basis simply that a person's presence as a citizen is not conducive to the public good. There's no requirement, as far as I can tell, for judicial oversight, nor is the target individual necessarily informed of such a decision and challenge at this stage is virtually impossible, as decisions are made under secret proceedings.

Moreover, the current appeal system is lengthy, complicated and expensive, and certainly not easily accessed by those outside the UK. My Lords, my conclusion is that this bill is unnecessary, and I hope very much that the relevant clauses in the bill at committee stage will, will be, will be challenged at committee stage to ensure a more equitable, democratic and transparent

**** Possible New Speaker ****

procedure. My Lords, I hope that the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will forgive a front bench. Speech from the second bench. It's for practical reasons and not out of disrespect.
20:38
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

out of disrespect. I knew that one. Clause Bill would not defeat the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause Bill would not defeat the House in its determination to make varied. Well informed. Forensic points.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well informed. Forensic points. For me, the phrase. Deprivation of. Citizenship brings.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Back memories of my noble friend, Lord Avebury. Eric was. Lord Lord Avebury. Eric was. Lord Carlisle is grinning. Eric was so.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Forceful, so. Clear about statelessness not. Being used as a punishment. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Being used as a punishment. I have often thought of him as a role model to whom I have not been able model to whom I have not been able to live. As we saw a couple of years ago with Bangladesh, our government's views about a person's citizenship do not always so matter citizenship do not always so matter of practice align with those of the other state involved, and at the other state involved, and at the time of the Begum appeal judgement, of course, many argued that the that of course, many argued that the that two tiered citizenship had been created, downgrading.

Citizenship created, downgrading. Citizenship for naturalised citizens and for the children of immigrants conducive.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

children of immigrants conducive. To the public good. I have to say, I'm one of those who is troubled by the phrase. It's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

who is troubled by the phrase. It's not for today. As the minister. Reminded us at the start of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Reminded us at the start of the debate, to try and open up the 1981 act. But the term. In my.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In my. Mind requires a value judgement. It's capable of. Varying interpretations, wide interpretations, and it sets a low bar as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson described it, he is the term at one point during his speech hard cases. I wasn't sure whether we were being asked to think about bad law in that. Following on from that. Why not a threat to national security? And indeed, Minister Jarvis in the Commons really seemed to use the terms interchangeably.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. Suggested we might be able to look at it at some change during the course of the bill. The long title of the bill is actually very short and very unhelpful in that sense. To make this, to make provision about the effect during an appeal of an order under section 40 of the 1981 act. I look forward to the noble Lord's ingenuity in seeking to build on that. Whatever the ground, as has been said, it's not only the subject of the order that is affected and the consequences for a child may be extreme.

As we know from recent and current history. The Appg on Traffic Weapons in Syria, of which I'm a member, has pointed out the risks of statelessness and the concomitant risks of exploitation and extreme ill treatment. So let us not lose sight of the best interests of the child. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, under the chairmanship of Lord Alton, asked a number of specific questions. And I've seen the Minister's reply, one of which is about the national security point, which I've made.

The letter also argues against Siak having powers to suspend the effect of a successful appeal, not quite all cases, I think, are security matters. Or perhaps they are, or, it seems to me, conducive to the public good. Might extend that. One of my concerns about it being a little unclear, but there should be consistent and there should be consistent mechanisms for managing all cases. The JKL also asked about expediting appeals, and the government has told us that determinations are for the democratically accountable Secretary of state.

I don't think the JCE was actually challenging that. I've seen a paper prepared by ill per the immigration law, practitioners, associations regarding seeking a stay while an appeal is pending or still possible, and pointing out a number of procedural matters which I would have thought could be overcome. I assume them. The Home Office has seen the briefing. If not, I wonder whether I might send it to the minister. It raises points, which are pretty technical, I think, and perhaps not appropriate for a subject in this debate.

