Lords Grand Committee
Wednesday 28th October 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 6 hours, 42 minutes ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
16:15
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Vision in the chamber while we're sitting. The committee will adjourn as soon as the division bells are rung and resume after ten minutes. Pneumoconiosis, etc. workers compensation. Payment of claims. Amendment number two regulations 2026. This will be debated with one other instrument. Baroness Sherlock.
16:15
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My Lords, I beg to move that the Grand Committee do now consider the draft pneumoconiosis, etc.. Workers compensation , Payment of Claims, Amendment number two, regulations 2026 and the draft mesothelioma lump sum payments, Conditions and Amounts . Amendment number two regulations 2026. Lords, the schemes we're debating today provide vital support to people who've developed certain dust related diseases, often caused by occupational exposure to asbestos and other harmful dusts. This includes diseases such as pneumoconiosis and mesothelioma. We all recognise the devastating impact these diseases can have on individuals and their families, so I'm grateful to have the opportunity to debate these schemes and the reforms we're making to ensure they continue to provide effective support.
I'd like to begin by providing a brief overview of these two no fault compensation schemes, and what these regulations seek to amend. The pneumoconiosis, etc.. Workers Compensation Act 1979 scheme. Henceforth, the 1979 Act scheme provides a single lump sum compensation payment to eligible individuals who suffer from one of the diseases covered by the scheme. This includes diffuse mesothelioma, pneumoconiosis and three other dust related respiratory diseases. The scheme was designed to compensate people who were unable to claim damages from former employers because they'd gone out of business, and who had not brought any civil action against another party for damages.
To be entitled to a lump sum award, claimants must have an Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit Award for a disease covered by the 1979 Act scheme, or would have an award, but for their percentage disablement. The Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payment Scheme, or the 2008 Act scheme, was introduced to provide compensation to people who contracted diffuse mesothelioma, but who were unable to claim compensation through the 1979 Act scheme. For example, they may be self-employed or their exposure to asbestos was not due to their work. The 2008 Act scheme provides support to people with diffuse mesothelioma quickly at their time of greatest need, although both schemes aim to provide compensation to sufferers within their lifetime.
Each scheme also allows for claims by dependents. If the person suffering the disease sadly dies before they're able to make a claim. This is in recognition of the suffering these diseases can bring to whole families. My Lords, these regulations make changes to both schemes, the most significant of which relate to awards for dependence and the treatment of claims for claim. Where a claimant dies before payment can be made under the awards payable to dependents are generally lower than those payable to sufferers. These regulations will align the rates payable to defendants to dependents with those payable to sufferers under both schemes.
So that means that dependents will receive compensation calculated using the same rates as eligible sufferers, providing a single payment structure under each scheme. For families already coping with the loss of a loved one. These changes will provide greater financial support at an already difficult time. This is something the House has raised repeatedly with ministers over the years. Indeed, when I was in opposition, I recall asking the then ministers about it myself. So I'm delighted that we're able to address this issue at last. The regulations also make provision for circumstances where an individual dies after making a valid claim, but before payment is made.
In those cases, payment may be made to the claimant's personal representatives. This will help ensure that compensation can still be paid for an individual who has done everything required of them to make a claim, but sadly dies before their award can be issued. The 1979 Act scheme. The regulations also make a number of consequential changes to support these reforms. These include introducing a clear statutory basis for determining the date used to calculate awards , and removing payment provisions that are no longer required following the alignment of award rates. Together, these changes will ensure that the schemes continue to provide meaningful support to those affected by these devastating diseases and their families.
I'm sure the committee will want to join me in recognising the continued importance of the compensation offered by the 1979 and the 2008 act schemes. Finally, my Lords, I'm required to confirm that these provisions are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I'm happy to do so. I commend these regulations, which align compensation rates for dependents with those of sufferers, and improve the operation of both schemes to the Grand Committee and ask for their approval to implement them.
I beg to move.
I'd like to begin by providing a brief overview of these two no fault compensation schemes, and what these regulations seek to amend. The pneumoconiosis, etc.. Workers Compensation Act 1979 scheme. Henceforth, the 1979 Act scheme provides a single lump sum compensation payment to eligible individuals who suffer from one of the diseases covered by the scheme. This includes diffuse mesothelioma, pneumoconiosis and three other dust related respiratory diseases. The scheme was designed to compensate people who were unable to claim damages from former employers because they'd gone out of business, and who had not brought any civil action against another party for damages.
To be entitled to a lump sum award, claimants must have an Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit Award for a disease covered by the 1979 Act scheme, or would have an award, but for their percentage disablement. The Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payment Scheme, or the 2008 Act scheme, was introduced to provide compensation to people who contracted diffuse mesothelioma, but who were unable to claim compensation through the 1979 Act scheme. For example, they may be self-employed or their exposure to asbestos was not due to their work. The 2008 Act scheme provides support to people with diffuse mesothelioma quickly at their time of greatest need, although both schemes aim to provide compensation to sufferers within their lifetime.
Each scheme also allows for claims by dependents. If the person suffering the disease sadly dies before they're able to make a claim. This is in recognition of the suffering these diseases can bring to whole families. My Lords, these regulations make changes to both schemes, the most significant of which relate to awards for dependence and the treatment of claims for claim. Where a claimant dies before payment can be made under the awards payable to dependents are generally lower than those payable to sufferers. These regulations will align the rates payable to defendants to dependents with those payable to sufferers under both schemes.
So that means that dependents will receive compensation calculated using the same rates as eligible sufferers, providing a single payment structure under each scheme. For families already coping with the loss of a loved one. These changes will provide greater financial support at an already difficult time. This is something the House has raised repeatedly with ministers over the years. Indeed, when I was in opposition, I recall asking the then ministers about it myself. So I'm delighted that we're able to address this issue at last. The regulations also make provision for circumstances where an individual dies after making a valid claim, but before payment is made.
In those cases, payment may be made to the claimant's personal representatives. This will help ensure that compensation can still be paid for an individual who has done everything required of them to make a claim, but sadly dies before their award can be issued. The 1979 Act scheme. The regulations also make a number of consequential changes to support these reforms. These include introducing a clear statutory basis for determining the date used to calculate awards , and removing payment provisions that are no longer required following the alignment of award rates. Together, these changes will ensure that the schemes continue to provide meaningful support to those affected by these devastating diseases and their families.
I'm sure the committee will want to join me in recognising the continued importance of the compensation offered by the 1979 and the 2008 act schemes. Finally, my Lords, I'm required to confirm that these provisions are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I'm happy to do so. I commend these regulations, which align compensation rates for dependents with those of sufferers, and improve the operation of both schemes to the Grand Committee and ask for their approval to implement them.
I beg to move.
16:20
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The question is that the Grand Committee do consider this instrument. I think it's me. Thank you, my Lords. I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations and for no doubt the Liberal Democrats support both instruments. And so I hopefully will be brief. These regulations, as we said, deal with some of those grievous consequences of working life in this country. Mr.. Is incurable and usually fatal within a short time of diagnosis. Pneumoconiosis is a legacy of the coal mines, quarries and foundries that once upon a time powered our economy. Those who developed these diseases did nothing wrong, did nothing wrong except go to work.
Those who care for them, and those that are left behind, deserve a scheme that treats them fairly, which is what the minister has outlined. For that reason, the central change in both instruments is right at present. As we heard, dependants receive lower awards than the person who was themselves disabled by the disease and the 1979 Act scheme layers on a complex set of top ups. A widower or widow has no reason to receive less because their spouse died before a claim was made. Moving to a single rate structure removes an anomaly that was hard to defend and was, the minister said in her opening remarks.
The other welcomed change is the provision for payment to personal representatives, where a claimant dies after a valid claim, but before payment. Given the prognosis for the rest of the scenery scenario is far from hypothetical. It is cruel that a family could lose an award simply because the administrative process was slower than the disease. Even so, I should like to put some questions to the minister. First, the government expects dependants to be better off overall. Can the minister please confirm whether anyone will be worse off? The additional dependent top up, the minimum payment and tuberculosis related top up are all being removed.
Has the department modelled the individual cases most likely to lose out? If so, what is the transitional protection? Second, these rules apply only where entitlement first arises on or after the 31st of October. Families whose entitlement arose just before that date will receive less for some reason at the same loss. I understand the legal logic, but what is the government's response to those families who no doubt will be unhappy about that? Third, on the clearer, relevant date rules, I welcome the reduction in disputes. Will the Minister be able to say how claimants will be told which date applies to them, and whether the department will publish guidance before the 31st of October?
All the instruments replace references to assessment bodies with medical practitioners appointed by the Secretary of State. What assurance is an overlay to the minister? Give less about capacity, about waiting times for assessment. My Lords, delay is the enemy of anyone with a terminal diagnosis. If on probate administration and confirmation documents, how will the department help a few families who may be struggling to obtain them quickly? With those questions, which I think the answer, which I think will add to the debate today, I am pleased from these benches to support the regulations.
Those who care for them, and those that are left behind, deserve a scheme that treats them fairly, which is what the minister has outlined. For that reason, the central change in both instruments is right at present. As we heard, dependants receive lower awards than the person who was themselves disabled by the disease and the 1979 Act scheme layers on a complex set of top ups. A widower or widow has no reason to receive less because their spouse died before a claim was made. Moving to a single rate structure removes an anomaly that was hard to defend and was, the minister said in her opening remarks.
The other welcomed change is the provision for payment to personal representatives, where a claimant dies after a valid claim, but before payment. Given the prognosis for the rest of the scenery scenario is far from hypothetical. It is cruel that a family could lose an award simply because the administrative process was slower than the disease. Even so, I should like to put some questions to the minister. First, the government expects dependants to be better off overall. Can the minister please confirm whether anyone will be worse off? The additional dependent top up, the minimum payment and tuberculosis related top up are all being removed.
Has the department modelled the individual cases most likely to lose out? If so, what is the transitional protection? Second, these rules apply only where entitlement first arises on or after the 31st of October. Families whose entitlement arose just before that date will receive less for some reason at the same loss. I understand the legal logic, but what is the government's response to those families who no doubt will be unhappy about that? Third, on the clearer, relevant date rules, I welcome the reduction in disputes. Will the Minister be able to say how claimants will be told which date applies to them, and whether the department will publish guidance before the 31st of October?
All the instruments replace references to assessment bodies with medical practitioners appointed by the Secretary of State. What assurance is an overlay to the minister? Give less about capacity, about waiting times for assessment. My Lords, delay is the enemy of anyone with a terminal diagnosis. If on probate administration and confirmation documents, how will the department help a few families who may be struggling to obtain them quickly? With those questions, which I think the answer, which I think will add to the debate today, I am pleased from these benches to support the regulations.
16:24
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
My Lords, I want to begin by thanking the noble Baroness, the Minister, for introducing these two instruments and setting out their purpose. I confirm at the outset that we, on these benches welcome these changes and are pleased to support both instruments. Mesothelioma, pneumoconiosis and other dust related diseases cause immense suffering to workers and their families, often emerging decades after the original exposure to asbestos or other harmful substances. Many of those affected spent their lives working in industries such as mining, shipbuilding and construction, contributing enormously to our country's prosperity only to face devastating illness later in life.
It is important to remember that the effects of these conditions extend far beyond those diagnosed. Families are often left to contend not only with the emotional toll of serious illness and bereavement, but also with substantial financial pressures. The compensation schemes established under the 1979 and 2008 acts, therefore provide an essential safety net, particularly where a former employer has ceased trading or whether those affected cannot obtain compensation through other means. The central change introduced by these two instruments is welcome. It is right that dependants should receive compensation calculated at the same rates as sufferers themselves. A family's need for support does not diminish because their loved one died before making a claim.
I also welcome the provisions enabling payments to be made to a claimant's personal representatives. Where an individual dies after submitting a valid claim, but before receiving compensation, I want to briefly take this opportunity to recognise the tireless work of charities, campaigners and victims organisations that have advocated for these changes over many years, including mesothelioma UK and the Asbestos Victims Support Group , forum UK. My Lords, while we support the principles underpinning both instruments, I would be grateful if the Minister could provide further clarification clarification on their practical implementation. Firstly, on the administration of payments following a claims death, the regulations provide for compensation to be paid to personal representatives once the necessary evidence of probate, letters of administration or confirmation as executor has been supplied.
While those requirements are understandable, obtaining the necessary documentation can be a lengthy process, particularly for families dealing with bereavement. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, therefore explain what the Department is taking to ensure that these requirements do not cause unnecessary delays? Will the government introduce a target processing time for payment once the relevant documentation has been received? Guidance and practical assistance will be provided to bereaved families. Secondly, I turn to the removal of existing supplementary payments under the pneumoconiosis scheme. The regulations remove a number of existing top up provisions, including the provision relating to sufferers whose pneumoconiosis is accompanied by tuberculosis.
The government has suggested that the higher basic awards mean that claimants will benefit overall from the new arrangements. Can the minister nevertheless give a categorical assurance that no individual claimant will receive a lower award as a result of these changes, including anyone who was previously have qualified for tuberculosis related payment? If that assurance cannot be given, how many claimants does the department estimate could receive less? What is the maximum potential reduction and what transitional protection has been considered? Thirdly, I turn to the transitional arrangements. Both instruments are intended to come into force on the 31st of October, but they use different tests to determine who benefits from the new provisions under the 1979 Act scheme.
The amendments apply where a person first fulfils the conditions of entitlement on or after that date. Under the 2008 Act scheme, the increased dependent rate applies where the sufferer dies on or after that date. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, explain the reason for using these different tests? How will the Department treat cases in which a person fulfils the entitlement conditions or dies shortly before the 31st of October? But the claim has not been determined by that date? In particular, what consideration has been given to families who may receive a substantially lower payment solely because the relevant event occurred shortly before the commencement date.
Fourthly, I turn to the speed of payments and the awareness of schemes. These schemes are intended, wherever possible, to provide compensation to sufferers during their own lifetimes. Given the often rapid progression of diseases following diagnosis, it is essential that applications are processed without unnecessary delay. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, tell the committee the current average and median processing time under both schemes? How many claimants have died after submitting a valid claim, but before receiving payment in each of the past five years? More broadly, improving entitlement is valuable only if those eligible are aware of the support available.
What further steps will the government take to work with clinicians, specialist nurses, charities and other support organisations to ensure that sufferers and their families are aware of these changes and can access compensation properly? Finally, I would welcome some clarification of the longer term future of these schemes. When the House considered the annual uprating regulations earlier this year, the minister confirmed that 3150 awards had been made under the two schemes in 2425, with total expenditure of £51.6 million. Given the long latency periods associated with asbestos related diseases, the human and financial consequences of historic exposure will continue to be felt for many years.
And the noble Baroness, the Minister, therefore outlined the government's projections for claimant numbers and expenditure over the next 5 to 10 years, including the additional expenditure expected to arise from these changes. I also welcome the continued practice of uprating these payments annually, notwithstanding the absence of a statutory obligation to do so. And can the noble Baroness, the Minister, confirm that the government intend to maintain that commitment in future years? These are fair and important reforms. They reflect the principle that families affected by these terrible diseases should not be disadvantaged simply because the sufferer dies before a claim can be made or payment can be received.
So, without any doubt at all, we therefore support both of these instruments. And if it helps the noble Baroness, the minister, and she wants to write on some of those questions, because there are quite a few, I'm very happy.
It is important to remember that the effects of these conditions extend far beyond those diagnosed. Families are often left to contend not only with the emotional toll of serious illness and bereavement, but also with substantial financial pressures. The compensation schemes established under the 1979 and 2008 acts, therefore provide an essential safety net, particularly where a former employer has ceased trading or whether those affected cannot obtain compensation through other means. The central change introduced by these two instruments is welcome. It is right that dependants should receive compensation calculated at the same rates as sufferers themselves. A family's need for support does not diminish because their loved one died before making a claim.
I also welcome the provisions enabling payments to be made to a claimant's personal representatives. Where an individual dies after submitting a valid claim, but before receiving compensation, I want to briefly take this opportunity to recognise the tireless work of charities, campaigners and victims organisations that have advocated for these changes over many years, including mesothelioma UK and the Asbestos Victims Support Group , forum UK. My Lords, while we support the principles underpinning both instruments, I would be grateful if the Minister could provide further clarification clarification on their practical implementation. Firstly, on the administration of payments following a claims death, the regulations provide for compensation to be paid to personal representatives once the necessary evidence of probate, letters of administration or confirmation as executor has been supplied.
While those requirements are understandable, obtaining the necessary documentation can be a lengthy process, particularly for families dealing with bereavement. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, therefore explain what the Department is taking to ensure that these requirements do not cause unnecessary delays? Will the government introduce a target processing time for payment once the relevant documentation has been received? Guidance and practical assistance will be provided to bereaved families. Secondly, I turn to the removal of existing supplementary payments under the pneumoconiosis scheme. The regulations remove a number of existing top up provisions, including the provision relating to sufferers whose pneumoconiosis is accompanied by tuberculosis.
The government has suggested that the higher basic awards mean that claimants will benefit overall from the new arrangements. Can the minister nevertheless give a categorical assurance that no individual claimant will receive a lower award as a result of these changes, including anyone who was previously have qualified for tuberculosis related payment? If that assurance cannot be given, how many claimants does the department estimate could receive less? What is the maximum potential reduction and what transitional protection has been considered? Thirdly, I turn to the transitional arrangements. Both instruments are intended to come into force on the 31st of October, but they use different tests to determine who benefits from the new provisions under the 1979 Act scheme.
The amendments apply where a person first fulfils the conditions of entitlement on or after that date. Under the 2008 Act scheme, the increased dependent rate applies where the sufferer dies on or after that date. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, explain the reason for using these different tests? How will the Department treat cases in which a person fulfils the entitlement conditions or dies shortly before the 31st of October? But the claim has not been determined by that date? In particular, what consideration has been given to families who may receive a substantially lower payment solely because the relevant event occurred shortly before the commencement date.
Fourthly, I turn to the speed of payments and the awareness of schemes. These schemes are intended, wherever possible, to provide compensation to sufferers during their own lifetimes. Given the often rapid progression of diseases following diagnosis, it is essential that applications are processed without unnecessary delay. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, tell the committee the current average and median processing time under both schemes? How many claimants have died after submitting a valid claim, but before receiving payment in each of the past five years? More broadly, improving entitlement is valuable only if those eligible are aware of the support available.
What further steps will the government take to work with clinicians, specialist nurses, charities and other support organisations to ensure that sufferers and their families are aware of these changes and can access compensation properly? Finally, I would welcome some clarification of the longer term future of these schemes. When the House considered the annual uprating regulations earlier this year, the minister confirmed that 3150 awards had been made under the two schemes in 2425, with total expenditure of £51.6 million. Given the long latency periods associated with asbestos related diseases, the human and financial consequences of historic exposure will continue to be felt for many years.
And the noble Baroness, the Minister, therefore outlined the government's projections for claimant numbers and expenditure over the next 5 to 10 years, including the additional expenditure expected to arise from these changes. I also welcome the continued practice of uprating these payments annually, notwithstanding the absence of a statutory obligation to do so. And can the noble Baroness, the Minister, confirm that the government intend to maintain that commitment in future years? These are fair and important reforms. They reflect the principle that families affected by these terrible diseases should not be disadvantaged simply because the sufferer dies before a claim can be made or payment can be received.
So, without any doubt at all, we therefore support both of these instruments. And if it helps the noble Baroness, the minister, and she wants to write on some of those questions, because there are quite a few, I'm very happy.
16:32
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My Lords. I'm very grateful to both noble Lords for those responses, and I'd like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for his. For his clear support and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their support for these changes. I had every confidence the House would want particularly to appreciate the. The. The alignment of rates for dependents and sufferers. I think the discussion we've had today, and again, it's been very helpful to hear the noble Lord, Lord Palmer pointed out. I mean, these diseases are products of our industrial heritage and people are suffering from them. Just went to work.
I think it was a very poignant way to put it. I mean, they simply gone to work. They'd done the right thing. And then through no fault of their own, they ended up suffering these terrible diseases decades later. And so this is the least we can do is to support people by giving them the compensation in the late years of their life. And at least now with these changes that can carry on even sometimes these diseases progress at really horrifically fast. And so sometimes the the claims cannot be processed in time, but at least now they will, they will they will know their dependents will get the money that's due to them.
A couple of other questions. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-scott, doesn't mind. I think she was asking for quite a lot of specific detail about projections. I will write to her on those because it would be it would be too much to be able to go through now. I think the comment to. There were two things I would want to address specifically. One was Will anyone lose out? It's not possible to rule out that a small number of people may receive less than they otherwise would have done as a result of removing certain supplementary provisions.
But the department expects the number affected to be to be very small, and taken together with the annual uprating and the wider package of reforms, the overall effect is expected to be positive for claimants and their dependents because at the moment, the gap between sufferers and dependents can be £7,000. So the gap is really very specific. But if I have any more precise information I will about modelling. I will write to the noble Lords and both noble Lords raise the question of clearance times, and that is why people are waiting along the processing times for claims and for related documentation.
I would want to reassure the committee that reducing processing times is a clear priority for my department. Journey times do vary depending on the complexity of individual cases. In some instances, additional checks are needed to make sure that the entitlement criteria are properly met, and while that can take longer, it is important to get the decisions right. But we are working hard to reduce backlogs and speed up claims, including modernising the processes that have been around before the pandemic and expanding the use, where appropriate, of paper based or video assessments for iidb and for certain prescribed conditions, of course, including diffuse mesothelioma and seven other specified conditions.
Disablement is automatically assessed at 100% is a medical assessment may not be necessary, and that and that would help ensure the most serious conditions receive faster decisions. But just to reassure noble Lords, we are working hard on that. There's no doubt there had been an increase in processing times for mesothelioma claims, but officials are working hard to to address that and to make sure customers receive their rewards as quickly as possible. I just want to reassure the committee that the department fully understands the implications and the impact on families of that, but they are working through understanding the reasons for that.
I think probably the the main questions that were asked, but I will go through Hansard and make sure if I've missed anything else, I will write to Noble Lords. I just want to say, finally, just as well as thanking noble Lords for their continued support for these schemes, and the government is absolutely committed on our part to sharing the importance of these schemes. But I would want to commend to the committee the importance of these reforms. Line compensation payable to dependants without payable to sufferers under both schemes and the fact. They will also allow, as this provision for payment to personal representatives.
