Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd April 2024 Lords Chamber

In conclusion, what is not complicated is that owners of flats are a safer bet for maintaining and managing their own homes than those developers and freeholders who have given their own profession a bad name. It is why this scandal is being discussed in the first place. I suggest that we simply say that in five years’ time this will be put to bed and finished with, and then no one can accuse whichever Government are in power of breaking promises again.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I do not have an amendment in this group, but it is almost therapeutic when your Lordships’ House is asked to consider a rare Bill such as this, where, instead of the Government seeking to do something really quite nasty, they are merely failing to do the best possible thing that they could.

The amendments in this group reveal that the Government have failed to bring in any proposals to replace leasehold ownership of residential property with commonhold ownership. It is obvious that there is a political consensus—at least on this side of the Chamber and partly on the other side—that commonhold should be the main model of ownership for multi-unit residential properties. However, 20 years since commonhold was first introduced, and four years since the Law Commission published legislative proposals to enable more widespread adoption of commonhold, it looks as though this Government have chosen to leave this issue to the next Government to sort out. That might be the best thing—I do not know—but, quite honestly, this Government have had the option, even in this Bill, to do the right thing.

Housing is part of survival: it is a human right and you have to get it right. It is time to end the commodification of housing by international finance and to end the feudal model of land ownership, which facilitates developers extracting as much money as possible from home owners while providing little or no value in return. Forgive me, I should have declared an interest as a leaseholder.

I would like to ask the Minister some questions; others have probably asked these questions before, but I just want to be specific and get clear answers. When do the Government expect the Commonhold Council to complete its work on the implementation of commonhold for new housing supply? When do they expect the completion of the work on conversion to commonhold? Why is it taking so long?

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will make a brief intervention to support the thinking behind Amendment 14, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. We all understand the disappointment that it has not been possible to make progress with commonhold in this Parliament. We all understand that it would be impossible to try to retrofit commonhold into the existing legislation. One thing we have learned over the last two parliamentary Sessions is that the capacity of the department to produce legislation that does not need wholesale amendment as it goes through is limited. We all bear the scars of the levelling-up Bill.

We have also seen the number of government amendments that have already been tabled to this Bill. What ought to happen, and I wonder whether my noble friend would smile on this, is that at the beginning of the next Session, a draft Bill should be published on commonhold. That would enable us to iron out all the wrinkles and expedite the passage of an eventual commonhold Bill when it came forward. There is all-party agreement that we need to make progress with commonhold, so urgent work now on producing a draft Bill is time that would not be wasted. It would mean that early in the next Session of Parliament we could produce a draft Bill—we have the Law Commission’s work, which we could build on—and iron out all the wrinkles. Then, when the actual Bill came forward, we would be spared, I hope, the raft of government amendments. I exempt my noble friend on the Front Bench from responsibility for this; it would be a faster destination.

By way of comment, what has happened to draft Bills? When did we last see a draft Bill? If you look at the Cabinet Office’s recommendation, I think in 2022 it said that they should be part of a normal legislative programme; there should be a number of Bills produced in draft, which we can get our teeth into. All my experience as chairman of the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee is that when you have a draft Bill, the actual Bill goes through much more quickly. Again, my noble friend has no responsibility for the legislative programme, but I think we need to spend more time as a Parliament looking at draft Bills rather than at Bills that have been drafted in haste, and then having to cope with a whole range of government amendments.

Green Spaces

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I do not believe it should be an either/or. The green belt is rightly protected, and the Government’s approach to that is set out clearly. For urban green space, that is also reflected in the National Planning Policy Framework. It is clear that access to high-quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and physical activity are important to the health and well-being of communities. Planning policies and decisions should enable the retention and development of accessible open spaces. That is what local plans should seek to do.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the environmental improvement plan is an example of this rubbish Government actually coming up with some good ideas. But, despite the fact that this plan is good particularly for deprived communities, children and biodiversity, there is a problem. Is it perhaps the fact that this Government have slashed funding to councils that has made progress so slow?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I have set out a number of different ways that we are supporting this commitment. On local government funding, the provisional local government finance settlement for next year announced a substantial funding package for councils, worth more than £64.1 billion—£4 billion more than last year. But, having listened to councils, a further £600 million was announced at the end of January. So we are providing the funding to councils to help support their important role in delivering this.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, we ought to remember that we are discussing the amendments that the Government have put before us, rather than a committee report that we have not got and which will, no doubt, be of great interest.

We have to recognise that there may well be an issue here that needs properly to be addressed. My concern is that this is not the way to address it. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, suggested that when we deal with the environment, we should consider it very carefully, go out to consultation and make sure that what we are doing is right. None of that has happened here. The Government have put down a whole series of amendments to this Christmas tree of a Bill and some of us are suggesting that we should not do this—although, were they to come forward with something that met the particular problems in a way that was not so manifestly bad, I am sure we would be supportive.

I rather object to the fact that the newspapers say that I am a Conservative rebel. It is the Government who are the rebel here, because they are not being conservative over this. First, they are asking local authorities—I can hardly believe it—to disregard the facts. This is the kind of attitude that we see in the Republican Party in the United States, the people who do not believe in climate change, the anti-vaxxers, who say “Don’t look at the facts”. The second thing that local authorities are being asked to do is encourage ignorance: not only “Don’t look at the facts” but “Don’t look at any evidence or find any evidence—just do what the Government say should be done”.

The argument the Government have put forward is that we need this to build more houses. I was the Secretary of State responsible for that. I had a long history of dealing with the housebuilders, who tell us that this will increase the number of houses. The number of houses built has nothing to do with this at all—it is about whether the housebuilders think that that number will keep the price up at the level at which they have it. The housebuilders are not building the houses they have already got planning permission for in areas which are not in any way affected by this. We know that perfectly well. It is a canard, if I may use a foreign word, to suggest that this will have any effect on the number of houses. The number of houses in this country is not reaching 300,000 because the housebuilders have bought the land at a price which means that they can sell only at a level which is too elevated for the present time, with mortgages as they are. Let us not kid ourselves that, by voting against this, we will in some way reduce the number of houses, because we will not.

