Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

In a nutshell, these amendments would enable councils to have the flexibility that they need to choose how best to determine planning applications, as we would want democratic institutions to do. Perhaps the Government should look at how developers game the system, which results in slower decision-making than is necessary. Currently, 83% of applications are already decided by officers within local policies and national policy frameworks, and only 17% are deemed necessary to be decided by committee. That is probably the right balance. Let us enable councils to continue to allow their local democracy to thrive and people to have trust in what is going on by having the bright light of a planning committee and a planning report in front of people so that they can see how decisions are made. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, I have to notify the Committee that if Amendments 103ZZA and 103ZZB are agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 103ZA by reasons of pre-emption.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 104, but, first, I must declare my interests, as this is the first time I have spoken formally in Committee on this Bill. I am still a farmer and land manager, or at least my family is; I now farm and manage land from the perspective of a retired farmer.

Amendment 104 is very much a probing amendment. I approve of the proposed delegation of planning decisions to a sub-committee or to officers of a local authority. This will give a degree of reliability and constancy in the decision-making process, possibly even a degree of speed, which in the planning system as we currently know it would be in most welcome. The proposed training of planning committees in this context is also welcome. It will, I hope, avoid decision-makers succumbing to parochial interests or, worse still, the views of their immediate social circle, whom they might not want to upset, which I have come across.

Therefore, I was surprised to find national park authorities excluded from these sensible improvements. In my experience, national park authorities are no exception to some of the parochialism and resistance to change that occur elsewhere. If anything, the resistance is greater. Some national park authorities do not have a planning committee, and all planning decisions come before the whole authority, with the inevitable resultant delays and, worse still, greater opportunity for parochial subjectivism.

I would trust trained national park officers to be able to take certain planning decisions in line with both national and locally set policies. Above all, those chief officers have the necessary vision that perceives the national park as being there to benefit both the lives of those who live and work in the park and those of people who visit it. I have always seen national parks as being like a branding that needs an overall vision, which includes everything from transport facilities to better landscape management et al, in order to enhance the lives of the many both inside and outside the park. Without that overall vision, which I believe not everyone who sits on a national park authority committee necessarily has, those national parks will fail to maximise their potential. I just wondered why our national landscapes were excluded from this section of the Bill.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, before we start the debate on the first group, I want to repeat earlier reminders on declaring interests for, I hope, the final time. As we set out previously, noble Lords should declare relevant interests at each stage of proceedings on a Bill. That means that in their first contribution on Report, noble Lords must declare any relevant financial interests in a specific but brief way. Declarations do not need to be repeated in subsequent speeches, so if a declaration has been made on Report, it does not need to be made again.

While I have the attention of the House, I remind noble Lords that when pressing or withdrawing an amendment, speeches should be short. As set out in paragraph 8.79B of the Companion:

“Members … pressing or withdrawing an amendment should … be brief and need not respond to all the points made during the debate, nor revisit points made when moving the amendment”.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, due to an error, Amendment 86, which has already been debated, does not appear on the Marshalled List and has not been disposed of. I therefore begin by calling Amendment 86.

Amendment 86 not moved.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th February 2025 Grand Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, this will be the last group today.

Amendment 21

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 4 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, well done—I think we have finished just before the vote.

Committee adjourned at 7.46 pm.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th March 2023 Lords Chamber

My final amendment is on the general power of competence—the ability to be able to do anything which is not expressly forbidden in legislation. The Bill creates this power for the new combined authorities. Other local authorities already have it, but the town and parish council tier of local government is out of step. It is only under certain quite onerous circumstances that they can have this power. Indeed, only 18% of county associations have felt confident to apply for it. To further empower communities and to ensure that local councils can play their full part, the Bill should extend this power to all parish councils. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

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

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

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I will speak specifically to Amendment 163.

I should first declare an interest that I am the high steward of Ripon Cathedral, and although Ripon is technically a city because of its cathedral, the cathedral is also regarded by many as its parish church. The crypt is the oldest built fabric of any English cathedral, and worship there has been continuous since 672. Ripon was the first place in England where the Benedictine rule was lived out. It is a grade 1 listed building. The surrounding lands are a scheduled ancient monument. However, although it is a place to encourage pilgrimage and sanctuary, it is also a space to encourage imagination, exploration and debate. It is used extensively to promote local innovation and many events, and is a space for the community of Ripon to come together. However, it needs urgent support if it is to flourish for the next 1,350 years or so.

