High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am afraid I bring a somewhat different perspective from that of the earlier speakers. It reflects the views that I presented in much discussion on the levelling-up Bill. The last thing our local communities, particularly the most disadvantaged, need is more meddling and more statutory requirements laid on them from Westminster, without the resources to deliver them. As the noble Lord, Lord Mair, pointed out, the Government are offering money to draw up the plans but not to deliver them. It is not within the power of your Lordships’ House to put down an amendment to demand that there also be funding from the centre, but, were it within our power, I would be very tempted to do so. I direct this comment particularly towards those on the Labour Front Bench: should they be in the position of implementing the Bill, I hope they would look at providing such a financial provision.

We need Westminster to get out of the road of local communities: to stop sticking its oar in and give people the power and resources to make decisions locally. One example from the framework of the Bill is that artificial time periods for review are set out here in Westminster, saying, “You will review this every five years”. But it may be that local circumstances are different: maybe everything is going swimmingly and everyone can see it, or maybe something is going wrong in another area and resources need to be moved. That is an artificial imposition from Westminster.

I note that we are in a situation where councils overwhelmingly need a long-term funding settlement—they face a £4 billion gap over the next two years—to protect their statutory services and to provide what is needed on the high street, such as cleaning and maintenance. They are under enormous pressure because there is simply not the money, and this is just one more imposition being laid on.

It is interesting to think about what the guidance will say. There is a question of powers but there is possibly some ability to use the guidance for an issue that was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mair: permitted development rights. Your Lordships’ House has heard from two noble Lords not currently in their place—the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Crisp—who highlighted the terrible nature of the housing that has been developed under permitted development rights. Some 100,000 dwellings have been created since 2013, but many lack fire safety standards, adequate ventilation and natural light—imagine housing without natural light. They do not have the facilities, such as schools and health facilities, that are needed. The Government have ruled out giving councils control over this within these zones, but is it possible to put anything in the guidance that might help to address this issue?

I will particularly focus on privatisation, because public land ownership in Britain is in crisis. Since the late 1970s, half of all of what was public land has been sold off: 2 million hectares in total, or 10% of Britain’s total land area. Can the Minister—or the Labour Front Bench in the future—comment on whether the Government would consider making a recommendation in the guidance that there be no further privatisation of public space in these high street plans? That is absolutely crucial to our politics.

I am going to declare an interest here, because I believe that our high street should be a place of political activity —something that privatisation has often led to the exclusion of. My declaration of interest is that I was with Occupy London on day one, when it was driven out and unable to occupy what many people think of as a public space, Paternoster Square—a long-term historic political space in London. Now, of course, it is owned and managed by the Japanese group Mitsubishi Estate, which was able to close that square off, and Occupy London ended up in front of St Paul’s instead.

I hope that we might see some guidance on this. I hope that we might also see in the guidance whether the Government are going to provide all kinds of prescriptions to make sure that we protect small independent businesses against large multinational companies.

Finally, I will put on the record that I did really struggle with this—but eventually I decided that, however limited and controlling from Westminster it is, it provides a little bit more in the way of resources to local councils. So it is not my intention to seek to slow the progress of the Bill, despite the very deep concern of the Local Government Association and local authorities.

Traveller Site Fund

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Bourne for all his work when he was a Minister in my position. I do not have an update on the Bourne review, but I will certainly write to the noble Baroness and the House with an update on it.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, next month is Gypsy, Roma and Traveller History Month, and I hope that all Members of your Lordships’ House will take the opportunity to learn a little more about the many centuries of history of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people in the UK. In that light, I am sure that the Minister is aware of the High Court judgment this week against the Police Act 2022 that said that 12-month bans from an area for Gypsy and Traveller people were incompatible with Article 14 rights within Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Noble Lords may remember that a significant number of your Lordships’ House voted against that provision in the Police Act. There now has to be a legal review. Can the Minister tell me what the Government’s plans are for it?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No. That is a very recent decision. I do not know that there are any plans but, certainly as soon as we have them, I will let the noble Baroness know.

Representation of the People (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I take this opportunity to welcome my noble friend Lady Scott, back to her position. We have missed her through many SIs that we have discussed in this Room at different stages, and we are pleased to see her back. That is particularly so, because a number of people in this Committee, not least my noble friend Lady Scott, as well as the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Khan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, helped me to pass the Ballot Secrecy Act through the Lords and the Commons. That Act was implemented for the first time at the elections on 2 May. Now that it has completed its course and been fully implemented, I express my appreciation to them for their involvement at one stage or another in achieving that legislation. I merely observe that, unfortunately, in my polling station there was no notice relating to the Ballot Secrecy Act, but I will live with that.

While that legislation was going through, I wrote to my noble friend the Minister, raising the question of comments made in a ministerial write-round. She said that she could not comment; I well understand that, and I do not expect her to do so now. However, in her absence—I am sure it is not because of it—I have since received clarification that the Electoral Commission’s counsel’s opinion was received by officials on 26 August, which was a month and three days before a ministerial write-round said that we had been given some “headline information”. However, I appreciate the clarification at last.