I find it extremely difficult when I am told that the housebuilders should not pay for the damage they do. Three arguments are used. First is the housemaid’s argument: it is only a very little bit—“It is only a very little baby”—and therefore we do not have to take it into account. As a former chairman of the Climate Change Committee, I have to say that that is the argument everybody uses every time you want to do anything—“It isn’t me”; “They are bigger than we are”; “Don’t do it in Britain because of China”; “Don’t do it because of the farmers”; “Don’t do it for anyone, but don’t ask me to pay for my pollution”.

Secondly, I thought that the Conservative Party was in favour of the polluter pays. Were my noble friend the Minister canvassing in the Mid Bedfordshire by-election at this moment, would she turn to an elector and say, “In future, housebuilders building in the Wye Valley or near the Monnow will not have to contribute for the cost and the damage they do, but you will through your taxes. You, the Mid Bedfordshire voter in the by-election, will now be asked to subsidise the housebuilders”? That is what these amendments are about—the subsidising of the housebuilders.

In the end, we could go even further. Why do we not have a Bill to say that housebuilders can ignore health and safety arrangements because then more housing would be built? Why do we not say that local authorities must not know what the health and safety laws are and must not investigate what they might be so that houses might be built?

This is one of the worst pieces of legislation I have ever seen, and I have been around a long time. It is entirely unconservative. If all this was so obvious so long ago, why was it not included in the Bill in the first place, or in some other Bill? As we have, in my view, some pretty peculiar legislation on ex-EU laws, why have the Government not used their powers therein?

I sat through debate after debate on how we were going to protect the British people instead of the court in Brussels and on how we would have proper protection against government mishandling of the environment. We were assured that Glenys Stacey and her department would be treated with all the respect that one would have expected. We were told that she would have all the powers necessary for the Government to take her seriously. What have they done? Two pathetic letters, and no statement—this is a judgment that you should make and we will change things because that is why you are there. That means that the British people are now less protected from government mistakes than any country in the rest of Europe. I make no comment about Brexit, but that is where this House and the other place have left the people of Britain.

I do not believe that the Government can do these things and not expect future generations to say, “If they could do that on this issue, what about other things?” They could say that local authorities can ignore this, that and the other and do not need the facts. Indeed, we do not have the facts here—there is no proof about these houses or any of this; it is an assertion by the Secretary of State.

I am not a Conservative rebel—I am a Conservative. Therefore, I am voting for the principle of the polluter pays, for facts and for knowledge, and I am not voting for ignorance and the disregard of facts.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, is not an easy act to follow, but I shall try.

We were lied to in this House. Our Government promised us repeatedly that there would be no lessening of environmental protection at any time. They promised us that and they lied. As a result of Brexit, we are now almost unprotected. Loads of us knew at the time that they were lying.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness knows full well that parliamentary rules do not allow her to use those words, so we would be grateful to her if she could withdraw them.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Deputy Speaker, is that right?

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

The noble Baroness knows full well the words that she has just used, and we would be most grateful to her if she could withdraw those words.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I genuinely did not know that I could not say that in this House. I know that in the other place we cannot say it. It is very difficult for me to withdraw words that I know are the truth, but I will withdraw them.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

If the noble Baroness looks at the Companion, she will see that it is very clear on parliamentary language. So, I respectfully point to the Companion—and if she could read that and withdraw those words.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I withdraw them.

We were told repeatedly during the passage of the Environment Bill that there would be no lowering of environmental standards in the post-Brexit legislation. That clearly has happened; environmental standards are down. I suppose that it was obvious, because the Government promised, but they refused to put it in that Bill; they absolutely refused, when we kept asking them. This is the same package of obfuscation as their refusal to guarantee post-Brexit workers’ rights or food standards—it is all part of the same thing.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, adding to what has just been said, I have been a Barclays customer all my life, as has my family before me. The branch in Ottery St Mary, three miles from the village in which I live, closed some time ago. There is now not a single bank in Ottery St Mary. The nearest bank is in Honiton, which is seven miles away. I am told that the Barclays branch there is about to close. We will have to go to Exeter, which is a very crowded place, particularly if you drive. It has bus services, but they are not very frequent. It is 10 miles from the village where I live. Also, there were two branches of Barclays in Fleet Street, just beside the law courts. There is none today.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I strongly support this amendment. I will sound like an old fogey—so perhaps I should be sitting in the seats opposite—but I used to love going into my branch of Co-op and actually speaking to somebody, asking them questions directly. This has damaged communities, especially communities of quite vulnerable people who cannot travel very far, so the Greens will be voting for this amendment.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I also strongly support what the noble Baroness said on this. It is something that I have been very concerned about for a long time and you cannot divorce it from the way that post offices have been run down by our Government. The reality is that post offices cannot now do many of the things that they used to do. It is a drip-drip thing that is gradually making it very difficult particularly for the elderly and those who have no access to a bank account or are not near a bank.

Whatever the Government might think of GB News, I do not understand why they will not look more at its huge petition to say that we do not want to be a cashless society. This is really important. The noble Baroness is starting the fightback, which I hope the Government will listen to. I hope that she puts this to a vote, because people talk a lot about it but, when it comes to the crunch, noble Lords need to show that they mean it; otherwise, it is useless us being here.

Elections: Voter ID

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Tuesday 13th June 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of voter ID rules on people’s ability to vote, and what plans they have to review these rules before the next general election.

