Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Banner (Con)]

No, in my assessment. Whenever the law changes, there will be an adaptation period. That is axiomatic, but it will be the case anyway because we will have new legislation. The intention behind it, if anything, is to streamline and therefore reduce costs, including legal costs.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I am intrigued by this exchange, because the thought had occurred to me that, by introducing a principle of proportionality into the legislation, we would then open the floodgates to contention about what is proportional. The question of JR seems to be immediately rearing its head. Therefore, I cannot see how, rather than simplifying the system, it would not add a layer of complication.

The argument about the CIL in relation to small developments is a different one. There is some merit in that because of the flexibility one needs for small builders. However, that is only part of an ancillary argument to the broader and slightly dangerous argument brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, in favour of over-complicating the planning system in the way he suggests.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, proportionality is in the eye of the beholder; it depends on your perspective. These ideas—proportionality, reducing bureaucracy, speeding up small developments and reducing costs—are seen from the perspective of the developer. Those are fair arguments to make, but, equally, if we are to be proportionate, we need to see the other side of the balancing scales: the perspective of those on the receiving end of the development. For example, taking away the importance of bats, badgers or whatever might reduce costs and bureaucracy and speed up development, but it would anger local people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, in another life, I had the privilege of taking through the then Planning Bill 2008, which introduced CIL. In this House, we had some very vigorous arguments, not about its purpose but about its methodology. I was very interested to hear what the noble Lord said about the subsequent review. With the support of my Front Bench, we were very proud to be able to lever that additional money for crucial infrastructure.

I have some sympathy for the amendment, because it is a confusing strategy in some respects. I would like to see CIL and local authorities getting greater credit, as well as for there to be more transparency around what developers’ funds go into. While I want to pay tribute to my earlier Government’s effort to raise these funds, I support greater transparency and clarity for developers as well as for local authorities and communities.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her comments and congratulate her on taking through the legislation. At the outset, when she was taking the legislation through your Lordships’ House, she would have contemplated that CIL was going to carry the lion’s share of the cost of infrastructure. Sadly, that never turned out to be the case. To a certain extent, the areas that have had CIL have ended up in a worst-of-all-worlds situation, where they have some CIL but they also have Section 106. That is a disappointment. It has not reached the promise that we all wanted for it, because everything has become so much more expensive. As I alluded to earlier, the developers give up with CIL and just want to build the school themselves. In fact, they are probably best placed to build the school while they are onsite, mobilised and with the construction equipment all around them. With the benefit of hindsight, perhaps forcing the council to build the school when they do not have some of that brownfield risk would have been an improvement.

I am getting off the point. In short, I support the amendment, but it needs to be embellished on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Andrews]

172: After Clause 52, insert the following new Clause—
“Conservation of the historic environment(1) The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is amended as follows.(2) In sections 16(2), 66(1) and 66(2), for “preserving”, in each place in which it occurs, substitute “conserving or enhancing”.(3) In section 72(1), for “preserving” substitute “conserving”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the fundamental inconsistency between heritage policy and heritage legislation by using the same terminology in both and safeguarding heritage by encouraging desirable change.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I feel that I have been reprieved on this amendment. I will do my best to keep it short, although it is a bit technical. It is a proposed new clause. The Front Bench will be relieved to know that none of my supporters can be here; they are all in far better places and having a much better time, which will definitely cut down the time taken on this.

The amendment is supported and was mainly drafted by the Heritage Alliance, which represents 200 of the heritage bodies in the country. It is a very weighty amendment that has been extremely well thought-through by the umbrella body for the heritage sector. Who could resist an amendment drafted by such a public-spirited body? It is also in the spirit of the Bill. It is about freeing up growth and innovation through housing, public services and more besides. The clinching argument is that it would bring out-of-date legislation into current policy, guidance and best practice. I think the Minister can only commend this amendment, because it would bring clarity and confidence across the whole field of heritage and planning.

Briefly, national heritage planning policy is based throughout on the principle of conservation, defined in the NPPF, which we have heard about a lot on this Bill, as:

“The process of maintaining and managing change to a heritage asset in a way that sustains and, where appropriate, enhances its significance”.


The definition goes back decades. It was pioneered in America and we incorporated it into English Heritage’s conservation principles when I had the privilege of being its chair in 2012. It was incorporated into the NPPF in that year too. It has meant in practice that conservation has become the lodestar of heritage practice, encouraging and enabling the repurposing of historic buildings into working spaces for today’s students, crafts men and women, housing families and organisations, while retaining the character of those post-industrial towns and their buildings which means so much.

Anybody who has watched “The Great Pottery Throw Down” will know Middleport Pottery, which was rescued at the very last minute, supported by the King, and restored to all its glory. There is the marvellous work on St John’s, at Waterloo, which has kept its extraordinary heritage and community activities and so on. There are hundreds of outstanding examples. Were the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, here, he would talk about historic farm buildings and the contribution they make to the continuing character and vitality of the countryside.