To come back to this SI, the noble Lords, Lord Rennard, Lord Wallace and Lord Khan, and I, met the new chief executive of the Electoral Commission a few weeks ago, and we discussed the sheer quantity of pages of statutory instruments that are being passed in relation to all elections law. This error—the Minister has acknowledged that it was an error, and that this is intended to put it put it right—indicates the sheer quantity of pages that one is dealing with. I make a request of whoever are the next Government: there is a desperate need for the consolidation of all electoral legislation. To be honest, it is a mess at the moment, which I think we all agree on. There may be slightly different interpretations on one or two matters, but there is no question but that elections law needs consolidation. In that meeting, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, identified that we had considered in Grand Committee some 1,100 pages of SIs arising out of the Elections Act. It is impossible to give adequate scrutiny to that sheer quantity of legislation, and much of it arises from the lack of consolidation.

I seek specific clarification in relation to the one point that I wanted to raise. I referred just now to the elections of 2 May but I think I heard the Minister identify that this did not apply on 2 May. I think I heard her refer to the date of 7 May in terms of implementation, in which case my supplementary question becomes otiose—that is, did it have any implications for 2 May? Can my noble friend confirm that she used that date? I conclude with that question.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and I commend the enormous amount of work that he does in the whole area of electoral space.

It is customary to thank the Minister for explaining; on this occasion, I say that with particular passion, because this is a very complicated SI, and the circumstances that led to its being necessary were clearly very complicated. As the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, just said, that is a reflection of how difficult it is both for electoral returning officers, but even more so for voters or potential voters—people out there on the street—to understand what is happening.

I assume that this situation came to light when people were affected, so I wonder whether we know how many people were affected by the circumstance that this is correcting. Looking at the list of countries here—Malta, Cyprus, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Luxembourg and Ireland—when I knock on doors and note the view on the street, most people who are not engaged in day-to-day politics have a general view that “since Brexit, European citizens don’t have a vote”. I think that this view is very widely held. What will the Government do, with a general election forthcoming, to ensure that all those who have a right to exercise their vote, as residents of the UK with these various criteria, have a chance to know this as individuals and will encounter the right answers if they ask questions at their local council office or other relevant place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not know about “incorrectly registered”. I will take that back and look at the numbers but we have to accept that, in any democracy, some people just do not want to vote. I do not know whether noble Lords have been knocking on doors but I have; there are certainly people in this country who do not want to vote, for whatever reason. That impacts on us all as politicians and party members. We should encourage people to want to vote but, unfortunately, some people do not want to do so. We are not a country that forces people to vote.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I want to respond to that response. The Minister talks about knocking on doors. I am sure that we have all encountered people who think, “But I’ve got my driver’s licence and I pay my council tax. I must be registered to vote because I’m on the system”. Does the Minister acknowledge that significant numbers of people who would like to vote do not find a way to navigate the system—or, indeed, do not know that they have to navigate it until it is too late?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, I do not accept that. The Electoral Commission and the Government have always been out there advertising and promoting the need to vote in this country, as have the political parties. Since we have had to have voter ID, that has not seemed to be an issue; most people have it and know that they have only to go to their local authority to get a voter identity document if they do not. I do not think that that is the case; I think that some people do not want to vote.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee. From what the noble Lord has said, I realise that I probably should have said that I was a leaseholder when I spoke.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to offer Green support for this clear, obvious and essential amendment, which already has strong support across the Committee.

I want to pick up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, about how both buyers and sellers desperately need confidence and how that confidence is utterly lacking at the moment. A lot of our discussion has focused on the problem of estate management, where there are clear and obviously pressing problems, but to focus a little on sales of properties and the need for some oversight there, I note that, last year, trading standards warned that many agents were not passing on the best offers that they had received from purchasers, as they are legally required to do, because they were getting commission fees from mortgage brokers, solicitors, surveyors and other third parties. They were choosing to go with what would produce a better result for them but a lower price for the seller. The only way that this is generally uncovered is if the would-be buyer who did not succeed in purchasing the property happens to look at the Land Registry sales price, says “but that’s less than I was offered” and creates a fuss. That is a sign of just how utterly cowboy the current situation is without regulation.