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

My Lords, we are encouraged by the first rollout of voter identification and are confident that the vast majority of voters will have cast their vote successfully based on sector feedback and our own observations on the day. As set out in legislation, we will be conducting an evaluation of the implementation of voter identification at the May polls and intend to publish the report no later than November this year.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I am quite surprised at that Answer, because initial reports suggest that thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people were not able to cast their votes. Of course, the really disturbing thing is that a former member of the Government—still a Member of the other place, recently knighted, Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg—said at the National Conservatism Conference in Westminster last Monday:

“Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections”.


So a member of the Minister’s own party has called it “gerrymandering”.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The successful introduction of voter identification at May’s elections was to ensure the future integrity of our voting system. Comments from elsewhere do not reflect the reality of the reason for or the administration of that change. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Local Government and Building Safety, Lee Rowley MP, made the Government’s position absolutely clear in a letter responding to a point of order raised in the House of Commons on 16 May. This letter has been deposited in the House of Commons Library.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I have enormous sympathy for the case made by my noble friend Lord Holmes and very much hope that the Government respond as positively as they can.

The background to my Amendment 459, to which Peers from other parties have added their names, is the arrangements made during the pandemic to support the hospitality industry. In the interests of progress, not all four of us will be speaking, and it is good to see today’s Marshalled List down to a mere 68 pages for this last day of our debate. Noble Lords may recall that during the pandemic, when it was not possible to go into enclosed premises such as pubs, arrangements were made to grant pavement licences. When the Business and Planning Bill, which introduced this concession, came before the House in 2020, I added my name to a cross-party amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, saying that a condition of licence would be that outdoor seating areas were required to be 100% smoke-free, paralleling the arrangements inside the premises.

Noble Lords across the House supported that amendment, but sadly it was not accepted by the Government, who instead inserted a requirement in the legislation that

“the licence-holder must make reasonable provision for seating where smoking is not permitted”.

Amendment 459 would reintroduce the requirement for all pavement licences to be smoke-free, which was the view of your Lordships’ House three years ago. This would contribute to the Government’s ambition to make England smoke-free by 2030—an ambition we are currently on track to miss by nine years, according to Cancer Research UK. The current temporary requirements, which are being made permanent in this Bill, would mean that councils have two options on smoking: to implement the national condition to provide some smoke-free seating, or to go further and make 100% smoke-free seating a condition of licence at local level.

Since then, two-thirds of the public, polled in 2022, did not think that the current legislation went far enough. They wanted smoking banned from the outdoor seating areas of all restaurants, pubs and cafes. Fewer than one in five opposed such a ban. That was a large sample, of more than 10,000 people, in a survey carried out by YouGov for Action on Smoking and Health.

Some councils are already doing what the public want, with 10 councils in England introducing 100% smoke-free requirements. These are a mixture of Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem-led councils in counties such as Durham and Northumberland, cities such as Newcastle, Manchester and Liverpool, unitary authorities such as Middlesbrough and North Lincolnshire, and metropolitan boroughs such as North Tyneside, South Tyneside and the London Borough of Brent. Therefore, in response to the point about practicality made by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, practicality has already been well established by those local authorities.

When we initially tabled our amendments, the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government wrote to Manchester City Council, the first council to introduce the requirement for pavement licences to be 100% smoke-free, warning it that this would damage local hospitality businesses and could lead to the loss of thousands of jobs. We do not know whether that letter had the approval of Health Ministers. However, the experience from Manchester and elsewhere shows exactly the opposite: that these bans have proved popular with the public, leading to high levels of compliance, and have not been shown to cause any decrease in revenues. At the time, I reluctantly agreed to the Government’s decision to include the current smoke-free seating requirements, which, while better than nothing, do not go far enough. The current system is not only much more complicated to implement than a blanket ban; it ensures that non-smokers and children continue to be exposed to tobacco smoke, which is both toxic and unpleasant. Of course, those who work for these establishments cannot go elsewhere and will continue to be exposed to smoke.

The Local Government Association of which, uniquely, I am not a vice-president, supports our amendment for 100% smoke-free pavement licences on the basis that

“it sets a level playing field for hospitality venues across the country and has a public health benefit of protecting people from unwanted second-hand smoke … If smoking is not prohibited, pavement areas will not become family-friendly spaces”.

That is why Dr Javed Khan’s independent review of smoke-free 2030 policies, commissioned by the Department of Health and published last year, recommended that smoking be prohibited on all premises, indoors and out, where food or drink is served, as well as a ban on smoking in all outdoor areas where children are present. This 100% smoke-free pavement seating has strong cross-party support from Peers across this House. When the regulations were extended in 2021, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, tabled an amendment to regret that the regulations were not revised to take account of the evidence of the benefits of 100% smoke-free pavement licences. That amendment was agreed by 254 votes to 224.

Last year, the Government announced several new tobacco control measures and said that in place of the long-promised tobacco control plan to deliver a smoke-free 2030, tackling smoking would be core to the major conditions strategy currently in development. The measures announced today are welcome but fall far short of the comprehensive approach that Dr Khan made clear was essential if we are to achieve a smoke-free 2030. When my noble friend sums up, can she confirm that the Government intend to bring forward further measures to reduce smoking in the upcoming major conditions strategy? We should now take this opportunity, provided by this amendment, to move towards implementing Dr Khan’s recommendations for all hospitality venues to be smoke-free indoors and out—a small but important step towards a smoke-free 2030.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, last week, my esteemed colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, asked whether I would support his amendments on pavement accessibility. I trusted him completely so I said, “Yes, of course, I would love to support them”. Then I read them and, actually, they are quite tough and strict in places, but the more I read them, the more I liked them. I particularly liked Amendment 450, which is about taking bits of the road—I love that idea—and reducing the space for traffic, as well as Amendment 459 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and others, because that is so tough on smoking and I loathe smoking. I support many of these amendments. Obviously, I support all the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. There is, perhaps, some space to bring in the fact that cars park on the pavement. I hate pavement parking and I hate loads of rubbish bins being heaped up on the side of pavements because they inhibit free access.