All churches and cathedrals have a really desperate job not just trying to stay open but, in these straitened times, to be heated. They try to raise whatever money they can but tend to be fighting a losing battle, as the maintenance costs of caring for such large buildings is astronomic.

It is a complete anomaly that parish councils cannot help to support their local church or religious building if they so wish. Almost certainly it will not be a huge grant: parish councils are as bereft of money as our churches are. As we have already heard from my noble friend, the two conflicting bits of legislation pertaining here—Section 8 of the Local Government Act 1894 and Section 137(3) of the Local Government Act 1972—give rise to concerns that parishes can, if they want, grant the local church some much-needed money. What should have happened of course is that, when Section 137(3) came in, the Government of the day could have struck down Section 8, which, as we have heard, says that funds cannot be given to churches, whereas Section 137(3) says that they can. Unfortunately, this was probably overlooked at the time and now we have an opportunity for the Government to accept this wholly reasonable amendment, which will clarify matters.

Building Safety Defects

Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts

Wednesday 5th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I have always loved a magic bullet, but the reality is that the scale of the cladding and building sector crisis in Wales is a fraction of that in England. That is just a fact: I could give the right reverend Prelate the statistics if he is interested, but we are not going to solve it that way. We need to have a greater sense of proportion. We have made this a bigger scandal than it needs to be because too many buildings have been declared unsafe that are perfectly safe. Frankly, there is an industry profiteering on the back of this, and we need to do something about that. There needs to be a call for innovation to encourage mitigation, more often than not, rather than full-scale costly remediation; we need to make sure that there is an adequate, sensible, proportionate approach to this crisis.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, we have been very silent on these Benches so far, so I hope that I might intervene at this stage on behalf of my noble friend Lady Pinnock, who cannot be here. The Government intended that Grenfell-style cladding on social housing would be removed by the end of 2019—yet another broken promise. It is reported that the earliest that this will be achieved is 2024. Can the Minister confirm that report? What action are the Government taking to speed up the process and support those affected?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I know that there is a “broken promises” line, but the reality is that 95% of ACM buildings have been remediated. Actually, we have accelerated at pace while I have been Building Safety Minister, despite the global pandemic. The reality is that for many of these buildings—about 20, and a lot of them happen to be in the London Borough of Southwark—it was literally discovered only months ago that they had ACM cladding. I am not blaming the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, but we are doing our best. This is tough, and we should not be trying to score points. We are absolutely committed to remediate these buildings, especially those with aluminium composite material, the most deadly form of cladding. Very shortly, we will have that removed from all buildings in this country.

UK Community Renewal Fund

Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what were the criteria for allocating money from the UK Community Renewal Fund; and what assessment they have made of the analysis by the Centre for Inequality and Levelling Up at the University of West London, published on 4 November, which found that 21 per cent of the funding went to areas in the bottom 20 per cent of the Index of Multiple Deprivation, and that two-thirds of the funding went to areas in the top half of that Index.

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

The Government have confirmed that applications to the UK community renewal fund were assessed against the criteria set out in the prospectus and the assessment criteria published on GOV.UK. The analysis conducted by the University of West London used indices of multiple deprivation as an indicator for priority. Indices of multiple deprivation were not used for prioritising places under the UK community renewal fund. Instead, an index of economic resilience was used across Great Britain in identifying the 100 priority places. The prioritisation of place methodology and model has been published on GOV.UK. The analysis for Great Britain showed that 77%, or £146,198,866, of funding was allocated to a priority place.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

I apologise for the length of the Question, but I am not entirely sure that I am happy with the Minister’s Answer. Surely this fund is flawed and something of a sham. The money should be going to areas with high levels of deprivation, but places such as Knowsley in Merseyside, Sandwell, Middlesbrough and Hyndburn have received no moneys at all from this fund. How can the Minister ensure that they are not further disadvantaged when they bid for the UK shared prosperity fund in 2022? Will that have different indices as well?