I think the schemes will continue to support people affected by some of the most serious occupational diseases and, where appropriate, to their dependants. Just to say, the reforms before the committee were prompted by an independent legal review of the schemes, and they provided an opportunity to address a number of long standing issues relating to their operation. And taken together, these changes will align awards for dependents and sufferers. They'll provide greater clarity. And I would just say in terms of made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-scott, I share her position, would want also to have my thanks to many charities who had worked, who worked in this place.
Inspiration striking slowly had worked in this area, but in terms of communications, we did publish a press notice on the reforms endorsed by the Asbestos Victims Support Group to raise awareness of the changes, and we'll always keep an eye out for ways to make sure people know what's there. An estimation of awards I have reflecting further, I, I could say that the dependent rate increase is estimated to cost between 2 and £6 million annually, and the relevant date changes are expected to cost under £1 million, and both of which were funded through the 2025 spending review.
And just in terms of numbers, I think in the 2025 six, there were 220 awards for dependents under the 1979 act scheme, which is about 10% of the total caseload, £2.5 million paid out on the 2008 act scheme. There were around 70 awards in 2025, six to dependents, representing about 11% of the caseload, with 700,000 paid pounds paid out to those dependents. So going forward, the great news is dependents under both those schemes will benefit from equal payments to the sufferer. And I think that I think that's probably most of the points. But I said if there is anything else that I will, I will check the record and write to noble Lords.
So I would commend these amendments to both schemes to the Committee and ask approval to implement them. I beg to move.
I think it was a very poignant way to put it. I mean, they simply gone to work. They'd done the right thing. And then through no fault of their own, they ended up suffering these terrible diseases decades later. And so this is the least we can do is to support people by giving them the compensation in the late years of their life. And at least now with these changes that can carry on even sometimes these diseases progress at really horrifically fast. And so sometimes the the claims cannot be processed in time, but at least now they will, they will they will know their dependents will get the money that's due to them.
A couple of other questions. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-scott, doesn't mind. I think she was asking for quite a lot of specific detail about projections. I will write to her on those because it would be it would be too much to be able to go through now. I think the comment to. There were two things I would want to address specifically. One was Will anyone lose out? It's not possible to rule out that a small number of people may receive less than they otherwise would have done as a result of removing certain supplementary provisions.
But the department expects the number affected to be to be very small, and taken together with the annual uprating and the wider package of reforms, the overall effect is expected to be positive for claimants and their dependents because at the moment, the gap between sufferers and dependents can be £7,000. So the gap is really very specific. But if I have any more precise information I will about modelling. I will write to the noble Lords and both noble Lords raise the question of clearance times, and that is why people are waiting along the processing times for claims and for related documentation.
I would want to reassure the committee that reducing processing times is a clear priority for my department. Journey times do vary depending on the complexity of individual cases. In some instances, additional checks are needed to make sure that the entitlement criteria are properly met, and while that can take longer, it is important to get the decisions right. But we are working hard to reduce backlogs and speed up claims, including modernising the processes that have been around before the pandemic and expanding the use, where appropriate, of paper based or video assessments for iidb and for certain prescribed conditions, of course, including diffuse mesothelioma and seven other specified conditions.
Disablement is automatically assessed at 100% is a medical assessment may not be necessary, and that and that would help ensure the most serious conditions receive faster decisions. But just to reassure noble Lords, we are working hard on that. There's no doubt there had been an increase in processing times for mesothelioma claims, but officials are working hard to to address that and to make sure customers receive their rewards as quickly as possible. I just want to reassure the committee that the department fully understands the implications and the impact on families of that, but they are working through understanding the reasons for that.
I think probably the the main questions that were asked, but I will go through Hansard and make sure if I've missed anything else, I will write to Noble Lords. I just want to say, finally, just as well as thanking noble Lords for their continued support for these schemes, and the government is absolutely committed on our part to sharing the importance of these schemes. But I would want to commend to the committee the importance of these reforms. Line compensation payable to dependants without payable to sufferers under both schemes and the fact. They will also allow, as this provision for payment to personal representatives.
I think the schemes will continue to support people affected by some of the most serious occupational diseases and, where appropriate, to their dependants. Just to say, the reforms before the committee were prompted by an independent legal review of the schemes, and they provided an opportunity to address a number of long standing issues relating to their operation. And taken together, these changes will align awards for dependents and sufferers. They'll provide greater clarity. And I would just say in terms of made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-scott, I share her position, would want also to have my thanks to many charities who had worked, who worked in this place.
Inspiration striking slowly had worked in this area, but in terms of communications, we did publish a press notice on the reforms endorsed by the Asbestos Victims Support Group to raise awareness of the changes, and we'll always keep an eye out for ways to make sure people know what's there. An estimation of awards I have reflecting further, I, I could say that the dependent rate increase is estimated to cost between 2 and £6 million annually, and the relevant date changes are expected to cost under £1 million, and both of which were funded through the 2025 spending review.
And just in terms of numbers, I think in the 2025 six, there were 220 awards for dependents under the 1979 act scheme, which is about 10% of the total caseload, £2.5 million paid out on the 2008 act scheme. There were around 70 awards in 2025, six to dependents, representing about 11% of the caseload, with 700,000 paid pounds paid out to those dependents. So going forward, the great news is dependents under both those schemes will benefit from equal payments to the sufferer. And I think that I think that's probably most of the points. But I said if there is anything else that I will, I will check the record and write to noble Lords.
So I would commend these amendments to both schemes to the Committee and ask approval to implement them. I beg to move.
16:34
16:34
16:34
16:34
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Contrary, not content. The contents have it. There'll just be a short pause now while the ministerial bench is refreshed, I think. Border Security Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 specified purposes related to Policing Regulations 2026. Lord Collins of Highbury. My Lords, thank you, chair. I beg to move that the committee consider the draft Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act specified purposes related to Policing Regulations 2026. My Lords, these draft regulations are made under section 368 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 and specify the meaning of purposes related to policing.
16:41
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
To policing. They enabled the Secretary of State for transport in practice, so enabled the onward disclosure of trailer registration information by police and Home Office recipients to a person exercising policing purposes where the act permits. The regulations organising public functions for use in connection with the same for policing purposes. In short, the instrument gives full effect to the information sharing framework established by Parliament, enabling trailer registration information to be shared and used for the full range of specified policing purposes. It may assist the Committee if I briefly set out the background to these regulations. Before turning to their effect, these provisions form part of a wider framework established by Parliament to strengthen the use of data in support of policing and border security.
In 2018, Parliament enacted the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018, establishing the trailer Registration Scheme administered by the DVLA on behalf of the Secretary of State for transport and for the avoidance of doubt, the Trailer Registration Scheme Scheme does not collect biometric information. My Lords, following the tragic deaths of 39 Vietnamese nationals who were found in a lorry in Essex in October 2019, Parliament legislated through the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 to create an information sharing gateway for trailer registration information to be supplied to specified law enforcement bodies. The act allows the DVLA to supply trailer registration information to the police for specified purposes related to policing and for its onward disclosure by the police and the Home Office for the same purposes.
However, Parliament also required the meaning of purposes related to policing to be set out in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. Without these regulations, the relevant provisions would not be fully operable in practice. Police use would remain confined to law enforcement and national security purposes, limiting the practical value of the information in day to day policing scenarios. Falling outside those purposes. These regulations define purposes related to policing by reference to well established policing functions. They specify that the purpose include protecting life and property, preserving order, preventing the commission of offences, bringing offenders to justice, and any other police duty or responsibility arising from common or statute law.
This ensures that the trailer registration information can be used where it is operationally necessary, including in safeguarding roads, policing and the response to serious incidents, as well as criminal and criminal investigations. Regardless of whether lives are in danger or a gang is moving drugs. The police often rely on timely access to information to identify these concerns and respond effectively. These regulations do not create new powers. They do not expand the categories of information that may be shared. They simply define the scope within which existing statutory powers may be exercised. I recognise that the sharing and use of information must be supported by appropriate safeguards.
These regulations are limited and proportionate. They do not impose new duties on the police or the Home Office , and do not alter the wider legal framework that already applies. Existing protections continue to apply, including under the Data Protection Act 2018, the Human Rights Act 1998 and relevant public law Principles. The Information Commissioner's Office has been consulted and has raised no concerns in respect of this legislative change. Taken together, these safeguards ensure that trailer registration information is used lawfully and proportionately, proportionately, in accordance with section 369 of the act. The Home Office consulted the Scottish Ministers, the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland and police bodies across the United Kingdom.
Responses indicated broad agreement that the proposed definition reflects core policing functions, where consultees suggested refinements. The government concluded that these were. Matters were already encompassed within the proposed definition, and the approach aligns with the established policing codes of practice and information handling frameworks in Scotland. The Scottish Policing Principles will continue to apply and did not need to be separately referenced on the face of these regulations. These regulations will apply across the United Kingdom and are expected to be implemented through existing operational and IT processes, without the need for new systems or additional funding. My Lords, in summary, these regulations are necessary to give full effect to the trailer registration information sharing provisions in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 20 2015.
They provide clarity and consistency so that the police forces can use trailer registration information in support of their operational duties, and so that the police and the Home Office can onward disclose that information to those same policing purposes, subject to the appropriate safeguards. I move, my Lords.
In 2018, Parliament enacted the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018, establishing the trailer Registration Scheme administered by the DVLA on behalf of the Secretary of State for transport and for the avoidance of doubt, the Trailer Registration Scheme Scheme does not collect biometric information. My Lords, following the tragic deaths of 39 Vietnamese nationals who were found in a lorry in Essex in October 2019, Parliament legislated through the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 to create an information sharing gateway for trailer registration information to be supplied to specified law enforcement bodies. The act allows the DVLA to supply trailer registration information to the police for specified purposes related to policing and for its onward disclosure by the police and the Home Office for the same purposes.
However, Parliament also required the meaning of purposes related to policing to be set out in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. Without these regulations, the relevant provisions would not be fully operable in practice. Police use would remain confined to law enforcement and national security purposes, limiting the practical value of the information in day to day policing scenarios. Falling outside those purposes. These regulations define purposes related to policing by reference to well established policing functions. They specify that the purpose include protecting life and property, preserving order, preventing the commission of offences, bringing offenders to justice, and any other police duty or responsibility arising from common or statute law.
This ensures that the trailer registration information can be used where it is operationally necessary, including in safeguarding roads, policing and the response to serious incidents, as well as criminal and criminal investigations. Regardless of whether lives are in danger or a gang is moving drugs. The police often rely on timely access to information to identify these concerns and respond effectively. These regulations do not create new powers. They do not expand the categories of information that may be shared. They simply define the scope within which existing statutory powers may be exercised. I recognise that the sharing and use of information must be supported by appropriate safeguards.
These regulations are limited and proportionate. They do not impose new duties on the police or the Home Office , and do not alter the wider legal framework that already applies. Existing protections continue to apply, including under the Data Protection Act 2018, the Human Rights Act 1998 and relevant public law Principles. The Information Commissioner's Office has been consulted and has raised no concerns in respect of this legislative change. Taken together, these safeguards ensure that trailer registration information is used lawfully and proportionately, proportionately, in accordance with section 369 of the act. The Home Office consulted the Scottish Ministers, the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland and police bodies across the United Kingdom.
Responses indicated broad agreement that the proposed definition reflects core policing functions, where consultees suggested refinements. The government concluded that these were. Matters were already encompassed within the proposed definition, and the approach aligns with the established policing codes of practice and information handling frameworks in Scotland. The Scottish Policing Principles will continue to apply and did not need to be separately referenced on the face of these regulations. These regulations will apply across the United Kingdom and are expected to be implemented through existing operational and IT processes, without the need for new systems or additional funding. My Lords, in summary, these regulations are necessary to give full effect to the trailer registration information sharing provisions in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 20 2015.
They provide clarity and consistency so that the police forces can use trailer registration information in support of their operational duties, and so that the police and the Home Office can onward disclose that information to those same policing purposes, subject to the appropriate safeguards. I move, my Lords.
16:48
16:48
16:48
16:48
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
May I first of all thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for that description of what appears to be a fairly technical set of regulations, and one which closes a loophole in the in the operation of the of the system of trailer registration data. And it's clear that that this will actually close that loophole. And so that data can be shared for the full range of operational policing activities. And on that basis, we are pleased to support these regulations. However, there are three questions which I'd like to pose to the minister, which I think relate to what he said about how they will be operational, and I presume when we talk about them becoming operational, they be operational guidance or instruction or advice, whichever is given to to police forces and those responsible for the issues upon which what we're talking about.
So my first question is how will access and onward disclosure be controlled and audited so that we know what information is being passed and flowed one way or the other? My second question is how will the broad final category, and this is the one which the noble Lord, the minister, just now stated. Any other police duty or responsibility arising from common or state statute? Clearly, if I were to describe that as being a broad context, it is a broad context, and I. How would how will such a context be applied in practice if indeed it becomes so all encompassing, or is it designed to be.
There should be no areas which are which are out of bounds, as it were, in, in, in what that applies to and particularly, of course, important as far as as far as common law is concerned. And finally, what assurance can Parliament can we have about implementation? Given that the detailed operational guidance will not be published and there is no statutory review clause? So if we wished to continue to understand how this in general terms, how how these regulations are being implemented now and and what happens, how will Parliament be able to deal with that matter on that basis?
I'm prepared for when we are prepared for the Democrats to support these regulations.
So my first question is how will access and onward disclosure be controlled and audited so that we know what information is being passed and flowed one way or the other? My second question is how will the broad final category, and this is the one which the noble Lord, the minister, just now stated. Any other police duty or responsibility arising from common or state statute? Clearly, if I were to describe that as being a broad context, it is a broad context, and I. How would how will such a context be applied in practice if indeed it becomes so all encompassing, or is it designed to be.
There should be no areas which are which are out of bounds, as it were, in, in, in what that applies to and particularly, of course, important as far as as far as common law is concerned. And finally, what assurance can Parliament can we have about implementation? Given that the detailed operational guidance will not be published and there is no statutory review clause? So if we wished to continue to understand how this in general terms, how how these regulations are being implemented now and and what happens, how will Parliament be able to deal with that matter on that basis?
I'm prepared for when we are prepared for the Democrats to support these regulations.
16:51
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
My Lords. Can I to thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for setting out the background and the context to these regulations? The opposition support the regulations and the principles behind them and the rationale for them. And the only comment I would make briefly today is a procedural one rather than a substantial one. Given that the regulations are are uncontroversial and fit into an existing framework, and the power in the act exists to create them. The procedural point I make is, is purely to observe that it is quite a cumbersome process to use secondary legislation here for outlining specified purposes, when in fact the purposes could indeed have been placed in the act itself as primary legislation.
As the noble Lord, the minister himself said, these are well established policing functions and it seems, as I say, cumbersome to spend a year consulting to produce a list which anyone could, I think have come up with relatively briefly. And I raise these points purely to make, I think, a. An observation about what appears to be a serious problem about current legislative practice and leaving too much, in our view, to secondary legislation. But with those those observations, there is nothing negative in these regulations, and these benches support the underlying sections of both the primary legislation and the regulations themselves.
As the noble Lord, the minister himself said, these are well established policing functions and it seems, as I say, cumbersome to spend a year consulting to produce a list which anyone could, I think have come up with relatively briefly. And I raise these points purely to make, I think, a. An observation about what appears to be a serious problem about current legislative practice and leaving too much, in our view, to secondary legislation. But with those those observations, there is nothing negative in these regulations, and these benches support the underlying sections of both the primary legislation and the regulations themselves.
16:52
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
And I thank Noble Lords for their questions, and certainly, I welcome the support for these regulations from noble Lords that have contributed this afternoon. Of course, the reason why these regulations are here is because Parliament insisted on it. So I won't go into too much details about that. But can I just, in relation to the noble Lord German's questions, I mean, can I just say that, you know, we're very clear that these regulations do not lead to wider information sharing than Parliament insisted. The categories of information that may be shared remain unchanged. The bodies with whom information may be shared remain unchanged.
The legal gateway established by the primary legislation remains unchanged. So let me just reassure the noble Lord about that. And there is, you know, an important issue about safeguards on proportionality and privacy. And these are important considerations, whatever the government bring forward legislation involving sharing information, the trailer registration information covered by these provisions contains no biometric information. Provisions also remain subject to the existing legal framework governing the handling of personal data and public authority decision making. That includes the Data Protection Act 2018 UK, GDPR, the Human Rights Act 1998 and wider public law obligations. The regulations do not disapply or diminish any of those protections.
Any use of onward disclosure of information must continue to be lawful and necessary and proportionate in all the circumstances. And of course, the noble Lord also talked about the practical implementation. Implementation. I can confirm these regulations are intended to operate through existing operational and information sharing arrangements. No new IT systems are required. No new databases are being created. No new registration obligations are being imposed on citizens. Instead, the instrument enables existing trailer registration information already held within the statutory registration system to be shared and used in the manner that Parliament intended when enacting the 2025 act.
I hope that enables the Noble Lords to support the implementation, the instrument and I beg to move.
The legal gateway established by the primary legislation remains unchanged. So let me just reassure the noble Lord about that. And there is, you know, an important issue about safeguards on proportionality and privacy. And these are important considerations, whatever the government bring forward legislation involving sharing information, the trailer registration information covered by these provisions contains no biometric information. Provisions also remain subject to the existing legal framework governing the handling of personal data and public authority decision making. That includes the Data Protection Act 2018 UK, GDPR, the Human Rights Act 1998 and wider public law obligations. The regulations do not disapply or diminish any of those protections.
Any use of onward disclosure of information must continue to be lawful and necessary and proportionate in all the circumstances. And of course, the noble Lord also talked about the practical implementation. Implementation. I can confirm these regulations are intended to operate through existing operational and information sharing arrangements. No new IT systems are required. No new databases are being created. No new registration obligations are being imposed on citizens. Instead, the instrument enables existing trailer registration information already held within the statutory registration system to be shared and used in the manner that Parliament intended when enacting the 2025 act.
I hope that enables the Noble Lords to support the implementation, the instrument and I beg to move.
16:55
16:55
16:55
16:55
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you. Chair. I beg to move that the committee considered the Draft Licensing Act 2003 permitted Temporary Activities Amendment Order 2026, which was laid before the House on the 10th of September. My Lords, the purpose of this instrument is straightforward. It will increase the number of temporary event notices that may be given in respect of a single premises. The from 15 to 20 in each calendar year. It also increases the maximum number of days on which temporary events may take place at those premises, from 21 to 26 days, subject to Parliament's approval, these new limits will come into into force on the 1st of January 2027, when the entitlements reset.
My Lords, under the Licensing Act 2003, temporary event notices or tens provide a light touch mechanism to which the civil activities can take place on a temporary basis without the need for a full premises licence. These activities can include the sale or supply of alcohol, regulated entertainment and the provision of late night refreshment. Tens may also be used by premises that already hold a licence, where they wish temporarily to undertake activities or operate at times that are not covered by their existing authorisation. The Tens regime is used by a wide variety of businesses and community organisations.
It can enable a pub or restaurant to host an additional event, but it can equally support an event in a school or community centre or church hall . By increasing the premises level limits, this instrument will provide greater flexibility for well run local events and allow organisers to respond more effectively to demand within their communities. The government recognises the important contribution made by the hospitality sector to our economy, our high streets and our communities. The sector has faced challenging trading conditions and although this targeted measure cannot address every pressure faced by the sector, it will remove an unnecessary constraint for responsible businesses that wish to hold additional events.
My Lords, it can support local economic activity and provide more opportunities for communities to come together. These limits are not untested. The higher thresholds of 20 temporary event notices and 26 days applied on a temporary basis during 2022 and 2023, as part of the response to the economic effects of the Covid 19 pandemic, the Home Office has not identified evidence that points to adverse impacts arising from previous changes to tens limits. That previous experience is one factor supporting this change. Following a call for evidence on how to reform the licensing regime, this government has carefully considered the differing views expressed.
Hospitality businesses and trade bodies generally supported increased flexibility, while some local authorities, public health organisations, residents and community groups raised concerns about public nuisance, crime and disorder, public health and pressure on local authority resources. And we have taken those concerns seriously. Our conclusion is that the increasing the limits to 20 tens and 26 days is a proportionate adjustment. It provides for meaningful additional flexibility without changing the fundamental nature of the Tens regime. Importantly, this instrument does not remove or weaken the existing safeguards. The four licensing objectives will remain central to the operation of the regime.
The prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. The police and environmental health authorities will continue to be able to object to a notice where they consider that an event would undermine those objectives. Licensing authorities can issue a counter notice where they are satisfied that the concerns are valid limits applying to individual premises users, including personal licence holders and those who do not hold a personal licence, are not being changed, nor does the instrument, or to how individual tens or event days are counted. It simply increases the annual limits, applying to each premises by five notices and five days.
The instrument, which applies in England and Wales, also makes the necessary consequential changes to the prescribed ten forms. Statutory guidance will be updated to reflect the new limits when the order comes into force. My Lords, this is a modest, practical and proportionate reform. It will support responsible businesses and community activity while preserving the protections contained in the Licensing Act 2003. I beg to move.
My Lords, under the Licensing Act 2003, temporary event notices or tens provide a light touch mechanism to which the civil activities can take place on a temporary basis without the need for a full premises licence. These activities can include the sale or supply of alcohol, regulated entertainment and the provision of late night refreshment. Tens may also be used by premises that already hold a licence, where they wish temporarily to undertake activities or operate at times that are not covered by their existing authorisation. The Tens regime is used by a wide variety of businesses and community organisations.
It can enable a pub or restaurant to host an additional event, but it can equally support an event in a school or community centre or church hall . By increasing the premises level limits, this instrument will provide greater flexibility for well run local events and allow organisers to respond more effectively to demand within their communities. The government recognises the important contribution made by the hospitality sector to our economy, our high streets and our communities. The sector has faced challenging trading conditions and although this targeted measure cannot address every pressure faced by the sector, it will remove an unnecessary constraint for responsible businesses that wish to hold additional events.
My Lords, it can support local economic activity and provide more opportunities for communities to come together. These limits are not untested. The higher thresholds of 20 temporary event notices and 26 days applied on a temporary basis during 2022 and 2023, as part of the response to the economic effects of the Covid 19 pandemic, the Home Office has not identified evidence that points to adverse impacts arising from previous changes to tens limits. That previous experience is one factor supporting this change. Following a call for evidence on how to reform the licensing regime, this government has carefully considered the differing views expressed.