My local shopping street has gone absolutely bananas with this, and it has changed the whole feeling of the street—it is so much more friendly. At the moment, only the Co-op, Iceland and Boots, I think, do not have tables and chairs outside them, with people eating, drinking and having fun. I am all in favour of this section and look forward to Report, when I would be happy to vote on many of them and perhaps even sign up to them as well.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a delight to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. She did say that some of my noble friend’s amendments were quite tough but that she liked them. I think the Committee would agree that the noble Baroness is quite tough and we rather like her as well. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond on the initiative he has undertaken in tabling these important amendments. He is to be congratulated by all disabled people, fighting our corner—or narrow strip of pavement, as the case may be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it is normal to say what a pleasure it is to speak after a previous speaker, but it is impossible to speak after my noble friend and provoke as much of the Committee’s interest as he has.

I will speak in support of the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond to which I have added my name, and I do so on the basis of too many years spent on a local authority, much of it responsible for administering legislation that relates to the management of our highways. Much of that legislation dates to the 1980s, but one of the duties in it goes back to the Middle Ages and really to the beginning of having local authorities at all: that is the obligation on the local authority to keep the King’s highway clear. The reason for that is simple: if you operate commercial premises and are a frontager on the highway, you are very attracted by the prospect of trading from that highway, because you can expand your premises rent-free. That makes a great deal of sense commercially.

For centuries, it has been the sad task of local authorities to try to push back people who are trying to trade on the public highway because—here I make two points—the public highway is, first of all, a public asset. It is maintained at public expense primarily for the benefit of the public and not for the private use of frontagers. Secondly, my noble friend Lord Holmes referred to the purpose of the highway, but he was not quite as precise as I would have liked. There is a precise understanding in law of the purpose of the highway—that it allows people to go to and fro. Any use of the public highway for the purpose of trading—in this case we are discussing trading in front of refreshment businesses, restaurants and cafés, but the same applies to shopkeepers—can exist only as a concession by the local authority. In my experience, this is generally a contentious matter with local people and one should be very cautious about granting such licences.

All such caution was thrown to the wind as a result of the Covid pandemic. The Government switched from a carefully balanced system, where local authorities which understood their communities had a clear say in the matter and knew from experience how to balance various demands, to one in which the advantage was given heavily in favour of the commercial frontager, who has the right to do this. The Bill, in effect, seeks to make that even more expansive and practically to continue it permanently. I think this is a dangerous thing to do. It is and should very much be a matter for local authorities, which understand their local communities. The balance should be adjusted back to where it was before—more on the neutral part of the scales rather than heavily weighted, as it is now.

What harms arise? First, it is impossible for me to add to the harms that arise to people with various disabilities, about which we have heard. I cannot and do not intend to add anything to what my noble friends Lord Holmes and Lord Blencathra said from their own experience, but there are other harms as well. To some extent, they arise from the conceptual model that arises when we talk about “the high street”. We talk about the high street as if it were a distinct thing or use but, in most urban areas, if you lift your eyes above the gaudy shopfront, you will see lots of other things happening in the high street above ground, many of which are people living there. If you are overlooking a pavement and there are licences that allow people out on the pavement, you will suffer a harm directly in relation to that.

Some harms are quite acceptable. If the closing hours and hours of operation are sensible, perhaps you can live with that. You want to get on with your neighbours and do not want local businesses to fail, but you are entirely dependent on the licensing regime and the attitude of local councillors as to what hours should be allowed. You are also exposed to poor management and exposed, outside your window—here I speak from a degree of experience—to people talking loudly and having parties, some of which are louder than others. It is impossible to expect any management to control that properly; they simply cannot go around doing that. However well intentioned, they have to work with noisy and difficult people.

We need to get back to understanding what the highway is for, what a public asset is, paid for at public expense, and what its primary purpose is. We need to understand that local authorities are probably the best determinants of this and we need to reset the dial, so that they have the chance to do that.

I cannot sit down without referring to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. No chance goes by in your Lordships’ House for him to propose something restrictive of smoking without him dashing at it very much like a ferret up a trouser leg. Here we are again with yet another restrictive amendment proposed on smoking, and it is purely vindictive and entirely punitive. He endeavours to put a gloss of public interest on it, and maybe he thinks he is contributing to people giving up smoking. I gave up smoking last year and I assure your Lordships that at no point in my consideration did the possibility of being denied access to a pavement café arise, nor would I have given it any weight had it come into my mind. There were other reasons why I gave up smoking last year.

One of the problems with these vindictive approaches is that the people who make them simply do not understand smokers. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who I think said that she “loathed smoking”, possibly does not want to understand them; she just wants to give vent to the loathing. I do not know. My noble friend offered a few other reasons. The first was generosity in favour of the business success of the premises. He said that they would be much happier, attract more business and be family friendly. I do not think that that is sufficient reason to impose restrictions on a lawful activity, because it is not the business of this House to make businesses successful. That is their job: we set a framework and they try to make the businesses successful. That is not our motivation nor should it be, in my view.