What needs changing? Lurking in the planning legislation is a residual leftover from another age, when the object of heritage was to preserve and not conserve. Let me explain. The concept of preservation dates back to the 19th century, well before there was any consciousness of what historic buildings might be used for. There was then a binary choice: knock it down and lose it or preserve it. The Ancient Monuments Protection Act 1882 was the attempt to provide legal protection for the first time. That concept of preservation against loss prevailed for a century and it remains at the heart of the planning system. In the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 there is still a legal presumption in favour of preservation. This amendment seeks to bring planning policy and guidance into line and substitute the phrase “conserving or enhancing” for “preserving” in each of the relevant subsections.

Why is it urgent to do this now? Every listed building consent and planning decision near any listed building, and every planning decision in England’s 10,000 conservation areas, must explicitly give special regard to “preservation”, not “conservation”. Planning law overrides and outranks policy and guidance, so this planning legislation can have a chilling effect on imagination, innovation, and the creative use of rare and useful buildings, working against the possibility of housing, public services, leisure and much else.

This is not some nit-picking attempt to tidy up legislation. Heritage is not a peripheral issue in planning. We are an old country, with lots of stuff, and a third of planning applications involve heritage. But heritage is now so often seen, and can be seen in the Bill, as blocking change—a lazy reaction. At a time when we are looking for economic growth, and growth in housing and services, this prejudice prevents the right sort of change and growth. It is bad for the past and bad for the future.

Take town centres, for example—which our Select Committee recently looked at. They are robbed of their original purpose and yet still recognisable in the churches, civic buildings and law courts which make up the heart of the community. They may have lost their original purposes but they are immensely useful buildings which can transform community engagement. They are ripe for repurposing for local authority services, diagnostic medical centres, craft workshops and galleries —all it needs is imagination and the change in the law that we are proposing in this amendment. Historic England estimated that 670,000 new homes could be created in England alone by repairing and repurposing existing historic buildings.

This is an obvious and timely change to make and is extremely discreet. It is a very limited amendment and would have no damaging implications for any other form of legislation. It would simply remove the inconsistency between heritage policy and heritage legislation by using the same terminology in both and ensuring that heritage becomes part of the wealth of the future as well as the past. I really hope the Minister will support this. I beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, heritage assets, as we have heard, are not simply buildings or sites of historic interest; they are living reminders of who we are, where we come from and the values we wish to pass on. Turning to the amendments before us, in Amendment 172 the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, raises an important and interesting issue—the inconsistency, as I understand it, between heritage policy and heritage legislation. I am keen to hear the Government’s reflections on this matter and whether they believe that an amendment of this kind is necessary to ensure clarity and consistency in the system. I will wait to hear what the Minister says, and I would love a conversation about this with the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews.

Turning to a series of amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, as he so often does, he has raised some significant, thought-provoking issues. We worked tirelessly on the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act. Anything that helps to get on with the commencement of some of the key aspects of that legislation would be most welcome. In that context, Amendment 182, on the commencement of provisions concerning the duty to have regard to heritage assets in planning functions, is of particular importance. Ensuring that heritage is properly taken into account in planning decisions is a safeguard for the future as much as a means of showing respect for the past.

We also hear what my noble friend says in Amendment 185C, which proposes that national listed building consent orders under Section 26C of the 1990 Act be subject to the negative resolution procedure. That seems a practical suggestion, and I hope the Government and the noble Baroness will consider it carefully. Heritage is, after all, not about blocking change but about managing it well and ensuring that the past informs and enriches the future. These amendments, in different ways, all seek that balance model.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend’s reply. I will of course withdraw the amendment, but it is rather disappointing. I am very glad that the Minister has met with the conservation and heritage bodies. They have a view about this, which is why they framed the amendment as they did. Although I accept the argument, there is a point in thinking again about whether we need to align this legislation and guidance, for the reasons I gave.

There is a wider argument. There are other aspects of heritage protections that are now very much in the frame for change. It is four or five decades since we had heritage legislation. The 1985 Act is well out of date. We need new heritage legislation. When the Minister meets with the heritage bodies again, perhaps she could ask them what they think of that idea and whether they would have an interest in framing new heritage legislation which makes more sense of where we are in terms of how we now regard historic buildings in their setting, and their purposes. But, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 172 withdrawn.

Planning Delivery: Acceleration

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I say to the noble Baroness that changing the planning system is a key part of it, but it is not the only part of the jigsaw. We need to improve the skills capacity in both planning and construction. We also need to unblock some of the sites she mentioned that are currently blocked in planning. Our new homes accelerator, working with the department and Homes England, has unlocked significant numbers of homes already. We have unblocked over 63,000 homes so far, including a further 43,000 homes over the last four months. On 5 August, we announced another six sites that the accelerator has identified for targeted support. We are also helping local government, so that it is able to insist that planning applications are built out, once they are applied for and got.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, for some years now planning departments have been hollowed out, specialist planners and experienced planners have resigned and there is a critical need to introduce more planners to make all the housing ambitions realistic. Can the Minister tell us what the Government’s policy is towards recruiting and accelerating planning specialists, so that we will see renewed energy in the planning system in terms of applications?

