Holocaust Memorial Bill

Baroness Fookes Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th March 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Fookes]

21: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Planning application(1) Any applicant must submit a new full planning application to the relevant local authority relating to any Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre planned for Victoria Tower Gardens.(2) In determining the outcome of that application, special attention must be paid to increased security and environmental considerations arising since the first planning application to Westminster City Council in 2019.(3) If the planning permission is to be determined by a Minister there must be a public inquiry.(4) As soon as possible following a planning application the applicant must publicise this and the anticipated timetable by notifying—(a) Members of the House of Commons and members of the House of Lords by depositing a letter in the Libraries of both Houses;(b) the London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust, the Thomas Fowell Buxton Society and the Thorney Island Society;(c) Holocaust survivors, families of victims and refugees from Nazi Germany and their families;(d) organisations engaged in Holocaust remembrance, education and combating antisemitism;(e) local residents through the press and other media.(5) The applicant must take steps to ensure that the availability of updated information relating to the planning application and submitted by the applicant, including updated information relating to security, (as far as such information can safely be placed in the public domain) is notified to the parties referred to in subsection (4), once it has been published by the Secretary of State as part of any planning process.”

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and those of several other noble Lords. As noble Lords will see, it calls for a new full planning application to be given to the relevant local authority, in this case Westminster City Council. In the event of the Minister calling in the application, it also calls for a new public inquiry with a different inspector. I am fully aware from the exchanges that have taken place in this Committee that the Minister is very unlikely to welcome the full new planning application and possibly even the more minor arrangement that I have put in as a second best. However, that will not deter me from putting the case as forcefully as I can.

I will deal first with the reasons why a new application is vitally necessary. We all know now about the relevant sections of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900, which specifically set out that the Victoria gardens should be in perpetuity a public garden for the interests of those living there. It seems to me that the inspector at the time gave very little weight to that consideration and assumed that the Victoria gardens were easily there to be taken. I think this was a material consideration, because he felt that other sites might take longer to come to fruition. That was a bad miscalculation, but I will not dwell on it further now.

I also feel that the inspector greatly underestimated the damage to the park that would ensue to both the trees and the interests of the residents who rely on this little park in an area not terribly well served by green spaces. He did not have the benefit, shall we call it, of the later present Government’s consideration that everyone should be able to live within 15 minutes of a green space, as set out fairly recently. I feel, therefore, that the environmental considerations were not taken properly into account, but as I dealt with this in more detail in a previous amendment, I will not dwell on it now.

I will now look at a major source of concern where issues have changed for the worse: the security of the site in terms of possible acts of terrorism and any other source of grief, worry or danger to the public. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has powerfully set out this case. Coming as they do from a former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and a King’s Counsel with many years of experience, his views should be taken far more into consideration. I hope that this afternoon he may wish to elaborate on these matters. I am anxious that he does, because there will be very practical implications if one has to allow for the safety of the public in these circumstances, especially so close to the Palace of Westminster.

Furthermore, we have had powerful speeches from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, setting out the risks of fire hazards. Again, I will not go into all the details, but she made the important point that there was only one escape route from the underground learning centre, which she felt needed to be dealt with. Indeed, since she spoke we have had the ghastly incident in Macedonia, where a number of lives were lost in a nightclub because there was only one exit. These things are to be taken very seriously. That does not mean to say that there will not be some mitigation, but I think it needs a new, thorough look.

Then there is the risk of flood, dealt with most cogently by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. It is in an area that has always been rather prone to flooding, and we have had an example of this at 1 Millbank, where the basement restaurant was flooded and out of action for months. So this is another issue that needs much greater consideration.

Interestingly, the R&R programme now wants experiments to be done on the floor of the River Thames along the east side of the Palace, because it may want to do some works on the Terrace and the neighbouring areas. That may not impinge directly on this, but it is an indication that a great many things will be happening with the restoration programme. The Victoria Tower repair is imminent. Are we to suppose that both of those major impacts will not have a very damaging effect on the park, especially if, at the same time, all the building works for the memorial and the underground learning centre are going on? It seems to me that an impossible practical situation is developing. How can one small park accommodate the overflow from two major restorations and repairs, and cope with the building of the memorial and underground learning centre at the same time?

I now turn to the all-important arrangements for dealing with any planning application once the Bill enters the statute book. Let us look for a moment at the guidance given by the Planning Inspectorate as to the procedure to be followed if an application quashed by a law court is revived or restarted. It says in section 20.8 that written representations will normally not even be considered if there have been material changes since the time the application was first submitted. Let us remember that in this case we are talking about a submission in January 2019, now over six years ago. The Planning Inspectorate guidance adds that a round table or hearing will normally be considered only if

“it can reasonably be expected that the parties will be able to present their own cases (supported by professional witnesses if required) without the need for an advocate to represent them”.

Finally, if the application was previously considered by a public inquiry, there would normally be a fresh inquiry and a new inspector would normally be appointed, because he or she would be reviewing matters previously overturned by a court.

That seems pretty straightforward guidance. I understand that it is guidance and not the application of the law, but it seems to me that the guidance here is akin to that for traffic arrangements, whereby when we have road accidents and so on, we can look to the body of work that guides people on matters of traffic.

I was not aware of yet a further complication: the National Planning Casework Unit, set up by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, with a remit that includes managing major planning applications referred to it by the Secretary of State and requests from the Secretary of State to call in planning applications. It has become involved in a pre-consultation process to ensure that there are no undue delays once the Bill is enacted. To my knowledge—and probably that of others—it has consulted the London Historic Parks & Gardens Trust and, most importantly, the promoter, which, of course, comes from within that very same department. Through its solicitor, Pinsent Masons, it has set out what it believes to be the issues before it. It has made a written representation, from which I will quote—not the whole lot but the most relevant parts. It wrote:

“The Applicant considers that the Minister should consider representations on any and all matters required for the redetermination of the Application … such that the redetermination can then take place as soon as reasonably possible following any Royal Assent”—


as I have pointed out. It continued:

“Such matters can be fully and appropriately dealt with through written representations. To re-open the public inquiry would clearly be disproportionate to the matters relevant to the redetermination”.