But if I send it to the minister, perhaps he could consider responding to it by me at that appropriate. It's not aggressive, it's pointing out problems like other local lords. I thought that the Malthouse amendment had much to recommend it in the Commons. Malthouse said that he hoped that the minister would do the right thing well if they couldn't right thing well if they couldn't let us do so. The. Government. Maintains the position, not just in this situation, that it's possible and practicable and not disadvantageous to exercise legal rights from outside the UK.

When I was in practice as a solicitor from time to time, I found it difficult enough to get a coherent picture from some clients with whom I was face to face. Never the sort of situation. It takes time, trust, patience and skill and of course, access, particularly with a person who is has undergone perhaps over a long period, some extreme experiences. And like others, I feel that our system operating on the basis that if a relevant court makes a finding in favour of an individual that stands, unless it stayed until it's overturned, and that's the way we should continue to do things, I.

I have been told that the Home Secretary's powers are used almost exclusively against individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds who hold or are perceived to hold dual nationality. I can see how that could come about. The minister might like to comment on that, because in the current highly charged political atmosphere, we should be as clear as possible about the facts. I remain. Apart from she doesn't hasn't didn't know this yet because I didn't know about one point that my noble friend was going to make, which strikes me as a very good basis for a possible amendment at.

Committee stage. But we'll discuss that afterwards. But I mean, with the basic principles, that no one should be made stateless, that the state's response to allegations of threat to national security should be tried in the UK, unless there are very good reasons that the best interests of the child are a priority, and I use the term a priority because that is what is in other legislation. I agree with the noble or better of me about that, and it would be a great shame if his barony were challenged.

Finally, that the exercise of the power of deprivation should always be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proportionate. My Lords. May I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I. Begin by thanking the noble. Lord. The Minister. For his clear. Exposition of the issue that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Exposition of the issue that. Is addressed. In this Bill. I would also extend. My thanks.
20:47
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My thanks. To other noble Lords who spoken this evening, albeit. Some of the contributions would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Some of the contributions would appear to me to. Go beyond the scope of. address. For example.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For example. The amendment to section. 40 or of the 1981 act.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the 1981 act. The bill, of course, concerns one of the most significant powers. Available to. The state.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The state. The ability to remove a. Person's citizenship. When it is deemed conducive.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

When it is deemed conducive. To the public good. It's therefore appropriate that this Parliament should give the this Parliament should give the power the fullest scrutiny, and that we should proceed with.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Some caution and. Considerable care. But this is, of course. Not a new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But this is, of course. Not a new power. It is one that successive administrations have exercised, albeit only in the most serious cases where individuals have posed a threat to our national security. Some comment. Was made about the increasing number of instances in increasing number of instances in which deprivation has taken place. But as the noble Lord, Lord Carlyle But as the noble Lord, Lord Carlyle observed over the period since the provision came into force, we have provision came into force, we have seen an evolution of the terrorist threat which is faced by this threat which is faced by this country.

The right to determine the conditions of citizenship is, of course, a core attribute of sovereignty and clearly recognised sovereignty and clearly recognised under international law. And obviously it must be exercised responsibly and in accordance with responsibly and in accordance with due process. But following the. Recent Supreme Court judgement

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Recent Supreme Court judgement does. Seek. To restore the balance that was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To restore the balance that was deemed to exist prior to that decision earlier this year, and the court's ruling did create a severe problem with respect to the effect of deprivation orders during an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

appeal process, with the result. That there could be. An undermining of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

An undermining of. Public safety and indeed, consequent upon the decision of the consequent upon the decision of the Supreme Court, where a tribunal overturned a deprivation order, that decision would take immediate decision would take immediate effect. Even before the government had exhausted its rights of appeal, had exhausted its rights of appeal, a right of appeal, which I would indicate to the noble Lord. J, is not liable to take 5 to 7 years, albeit we have considerable delays in the Crown courts of this country.

We've moved on from Jarndyce and Jarndyce, and clearly. Where the Supreme Court decision would have applied, it would have been open to applied, it would have been open to an individual. Who was considered to be a serious security. Risk to this be a serious security. Risk to this country to return or enter this country during an appeal process. country during an appeal process. And that would have been regarded And that would have been regarded properly regarded as an unacceptable risk.