Housing Associations: Financial Assistance

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The exact details of the programme will be published shortly. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, 30% of the funding in that £39 billion funding pot will be allocated to London. But the noble Lord should look at what has happened in the last 14 years and not blame the Mayor of London for what has happened with housing in London.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, it is very good news about investment in social housing. The role of the housing associations will be critical, obviously. The noble Baroness mentioned the role of the New Towns Taskforce. Can she update us on when we can expect the report? I think we can all agree that it is summer already.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As I have discussed before at the Dispatch Box, summer is quite a flexible concept in the Civil Service, but we expect the report of the New Towns Taskforce imminently. I would like to say how successful it has been with the task force running an extensive round of consultation around the current new towns, with people with lived experience of what it is like to live in a new town, both to learn the lessons where things did not work and to see what did work to inform its work. So I am pleased to have been working with Sir Michael Lyons and the task force on that, and I very much look forward to its report.

High Streets (Built Environment Committee Report)

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased that we have an opportunity to debate last year’s report on the future of high streets from the Built Environment Committee, chaired with such brio by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. It was a very interesting and thoughtful process. We have an opportunity today to consider the Government’s largely positive response. I warn the Minister that I will ask him some detailed questions, although I do not necessarily expect a detailed reply. I am sure that officials will be able to write if necessary.

Most importantly, the Government’s response reflects their sense that the state and prospects of the high street reflect the wider state of the economy and the public realm, and therefore play a critical part in driving, as well as reflecting, national and local growth and renewal. They are part of the national mission. That is very reassuring. I was hopeful for a positive response for the reasons that my noble friend—as he is at the moment as the current chair of the committee—mentioned. Our conclusions are so well evidenced and practical, there should be nothing in this report that is in the “too difficult to implement” box.

The report’s title, Life Beyond Retail?, says it all, in contradiction to the mantra that there is no future for the high street because so much has changed and cannot now be restored. That is primarily in retail, but there are other changes as well. In this context, which is heavy with gloom and doom, we insist that there can be a bright future for the high street, which has evolved over thousands of years to meet changing needs and fashions, but it will take leadership, investment, imagination and innovation.

The Committee will hear a lot in my speech about Lewes, where I have lived for donkey’s years, because it is an exemplar of what is happening, both the worst and the best. Our high street has seen so much change, not to say drama, in its history, which dates back to the Anglo-Saxons. We still have shops with medieval foundations; they were trading in textiles when the Norman castle was being built a millennium ago. We have a 14th-century bookshop. Church, state and law are all physical in our high street. Opposite the county court, in all its magisterial splendour, is the hotel where Tom Paine preached revolution and where people continue to do so—it is that sort of town.

In short, the high street was a stage upon which all dramas played out. It was a marketplace for the community for centuries, but also the place where people met to learn, worship, celebrate, be judged or be improved, both young and old. Much of that community spirit has been retained, but we have lost small supermarkets, butchers, ironmongers, bookshops, post offices and banks. They have largely been replaced, as we have heard, by cafés, charity shops, estate agents, computer shops, hairdressers and nail bars. None of that is unique to Lewes, but it exemplifies in different ways what is happening across the country at different speeds. While the report makes clear that there is no single prescription for a monolithic high street, there would never have been and will never be one.

There are universal explanations for the changes we have seen. The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, has already touched on retail. My figures show that between March 2020 and March 2022, 9,300 retail units were closed. PwC found that in the first half of 2024 there was a net loss of 2,284. Often, it is the large department stores and chain stores that go first and are most vulnerable. That has been driven by a combination of factors, such as online shopping, which was furiously accelerated by Covid, unaffordable business rates, poor public transport and parking, a run-down and often sordid public realm with few places where people can socialise without paying for it, neglected green spaces, empty churches and a general air of neglect and alienation. It is not a universal condition, but these are universal challenges, and we discuss them all in the report.

This is not a party-political issue. It is a social and economic challenge. The previous Government threw up a host of complex programmes for the medium and short term, which were warmly greeted, but, as the NAO and various reports said, they did not seem to understand what had worked on the high street and the impact of complex funding arrangements. We heard all about that from our witnesses, who said that they have a new funding application to consider every day, and that in the context of a rundown of public capacity.

Our report recognised that the previous Government had made an attempt to plan for the longer term, but in the short term we said that a clear strategy is needed, based on clear leadership, greater local capacity to develop the high street and town centre and ways of involving the community—for example, town centre managers with training and expertise charged with co-ordinating and driving development and more inclusive and engaged partnership for business improvement districts. The report illustrates what we mean by reference to places such as Frome in Somerset. It also needs long-term, sustained investment. The Budget this year confirmed the 75 neighbourhood partnerships and a revised prospectus. Will the Minister say when we can expect the revised prospectus? Why and how will it be different?