Finally, it added that

“all the principal … and planning matters relevant to the determination of the Application … remain either entirely or largely unchanged from the time they were originally considered”.

As I have said previously, I regard that as totally wrong and not to be considered at all.

We have this curious spectacle, as I see it, of a planning application from an applicant, somebody who has to make the decision, and another organisation, the planning unit, all within the same department of state. Looking at it from the outside, as most people will, I consider that to be an unhealthily close relationship—at best unhealthy, and at worst positively incestuous. I am not at all happy if the way out to be chosen once the Bill becomes law is anything other than a full public inquiry or, at the very least, a new public inquiry. That is the burden of my theme this afternoon. I beg to move.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 34 in my name, which I tabled before your Lordships started to look at the Bill in Committee. Having listened so far, I am more than ever convinced that an impact assessment is needed. It would cover many things we have already debated but, as I suggested previously, with regard to risk, there would be great benefit in pulling together the many points that have been and are still to be discussed. Some suggestions will impact on others, so an overall view of the impact of the proposed memorial and learning centre would be of great benefit, not to say essential.

I find it most peculiar that there should not already have been an impact assessment for this project. I expect that a number of issues are more strictly for planning, whereas this Bill is to overcome the limitations of the 1900 covenant. When considering legislation to dispense with a covenant, there are planning issues that will impact on the decision. For example, if the proposal were for a manufacturing unit of some sort, I imagine that your Lordships might well feel that the covenant should stand. So it is not inappropriate to seek answers that are, strictly speaking, planning matters. As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has said, we are entitled to know in detail what is proposed before we are asked to remove the covenant of which we are custodians.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I can give noble Lords absolute confidence that the many Holocaust survivors I have spoken to are looking forward to seeing this Holocaust memorial built. It might not be so for everybody, but I speak in the context of my numerous heartfelt conversations with Holocaust survivors.

My point stands: few Holocaust survivors, perhaps none at all, would live to see the project completed. In those lost years, how many more opportunities to spread and deepen understanding of the Holocaust will be missed? How many millions of visitors will pass through Westminster who might otherwise have been prompted to reflect on the murder of 6 million Jews? How many visitors, young and old, will be denied the opportunity to learn objective facts on a topic of such profound importance? We should not be creating new hurdles, setting new tests or extending legitimate processes. Our aim should be to build a Holocaust memorial and learning centre of which the nation can be proud, and to do it soon. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I am not surprised by the line that the Minister has taken. I may be allowed to express disappointment, but certainly not surprise, because it seems to me that, despite previous discussions in this Committee—particularly this afternoon—we have heard many and varied reasons as to why the situation has changed markedly from what it was six years ago or more, and that these should have been taken into account.

I am particularly concerned that we are overriding an Act of Parliament set up by somebody—originally as a gesture of good will and philanthropy, which was then endorsed by the 1900 Act—whose objectives, far from being over, are if anything more important now than they were before because it is a valuable green space in an area served by many people, often those without great assets or gardens of their own. We are now far more aware of the importance of the environment than we probably were in 1900. So, far from being old hat, this remains extremely important. That is where I start from.

However, I also look to the fact that the commission set up—it gave its verdict in 2015, I think—outlined the kind of memorial and learning centre that it wished to see. Clearly, that cannot be carried out fully in this very small space, so there is a great gap between what the commission said it wanted and what is now possible on a very restricted site. That is where I take my stand.

Sadly, I feel that the Minister has not been listening to the many and varied arguments put with considerable force, knowledge and eloquence by people serving on this Committee. I am sorry indeed about that, and I am particularly sorry that we seem to be getting nowhere fast. In those circumstances, I cannot see that any lengthy speech by me— or anybody else come to that—will change the Minister’s mind and, because we cannot have votes in this Committee by reason of the way it is set up, I can do nothing but seek leave to withdraw my amendment, but I do so believing that I am right about this. I am disappointed that we are not getting anywhere, so I seek leave to withdraw my amendment, but with a very heavy heart.

Amendment 21 withdrawn.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Baroness Fookes Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th March 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Fookes]

10: After paragraph (b) insert—
“(c) would not cause damage to the roots of existing trees.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment in my name adds a third condition to Amendment 9, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I should perhaps explain why I think this is so important. I start from the view that this little park, which has been protected hitherto by an Act of Parliament, remains very valuable and should not be tampered with to its great detriment.

I will not rehearse here the arguments so eloquently put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I simply want to put on record that I heartily endorse what they have both said—they make a great deal of sense. I will not inflict on the Committee a repetition of those arguments, save in one regard. I find it very distasteful that the Government who want to go ahead with this—which I believe will damage the park—at the same time issued that Statement back in July 2024, explaining that they wanted every person to be within 15 minutes of a green or blue space. There seems to be something of a contradiction here, or, as the old adage has it, “Fine words butter no parsnips”.

I want to demonstrate the significant damage that I think will be done to the trees in the park. Currently, there is a magnificent avenue of no fewer than 51 London planes, which are mature, very fine and well looked after by Royal Parks, together with several smaller ornamental trees. They provide a wonderful setting for a world heritage site, which also has special protection in planning law. I am not going to act on my own authority in this; I will draw heavily on a report in the public domain, commissioned by Westminster City Council to advise it after the decision had been taken out of its hands and in preparation for the other details that were to follow. It used as an expert witness a gentleman called Mark Mackworth-Praed, a chartered agriculturalist and a member of the Expert Witness Institute working for Archer Associates, a major tree and ecology consultancy. I should now like to draw attention—

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. She is talking about the value of this green space, which I think everybody now agrees on. Is she aware that it is the only green space that marches next to the river without a road in between for something like seven miles on the north bank of the river?

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

I was seeking to curtail my remarks in the interests of brevity. I notice that a little bit has been taken out of my time now, unless I go over the allotted amount.

I draw the attention of the Committee to British Standard 5837. I do not expect noble Lords to be immediately thrilled by this announcement, but it is a widely used and accepted measure of the viability of a tree by assessing the minimum area around it deemed sufficient to contain sufficient roots to enable it to live and survive well. It is a calculation of a circle with a radius 12 times the diameter of the tree’s trunk. When you look at the smallness of this park and the number of trees, it does not take a mathematical genius to work out that, somewhere, roots will be damaged.