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL]

Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts

Monday 24th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and I agree with many of the points she made, not least on the antiquated, archaic references to “peppercorn rents”. The Minister referenced how it was not expected that anybody would enforce the provision for payment of a peppercorn. Let us hope not, because if they did, the only people who would benefit would be the sellers of peppercorns, and goodness knows what shortage may be occasioned by everybody claiming and enforcing that provision. It is archaic and has no part in legislation in the 21st century.

I thank my noble friend for setting out the proposed legislation as clearly as he did; it was most helpful. Its purpose, in a nutshell, is clearly to abolish ground rents on long leases in future. I strongly welcome that and this legislation, although I think it could go further, as other noble Lords have indicated. I hope it ends the iniquitous practice, particularly of late, of claiming indefensible ground rents on property that is freehold in all but name and, in recent years, increasing—sometimes doubling—these charges from year to year. That is clearly indefensible. As referenced early on by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, Liam Spender, in a valuable article on the subject, said that leaseholders are too often treated as “cash cows” by some disreputable freeholders. That practice must surely end.

I understand why the legislation is not retrospective on rights that are vested long ago. I clearly see dimensions related to the European Convention on Human Rights and so on. That is reasonable. However, I want to probe with my noble friend why the disreputable practice of late of imposing unjustified ground rents is to continue. Since the Government’s declared intention is to render it illegal, why should there be an indulgence, possibly for a further two years, towards those who are putting this in contracts now? I cannot see why that needs to be the case or that the human rights argument applies in relation to it.

Further to that, I have read that it is suggested that the provisions will not be brought into force until 2023, in about two years from now. Can my noble friend indicate why that is the case, if it is? In short, when do the Government intend the Secretary of State to bring the provisions into force, under Clause 25 of the Bill—assuming that it passes according to the programme set out by the Government?

The Bill is relatively short and straightforward, but I would like to tackle some other points with my noble friend and seek his views on the Government’s intention. First, he referred to rent not being defined, because it may lead to exploitation and loopholes being sought. I do not follow that argument; I cannot see why a definition would do that. There are definitions of rent under other provisions and no cross-reference to them in this legislation. I do not think there is a definition of rent or ground rent, except in the most general terms, in this legislation. I cannot see how that is helpful. It is not, for example, clear whether a freeholder making a provision to fix buildings insurance for the leaseholder is within the definition of rent. If it is not, it presents a loophole. As I say, this is not at all clear and I wonder whether my noble friend could provide more information about the thought given to that and the possible loopholes that may arise from there not being a definition, which I can clearly see may be the case. I hope that, on reflection, the Government bring forward an amendment to add a definition of rent to the legislation, because there are clearly practices that could be exploited by a disreputable freeholder, in much the same way as we had action on tenant fees legislation to list procedures that could be permitted. I ask the Government to give some more thought to that.

A second and related area is the permission fees sometimes imposed in such agreements—for example, for keeping a pet—when drawing up the relatively straightforward paperwork that may be needed when permission is needed under the agreement. Again, has any thought been given to restricting the exploitation of such a provision, in the same way as for the provisions that I have just mentioned? These necessary considerations could improve this legislation.

Lastly, I reference an overriding point that has been mentioned by others, including my noble friend in his introduction, on the enfranchisement of existing long leases. Clearly, if that legislation is long in coming, there is the possibility of a two-tier market in leaseholds, which—

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

We appear to have lost the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. I think he was coming to an end anyway, so we will go to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, like others who have spoken, I very much welcome this Bill. It is another step along the road of reform that, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra said, began in 1967 with the Leasehold Reform Act, which gave tenants of houses the right to buy the freehold. That was followed in 1993 by the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act, which gave leasehold tenants of flats the right collectively to buy the freehold.

I modestly remind the House that I put that piece of legislation on the statute book nearly 30 years ago. The junior Minister who skilfully piloted it through your Lordships’ House was my then youthful noble friend Lord Strathclyde. This was subsequently amended by the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, which introduced commonhold. In my view, the destination of this journey should be the eventual elimination of leasehold. Here I agree with my noble friend Lord Blencathra, who spoke without restraint a few moments ago about the feudal form of tenure, which exists nowhere else in the world and has no place in a modern society.