A report out yesterday noted that for 34% of the “for sale” stock on some major websites there had been an asking price reduction. People often need to sell for all kinds of reasons—including divorce, bereavement or perhaps because they need more bedrooms for extra children. These are all stressful, difficult situations where delays can cause damage and create uncertainty. We have a cowboy situation out there, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, the people in the industry who want to do the right thing know that there are cowboys out there who are a threat to them. Therefore, the amendment is clearly essential to making our housing sector less of a cowboy environment than it is now.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I too support Amendment 94 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, which was so well outlined by him with his usual clarity and reason. It is an amendment that I was determined to put my name to, but its popularity was such that I was too late. However, I listened intently to the informed contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and look forward to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. This will therefore be possibly my shortest and easiest contribution to the Bill, simply saying that, between them, the proposers have nailed this issue with an amendment that should be workable and which we hope that they will take forward on Report.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, listed the broad coalition of support for a regulator and indeed it appears that it is ready to go. This is something which the noble Lord has campaigned on for years. His report was widely accepted and praised for its thoroughness and its remarkably workable plan for the way forward, which he has stated in detail. Interestingly, the recommendations of his working group went much further than this amendment, so the movers of the amendment are being pragmatic and measured because they want to see change now—we support that.

I found the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, on redress, particularly interesting. It reminded us that, currently, regulation in the property sector is voluntary and sanctions are limited. This Bill will not change that enough. Do your Lordships not think it is shocking that anyone can set up a firm from their bedroom and very soon be handling hundreds of thousands of pounds of leaseholders’ and taxpayers’ money while being largely unaccountable to the leaseholders who, on the whole, do not choose them to manage their block or control their service charges? This cannot be right. An individual can set up in business as a property manager without any formal qualifications, experience or even insurance.

It seems shocking that there has been so much good legislation to protect much smaller sums, such as deposits for renters, but nothing to protect leaseholders’ funds. We have regulations and regulators for individuals and companies handling much smaller amounts of people’s money. Leaseholders are usually required by the terms of their lease to make advance payments towards the service charge and to contribute to a sinking fund or reserve fund. These sums can be substantial, especially if major works are planned, which is why we supported the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, earlier in the Bill on consultation on major works. The Federation of Private Residents’ Associations has asserted that there is no other area in the UK in which money is held by a third party that is not regulated—unless somebody can tell me otherwise. The federation suggests that moneys held by unregulated and unprotected third parties may well exceed £1 billion.

If we want to change the behaviour of such property agents, there needs to be a much more professional approach to training and development, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, exemplified well. Mandatory professional standards should be set, along with the oven-ready code of practice.

Even within the sector, the good guys—and there are good ones—do not want the rogues giving them a bad name and tarring everyone with the same brush. It is clear that the Government are procrastinating on this issue, so much so that several years after the report from the noble Lord, Lord Best, very little has happened. The fact that the Government have not taken the opportunity with this Bill to introduce relevant property agent regulations proves that they have probably yielded to the anti-regulation voices among their ranks, despite their acceptance in principle of the case for regulating property agents, which has also been accepted by the majority of interested and affected parties. We are all seeking a solution, and Amendment 94 is certainly worthy of consideration, and we urge the Government to give it that consideration. I look forward to the Minister’s reply and to Report, definitely.

Affordable Housing: Supply

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is an honour and a privilege to follow the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, whom I will call my noble friend because constructive, co-operative politics has to be the way forward in this changing, challenging world. I am delighted to congratulate her on her spectacular maiden speech. The voice of Wales has very definitely been heard, as it so often has been heard from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. The arrival of Doc Martens has been duly noted. We need to hear many more younger voices in your Lordships’ House, and I hope that she will not be the youngest Member for too long. She and her peers are the experts in the experience of being a young person in the world today. It is crucial, and I have no doubt at all that she will bring so much of that voice to us.

As we have just heard, and as the noble Baroness told the Times, she plans to stand up for the people of Wales. Of course, as a former chief of staff for Plaid Cymru in the Senedd, and having worked in the European Parliament, she brings great experience and knowledge from that. We are also talking, of course, about the balance of representation. In respect of gender, we are still a very, very long way from the 50:50 Parliament that the excellent campaign group of that name is calling for. There is also an issue about age. We desperately need these experiences. The newspapers have also got very excited about the noble Baroness’s desire—which I share—to replace your Lordships with an elected body. She, with greater cause than me, has great reason to ensure that she does not have a life sentence in your Lordships’ House.

I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, for giving us the opportunity to debate this absolutely crucial issue, and particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, commented, on the way the debate is titled in talking about “genuinely affordable housing”. That qualifier is needed because, of course, we now have something of a word soup of terms relating to the kinds of housing tenure. There is the Government’s term “affordable rent” and the related “intermediate rent”. Affordable rent was introduced in 2021, set at 80% of market rates, inclusive of charges. Intermediate rent is also available, but at levels of about 20% lower than the market rate, primarily to lower-income households in London and the south-east. We have the London living rent, introduced to help middle-income earners save for a deposit to purchase a house. We have shared ownership—a form of tenure that, all too often, we increasingly hear, is not so much a step up on to the housing ladder as a great weight around the neck of people who are unable to escape from service charges and unaffordable mortgages. We have the first home scheme—a kind of discounted market sale house offered at a minimum reduction of 30% against the market value. We have to hope that there are not too many people in the current level of mortgage rates who find that also a great burden.