We focus on some specific issues, including housing, transport and community engagement. We have had the repurposing of empty department stores or offices for affordable housing under permitted development relaxation, but we have also seen a failure of quality and design and a missed opportunity. We recommended, for example, a review of the use of class E properties. Will this happen? When will we see a review of permitted development rights? We are told that they are in train. What do the Government think they can achieve in terms of good transport and good parking, which they say has a local role? What will be the impact of local government reorganisation on capacity?

One of the core questions is how we support business in the high street. The chain stores are unlikely to come back. The future will lie with those small, necessary, ingenious businesses that we all love and cherish, such as excellent bakers, plant shops or exciting children’s bookshops. These are the reasons people come to the high street. The Government say they will publish their small business strategy. When will it be published? Will it specifically address the issue of the high street? Will the Government maintain the priority given to the town centre-first retail policy within the NPPF? Will they, when they review business rates, have particular regard to the need to consider and simplify the range of business rates relief schemes to support the high street?

We found reasons to be cheerful. We found innovation, leadership and good practice, which can turn terminal decay, if not decline, into a new proposition. The report is full of examples of innovation, such as teenage markets and regeneration through the heritage action zones. Whether it is churches that have lost their congregations or cinemas that have closed, historic buildings are invaluable assets for their social and collective possibility. The ability to buy those to turn them into local markets, child centres, workshops and climate hubs can really engage people in reimagining what the high street could look like.

We were told by young people, businesspeople and local leaders alike to give the community more power to design the future they want. They want to be involved in this new vision for their high street. The Government have said that they intend

“to commence a package of plan-making reforms … to improve the quality of community engagement”.

Where have we got to on that? The Government say they will invest in initiatives to boost town and city centres, including high street accelerators. I do not really know what that means. I would be grateful for a further explanation.

One of the most positive and popular developments is to reimagine the high street as the place where things can get done and not just bought. The opportunities are there to put in place some of those public services which have disappeared from view because they are increasingly online, and the people who lose out are the people who are in greatest need—the poor, the elderly, the young—who want to talk to somebody, who want advice face to face.

For example, my high street now has a brilliant local authority outlet where complicated questions about a new garden waste bin—I will not bore the Committee with the details—can be sorted in five minutes rather than five hours online. The possibilities are endless: housing offices; walk-in surgeries for routine vaccinations and diagnostic tests; toy libraries for young mums with small babies and giant buggies; repair cafés for the things that have to be thrown away because there is nobody to repair them; empty shop windows where the local university can show some of the work it is doing; empty shops that can be converted into pop-up galleries for FE art students to display their work—the ideas are endless and excellent and they are there, in the community, waiting to be put into place with imagination. They are about experience and quality, not retail.

Our report creates an imaginative future for the high street. I really hope that the Government will take it and do something with its recommendations as part of their wider set of policy proposals.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Andrews]

23: Clause 36, page 29, line 29, at end insert “and has effect subject to section (LRHUDA 1993: Non-development guarantee)”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is related to another amendment in the name of Baroness Andrews inserting a new Clause (LRHUDA 1993: Non-development Guarantee).

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment 24. These might seem to be rather arcane amendments; Amendment 23 is a technical amendment and Amendment 24 is the substantial point and a proposed new clause. This might look like an arcane point but it is a very significant one and it is simple to correct. The amendment asks the Government to act on a promise to remove a significant blockage, which at the moment increases the cost of enfranchisement to leaseholders who are threatened with upward extensions to blocks of flats and have to pay the freeholder extra for the possible profit he might have made had he chosen to develop. The proposed new clause, although detailed— I apologise for the length of my speaking note—would remove the blockage. I am extremely grateful to noble Lords around the Committee for supporting this, and to the Minister, who has already met me. We all agreed that this is something that must be put right in the Bill.

I declare an interest as a leaseholder in a block of flats that has been under threat of an upward extension for not two years but five years. The consequent blight and anxiety have been considerable. Asking for compensation for not extending upward is now an accessible and popular option for freeholders looking for more profit, especially when it falls under the relaxed requirements of permitted development. That means that there would be no automatic planning hearing, and often what would count as a major development slips by for determination simply by planning officers. There is no requirement for affordable housing, friendly accommodation that would help disabled people, or considerations of planning issues such as the impact on structural stability or protection from massive disturbance for residents.

Given that upward extension can be authorised in wider circumstances than the normal planning rule, it is estimated that there are about 2.2 million custom-built private sector leasehold flats in blocks where development value—for example, for upward extension—could be an issue, and therefore where leaseholders might face this additional obstacle to enfranchisement. There are certainly many people already affected by upward development in London alone.

The current key legislation is paragraph (5) of Schedule 6 to the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. It defines development value in relation to premises to be enfranchised as an

“increase in the value of the freeholder’s interest in the premises which is attributable to the possibility of demolishing, reconstructing, or carrying out substantial works of construction on, the whole or a substantial part of the premises”.