Hospitality businesses and trade bodies generally supported increased flexibility, while some local authorities, public health organisations, residents and community groups raised concerns about public nuisance, crime and disorder, public health and pressure on local authority resources. And we have taken those concerns seriously. Our conclusion is that the increasing the limits to 20 tens and 26 days is a proportionate adjustment. It provides for meaningful additional flexibility without changing the fundamental nature of the Tens regime. Importantly, this instrument does not remove or weaken the existing safeguards. The four licensing objectives will remain central to the operation of the regime.
The prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. The police and environmental health authorities will continue to be able to object to a notice where they consider that an event would undermine those objectives. Licensing authorities can issue a counter notice where they are satisfied that the concerns are valid limits applying to individual premises users, including personal licence holders and those who do not hold a personal licence, are not being changed, nor does the instrument, or to how individual tens or event days are counted. It simply increases the annual limits, applying to each premises by five notices and five days.
The instrument, which applies in England and Wales, also makes the necessary consequential changes to the prescribed ten forms. Statutory guidance will be updated to reflect the new limits when the order comes into force. My Lords, this is a modest, practical and proportionate reform. It will support responsible businesses and community activity while preserving the protections contained in the Licensing Act 2003. I beg to move.
17:02
17:02
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
My Lords, I was chief executive of the Beer and Pub Association at the time. The Licensing Act 2003 was online. I spent many, I shan't say happy hours debating tens. But every other aspect of the licensing bill as it then was, I should make clear that I have no specific link now with the industry, although obviously I retain many contacts. So I'm therefore speaking as an individual rather than somebody who has a direct association with the industry. Can I say that I agree completely with what the minister said in introducing his in his introductory comments?
Firstly, that the hospitality industry is facing massive difficulties at the moment for a whole series of reasons, with the with pubs closing at a depressing rate. But it not only affects pubs, but it also affects restaurants as well. But as the Minister said, we are talking here when it comes to tens to about responsibly run premises and taking a decision in relation to previous experience, I noted in the analysis, provided that certain sectors had objected the health authorities, for example. But their comments, I'm sure, relate not to this group of businesses because, as the minister has said, quite specifically, the police and other organisations still retain their capacity to object, whether it's to the existing lower level of tens or the proposed increased level in general.
It's fair to say that what happens is that pubs or restaurants will chart the events that they will want to celebrate on special occasions. They will look at football World Cups, Rugby World Cups and other major events and they will probably reach the limit and therefore a degree of flexibility is sensible. I can only imagine, as ones progressing towards the end of the calendar year, that in light of Fleetwood's great success last night in in beating Arsenal, there may be a number of pubs and restaurants in Fleetwood who happen to be up against their tens limit.
Who may want to have another celebration this weekend and many congratulations to them. So overwhelmingly overall, sorry. Overall, I would say I welcome this proposal. I welcome it having experienced the detail of the original Licensing Act, and I think it is a sensible, as the Minister suggested, a change to the current regime.
Firstly, that the hospitality industry is facing massive difficulties at the moment for a whole series of reasons, with the with pubs closing at a depressing rate. But it not only affects pubs, but it also affects restaurants as well. But as the Minister said, we are talking here when it comes to tens to about responsibly run premises and taking a decision in relation to previous experience, I noted in the analysis, provided that certain sectors had objected the health authorities, for example. But their comments, I'm sure, relate not to this group of businesses because, as the minister has said, quite specifically, the police and other organisations still retain their capacity to object, whether it's to the existing lower level of tens or the proposed increased level in general.
It's fair to say that what happens is that pubs or restaurants will chart the events that they will want to celebrate on special occasions. They will look at football World Cups, Rugby World Cups and other major events and they will probably reach the limit and therefore a degree of flexibility is sensible. I can only imagine, as ones progressing towards the end of the calendar year, that in light of Fleetwood's great success last night in in beating Arsenal, there may be a number of pubs and restaurants in Fleetwood who happen to be up against their tens limit.
Who may want to have another celebration this weekend and many congratulations to them. So overwhelmingly overall, sorry. Overall, I would say I welcome this proposal. I welcome it having experienced the detail of the original Licensing Act, and I think it is a sensible, as the Minister suggested, a change to the current regime.
17:05
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
My Lords, I'm. I hope I'm allowed to speak from this far away. Just to address a few remarks and questions, if I may, to the Minister. I very much welcome the regulations before us this afternoon, and was delighted to serve on the Committee with my noble friend. When we looked at the review of the Licensing Act 2003, a number of concerns have been raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which I would welcome the opportunity just to press the Minister on for. In particular, is there any reason why the changes have been made at this late stage?
Is it just administrative? Obviously, it's good that they're going to be in place before the matches take place, but it is a source of concern that any changes that are going to be made, that there is sufficient consultation of the licensed premises and police in that regard, and whether the Home Office have considered whether a minimum notice period for the police might assist their planning and thereby reduce public safety risks. This approach may, at the same time also help licensed venues themselves, for example, employing their staffing. So there's there's nothing too critical in what I'm commenting on in the regulations, but I would welcome the noble Lord the minister's comments in regard to the timing and allowing sufficient preparation for all the parties concerned in these regulations before us this afternoon.
Is it just administrative? Obviously, it's good that they're going to be in place before the matches take place, but it is a source of concern that any changes that are going to be made, that there is sufficient consultation of the licensed premises and police in that regard, and whether the Home Office have considered whether a minimum notice period for the police might assist their planning and thereby reduce public safety risks. This approach may, at the same time also help licensed venues themselves, for example, employing their staffing. So there's there's nothing too critical in what I'm commenting on in the regulations, but I would welcome the noble Lord the minister's comments in regard to the timing and allowing sufficient preparation for all the parties concerned in these regulations before us this afternoon.
17:07
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
My Lords, can I again thank the noble Lord for setting out the rationale and the purpose of this order, and it's somewhat unusually, I find myself in complete support of the government's policy in this regard. The overall impact of the order, as the Noble Order Minister has said, is to expand the number of events that licensed premises can hold each year under a temporary event notice from 15 to 20, and that continues the trajectory that began the temporary expansion of tens during the Covid pandemic, a policy implemented to help hospitality businesses that were struggling so much from the impact of lockdowns.
But as my noble friend Lord Haywood has just said, the struggles experienced by the hospitality sector have not abated. And here I fear I am more critical of the government because today hospitality businesses are suffering under the collective weight of this government's hike in employers and I contributions, the increased minimum wage and of course, the increase in business rates. And perhaps the most revealing fact about this statutory instrument is the explanatory memorandum which admits that hospitality businesses continue to face, and I quote, challenging trading conditions, including high input costs, low margins and wider financial pressures.
And with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, the minister, the government might want to ask itself who is responsible for those pressures, and if the government is truly committed to easing the burden on the hospitality sector, and they might consider scrapping business rates entirely for most high street hospitality and leisure businesses, as my party has advocated. Turning to another point, my Lords, I note that the consultation undertaken by the Home Office saw 70% of public health stakeholders and 51% of local authorities strongly opposed to. To this measure, I find that deeply troubling. And might I ask the noble Lord, the minister, which health stakeholders were consulted?
For example, was it mostly NHS trusts and icbs, or was it the health sector more widely? Health charities, NGOs, etc.? I think it is concerning that we appear to have so many people opposed to measures that will not only help struggling businesses and boost the economy, but also allow wider variety of events to go ahead with all the social benefits they bring. And I welcome, therefore, the government has taken the decision to proceed with this measure nonetheless and commend the government for standing by their policy. The explanatory memorandum, my Lords, also sets out the benefits envisaged by the government from this policy change and establishes that the entire purpose is to try and help help out those struggling hospitality businesses.
To conclude, my Lords, whilst we agree with this order and welcome the fact that the government persisted with it, there is clearly much more to be done to help our struggling hospitality sector.
But as my noble friend Lord Haywood has just said, the struggles experienced by the hospitality sector have not abated. And here I fear I am more critical of the government because today hospitality businesses are suffering under the collective weight of this government's hike in employers and I contributions, the increased minimum wage and of course, the increase in business rates. And perhaps the most revealing fact about this statutory instrument is the explanatory memorandum which admits that hospitality businesses continue to face, and I quote, challenging trading conditions, including high input costs, low margins and wider financial pressures.
And with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, the minister, the government might want to ask itself who is responsible for those pressures, and if the government is truly committed to easing the burden on the hospitality sector, and they might consider scrapping business rates entirely for most high street hospitality and leisure businesses, as my party has advocated. Turning to another point, my Lords, I note that the consultation undertaken by the Home Office saw 70% of public health stakeholders and 51% of local authorities strongly opposed to. To this measure, I find that deeply troubling. And might I ask the noble Lord, the minister, which health stakeholders were consulted?
For example, was it mostly NHS trusts and icbs, or was it the health sector more widely? Health charities, NGOs, etc.? I think it is concerning that we appear to have so many people opposed to measures that will not only help struggling businesses and boost the economy, but also allow wider variety of events to go ahead with all the social benefits they bring. And I welcome, therefore, the government has taken the decision to proceed with this measure nonetheless and commend the government for standing by their policy. The explanatory memorandum, my Lords, also sets out the benefits envisaged by the government from this policy change and establishes that the entire purpose is to try and help help out those struggling hospitality businesses.
To conclude, my Lords, whilst we agree with this order and welcome the fact that the government persisted with it, there is clearly much more to be done to help our struggling hospitality sector.
17:10
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Well, I thank Noble Lords for their contributions. And can I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, I think what we've seen from today's budget is clearly a focus on how we can support businesses, particularly our high street businesses, and ensure that they can respond to decades of neglect from the previous government. But can I just say, I mean, I hear the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, his compassion and understanding about last night's result. I think I think I would say that actually, Fleetwood have got plenty of places where they can celebrate. It's a fantastic town, and I actually wish them all the best for future games in the the League Cup.
Can I just say that, you know, I, I think I want to echo the noble Lords point and to address some of the issues that Baroness Mackintosh raised. You know, we have given careful consideration to concerns. And these are limited increases. You know, this is a limited increase is a sensible approach, ensuring that safeguards which govern trains regime remain effective whilst supporting businesses and communities. And of course, as I said in my introduction, a licensing authority may issue a counter notice to stop ten. And of course, the recommendation for this change came from the licensing task force last year, led by the DBT, and we held a call for evidence to understand a wide range of views, which took time.
But the new limits will be in place in January. So just to address that point, and also, I mean, I think it's not unreasonable to consult particularly on health issues. And this government recognises the significant harm that alcohol misuse can cause to individuals, families and communities. So those those health responses are not, you know, not surprising. I think addressing alcohol related health harms remains a key priority for this government and certainly in fit for the future. The ten year health plan for England, we've committed to crucial first steps to support people to make healthier choices about alcohol, as well as setting out a multiyear funding settlement for drug and alcohol treatment through the public health grant.
So I think, you know, there is a clear consensus about the importance of these relatively small changes, which I think will help and contribute to not only small businesses and pubs and hospitality sector, but also community activity. And I think that's what the noble Lord, Lord Heywood was referring to. So I welcome the support from noble Lords and I beg to move.
Can I just say that, you know, I, I think I want to echo the noble Lords point and to address some of the issues that Baroness Mackintosh raised. You know, we have given careful consideration to concerns. And these are limited increases. You know, this is a limited increase is a sensible approach, ensuring that safeguards which govern trains regime remain effective whilst supporting businesses and communities. And of course, as I said in my introduction, a licensing authority may issue a counter notice to stop ten. And of course, the recommendation for this change came from the licensing task force last year, led by the DBT, and we held a call for evidence to understand a wide range of views, which took time.
But the new limits will be in place in January. So just to address that point, and also, I mean, I think it's not unreasonable to consult particularly on health issues. And this government recognises the significant harm that alcohol misuse can cause to individuals, families and communities. So those those health responses are not, you know, not surprising. I think addressing alcohol related health harms remains a key priority for this government and certainly in fit for the future. The ten year health plan for England, we've committed to crucial first steps to support people to make healthier choices about alcohol, as well as setting out a multiyear funding settlement for drug and alcohol treatment through the public health grant.
So I think, you know, there is a clear consensus about the importance of these relatively small changes, which I think will help and contribute to not only small businesses and pubs and hospitality sector, but also community activity. And I think that's what the noble Lord, Lord Heywood was referring to. So I welcome the support from noble Lords and I beg to move.
17:14
17:14
17:14
17:14
17:15
17:15
17:15
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
To move that the committee consider the Renewables Obligation and Electricity Capacity amendment. British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme Excluded Electricity Regulations 2026. This instrument was laid on the 7th of September 2026. I would like to acknowledge and thank the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for their work in scrutinising these regulations. My Lord, this instrument delivers one of the government's flagship commitments of the Industrial strategy, the British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme, also referred to as Bix Bix, is a central part of our drive to engineer the Reindustrialization of Great Britain. Biggs will address persistent competitiveness, competitiveness challenges facing British manufacturers by reducing electricity costs for eligible businesses.
It will drive investment and economic growth in strategically important sectors across Great Britain. Fix is expected to cut electricity costs by up to 25%, or £40 per megawatt hour, for over 10,000 manufacturing businesses. It will support frontier manufacturing industries within the Is eight sectors and foundational manufacturing industries, which provide key inputs to their supply chains. This includes eligible businesses in automotive, aerospace, aerospace, clean energy industries, life sciences, chemicals, steel sectors , and more. For too long, British industries have faced some of the highest industrial electricity prices in Europe due to a combination of structural factors and policy costs.
Eligible businesses will begin receiving support from April 2027, when they will be exempt from paying the indirect costs of the renewables obligation and feed in tariffs, and receive a further exemption on their capacity market costs from October 2027 onwards. Eligible businesses will also receive an additional payment in 2027 related to the amount they would have received had the scheme been operational in 2026. The policy costs are paid for by electricity suppliers, who typically charge them to their domestic and non-domestic customers via their electricity bills. This instrument implements the renewable obligation and the capacity market exemptions , and enables the renewable Obligation level for the 2020 728 obligation period to be revised in light of Biggs.
It also provides for the eligible eligibility criteria for Bix, how the level of discount will be calculated, and other elements of scheme design. An instrument to exempt eligible businesses from the indirect costs of the Fit, which is the Me. The feed in tariffs will also be made. In conclusion, Bix will support British manufacturing businesses to be more internationally competitive by reducing electricity costs to support and drive investment and economic growth across Great Britain.
My Lords, I beg to move.
It will drive investment and economic growth in strategically important sectors across Great Britain. Fix is expected to cut electricity costs by up to 25%, or £40 per megawatt hour, for over 10,000 manufacturing businesses. It will support frontier manufacturing industries within the Is eight sectors and foundational manufacturing industries, which provide key inputs to their supply chains. This includes eligible businesses in automotive, aerospace, aerospace, clean energy industries, life sciences, chemicals, steel sectors , and more. For too long, British industries have faced some of the highest industrial electricity prices in Europe due to a combination of structural factors and policy costs.
Eligible businesses will begin receiving support from April 2027, when they will be exempt from paying the indirect costs of the renewables obligation and feed in tariffs, and receive a further exemption on their capacity market costs from October 2027 onwards. Eligible businesses will also receive an additional payment in 2027 related to the amount they would have received had the scheme been operational in 2026. The policy costs are paid for by electricity suppliers, who typically charge them to their domestic and non-domestic customers via their electricity bills. This instrument implements the renewable obligation and the capacity market exemptions , and enables the renewable Obligation level for the 2020 728 obligation period to be revised in light of Biggs.
It also provides for the eligible eligibility criteria for Bix, how the level of discount will be calculated, and other elements of scheme design. An instrument to exempt eligible businesses from the indirect costs of the Fit, which is the Me. The feed in tariffs will also be made. In conclusion, Bix will support British manufacturing businesses to be more internationally competitive by reducing electricity costs to support and drive investment and economic growth across Great Britain.
My Lords, I beg to move.
17:19
17:19
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
My Lords, we discussed this scheme in the main chamber some months ago, so I will not repeat all the points here. And so let's be so churlish as to not recognise that any help for the material economy that employs so many people, especially in the chemical industry, which in turn produces the raw materials that other manufacturers can produce for their output. It's all to be welcomed. But the problem is that the sums of money we're talking about here are insufficient to make a real difference. There are no substitute for reducing energy costs, so at least we stand a chance of competing in the global race.
And of course, industry is on its knees , suffering the highest energy costs in the Western world, and a relatively small number of businesses will benefit from Bix, leaving tens of thousands to fend for themselves. Continue to pay for the feed in tariffs, the renewal obligations and the capacity market obligations. My Lords, if we just stopped all these well-meaning but counterproductive regulatory layers, we wouldn't need the BIC system, which doesn't even start until next year. And with gas prices 12 times higher than the the US molar benchmark and €90 TTF for gas upon which ammonia and other raw materials are produced.
Now the need for help is now instead today. Only today, the government has announced a consultation on extending Cbam to refinery products, which will just drive up the cost of industrial raw materials even more. We're never going to get rich by erecting a high tariff wall around our economy to keep everyone else out. We don't need more policy money. Go rounds like Bix. We just need energy costs that are comparable or comparable to our competitors. I only hope that the businesses that stand to benefit from this measure will be around to receive it on April the 1st, and until then, we and they are just gonna have to hold their breaths.
And of course, industry is on its knees , suffering the highest energy costs in the Western world, and a relatively small number of businesses will benefit from Bix, leaving tens of thousands to fend for themselves. Continue to pay for the feed in tariffs, the renewal obligations and the capacity market obligations. My Lords, if we just stopped all these well-meaning but counterproductive regulatory layers, we wouldn't need the BIC system, which doesn't even start until next year. And with gas prices 12 times higher than the the US molar benchmark and €90 TTF for gas upon which ammonia and other raw materials are produced.
Now the need for help is now instead today. Only today, the government has announced a consultation on extending Cbam to refinery products, which will just drive up the cost of industrial raw materials even more. We're never going to get rich by erecting a high tariff wall around our economy to keep everyone else out. We don't need more policy money. Go rounds like Bix. We just need energy costs that are comparable or comparable to our competitors. I only hope that the businesses that stand to benefit from this measure will be around to receive it on April the 1st, and until then, we and they are just gonna have to hold their breaths.
17:21
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to. Just a couple of questions, if I may, to the Minister. I'm grateful also to the. Secondary Legislation Committee who looked at this in a little secondary legislation scrutiny committee and a little bit of detail. The figures they give , they compare the cost of of energy per kilowatt hour in Great Britain has been £61, and only if I've understood it correctly, only £2 per megawatt hour in France. And similarly, only £10 per megawatt hour in Germany. Curiously, we don't have the figures for the real beasts in the field, which are China, the US, Brazil and India.
So that that would have been interesting. My question really relates to how this is going to be funded. The Department has said that cost reductions will be funded through a combination of Treasury funding and changes within the energy system, and that these changes include removing the annual adjustment for inflation under the Renewable Obligation Scheme and the feed in tariff schemes from the retail Price Index to the Consumer Price Index, and from April 2028, removing a tax on fossil fuels used in electricity generation. So my concern is if we don't actually know what the rate of inflation is at any one time, I.
I do ask how we know what the funds to cover this scheme will will be. So with those few remarks, I would just like to ask the Minister if he could satisfy me on on that point of how it's going to be funded.
So that that would have been interesting. My question really relates to how this is going to be funded. The Department has said that cost reductions will be funded through a combination of Treasury funding and changes within the energy system, and that these changes include removing the annual adjustment for inflation under the Renewable Obligation Scheme and the feed in tariff schemes from the retail Price Index to the Consumer Price Index, and from April 2028, removing a tax on fossil fuels used in electricity generation. So my concern is if we don't actually know what the rate of inflation is at any one time, I.
I do ask how we know what the funds to cover this scheme will will be. So with those few remarks, I would just like to ask the Minister if he could satisfy me on on that point of how it's going to be funded.
17:23
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
My Lord, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations on these benches. We recognise the impact of high energy costs are having on businesses, and we welcome government measures to provide further support. These regulations implement the British Industrial Competitive Scheme, as the Minister has said, the successor to the British Industry Supercharger by expanding eligibility manufacturing businesses from the indirect costs of the renewables obligation and the capacity market that supplies pass, that suppliers pass on through energy bills, they also allow the Secretary of State once and before the end of March to receive the renewables obligation level for 2020 728.
My Lords, the need for these is clear. The government's own impact assessment puts the policy costs for very large industrial users in Great Britain at around £61 per megawatt hour, against £2 in France and ten in Germany, and no manufacturer can compete on those terms. And we have long called for more to be done in this space. So we do welcome this scheme and we welcome the breadth of the scheme as well. The supercharger supports around 550 of the most electricity intensive businesses. The scheme this scheme is expected to support more than 10,000, with savings of 35 to £40 per megawatt hour from 2027.
I also welcome the commitment that it will not raise the bills for those who are not eligible. I have a couple of questions on timing. I note that applications opened on the 1st of October and closed at the end of play on the 30th of November. This leaves about five weeks to gather evidence and submit an application that, as I understand it, cannot be amended. So can I ask the noble Lord what happens to a firm that either misses that deadline or makes an error in their application? Do they need to wait a full year, or is there opportunity to amend?
Or is there a later window available to businesses? And can I ask what actions government are taking to reach the thousands of manufacturers who may not even know that this scheme exists? Obviously, with any cut off, some businesses are included and by definition some are excluded. Firms must be registered at companies House, so sole traders and unregistered partnerships obviously fall outside. Site must use at least 33 megawatt hours a year, and the relief itself is tiered. And those tiers are quite sharp as well. So any any firm that falls just below that tier obviously could have a substantial could receive substantially less support.
Eligibility also depends on lists of industrial and commodity codes. And that obviously again, produces edges. On funding. I note that it has been said it comes partly from moving the inflation adjustment on the renewables obligation from RPI to CPI and removing the tax on fossil fuels in generation from April 2028. So while we welcome this, this support, we do want to be clear that this cannot be the whole answer in terms of government support to industry with energy costs. Obviously, this is only supporting a small section of our economy. For example, the hospitality sector, small and medium sized enterprises face the same costs and they sit outside of this scheme, and particularly for hospitality and small businesses, these the cost of energy is obviously having a real impact on their trade, trade and turnover.
Policy costs are only one part of the problem. Gas still sets the wholesale price at least 60% of the time. So until we build faster, connect the grid sooner, help with energy efficiency, or have energy market reform, these these problems will persist. So can I just simply ask the minister, does does the government accept that electricity costs support must must reach beyond these sectors? And what work is underway to support SMEs and hospitality hospitality sector outside of this cap? The support mechanism is also complex to apply for and complex to administer. So I would encourage the government to to do more, as they're doing with residential electricity costs to to automate this system and have an automatic system whereby the better use of data by government can help provide that support.