Let me give specific examples from this independently produced report. First, it is reckoned that digging out the enormous amount of soil to provide the underground learning centre will cause 11 trees to have their roots severed on the western boundary within the amount of the British Standard, so they would be damaged. The Spicer Memorial, already referred to in another amendment, and possibly replacing a refreshment kiosk would risk real damage to three trees. Then there is the creation of two service routes carrying various underground utilities and drainage runs: it is reckoned that 10 trees there would be affected adversely, either directly or in conjunction with other hazards. That seems to me a pretty worrying description of what might happen, particularly bearing in mind that when you have avenues of trees, the loss of even one tree can shatter the visual image. If there are several, we might have an even worse result, but that is not the only damage to trees that can be caused by the direct severing of roots.

Another real worry is that soil compaction can have a major impact on the health of trees. I am sure those of us who are amateur gardeners will have been told about not walking on wet beds, because of the possible danger to plants, which will be damaged by compaction. As I understand it, the proposal is for the formation of a slope up to the fins of the memorial, which would involve a lot of soil being sited on top of the existing level. That would have the effect of asphyxiating the soil; in other words, it cannot breathe. Worse than that, soil compaction during works with heavy machinery would also have a very damaging effect, to say nothing of digging out all the soil to form the underground learning centre. One can see that moving great piles of soil will, in itself, cause considerable damage.

On top of that, we have all the building works that will be associated with carrying out the work of producing the memorial and the underground space for the learning centre. Storing heavy materials also compacts the soil and heavy machinery running over it has the same effect, so over time this would have a major, damaging effect on the park as a whole. I know that the Minister has referred to enhancing the value of the park, but I fear that in practice it will be greatly damaged.

Finally, when all this is done—at some unspecified period in the future—there will be much heavier footfall if it is all successful and thousands of people are coming in, rather than the people who use the park now. Through footfall, they too can have a tremendous impact on the soil and its compaction. I do not see a happy future for these trees in the circumstances I have described.

I conclude by referring to the views of Westminster City Council’s sub-committee. As we all know, it was not allowed to make the decision but it resolved that, had it come to that committee, it would on various grounds have refused the application. I want to deal with only one that relates to trees. It said:

“Inadequate and conflicting information has been submitted which is not sufficient to permit a proper assessment of the impact of the proposed development on trees within Victoria Tower Gardens, together with the effectiveness of suggested mitigation. As such it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that unacceptable harm to, and/or loss of, trees would not arise as a result of the proposed development”.


Finally, the sub-committee said that

“damage and/or loss to trees would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area, and would have a further adverse effect on the significance of heritage assets”.

I think we all know about the importance of this little park as a backdrop for the Houses of Parliament and the abbey. On that basis, I beg to move.

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 19 and 20, to which I have added my name. Victoria Tower Gardens is not just any green space; it is the home of a playground that has served generations of children. It is one of the few places in this area where children can play safely. As mentioned several times before, the proposed centre will mangle the playground beyond recognition. It will shrink by over 31%, wiping out the open grass that connects it to the rest of the park.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for tabling Amendments 9, 18, 19 and 20 and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, for tabling Amendment 10. This group of amendments covers matters relating to the Spicer memorial, the magnificent trees in Victoria Tower Gardens and the children’s playground.

Amendment 9 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, draws attention to the Spicer memorial and to the children’s playground, both of which are very important features of Victoria Tower Gardens. If noble Lords will permit, I will come to the playground in just a moment and address that part of Amendment 9 alongside Amendments 18, 19 and 20, which also concern the playground.

The Government fully agree with noble Lords who wish to ensure that the Spicer memorial is protected and should continue to hold a prominent place in the gardens. Our proposals for Victoria Tower Gardens have been carefully developed to achieve these objectives. The Spicer memorial commemorates the philanthropist Mr Henry Gage Spicer, who contributed to the creation of the playground in the 1920s. Though not listed, the memorial is important, commemorating a generous donation and lending a degree of dignity to the gardens. Under our proposals, the Spicer memorial will be moved a short distance to the south—rather less than the changes experienced when it was relocated in 2014. It currently marks the northern end of the playground. Under our proposals for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, it will continue to fulfil that role.

The Select Committee, having considered petitions against the Bill, accepted an assurance from the Government that a review would be carried out of the arrangements proposed for the southern end of the gardens, with a view to ensuring an appropriate separation of the playground from other visitors to Victoria Tower Gardens. That review is now under way and further information on this matter will be published when it is complete.

The impact of our proposals on the Spicer memorial, and on all the memorials in Victoria Tower Gardens, was of course considered very carefully by the independent planning inspector. Once the process of redetermining the planning application is restarted, the Spicer memorial, and other memorials, will no doubt be considered again, as they should be. There is therefore no need to include the proposed provision in the Bill. It would add nothing to the commitments that have been given and would simply open the door to potential legal challenges, which would delay still further the construction of the Holocaust memorial. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 9.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, for her Amendment 10. I recognise her great contribution to horticulture, landscaping and gardening. I fully support her commitment to protect the magnificent London plane trees in Victoria Tower Gardens. From the very beginning of the design process, protection of the two lines of trees on the eastern and western sides of the gardens has been a major consideration. The proposed design was selected from a very strong shortlist of contenders partly because of the way in which it respects Victoria Tower Gardens, including the London plane trees, which are today such an important and integral part of that place.

We have drawn heavily on expert advice to ensure that construction of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre can take place with as little impact on the trees as possible. As noble Lords may recall, a great deal of time was taken at the planning inquiry debating the likely impacts on tree roots, with several expert witnesses cross-examined. As the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, alluded to, the inspector considered very carefully what pruning of tree roots would be required, how this would be mitigated and what the impacts on the trees would be. He was then able to consider the risks of harm against the undoubted benefits that will arise from the creation of a national memorial to the Holocaust with an integrated learning centre. Introducing a new statutory provision to prevent any root pruning would take away any possibility of such a balanced judgment. The amendment as drafted would place a significant constraint on any possible scheme and would certainly prevent the proposed scheme from going ahead in its current form. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 10.