We have to look at this in the context of how genuinely affordable housing rent—what has been termed a “genuine living rent”—can be calculated. The general rule is that households should not have to spend more than 30% of their monthly income on rent. That is in a broader frame of what is known as the 50:30:20 rule: households should be able to spend 50% of their income on their needs and 30% on their wants, and have 20% available for paying off a debt or saving. There are very few households in the UK today that are in that situation—the situation that we should actually aim for.

If we look at some figures from the National Housing Federation, we see that it estimates that by the end of the next Parliament, one in five households—more than 4.8 million households—will be forced to spend more than 30% of their income on rent. That is an increase of 30% on the figures now.

Of course, the other end of this rather disastrous housing pipeline is rough sleeping. We all see this every day—we see it on the streets around your Lordships’ House. There has been a 20% increase in rough sleeping in the last year, and 280,000 households in temporary accommodation.

I have done the depressing stuff; I want to focus on the positive—just a hint of what is possible. For this I am going to Lewes District Council, and Fort Road in Lewes. In 2020, the council took a disused council office building there and replaced it with an award-winning block of 13 council-owned apartments, providing safe, spacious, bright apartments with a very high level of building performance and a renewable energy strategy. Designed using fabric-first principles, they have a large solar photovoltaic array, with 13 individual domestic batteries. That means that the electricity costs are estimated to be 60% below the normal level. The house also, importantly, has fire safety features which are currently not required but are anticipated for the future, with fireproof materials and cutting-edge suppression systems. These are not only affordable quality homes but are very safe to live in—something we need to think more about.

I point to this because it is not simply a one-off. I go to announcements made by the Green leader of Lewes District Council, councillor Zoe Nicholson, who in March pointed out how the council has purchased brownfield land around the Peacehaven golf club and is hoping to also develop a council-owned brownfield site in Ringmer. Twenty-four homes will be built on the Peacehaven site and more homes on these other sites. The council is also looking at old garage sites: 11 locations that could see 45 new homes.

I focus on that because both the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Whitty, focused on a centralised, national approach to solving our housing crisis. There is no doubt that resources and changing regulations and rules need to come from the centre, but I argue that we need to resource local authorities to provide the housing they need in their local community according to their local desires, rather than having something enforced from the centre.

The need for change in the centre comes to one particular issue that I want to focus on in this speech, which is right to buy. That has been one of the enormous privatisations, continued over decades under Governments of different hues, that has done great damage to our national social structure and our communities, and continues to do so. I spoke about the exciting things happening in Lewes; similar things happened a few years ago in Norwich, in Goldsmith Street, where ultra-low-energy Passivhaus homes just outside the city centre were built in 2019 and won the RIBA Stirling Prize for architecture. However, after three years, the tenants have the right to buy, and it now looks as if Norwich will lose a number of those brilliant social homes to the private sector.

Of course, this has happened to 2 million homes since 1980. Norwich has more than 4,000 people on the waiting list, yet there and all around the country, we are still losing more social homes than we manage to build. I have a question for the Minister: what is the current rate of loss of social homes to right to buy? I also have a question that perhaps noble Lords on the Labour Front Bench might like to address: why do they not plan to abandon this disastrous policy of privatisation?

I come now to some of the other costs. I should perhaps declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Councils are spending £1.74 billion a year on temporary accommodation. This situation is a large part of what is driving councils towards bankruptcy. On LGA figures, 10,896 homes were sold in the last financial year under right to buy, and only 3,447 were replaced—a net loss of more than 7,000 homes. Since the scheme began, £7.5 billion has been handed out in discounts through right to buy.

I am not sure that many people know about this, but it is worth highlighting that, in desperation, Wandsworth Council in south-west London is offering £120,000 help to tenants to buy a house anywhere in the UK—or anywhere in the world—provided it is not a council property. The council is so desperate to save its homes that it is offering people this very large sum of money. I note that four in 10 of the homes sold off under right to buy are now owned by private landlords. I talked about the cost of temporary accommodation, but we also have the massive cost of commercial-level rents on what were council homes for which the state is having to pay housing benefit. This is, clearly, a disastrous policy.

We knew that from the start because the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, back at the origins of this policy, said that

“no single piece of legislation has enabled the transfer of so much capital wealth from the State”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/80; col. 1443.]

That is, under that ideology, a description of reducing the size of the state, but of course what we are actually doing is making all our communities and our societies much poorer.

What we should be doing is moving towards a housing policy that treats homes as comfortable, affordable, secure places to live, not primarily as financial assets. So my final question to the Minister is about community land trusts, co-operative housing and other alternative tenure models. I absolutely champion council housing, but there are other models that can protect communities from the government policy of right to buy. What are the Government doing to encourage them?