This is a sensible and long overdue step. We we welcome this regulation, but I do hope that the government is intending to do more in this space to support industry with the cost of energy. With that, I beg to move.
My Lords, the need for these is clear. The government's own impact assessment puts the policy costs for very large industrial users in Great Britain at around £61 per megawatt hour, against £2 in France and ten in Germany, and no manufacturer can compete on those terms. And we have long called for more to be done in this space. So we do welcome this scheme and we welcome the breadth of the scheme as well. The supercharger supports around 550 of the most electricity intensive businesses. The scheme this scheme is expected to support more than 10,000, with savings of 35 to £40 per megawatt hour from 2027.
I also welcome the commitment that it will not raise the bills for those who are not eligible. I have a couple of questions on timing. I note that applications opened on the 1st of October and closed at the end of play on the 30th of November. This leaves about five weeks to gather evidence and submit an application that, as I understand it, cannot be amended. So can I ask the noble Lord what happens to a firm that either misses that deadline or makes an error in their application? Do they need to wait a full year, or is there opportunity to amend?
Or is there a later window available to businesses? And can I ask what actions government are taking to reach the thousands of manufacturers who may not even know that this scheme exists? Obviously, with any cut off, some businesses are included and by definition some are excluded. Firms must be registered at companies House, so sole traders and unregistered partnerships obviously fall outside. Site must use at least 33 megawatt hours a year, and the relief itself is tiered. And those tiers are quite sharp as well. So any any firm that falls just below that tier obviously could have a substantial could receive substantially less support.
Eligibility also depends on lists of industrial and commodity codes. And that obviously again, produces edges. On funding. I note that it has been said it comes partly from moving the inflation adjustment on the renewables obligation from RPI to CPI and removing the tax on fossil fuels in generation from April 2028. So while we welcome this, this support, we do want to be clear that this cannot be the whole answer in terms of government support to industry with energy costs. Obviously, this is only supporting a small section of our economy. For example, the hospitality sector, small and medium sized enterprises face the same costs and they sit outside of this scheme, and particularly for hospitality and small businesses, these the cost of energy is obviously having a real impact on their trade, trade and turnover.
Policy costs are only one part of the problem. Gas still sets the wholesale price at least 60% of the time. So until we build faster, connect the grid sooner, help with energy efficiency, or have energy market reform, these these problems will persist. So can I just simply ask the minister, does does the government accept that electricity costs support must must reach beyond these sectors? And what work is underway to support SMEs and hospitality hospitality sector outside of this cap? The support mechanism is also complex to apply for and complex to administer. So I would encourage the government to to do more, as they're doing with residential electricity costs to to automate this system and have an automatic system whereby the better use of data by government can help provide that support.
This is a sensible and long overdue step. We we welcome this regulation, but I do hope that the government is intending to do more in this space to support industry with the cost of energy. With that, I beg to move.
17:29
17:29
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
The noble Lord, the Minister, for introducing today's amendment. My Lords, His Majesty's loyal opposition welcomes this measure, which expands the scheme introduced by the now leader of the Conservative Party when she was Business and Trade Secretary, the British Industry Supercharger was set up to promote the international competitiveness competitiveness of Britain's strategically important industries, exempting industries such as steel and chemicals from certain costs linked to renewable energy policies, including the renewables obligation and the capacity market. The scheme currently supports roughly 550 businesses and over half a million skilled workers. This expanded British Industrial Competitiveness scheme could reach up to 14,000 businesses and several times more employees.
My Lords, that's a welcome development, not least because it shows that the government agrees with the Conservative Party that the renewables obligation and similar net zero policies are holding back business and will be better off scrapped. I think as my noble Lord and my noble friend the Lord Fowler said, we don't need lots of fancy schemes, we just need to cut the electricity bill and Bob's your uncle. The rest falls into place. Now, we currently have the highest industrial energy prices in the OECD, which are causing our manufacturing industries to rapidly de-industrialized and making us dependent on imports.
Early on in his speech, the noble Lord, the minister said this was part of the government's reindustrialisation strategy. My Lords, we don't have a reindustrialisation strategy at the moment. We're facing deindustrialisation on a massive scale and waiting until 20 2017 for help is too late. For example, it says 20. Since the year 2000, the United Kingdom's fertiliser output has halved, driven largely by those high energy costs. We only have large scale fertiliser. One fertiliser producer remaining, which itself now uses imported ammonia after the two largest ammonia plants in the UK were shut down in 2022 and 2023, UK fertiliser use has fallen by 19% in the ten years up to 2024.
Making UK produce food's more expensive or discourages farmers from using it. Lowering crop yields it is industries like this which should be competing internationally and growing the British Britain's economy, which are currently being oppressed by ideological carbon taxes.
My Lords, that's a welcome development, not least because it shows that the government agrees with the Conservative Party that the renewables obligation and similar net zero policies are holding back business and will be better off scrapped. I think as my noble Lord and my noble friend the Lord Fowler said, we don't need lots of fancy schemes, we just need to cut the electricity bill and Bob's your uncle. The rest falls into place. Now, we currently have the highest industrial energy prices in the OECD, which are causing our manufacturing industries to rapidly de-industrialized and making us dependent on imports.
Early on in his speech, the noble Lord, the minister said this was part of the government's reindustrialisation strategy. My Lords, we don't have a reindustrialisation strategy at the moment. We're facing deindustrialisation on a massive scale and waiting until 20 2017 for help is too late. For example, it says 20. Since the year 2000, the United Kingdom's fertiliser output has halved, driven largely by those high energy costs. We only have large scale fertiliser. One fertiliser producer remaining, which itself now uses imported ammonia after the two largest ammonia plants in the UK were shut down in 2022 and 2023, UK fertiliser use has fallen by 19% in the ten years up to 2024.
Making UK produce food's more expensive or discourages farmers from using it. Lowering crop yields it is industries like this which should be competing internationally and growing the British Britain's economy, which are currently being oppressed by ideological carbon taxes.
17:31
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Would my noble friend give way without declaring an interest, although I will, I am in the fertilizer industry and I agree with just about every word he said. But the consequences of the lack of ammonia production in this country isn't just harming our farmers, though, that is, it's reducing the ability for us to produce energetic explosives and weapons because as we as we face a dangerous world, we need to think about our national security as well as our food security and the energy security policies of this government are making us more vulnerable in a dangerous world than we otherwise would have been.
17:32
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
I thank my noble friend. I'm disappointed he only agreed with nearly every word I said. And not not everywhere. But he's absolutely right. I merely quoted farming as one example, which is suffering because of high energy costs and reducing our capacity to produce fertiliser. However, my Lords, in order for the scheme to successfully remove costs and benefit these industries, it must provide help to firms large and small wherever they fall in the supply chain. There is a skepticism as to whether the policy achieves that, specifically, the fact that the scheme will only be eligible to to available to eligible businesses that use at least 33MW per hour of goods.
Supplied electricity a year raises concerns small businesses farm firms with under 50 employees use up to 25 megawatt hours annually. For Micro-businesses, that number is only 15 megawatt hours. Now, the government acknowledges that the renewable obligation certificates and capacity market costs are symmetrically damage British companies competitiveness. But it is the smaller firms who don't necessarily have the same margins to deal with that. Those who are relatively the most affected by these policies. Now, there's a chance that the scheme misses these businesses entirely. Surely, my Lords, the government should be focusing on protecting them and promoting their competitiveness as a priority.
And will the noble Lord, the minister, commit to keeping these smaller firms, which are just as important to supply chains, keeping them under review as well? My Lords, I also make a more general point. Implicit in this expanded scheme is the government's recognition that certain net zero policies are economically damaging. It recognises that we're lagging behind when it comes to global competitiveness, and that much of the result of the policy costs they themselves support the impact assessment calls. Because part of the government's package for Reindustrialisation, I've criticised that already undermined technology that reindustrialisation is impossible, or at least markedly difficult when policy costs are piled upon industry.
Supplied electricity a year raises concerns small businesses farm firms with under 50 employees use up to 25 megawatt hours annually. For Micro-businesses, that number is only 15 megawatt hours. Now, the government acknowledges that the renewable obligation certificates and capacity market costs are symmetrically damage British companies competitiveness. But it is the smaller firms who don't necessarily have the same margins to deal with that. Those who are relatively the most affected by these policies. Now, there's a chance that the scheme misses these businesses entirely. Surely, my Lords, the government should be focusing on protecting them and promoting their competitiveness as a priority.
And will the noble Lord, the minister, commit to keeping these smaller firms, which are just as important to supply chains, keeping them under review as well? My Lords, I also make a more general point. Implicit in this expanded scheme is the government's recognition that certain net zero policies are economically damaging. It recognises that we're lagging behind when it comes to global competitiveness, and that much of the result of the policy costs they themselves support the impact assessment calls. Because part of the government's package for Reindustrialisation, I've criticised that already undermined technology that reindustrialisation is impossible, or at least markedly difficult when policy costs are piled upon industry.
17:34
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
On that subject, my noble friend, give way for this intervention from the backbenches, and I declare my interest as chairman of Amy Acton and Buckthorn. Wouldn't he not at least recognize the importance of the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, when he was talking about the cost of energy? And was he not as surprised as I am on that subject that in the OBR report today, on page 93, there is the sentence. The projection includes production from currently producing fields, including jackdaw and the Nzta's estimate of production from the development of new fields, which includes Rosebank specifically stated as Rosebank.
And does my noble friend not believe that, or have the remotest idea why something of such magnitude was not announced today by the Chancellor himself?
And does my noble friend not believe that, or have the remotest idea why something of such magnitude was not announced today by the Chancellor himself?
17:35
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
My noble friend makes a very good point. We seem to be getting a lot of duplicitous statements and comments about Rosebank. We've got one of the biggest oil and gas fields in in in our history, sitting out there off the Shetland Islands. We should be using it. And there is no moral sense in trying to import gas from around the world and not use our own supplies. It does not add any more to global warming whatsoever. We should be using it, and I look forward to hearing what the government's decision on Rosebank will be. If we can announce that the a huge oil field in the Falkland Islands, why is it morally wrong to announce an oil field in our own territorial waters?
No doubt one day we might be importing our own oil from the Falkland Islands. Now, my Lords, the impact assessment, as I said, calls on the claims as part of the government's package for Reindustrialisation. And I'm concerned it's not reindustrialisation. It continues to stop it. It continues to be deindustrialisation. So if these facts were recognised by the government, why stop at businesses who fill a strategic criterion? Surely competitiveness is a general good, but not every business benefit from lower costs and higher efficiency would not be more prudent. Instead of arbitrarily determining which manufacturing businesses are worthy of being competitive, that the government allow free and fair competition for them all.
Given. Given that the government acknowledged that carbon taxes and subsidies add costs and reduce competitiveness, this instrument represents an opportunity for them to begin the process of removing them. It need not stop at renewables obligation contracts, the ETS, the CBM and the carbon price support. They all represent additional costs that are a choice. My Lords, the United Kingdom represents 0.8% of world CO2 emissions. China produces 33%, the USA 15, India eight and Russia five. So it is economic madness to sacrifice British industry and consumers on the altar of saving the world. But it makes no difference when the British contribution makes no difference to it whatsoever.
The Conservative Party recognised this early on in this Parliament. It seems that the government are now coming around. I hope they will now act speedily to.
No doubt one day we might be importing our own oil from the Falkland Islands. Now, my Lords, the impact assessment, as I said, calls on the claims as part of the government's package for Reindustrialisation. And I'm concerned it's not reindustrialisation. It continues to stop it. It continues to be deindustrialisation. So if these facts were recognised by the government, why stop at businesses who fill a strategic criterion? Surely competitiveness is a general good, but not every business benefit from lower costs and higher efficiency would not be more prudent. Instead of arbitrarily determining which manufacturing businesses are worthy of being competitive, that the government allow free and fair competition for them all.
Given. Given that the government acknowledged that carbon taxes and subsidies add costs and reduce competitiveness, this instrument represents an opportunity for them to begin the process of removing them. It need not stop at renewables obligation contracts, the ETS, the CBM and the carbon price support. They all represent additional costs that are a choice. My Lords, the United Kingdom represents 0.8% of world CO2 emissions. China produces 33%, the USA 15, India eight and Russia five. So it is economic madness to sacrifice British industry and consumers on the altar of saving the world. But it makes no difference when the British contribution makes no difference to it whatsoever.
The Conservative Party recognised this early on in this Parliament. It seems that the government are now coming around. I hope they will now act speedily to.
17:37
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
My Lord. Firstly, let me say a big thank you to all those who have contributed and grateful for some support across the House on this particular instrument. Look, it's designed to address Britain's long standing competitiveness challenges by reducing electricity. Electricity prices for British manufacturing businesses. My Lord, let me address some of the questions posed by noble Lords. Firstly, let me address the point that Baroness Mackintosh made about the scheme and fund and funding. I can confirm that any residual costs not covered by the energy system savings will be funded by the Exchequer and also at the same time, the Exchequer funding will be delivered via the Low Carbon Contracts Company, who will reduce contracts for different charges to all domestic and non-domestic electricity suppliers from April 2027 to offset the cost of books not already covered by the energy system savings.
Let me address the point that Lord Earl Russell, the noble Lord Earl Russell, made about hospitality. And I think also, Lord, I think I made about hospitality and SMEs. Firstly, Vicks is targeted at manufacturing sectors within the eight sectors and foundational manufacturing industries which provide key inputs to the estate sectors. Let me at this point remind noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that it was this government that published an industrial strategy to identify the eight sectors that are important for this country. And can I also remind the noble Lord that when he they were in government, I don't remember the last conservative government publishing any industrial strategy regarding this.
So the eligibility eligibility criteria for Bics are designed to maximise impact against the objectives of the Industrial Strategy, namely driving economic growth and investment benefits, whilst keeping within the cost envelope to avoid increasing costs for ineligible businesses and other energy users. And we will continue to engage with those sectors that are currently not eligible for the scheme or any challenges they face with higher energy costs. And if firms do not do miss the 30th of November deadline, they will still be eligible to apply for the scheme next year. So we have been engaging quite extensively with business to support its implementation.
My Lords, let me address a lot. Fuller's point about the various schemes and all that. Look, we've got the supercharger scheme and the supercharger scheme have been around, and it currently supports approximately 550 electricity intensive industries, whereas big support over can support over 10,000 businesses across a wider range of sectors which operate at a lower electricity intensity. So the supercharger is for high electricity intensive, electricity intensive industry, and the Bics is for the lower electricity intensity intensity.
I can't pronounce the word intensity.
Let me address the point that Lord Earl Russell, the noble Lord Earl Russell, made about hospitality. And I think also, Lord, I think I made about hospitality and SMEs. Firstly, Vicks is targeted at manufacturing sectors within the eight sectors and foundational manufacturing industries which provide key inputs to the estate sectors. Let me at this point remind noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that it was this government that published an industrial strategy to identify the eight sectors that are important for this country. And can I also remind the noble Lord that when he they were in government, I don't remember the last conservative government publishing any industrial strategy regarding this.
So the eligibility eligibility criteria for Bics are designed to maximise impact against the objectives of the Industrial Strategy, namely driving economic growth and investment benefits, whilst keeping within the cost envelope to avoid increasing costs for ineligible businesses and other energy users. And we will continue to engage with those sectors that are currently not eligible for the scheme or any challenges they face with higher energy costs. And if firms do not do miss the 30th of November deadline, they will still be eligible to apply for the scheme next year. So we have been engaging quite extensively with business to support its implementation.
My Lords, let me address a lot. Fuller's point about the various schemes and all that. Look, we've got the supercharger scheme and the supercharger scheme have been around, and it currently supports approximately 550 electricity intensive industries, whereas big support over can support over 10,000 businesses across a wider range of sectors which operate at a lower electricity intensity. So the supercharger is for high electricity intensive, electricity intensive industry, and the Bics is for the lower electricity intensity intensity.
I can't pronounce the word intensity.
17:41
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Businesses may benefit from schemes where they meet the relevant eligibility eligibility criteria, but they cannot receive relief twice for the same activity. Now, Bix is designed to be accessible to all businesses, and we expect a large proportion of businesses eligible for the Bix to be SMEs. My Lords. Big cities along our clean energy superpower mission, the long term plan is to boost energy security and reduce our exposure to fossil fuel price shocks by building clean, homegrown energy. So big supports businesses with immediate electricity costs, challenges helping to free up investment, which can be used to incentivize and enable the transition to electrification and decarbonisation in the long term.
Let me address the point about jackdaw, and I'm sure a noble Lord cross will agree and welcome the decision that we made on the 21st of October 26, that the North Sea Transition Authority granted consent for the jackdaw project following the Energy Secretary's agreement. So it means gas from the pre-existing North Sea project will start to supply homes and businesses across the country from the end of October 2026. As far as Rosebank is concerned, the decision is subject to regulatory process and it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this stage on any individual cases and decision on the granting or not of consent of Rosebank project will be taken in due course.
And there is no fixed timeline for a decision, and it's imperative that all material is properly, properly considered so that it's a robust decision can be taken. My Lords, this will benefit over 10,000 manufacturing businesses in high growth and strategic sectors to be more internationally competitive and drive investment and economic growth across Great Britain. The scheme will be reviewed in 2030 to assess assess its continued effectiveness in supporting the competitiveness of British manufacturing industries.
My Lords, I beg to move.
Let me address the point about jackdaw, and I'm sure a noble Lord cross will agree and welcome the decision that we made on the 21st of October 26, that the North Sea Transition Authority granted consent for the jackdaw project following the Energy Secretary's agreement. So it means gas from the pre-existing North Sea project will start to supply homes and businesses across the country from the end of October 2026. As far as Rosebank is concerned, the decision is subject to regulatory process and it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this stage on any individual cases and decision on the granting or not of consent of Rosebank project will be taken in due course.
And there is no fixed timeline for a decision, and it's imperative that all material is properly, properly considered so that it's a robust decision can be taken. My Lords, this will benefit over 10,000 manufacturing businesses in high growth and strategic sectors to be more internationally competitive and drive investment and economic growth across Great Britain. The scheme will be reviewed in 2030 to assess assess its continued effectiveness in supporting the competitiveness of British manufacturing industries.
My Lords, I beg to move.
17:43
17:43
17:43
17:43
17:43
17:43
17:44
17:44
17:44
17:44
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
For water. Oh, sorry. Sorry sorry sorry. It's just. I'm here for dinner, so I have to stay. No, I got it. Thank you. The database. Oh, right. Excessive regulation. So just. Just worth coming on. No. Exactly. It was before amendment because it was delegated. So we don't want it to the department, but we just.
Right. Sorry. Well, it makes me feel just. Yeah. Okay. So you go first. Oh. Good. Good. Good. Yeah. So you can see.
Right. Sorry. Well, it makes me feel just. Yeah. Okay. So you go first. Oh. Good. Good. Good. Yeah. So you can see.
17:45
17:45
17:45
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
My Lords, I beg to move that the committee consider the Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026. The government committed to reforming a private rented sector that has too often left renters facing insecurity and unfairness. The Renters Rights Act 2025 delivers that commitment, and the regulation before the committee is an important step in implementing that. This phase of reform includes the Private rented Sector database, which will begin to be rolled out regionally from the 15th of December 2026. The service will be publicly known as Register Your Rental Property Service, but as the database for the purposes of this debate.
Thank you. The database will record information about private landlords privately let properties in England. It will help landlords to understand their obligations, give tenants better information before entering into a tenancy, and support local authorities in enforcement. Regulations before us are essential to enable the rollout of the database. They set out the registration framework for the database. Primary legislation establishes the purpose of what the database is intended to do. These regulations provide the practical framework needed for registration. Who can make entries, what information must be provided, how the database can be kept accurate over time and up to date.
A landlord entry will contain information about the landlord, including their name and contact information. Where the landlord is not an individual, it will include information about the organisation and its management.
Thank you. The database will record information about private landlords privately let properties in England. It will help landlords to understand their obligations, give tenants better information before entering into a tenancy, and support local authorities in enforcement. Regulations before us are essential to enable the rollout of the database. They set out the registration framework for the database. Primary legislation establishes the purpose of what the database is intended to do. These regulations provide the practical framework needed for registration. Who can make entries, what information must be provided, how the database can be kept accurate over time and up to date.
A landlord entry will contain information about the landlord, including their name and contact information. Where the landlord is not an individual, it will include information about the organisation and its management.
17:47
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Including their name and contact information where the landlord is not an individual. It will include information about the organization and its management. Joint landlords will each need their own landlord entry while sharing the dwelling entry for the property. A dwelling entry will contain information about the rental property, including its address, ownership, property type, rent level and relevant management details. Once occupied, it will also include tenancy and health and safety information, including uploaded certificates and information relating to gas, electrical and energy performance. The regulations also allow entries to be made or updated by others in specified circumstances.
This primarily concerns letting agents, though also those, for example, acting under a power of attorney. A deceased landlord's estate or a mortgage company. In repossession cases, landlords may delegate the supply of certain information to an agent or property manager, reducing administrative burden. They will, however, remain legally responsible for registration, payment renewal and compliance. Entries will need to be kept up to date. Recorded information will be treated as out of date, where the details that no longer reflect the landlord property, tenancy or relevant compliance position and must be generally updated within 28 days. The database operator will be able to correct errors and remove entries that do not meet the requirements for inclusion.
Further operational detail, including on verification of entries by local authorities, will be addressed through guidance. The regulations require a fee to be paid to make or renew a dwelling entry. The fee is not set in this instrument, but delegates the setting of the fee to the database operator, who is required to set it by reference to the relevant costs, as specified in the act. We have separately announced the fee as £65 per property per year pro-rata, during the initial rollout. To ensure those registering first don't unfairly have to pay more. Subject to parliamentary approval, these regulations put into motion the regional rollout that will begin on the 15th of December 2026.
Landlords in each region will then have three months to register, in turn, with all relevant entries required to be made by the end of the 14th of November 2027. This is the first of two statutory instruments needed to implement this database. The second statutory instrument to be commenced as soon as possible following completion of the initial rollout, will cover the public facing side of the database. The addition of specified breaches and offences committed by landlords and further data sharing concern. What information is made visible to the public and wider data sharing arrangements. Those matters are therefore not in scope of this legislation.