I turn now to the children’s playground, which is the subject of Amendments 18, 19 and 20 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and is partially covered by Amendment 9, which I addressed a moment ago. The Government fully agree with noble Lords who wish to ensure that children are provided with a high-quality playground at Victoria Tower Gardens. Our proposals for the gardens have been carefully developed to achieve this objective. The playground will be remodelled with a high standard of equipment and carefully designed for accessibility, with suitable separation from other users of the gardens.

The Lords Select Committee gave a great deal of attention to the playground, including matters relating to level access, which are covered by Amendment 18. The Select Committee accepted assurances from the Government that the playground would remain open, with level access at all times, during the construction process, when this is practicable and safe. A separate assurance accepted by the committee committed the Government to review arrangements for the southern end of Victoria Tower Gardens, with a view to ensuring an appropriate separation of the playground from other visitors. Amendments 18, 19 and 20 seek to put in the Bill assurances that the Government gave to the Lords Select Committee.

It was, of course, open to the Select Committee to amend the Bill. It did not do so, which I believe was a wise decision. Using primary legislation to impose detailed conditions on a development carries significant risks. It is a blunt instrument—an approach that takes away the scope for balanced judgment after hearing all the evidence, and that risks creating unintended consequences when statutory provisions are translated into practical steps on the ground. I repeat without embarrassment that the better approach is to rely on the planning system. The impacts of our proposals on the playground in Victoria Tower Gardens were of course considered very carefully by the independent planning inspector. Once the planning process is restarted, the playground will no doubt be considered again.

As for the assurances that we have given to the Lords Select Committee, the Government will be accountable to Parliament for ensuring that they are carried out. There is therefore no need to include these new clauses in the Bill. They would add nothing to the commitments that have been given and would simply open the door to potential legal challenges that would delay still further the construction of the Holocaust memorial.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked specifically about the planning process, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, on the previous group. This application is subject to the passing of this Bill. The planning process would mean that the designated Planning Minister, Minister McMahon, would consider the options. It is up to him to decide which options he would want to take forward. One would be written representations, a second would be a public inquiry and a third would be a round table based on a consensus approach. These are options for the designated Minister to consider.

I hope I have clarified noble Lords’ concerns and issues, and I therefore ask the noble Lord, for whom I have great respect—I spent a lot of time in Bahrain as a student of his diplomacy—not to press his Amendments 18, 19 and 20 requiring new clauses.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, as my amendment was an amendment to an amendment, I am having the final bite of the cherry, so to speak. My noble friend Lord Blencathra asked me a very technical question. As I have relied very heavily on a report that was done by an extremely well-qualified person and I do not have the immediate answer, I think I might take refuge in something that is sometimes done by Ministers answering questions: I will write to my noble friend having found out the precise answer.

In general terms, I am sorry to say that, despite the kindness of the Minister in seeking to answer my queries, I am not in the least satisfied with the points that he has made—not only because he rather underplayed the importance of severing tree roots but because he did not deal at all with the severe matter of compaction, which is another major issue. I will not worry the Committee with anything much longer, save to say that I seek leave to withdraw only because I really have no other choice—but I am not in the least satisfied with the result.

Amendment 10 withdrawn.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Fookes Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I realise that this is a wide-ranging Bill, but I want only to deal with one small aspect of it, which the Minister kindly referred to in her opening remarks: the value of allowing tenants to keep pets as the general standard. She was kind enough to mention the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, as having given her valuable advice on this topic, so I shall be interested to hear what they have to say later in this debate and interested too to see whether any of my comments chime with what they say.

My first interest in this was when I was an MP—heaven alone knows how many years ago now—but I remember feeling saddened and indeed angered by the blanket refusal of many landlords to allow someone to keep a beloved pet. I can remember one constituent who refused to go into suitable accommodation without their pet. Others would succumb to this because they were desperate and had to give up their pet. There has been, over these many years, a lot of hidden unhappiness, needless unhappiness, for people who so value the companionship of animals. I think we now realise more clearly than ever before the mental and physical health which can accrue from having a pet. I hope that this is a good moment in which to set the matter straight.

Sadly, it seems that there are still many landlords who, without this Bill, will not allow pets to be kept. I was startled by Battersea Dogs & Cats Home saying that the second-most common reason for people giving pets back to it related to housing. It added that only a very small percentage of landlords ever indicated that they were happy about pets being kept. There remains a great deal of work to be done on this score.

I understand that there are those who worry about the possible unhappy implications of very noisy dogs, damage to furniture and perhaps aggressive dogs, but these can be exaggerated. In any case, the idea of insurance being required, if the landlord so wishes, is a very sensible approach. I hope that that will help towards sensible pet ownership.

On the other hand, I have some reservations about the adequacy of the two clauses which deal with this—Clauses 12 and 13. For a start, it is obviously proper that landlords should not withhold their consent unreasonably, but there is no indication whatever about what unreasonable behaviour might constitute. I know full well that it is impossible to list every eventuality in the Bill, or even in delegated legislation, but I am concerned that there seems to be no way of dealing with this. The Minister may have something in mind: perhaps some official guidance which is outside the law but which gives clear indications. I would not expect to deal with anything so detailed tonight, but I would be very happy if we could have correspondence on this matter and these other matters at a later stage or, indeed, have that unusual and valued thing, an actual meeting.

In addition, I am concerned that we are creating another unfairness because social housing is not included. I can understand why if we are not dealing with social housing, but it is going to look rather odd if we have a right in one sector that is not available in another, very comparable sector which, for the average person, will seem to be exactly the same. I wonder whether there is any way in which we can deal with that issue.

I have some reservations on these matters, but, overall, I am delighted that we have at last got where I would like to have got—what?—50 years ago. Anyway, better late than never.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Baroness Fookes Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 4th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I start on a very modest personal note. Until recently, I would enjoy a walk from over the river in Kennington from my flat, through the Garden Museum gardens, over Lambeth Bridge, and then there was the absolute joy of the little oasis of the gardens, walking through there to the House of Lords. It is amazing what a difference it makes whether you walk on the Millbank side with the road or go into the park itself, where the walk takes on a totally different atmosphere.