Impact of Environmental Regulations on Development (Built Environment Committee Report)

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Friday 19th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Best, with whom I usually agree, but on this occasion I am afraid that I will come to a point of disagreement. Yes, of course people need homes but they also need healthy homes, which requires those homes to be in a healthy environment. The level of pollution in our rivers means that that is just not available at the moment; you cannot have a healthy home without a healthy environment.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and his committee for this excellent report. I also thank him for this introduction to this crucial debate. I stress that what is clear from the whole report is that this is a failure over decades. I often hold the Government responsible for many things that they have done in the last 14 years; I do in this area as well, but the current mess we are in is not just this Government’s fault.

We are, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, one of the most nature-depleted corners of this planet. We also have an enormous housing crisis, with both a lack of housing and its incredible cost. The Green Party says that we need the right homes in the right place at the right price. The part of that most relevant to this report is the right place, which means essentially a healthy place. To get to all those requirements, we need a total turnaround in policy.

I learned about extraordinarily bad planning in Australia, where there is no green belt. I grew up in Sydney, a city that just sprawls and sprawls, destroying everything in its path, so I really want to stress the value of the green belt. It is there to protect land but also to keep urban centres compact, close to public transport and shops, et cetera. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to the potential biodiversity value of brownfield sites and we really have to take account of that. Those who are inventing a new term of “grey belt” might want to reflect on some of those issues.

I also want to refer to biodiversity offsetting, which I have debated with many other Ministers, so I will not go in depth on it now. But with the local elections approaching, I have been travelling around the country a lot by train recently. Looking out the window at new estates, with biodiversity net gains often being off-site, we are all too often looking at biological deserts—homes set on tiny pocket-handkerchief lawns, while for street after street there is not a tree or even a shrub to be seen. Increasingly, we know that that has massive negative impacts on human health.

For the next part, I should probably declare my position as vice-president of the Local Government Association to pick up the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about the resources available to local councils. I have to note the Government’s response to paragraph 59 of the committee’s report:

“A well-resourced local planning authority is crucial to the delivery of all planning functions”.


I can hear the hollow laughs in councils up and down the land at this moment. We know that local authorities have been starved of resources and of the power to make decisions.

I note also that paragraph 120 of the committee’s report states:

“Public bodies are facing challenges recruiting and retaining ecological expertise. It is necessary to bring expertise into the system through recruitment or training”.


Unfortunately, the Government’s response to that paragraph says absolutely nothing about education or training, yet there is an issue with green skills. When I talk to local councillors—noble Lords might be interested to know that 10% of councils in England have Greens as part of their administrations—they basically say that ecologists are like hens’ teeth. It is not that they are not trying to recruit them. These ecologists do not exist, and those green skills do not suddenly pop up out of nowhere. People need to be trained; I do not know whether the Minister is able to comment on that, but it would be very useful.

Finally, I have to come back to the Office for Environmental Protection’s report in January. I am sure that many noble Lords will say, and have already said, that we need housing, but we need a healthy environment for our people to live in. The Office for Environmental Protection said that the Government are well off track to meet their long-term water targets, that there are issues of water scarcity—to pick up what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said—and that there is not sustainable resource use. None of this is working and the answer is not just build, build, build; it is to build the right house in the right place at the right price. I look forward to the noble Lord’s maiden speech.

Building Safety

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Wednesday 27th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I have numerous statistics in terms of the number of buildings that are involved in this programme. Of course, what we know is how many of those buildings over 18 metres are left without a programme or have completed their programme. Some 10 are left, and they all have programmes in place, so they will be completed as soon as possible. The highest-risk ACM cladding buildings are being dealt with, so we will get very close, in that 98% of them have now started or completed their works.

On buildings of lesser height, of 11 to 18 metres, because the fund was established only last July some of those buildings will not be known to us. We are still working on an estimated number for those requiring remediation. In England, that number is somewhere between 6,220 and 8,890. That figure is based on an estimation and, therefore, a methodology behind it. We expect those numbers to come forward as that fund is called on; as people utilise it to put pressure on the owners of those buildings to deal with this, we expect that number to rise.

I shall come back to the House regularly to update it on progress. We believe that pressure is the right way here, and pressure across the House is definitely the right way to keep up the work and get this done at pace.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the Minister has indicated a number of times that the Government are focused on buildings over 11 metres in height and suggested that other buildings are not really a priority. Is she aware of the Moss Hall Grove fire in Finchley, north London, a few weeks ago, where four terraced houses went up in flames astonishingly quickly? There were 70 firefighters there and a significant number of engines had to be called to this blaze. Luckily, it happened at 10.30 am, so eight people were able easily to flee the circumstances, but this has led Barnet Council to recognise that there are significant problems particularly with timber-framed homes with plastic cladding on the outside. This one council in north London has identified 580 low-rise homes in need of urgent remediation. These are mostly 1930s to 1960s-built timber-framed homes with uPVC panels fitted in the 1980s. Are the Government looking into this issue? The identification of 580 homes in one London borough suggests a very large problem across the country.