I very much hope that the Minister who, in the course of this Committee, has developed a great deftness at turning away suggestions made by Members of your Lordships’ House, maintains that deftness in respect of this amendment and finds a way of saying that this is not an appropriate place for the Government to pursue yet more vindictive legislation against smokers.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I did not say that I loathe smokers—both my parents were smokers. I loathe smoking because of the impact it had on my parents, both of whom died from smoking-related disease.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I did say—and I think Hansard will show—that the noble Baroness said she loathed smoking. I was careful not to say that she loathed smokers. I hope she did not mishear that, because it would have been a mishearing.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I very much support what my noble friend has just said, having grown up in that part of the country and spending many happy decades fishing there. I just ask my noble friend the Minister, if he is going to give special consideration to chalk streams, to end the discrimination against Sussex. In particular, my local chalk stream should be included in the list, which it is not at the moment. The fact that it is called the Lottbridge Sewer should not be enough to exclude it.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to support every word that the noble Viscount has just said—a rare event.

I have recently joined a group of people who meet monthly to assess the health of the chalk stream that runs through their village by counting river flies, and the experience has been a real pleasure. There is nothing as satisfying as seeing a healthy ecosystem, and luckily theirs is.

However, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, chalk streams are extremely vulnerable. In fact, the amendment should not be necessary at all because we should automatically be protecting the health and well-being of our chalk streams. So I very much support the amendment. I hope it comes back again and again and we vote on it—or perhaps the Minister will snap it up as a good thing to do.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I too am not always in agreement with the words of my noble friend, but I strongly support the amendment.

The key point is that chalk streams are more vulnerable than almost any other water because they are concentrated in areas of considerable development and they are subject to considerable abstraction and the results of sewage disposal. There is therefore a particular reason for isolating them as opposed to other things.

The crucial reason is that we are fortunate enough to have the majority of the chalk streams in the world. Britain needs to be very careful about protecting those few things that we have almost uniquely. I have to say to the Government that, awful though the REUL Bill is, this subject is clearly not going to be part of it, so this is an ideal opportunity to make that statement.

I fear that I know precisely what the civil servants will have said to the Minister. First, they will have said: “First of all, we really need a wider range of things here. We need to apply this much more carefully because otherwise people who will not be covered by this will object”. Secondly, they will have said: “It’s very difficult to isolate chalk streams when we are not covering this, that and the other”. Thirdly: “There will be other opportunities to do this in other legislation”. Fourthly: “This is a very big Bill already and we don’t want to burden the system with anything more”. Fifthly: “This particular amendment doesn’t cover all the chalk streams that ought to be covered, and therefore it would be better to wait until we can cover them all”.

There may be other things that civil servants will have told my noble friend, but I suspect that those are the first five. I suggest to him that this is the moment in which he does not listen to, “Better not, Minister”, and puts in, instead of that, “Be off, civil servant!” We need to have this. It is not perfect, but if we wait for perfection, we will do nothing. I just hope that the Minister, in whom I have great confidence, will be able to say, “This is a sensible thing to do and I can’t really think of any good reason for not doing it”—and therefore will do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

There is an enormous number of amendments, and I somehow did not spot it. If I had spotted it, my name would be on it.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Take that back!

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

If I were a fisherman on one of the Dorset rivers now with the mayfly hatching, I would have caught a most wonderful trout at the end of my line.

I say to the noble Baroness that I was alarmed, because I know that, in her heart of hearts, she is very supportive of this. However, her boss Keir Starmer said that he wanted to develop on green land. As my noble friend Lord Deben has just said, our chalk streams are going through highly developed land already. Which side of the fence is the Labour Party on? I hope the noble Baroness will reply.

I will ask of both Front Benches the question I was going to ask of my noble friend the Minister. Are they prepared to give the commitment to our chalk streams that the chalk streams demand? To remedy the chalk stream problem, it is not a question of days, months or years, but of decades, and an awful lot of interests have to be tackled. Unless we can get reassurance that all the parties across the House have that commitment, our chalk streams will not be in the health they should be

Redcar Steelworks

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Let me give a little background. Three Thai banks had a hold on the former SSI steelworks land. As negotiations to secure that land broke down, a compulsory purchase order was launched. JC Musgrave Capital and Northern Land Management already had back options on parcels of land within the Teesworks site that were key to those negotiations with the three banks over land owned by SSI, which was already in receivership. The STDC was advised by a top KC that, without this private sector involvement, it would very likely lose that compulsory purchase order. The public/private partnership was agreed by the TVCA, the Cabinet and the STDC board, and it was envisaged in the original business case approved by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, MHCLG and the Treasury that that should be the partnership to take this site forward.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is not people on this side creating the concern; these are reports from local people, businesses and a lot of newspapers. Please do not be offensive to this side of the Chamber. We do our best to hold the Government to account—that is our job. In this instance, the Government seem absolutely blind to the fact that there could be problems. Moving forward, an investigation is necessary and should be part of the Government’s plan.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We are not blind to that fact. We are monitoring continually, as we do when we invest in these projects, and the National Audit Office did its audit and said that the public money was being spent as intended. We will look at anything further that needs to be done. As I have said, the mayor is very happy to take part in any review.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

I hope that, before Report, we can work with the Government and other noble Lords to ensure that we identify a detailed amendment in relation to the circumstances in which hope value should not apply. I note that noble Lords during debates on this section of the Bill have concerns about social uses, affordable and social housing, health and education needs and emergency services provision. This is not intended to deprive landowners of the real market value of the land; it is intended to make it viable to build social and affordable housing on that land and not increase the value of the land by 80% or some other high percentage that takes all the viability out of developments.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 411, in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett, who cannot be here at the moment. Before I do that, I would like to pay tribute to the Government Front Bench and the Opposition Front Bench for showing real stamina, tenacity and forbearance on this Bill. It is far too big and the only good thing about it—well, it does introduce some good things—is that it stops us discussing even worse Bills.

On 411, I am a former councillor and I had thought that this was possible for councils—but, if there is any doubt at all, we have to make sure that it goes in, because it is incredibly important that we start to increase our supply of affordable housing and social housing. The whole right-to-buy privatisation was very successful for some but, of course, those houses have never been replaced, and with a rising population it is incredibly important that people have a home that is affordable and secure.