I used to enjoy greatly seeing the change of the seasons, the way the flowers and shrubs would change, looking at other people walking quietly, people with dogs, ladies with pushchairs, and then of course, later in the day, office workers enjoying a break, or residents. I know of one pair who are elderly and extremely concerned because they can see this little haven, which is within their reach to enjoy—bearing in mind they cannot walk awfully far—being destroyed if this particular arrangement goes ahead.

Like others, I have no quarrel whatever with the concept of a learning centre or any kind of memorial. However, I am concerned about the use of this site, particularly because it was dedicated—this is embodied in the law of 1900—as a public garden, or what we might call a park. I believe that it is shocking that any Government should try to overturn that for this particular purpose.

I have particular worries about the impact on the garden itself. I would have declared my interest as the co-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Gardening and Horticulture Group except that, of course, it all came to an end with the new Parliament and it has not yet been reconstituted. However, that is where I come from and that is the point of view I take: the absolute importance to the environment and to people’s health and well-being of these places where, in urban areas particularly, there is some place where people can relax and enjoy themselves.

I find it striking that the previous Government, who I thought were devoted to the environment— I assume that the current Government are also—will, when it comes to the pinch, quite happily sacrifice one of these little oases, as I call them, in what I suppose they regard as greater interests. I am not convinced. For a start, even if only 7% is to be lost—and I query that, despite what others have said—that is still too much when you have a small area; it is not very big.

I have other worries. If we are digging underground to form the underground learning centre, what of the roots of the major trees? My noble friend made that point earlier in the debate. I know that Westminster Council employed consultants on trees, and I think it was pretty clear that the trees would be in real danger. You cannot dig down and expect the roots of major trees to be unaffected. There is a very real possibility that these trees would be destroyed gradually, if not totally. What, then, of our environmental considerations? Consider how much carbon dioxide those major trees absorb. For that reason alone, I am very concerned about this development.

Others have mentioned security; I am thinking purely in practical terms of security. If people have to be checked airport style and their tickets recorded, or whatever it might be, where is the space for that to go? It cannot go in the road, can it? That is obviously overcrowded already. It seems that it would have to come out of the gardens themselves, which will most certainly make it far more difficult for the gardens to remain in their present state. I see my time is up, so I will say no more.

Green Spaces

Baroness Fookes Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Penn) (Con)]

Our environmental improvement plan includes a commitment that everyone should live within a 15-minute walk of a green or blue space and includes measures to reduce barriers which prevent people accessing them. Progress on this commitment is well under way through the levelling up parks fund, the green infrastructure framework, the urban trees challenge fund, the Access for All programme and the woodland access implementation plan.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords—

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I thank the Minister for the response. I warmly welcome this commitment; it is extremely important. However, 38% of people do not have access to green or blue space. Those who are economically marginalised have the least access of all. Access to green space is vital for our physical, mental and general well-being. Can the Minister confirm what proposals the Government have to deliver the target and when they expect to make progress?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, one of the programmes I mentioned in my initial Answer, the levelling up parks fund, is focused specifically on grants given to and administered by local authorities to deliver new or improved green spaces in more than 100 of the neighbourhoods most deprived of green spaces across the UK. Some 92% of recipients of that funding have reported increases in access to green spaces in deprived urban areas. That is one example of how we are delivering on that commitment. I also reassure the noble Earl that we are working across government to ensure that there is a robust baseline for measuring that commitment, so that we can report on progress in future.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I give my sincere apologies to the House for jumping in prematurely; as a Deputy Speaker, I ought to know better. Is my noble friend aware of the value of private gardens as green spaces, particularly in urban areas? Will she try to discourage householders from concreting over their front gardens?

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Fookes Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th March 2023 Lords Chamber

Finally, the amendment proposes that local authorities are able to choose a different voting system. Let us see them as local pilots, and see if they work—a chance to understand the impact of such a change. I return to my starting point. Northern Ireland is promoted as the standard for voter ID. The amendment proposes that Northern Ireland be seen as a standard for local government elections, along with Wales and Scotland. If levelling up is to be a reality, and in order to narrow growing inequalities, then one of the best ways we can do that is to get more voices around the table, bring forth ideas and innovation, and drive change for everybody’s sake. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]]

I agree with everything that my noble friend Lady Pinnock has just said. I put my name to her amendment because in my rapidly disappearing district council of Richmondshire a motion was almost unanimously agreed to support a system of voting proportionately. It was proposed and seconded by two of my colleagues on that council, Councillors Richard Good and Clive World. It is almost unheard of to have a council in Richmondshire vote together on an issue as contentious as this, so I was delighted when they agreed to forward a letter to the Government requesting a move away from the first past the post system to a fairer and more representative way of voting.

As it was, only two Conservative councillors voted against the motion. The motion they presented was as follows:

“First Past the Post (FPTP) originated when land-owning aristocrats dominated parliament and voting was restricted to property-owning men … In Europe”,


as we have heard,

“only the UK and authoritarian Belarus still use archaic single-round FPTP for general elections. Meanwhile, internationally, Proportional Representation (PR) is used to elect parliaments in more than 80 countries. Those countries tend to be more equal, freer and greener … PR ensures all votes count, have equal value, and those seats won match votes cast. Under PR, MPs and Parliaments better reflect the age, gender and protected characteristics of local communities and the nation. MPs better reflecting their communities leads to improved decision-making, wider participation and increased levels of ownership of decisions taken … PR would also end minority rule. In 2019, 43.6% of the vote produced a government with 56.2% of the seats and 100% of the power. PR also prevents ‘wrong winner’ elections such as occurred in 1951 and February 1974 … PR is already used to elect the parliaments and assemblies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. So why not Westminster? … Council therefore resolves to write to H.M. Government calling for a change in our outdated electoral laws to enable Proportional Representation to be used for general, local and mayoral elections.”

I could not have put it any better myself. I fully support my noble friend’s amendment and hope that the Government will consider it seriously before Report.