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question; however, I do not have any data with me on that. I will make sure that the department looks into it and I will write to her with an answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

Of the funds that have been made available, there are a number for different sizes of buildings; the fund for buildings between 11 and 18 metres was available from July last year. Therefore, from that perspective, everyone is open to being able to use them. Regarding how the issue sits as a priority, it certainly sits with me as a priority and, as a new Minister in the department, I will ensure that I do everything I can to monitor progress. The monthly data will be checked and we will put pressure not only on developers but on the enforcement side, with regards to the regulators and the local authorities working hand in hand.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I raise an issue relating to what has happened with high-rise buildings since the Grenfell tragedy. This week, the Independent reported that, in high-rise buildings that have been declared safe, substantial numbers of leaseholders and residents are seeing massive increases of up 1,000% in insurance premiums. To give an example, there is a one-bedroom flat occupied by a single parent and a baby where the insurance has gone up over two years from £274 a year to more than £2,600, making it essentially unaffordable. Will the Government look into why, if buildings have been declared safe, the insurance premiums are going through the roof? Surely risk to life and risk to the fabric of the building, which the insurance primarily relates to, have to be interrelated?

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

If there are instances where that is the case, then you can either work with our department, or directly through the Association of British Insurers to alert them to the fact that it is happening. There is an agreement with insurance companies that, if remediation work has been done, the insurance premiums should not be excessive.

With regards to other parts of the insurance market and those buildings which have not yet had full remediation work done, they are also expected to be working with residents to ensure that insurance is affordable. There is a fire-safety reinsurance facility led by the Association of British Insurers, which reinsurance brokers can utilise. There are a number of insurance-led schemes which are supposed to be helping. If noble Lords know of any instances where they are not, please let us know.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

Sorry, bear with me for a second. I need to go back to an earlier section—I have ripped all my papers out and therefore they are in the wrong place—to allow me to help the noble Lord.

The commitment made by the ABI and its members is that the premiums should reduce where buildings have completed remediation, or have achieved the PAS 9980-compliant external wall assessment, and have therefore shown a reduction in risk. We are working with the insurers to build a better understanding of these building standards, and we expect insurers to honour their commitments and ensure that premiums are fairly priced and appropriate to the level of risk after remediation.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Since there is time, I will follow through on that—for public information, really. If it is not happening, and if we have a case such as the one I cited, from £270 to £2,600, who does an individual or a campaigning organisation go to in the Government? What are the actual steps to say that this is not happening and the ABI is not delivering? What is the mechanism that can be implemented?

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

In the first instance, I suggest that they go to their insurance company directly and notify it of the requirement that this should be fair and assessed based upon the existing current risk rather than prior risk. If that does not yield results and the ABI is unable to help, I am more than happy, as the Minister here, to have those sent to me.

Local Government Finances

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and to agree with her about the importance of parish and town councils. In travelling around the country, as I often do, I see so many of them stepping up to the plate where the larger-scale authorities—the principal authorities—are simply not able to continue as they do not have the funds. That is crucial. Keeping public toilets open, managing areas of grassland, and even keeping tourist centres open are the kinds of things I have seen.

Like other noble Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for securing this crucial debate. There is hardly anything more central to the declining quality of life in the UK—the broken Britain that we talked about when we were debating the Budget—than how much local government is struggling. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and of the National Association of Local Councils.

In April, we are coming up to about 75% of councils making the maximum increase that the Government allow, according to the County Councils Network. That means a £99 increase for a band D average property, with bills going to more than £2,000 a year. At the extreme, things are absolutely desperate. The obvious example is Birmingham City Council, which is looking at a council tax hike of 21% over two years as it struggles to find savings of £300 million. This is in a context where councils and councillors are acutely aware of how the cost of living crisis is affecting so many of their residents, but we are in TINA land: there is no alternative. For councils to keep meeting even their statutory requirements—requirements that are put on them by Westminster, about which they have no choice—they have to put those increases in.

I suspect that, if one were to search this debate, “one in five” would be the phrase that comes up most often. I make no apologies for repeating the phrase, because one in five councils is at risk of going broke. That is 20% of councils in the country. This is an absolute crisis, yet our media is so focused on what happens here in Westminster, particularly in the other place. A media that focuses on London will fail to grasp the scale of the crisis around the country, and I am afraid I do not think the Government have truly grasped the scale of the crisis either.

I referred to the rise in council tax, but the proportion of money that councils get from council tax has risen from 40% in 2009-10 to 60 % now. Where else do councils get money from? Often, they can charge for certain services, such as leisure centres and parking, and they can generate income from the sales of property and from certain types of waste removal. But think about those services, and put them at the intersection of the cost of living crisis: yes, they can increase the cost of the local swimming pool or the gym, but that means that more and more people will not be able to access them.

We can think about the issue of sales of property. We have seen, since the election of Margaret Thatcher, the sale of 50% of what was publicly owned land—a large amount of that being council land. Once it is sold, it is not coming back. You close the library; you sell the building and the land. When times get better, you cannot bring them back—it is gone. That library is so much a part of central meeting places. Even as technology changes and IT comes in, it is a public space that could have been dedicated to public purposes in the future, but we have simply lost those spaces. Communities do not have places to gather any more.