So we do agree with the government that it is appropriate that this not narrow and targeted measure should be taken. After all, the first duty of any government is the security of the nation, the security of the people, and we would champion, as does the government, effective counter-terrorism measures, including the reform proposed in this bill. And I welcome the assurance from the noble Lord, the Minister, that the Bill does not alter the substantive grounds on which. Citizenship can be removed, nor diminish the right of appeal itself.

It merely clarifies.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The issue. Following the Supreme. Court decision, of course, public confidence in this power depends not only on its necessity, but on its only on its necessity, but on its consistent and judicious employment, and the government must continue to ensure that every deprivation ensure that every deprivation decision is taken only after the most robust and rigorous assessment, most robust and rigorous assessment, with appropriate safeguards in place, and those safeguards are in place as regards the application of place as regards the application of section 40 of the 1981 act, I would nevertheless ask the Lord, the Minister, to reassure us that the Home Office will continue to use.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deprivation powers. Carefully, and only when there is the clearest justification in each

**** Possible New Speaker ****

individual case. Lord. The bill is not a sweeping

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The bill is not a sweeping reform, but a measured correction to protect national security and indeed to uphold Parliament's original

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to uphold Parliament's original intent with regard to these statutory provisions. It preserves. Our right to defend the nation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Our right to defend the nation state within the bounds of legality and due process, and therefore, on and due process, and therefore, on these benches, we support that aim. After all, the first duty of government is to protect the nation state and the British people. My Lords, there is always a balance to be achieved between liberty and security, and it is never a simple balance to achieve. But with this bill, we believe the government has rightly struck the appropriate balance.

And that is why we would lend our support to the bill. Finally, I merely observed that there is some constitutional significance to this bill, and as much as it illustrates how our sovereign Parliament can move swiftly to reverse the decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court, when the public interest is perceived by Parliament to trump perceived by Parliament to trump

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legal niceties. Yeah. I am grateful to all noble. Members, Lords. points.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the debate. I will try and respond to the points before the House today in
20:53
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

this second reading debate. Can I first of all. Thank the. Noble Lord keen and the noble Lord David Gower. For.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For. Their support from His Majesty's loyal opposition. And indeed, I loyal opposition. And indeed, I welcome also the support broadly from the noble Lord Anderson and the noble Lord Carlisle. And I recognise that there are points that are legitimately being put by other noble Lords, which I will try and respond to in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The. Response to this debate. I have to say that again, I just remind the to say that again, I just remind the House that the debate is around the very small. Amendment to the legislation. It is not about the principle of deprivation or about the application of deprivation, or the application of deprivation, or about the numbers of people who have had their citizenship deprived. It had their citizenship deprived. It is a response to the High Court Supreme Court judgement, and what that has meant in relation to that has meant in relation to individuals who potentially could return to the United Kingdom, or return to the United Kingdom, or could retain their status in the United Kingdom.

When the government has, through the. Home Secretary, determined that that individual, for whatever reason, needs to have their citizenship deprived. And that is a very serious step for Home Secretary very serious step for Home Secretary to take. And therefore, when the Supreme Court says that it had it in the recent case, that an individual could then retain their citizenship during that appeal process, that during that appeal process, that means that the individual, as the noble Lord Kane just mentioned in noble Lord Kane just mentioned in his wind up speech, then, is free to remain a British citizen with all the rights and privileges that that brings.

Whilst the appeal would be ongoing unless this legislation was put in place and the novel Lord German in his introductory remarks, made a number of. Points around that, and I simply say to him, essentially, is he willing to take the risk? Because that's the nub of the argument that we're putting to the House today, that the purpose of the deprivation of citizenship being maintained during the course of the appeal procedure is so that the United Kingdom government, the Home Secretary, accountable to the House of Commons and myself in this House, accountable for the Home Office, can take a decision and can uphold it during the period of an appeal.