To give a graphic illustration, in our own situation in my block of flats, when faced with a development we were not consulted on and did not want, we sought to enfranchise ourselves. The cost was originally estimated at £750,000 for 103 flats. Now the development value has been added, that has shot up to £1.75 million. We can no longer raise the funds and we cannot buy the freehold. What has shocked me most as I have pursued the Government on this point is that the impact assessment on upward extension of permitted development shows that the Government actually knew that this would happen. They anticipated that upward extensions would generate freeholder profits to the tune of £530 million in land value uplift, even without any actual development. Moreover, the impact statement recognised that this may make it more expensive for leaseholders to enfranchise.

To their credit, the Government realised that there was something wrong, especially since it would contradict the policy intentions of this Bill to make enfranchisement cheaper. So they referred it to the Law Commission, which reported in 2020 on options to make enfranchisement cheaper and easier. In option 9, it said that:

“When exercising enfranchisement rights, and in order to reduce the premium payable where there is development value, leaseholders could be given the ability to elect to take a restriction on future development of the property”.


The Government accepted the option. On 11 January 2021, in the House of Commons, Robert Jenrick promised in a Written Statement:

“Leaseholders will also be able to voluntarily agree to a restriction on future development of their property to avoid paying ‘development value’”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/1/21; col. 10WS.]


Nothing would give us more pleasure in my block than a promise not to develop.

Even more to their credit, this solution was signposted in the impact statement on this Bill, in Annex 2, at paragraph 12, which recognises that the prospect of paying development value can make enfranchisement “prohibitively expensive”, and contemplates that there will be a new right for an option not to pay development value on the condition that leaseholders guarantee not to develop themselves. So I must ask the Minister this: with all these assurances having been given, where is this new clause? What has happened to the policy commitment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not think that would be a sensible solution, because there might be times when permitted development might be the correct thing to do and everybody might be happy about it, including those leaseholders who have enfranchised. We need to take this steadily because it is fraught with complexity.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

I am extremely grateful to everyone who has supported the amendment, especially the noble Baroness on my Front Bench. I am also particularly grateful to the Minister. I understood her to say that the Government are committed to bringing forward a workable scheme to deal with this problem, which is exactly what I wanted to hear. I know it must be fraught with difficulties. There are lots of rights and planning issues involved. There is a whole nest of issues that would have to be addressed. The important thing is that it be in line with the timetable for the Bill. Perhaps she will be able to say more about this when we meet, but I hope that it will be either aligned in the timetable, so that there is no more confusion and we can get this tracked as soon as possible, or, if it requires legislation, in the Bill. I take the point, and I would be very happy to meet her—and to take in with me an army, and its advisers.

I have one further reflection on the PDR review. I did my homework—I did what the Minister said, and I saw whether I could use the current PDR review as a way of raising this, but it does not allow me to do that; it is too narrow in scope. Therefore, in fact we need a proper review of PDR, because the implications are so varied and wide. If the Government could commit to that, there would be a lot of political capital in it. In the meantime, I am happy to leave this amendment, and we will see and wait on progress.

Amendment 23 withdrawn.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 27th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, who has been indefatigable in his pursuit of justice and improvements to the leasehold system. The Minister is going to have a huge amount of help to improve the Bill; she has already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Best, about how to improve the regulatory system, and there will be lots of advice coming from around the House, as there has been from every part of the industry that knows about leasehold.

I welcome the Bill, but like many others in the House—as I am sure the Minister will hear in the rest of the debate—I think it is a disappointing Bill because it does not fulfil the full task that the Law Commission undertook. Mr Gove, who is ever cheerful, was hardly right when he said at Second Reading in the other place that the Bill would mean

“the effective destruction of the leasehold system”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/23; col. 659.]

That is not so, sadly. It does serious damage, but the leasehold system survives and will go on inflicting and perpetuating real damage, as we have heard already from around the House. He also conceded that more improvements were necessary and I think we have heard several, very powerful reasons for that. Without delaying it, I am sure that this House can improve the Bill very seriously.

The failure to follow the full recommendations of the Law Commission is particularly frustrating because it is one area of the complex and disastrous housing landscape where a solution can be found through the law. The Government have said that there has not been enough legislative time; I say very gently to the Minister, because I know she is not responsible, that if the Government had not distracted both Houses with legislation such as the Rwanda Bill, then we might have had more legislative time. There certainly would have been more time to consider, for example, the proposition made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, about introducing a regulator, or addressing the impact on building safety.

The Government would also not have had to introduce 124 of their own amendments, 34 new clauses and a new schedule in Committee. We are making legislation on the hoof. Legislation like this, which is consensual, ought at least to have the benefit of proper and thorough scrutiny, and we will give it that in this place, not least to some of those 72 very constructive amendments which came forward from the Opposition in the other place—all of which were, of course, rejected.