It is also worth highlighting—I do not think anyone has picked this up yet—that we have seen austerity right across central government, cuts to Civil Service workers’ pay, and to the real level of benefits. That increases poverty and ill health, which puts more pressure on councils to provide services such as social care. This is literally a downward spiral in which we are trapped.

The list in the Library briefing is worth looking at; this picks up points from the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and others. We have seen the following spending cuts from 2010-11 to 2019-20: cultural and related services cut by 37%; planning and development services by 37%; non-school education—we keep talking about the need for skills—down by 32%; housing services by 25%; highways and transport services by 24%, which picks up the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, about potholes and the general state of the roads; and environmental and regulatory services down 10%, just at the point where we are starting to realise what an incredibly parlous state our natural world is in and that it desperately needs to be boosted, in its own right but also to improve public health.

Many noble Lords will have received the briefing by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which raises the important point that we think about the cuts to council services and how much is lost—the libraries, the theatres, et cetera—but funding that local councils have given to charities and community groups has also been slashed, and that again is cutting away at the basic standard of quality of life in our communities. Almost three-quarters of organisations are not receiving enough funding to meet the demand for the services they offer. Nearly two out of five organisations have reduced the number of people whom they support. When you think about the Covid pandemic—several noble Lords have referred to the loneliness pandemic—and an ageing population, we are reducing the number of people being supported when it is clear that the need is increasing.

I come, briefly, to two final points—first, that council tax and business rates is a broken, wildly out-of-date system. The Green Party has long held, and continues to call strongly, for a land value tax, which would be levied on the annual value of land itself, excluding any structures or improvement. It follows good taxation practice, it would be cheap to collect and difficult to evade, and it would discourage the use of land for speculation. At the moment, land is an ideal speculative investment, and we can, I am sure, all point to examples where land is not used well, because someone is just sitting on it and waiting for its value to rise.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about elections. Of course it would be lovely to have democratic elections with a single transferable vote system or similar, as there is in Scotland for local councils. It would be great to have local communities fully represented in the House of Commons. But what is interesting and worth noting is that there is a big shake-up happening in local councils: we increasingly see groups of different parties coming together to run councils, which is an exciting development.

Teesworks Project: Audit

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I already have an outstanding question from one of his colleagues on his Benches from the debate last week. I am trying to find the exact numbers for how much is in progress, given that there is lag between the money being allocated and being spent. I am chasing that and will come back to the House as soon as I have the number.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, returning to the Teesworks project, in writing to the mayor—the noble Lord, Lord Houchen—the Secretary of State said:

“Improvement takes time, and where the recommendations related to cultural change especially it is important that sufficient time is given”.


But is it really right to leave a six-month hiatus? Should the Government not monitor what is happening much more regularly than that, given the level of concern expressed by the independent inquiry into what is happening at Teesworks?

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

Again, I can only give an assurance that this will not be waiting for six months. A number of these actions are required immediately and are therefore ongoing. We will be monitoring it both centrally and locally.

Representation of the People (Variation of Election Expenses and Exclusions) Regulations 2024

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2024 Lords Chamber

I beg to move the amendment in my name because we must regret what the Government are doing as, once again, they abuse their power and bend the election rules quite grotesquely in their favour.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to offer the strongest possible Green Party support to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. This is indeed a great cause for regret, although I follow the noble Lord in saying that I entirely accept and agree with the security clarification that, unfortunately, is clearly necessary; I have absolutely no problems with that.

On social media, you know you are catching the zeitgeist, and that people are recognising what you are saying, when it gets repeated back to you. A couple of phrases that I use often on social media are increasingly repeated back to me. One is:

“#democracy - it would be a good idea”.


The other is:

“We get the politics that the few pay for”.


The second is simply and undoubtedly a statement of fact. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, set out such figures as £10 million, but even a donation of £1 million or—in the context of the elections we are talking about —£100,000 are potentially election changing. As the noble Lord said, this is happening at the last minute. The only way that this money will come in is through a few rich people.

We have to ask this question, and I would love the Minister to answer it: why does she think people give a donation of £10 million or £1 million or £100,000? Surely they do not give it for nothing. What do they get in return?

I should perhaps make a declaration of non-interest here since, as far as Green Party election spending is concerned, this is all entirely irrelevant. We were never going to spend up to the old limits, so this does not matter to us at all except that we will face a deluge of paper and social media posts, which will attempt to flood out our modest attempts to reach and speak to the electorate. That is the practical reality.

The noble Baroness, Lady Vere, likes to ask where people will say the money should come from. I very much accept the figure from 2011 of a maximum donation of £10,000. I could set it lower, but that will do for starters. I will say what is often considered the unsayable: we need state funding of political parties and election campaigning. Instead of the few paying for the politics we get, that would mean we get the politics that everyone has chosen.