The rental sector is failing at the moment. I gather that a lot of people who have bought to rent are leaving the market because it is so complex. So there are houses, but they are mostly going up for auction and being sold mostly to developers; I have absolutely no idea whether that will help.

I am not convinced about hope value, I am afraid. It sounds like an extremely Tory motivator to increase the value of your property immediately before it gets bought. It sounds like greed to me—forgive me—so I will not support any of those amendments.

On Amendment 411, if there is no clarity on whether it is possible to buy land in that way, we will bring this back on Report.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to the question of whether Clauses 174 and 175 should stand part and, to some extent, to government Amendment 412D. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his masterly introduction.

I intend to focus more on what I hope will be the technical side. I have a sort of background here. I dare say that I am the only person in this House—probably in the Palace of Westminster—who had to deal with a development land tax calculation when I worked in public service. I recall those years very well, because the entire land supply dried up during that period. I will try to give a bit of technical background without making it overly complicated.

I, too, am grateful to the Compulsory Purchase Association and Mr Raj Gupta of Town Legal for their comments. Mr Gupta kindly gave me permission to quote from one of his emails, which I may do later.

This is all to do with the question of hope value. If I can loosely paraphrase, this is regarded as an excessive element of value that is so far divorced from current purpose, use and enjoyment that it is regarded as offensive. The first thing you have to know about hope value is that there is a lot of it about. On the outskirts of every village and town in every municipality, there is land that is tied up by legal agreements or whatever that are to do with this inflated hope value. So the first thing we need to bear in mind is: what do you do about the bits where stuff is already in the pipeline? If you put a block on that, it will have consequences.

Hope value does not exist in isolation from the umbrella of market value. Market value combines various things; it may be a current use value, an alternative use value and a hope value. Wrapped together, they form this construct of market value. Things such as hope value are not objectively measurable in their own right, which becomes a bit of problem; I remember that problem from dealing with development land tax calculations, where the question was about the current use value that had to be entered on the form on which one was making the calculation.

However, market value has a clear, established, internationally recognised definition. It is capable of independent corroboration by what is happening in transactions, which are evidenced—that is, the evidence can be produced from within the marketplace. I will leave aside the complexities of specialist things such as going concern value, but this question of hope value rests on the belief that an asset is capable of being made to be worth more, with value being added in some way, such as through works or changes of use, possibly with the prospect of development but possibly by simply bettering what is already there.

Development, by definition, also includes permitted development rights; it is a form of development. The question about that is how to single out those things that society, until now, has regarded as being part of the entitlement of ownership—namely, permitted development rights—from these other excessive sums, if “excessive” is the right term.

The rules for compensation for compulsory purchase have been developed over nearly 180 years and, in modern terms, use market value as their baseline. They sit alongside issues of human rights in relation to, first, the reasonable enjoyment of one’s property and, secondly, the right not to have it taken away other than for demonstrably compelling reasons of public interest—of which more anon—and then only on the basis of fair compensation determined, in the event of a dispute, by an independent adjudicator. So far, so good, as I am not for one minute suggesting that human rights justify a hugely disproportionate level of value. But this is tied into this construct of market value. If one were to start filleting out market value, there would have to be a better definition or one closer to that referred to by my noble friend Lord Carrington.

Pivotal to all this is the concept of equivalence, and it will become apparent why I am talking about this. Equivalence is the ability to buy an equivalent asset from the money gained from the compulsory process. Put another way, the compensation should put the owner in the same position, as near as money can make it, as they would have been but for the compulsory acquisition. That principle was established long ago in a case called Horn v Sunderland.

Particular things need to be borne in mind here. First, the special interest of the acquiring authority is always to be disregarded where it could be realised only as part of the authority’s scheme. That is a given and has been a factor for a long time. Secondly, any reduction in value by virtue of the acquisition being compulsory should also be disregarded, and that is at both ends of the spectrum. Also, the compensation is to be paid in full at the time of taking the land or else interest runs thereon, and any reasonable costs or losses associated with and arising from the act of it being a compulsory acquisition should be paid as part of the compensation.

Clause 174 refers to “no-scheme” minor amendments, but in amending the Land Compensation Act 1961 it seems to go further than the strict purpose of simply eliminating those aspects of value that could be realised only by a scheme involving compulsory powers. It seems to dig deeper than that. The question is how deep and where that process ends. It also amends the definition of compulsory purchase purposes to a point where what it defines could be seen as part of the normal current use rights and not the sole preserve imported by the acquisition scheme itself. I refer to the words “re-development, regeneration and improvement”, which is a very broad definition.

Clause 175 sets out to reinforce this in relation to assumed developments under certificates of alternative development. This is clearly something that the Government want to make harder for claimants and, conversely, easier for acquiring authorities. I will not go any further on that, because my noble friend Lord Carrington covered it pretty well.

Government Amendment 412D introduces a new scheme of Secretary of State direction enabling acquisitions to be made at existing use value in certain circumstances. However, the provision is rather complex and has a sting in the tail in that, after 10 years, if the land has not been used for the specified purpose, which has to be specified up front, there is a potential claw-back. As I see it, it also muddles the justifications of public interest and the rationale for having CPO powers. The two are not the same.

With regard to the ostensible aim to provide more affordable housing, here are some home truths: the amount that the owner of bare, undeveloped land gets after the costs of obtaining the planning assent is typically in the range of 8% to 12% of the finished product value, otherwise known as the gross development value. The complaints about high land values—I know this from having analysed spreadsheets with all this information on them—often come from housebuilders and ignore the effect of the additional rolled-up cost of obtaining planning permission and the very substantial costs on risk of speculatively financing these. The whole planning process makes it more expensive.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in particular to Amendments 200 and 205 which are tabled in my name. I will also talk about one or two other amendments in this group, which were very helpfully introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, who set out not only the purposes of her amendments but gave a very straightforward description of all the other amendments. I am most grateful for that.