Switching metaphors, the Bill before us today is the appetiser for the main course—a more comprehensive piece of legislation to remove some of the inequities of the present leasehold system, which I look forward to and, along with other noble Lords, hope will not be delayed too long. I accept what my noble friend the Minister said right at the beginning: that we should not use this piece of legislation to shoehorn in parts of the more substantial legislation that I hope will follow soon. I applaud the role that my noble friend the Minister has played behind the scenes in moving this whole debate forward. While I am delighted that many builders such as Barratt Homes have abandoned ground rents and are establishing resident management companies, not all are following—hence the need for the Bill.

As many noble Lords have said, although the Bill has “Ground Rent” in the title, nowhere in the Bill is this defined; I will refer to that again in a moment. However, given that “Ground Rent” is in the long title, the Government could have included in the Bill the Law Society’s recommendation that existing leaseholders should be able to buy out ground rents. At the moment, they can in effect extinguish the ground rent but only by extending the lease, which of course involves paying a premium. Many may not be able to afford this but they could buy out the ground rent on the basis suggested by the Law Commission. Might my noble friend include that as a government amendment in Committee, which I am sure would be very popular?

As I said, the Bill does not define “ground rent”; this was raised in the Zoom meeting that the Minister was kind enough to hold with a number of us last week, and it is being raised again today. Clause 22 is headed “Interpretation”. It tells us what a dwelling and a peppercorn rent are, but not what ground rent is. Instead, it says that

“‘rent’ includes anything in the nature of rent, whatever it is called.”

That is very broad and, as my noble friend Lord Hammond said, may capture other elements that are not ground rents. What it calls a “permitted rent” is defined in Clauses 4 to 6, but that definition may go wider than ground rent.

The Explanatory Notes say that the Act is intended to capture any payment under a lease which does not impose an obligation on the landlord to provide a service, but this is not in the Bill. However one defines ground rent—there are definitions in the Law of Property Act 1925, and the Law Society in its helpful briefing for this debate suggests another definition—it is important that ground rents do not reappear under another name. Could this happen by specifying a fixed service charge rising in line with inflation to cover the landlord’s expenses in arranging buildings insurance? This point was made by my noble friend Lord Bourne before he was excommunicated. As the law currently stands, fixed service charges cannot be challenged by leaseholders, but they could be used by freeholders as the basis for secured lending, thus perpetuating the ground rent investment industry. Also, as my noble friend Lord Hammond said, in modern leases and modern case law, rent often has a broader meaning, including ground rent and service charges. Perhaps, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, suggested in her speech, the Bill intends all future residential leases to be drafted so that only the peppercorn rent is described as a rent. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister could deal with that in his wind-up.

I am also concerned at one of the exceptions in Clause 2(1)(b), which my noble friend mentioned in his opening speech. The right in the Bill does not extend to premises where the nature of the business purposes demised by the lease as a dwelling

“significantly contributes to the business purposes”.

In the case of a block that has offices on the ground floor but flats above it, where there is a head lease, does this mean that the flats are excluded from the provisions of the Bill? Speaking from memory, the 1993 Act excluded from enfranchisement premises where more than 25% was non-residential; I wonder why that definition is not used here.

On the commencement date, the noble Lord, Lord Best, made a valid point about retirement homes in the process of being sold, where there was the risk of a two-tier system of ground rents. Hopefully, Wales will move at the same pace as England, but I see that the Bill allows a separate commencement date. Perhaps the Minister can clarify.

I was going to end by saying that I did not see why we needed three days in Committee but, having listened to today’s debate, I am not sure that three days will be enough. However much time is spent in Committee, I hope that this will not delay too long the arrival of the Bill on the statute book.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, has withdrawn so I call the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia.

[Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, as almost the last Peer to speak, I have decided not to speak from the notes that I had prepared for this event. There have been some excellent speeches on the Bill. I mention that of the noble Lord, Lord Best, in which he shared his excellent experience in this field. His reference to retirement homes was very well articulated and I fully agree with what he said.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has withdrawn so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Grender.