That is effectively how the Green Party funds things, how we are funding these elections and how we will fund the coming general election: by crowdfunding—people putting in their £10 or £20 and making the choice to support a local candidate. But we have a cost of living crisis. The people who would have put in £20 can now put in only perhaps £10 or £5. Yet the millionaires and billionaires are getting richer, so their donations get bigger and bigger.

I have one final point to make. The security element of this really made me think of things that can get in the way and stop candidates running, and this deserves to be raised in this context and every electoral context. I refer to the access to elected office fund for disabled people, which was closed in March 2020 because of the Covid pandemic. We can discuss the continuation of the pandemic, but I do not think we are in an emergency situation any longer. The Government have failed to reinstate this fund despite its inclusion in the Disability Action Plan. There was an open letter written to the Government in the November by a whole coalition of disability groups calling for this small, modest measure to find a little bit of money to enable disabled people to compete on a level playing field in elections. So my question to the Minister is: will the Government reinstate the access to elected office fund? It is probably too late for these elections—not too late for billionaires, but for disabled people to start to run —but we could at least do it for the next set of elections, which will be the general election.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I add to what my noble friend Lord Rennard said just a few brief comments. First, on the timing, I note that when the committee considered this, the Minister in the Commons said:

“I will be perfectly frank … we could have delayed this until after the elections in May”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 5/3/24; col. 6]


The Government should at least have asked themselves: how does this looks to a cynical public? Why rush it in just after it has been announced that they have received some huge donations? It looks like last-minute changing of the rules in favour of the Government.

I declare an interest as a Liberal Democrat. I recall the Electoral Commission commenting some years ago that we had a much larger number of donors to our party than the Conservative Party but, of course, a much smaller total of what had been given, because our donations tend to come, at best, in £5,000 or £10,000 chunks, rather than in chunks of £1 million or £2 million or more. It looks bad.

Secondly, as my noble friend has said, the Committee on Standards in Public Life report has been on the table for some time now. It is clear that the political parties ought to be coming to a consensus on what to do about that and what to set as a limit. I am sorry that the Government have not moved in that direction. I very much hope that, immediately after the next election, whatever Government come in will move on that.

Thirdly, we have a severe problem with public confidence in our democratic politics and it is a shame that the Government are not addressing this. The sense that money counts in political campaigns is part of the worry. The whiff of corruption that comes with donors being seen to be close to the Prime Minister, with big donations coming from companies that have made their money out of public contracts given by the Government—all of those things add to disillusionment with our politics, which is fundamentally corrosive of our democratic system.

I add that we now have a right-wing television station that made a loss last year of £31 million but, in spite of making a loss, is paying over £1 million to Conservative and right-wing politicians. The £340,000 increase that my noble friend mentioned is almost exactly the sum that Jacob Rees-Mogg is receiving for the few hours a week that he puts in as a television presenter. That is all corrosive of public confidence in public life, and the Committee on Standards in Public Life is correct to say so.

This SI, coming now, adds to the sense that money is what counts in British politics. We look across the Atlantic and see what has happened in American politics as big money has taken over. We do not want that to happen here, and I deeply regret that this Government are moving in that direction.

--- Later in debate ---

All noble Lords strayed into the issue of donations. Let me make it clear that there is no change to the threshold at which checks on the permissibility of donations and donors are carried out. The level of those checks remains the same, exactly as it was, which is important. Accepting donations from foreign powers, for example, whether made directly or indirectly, is prohibited. There are strict rules prohibiting impermissible donations from entering into our political system through things such as proxy donors. That provides a safeguard against impermissible donations by the back door. Donations are monitored and controlled just the same as they always were.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the Minister used the term “strayed into” the issue of donations, as if we were going off the subject. Will she acknowledge that the question of where the money is coming from is just as central to this statutory instrument as what the limit is?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

It is, but we already have the Elections Act, which looked at donations and the rules behind them. That part of election law is already being dealt with.

Fundraising is a legitimate part of the democratic process; we cannot get away from that. I am sorry, but the Government do not agree with the noble Baroness opposite that we should have political parties funded by government. That is not a policy of this Government, and I am not sure that it is a policy of the parties opposite.

Within our current system, while there are no caps on donations received, there are limits on what can be spent in order to maintain the level playing field—and the level playing field is the same now as it was in 2000. All reportable donations over the relevant thresholds will continue, as always, to be published online. This allows anyone to see who funds a political party and ensures that a transparent and accountable system is in place for those donations, so nothing has changed in that way.

It is important that people have the opportunity to know about their political parties’ policies. We cannot get away from the fact that that takes money. All we are doing is to ensure that the money agreed in 2000 has the same spending power this year as it had then.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, brought up an issue relating to disabled people. I am sorry that I do not have an answer to that, but I will make sure I get one tomorrow. It is an important issue and I thank her for bringing that up.

I think that I have answered the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. This is about necessity within democracy; there has to be money to communicate one’s policies.