To conclude, these regulations provide the operational framework needed to begin rolling out the PRS database and to make the registration duties in the Act take practical effect. They are the next necessary steps towards a more transparent and enforceable system, supporting compliance while giving tenants better information about the homes they rent. I beg to move that the committee do now consider the Private Rented Sector Database 2026 regulations.
This primarily concerns letting agents, though also those, for example, acting under a power of attorney. A deceased landlord's estate or a mortgage company. In repossession cases, landlords may delegate the supply of certain information to an agent or property manager, reducing administrative burden. They will, however, remain legally responsible for registration, payment renewal and compliance. Entries will need to be kept up to date. Recorded information will be treated as out of date, where the details that no longer reflect the landlord property, tenancy or relevant compliance position and must be generally updated within 28 days. The database operator will be able to correct errors and remove entries that do not meet the requirements for inclusion.
Further operational detail, including on verification of entries by local authorities, will be addressed through guidance. The regulations require a fee to be paid to make or renew a dwelling entry. The fee is not set in this instrument, but delegates the setting of the fee to the database operator, who is required to set it by reference to the relevant costs, as specified in the act. We have separately announced the fee as £65 per property per year pro-rata, during the initial rollout. To ensure those registering first don't unfairly have to pay more. Subject to parliamentary approval, these regulations put into motion the regional rollout that will begin on the 15th of December 2026.
Landlords in each region will then have three months to register, in turn, with all relevant entries required to be made by the end of the 14th of November 2027. This is the first of two statutory instruments needed to implement this database. The second statutory instrument to be commenced as soon as possible following completion of the initial rollout, will cover the public facing side of the database. The addition of specified breaches and offences committed by landlords and further data sharing concern. What information is made visible to the public and wider data sharing arrangements. Those matters are therefore not in scope of this legislation.
To conclude, these regulations provide the operational framework needed to begin rolling out the PRS database and to make the registration duties in the Act take practical effect. They are the next necessary steps towards a more transparent and enforceable system, supporting compliance while giving tenants better information about the homes they rent. I beg to move that the committee do now consider the Private Rented Sector Database 2026 regulations.
17:50
17:50
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
My. My Lords, I suppose by now we should be used to a government that says one thing and does another, expecting everybody else to play by one set of while they do something else. You see this week in a. In a move that surprised nobody. We learned that the football regulator. The annual cost would be twice what the impact assessment suggested, and there was a £45 million set up charge to boot. And here in the same vein, we are with this licensing database for rental properties. I should declare an interest. I am a director of a firm that lets rental properties, and I own a rental property in Norwich in my own name, as appears on the register.
And another. None of what I want to say diminishes from the positive outcome that regulars and regulators and tenants should have confidence in landlords and their properties to weed out the rogues. But when we debated the Renters Rights bill, we took the impact assessment at face value and assumed it would reflect reality. It was said that once enacted, landlords would pay a modest fee about £30 every three years to register their properties under the regulations. We've just heard from the noble lady these regulations contemplate a £65 charge per property every year. That's a material change.
I'd like to ask the minister, why is there this 900% increase from inception to reality, and why wasn't there more candour at the outset? Could it be it wasn't thought through? We know the government is trying to purge the accidental landlord from the system by regulating the amount of existence, which of course reduces choice, reduces supply and drives up rents. We're seeing the near extinction of the student accommodation, meaning that students are herded into ever more expensive specialised service accommodation at ruinous cost. Elsewhere, those with the weakest covenant strength have been put to the back of the queue and everyone's paying more for less.
Along with the 190,000 fewer homes that the OBR has assumed will be built in this Parliament. So we're moving to a system where only the largest professional landlords have the scale, expertise and finance to operate rental properties in the market. And we know that Granger, the institutional landlord, has well in excess of 10,000 properties for rent. Lloyds Bank is chasing a number alongside some other pension funds, and whilst not all landlords operate at that scale, a number of very large national agents Chestertons Hamptons Foxtons sit alongside regional and smaller players who manage many hundreds of thousands of properties on behalf of the smaller fry landlord.
Now they were promised a bulk upload system to streamline populating the national database. But that's not how it's turned out. Each property must be added one at a time and paid for with a separate credit card transaction to boot. Whilst the government assumed it would take about ten minutes per property, the professionals still haven't completed an entry in less than 20 minutes for the largest landlords or the most popular agents. It will take 200 working days, a whole a whole working year of Monday to Fridays without a break. Not for a moment, just to register their hold.
And that's before each landlord has confirmed his agent's draft entry in the rigmarole is repeated. That 28 day extension deadline is a nonsense, and invites people to write their own offense because they just can't get it done for want of a system that was promised to do bulk uploads. Because what we've seen, my Lords, is a government that's cobbled together a system used by software remnants from other departments that's totally forgotten the specification, as well as the principles of software design, data and security. There is to be no concept of a validated government gateway login to securely authenticate an entry to a real person or business.
Registering a property the way that the agent may communicate with the landlord, one at a time. It's by a web permalink relating to an individual property, presumably emailed between the parties, a link that never changes from one year to the next. My Lords, that process breaks every cybersecurity rule. It's the sort of behaviour by shady operators that we debated on Monday in the Cyber Security and Resilience Network and Information Systems Bill. That bill is meant to prevent this sort of practice. It invites cyber criminals to hijack a critical system related to our fundamental national property rights.
So I asked the noble lady which of the cyber experts at DCMs or any of the other 17 cyber regulators have certified this obvious non-compliance. In an age of AI warfare, I say that only this government could press legislation regarding everybody else to follow secure and encrypted data protocols, whilst introducing a system within a month that does the opposite. I'm surprised there hasn't been a legal challenge. Perhaps there should be. But if that wasn't bad enough, there's a further aggravation. Some local authorities have decided to introduce selective licensing, so landlords place a piece of prospect of entering the same data twice into two wholly incompatible separate systems.
In a further insult to efficiency. So I ask the noble lady, why can't, upon inception, the appropriate housing standards officers in local authorities be trusted to access the data, the national database, to further their duties? Because the national scheme should be the death knell for the small schemes. As the noble lady knows, I'm in this sector have considered mining the data from their existing IT systems, formatting it appropriately, and sending the printouts to the department in pursuance of their duties. The only person I'm going to feel sorry for is the postman, carrying those hundreds of thousands of forms into Marsham Street.
Well, at least once a year, with repeat visits for the gas safety, the electrical installation, and other regulatory certificates on top of every single tenant change. The minister might like to reflect on whether she has enough staff in the department to process all these letters, whilst pretending a system that is insecure, incomplete and creates a huge administrative extra burden and reuses credentials over inherently insecure communication protocols is good enough. My Lords. Put simply, the government is foisting an unready system with four weeks to go. It is simply not ready, documented or to specification. I would like to ask the noble lady, why is the government pressing ahead when all the dashboard lights are flashing red?
Only a delay at this stage will will do to maintain that long term confidence in and the integrity of the database which has worthy long term objectives. I invite the noble lady to withdraw this regulation and represent it on a later occasion, when she can demonstrate that the system is, on one hand, compliant and on the other hand, meets the obligations and promises that were set out in the bill or otherwise, it will be dead on arrival.
And another. None of what I want to say diminishes from the positive outcome that regulars and regulators and tenants should have confidence in landlords and their properties to weed out the rogues. But when we debated the Renters Rights bill, we took the impact assessment at face value and assumed it would reflect reality. It was said that once enacted, landlords would pay a modest fee about £30 every three years to register their properties under the regulations. We've just heard from the noble lady these regulations contemplate a £65 charge per property every year. That's a material change.
I'd like to ask the minister, why is there this 900% increase from inception to reality, and why wasn't there more candour at the outset? Could it be it wasn't thought through? We know the government is trying to purge the accidental landlord from the system by regulating the amount of existence, which of course reduces choice, reduces supply and drives up rents. We're seeing the near extinction of the student accommodation, meaning that students are herded into ever more expensive specialised service accommodation at ruinous cost. Elsewhere, those with the weakest covenant strength have been put to the back of the queue and everyone's paying more for less.
Along with the 190,000 fewer homes that the OBR has assumed will be built in this Parliament. So we're moving to a system where only the largest professional landlords have the scale, expertise and finance to operate rental properties in the market. And we know that Granger, the institutional landlord, has well in excess of 10,000 properties for rent. Lloyds Bank is chasing a number alongside some other pension funds, and whilst not all landlords operate at that scale, a number of very large national agents Chestertons Hamptons Foxtons sit alongside regional and smaller players who manage many hundreds of thousands of properties on behalf of the smaller fry landlord.
Now they were promised a bulk upload system to streamline populating the national database. But that's not how it's turned out. Each property must be added one at a time and paid for with a separate credit card transaction to boot. Whilst the government assumed it would take about ten minutes per property, the professionals still haven't completed an entry in less than 20 minutes for the largest landlords or the most popular agents. It will take 200 working days, a whole a whole working year of Monday to Fridays without a break. Not for a moment, just to register their hold.
And that's before each landlord has confirmed his agent's draft entry in the rigmarole is repeated. That 28 day extension deadline is a nonsense, and invites people to write their own offense because they just can't get it done for want of a system that was promised to do bulk uploads. Because what we've seen, my Lords, is a government that's cobbled together a system used by software remnants from other departments that's totally forgotten the specification, as well as the principles of software design, data and security. There is to be no concept of a validated government gateway login to securely authenticate an entry to a real person or business.
Registering a property the way that the agent may communicate with the landlord, one at a time. It's by a web permalink relating to an individual property, presumably emailed between the parties, a link that never changes from one year to the next. My Lords, that process breaks every cybersecurity rule. It's the sort of behaviour by shady operators that we debated on Monday in the Cyber Security and Resilience Network and Information Systems Bill. That bill is meant to prevent this sort of practice. It invites cyber criminals to hijack a critical system related to our fundamental national property rights.
So I asked the noble lady which of the cyber experts at DCMs or any of the other 17 cyber regulators have certified this obvious non-compliance. In an age of AI warfare, I say that only this government could press legislation regarding everybody else to follow secure and encrypted data protocols, whilst introducing a system within a month that does the opposite. I'm surprised there hasn't been a legal challenge. Perhaps there should be. But if that wasn't bad enough, there's a further aggravation. Some local authorities have decided to introduce selective licensing, so landlords place a piece of prospect of entering the same data twice into two wholly incompatible separate systems.
In a further insult to efficiency. So I ask the noble lady, why can't, upon inception, the appropriate housing standards officers in local authorities be trusted to access the data, the national database, to further their duties? Because the national scheme should be the death knell for the small schemes. As the noble lady knows, I'm in this sector have considered mining the data from their existing IT systems, formatting it appropriately, and sending the printouts to the department in pursuance of their duties. The only person I'm going to feel sorry for is the postman, carrying those hundreds of thousands of forms into Marsham Street.
Well, at least once a year, with repeat visits for the gas safety, the electrical installation, and other regulatory certificates on top of every single tenant change. The minister might like to reflect on whether she has enough staff in the department to process all these letters, whilst pretending a system that is insecure, incomplete and creates a huge administrative extra burden and reuses credentials over inherently insecure communication protocols is good enough. My Lords. Put simply, the government is foisting an unready system with four weeks to go. It is simply not ready, documented or to specification. I would like to ask the noble lady, why is the government pressing ahead when all the dashboard lights are flashing red?
Only a delay at this stage will will do to maintain that long term confidence in and the integrity of the database which has worthy long term objectives. I invite the noble lady to withdraw this regulation and represent it on a later occasion, when she can demonstrate that the system is, on one hand, compliant and on the other hand, meets the obligations and promises that were set out in the bill or otherwise, it will be dead on arrival.
17:58
17:58
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
My Lords, I declare an interest as my wife owns rented property. I should also note that I've been active for several years promoting the regulation of property agents, and I am delighted that the Housing Minister, Matthew Pennycook, last month announced legislation in the forthcoming parliamentary session to introduce a regulator of property agents with requirements for licensing qualifications and adherence to codes of practice in relation to the PRS database regulations before us. I welcome the introduction of the database. But the noble Baroness, the Minister, will know there has been much concern, not least from letting agents who manage privately rented accommodation on behalf of landlords.
It does seem there are a large number of outstanding issues around the smooth running of the database, many of which were adumbrated by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. Some of these matters are of a technical, detailed nature, requiring more debate between the sector and the MHC. LG. I'd like to pick up on a relatively straightforward point. Agents and representatives of landlords are worried that the onus being placed on the individual landlord to start and end the registration process for the database themselves and fill in the necessary forms themselves within the required time scales, is going to create significant problems.
This is a function which agents would expect to take on if the landlord asked them to do so on their behalf, just as they do for all other aspects of managing the property. And just as an accountant would handle the tax affairs of a client on their behalf. Indeed, I understand the government's own impact assessment assumed that letting agents would be able to register on behalf of landlords, which seems entirely sensible. The large agents represent representation Group, which looks after several thousand properties owned by a range of investors, some based overseas, says they're trying to get all of these landlords to fill in the database.
Details would be fraught with delay and difficulty. But for those agents looking after landlords with just 1 or 2 properties, the same problem will be encountered. These small landlords are likely to be lacking in knowledge of landlord responsibilities and may not be very tech savvy. They have appointed an agent precisely to manage the regulatory and administrative requirements, and ensure compliance with all the necessary duties for a landlord. So I'm not clear why this particular duty requires the individual landlord to initiate the registration process and complete the form filling when this does not apply to other requirements on landlords.
Surely governments must want the registration process for the database to be as speedy, as simple and as professional as possible, and indeed for landlords to be encouraged to use professional agents to look after their compliance. So in considering the several issues outstanding here, could the noble Baroness, the Minister, have another look at whether life would not be simpler for government aid for agents, landlords and tenants if delegation was permitted for competent property agents to register PRS properties for the new database, which we all want to see as a success.
It does seem there are a large number of outstanding issues around the smooth running of the database, many of which were adumbrated by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. Some of these matters are of a technical, detailed nature, requiring more debate between the sector and the MHC. LG. I'd like to pick up on a relatively straightforward point. Agents and representatives of landlords are worried that the onus being placed on the individual landlord to start and end the registration process for the database themselves and fill in the necessary forms themselves within the required time scales, is going to create significant problems.
This is a function which agents would expect to take on if the landlord asked them to do so on their behalf, just as they do for all other aspects of managing the property. And just as an accountant would handle the tax affairs of a client on their behalf. Indeed, I understand the government's own impact assessment assumed that letting agents would be able to register on behalf of landlords, which seems entirely sensible. The large agents represent representation Group, which looks after several thousand properties owned by a range of investors, some based overseas, says they're trying to get all of these landlords to fill in the database.
Details would be fraught with delay and difficulty. But for those agents looking after landlords with just 1 or 2 properties, the same problem will be encountered. These small landlords are likely to be lacking in knowledge of landlord responsibilities and may not be very tech savvy. They have appointed an agent precisely to manage the regulatory and administrative requirements, and ensure compliance with all the necessary duties for a landlord. So I'm not clear why this particular duty requires the individual landlord to initiate the registration process and complete the form filling when this does not apply to other requirements on landlords.
Surely governments must want the registration process for the database to be as speedy, as simple and as professional as possible, and indeed for landlords to be encouraged to use professional agents to look after their compliance. So in considering the several issues outstanding here, could the noble Baroness, the Minister, have another look at whether life would not be simpler for government aid for agents, landlords and tenants if delegation was permitted for competent property agents to register PRS properties for the new database, which we all want to see as a success.
18:02
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
My Lord, I declare an interest as a landlord. I can't see how this database will achieve anything more than create a bureaucratic nightmare. It will not improve the conditions of properties. To let will not increase the numbers of them. Indeed, it will reduce the number. What it will do is to drive rogue landlords underground. Furthermore, I understand that the government has been advised that the database, as it stands, runs the risk of being operationally unusable. The database will not, as currently designed, enable landlords and letting agents to view data to ensure the accuracy of information.
Without this, it will come all but impossible landlords and letting agents to check if they're compliant and are abiding by their legal obligations in relation to the database. It risks creating a system in which landlords are held accountable for compliance , without being given the ability to verify registration details. Larger landlords will not be able to bulk upload property information on the database. This may mean writing individual letters for each property, as the government considered the ability to cope with approaching 5 million letters, letting larger landlords bulk upload would take some of this burden away. Officials have said that the proposed model for the database would operate on a property by property basis, with agents receiving individual links for each property.
They help to register and manage. Surely the government is competent enough to create a system which has a much greater degree of automation. As proposed, it will be time consuming and cumbersome for letting agents to carry out registration on behalf of landlords. Why should this be any different from someone using a letting agent, which has a responsibility already for complying with existing legislation? Agent should be able to comply with these regulations without going backwards and forwards to the principle. The reason has been given that the system is created in such a way that landlords must bear the responsibility in any other case of instructing professional advisers.
As has already been said, for example, lawyers, accountants, stockbrokers, etc., it is the person giving the instructions who has the ultimate responsibility. Is it different in this case, or has it been created in order to add to the chaos? My Lords, the registration fee of 65 powers represents a substantial recurring cost. Many individual landlords will see income tax rates on rental increase from April next year, and the government is wanting landlords to be paying up to £10,000 per property to meet its proposed energy efficiency standards. We should not see the fee to join the database in isolation from these other costs facing the sector, which we have to remember will ultimately be borne by the tenants in the form of higher rents.
Could the noble Lord, the minister, explain the breakdown of the £65 annual fee to join the database? The impact assessment accompanying the then Renter's Rights Bill assumed the database registration fee of £28.58 per property every three years, now, £65 per property is proposed every year as the property has to be reregistered every 12 months. How much will go to the local authorities and what will be ring fenced? Support enforcement activity. How much will be kept by central government and what will it be used for? What assurances are that there are. The funds would actually be used to support landlords and tenants.
May I remind the noble Lord, the minister, there are approaching 5 million rented houses in this country, which a very substantial number are owned by someone with no more than 1 or 2 properties. Many of them will find great difficulty in complying with the proposal. Large landlords, as has already been commented, believe that the government's estimate of cost compliance is wildly underestimated. Not wishing to burden your lordships, I have not gone into as much detail and many technical arguments. I would like to have done. Would the noble Lord the Minister, consider meeting to explore in more detail how the database will operate in practice and ensure that, although I believe the whole exercise is pointless, at least let's make some attempt to make it work properly.
And could I finally draw the noble Lord? The minister's attention to the adverse comments made by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
Without this, it will come all but impossible landlords and letting agents to check if they're compliant and are abiding by their legal obligations in relation to the database. It risks creating a system in which landlords are held accountable for compliance , without being given the ability to verify registration details. Larger landlords will not be able to bulk upload property information on the database. This may mean writing individual letters for each property, as the government considered the ability to cope with approaching 5 million letters, letting larger landlords bulk upload would take some of this burden away. Officials have said that the proposed model for the database would operate on a property by property basis, with agents receiving individual links for each property.
They help to register and manage. Surely the government is competent enough to create a system which has a much greater degree of automation. As proposed, it will be time consuming and cumbersome for letting agents to carry out registration on behalf of landlords. Why should this be any different from someone using a letting agent, which has a responsibility already for complying with existing legislation? Agent should be able to comply with these regulations without going backwards and forwards to the principle. The reason has been given that the system is created in such a way that landlords must bear the responsibility in any other case of instructing professional advisers.
As has already been said, for example, lawyers, accountants, stockbrokers, etc., it is the person giving the instructions who has the ultimate responsibility. Is it different in this case, or has it been created in order to add to the chaos? My Lords, the registration fee of 65 powers represents a substantial recurring cost. Many individual landlords will see income tax rates on rental increase from April next year, and the government is wanting landlords to be paying up to £10,000 per property to meet its proposed energy efficiency standards. We should not see the fee to join the database in isolation from these other costs facing the sector, which we have to remember will ultimately be borne by the tenants in the form of higher rents.
Could the noble Lord, the minister, explain the breakdown of the £65 annual fee to join the database? The impact assessment accompanying the then Renter's Rights Bill assumed the database registration fee of £28.58 per property every three years, now, £65 per property is proposed every year as the property has to be reregistered every 12 months. How much will go to the local authorities and what will be ring fenced? Support enforcement activity. How much will be kept by central government and what will it be used for? What assurances are that there are. The funds would actually be used to support landlords and tenants.
May I remind the noble Lord, the minister, there are approaching 5 million rented houses in this country, which a very substantial number are owned by someone with no more than 1 or 2 properties. Many of them will find great difficulty in complying with the proposal. Large landlords, as has already been commented, believe that the government's estimate of cost compliance is wildly underestimated. Not wishing to burden your lordships, I have not gone into as much detail and many technical arguments. I would like to have done. Would the noble Lord the Minister, consider meeting to explore in more detail how the database will operate in practice and ensure that, although I believe the whole exercise is pointless, at least let's make some attempt to make it work properly.
And could I finally draw the noble Lord? The minister's attention to the adverse comments made by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
18:07
18:07
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
I'd like to just respond initially to a few comments, if the noble Minister will allow me, that have been brought up already. I think there's been some good points that have been made that I'd like to identify. The Liberal Democrats with. I think the double entry issue is one that is really troubling councils and others, and I think that really does need addressing and answering. I think we all need some assurance on readiness. And perhaps my question was would be was there a decision to think about piloting this initially to actually get out all the teething problems and on property agents?
My deep concern from what Lord and Lord Howard have just said, is one that the minister will not be surprised to hear me say property agents are not regulated. They're not professionally. They have no professional codes of conduct, etc. just simple guidance. And to me, we're giving them an incredibly powerful tool. And I think it should be a strong argument to actually moving on the professionalization of property agents, which I think you first reported on in, in one of your reports.
I mean, how long?
My deep concern from what Lord and Lord Howard have just said, is one that the minister will not be surprised to hear me say property agents are not regulated. They're not professionally. They have no professional codes of conduct, etc. just simple guidance. And to me, we're giving them an incredibly powerful tool. And I think it should be a strong argument to actually moving on the professionalization of property agents, which I think you first reported on in, in one of your reports.
I mean, how long?
18:09
18:09
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
2019. And, and even the sector itself feels it's overdue. My Lords, I supported the principle of the landlord database during the passage of the Renters Rights Act. Looking back at some of my comments, I felt I was a little bit messianic about it because I genuinely believe that this could be a real tool to improve standards, to inform tenants, and to bring rogue landlords to heel. Good enforcement does need good information, tenants deserve transparency and councils need effective tools, and rogue landlords should not be able to hide from scrutiny. So the principle is not the problem.