Anti-Semitic Attacks

Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, we continue to have our cross-government working groups to tackle both anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim sentiments. We continue to work with a number of stakeholders to address those challenges. We also provide substantial support to the Community Security Trust. It is £14 million this year, but it has been £65 million to date. We will continue to support what those groups do, but they also provide important support for other minority and faith communities.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

The noble Lord, Lord Polak, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

The remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, about the speedy action by the police were extremely welcome. For the sake of Holocaust survivors, such as my beloved sister, and the whole of the community, can we ensure that once prosecutions are brought, they are brought quickly and not delayed? Will the Government call on the Director of Public Prosecutions to account to the Government for the speedy way in which these cases should be processed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I completely agree with those sentiments. We need to react and enforce robustly, but equally to find the right tone to cover these sorts of events.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, but the time has now elapsed for this Question.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts

Monday 17th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, like others, I congratulate the two noble Lords who made their maiden speeches in this debate. I will start my remarks where the noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Clark of Windermere, concluded on day one of this debate on the gracious Speech. I refer to the controversy surrounding Newton Rigg College near Penrith, where I studied myself. As chair of the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership, I considered it inappropriate publicly to man the barricades on this matter; rather, I have been busy behind the scenes, including keeping the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, up to date with my concerns. However, now that the Cumbrian campus has publicly been placed on the market, with a view to unilaterally expatriating the proceeds to Yorkshire, I feel free to express my personal feelings and anger, shared by so many other Cumbrians.

Together with the chief executive of the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership, I was a witness at a hearing of the other place’s EFRA Committee on 23 March this year. In the same session, there were two witnesses from Askham Bryan College, neither of whom was either the chair or vice-chair of the governors. The committee’s questioning was skilful and forensic, led effectively by the honourable Member for Brent North, Mr Barry Gardiner. My LEP colleague and I spoke relatively little. I left the hearing stunned by the college’s evidence and its inadequacy and shortcomings, and was more or less completely bemused by it all. Since then, I have revisited the evidence, which was recorded, and have given it careful thought. It correlates with what I know has been happening on the ground and with Askham Bryan College’s behaviour, which has been evasive, disingenuous and inconsistent, including gagging its employees.

As noble Lords will know, FE colleges are charities, but they are not required to register with the Charity Commission; rather, their principal regulator is the Department for Education. None the less, their charitable purpose is paramount. However, in the face of what appear to be considerable financial difficulties, Askham Bryan College’s prime purpose seems to have morphed into one of preservation of itself to the exclusion of everything else, in a manner which specialist legal advice—which I have seen—suggests may be unlawful and certainly seems to me to disregard a number of the Nolan principles.

All this is very similar in a number of respects to what happened some years ago in the case of the Kids Company. That was a real scandal, and this is equally so. It is as simple as that.

I conclude with three pleas. First, I say to the Minister and the Government: this FE college is part of the nation’s system for delivering education and training, and the Government are the college’s principal regulator and guardian of the public interest. Their prime concern must be the integrity of the system and proper administration of the provision of FE, skills and training to everybody in this country, not just to those in Yorkshire. They should not emulate Pontius Pilate and weakly stand by wringing their hands. They should take a grip.

I say to your Lordships: one of our roles as parliamentarians is to identify abuse, bring it to public attention, place it under public scrutiny and stamp it out. As I have said, the EFRA Committee’s hearing on 23 March has been recorded and is available. I urge your Lordships to view it and form your own conclusions. I believe that something very wrong is going on.

Thirdly, I would say through the House and via Hansard to the media—I speak as an ex-Minister in the then DNH who had considerable involvement with the media, as an ex-chairman of the Communications Committee of your Lordships’ House when we produced an important report on investigative journalism, as chairman of a local newspaper group for more than a decade and now a director of Full Fact and the Public Interest News Foundation—that you the media, both local and national, because this is not a parochial issue, are part of the wider system of checks and balances in which our system of government and administration is set. I know a scandal when I see it. Go out, investigate, form your own conclusions and then tell truth to power. That is what you are for.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow.

Fire Safety Bill

Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 27th April 2021 Lords Chamber

Proceedings on the Bill in the Commons commenced today at 2.20 pm. Since that time, noble Lords have been able to re-watch those proceedings at their convenience on parliament.tv. In fact, in the time that has passed between the Commons finishing and our starting, any noble Lord could have watched the entire Commons debate at least three times. As I said, this is the way in which issues between these two Houses have been resolved for decades and I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

I have not received any request to speak after the Minister. Does anyone in the Chamber wish to speak? Lord Adonis.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that matters have been considered in this way in the past but that does not make it satisfactory. He said that the Hansard account was available at 5.30 pm. That was one hour and 40 minutes ago and most of us were not even aware of that fact. I did watch the House of Commons proceedings on replay and had to note down by hand all that had been said several times, so that I could get the wording correct. No ordinary member of the public would think that these proceedings are satisfactory, and the Procedure Committee should look at them with a view to improving them. Huge issues are at stake here and they should not be rushed and railroaded through in this way. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