As noble Lords will have heard, Amendment 200 would enable a joint spatial development strategy to

“specify or describe employment sites the provision of which the participating authorities consider to be of strategic importance to the joint strategy area”.

The reason for this is that at this point in Schedule 7 there is reference to infrastructure that is relevant to the joint strategy area as a whole, not just to one participating authority. There is then a reference to affordable housing. I am not quite sure where that came from, since it is not obviously the case that affordable housing necessarily has implications of strategic importance beyond the participating authority in which the affordable housing is to be provided, but leave that on one side.

If one is to identify and specify in this part of Schedule 7, which is about making a spatial development strategy and looking at what is of strategic importance, it seems fairly obvious that employment sites—which, by their nature, will be the large employment sites—absolutely give rise to a need for them to be identified in a joint spatial development strategy. That links directly to the question of infrastructure and, in due course, to housing need. The infrastructure point is where the SDS really comes from. The SDS is about enabling that strategic planning to be achieved.

On a later group I will reiterate a broad point, which I will return to on a number of occasions in our debates, which is that, if we do nothing else, I hope we can identify and move towards opportunities for the planning processes to be co-ordinated, not just land use planning but transport planning, utilities planning, power supply and water supply. These all need to be properly integrated to have the best overall effect.

How is this to be achieved? I should remind noble Lords again that I chair the Cambridgeshire Development Forum; that is a registered interest of mine. Back at the beginning of the year, we had a very good presentation by Graham Pointer from WSP, who worked on the integrated planning processes in New South Wales. The essence of it was very straightforward: integrated planning of land use, transport, power, water and the environment and ensuring that these plans were then able to be funded together. We are not going to get into the funding mechanisms, but we can certainly ensure that there are integrated plans, ideally on integrated timetables.

One would imagine that this is very straightforward and it should be possible to make it happen. It almost never happens in the places I go to. There are constantly different tiers of administration in local areas that are conducting different aspects of planning at different times and with different parameters. We really need to try to integrate planning. If my noble friends on the Front Bench can push that forward, using spatial development strategies, that would be really useful. At the Westminster Social Policy Forum, I chaired a discussion on the OxCam corridor the Friday before last. It was one of the strongest messages to come out. Here is a key economic area. On travel to work areas, as a consequence of, for example, the east-west rail development, those areas may well be extended, so that the travel to work area for Cambridge extends potentially to new sites and settlements in Bedfordshire, and the travel to work area for Oxford and Harwell might well extend increasingly to settlements in and around Milton Keynes.

Increasingly, we have different authorities in different counties whose planning processes need to be co-ordinated and integrated together. Spatial development strategies are a way of doing that. I am old enough to remember when we had the Standing Conference of East Anglian Local Authorities and we used to do planning processes through regional mechanisms. We do not have regional planning now but that does not mean that we need to abandon the concept of strategic planning. Strategy does not require us to have integrated and large-scale authorities; it just means that the authorities need to come together.

Amendment 200 is specifically about employment sites, because of their relative strategic importance to an area or combined areas. Amendment 205 is about bringing additional authorities with a role to play into the process. I am grateful to the County Councils Network for its assistance in shaping an amendment for this purpose. I added the reference to travel to work areas, so I am particularly pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, commended that it should extend specifically to those authorities within a travel to work area, even if they are not one of the participating authorities. That is why we want to focus particularly on district councils, which may not join in the SDS but need to be consulted in the process. Also, counties and county combined authorities should be included in the consultation.

This engagement and consultation is in relation to their functions but it does not make them participants in the spatial development strategy itself. It does not give them a veto over the spatial development strategy but is confined to their bringing to the party the things that they can do. Given that for counties it includes something as integral as transport planning, this is fundamental to a spatial development strategy being able to work effectively. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for signing that amendment. I confess that I cannot see that we can put counties into the spatial development strategies as such, because of the difficulties of their not having planning powers—this is a combination of those that do have the planning powers—but it is absolutely right that they should be involved.

Apart from my own amendments, I want to say a word about Amendment 199. When I read it, I asked myself why the combined authorities are not part of this. The only reason I can think of is that they already have a non-statutory spatial strategy power. Frankly, I think that should come to the party. If noble Lords have a moment, I suggest they look at pages 288 and 299 of the Bill, and the new subsections at 15AI to be inserted. This is about what happens when a combined authority is created, and where these areas are already engaged in a joint spatial development strategy. It is awful. Basically, it collapses and it is cancelled; it is all withdrawn. That is the last thing you want. Where participating authorities are working together on a spatial development strategy, the creation of a combined authority should supplement that and enable them to accomplish it more effectively, not cause it all to be withdrawn or cancelled. The language is terrible, but the intention seems to me to be wrong too. I would much rather combined authorities joined in.

In the Cambridge area, we have the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority. The need for planning in that key economic hub extends out from Cambridge to Royston in Hertfordshire, to Haverhill in Suffolk, to Thetford in Norfolk, and to Bedford and Cranfield. It is obviously a candidate that is not only economically important but requires the joint working of local authorities and integrated planning across a wider region. It seems to me that spatial development strategies are a good thing, designed to enable that to happen, but we need the legislation to be more permissive. I would particularly focus on Amendment 205. I hope my noble friend will indicate that Ministers are sympathetic to the ability of counties, and other county combined authorities, to get involved in this way.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow 11 minutes of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, explaining the amendments. I have tabled amendments in this group and supported others because of the potential importance of strategic planning in tackling the climate emergency. We need to embed it in everything that councils do, alongside solving the acute housing crisis in this country.