Devolved Administrations: Intergovernmental Relations

Baroness Fookes Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The Prime Minister set the tone for the Government’s collaborative approach to working with the devolved Governments right from his very first day in office. I can tell the House that the Prime Minister expects to meet the First Ministers again later this week. That is the tone that he has set and that we will continue.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Constitution Committee issued a very important report on the future of the United Kingdom? We would hope that intergovernmental relations will be taken very seriously, but there is a particular problem, in that the consent of the devolved Governments does not have to be sought for delegated legislation on matters that I am very aware would otherwise not be reserved. May we hope that this problem will be looked at very seriously, because it causes intense irritation among the devolved Administrations?

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Fookes Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 21st February 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, as we begin the Committee stage of this important Bill, born out of the tragic Grenfell fire, I reiterate my condolences to the families and friends of those who died in it.

I wish the Minister fortitude as he looks forward to what I suspect will be a very long period of the various stages of the passage of this Bill. We all wish him well and hope that he will have a sympathetic approach to many of the important amendments that we will be debating over the coming days, including Amendment 1 and the proposed new clause in Amendment 12, which I am moving today.

At Second Reading I argued that the Bill should address the perverse situation under the current building regulations in which, if all the occupants of a building escape safely from a fire but the building is totally destroyed, the outcome is considered a success. I believe that the life-safety limitation provided by the current regulations, which significantly influences the design of buildings, should be revised to take account of the protection of property.

My amendments would achieve that by adding furthering the protection of property to the list of purposes for which building regulations may be made; extending the requirements of persons carrying out works on a building to cover building resilience; and widening the scope of the building safety regulator’s functions to further the protection of property. The benefits would include longer-term protection with, therefore, more time for occupants to escape; improved safety for firefighters and reduced fire damage and environmental pollution; and reduced costs of rebuilding and replacing lost items.

At Second Reading I mentioned several recent fires in a range of building types as evidence of the need for such measures. Last week, the Sunday Times included an article looking back at one of the fires that I mentioned: the 2019 fire that destroyed the Worcester Park residential block in Richmond. The article noted that the London Fire Brigade arrived within nine minutes but could not save the building. Twenty-three flats were destroyed in minutes, and, although all 60 residents escaped safely, they lost everything. The article describes the impact: the girl who lost her A-level notes in the blaze and whose predicted grades dropped and she lost her university place; the social worker who received a fire brigade commendation for warning neighbours of the fire but who lost his job because of the trauma caused by the event; and several residents who invested their savings in shared-ownership flats in the block who now cannot find similar properties in the area because house prices have risen by over 13% since the fire. No lives were lost, but the impact was incalculable.

How did a relatively new building end up being destroyed in minutes, and at such risk to the occupants? The building owner claims that:

“The cause of the fire was never identified but the building ‘performed’ as it was supposed to, allowing everyone to get out safely.”


The owners of the Croydon self-storage warehouse gave a similar answer when challenged as to how a fire there in 2018 could completely destroy its warehouse and the possessions of 1,200 clients. They said the building met the fire safety building regulations. The same was said by those responsible for the Beechmere care home, Walsall’s Holiday Inn, Chichester’s Selsey academy, Northamptonshire’s brand-new 40,000 square meter Gardman warehouse, Bristol’s Premier Inn and countless other buildings. In each, the outcome was deemed a success, even though the buildings were destroyed and contents lost.

The current Bill does not address this failing. Indeed, it would not even have covered most of the buildings I mentioned, since they would anyway have been out of scope. But every time a home, a school or a business is destroyed by fire, lives are disrupted at great personal, social, environmental and economic cost. Fires do not need to be so dangerous and costly, but unfortunately it seems that the increased use of modern methods of construction and larger compartmental sizes in industrial buildings is resulting in larger, and hence more challenging, fire incidents. Moreover, at a time when we are striving to make buildings more sustainable, the regulations appear to allow for what are, in effect, disposable buildings.

In the other place, when this issue was raised, the Minister there said little, merely commenting that it would be wrong to complicate the role of the new regulator, yet as our Minister knows, the Government are already conducting research into property protection. I hope that when he responds the Minister will bring us up to speed on the progress of that research and how he sees property protection fitting into the regulations.

This is a wide-ranging Bill, primarily designed to address the failings highlighted by the Grenfell tragedy, and of course it must do so, but it should also be forward-looking and designed to secure the safety of people in or about all buildings. My amendments seek to ensure a safer, more resilient and sustainable built environment. I beg to move Amendment 1.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I shall speak to a number of amendments in this group, broadly divided into two areas. The first follows on from my noble friend Lord Foster’s introduction to the protection of property and the powers of the regulator. The second relates specifically to the safety of buildings and disabled people.

On the first issue, much of the focus among the public and in the debate in the run-up to the Bill coming to your Lordships’ House has been on cladding and the height of buildings. As was discussed specifically at Second Reading, a far wider range of safety, construction and adaptation issues have emerged as secondary issues, generally meaning that too many buildings are not complying with even the old building safety regulations. Life safety is not the only issue: far too many new buildings these days are being constructed in an unsafe way. The level of complaints against builders is the highest it has ever been, and my noble friend Lord Foster of Bath outlined that very clearly.

Secondly, I want to focus on the issues that disabled people face when they are asked to get out of a building, in the event of either a fire or a fire alarm. I am really looking forward to hearing the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, after her excellent speech at Second Reading.

I have not always used a wheelchair, but I still use a stick on various occasions, and I have to say that there is nothing more frightening than trying to leave even a low-level building coming downstairs with a stick with people racing past you. It was probably the second time I had to come out of a building for a fire alarm when I realised that I was as much a danger to the people trying to race past me as I was to myself, because of the risk of falling. Over the years, I have twice been in hotels where the fire alarm has gone off in the middle of the night—once, when I was trying to use my stick. The second time, because I was in my wheelchair, I had been told to report to the safety zone, which I did, and was told that someone from reception or the fire officers would come up, transfer me to the evac chair and take me downstairs. Twenty minutes later, I was still sitting there.

I have to say to noble Lords that this also happened to me in Portcullis House about five or six years ago. As a result—all credit to the House authorities—that was remedied and there is now a new arrangement. But when you are sitting there and you do not know whether it is a fire or a fire practice, and you cannot get out of your own accord, it is extremely alarming.