And interestingly, many of the briefings we've had have stated that very clearly up front. And I think that is important. The question for me is whether this database will actually do what it says on the tin, what it sets out to do. So as a former elected mayor, I've seen plenty of databases. Creating one is usually the easy bit, but keeping it accurate, useful and up to date is the hard bit and can be a real onerous burden on the institution. So but my first question is, are we collecting the right information, the most helpful and the most informative?
There's plenty in here about registration certificates, licences, compliance documents, all good stuff. But are we creating a genuinely useful toom tool or simply a very efficient filing cabinet? Now, my Lords, if I were a tenant looking for somewhere to live, I would want to know whether a landlord had received improvement notices, civil penalties or other enforcement action. And frankly, that would tell me a lot more than whether somebody had uploaded a document on time. So my second question is, who is the database really for? Is it mainly a tool for councils and regulators, or is it supposed to help tenants make informed choices?
Because if transparency is one of the objectives, what will the tenants actually be able to see? My third concern is compliance. And Minister, there are worrying estimates about the levels of awareness with regard to this varying estimates. What assessment has the government made of the awareness within the sector to what has to be done? The landlord most likely to register is the landlord who is already trying to do the right thing. The landlord most likely to pay the fee. Is the landlord already trying to follow the rules. But of course, the one we all worry about is the one who ignores the system altogether.
And I think that was quite a pertinent comment from the Lord Howard, that there's a danger that we would drive these people even further underground, because I think the problem is they're already underground now, regrettably, due to a shortage of home. My real worry is that the desperation of some tenants will always mean that these landlords will find themselves suitable tenants. So how will this scheme identify the landlord who simply chooses not to register? And how will the information on the database be verified rather than self-declared? As someone who has spent years in local government, as has the noble lady, the minister.
I always get nervous when the answer to a problem seems to be another form. The reality is we need more homes and we need more investment. And as some like it or not, as I discovered in my own council group, we do need more larger, professionally managed housing providers and they are investing in the sector. So one of the ways we're getting this is through the growth of the build to rent sector. Now these developments often have one owner, one management structure and one set of compliance arrangements across an entire building. So I struggle with the logic here.
If the same landlord is being asked to submit essentially the same information over and over again in the same building, through hundreds of separate front doors, what problem is that solving? Does it make tenants safer? Does it give councils better intelligence? Does it improve enforcement? Or are we in danger of confusing more paperwork with better outcomes? Because good regulation should be about outcomes, not processes. And this feels very process at the moment. The aim should be better regulation, not simply more regulation. And as the noble lady the minister knows, I always approach these matters through the lens of delivery.
Who will verify this information, who will investigate non-compliance? Who will pursue the landlords who never register in the first place? And what resources do local authorities receive to do so? How confident is the government that councils are ready to go and have the capacity to do the job that we hope they will do, because a database does not enforce itself and a database on its own catches nobody. Exactly right. So my final question is simple. How will the government measure the success of this? How often will it be re-evaluated? Will it be more records on the database, or will it be as I feel it should be?
More rogue landlords identified more effective enforcement, but perhaps more importantly, better homes for tenants. Because to me, surely that's the test will matter. So put simply, how will we know it's done the job that we all want it to do?
And interestingly, many of the briefings we've had have stated that very clearly up front. And I think that is important. The question for me is whether this database will actually do what it says on the tin, what it sets out to do. So as a former elected mayor, I've seen plenty of databases. Creating one is usually the easy bit, but keeping it accurate, useful and up to date is the hard bit and can be a real onerous burden on the institution. So but my first question is, are we collecting the right information, the most helpful and the most informative?
There's plenty in here about registration certificates, licences, compliance documents, all good stuff. But are we creating a genuinely useful toom tool or simply a very efficient filing cabinet? Now, my Lords, if I were a tenant looking for somewhere to live, I would want to know whether a landlord had received improvement notices, civil penalties or other enforcement action. And frankly, that would tell me a lot more than whether somebody had uploaded a document on time. So my second question is, who is the database really for? Is it mainly a tool for councils and regulators, or is it supposed to help tenants make informed choices?
Because if transparency is one of the objectives, what will the tenants actually be able to see? My third concern is compliance. And Minister, there are worrying estimates about the levels of awareness with regard to this varying estimates. What assessment has the government made of the awareness within the sector to what has to be done? The landlord most likely to register is the landlord who is already trying to do the right thing. The landlord most likely to pay the fee. Is the landlord already trying to follow the rules. But of course, the one we all worry about is the one who ignores the system altogether.
And I think that was quite a pertinent comment from the Lord Howard, that there's a danger that we would drive these people even further underground, because I think the problem is they're already underground now, regrettably, due to a shortage of home. My real worry is that the desperation of some tenants will always mean that these landlords will find themselves suitable tenants. So how will this scheme identify the landlord who simply chooses not to register? And how will the information on the database be verified rather than self-declared? As someone who has spent years in local government, as has the noble lady, the minister.
I always get nervous when the answer to a problem seems to be another form. The reality is we need more homes and we need more investment. And as some like it or not, as I discovered in my own council group, we do need more larger, professionally managed housing providers and they are investing in the sector. So one of the ways we're getting this is through the growth of the build to rent sector. Now these developments often have one owner, one management structure and one set of compliance arrangements across an entire building. So I struggle with the logic here.
If the same landlord is being asked to submit essentially the same information over and over again in the same building, through hundreds of separate front doors, what problem is that solving? Does it make tenants safer? Does it give councils better intelligence? Does it improve enforcement? Or are we in danger of confusing more paperwork with better outcomes? Because good regulation should be about outcomes, not processes. And this feels very process at the moment. The aim should be better regulation, not simply more regulation. And as the noble lady the minister knows, I always approach these matters through the lens of delivery.
Who will verify this information, who will investigate non-compliance? Who will pursue the landlords who never register in the first place? And what resources do local authorities receive to do so? How confident is the government that councils are ready to go and have the capacity to do the job that we hope they will do, because a database does not enforce itself and a database on its own catches nobody. Exactly right. So my final question is simple. How will the government measure the success of this? How often will it be re-evaluated? Will it be more records on the database, or will it be as I feel it should be?
More rogue landlords identified more effective enforcement, but perhaps more importantly, better homes for tenants. Because to me, surely that's the test will matter. So put simply, how will we know it's done the job that we all want it to do?
18:15
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
I thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for introducing this C. The C follows the Renters Act of 2025 and establishes the detailed requirements that governments new private rented sector database or the database. As the noble Baroness, the minister said, they also introduce fees for registering and renewing property entries, with the amount to be determined by the database operator, though it has already been suggested that this will be £65. Now we fully support on this side of the House the principle tenants should be able to tackle rogue landlords and have access to safe and decent accommodation.
And that's why the previous conservative government brought forward our own proposals for a private sector rented private rented sector ombudsman. However, we were very clear during the passage of the bill that this database needs to be user friendly. It needs to be light touch. It needs to enable electronic data entry and minimize unnecessary bureaucracy. And the minister herself gave us assurances that this would be the case. And that comes down to the fundamental question we have. We need a database that works. And I think all these comments that we've heard so far from Noble Lords and Baroness, has been a great deal of concern that the database doesn't work.
These concerns were echoed in the submission to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which has drawn the sea to the special attention of the House. Now, I welcome the fact that the Department has committed to continuing to work with the sector to make continuous improvements. The question remains can you get it working in the first place? Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, tell us why the government has not halted implementation of the system until it can be fully piloted, that the recommendations can be implemented and the sector and tenants can have confidence that it works. Now, this s comes at a time of a housing crisis.
Are the government aware that they are already driving landlords away? Latest Rightmove survey shows that there are 2% fewer properties for rent nationally and with a particular issue in London, where there are 9% fewer rental properties, according to Rightmove, and where rents have risen by 3.2%. And this is before today's announcements of higher taxes on landlords. And even the OBR is forecasting long term increases in rents.
And that's why the previous conservative government brought forward our own proposals for a private sector rented private rented sector ombudsman. However, we were very clear during the passage of the bill that this database needs to be user friendly. It needs to be light touch. It needs to enable electronic data entry and minimize unnecessary bureaucracy. And the minister herself gave us assurances that this would be the case. And that comes down to the fundamental question we have. We need a database that works. And I think all these comments that we've heard so far from Noble Lords and Baroness, has been a great deal of concern that the database doesn't work.
These concerns were echoed in the submission to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which has drawn the sea to the special attention of the House. Now, I welcome the fact that the Department has committed to continuing to work with the sector to make continuous improvements. The question remains can you get it working in the first place? Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, tell us why the government has not halted implementation of the system until it can be fully piloted, that the recommendations can be implemented and the sector and tenants can have confidence that it works. Now, this s comes at a time of a housing crisis.
Are the government aware that they are already driving landlords away? Latest Rightmove survey shows that there are 2% fewer properties for rent nationally and with a particular issue in London, where there are 9% fewer rental properties, according to Rightmove, and where rents have risen by 3.2%. And this is before today's announcements of higher taxes on landlords. And even the OBR is forecasting long term increases in rents.
18:18
18:18
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
My Lords, it appears that the database is not fit for purpose, and while it may work for a few individual landlords, there has been insufficient consideration given to the practical requirements of large scale, professionally managed rental businesses or the role of agents. As my noble friend Lord Fuller and Lord Howard advised of raised large landlords will be required to register properties individually, entering up to 70 separate data points for each homes. Now that may work for a landlord with 1 or 2 properties that knows what they're doing, but it doesn't work for a landlord. For a landlord managing, say, 3000 properties.
As the noble my noble friend Lord Fuller mentioned, he could be talking about 200 days of work just to register those properties. That's an extraordinary figure for a system which is supposed to simplify and modernize the regulation of the private rented sector. Private rented landlords already face extensive regulatory obligations, including gas and electrical safety requirements, energy performance standards and, where applicable, property licensing as well. These regulations require much of the same information to be provided again through a central government database. Why are landlords being asked to enter information which the government already holds on existing databases?
During the passage of the bill, the issue of simplifying and consolidating was raised frequently by many noble lords. Now, the government have claimed that the system for bulk uploads will not offer time savings, and that integration will better meet the needs of stakeholders described. The purpose of digital government should be to reduce duplication, not institutionalise it. Can the Minister explain what appropriate integration with existing property management systems will look like? Can the Minister assure the committee that this will be fully implemented and trialled before the database rolled out? I'm also concerned about the severely limited role that letting agents will be permitted to play in the registration process.
As the noble Lord best mentions, landlords rely on professional letting agents both to manage their properties and regulatory obligations and ensure that they comply. Under the proposed system, landlords themselves must initiate and complete the registration process, with agents only permitted to provide certain information on their behalf. This is particularly difficult to understand, given that the government's own impact assessment assumed letting agents would register properties on behalf of the landlords. For agents managing thousands of properties. This will mean repeatedly returning to individual landlords to initiate registrations, obtain access, secure further information. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, explain why professional letting agents cannot be authorised to manage the entire registration process on behalf of their clients, as they do with many other regulatory requirements?
As my noble friend Lord Fowler mentioned, this whole plethora of passwords shared between different people, different properties and so forth raises significant cyber security issues. And what happens when a particular person at a large landlord or a agent leaves? What happens to the hundreds, thousands of passwords and databases that they have to share on? Or are they shared across the the businesses? Can the minister also assure the committee that for landlords and agents. But not every individual property will require its own registration and password as currently proposed? This is an obvious burden and a financial one too, and that goes on top of the already mentioned £60 registration fee, which is not a one off, it's an annual fee.
Now, these costs of additional bureaucracy, time and so forth are simply going to be passed on to tenants. And the noble Baroness, the minister, tell the committee to which metrics the fee will be paid. What safeguards exist to prevent this becoming unsustainable cost? The proposed system lacks the apparent necessary integration to automate changes. We have also raised concerns regarding potentially significant fines. As has already been described, this is a bureaucratic nightmare. The risk of unintended innocent data entry errors is significant. And yet, for every one of those errors, a landlord faces a potential £7,000 fine.
That is unreasonable.
As the noble my noble friend Lord Fuller mentioned, he could be talking about 200 days of work just to register those properties. That's an extraordinary figure for a system which is supposed to simplify and modernize the regulation of the private rented sector. Private rented landlords already face extensive regulatory obligations, including gas and electrical safety requirements, energy performance standards and, where applicable, property licensing as well. These regulations require much of the same information to be provided again through a central government database. Why are landlords being asked to enter information which the government already holds on existing databases?
During the passage of the bill, the issue of simplifying and consolidating was raised frequently by many noble lords. Now, the government have claimed that the system for bulk uploads will not offer time savings, and that integration will better meet the needs of stakeholders described. The purpose of digital government should be to reduce duplication, not institutionalise it. Can the Minister explain what appropriate integration with existing property management systems will look like? Can the Minister assure the committee that this will be fully implemented and trialled before the database rolled out? I'm also concerned about the severely limited role that letting agents will be permitted to play in the registration process.
As the noble Lord best mentions, landlords rely on professional letting agents both to manage their properties and regulatory obligations and ensure that they comply. Under the proposed system, landlords themselves must initiate and complete the registration process, with agents only permitted to provide certain information on their behalf. This is particularly difficult to understand, given that the government's own impact assessment assumed letting agents would register properties on behalf of the landlords. For agents managing thousands of properties. This will mean repeatedly returning to individual landlords to initiate registrations, obtain access, secure further information. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, explain why professional letting agents cannot be authorised to manage the entire registration process on behalf of their clients, as they do with many other regulatory requirements?
As my noble friend Lord Fowler mentioned, this whole plethora of passwords shared between different people, different properties and so forth raises significant cyber security issues. And what happens when a particular person at a large landlord or a agent leaves? What happens to the hundreds, thousands of passwords and databases that they have to share on? Or are they shared across the the businesses? Can the minister also assure the committee that for landlords and agents. But not every individual property will require its own registration and password as currently proposed? This is an obvious burden and a financial one too, and that goes on top of the already mentioned £60 registration fee, which is not a one off, it's an annual fee.
Now, these costs of additional bureaucracy, time and so forth are simply going to be passed on to tenants. And the noble Baroness, the minister, tell the committee to which metrics the fee will be paid. What safeguards exist to prevent this becoming unsustainable cost? The proposed system lacks the apparent necessary integration to automate changes. We have also raised concerns regarding potentially significant fines. As has already been described, this is a bureaucratic nightmare. The risk of unintended innocent data entry errors is significant. And yet, for every one of those errors, a landlord faces a potential £7,000 fine.
That is unreasonable.
18:23
18:23
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
We need the database system working. And as other noble Lords and Baronesses have said, the whole aim of this bill is to remove rogue landlords. It shouldn't be to make the life of genuine good landlords so difficult, and the process is so difficult that rogue landlords can hide in the background. This seems especially punitive considering the Prime Minister has introduced a system where parking fines can now be appealed on the basis of an honest mistake. And I go back to, and I believe it was the noble Lord Howard of Rising who raised. Raised it, that the current system does provide an alternative for landlords, where they can create their own database and just print out the necessary forms and send them on to the department.
Now, many landlords, large landlords, may find that simpler because they are able to maintain their own database. They're able to assure themselves that it is up to date. They are able to update it electronically, and they're able to provide their own reports, and they just fire off the printer and send thousands of forms. As as I believe the noble Lord Fuller said to Marsham Street, millions. That cannot be the right way of doing things. In many parts of the country, there is a desperate shortage of private rental housing. Yet whether an individual landlord or a large scale corporate landlord, the government continues to make being a landlord more difficult, thus reducing the incentive to become a private landlord.
This is already impacting the market. Not only are we seeing landlords exiting, but I'm told by the development industry that the private build to rent sector has stalled. Ultimately, it will be tenants who will bear the consequences at a time when we urgently need more homes to rent. It makes little sense to introduce a not fit for purpose database driving up administrative costs, which will discourage the very investment needed to increase supply. So I ask the minister, why does the database not allow bulk import of information? Why can apartment blocks not be registered where there is a single landlord?
Why is there not API integration from day one? Why is the database not linked to other government databases? Why does the fee structure not reflect the different types of landlords? Why can agents not input information on behalf of their clients? Why is there not a longer transition period? And most importantly, has the database been piloted? What were the lessons from those pilots? And if not, when will it be piloted? My Lords, we support effective regulation. But effective regulation must also be proportionate, practical and properly implemented. The objective should not be to drive responsible landlords and investment out of the sector.
When. When introducing a database, this must be one that is practical works and has been trialled. I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, will consider these points.
Now, many landlords, large landlords, may find that simpler because they are able to maintain their own database. They're able to assure themselves that it is up to date. They are able to update it electronically, and they're able to provide their own reports, and they just fire off the printer and send thousands of forms. As as I believe the noble Lord Fuller said to Marsham Street, millions. That cannot be the right way of doing things. In many parts of the country, there is a desperate shortage of private rental housing. Yet whether an individual landlord or a large scale corporate landlord, the government continues to make being a landlord more difficult, thus reducing the incentive to become a private landlord.
This is already impacting the market. Not only are we seeing landlords exiting, but I'm told by the development industry that the private build to rent sector has stalled. Ultimately, it will be tenants who will bear the consequences at a time when we urgently need more homes to rent. It makes little sense to introduce a not fit for purpose database driving up administrative costs, which will discourage the very investment needed to increase supply. So I ask the minister, why does the database not allow bulk import of information? Why can apartment blocks not be registered where there is a single landlord?
Why is there not API integration from day one? Why is the database not linked to other government databases? Why does the fee structure not reflect the different types of landlords? Why can agents not input information on behalf of their clients? Why is there not a longer transition period? And most importantly, has the database been piloted? What were the lessons from those pilots? And if not, when will it be piloted? My Lords, we support effective regulation. But effective regulation must also be proportionate, practical and properly implemented. The objective should not be to drive responsible landlords and investment out of the sector.
When. When introducing a database, this must be one that is practical works and has been trialled. I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, will consider these points.
18:26
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
My Lords, can I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate on this statutory instrument this afternoon? And I want to, first of all, tackle the issue that's been raised many times around the testing of the database, because, in fact, we have been engaging with landlords, including organisational landlords, in using research and testing since 2023 on a database. And I think, as the noble Lord Jameson said, it was because his government had considered doing this before. We've been formally testing since May this year and in testing with organisational landlords, almost 90% reported the service as easy or very easy to use, and 80% rated the registration guidance clear or very clear.
We've taken notes of all the comments that have been made as we've gone through this testing process. We've made improvements to the database according to those comments. And of course, we continue our dialogue with the sector. So we haven't just jumped into this in the last two weeks, as has been suggested by some some contributors. And it is very important that we have this transparency for both tenants and councils, as I think Baroness Thornhill referred, we do need to keep the database accurate and up to date, and that's why we've asked for annual updates on this, because some databases fail where you only update them if you've got a change.
This is an annual prompt to change it a bit . Like noble peers will be very familiar with their registration of interest that we have to update, and we get a prompt to update that regularly. So that's the point of having an annual update. I will go through some of the issues that noble Lords have raised, some more than one peer has raised some just one. But I would say to the noble Lord Howard that of course, our Department remains willing to discuss with anybody that wants to talk about how the database may operate. So to pick up his question directly, we are, of course, willing to do that.
A number of noble peers, particularly Lord Fuller, Lord Howard and Lord Jameson, have raised the the fee and why it's higher than the £10 initial, sorry, the £20 initial estimate that we gave. Yes, £5 fee is needed to fund a national database that is fair, sustainable and capable of supporting effective enforcement. All landlords will be required to pay the annual £65 fee for each property they registered on the database, and the fee is charged per property. So landlords will need to pay the fee each time they register a different property. The fee has been set at a level that balances fairness and sustainability for landlords, with the cost of operating the database and tackling non-compliance in the private sector.
And I think that last thing is equally important. Fees will support activity to identify and act on non-compliance with the Renters Rights Act 2025 reforms. That includes funding to help councils have the staff and skills they need to identify and tackle non-compliance, and to drive landlords who persist in breaking the law out of the sector. And when we talk to the many landlords that we did talk to during the course of the renters rights bill, they were just as concerned as the rest of us to drive out those rogue landlords, because they don't do the sector any good at all, and they undercut some of the really decent and good landlords that we have.
The noble Lord Howard asked for a breakdown of how the £65 has been calculated. It does reflect the cost of operating the database and the enforcement activity. As I mentioned, it is set separately by the database operator rather than by these regulations. And in setting the fee, we have looked at the balance of issues that the fee needs.
We've taken notes of all the comments that have been made as we've gone through this testing process. We've made improvements to the database according to those comments. And of course, we continue our dialogue with the sector. So we haven't just jumped into this in the last two weeks, as has been suggested by some some contributors. And it is very important that we have this transparency for both tenants and councils, as I think Baroness Thornhill referred, we do need to keep the database accurate and up to date, and that's why we've asked for annual updates on this, because some databases fail where you only update them if you've got a change.
This is an annual prompt to change it a bit . Like noble peers will be very familiar with their registration of interest that we have to update, and we get a prompt to update that regularly. So that's the point of having an annual update. I will go through some of the issues that noble Lords have raised, some more than one peer has raised some just one. But I would say to the noble Lord Howard that of course, our Department remains willing to discuss with anybody that wants to talk about how the database may operate. So to pick up his question directly, we are, of course, willing to do that.
A number of noble peers, particularly Lord Fuller, Lord Howard and Lord Jameson, have raised the the fee and why it's higher than the £10 initial, sorry, the £20 initial estimate that we gave. Yes, £5 fee is needed to fund a national database that is fair, sustainable and capable of supporting effective enforcement. All landlords will be required to pay the annual £65 fee for each property they registered on the database, and the fee is charged per property. So landlords will need to pay the fee each time they register a different property. The fee has been set at a level that balances fairness and sustainability for landlords, with the cost of operating the database and tackling non-compliance in the private sector.
And I think that last thing is equally important. Fees will support activity to identify and act on non-compliance with the Renters Rights Act 2025 reforms. That includes funding to help councils have the staff and skills they need to identify and tackle non-compliance, and to drive landlords who persist in breaking the law out of the sector. And when we talk to the many landlords that we did talk to during the course of the renters rights bill, they were just as concerned as the rest of us to drive out those rogue landlords, because they don't do the sector any good at all, and they undercut some of the really decent and good landlords that we have.
The noble Lord Howard asked for a breakdown of how the £65 has been calculated. It does reflect the cost of operating the database and the enforcement activity. As I mentioned, it is set separately by the database operator rather than by these regulations. And in setting the fee, we have looked at the balance of issues that the fee needs.