Reference has been made to this bizarre medieval system of leasehold which we have inherited. Like the feudal laws it echoes, it places all the power in the hands of the freeholders, who are indeed free of all obligations to show responsibility, transparency or fair treatment to the leaseholders beholden to them. Leaseholders live with insecurity compounded by secrecy. They live with no control over what the freeholder is up to next—they never know, especially with offshore companies. They are subject to arbitrary cuts and things being loaded into maintenance, over which they have no control; the cases mentioned by my noble friend on the Front Bench were extraordinarily powerful. They are subject to bad or indifferent property management, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, has described. They worry constantly about whether they should or could afford to extend the length of lease, or pursue enfranchisement—what does it involve and what will it cost?—or what the implications are if they rent out, stay in or sell their homes? No other form of tenure faces such intractable problems.

We talk these days about the precariat; this is at the very edge of the precariat, and more so the 70% of leaseholders living in flats. Yet they have less protection in this Bill, which does not offer them what they need. I speak from experience: as a leaseholder in a block of flats in London, I am in that precariat. This is a speech of two halves, and the second half will be about a particular issue that comes on top of all the others.

If the Bill had been comprehensive, it would certainly have abolished leasehold for all properties. While I welcome the ban on new leasehold houses, I cannot understand the logic of not extending that to flats—not for political reasons alone. I welcome the changes which will make it cheaper and easier for existing leaseholders in houses and flats to extend their lease or buy their freeholds. It is long overdue to be able to extend a 90-year lease to 990 years. As has already been said, why could the Government not have followed the logic and given leaseholders greater protection against losing their homes if they are found to be in minor breaches of the lease? I take comfort from what the Minister has said, and I look forward to seeing what the Government will bring forward; I just hope it will deal with the problem. Also, why did they not follow the logic of placing in the Bill, the purpose of which is to reduce the cost of enfranchisement, a clear legal obligation to encourage leaseholders to acquire their freehold at the lowest possible cost when determining the applicable deferment?

Many of the amendments put forward in the other place will have served the purposes of this Bill very well. It would have been right and sensible to give leaseholders the right to buy up their ground rent, or to provide that all new flats should include a requirement to establish and operate a residents’ management company. Every day, we see the evidence for how effective resident management buyouts are, with lower costs, higher standards, and so on. As other Members have said, the Bill might have also included provision to give leaseholders the right to a share of the freehold, which is the first step towards the preferred option of commonhold. The extension of the protections around the Building Safety Act are very welcome.

We have heard already several times about the importance of the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Best, on the property agents working group. If the Government were worried about Henry VIII clauses, because that is what they said, it would be the first time I have ever heard, in this House, any Government be worried about Henry VIII clauses. I am not going to take that seriously and I do not think anyone else should either. All I hope, at this point, is that the Government find a better reason for supporting the case put forward by the noble Lord.

I am sure we will have a lot of further discussion in Committee, and I am grateful to the Minister for already having engaged with me on a particular issue that I will bring forward in Committee, unless the Government choose to do so. I ask the House to indulge me while I tell a particular tale which affects quite a lot of leaseholders in London, and it is a sort of extension of many of the issues.

Many leaseholders in blocks of flats around and beyond London have been threatened in recent years by upward extensions. Upward extension has been made possible by permitted development; there is no right to be consulted or requirement for a planning application, and there is no strength in objection. No affordable housing provisions are required nor is there provision for disability, and the proposed new homes are market-rent and do not help solve London’s housing crisis.

There is no provision for compensation caused by disruption or decanting of tenants. Imagine an 80 year-old who has been living in the top floor of a four-storey house who suddenly finds she is on a building site. She cannot afford to move, no one is going to help her, and she has to stay put. That is the situation facing the residents of my block of flats at the moment.

Extraordinarily, building control does not help. The way building control operates means that permission can be given without construction methods being tested in advance. There could be a builder who has never done this before, who suddenly decides to put a concrete structure on top of four storeys, and no one will actually know whether it is going to work. Building control will not take action until it has gone through the process. There is, in fact, potential damage or danger by construction methods and approach, recognised by departmental circular 3 of 2020, but it is given pretty short shrift. This is a really awful situation to be in when, as a resident, you have no power to challenge.

We were in that situation when we were threatened by two storeys. There was no consultation and minimal information. Permission was sought and granted, first for one storey under normal planning rules and then for two. We lost our judicial review on the one storey, and, extraordinarily enough, we won on appeal on the two storeys, because we were within the catchment area of a hospital heliport. It was nothing to do with planning or our rights; it was only by accident. We are still under threat of a one-storey extension.

In this Bill, I want the Government to honour their promise. The development ambitions of freeholders, all across London and beyond, are having a chilling effect on the ability of leaseholders to seek and afford enfranchisement. The new hazard is that the development value of the plans brought forward by our freeholder have doubled the collective enfranchisement cost from £0.75 million to £1.75 million. This puts it outside of the reach of most of the residents. The Law Commission proposed a remedy in its valuation report, and the Government—Mr Jenrick, no less—said in the House of Commons on 11 January 2021 that:

“Leaseholders will also be able to voluntarily agree to a restriction on future development of their property to avoid paying ‘development value’”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/1/21; col. 10WS.]