Mine are probing amendments to find out how the Government see the role of county councils within the production of a joint spatial development strategy. County councils sit one tier above planning authorities, but many have strategic functions—for example, transport, health, social care or education. It seems slightly odd that they do not have a planning role as well.

Schedule 7 as currently drafted would need participating planning authorities to consult the county council once a draft strategy has been produced. It seems to me that this perhaps misses the opportunity to involve county councils actively in the development of the strategy, which I think they could very much contribute to. Taken to its highest level, the county council could even initiate the process and convene the planning authorities to work together. It seems to me that that is likely to happen anyway.

I would like to know the Minister’s thinking on how the Government see the role of county councils in strategic planning and whether they might explore the opportunity of more fully involving counties in spatial development plans.

For most Bills, the more I get involved the more fascinating they become. This Bill is an example of that not working at all. I am finding it incredibly difficult, and I sympathise with the Minister dealing with it. It is very difficult to find a coherent thread through this whole Bill. I applaud her and the Labour Front Bench for toughing it out.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I wonder if my noble friend would accept that it sounds a bit odd to those of us who live in the countryside that counties should be left out. I know why it was; I can see the civil servant saying to her, “Well, you know, counties don’t have planning powers, except for minerals, so it really doesn’t count here. It’s the district councils that have it”. I know what they have said; they would have said it to me all those years ago—that is what they would do. I say to my noble friend that I will not easily be dissuaded from the fact that the county council is crucially important if you go in for spatial planning. I do not see how you do it otherwise.

Take the planning authority for Ipswich. Several of the housing developments and industrial sites that anybody else would have thought were in Ipswich are not; they are outside it, in another district council. The county council has to provide many of the services that service the whole group. If the county council is excluded from this, it is not just a bit odd but it will not work—the county council is crucial.

The second reason why I ask my noble friend to look again is a simple matter. We had the welcome announcement of a new relationship between national and local government. I am distressed by the way that national government often treats local government as if it is a sort of incubus, and I am afraid that civil servants often have a view of local government officers which is other than entirely polite. They say, “Better not, Minister—you never know what they might they do. Therefore, don’t give them any powers without us being able to pull them back.” I am afraid that is the view of many of the civil servants who serviced Ministers and continue to do so, so I want to break into that.

--- Later in debate ---

I very much hope that, on Report, noble Lords will ask those in the other place to think again about these changes and restore the Government’s policy to what it was when the Bill was introduced, rather than what it has become since those changes were proposed over Christmas.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I have been trying not to get into a lot of the groups on the Bill but I regret not getting into this one. Amendment 198 makes such good sense because politics is a fairly dire arrangement these days. A lot of voters have lost interest and do not trust us. Getting people involved at the local level is an excellent way of stimulating their appetite for more politics at different levels, so I very much support Amendment 198.

I quite like Amendment 209, but somehow “environmental issues” is just thrown in—you have to say it, do you not? I do not know what it means. I would like it to mean a lot but I am not sure that it means very much at all.

The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, quotes to us the Conservative Party manifesto when the Government have broken so many promises and back-tracked on so many things. I hardly think it is a very good example for any of us to hold up as something we need to follow. Plus, his comments about the green belt were absolutely outrageous. It is not for people with gardens or people with country estates; it is for people who live in inner cities, who have no gardens or green space to walk about in. The green belt has a huge value for them, so please let us not forget that.

Amendment 211 is from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for whom I have huge respect, by the way. My telling him that the Conservative Party manifesto might as well be thrown in the bin—as it has been by the Conservative Party—does not mean that I do not have huge respect for him. Again, this amendment is about economic growth. We went through this in the Budget. Growth is not about well-being or prosperity; it is about grabbing more and more of the earth’s resources. It is not necessarily something that we want to keep promoting. If we are going to talk about growth, can we please talk about well-being, green spaces and environmental support, and not just constantly about businesses, inward investment and that sort of thing?

Let us please try to remember that we have a climate crisis. It does not matter whether you believe it or not; the fact is that the IPCC has published a report that was gone through by dozens of Governments and hundreds of scientists. They all quibbled over it, but they finally came to a report that is absolutely devastating. We really should be looking at that. Every time we put down an amendment, we should have that at the back of our minds, so that we say things that will help us in the future and help our children and grandchildren. At the moment, we are not doing that.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I was not going to speak, but the noble Lord, Lord Young, summed up one of the problems with this Bill in general: we have an important Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill that does not tackle the crisis of housing supply—something I talked about at Second Reading.

I want to clarify at this stage in the evening that, while the points made by the noble Lord about the green belt are not by any stretch of the imagination that every part of the green belt should be built on or concreted over, it is a misnomer to suggest that the green belt is a beautiful green area for people who do not have country homes, gardens or parks to go to. Lots of it is actually unusable by the public. What the noble Lord suggested was a review. If the review indicated that it was valuable for the well-being of the nation, that would be fine, but it would be able to show that huge swathes of the green belt are misnamed and could be productively used for housing for young people and people who are desperately in need of homes.

My final quick point is that economic growth has to be the solution for austerity and the cost of living crisis. You cannot tackle the fact that people are too poor unless you produce more. That is called economic growth. Austerity is unpleasant, nasty and brutish, even when dressed in eco clothes. We need more growth, not less, especially at this time. People’s well-being will not be tackled or helped if they do not have the proceeds of economic development and growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

This is utter nonsense—absolute nonsense.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I appreciate that we disagree. I thought the point was that we would disagree well in Committee. I have sat and listened to this debate for many hours. I just wanted to clarify why I think economic development is important: we will not be able to build any houses and nobody’s well-being will be helped if we stand still economically or go backwards. I do not relish austerity for the masses. Therefore, I think we need economic growth, mass housebuilding and the supply side to be tackled.