I have to say, with much regret, that if it is the only way to persuade the Government to take the responsibility seriously—to oblige them to take the sort of action that any Government ought to and that only government really can take—I am left with no choice that satisfies my conscience and the directions of my moral compass other than to support Motion A1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, preferably with Motion A2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

The following Members in the Chamber have indicated that they wish to speak: the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lords, Lord Stoneham of Droxford and Lord Adonis. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, while the headlines are all focusing on the scandal of who paid for the internal refurbishment work on a flat in No. 10, for me this is a far greater scandal about who is being forced to pay for the external remediation works on more than a million flats caught up in this fire safety cladding debacle. As things stand, innocent leaseholders—the only party with no hint of blame for negligence or mistakes—are the sole group to shoulder the burden. We have heard some passionate speeches about that.

Why am I back here? I just need some reassurances from the Government. They say that this is not a legislative matter and that this is not the legislation, so what are they going to do? Many of us united here usually disagree. My goodness, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and I are on the same side. Whatever is the matter? But we are here in good faith. This is not Tory-bashing or a cheap dig at rich developers or landowners—it is a warning to the Government.

This reminds me of the convictions of the 39 post- masters, now cleared, but after the tragedy of what befell them because no one would listen. It also feels to me like a betrayal of all those promises made to the red wall voters that this Government care about the aspirations of ordinary people. It seems to make a mockery of parliamentary priorities, and I genuinely do not understand the point of us being here and debating levelling up when many leaseholders concerned bought their flats or houses as part of affordable housing schemes. They are front-line workers who have been thrown to the wolves.

Similarly, what is the point of legislating on the welfare of veterans and supporting the police when one veteran and serving police officer writes to me explaining that he has worked every day since he was 16 and has never needed to rely on state benefit or accrued debts in any way, yet now faces bankruptcy and could even, as a bankrupt, lose his job. He describes it as a living nightmare. He says: “I am a leaseholder, and that is the biggest mistake of my life.” What a terrible thing to say. He says he is disillusioned, angry and frustrated, and powerfully notes that he feels defeated and that all his attempts to be heard are ignored.

These leaseholders feel ignored. Whatever happens here today, I ask the Government to listen and not to ignore them. At the very least, I ask the Minister to listen to the Bank of England. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, noted, last week the Bank of England said it is seriously assessing whether the building safety scandal could cause a new financial crisis—hardly an encouraging sign for building back better or economic growth.

Even from a pragmatic basis, I do not understand why the Government will not note that if more than a million properties become unmortgageable, if we create a negative equity problem, if leaseholders become bankrupt and cannot pay for remediation costs, if there is a knock-on effect on property values, if there is an effect on labour market mobility because people are unable to sell their homes, are trapped and have to stay where they are, surely this is a matter that the Government, even the Treasury, might look at. We look to the Government here because only they can provide the capital up front to pay for the works now.

The Commons reason for rejecting the amendment is that

“the issue of remediation costs is too complex to be dealt with in the manner proposed.”

I just want to know what manner is actually proposed. The plan from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, seems sensible to me. I would like to hear the Government’s.

I do agree that there are no easy solutions. That is why it is too easy for the Government to boast of generous loan funds and grant schemes when people are ineligible to apply for them and are facing huge bills now. Although it is tempting, it would be too easy to blame developers or whatever, and that is not my intention—I just do not want the blameless to pay.

It is also too easy to use the Grenfell tragedy to imply that those of us supporting the leaseholders or backing these amendments are cavalier in any way about fire safety standards. As a leaseholder, I assure noble Lords that I am not cavalier about my own safety. But I do note that today the Grenfell United campaign has issued a statement saying:

“Using Grenfell Recommendations to justify government’s indifference is deeply upsetting for us”.


As victims of the Grenfell fire, they say that they stand in solidarity with innocent leaseholders.

I know that the Bill is good and full of good intentions, but it creates liabilities for leaseholders without giving them any means of redress and, more broadly, it betrays any commitment to a meritocratic society. I appeal to the Government to listen.