The Bill has an impact assessment, thank goodness. Buried in it—you have to be forensic—in annex 2, paragraph 12, is the recognition that the prospect of paying development value can make enfranchisement prohibitively expensive, contemplating that there will be a new right for an option not to pay development value on condition that leaseholders guarantee not to develop themselves. I will draw my remarks to a close soon, but the assessment is detailed. It also contemplates that the freeholder would be due reasonable out-of-pocket expenses, if they have been genuinely incurred. The freeholder gets some profit, but the leaseholder gets absolutely nothing out of this. The Law Commission did not recommend it—this is an invention of the Government.

I have asked the Minister whether she thinks this is something that the Government can honour in the Bill, and she has said that it is a live issue. That is all I need for now, because I trust the Minister to take this issue seriously. It is quite a general issue. I will come back and discuss this with her, if the Government feel that they cannot. She has already told me that the permitted development review is under consultation and that there may be an implication there. Perhaps she could tell me more about that.

We will certainly engage over the course of Committee, and I will not make any further argument at this point, other than simply to say that I welcome the Bill. It is a huge opportunity; let it not be a missed opportunity. Let us use the resources and expertise in this House to make the Bill as robust and comprehensive as we can. I believe that there is quite a lot of good will on the part of the Government to do that.

Intergovernmental Relations Within the United Kingdom

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure, as always, to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie. I should reassure her that the Welsh are very rarely in a majority in this House. We should take advantage of that this afternoon. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for enabling us to have this debate and for the forensic way in which he introduced it. It is timely because there is much to welcome in the new IGR structure, especially the greater clarity in terms of process, accountabilities and dispute resolution. As he was saying, this is a work in progress and I entirely agree with him about the challenges of how it will be used. I look forward to the Minister’s response to his important questions.

I will focus on Wales, because what gives this debate extra edge today is that we have had the much-anticipated report of the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales, chaired by our very own Archbishop Rowan Williams, and by Professor Laura McAllister. It has concluded that

“The relationship between the UK government and the devolved governments has fallen far short of the co-operation that citizens expect and which is essential to the successful operation of the Union”.


It calls on the need to protect the Union from the risk of “gradual attrition” if steps are not taken to secure it, and sets out the options for Wales in terms of the future of its governance.

Now, its conclusions consolidate much of what has been marked by intergovernmental relations of recent years. However banal this may sound, no matter how good our structures are, unless those trusted relationships can be retained and made resilient, Westminster and the devolved Administrations will always have an asymmetrical relationship.

That is certainly reflected in Wales’s relationship with Westminster. In July last year, the UK’s conduct towards Wales was described as

“attempts to undermine the devolution settlement and … continued disrespect for the Welsh Government and the Senedd”,

which has damaged intergovernmental working. When he was asked during the Covid inquiry how the new intergovernmental structures were working, the First Minister said they would work only where there were existing good relationships in place, but that

“the new machinery has not succeeded in sparking those arrangements”

or “new forms of interaction”, and that too often relationships just reflected the whim or will of the individual Minister. Indeed, we saw the failure of that will during the Covid pandemic itself, when, despite what we were told in this House, the relationship between Wales and Westminster was one of incommunicado some of the time. Now, that was a basic failure of courtesy, let alone co-ordinated policy.

This House has seen at first hand how the Government have introduced legislation that has overridden the basic precepts of devolution—consultation and consent—and this is documented in the commission’s report. But in this House, I am delighted to say that noble Lords have played a key role in protecting the devolution settlement from the worst effects of provocative legislation, presented to the DAs without care or consultation.

The Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, which I had the privilege of chairing for two and a half years, had a ringside seat—sometimes we were actually in the ring itself—for intergovernmental relationships. It was not so much a case of benign indifference but more a question of “prod and provoke”. It was our conviction that common frameworks could help to mend those relationships and build a stronger Union. But the prevailing political mood was in effect to make common frameworks a victim rather than an agent of positive policy, as seen particularly in relation to the internal market Act and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act. These brand-new mechanisms, these common frameworks that were invented post-Brexit for managing divergence within the internal market, were intended originally to be positive instruments for taking collaborative policy across the UK, whether that was on agriculture or health, and in so doing to draw the Union closer. That opportunity has been lost so far because they have become focused on compatible processes rather than policy. Insofar as they are successful, it is because the officials working across the four countries have made them so.

What has been lacking is political leadership, and in our final letter to Mr Gove—I completely agree with everything the noble Lord has said about the way the Cabinet Office is marginalised here—we said that the failure to provide drive and focused leadership, which would have galvanised the contribution common frameworks could make to the Union, explains why we described in our reports that common frameworks have been an unfulfilled opportunity. Indeed, we had a whole cohort of Ministers trooped in front of us—some with a better grasp than others—but they all displayed a rather cavalier attitude towards the frameworks and no real grip on what they could actually achieve. Mr Gove has disputed our arguments, of course, but he does say that he thinks the IGR reforms have created “a better overall context”. The obvious question is how; I hope the Minister can answer that.