The use of PEEPs—personal evacuation emergency plans—is excellent, provided that they work. I have used them in workplaces, homes, hotels and guest houses. I was in charge of building some new disabled accommodation at Selwyn College when I was bursar there more than 20 years ago, and although they were not called PEEPs in those days, creating a confident document so that students, their friends around them and the college staff understood the needs of that particular disabled person was vital to them having confidence about being able to evacuate the building in the event of an emergency. The difficulty that we face today, highlighted especially by Grenfell, is that these documents are not in place.

Many disabled people are very concerned that the Home Office has appointed safety consultants CS Todd & Associates, who have been given a new contract worth over £200,000. This organisation was responsible for drafting and editing a fire safety guide for the LGA that said it was “usually unrealistic” to expect landlords to put arrangements in place for disabled people to evacuate blocks of flats in the event of an emergency. That is an interesting turn of phrase, because, as we know, there were a lot of disabled people in Grenfell and flats are increasingly being built, so evacuation for disabled people is vital.

I especially thank disabled campaigning group Claddag, a leaseholder action group led by disabled people who have decided that they will take the Home Secretary to court on this contract. They and the Disabled News Service are really highlighting this issue. It is important to note that, six years on from Todd’s advice, two-fifths of the disabled residents in Grenfell Tower lost their lives because there were no special arrangements in place to get them out safely. The fire service has recognised that the “stay put” advice for residents in high rise blocks must be changed, but there is no evidence from either the Government or from CS Todd & Associates that things have changed. In fact, a further set of advice has been published by Colin Todd on behalf of BSI that repeated this same arrangement.

That is why we need the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. There is an adage in the disabled world that says, “no decision about us without us”. This is fundamental to human safety and human life. It is vital that the specific needs of disabled people are taken into account in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Again, I look forward to the Minister explaining how he will exercise the powers, which are already on his desk, to have a named person and a certified building at the end of every building project, and to him being able to satisfy me that no permitted development project will be allowed to transgress the fire safety rules that will be established through the Bill before us. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, wishes to take part remotely. I now invite the noble Baroness to speak.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I support both amendments in this group so helpfully introduced by my noble friend Lord Stunell. We heard in our debate on the previous group of amendments about the wide range of safety concerns, from fire and flood to methods of construction and fitting out, which mean that some buildings are at risk. I should declare my interest as the vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Fire Safety and Rescue Group, and I thank the many Fire Ministers who have appeared before it, including the current Minister and indeed a previous Minister, who spoke just now.

I support the ideas about the golden thread as outlined by my noble friend Lord Stunell. Amendment 3 does that. Frankly, I thank him for owning up to the fact that he did not do this when he was a Minister. The all-party group has, over the years, argued for this policy to be part of the fire safety protocol.

The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and supported by my noble friend Lady Pinnock, have a key safety issue: the power to prevent a developer’s ability to pick their own regulator. It is right that it is the public building regulator, the Local Authority Building Control, that is the sole regulator.

The bonfire of regulations just over a decade ago has meant that this field has become murky and filled with a lot of organisations that may indeed have close relationships. There was one day when the all-party group heard from a whistleblower who told us that, in the past, there has been unacceptable practice when the developer or owner of a building has had the ability to pick and choose the inspector, in this case, but it could have been a regulator. Fire safety inspectors were booked to come and check the fire safety doors—the front doors of flats and those on the stairwells—and that they were still the right ones that would manage the 40-minute fire safety tests. The managing agents for the building asked for a delay of a week, which was granted. The whistleblower said that it had been noticed by a number of residents that a series of doors were removed and replaced with other doors during that week—which of course passed all the tests—and, the week after the inspection, all the old doors were put back.

There has to be a mechanism for a regulator to start picking up on, and being concerned, when organisations are not playing by the rules. Those alarm bells can best be raised by the independent Local Authority Building Control.

Fire Safety Bill

Baroness Fookes Excerpts

Tuesday 20th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a member of Kirklees Council.

This has so far been a very good debate, with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, using his expertise to detail the problems and suggest solutions to them since, as he says, they have yet to be resolved and need to be resolved, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans with his passionate exposé of the real difficulties facing individuals in this position.

We know that a property purchase is the largest single financial commitment that the majority of us ever make, yet the guarantees, the warranties and even buildings insurance for leaseholders fail to provide anything approaching adequate provision for those who find themselves living in a home where building regulations have been openly and plainly breached. Those living through this construction crisis and cladding scandal exposed by the awful tragedy of Grenfell are left with nowhere to find redress for the inexcusable failings of the construction companies.

That is in stark contrast to manufacturers of, for example, cars and white goods; where faults are discovered, even where the goods are out of warranty, the manufacturers call them in and make the repairs at their expense. What a difference with the construction industry, where only some of those involved have made any provision for remediation works—the bare minimum that they feel they can get away with. The total estimated cost of remediation so far is £16 billion. The Government are expecting construction companies to pay £200 million a year towards the remediation costs. With the government-funded scheme, that leaves a full £9 billion to fall on those who, throughout, are the innocent victims.

The purpose of the amendments in my name and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans is to extend the principle already agreed by the Government: that this serious problem can be successfully fixed only with up-front funding from the Government that can then be recouped from developers, construction firms and manufacturers.

Throughout this debate I have sought to draw the attention of the House to the real and serious consequences for the individual leaseholders and tenants. Take Alison, who has recently had a bill for £28,000. That is just her share of the costs of putting right the construction errors in her block. It is not for cladding removal; the other construction failings are not covered by the scheme that the Government have introduced, but they still have to be remedied. How is that bill to be paid? She carefully budgeted for the costs of her mortgage and the service charges but has no means of raising the finance needed. Where on earth can she turn to save her home?

Another flat owner has written to me, as they apparently have to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, about the further consequences of the scandal. They told me about their buildings insurance premium, and it is so shocking that it is worth sharing again. The insurance premium for their block was just £11,963 last year but that has rocketed to £242,400. How on earth can people living in that block of flats have budgeted for that sort of exponential rise in their insurance premiums? Further, how on earth can they have budgeted or indeed find any finance to pay the bill, which they expect within a week, of £6,000 for each and every one of them without the Government doing what Governments can and should do, which is to protect individuals from situations where they are the innocent victims?