18:30
18:30
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
The proportion of the registration fee income will go to local authorities to support their enforcement activity, and the intention is that the database is funded in a way that supports delivery and enforcement without placing a cost on the general taxpayer. It's not the government's intention to use these fees to fund wider costs that are not connected to the private rented sector. The noble Lord Howard, the noble Lord Fuller and the noble Lord Jameson all asked about bulk registration. Registration of properties. I understand the concern about this, but landlords will be required to register each individual dwelling within a block of properties, properties and entire buildings comprised of units are still classified as individual dwellings.
They are therefore required to be registered separately. However, I would say for HMOs, individual rooms do not need to be registered. The requirement recognises that tenancy and health and safety compliance information, including rent levels, number of occupants and gas and electrical safety certificates, will vary between dwellings and doesn't exist at block level. The. We did send a response. The noble mentioned the Granger input that we had. We have sent a detailed response to Granger, and our point back to them was that dwelling level registration is essential for key aims of the service. The core information required for local authority enforcement, as well as for tenants and other public bodies is that a dwelling level rather than at a block level.
And I honestly, you know, I did listen to all the arguments put forward, but for organisational landlords, this is a digital system, so it's not hard to cut and paste data between different systems. We all do that.
They are therefore required to be registered separately. However, I would say for HMOs, individual rooms do not need to be registered. The requirement recognises that tenancy and health and safety compliance information, including rent levels, number of occupants and gas and electrical safety certificates, will vary between dwellings and doesn't exist at block level. The. We did send a response. The noble mentioned the Granger input that we had. We have sent a detailed response to Granger, and our point back to them was that dwelling level registration is essential for key aims of the service. The core information required for local authority enforcement, as well as for tenants and other public bodies is that a dwelling level rather than at a block level.
And I honestly, you know, I did listen to all the arguments put forward, but for organisational landlords, this is a digital system, so it's not hard to cut and paste data between different systems. We all do that.
18:32
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I wonder whether you might just allow me to intervene. Just briefly. I do not speak for Granger, but I've spoken to a large number of institutional landlords and they have no objection providing information one property at a time. They understand the point you're making because they want to bulk upload them all at once, so they can upload 10,000 in 1 upload or two, a large number in one upload as and as importantly, pay for them in one transaction. That's the point these institutional people are making. So I think we're talking at cross purposes. We understand what you're saying.
It's just that the software isn't delivering on that simple outcome.
It's just that the software isn't delivering on that simple outcome.
18:33
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Well, I'm very happy to take that feedback back. The point about paying for them in one go, I think, is a very fair point. It was my understanding that that could happen, but I'm going to take that back and respond to you in writing on that lawfully, if that's okay. Lord Fuller also raised and Lord Jameson the issue of the security of the database. And I think that's it's a very important issue we're all concerned about cyber security. And database has been developed with security and privacy at its core, using established government and cybersecurity standards.
The department is assessing the database against the National Cyber Security Centre Cyber Assessment framework, and the database will also be subject to penetration testing to identify and address vulnerabilities before and during operation. We're working with the department's Data Protection Officer on the necessary data protection work, including impact assessment, data sharing arrangements and privacy arrangements for landlords, local councils and agent users, and the database will also use monitoring tools to help identify potential vulnerabilities and support ongoing security assurance. The noble Lord Fuller talked about, you know, the duplication, potential duplication with selective licensing, and the database won't duplicate or replace selective licensing because the two systems have entirely different purposes.
The national database will provide consistent information about private landlords and rental properties across England, supporting transparency, compliance and local authority enforcement. Selective licensing remains a targeted local tool used by councils to address specific local issues through more intensive, proactive enforcement. So for example, anti-social behaviour and those types of issues, we recognise the important role that licensing can continue to play, where it's used appropriately, and will continue to review how licensing and the national service interact as implementation progresses. Organisational landlords will use the gov.uk one login service to log in and authenticate. This is a service widely used across government and is built in accordance to government technology standards.
The noble Lord best, the noble Lord Howard and the noble Lord Jameson all asked why letting agents can't register on behalf of landlords. One of the key goals of the database is to improve landlord awareness and capability, and requiring landlords to initiate registration directly supports that by ensuring they engage with their legal responsibilities. From the outset, letting and property agents will still be able to support landlords by providing certain information once the landlord has started the registration process and where an agent agrees, the landlord will be able to delegate the provision of specific tenancy, health and safety information to them.
Responsibility for ensuring that the registration requirements are met will remain with the landlord throughout . Letting and property agents will not have a mandatory role in registration and will not be separately registered through this database. I would say as well to the noble Lord best. I'm grateful for his response on the regulation of property agents, and I'll feed that back to my Right Honourable colleague in the. In the other House, the noble Baroness Thornhill , asked about what data will be published. And this instrument doesn't decide what information is going to be published. The public facing database will be brought forward through second stage secondary legislation once the initial rollout period is complete, and at that point, tenants will be able to access necessary and proportionate information about landlords and rental properties, including some of the issues that the noble Baroness referred to about landlord enforcement actions that have been taken.
We will carefully, carefully balance the benefits of transparency, of course, with landlords, privacy rights, safety concerns and data protection requirements. I think the noble Baroness Thornhill also asked how we identify landlords who don't register and when the public facing database is available, tenants and others will be able to tell the database that their rental property is not registered as they will be able to check, and this can be passed on to the local housing authority. To conclude, this instrument is the practical next step in delivering the PRS database. It sets the registration framework that landlords, local authorities and the database operator will need as regional rollout begins.
And by doing so, these regulations will support landlord compliance, strengthen local authority enforcement, and give tenants better information about the homes they rent. I beg to move.
The department is assessing the database against the National Cyber Security Centre Cyber Assessment framework, and the database will also be subject to penetration testing to identify and address vulnerabilities before and during operation. We're working with the department's Data Protection Officer on the necessary data protection work, including impact assessment, data sharing arrangements and privacy arrangements for landlords, local councils and agent users, and the database will also use monitoring tools to help identify potential vulnerabilities and support ongoing security assurance. The noble Lord Fuller talked about, you know, the duplication, potential duplication with selective licensing, and the database won't duplicate or replace selective licensing because the two systems have entirely different purposes.
The national database will provide consistent information about private landlords and rental properties across England, supporting transparency, compliance and local authority enforcement. Selective licensing remains a targeted local tool used by councils to address specific local issues through more intensive, proactive enforcement. So for example, anti-social behaviour and those types of issues, we recognise the important role that licensing can continue to play, where it's used appropriately, and will continue to review how licensing and the national service interact as implementation progresses. Organisational landlords will use the gov.uk one login service to log in and authenticate. This is a service widely used across government and is built in accordance to government technology standards.
The noble Lord best, the noble Lord Howard and the noble Lord Jameson all asked why letting agents can't register on behalf of landlords. One of the key goals of the database is to improve landlord awareness and capability, and requiring landlords to initiate registration directly supports that by ensuring they engage with their legal responsibilities. From the outset, letting and property agents will still be able to support landlords by providing certain information once the landlord has started the registration process and where an agent agrees, the landlord will be able to delegate the provision of specific tenancy, health and safety information to them.
Responsibility for ensuring that the registration requirements are met will remain with the landlord throughout . Letting and property agents will not have a mandatory role in registration and will not be separately registered through this database. I would say as well to the noble Lord best. I'm grateful for his response on the regulation of property agents, and I'll feed that back to my Right Honourable colleague in the. In the other House, the noble Baroness Thornhill , asked about what data will be published. And this instrument doesn't decide what information is going to be published. The public facing database will be brought forward through second stage secondary legislation once the initial rollout period is complete, and at that point, tenants will be able to access necessary and proportionate information about landlords and rental properties, including some of the issues that the noble Baroness referred to about landlord enforcement actions that have been taken.
We will carefully, carefully balance the benefits of transparency, of course, with landlords, privacy rights, safety concerns and data protection requirements. I think the noble Baroness Thornhill also asked how we identify landlords who don't register and when the public facing database is available, tenants and others will be able to tell the database that their rental property is not registered as they will be able to check, and this can be passed on to the local housing authority. To conclude, this instrument is the practical next step in delivering the PRS database. It sets the registration framework that landlords, local authorities and the database operator will need as regional rollout begins.
And by doing so, these regulations will support landlord compliance, strengthen local authority enforcement, and give tenants better information about the homes they rent. I beg to move.
18:37
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Before the noble Baroness. The minister sits down. If I may just follow up on a couple of points that the minister said she talked about testing of the database, and I appreciate the comments she gave that the conservatives actually started looking at a database. My point being is to try and understand what testing has been done. I know a number of noble lords on this side, and presumably the minister herself will have received a lot of emails from large landlords, various groupings of landlords and so forth, raising these sorts of issues. So clearly they are not happy if they have been part of the testing system.
So has this been testing where an individual person is trying to import a single property? And I think largely we acknowledge that the system works could work reasonably well for that. It was the multiple properties or where a landlord was not very familiar with all the regulations and so forth, and was reliant on their agent. So it'd be very interesting if you could give a bit more information about did this involve bulk inputting of property? And the key point here, and I think Minister slightly glossed over it by saying you could cut and paste. Well, I know we've all filled in forms of cutting and pasting, but that is still having to go individually into each form, cutting and pasting.
Believe me, from past experience, that's where you get more errors.
So has this been testing where an individual person is trying to import a single property? And I think largely we acknowledge that the system works could work reasonably well for that. It was the multiple properties or where a landlord was not very familiar with all the regulations and so forth, and was reliant on their agent. So it'd be very interesting if you could give a bit more information about did this involve bulk inputting of property? And the key point here, and I think Minister slightly glossed over it by saying you could cut and paste. Well, I know we've all filled in forms of cutting and pasting, but that is still having to go individually into each form, cutting and pasting.
Believe me, from past experience, that's where you get more errors.
18:39
18:39
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
I'm afraid it's quite an important issue. And there's been a number of issues raised. So that's where we're going to get a lot of data problems. The point about an apartment block, again, is the ability for most of those apartments may not be the same identical. And yes, they have to be registered individually, but the ability to provide that bulk amount of information and then having the separate individual registration. So we don't disagree with that. Otherwise, as I've said before, the risk is hundreds of. So if you could just clarify and that real question, why are you putting it in the real world?
Not a sort of offline testing where there would be bulk agents and so forth.
Not a sort of offline testing where there would be bulk agents and so forth.
18:40
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Well, I think testing since 2023 is, you know, is a lot of is a lot of testing going on. So what I will do if the noble Lord is happy with this, I will get some more information about how the testing has worked, what's been tested and so on. But the figures were fairly, you know, outstanding that we did have an 80% or an 80% rating of clear or very clear on the registration guidance and a 90% reporting service, very easy or easy to use. But if it would help to give more detail of how it's been tested, if you let me finish.
And so I think we'll get some more information out to you on that. But it's certainly it's not in the government's interest. It's not in landlord's interest. It's not certainly not in the tenant's interest, which really basically sets the heart of this. So we were more we were enabling tenants to have access to more transparent interest. If, sorry, more transparent information if this database doesn't work. So we want to be, you know, we, we have made sure that we're, we've worked on it to make sure it works before we do this implementation in December. And we will continue to work with the sector to improve it as we go along.
And so I think we'll get some more information out to you on that. But it's certainly it's not in the government's interest. It's not in landlord's interest. It's not certainly not in the tenant's interest, which really basically sets the heart of this. So we were more we were enabling tenants to have access to more transparent interest. If, sorry, more transparent information if this database doesn't work. So we want to be, you know, we, we have made sure that we're, we've worked on it to make sure it works before we do this implementation in December. And we will continue to work with the sector to improve it as we go along.
18:41
18:41
18:41
18:41
18:41
18:43
18:43
18:43
18:43
18:43
18:43
18:43
18:43
18:43
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Draft order amend section nine, three of the Human Rights Act, 1998 to make damages available in relation to judicial acts done in good faith, where the Judicial Act breaches the requirements of procedural fairness under article eight, the right to respect the right to for private and family life of the European Convention on Human Rights. The government considers that amending section nine three in this way is the appropriate approach that ensures we meet our international obligations, while respecting the important principle of judicial immunity. The applicant was a social worker who acted as a professional witness in childcare proceedings in the family court.
The family Court judge made adverse findings in his judgment as to the professional conduct of S w, without giving the applicant adequate opportunity to respond, and directed that the judgment be sent to the local authority to which the applicant was then assigned. The applicant's assignment with the local authority was subsequently terminated. In 2016, the Court of Appeal found the applicant article eight rights had been infringed and set aside the findings. However, the applicant was unable to obtain damages due to section 93 of the Human Rights Act, which prevents the payment of damages for judicial acts done in good faith except in very limited circumstances.
In 2021, the European Court of Human Rights subsequently found there had been a breach of article 13 of the convention. The rights to an effective remedy read together with article eight. The breach arose because the applicant did not have access to an effective remedy at the national level, capable of addressing the substance of her article eight complaint and by which she could obtain appropriate relief. The European Court of Human Rights awarded a sum in damages which had been paid. We are obliged, as a matter of international law, to implement this judgment, which in this case requires legislative change to ensure that similar, similar violations will not arise in the future.
The Human Rights Act contains powers in section ten and schedule two to make amendments to legislation via a remedial order to address the findings of the European Court of Human Rights. On the 17th of July 2025, the government made a proposal for a draft remedial order to make the necessary amendment to the Human Rights Act. The government considered that this addressed the specific findings of the court in November 2025. The Joint Committee on Human Rights reported on the draft remedial order, and we're grateful for the committee's scrutiny and for accepting that this is a valid use of the power to make a remedial order, which addresses the specific breach of article 13 identified by the court in s w.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights were of the view that the proposed amendment was too narrowly drafted to prevent future breaches of article 13, where judicial acts infringe upon convention rights. It recommended amending the order either by introducing principal exceptions to section nine three, or consider removing the provision entirely alongside a number of recommendations to amend the drafting. While we recognise their recommendation to go further, having examined these concerns carefully, the government had decided to continue with the current approach for the order and implemented small drafting changes in response. The implementation of this judgment should not be delayed any further, and it has been five years since the judgment became final.
We have taken care to ensure the draft remedial order appropriately addresses the incompatibility identified by the court in S, W versus the UK, while respecting the principles community. Whilst the remedial order has not been amended as recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we have committed to undertake a review of the operation section 9.3, separately to the implementation of this judgment, in consultation with the judiciary and the Joint Committee on Human Rights and other relevant parties. I'm grateful to the Joint Committee on Human Rights for its scrutiny of the proposal and its careful consideration of the more recent draft order that has been laid.
We welcome the Joint Committee's recommendation that both houses approve the order. Noble Lords will have heard me mention the need to protect the principle of judicial immunity due to judicial immunity is the long established common law principle an independent and impartial jury judiciary, an independent and impartial judiciary is one of the cornerstones of a democracy, and judicial immunity is an important safeguard of that. Independence. Officials have had continued engagement with the judiciary during the drafting of the remedial order to ensure that they were fully sighted on our plans. Finally, my Lords, given that the Human Rights Act applies to the whole of the United Kingdom, this would apply.
UK wide officials have been in contact with the devolved governments during the process of drafting this amendment. This draft order ensures that damages may be awarded under the Human Rights Act in respect of a judicial act done in good faith. Whether judicial Act is incompatible with article eight on the grounds that it was done in such a procedurally defective way as to amount to a breach of the requirements of procedural fairness. Under that article, I beg to move.
The family Court judge made adverse findings in his judgment as to the professional conduct of S w, without giving the applicant adequate opportunity to respond, and directed that the judgment be sent to the local authority to which the applicant was then assigned. The applicant's assignment with the local authority was subsequently terminated. In 2016, the Court of Appeal found the applicant article eight rights had been infringed and set aside the findings. However, the applicant was unable to obtain damages due to section 93 of the Human Rights Act, which prevents the payment of damages for judicial acts done in good faith except in very limited circumstances.
In 2021, the European Court of Human Rights subsequently found there had been a breach of article 13 of the convention. The rights to an effective remedy read together with article eight. The breach arose because the applicant did not have access to an effective remedy at the national level, capable of addressing the substance of her article eight complaint and by which she could obtain appropriate relief. The European Court of Human Rights awarded a sum in damages which had been paid. We are obliged, as a matter of international law, to implement this judgment, which in this case requires legislative change to ensure that similar, similar violations will not arise in the future.
The Human Rights Act contains powers in section ten and schedule two to make amendments to legislation via a remedial order to address the findings of the European Court of Human Rights. On the 17th of July 2025, the government made a proposal for a draft remedial order to make the necessary amendment to the Human Rights Act. The government considered that this addressed the specific findings of the court in November 2025. The Joint Committee on Human Rights reported on the draft remedial order, and we're grateful for the committee's scrutiny and for accepting that this is a valid use of the power to make a remedial order, which addresses the specific breach of article 13 identified by the court in s w.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights were of the view that the proposed amendment was too narrowly drafted to prevent future breaches of article 13, where judicial acts infringe upon convention rights. It recommended amending the order either by introducing principal exceptions to section nine three, or consider removing the provision entirely alongside a number of recommendations to amend the drafting. While we recognise their recommendation to go further, having examined these concerns carefully, the government had decided to continue with the current approach for the order and implemented small drafting changes in response. The implementation of this judgment should not be delayed any further, and it has been five years since the judgment became final.
We have taken care to ensure the draft remedial order appropriately addresses the incompatibility identified by the court in S, W versus the UK, while respecting the principles community. Whilst the remedial order has not been amended as recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we have committed to undertake a review of the operation section 9.3, separately to the implementation of this judgment, in consultation with the judiciary and the Joint Committee on Human Rights and other relevant parties. I'm grateful to the Joint Committee on Human Rights for its scrutiny of the proposal and its careful consideration of the more recent draft order that has been laid.
We welcome the Joint Committee's recommendation that both houses approve the order. Noble Lords will have heard me mention the need to protect the principle of judicial immunity due to judicial immunity is the long established common law principle an independent and impartial jury judiciary, an independent and impartial judiciary is one of the cornerstones of a democracy, and judicial immunity is an important safeguard of that. Independence. Officials have had continued engagement with the judiciary during the drafting of the remedial order to ensure that they were fully sighted on our plans. Finally, my Lords, given that the Human Rights Act applies to the whole of the United Kingdom, this would apply.
UK wide officials have been in contact with the devolved governments during the process of drafting this amendment. This draft order ensures that damages may be awarded under the Human Rights Act in respect of a judicial act done in good faith. Whether judicial Act is incompatible with article eight on the grounds that it was done in such a procedurally defective way as to amount to a breach of the requirements of procedural fairness. Under that article, I beg to move.
18:49
18:49
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
My Lords, may I first thank the Minister for his introduction, but more importantly, place on record that I was the minister in the previous government that held the posts that the noble Lord now holds. And this proposed statutory instrument came before me at the time, or an instrument along these lines, and I declined to allow the Department to proceed with a statutory instrument, not on the basis that we should do nothing to implement the relevant judgment of the Court of Human Rights, but on the basis it should be done by primary legislation, and that the statutory instrument rule is quite wrong .
For this kind of instrument. I relied particularly on two things. In 2021, the noble Lords were a call. The then government commissioned a review of the working of the Human Rights Act, chaired by Sir Peter Gross, and had a very distinguished panel in support and came out with a very impressive report, a major recommendation of that report was that although one can have remedial orders to amend various acts of Parliament, that should not be done, that should never be done in relation to the Human Rights Act itself, because that is the foundation stone of the whole system, and that is a an act, foundational act by Parliament, and that amendments to the Human Rights Act itself should only be done by primary legislation.
I was not, as the minister, prepared to go against that very important recommendation and that very important constitutional safeguard. That was the first reason. The second reason was that this instrument has profound constitutional implications anyway, because, as the noble Lord, the minister has just said, the principle of judicial independence is a foundational principle of our Constitution. And in order to protect judicial independence, we have for centuries held that judicial acts made in good faith are immune from damages. And that is also a foundational principle of the Constitution. And again, I took the view that if one was going to modify or weaken that principle, that is a matter that should be done by Parliament, by primary legislation.
So and of course, from the point of view of judicial independence, once one. Allows people to sue a judge or to sue the court for acts done in a judicial capacity, there are two fundamental problems. One is that you are undermining the independence of the judiciary fairly self-evidently, but the second is that you are opening up a second route of appeal from the decision in question, and that is a serious matter. And I took the view, rightly or wrongly, that this should only be done with the full consent of both Houses of Parliament properly and fully debated on the floor of both houses, following normal procedure for primary legislation.
My Lords, I regret to say that by proceeding by this route, the government has taken the wrong course. It has shown profound disrespect to Sir Peter Gross and his distinguished panel in this regard, and has managed simultaneously to weaken both the foundational principles of our Constitution, namely the supremacy of Parliament and be judicial independence. So I for myself would respectfully ask the Minister, even at this late stage, to reflect on whether this really is the route that the government should proceed to make the necessary amendment to the Human Rights Act and to invite him to withdraw this order and to.
Proceed by way of a one line Act of Parliament, which we can debate very fully and explore these very important, very difficult issues about judicial independence, about the way courts operate and whether in any circumstances, parties or witnesses in court have rights against the judges or against courts for what is done in good faith judicially. Thank you.
For this kind of instrument. I relied particularly on two things. In 2021, the noble Lords were a call. The then government commissioned a review of the working of the Human Rights Act, chaired by Sir Peter Gross, and had a very distinguished panel in support and came out with a very impressive report, a major recommendation of that report was that although one can have remedial orders to amend various acts of Parliament, that should not be done, that should never be done in relation to the Human Rights Act itself, because that is the foundation stone of the whole system, and that is a an act, foundational act by Parliament, and that amendments to the Human Rights Act itself should only be done by primary legislation.
I was not, as the minister, prepared to go against that very important recommendation and that very important constitutional safeguard. That was the first reason. The second reason was that this instrument has profound constitutional implications anyway, because, as the noble Lord, the minister has just said, the principle of judicial independence is a foundational principle of our Constitution. And in order to protect judicial independence, we have for centuries held that judicial acts made in good faith are immune from damages. And that is also a foundational principle of the Constitution. And again, I took the view that if one was going to modify or weaken that principle, that is a matter that should be done by Parliament, by primary legislation.