Recently, the Interparliamentary Forum drew attention to the difficulties caused by the United Kingdom Internal Market Act—a Bill that was fought in this House, where we were able to protect the dispute resolutions of the current frameworks against being subordinated to UK legislation, which was very important—and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act, which virtually dismissed any concerns on the part of either Wales or Scotland as to how their regulatory frameworks would be impacted.

Given that the union is now more troubled, less robust and less certain about boundaries and functions, the publication of the report today, which calls on the Westminster Parliament to secure through legislation

“a duty of co-operation and parity of esteem between the governments of the UK”

is vital. I hope the Government will listen and learn from that because parity of esteem between the different cultures and conditions of the countries of the UK must be at the heart of reviving the relationships if they are not to become even more frayed.

Wales carries the burden of inherited poverty and ill health. It is an exceptional legacy. Underfunding for years means that the Welsh Government simply cannot meet the needs of Wales. The reason why that is so, and its repercussions in the context of the union, is part of the conversation that the commission has started across Wales by making recommendations about the strengthening of the union and raising options for its future. I hope the Government will listen intently to that.

Local Councils: 2023-24 Budgets

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I absolutely agree with my noble friend, not only on that point but that councils can look to a referendum. It is important that, if they look for a referendum, they say what they are going to spend the money on so that local people have a choice.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in the first few months of last year, 2.2 million hours of adult social care were lost? This year, we have half a million people waiting for a care assessment, a care package or to have some care sorted out. Does she agree that adult social care and the community basis for adult social care should be a priority in the Budget? The Health Secretary believed this when he was chair of the Health and Social Care Committee in the Commons. Will she remind him of his promise to increase funding and will she engage with her Treasury officials and her Ministers to make that happen?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, adult social care has been an issue to be solved for not just this Government but many Governments before them. The Government are putting more money into adult social care. They put £2 billion more into local authority funding this year for it, and we will continue to look for better ways of delivering adult social care, working with the NHS as well.

Residential Leaseholders

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I cannot comment on the individual case, but the law is already clear that service charges must be reasonable. That is set out in Section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. If leaseholders feel they are being ripped off, they can apply in First-tier Tribunals for determination on this. However, I agree that there is more to do. The Government are committed to ensuring that charges, particularly service charges and these extra charges, are transparent. There should be a clear route to challenge or redress if things go wrong.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

My Lords, in light of the commitment made by the big six lenders to accept mortgage applications for flats with building safety issues from Monday 9 January, will the Minister confirm that the Government will monitor their lending decisions to ensure that this time their commitments will be fulfilled, so that this part of the housing market can be unfrozen?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The right reverend Prelate brings up an interesting point. I do not know exactly what the Government will do, as the announcement was made only this week. However, I will find out exactly how we will monitor them and the process, and come back to her.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise to the right reverend Prelate. Can I press the Minister on the timetable? She said that she expects the Bill to be introduced before the end of this Parliament. Does she mean that it will be introduced before the election? It is not only disappointing that we have had delays but profoundly destabilising. For example, leaseholders no longer know whether it is safe to pursue enfranchisement or whether they should wait for the Bill. Another thing that has happened in recent years, with the extension of permitted development, is that there are blocks of flats with leaseholders held captive by freeholders who are pursuing upward extensions under permitted development, without the protection of law. These leaseholders do not even have protection in case they have to be decanted while building works are going on. It is a very serious situation and it is accelerating. I would like the Minister to advise on that point.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

As I have made clear a number of times at this Dispatch Box, these measures were in the manifesto in 2019. We have always said that we will bring forward a reform Bill in this Parliament and that is what we intend to do. We just have to wait and see; I am very sorry. I totally understand that this is causing some issues in the sector. That is why we will get the Bill through as soon as we possibly can, but it has been quite complex and we need to get it right.

Social Homes for Rent

Baroness Andrews Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

The noble Lord is always on the money. We need to create places and not just homes on mono-tenured estates. That is why the affordable homes programme is looking to increase the number of social homes for rent, but also other forms of subsidised housing such as affordable rent and low-cost home ownership, so that people of all incomes can live in the same place.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, when are we going to have a housing policy that takes account of the fact that we have an ageing society? How can you level up when we are expecting a new generation of elderly people in poverty who will go on paying rent as long as they live? If we can plan for an ageing society, why can we not plan to have flexible and adapted housing, systematically provided and spatially planned, which can allow for people to age in place? That would save enormous social and economic costs.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

We do recognise that we have an ageing society, which is why a chunk of the £11.5 billion affordable homes programme will go towards subsidising housing for the elderly. We recognise in our planning policies that areas need to do their bit to house people, and also to enable people to remain in their homes if that is what they choose to do.