Now, if the appeal is successful downstream, then all bets are off and the individual citizenship is restored. And for whatever reason that was originally removed, the Home Secretary's decision has been overturned and the status quo for the individual remains. But in the event of the individual remaining at the risk level, that the seriousness that the Home Secretary has brought forward to take the citizenship issue in the first place remains. That opens the United Kingdom to a risk until such time as the appeal is heard, and this bill solely deals with that issue.

And that's why, again, I heard what Baroness D'Souza said on this, on this matter, and I've heard what the Lord Bird Army has also said on this issue. But I just put that point to them answer the noble Lord German that the issue is about management of risk by the United. Kingdom government in this. Limited amounts of circumstance, which again, I'm grateful to the noble Lord Carlisle for raising. Now, this has been a debate and this is a very fair debate around what we call inverted commas the Kit Malthouse amendments and a number of noble lords have raised that in their contributions to date.

I think it's not appropriate to confer this discretion on the courts, particularly because it is the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary of State who is accountable to this House for matters of national. Security.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Security. And to Parliament in the House of Commons for matters of national security. And as the noble Lord Carlisle of Bury mentioned, deprivation of citizenship and national security are matters for the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary. The Supreme Court has itself emphasised that in its itself emphasised that in its discussion and judgement, and the Bill will align the approach to asylum and human rights appeals and asylum and human rights appeals and extend it to appeals to the Supreme Court.

And again, decisions to Court. And again, decisions to deprive are taken in accordance with our international obligations and considerations to whether to give considerations to whether to give deprivation will expose the person to a real risk of mistreatment, which would constitute a breach of which would constitute a breach of articles 2 or 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The Home Secretary is the person responsible Secretary is the person responsible for that decision, and therefore I hear but that is the reason why my hear but that is the reason why my noble friend in the Commons, Minister Jarvis, has rejected the Kit Malthouse approach.

And it's the reason why I do so as well today. Now, there have been very valid Now, there have been very valid points raised in the noble Lord Jay, Lord chairman, Lord Anderson and Lord bird Ami have also.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mentioned. This in relation to the citizenship and in relation to the citizenship and in relation to the impact on the child. And I have to say, I do pay great tribute to the private discussions which are now private discussions which are now public discussions, because we've talked about them. I had with the noble Lord Jay, because it did raise noble Lord Jay, because it did raise an important issue that we've reflected upon and looked at, but which I hope I can give a satisfactory response to all those satisfactory response to all those honourable members and noble Lords who have raised this question with me.

And it's simply this the Bill me. And it's simply this the Bill does not alter the existing situation in relation to children situation in relation to children born to deprived individuals, which is already established in law. Where a child holds British citizenship, a child holds British citizenship, the deprivation of the parent's citizenship has no effect on the child's nationality status. So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

child's nationality status. So again, those were points that were mentioned from across the House in a number of. Points.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Points. Here today. In cases where a child is born after the parent was deprived of British citizenship, deprived of British citizenship, which again is an issue that the noble Lord Jay has mentioned privately and in the chamber today, privately and in the chamber today, their entitlement to British citizen will depend on a number of factors, including the status of the other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

including the status of the other parent, the consequence of the Supreme Court's decision in N three is a. Is that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If the child would have been British had their parent not been deprived a successful appeal against deprivation by their parent means the child is automatically a British citizen. There are no changes in any

**** Possible New Speaker ****

citizen. There are no changes in any of the principles that we've got here, and I hope that that reassures. Noble lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble lords. On these points. But again, I'm happy to reflect on those in due happy to reflect on those in due course. There were very valid points made again by the noble Lord Jay made again by the noble Lord Jay around the question of the appeals procedure and the fast track process procedure and the fast track process that takes place in answer to his, I think, his pointed question to me, the government is committed to the government is committed to supporting expedition of these cases on a case by case basis, where appropriate and as quickly as appropriate and as quickly as possible.

It is in nobody's interests to have long drawn out appeals at all. Now, what the practical implication of that means in relation to the courts determining the length of that determining the length of that appeal procedure, where the disagreements arise. Now courts have the power to order case management the power to order case management reviews to resolve issues. The current rules of court already permit the court to make directions permit the court to make directions to expedite cases. If there were reasons for that to be done, the judiciary themselves are probably, dare I say, a better place than the Home Secretary to determine and assess the case in each case as to how they can expedite or not.