As a consequence of the complete lack of effective government action, bankruptcy has been the only route out of this scandal for many already, while others are on the brink of choosing that as the only option left. Yet these are the very people who have done everything right and nothing wrong. Some are even those who have been supported by the Government through the Help to Buy offer. What are the options after bankruptcy, when everything that you have worked for has been taken away? For those without dependants, the situation is very difficult. They become homeless through no fault of their own. It cannot be right that the Government are allowing this to happen.

I do not envy the Minister his task today as he seeks to defend the indefensible. I feel sure that he will point to the building safety Bill as the cure-all for the failings of the construction sector, but that Bill has yet to start its deliberations so its potential remedies will come far too late for those caught up in this crisis.

The Minister has argued that the Fire Safety Bill will fall if agreement is not reached. He argues for the need to act, but he fails to say at what cost and indeed at whose cost. I thank him for reminding me of my words at Second Reading but he has been a bit selective. I have always said throughout the passage of the Bill that leaseholders must not be asked to pay. Yes, across the House we support the Bill, but equally its consequences need to be thought through as well. The Government constantly state that they are helping leaseholders; indeed the Minister has repeated that today, but he failed then to say that that is unfortunately at a minimal level and the extent of the help is not adequate.

I have asked the cladding groups whether they would suffer if the Bill fell. Their view was unanimous. They concluded that they would be no worse off if it fell and they say that if it does not pass, to some extent it provides them with precious time to get the issue properly addressed.

Yesterday, the Government announced that they would change the law to refund investors in the London Capital & Finance mini-bond scheme. The Government have accepted that the FCA failed to regulate the firm properly. The similarities with this construction scandal are many. Innocent victims are set to lose out due to the failure of regulatory control. However, in the case of the cladding scandal, innocent victims are set to lose everything they own and have worked hard for. That is not right.

The amendment in my name seeks to put right this awful wrong and to establish the rollcall of statistics of bankruptcy, homelessness, mental ill-health and worse, of relationships broken and careers lost. Hundreds of thousands of individuals and families are watching and waiting for the decision of this House. They are willing us on to help find a fair and just solution to a problem that is not in any way of their making. Yet they are the ones who are being asked to pay the price.

If the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans wishes to divide the House, the Liberal Democrat Benches will fully support him. If, however, he chooses not to do so, then I will wish to test the opinion of the House.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

My Lords, the following Members in the Chamber have indicated that they wish to speak: the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, and the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Cormack. I will call them in that order. First, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is with some reluctance, especially at this late stage of the Bill, that I have decided to speak in support of these amendments. I do not want unnecessarily to delay legislation that aims to make homes safer and I am very sensitive about the dangers of undemocratic overreach and defying an elected Chamber. However, I speak because there is an urgent risk that rather than this well-intentioned, important Bill being remembered as a law that will save lives by tackling the fire safety defects at the heart of the Grenfell tragedy, instead, if passed unamended, it will become known as the Bill that ruins lives and makes tens of thousands bankrupt and homeless, their homes transformed from places of safety to sites of anxiety, stress and penury.

I have not spoken on the Bill previously but have followed the debates carefully. I have heard eloquent, passionate, evidence-based and constructive interventions from noble Lords on all sides of the House patiently explaining to the Government how the Bill, unintentionally no doubt, has weaponised fire safety measures and targeted not developers, freeholders, cladding manufacturers or builders but the most blameless constituents in all this—leaseholding home owners. They will pay horrendous, mind-boggling amounts of money to foot remediation costs to cover defects in order to make their homes safe when they have purchased those flats in good faith.

I assumed that the Government were listening and that they understood, after all this—Ministers here and elsewhere have given lots of public assurances—that leaseholders would not become the fall guys. I believed them. I was pleased to welcome the £5 billion long-term loan scheme and the £50-a-month cap on repayments. That reassured me. But I am speaking today in desperation because I am utterly shocked to discover that this government scheme is not yet operational and that no date is available for when it will be. Yet, at the very moment that the Bill comes into force, if unamended, leaseholders will be landed with even more astronomical bills and demands to pay within days or weeks. That is on top of the immiseration already occurring, caused by ensuing costs.

Rough Sleeping

Baroness Fookes Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

My Lords, the Oral Statement relates to rough sleeping. The figures are very clear: we have seen a 37% reduction in rough sleeping—a huge reduction. There has been a reduction of 43% since the Prime Minister took office in 2019. The 2,688 statistic that was referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in his opening remarks, is down from 4,751 in 2017. This Government retain the ambition to end rough sleeping. I point out, too, that subsequent analysis, in December and January, shows continued reductions in the levels of rough sleeping.

One of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, is not correct: the Everyone In programme continues and by January had helped 37,000 people, with over 11,000 in emergency accommodation and 26,000 moved into longer-term accommodation. The programme continues to operate, along with subsequent programmes and the Protect Plus programme.

It is important to address the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, on funding. The commitment on homelessness and rough sleeping in the 2021 budget was £700 million, and that will increase next year—since we had a single-year budget commitment—by a further £50 million, to £750 million. Significantly, within that £750 million is a commitment to a block grant of £310 million for homelessness prevention. That grant is to ensure that there are no further pressures, and to support people at risk of homelessness.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned the Government’s record on social housing. Social housing is underpinned by the multi-billion pound affordable homes grant, which has had record funding. We continue to be committed to build all forms of affordable housing, of all tenures, including social housing.

The Housing First pilot, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, is a world-class project. It was pioneered in Finland and we are piloting it to get the policy right. It continues to be piloted in three areas—the West Midlands, Greater Manchester and the Liverpool City Region. It is important to use the findings of the evaluation, and other experiences with pilots, to inform our next steps, and we are commissioning a consortium led by the ICF to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the programme. When you do something new like this, it is important to test what you want to expand and expand what you test, rather than hurriedly implement something and get it wrong.

We remain committed to removing no-fault evictions; that will happen as soon as parliamentary time allows, as I have said in previous answers. We recognise the underlying problems of people on our streets, and that we need to continue to address them. This Government, however, have made huge, unprecedented strides in reducing rough sleeping, and we continue to see that in the latest information that we have published.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

We now come to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers. I am tempted to repeat that last sentence, but I will not.