So and of course, from the point of view of judicial independence, once one. Allows people to sue a judge or to sue the court for acts done in a judicial capacity, there are two fundamental problems. One is that you are undermining the independence of the judiciary fairly self-evidently, but the second is that you are opening up a second route of appeal from the decision in question, and that is a serious matter. And I took the view, rightly or wrongly, that this should only be done with the full consent of both Houses of Parliament properly and fully debated on the floor of both houses, following normal procedure for primary legislation.
My Lords, I regret to say that by proceeding by this route, the government has taken the wrong course. It has shown profound disrespect to Sir Peter Gross and his distinguished panel in this regard, and has managed simultaneously to weaken both the foundational principles of our Constitution, namely the supremacy of Parliament and be judicial independence. So I for myself would respectfully ask the Minister, even at this late stage, to reflect on whether this really is the route that the government should proceed to make the necessary amendment to the Human Rights Act and to invite him to withdraw this order and to.
Proceed by way of a one line Act of Parliament, which we can debate very fully and explore these very important, very difficult issues about judicial independence, about the way courts operate and whether in any circumstances, parties or witnesses in court have rights against the judges or against courts for what is done in good faith judicially. Thank you.
18:55
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
My Lords. It's always a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord Bellamy, who will raise matters which, if you are not a lawyer, give you thought and give you interesting contributions which need to be addressed. I think if and I don't make a judgment on what the noble Lord has said, save that the Joint Committee, which was, of course, our Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I'll come to in a moment in its report, both this time and the second stage, both first time and second time, reported on that singular point that at some stage the issue should be dealt with by primary election.
Of course, the government's response at that time, and continues to be. And I and I'm sure the minister opposite me now is going to have to defend this position, of course, but there is no time for such a small piece of legislation by Prime Minister Nation. So I look forward to on on to the to the answer to that. First of all, though, however, I think what I absolutely agree with is that these pieces of legislation are foundation stones. They are foundation stones throughout the throughout our continent. For those of us who have and are spending a considerable amount of time working with the European Convention on Human Rights and the body, which is set up to protect it, the Council of Europe.
It is quite clear that the. That all of the. The legislatures in in Europe bear this one thing that they say that all this is built upon, that foundation stone and that foundation stone I carry with me, because it's not a huge document. I mean, that's it. And when people complain about the European Convention on Human Rights, I ought to have a selection and give them a copy. Because actually, if you read what the actual decision was or the the convention of the court, the European, what it was article 13, the right to an effective remedy.
And I'm going to read this into the record because simply it's only one sentence. It says everyone whose rights and freedoms are as set forth in this convention are violated, shall have an effective remedy before a national authority, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity. Now, you can see if you want to talk about foundations, that that is the foundation upon which this our Human Rights Act has been made, and, of course, which is being changed. So the my my questions were, first of all, related to the fact that we are justified, should be justifiably proud of, of our Joint Committee on Human Rights.
It's precisely that their work, which has been able to take all these issues in great detail to take evidence over a two stage process which has now taken nearly two years. And that's on top of the three years before that, I think, when the case was first heard. This is very, very serious legislation, and I think we need to be proud of the fact that we have a body of both houses which lays out that these conditions, which are being put before us today, have to be approved by both houses. And that's what we're here to do today.
I know that the solution which has been put forward has and the committee has agreed it, but not without caveat. And the caveat the primary caveat, I think, that it had was that the amendment which has been brought forward is very tight and not broad. And within the document that the the the Human Rights Joint Committee on Human Rights produced, they sought to ask the government what was the rationale for being tight. And this touches, I think, on one of the earlier points made by Lord Bellamy just now, the noble Lord, Lord Bellamy, about judicial independence.
The paragraph which is in the report quoting what the government says, and this is what I would like the noble Lord, the minister opposite me, to be able to try and explain to me why they went for the narrow, the narrower option of a very specific point, just to simply deal with the case which was before them. The government responded on this issue of breadth, we understand the key concerns. This is the concerns of the judiciary, by the way, relate to possible impacts on judicial immunity, particularly the risk that a broad amendment may incense may incentivize people to bring claims impacting on judicial decision making and court resourcing.
Now, the committee joint committee didn't accept that was a rational reason, and it says further down that the government has given no reason for thinking the European Court of Human Rights would consider the effects of the amended section to be compatible with article 13 in circumstances not covered by the narrow exceptions. So the question that I'm asking is not about where we're going to end up with, with the process that is being adopted here. But why is it that the government believes this going broader would, in fact, upon judicial immunity, in the terms which the government has already stated to us, because it seems to me that if we if we are going to accept the principle which I know it's not acceptable to to some noble members, but that this should be done by private legislation, a point which was covered by the Joint Committee.
And we are going to accept this as an alternative. Then we do need to understand why it it might be that we might ever have to come back again to do a similar thing in circumstances which were not covered by this very specific and very particular amendment. It might still be better, of course, to do the broader version in respect of doing it as a as an amendment to the Human Rights Act. Anyway. However, we we are content to follow the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but it does raise some very serious concerns about how these matters are dealt with, both now and in the future, in both the procedural way and certainly in relationship to judicial immunity.
And I look forward to responses to these matters from the noble Lord, the minister.
Of course, the government's response at that time, and continues to be. And I and I'm sure the minister opposite me now is going to have to defend this position, of course, but there is no time for such a small piece of legislation by Prime Minister Nation. So I look forward to on on to the to the answer to that. First of all, though, however, I think what I absolutely agree with is that these pieces of legislation are foundation stones. They are foundation stones throughout the throughout our continent. For those of us who have and are spending a considerable amount of time working with the European Convention on Human Rights and the body, which is set up to protect it, the Council of Europe.
It is quite clear that the. That all of the. The legislatures in in Europe bear this one thing that they say that all this is built upon, that foundation stone and that foundation stone I carry with me, because it's not a huge document. I mean, that's it. And when people complain about the European Convention on Human Rights, I ought to have a selection and give them a copy. Because actually, if you read what the actual decision was or the the convention of the court, the European, what it was article 13, the right to an effective remedy.
And I'm going to read this into the record because simply it's only one sentence. It says everyone whose rights and freedoms are as set forth in this convention are violated, shall have an effective remedy before a national authority, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity. Now, you can see if you want to talk about foundations, that that is the foundation upon which this our Human Rights Act has been made, and, of course, which is being changed. So the my my questions were, first of all, related to the fact that we are justified, should be justifiably proud of, of our Joint Committee on Human Rights.
It's precisely that their work, which has been able to take all these issues in great detail to take evidence over a two stage process which has now taken nearly two years. And that's on top of the three years before that, I think, when the case was first heard. This is very, very serious legislation, and I think we need to be proud of the fact that we have a body of both houses which lays out that these conditions, which are being put before us today, have to be approved by both houses. And that's what we're here to do today.
I know that the solution which has been put forward has and the committee has agreed it, but not without caveat. And the caveat the primary caveat, I think, that it had was that the amendment which has been brought forward is very tight and not broad. And within the document that the the the Human Rights Joint Committee on Human Rights produced, they sought to ask the government what was the rationale for being tight. And this touches, I think, on one of the earlier points made by Lord Bellamy just now, the noble Lord, Lord Bellamy, about judicial independence.
The paragraph which is in the report quoting what the government says, and this is what I would like the noble Lord, the minister opposite me, to be able to try and explain to me why they went for the narrow, the narrower option of a very specific point, just to simply deal with the case which was before them. The government responded on this issue of breadth, we understand the key concerns. This is the concerns of the judiciary, by the way, relate to possible impacts on judicial immunity, particularly the risk that a broad amendment may incense may incentivize people to bring claims impacting on judicial decision making and court resourcing.
Now, the committee joint committee didn't accept that was a rational reason, and it says further down that the government has given no reason for thinking the European Court of Human Rights would consider the effects of the amended section to be compatible with article 13 in circumstances not covered by the narrow exceptions. So the question that I'm asking is not about where we're going to end up with, with the process that is being adopted here. But why is it that the government believes this going broader would, in fact, upon judicial immunity, in the terms which the government has already stated to us, because it seems to me that if we if we are going to accept the principle which I know it's not acceptable to to some noble members, but that this should be done by private legislation, a point which was covered by the Joint Committee.
And we are going to accept this as an alternative. Then we do need to understand why it it might be that we might ever have to come back again to do a similar thing in circumstances which were not covered by this very specific and very particular amendment. It might still be better, of course, to do the broader version in respect of doing it as a as an amendment to the Human Rights Act. Anyway. However, we we are content to follow the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but it does raise some very serious concerns about how these matters are dealt with, both now and in the future, in both the procedural way and certainly in relationship to judicial immunity.
And I look forward to responses to these matters from the noble Lord, the minister.
19:02
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
My Lord, I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for his introduction of this order. But I immediately say that I align myself entirely with the observations made by my noble friend, Lord Bellamy. We are dealing on the surface with what appears to be a very simple and straightforward order. But below that simple surface there is a raging sea of contention and debate, and it is one that should be addressed by Parliament in the form of primary legislation, not by ministers, in the form of remedial orders. When the Human Rights Act was passed, Parliament ensured that the principle of judicial independence and immunity that which the noble Lord, the Minister quite rightly referred to as a long established common law principle and a foundational constitutional issue, ensured that all aspects of judicial independence were preserved by section nine of the Human Rights Act.
There is a minor exception with regard to where someone has been detained, but that does not impact directly upon the issue. The concept of judicial independence is central to our common law system of justice, and I'll come back to this point, but I make this observation it is less easily identified within many continental legal systems. Many of those continental legal systems, of course, make up the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. So there is, if you like, a potential divergence in the view taken with regard to judicial immunity and judicial independence as between common law systems such as our own and continental systems.
Now in 2021. And I emphasized 2021, five years ago in the case of SE and the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights intruded upon the issue of immunity and independence of the judiciary by determining that a remedy in the form of damages should be available, where there was potentially a breach of article eight of the convention. And it's in that context that we're now presented with a remedial order. My Lords, when the Human Rights Act was being debated nearly 30 years ago, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, set out that the power conferred by section ten to make a remedial order was to be conferred only in exceptional circumstances.
It was a power to be exercised lightly, and it's a point reinforced by the terms of section ten itself. And noble Lords may wish just to refer back to the explanatory memorandum at paragraph 6.3, which emphasizes this . Section ten, subsection two of the Human Rights Act, requires that a minister must consider there to be, and I quote, compelling reasons for making an amendment by way of a remedial order. Compelling reasons. Five years after a judgment. As Sir Peter Gross and his board determined there could never be or should never be compelling reasons to amend the Human Rights Act itself, the foundational document by means of a remedial order.
There may be cases with regard to other primary legislation where such a remedial order would be appropriate. But as the noble and learned Lord Irvine of Lairg pointed out, it's a power to be conferred or exercised lightly and not one to be deployed. With regard to the foundational principles of human rights as expressed in the Human Rights Act. Now, in attempting to meet. The requirement for compelling reasons, we're told, we consider there is little prospect of finding suitable primary legislation to make an amendment in the near future. We consider that the nature of the incompatibility contributes to to there being compelling reasons for making the necessary legislative change swiftly, swiftly, the European Court of Human Rights opined on this matter more than five years ago as regards to compelling reasons.
When the minister presented this order, he did so under the non-urgent procedure. There's nothing compelling about any of. This is an issue that should properly be brought before Parliament in the form of primary legislation, and the absence of a suitable vehicle is of little moment. Indeed. I happen to notice that we are at present debasing the courts and tribunals bill. Well, the noble Lord confirmed to me that he's checked as to whether or not this provision would fall within competence of that bill. No doubt he's addressed that issue, given the way in which the explanatory notice set out, but other legislation could be made available.
The Lords, in these circumstances, what we're actually seeing is the developing jurisprudence of the court in Strasbourg , intruding upon the primary legislation of our Parliament, our sovereign Parliament, in an area of fundamental constitutional importance. And five years later, a minister laying an order under the non-urgent procedure and seeking to maintain that somehow there's an issue of urgency, a compelling reason to intrude upon a fundamental constitutional right and protection. The Lords at the time has come for the Government and Parliament to consider the increasing intrusion into our parliamentary sovereignty of an ever evolving jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights, particularly when the jurisprudence is significantly and materially influenced by continental lawyers unfamiliar with our common law based system.
The remedial order sets, I would suggest not only a very bad, but a very bad precedent.
There is a minor exception with regard to where someone has been detained, but that does not impact directly upon the issue. The concept of judicial independence is central to our common law system of justice, and I'll come back to this point, but I make this observation it is less easily identified within many continental legal systems. Many of those continental legal systems, of course, make up the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. So there is, if you like, a potential divergence in the view taken with regard to judicial immunity and judicial independence as between common law systems such as our own and continental systems.
Now in 2021. And I emphasized 2021, five years ago in the case of SE and the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights intruded upon the issue of immunity and independence of the judiciary by determining that a remedy in the form of damages should be available, where there was potentially a breach of article eight of the convention. And it's in that context that we're now presented with a remedial order. My Lords, when the Human Rights Act was being debated nearly 30 years ago, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, set out that the power conferred by section ten to make a remedial order was to be conferred only in exceptional circumstances.
It was a power to be exercised lightly, and it's a point reinforced by the terms of section ten itself. And noble Lords may wish just to refer back to the explanatory memorandum at paragraph 6.3, which emphasizes this . Section ten, subsection two of the Human Rights Act, requires that a minister must consider there to be, and I quote, compelling reasons for making an amendment by way of a remedial order. Compelling reasons. Five years after a judgment. As Sir Peter Gross and his board determined there could never be or should never be compelling reasons to amend the Human Rights Act itself, the foundational document by means of a remedial order.
There may be cases with regard to other primary legislation where such a remedial order would be appropriate. But as the noble and learned Lord Irvine of Lairg pointed out, it's a power to be conferred or exercised lightly and not one to be deployed. With regard to the foundational principles of human rights as expressed in the Human Rights Act. Now, in attempting to meet. The requirement for compelling reasons, we're told, we consider there is little prospect of finding suitable primary legislation to make an amendment in the near future. We consider that the nature of the incompatibility contributes to to there being compelling reasons for making the necessary legislative change swiftly, swiftly, the European Court of Human Rights opined on this matter more than five years ago as regards to compelling reasons.
When the minister presented this order, he did so under the non-urgent procedure. There's nothing compelling about any of. This is an issue that should properly be brought before Parliament in the form of primary legislation, and the absence of a suitable vehicle is of little moment. Indeed. I happen to notice that we are at present debasing the courts and tribunals bill. Well, the noble Lord confirmed to me that he's checked as to whether or not this provision would fall within competence of that bill. No doubt he's addressed that issue, given the way in which the explanatory notice set out, but other legislation could be made available.
The Lords, in these circumstances, what we're actually seeing is the developing jurisprudence of the court in Strasbourg , intruding upon the primary legislation of our Parliament, our sovereign Parliament, in an area of fundamental constitutional importance. And five years later, a minister laying an order under the non-urgent procedure and seeking to maintain that somehow there's an issue of urgency, a compelling reason to intrude upon a fundamental constitutional right and protection. The Lords at the time has come for the Government and Parliament to consider the increasing intrusion into our parliamentary sovereignty of an ever evolving jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights, particularly when the jurisprudence is significantly and materially influenced by continental lawyers unfamiliar with our common law based system.
The remedial order sets, I would suggest not only a very bad, but a very bad precedent.
19:09
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Well, I thank the noble Lords for their contributions and. I'm sorry we got to this rather late, but it clearly does raise some rather interesting issues. And I am getting, if I may say so, conflicting advice from the parties opposite on this. Let me try and deal with the points that have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bellamy, and indeed Lord German, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord keen on on the question of of primary legislation which the noble Lord, Lord Bellamy raised and was supported by the noble Lord, Lord, Lord keen. We considered this a proportional and appropriate use of the power in section ten of the Human Rights Act, which.
Which was referenced, which does not prevent the amending of the act itself. This is exactly the type of situation the section ten power was created for. I take the point that the noble and learned Lord keen made about Lord Irvine's comments that it should be used lightly, and that is part, in part, why we are approaching this with a very narrow and targeted amendment to address the incompatibilities that have been identified by the courts in their scrutiny report, the J, c, H and I join with Lord German, the noble Lord, Lord chairman, and very much a associate myself with his sentiments about being proud of the work of the JCI.
I think it's a very distinguished part of your lordships House. They were satisfied that the power to make a remedial order under section ten of the Human Rights Act can be relied on in these circumstances. They also accepted that the conditions for compelling reasons, the point that had been made. The test necessary to use the power under section ten, two of the Human Rights Act were met. The Joint Committee on Human Rights also considered this question in the previous Hammerton remedial order, and reached the conclusion that the government does have the power to amend the HRA in this way.
On the question of finding suitable primary legislation, I don't think it's frivolous to observe that in the short time I've been in this job, I'm frequently told that that we should find time for one line bills to to achieve something important. But we do consider there is little prospect of finding suitable primary legislation to make amendments in the New Year. And the noble and Leonard, Lord keen and I have discussed this before, and I think he described waiting for parliamentary time as a quagmire in that debate. We consider that the nature of the incompatibility contributes to there being compelling reasons for making the necessary legislative change swiftly by a remedial order.
The Noble and Leonard Lord keen is right. This has been going on since 2021, but of course he knows what I'm going to say. We weren't in power until 2024, and I understand from my officials there was a search for a primary legislation vehicle before this government came to power and none was found. Can I turn now to the the points made by Lord chairman? Well, I think I should I should address the question of judicial immunity because it's so central to the discussion we're having. And as I've said, and the noble and learned Lord keen has also said judicial immunity is a long established common law principle, and an independent and impartial judiciary is one of the cornerstones of a democracy, and judicial immunity is an important safeguard of that independence.
The government, of course, supports and commits itself to protecting that protective judge from personal liability arising from acts carried out in the exercise of their judicial functions. Officials have had, and I want to reassure the Committee about this continued engagement with the judiciary during the drafting of the remedial order to ensure that they were fully sighted on our plans. And can I just make some remarks specific to this remedial order? When the Human Rights Act was passed, the purpose of section 93 was to preserve the principle of judicial immunity and limit the extent of damages for judicial acts done in good faith to the extent necessary to comply with article 55 of the convention.
A further exception, as I've noted, was added via the Hamilton Remedial Order to allow damages to be awarded in the case of judicial acts that are incompatible with article six in circumstances where the person is detained, but for the incompatibility, the person would not have been detained for so long. The Noble and Leonard, Lord King, mentioned that this order preserves the approach of the original legislation. I note the comments of Lord noble, Lord, Lord chairman on the views of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. But we do want to take, as it were, the narrow approach so that we can preserve the approach of the original legislation by setting out a further limited exception related to a judicial act done in good faith, where the Judicial Act breaches the requirements of procedural fairness under article eight.
I mean, there clearly is a difference of view, is there not, between the government and the opposition, about the whole question of the European Convention on Human Rights, and this debate is is a small part of that. So I should put on the record the government's support for the European Convention on Human.
Which was referenced, which does not prevent the amending of the act itself. This is exactly the type of situation the section ten power was created for. I take the point that the noble and learned Lord keen made about Lord Irvine's comments that it should be used lightly, and that is part, in part, why we are approaching this with a very narrow and targeted amendment to address the incompatibilities that have been identified by the courts in their scrutiny report, the J, c, H and I join with Lord German, the noble Lord, Lord chairman, and very much a associate myself with his sentiments about being proud of the work of the JCI.
I think it's a very distinguished part of your lordships House. They were satisfied that the power to make a remedial order under section ten of the Human Rights Act can be relied on in these circumstances. They also accepted that the conditions for compelling reasons, the point that had been made. The test necessary to use the power under section ten, two of the Human Rights Act were met. The Joint Committee on Human Rights also considered this question in the previous Hammerton remedial order, and reached the conclusion that the government does have the power to amend the HRA in this way.
On the question of finding suitable primary legislation, I don't think it's frivolous to observe that in the short time I've been in this job, I'm frequently told that that we should find time for one line bills to to achieve something important. But we do consider there is little prospect of finding suitable primary legislation to make amendments in the New Year. And the noble and Leonard, Lord keen and I have discussed this before, and I think he described waiting for parliamentary time as a quagmire in that debate. We consider that the nature of the incompatibility contributes to there being compelling reasons for making the necessary legislative change swiftly by a remedial order.
The Noble and Leonard Lord keen is right. This has been going on since 2021, but of course he knows what I'm going to say. We weren't in power until 2024, and I understand from my officials there was a search for a primary legislation vehicle before this government came to power and none was found. Can I turn now to the the points made by Lord chairman? Well, I think I should I should address the question of judicial immunity because it's so central to the discussion we're having. And as I've said, and the noble and learned Lord keen has also said judicial immunity is a long established common law principle, and an independent and impartial judiciary is one of the cornerstones of a democracy, and judicial immunity is an important safeguard of that independence.
The government, of course, supports and commits itself to protecting that protective judge from personal liability arising from acts carried out in the exercise of their judicial functions. Officials have had, and I want to reassure the Committee about this continued engagement with the judiciary during the drafting of the remedial order to ensure that they were fully sighted on our plans. And can I just make some remarks specific to this remedial order? When the Human Rights Act was passed, the purpose of section 93 was to preserve the principle of judicial immunity and limit the extent of damages for judicial acts done in good faith to the extent necessary to comply with article 55 of the convention.
A further exception, as I've noted, was added via the Hamilton Remedial Order to allow damages to be awarded in the case of judicial acts that are incompatible with article six in circumstances where the person is detained, but for the incompatibility, the person would not have been detained for so long. The Noble and Leonard, Lord King, mentioned that this order preserves the approach of the original legislation. I note the comments of Lord noble, Lord, Lord chairman on the views of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. But we do want to take, as it were, the narrow approach so that we can preserve the approach of the original legislation by setting out a further limited exception related to a judicial act done in good faith, where the Judicial Act breaches the requirements of procedural fairness under article eight.
I mean, there clearly is a difference of view, is there not, between the government and the opposition, about the whole question of the European Convention on Human Rights, and this debate is is a small part of that. So I should put on the record the government's support for the European Convention on Human.
19:15
19:15
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
As I have done before, and I'm. But I'm very happy to reiterate that, my Lords, I'm grateful for the contributions to this debate, and I'm sure that. Issues that surround the European Convention on Human Rights will return to our debate and many times in the future. But we believe this order is the right way to implement the judgment and ensures that we meet the obligation to implement the judgment, while still upholding the important principle of judicial immunity.
Therefore, beg to move.
Therefore, beg to move.
19:16
19:16