Those cases and all the factors that the noble Lord J is concerned about, are things that would potentially mean that a judge with inverted commas, defence counsel, could determine that this needs to be done quickly. Then I think that's a reasonable thing. Would we want to see it over and done with as quickly as possible? And the practical implications for government so on that we can look at. But the principle is one that I hope I can reassure him on. In doing that, the questions were asked about whether a person could be deported from the UK while they're appealing against the deprivation decision.

In theory, it's possible for a person to be deprived of citizenship and deported before the deprivation appeal is resolved. But in practice, that's going to be very difficult because there will be the opportunity for people to make a human rights claim in response to the stage one deportation letter, and that means they'd have an in-country right of appeal against the refusal of that claim if certified, and the right of redress against the certification decision. And it's a matter for the courts, again, how those appeals are managed.

There was a number of other points raised. Again, the noble Lord Anderson, particularly about the role of the terrorism reviewer and having oversight of these matters. The current situation is that the oversight for this. Aspect of public policy lies currently with the. Inspector of Borders. The Inspector of Borders can determine their own inspection regime and can indeed, if they wish to look at that, the terrorism Review doesn't examine. Currently, there's an argument that he might want to put down for debate, but currently doesn't have that role and responsibility.

But I say to him that should the Inspector of Borders wish to have an investigation on the performance of any matter to do with this, which could include the rights of the child, it could include the length of the appeal procedure. It could include the Home Secretary's powers. They could do that should they so wish independently of government. So there is a sort of oversight, maybe not to the standard or type that he wishes, but there is a sort of oversight that is there.

But ultimately, for this House, it boils down to the question I pose, which again, I'm grateful for support from His Majesty's opposition, particularly on this, which is are we willing to take the risk if an individual has had the decision to lose their citizenship and have that deprived by the Home Secretary? After advice from officials at a senior level? If the Home Secretary has signed that order and taken that decision, they've done that because there is a threat to the United Kingdom in one form or another.

And if this bill is not enacted, that threat will materialise, potentially in another form by the individual who will be able to restore their rights as a citizen when they appeal the original decision. This is what the purpose of this bill is, and I hope with that real central focus, although I do recognise the range of points that be made by noble Lords across the House on another range of issues about the principle of deprivation in the first place, the numbers, etc.

But if that is the focus of this bill, I just put the question Are noble Lords willing to take that risk? I suggest that the government isn't, and I'm grateful for the support of those members who will support that position in this House today. The noble Lord, the minister, sits down. For the noble of the question for the noble Lord about the possibility that perhaps in the future, the deprivation of citizenship would be used as a prelude to deportation, even in circumstances where the first instance tribunal had decided that the deprivation of citizenship was unlawful, and it'd be very helpful if the noble Lord would write to me

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about that. I had thought I'd answered. That, but if I haven't answered

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That, but if I haven't answered that to the extent that I thought that answer to that, I will reflect on what we said in Hansard, and I on what we said in Hansard, and I will ensure that before the next stage of this Bill's proceedings, which I think are scheduled for a week today, that I will ensure that a piece of paper in electronic or a piece of paper in electronic or physical form. Lands on the noble Lords desk. And with that I commend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords desk. And with that I commend and beg to move that the Bill. Do move. The question. Is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is. That this bill be now read a second time. As many as that opinion will say content. The country not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will say content. The country not content. The contents have it. I beg to. Move the commitment motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move the commitment motion. paper. The question is that this bill be committed to a committee of the whole House, as many as of that Kimble, as many as or of that opinion will say content. The country not content. The contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country not content. The contents have not. I beg to move that the House do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
13:51
None Portrait Oral questions: Action to limit deforestation internationally, particularly in West Papua Lord Harries of Pentregarth (Crossbench)
-

21:11
13:52
None Portrait Oral questions: Action to limit deforestation internationally, particularly in West Papua Lord Harries of Pentregarth (Crossbench)
-

21:12
13:52
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page