Building Homes

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I first add our condolences to the community of Southport after the horrific incident yesterday. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the friends and families of all those who have been affected.

We on these Benches support policies to provide more housing in this country, particularly affordable and social housing. Our previous Conservative Government fulfilled their commitment to build over 1 million homes over the previous Parliament and 2.5 million homes since 2010, but targets do not ensure that homes are delivered and I do not see that any of the changes announced today will aid any delivery.

Our last Government put £11.5 billion into the affordable homes programme, delivering 700,000 more homes. What will this Government invest to build more homes, or will homes suffer the same fate as hospitals and transport, with no investment? Compare this with the previous Labour Government, where construction slowed to the worst peacetime housebuilding rates since 1924. Let us hope that this Labour Government will invest and deliver, and not just produce targets.

How will the Government deal with communities having a say over what homes are built in their area? The Prime Minister admitted on Radio 4 that he will ignore local councils, but the Secretary of State for MHCLG and the Chancellor have both tried to stop developments in their own constituencies. What will Labour’s policy be? So many questions.

The levelling up Act simplified local plans to work with local communities on the housing and infrastructure needed in their areas. Will the Government continue to support local plans and what exactly will they do if a local council does not produce a local plan or produces one with too few homes? If combined authorities are to be responsible for strategic plans of housing growth in their area, how is this devolving power to communities? Surely this is just adding another tier of bureaucracy. Will this not once again slow down the system, adding complexity between conflicting strategies? Noble Lords have only to look at Mayor Khan’s London plan and what that has not delivered for our great capital city.

Labour’s top-down green belt review seems to go much further than grey belt. The NPPF already allows for brownfield site development in green belts, for example of redundant car parks, petrol stations et cetera, so how far will Labour’s changes to green belt policy go? Will farmland be included in the top-down review? How long will that review take? Will there be any national or local consultation? Once again, we see a slowing down of the housing delivery system.

Before I finish, I go back to nutrient neutrality. Some 160,000 homes in this country cannot be delivered —homes for young people, families and older people trying to downsize. These are not large developments, but one or two houses here and there, quite often across a rural landscape. Will the Government take another look at this?

So many changes, so much consultation, so much extra time in the system—it seems to be a field day for the Planning Inspectorate to go out and look again and again and again.

I am confident that the whole House wants more good-quality homes in places where they are required. What I am not sure about is whether this Government’s policy changes will deliver that, but what I can assure the noble Baroness opposite is that we will work with them to deliver where it is right to do so, but we will challenge them where we believe it is not.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, we too are shocked by the appalling incident in Southport and feel very deeply for all the families concerned, and the knock-on effect in the community.

What a pleasure it is to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott; now that she is no longer opposite me on the Benches I will have to get used to seeing her in profile. She always engages constructively and generously with her time, and I am sure that will continue. I agree with a lot of what she said, but I have a slightly different emphasis because I passionately want this housing agenda to succeed. We all know and understand the problems and the bigger picture, and it is indeed dire. There is so much to commend in what has been said today that it is almost too difficult to decide which bits to pick.

I start by saying that I welcome the link between economic growth and housing. Of all the things to get UK plc going, housing has always been there as a solution to a lot of our economic woes, so I sincerely hope that it works. The challenge will be in turning the Deputy Prime Minister’s passionate rhetoric into reality. It is a wicked issue, and it has been caused by decades of failure to build enough homes. I do not think we should be always apportioning blame; this is a long-term systemic problem. I look forward to working on the forthcoming legislation, but I feel that there is going to be a lot of it. The devil will be in the detail, and that will come later. Within the rhetoric, there are a lot of conflicts, as the noble Baroness to the side of me hinted at. The Statement said that the Government want to bring stability into the planning system—I doubt very much that this will bring much stability.

Let us go to the big issues. I start with targets. At the election, all the parties tried to outbid each other with the numbers game. Targets do not build homes, but they send a very powerful message to local planning authorities. However, there have to be consequences. Can the Minister outline what they might be? Councillors are not going to change their behaviour overnight, so what are we going to do to change the public narrative and turn our nimbys into yimbys? How do the Government intend to engage the public and the councillors in the need for more homes? What is the future of the housing delivery test? What about the two-thirds of councils that do not have an up-to-date plan? I would like to ban the phrase, “Build the right homes in the right places”, as it is a fig leaf for anybody to say anything. You hear it said by protestors who are for and against building. I want to know what it actually means. My big question to the Minister is, in short: what is going to change to change the narrative and the culture around housebuilding?

That brings us to the standard method to allocate the targets. I welcome a more balanced approach; I felt that the previous approach pitted urban authorities against rural authorities, which is never good. The Statement talked about an uplift where house prices are more out of step with local incomes. What does that mean in practice? Do the Government really believe that we can build enough homes to affect market prices? Is that even desirable? Both Barker and Letwin and several academics have said that that just is not possible, and if it were that it would take decades. I feel we should be concentrating on affordability as an issue. In those areas where there is that discrepancy, it is all about the need for social housing. I hope that the Government will stop saying “affordable” and use the terms appropriately. In high-cost housing areas we need social housing to keep balanced communities and keep people cleaning our streets, working in our care homes, et cetera. I hope that funding from Homes England reflects a real shift towards social housing.

In effect, all the Government’s ambitions will come to nothing if we do not tackle the skills shortage and the issues within the workforce. What are the plans to reverse this current trend, especially as we know that a considerable number of the current workforce are due to retire? What are we doing differently from what was already in position to reverse that trend? How will SME builders be incentivised to build more and join this council house revolution? As the noble Baroness asked, what is happening in the areas that have been in an effective moratorium due to biodiversity net gain—where some of them are clapping their hands and saying, “Whoopee-do! This is the best thing that has happened”?

With regard to the green belt, in my authority I used to talk about bronze, silver and gold. We all knew what our gold was, and there was some debate about what was bronze and therefore able to be built on, but doing that is not going to be as easy as it would appear. Take the petrol station example. I know of a petrol station near where my daughter lives; it is derelict and an eyesore, but it is right next to a dual carriageway, miles away from any other homes, and it has no facilities. I hope there is a little more local flexibility on that.

As for building the infrastructure upfront and aligned to the development, that is ideal but very challenging. It is perhaps slightly easier in larger-scale developments, but in my area a lot of the development is smaller sites and infill. The impact on infrastructure is cumulative and lags behind the building of houses. I will be interested in how the Government intend to reverse that.

On right to buy, I hope that there is some local flexibility to suspend right to buy if a local authority can prove that that is in its interests within its community.

There is loads more in this Statement. I expect we will have plenty of time over forthcoming years to discuss much of this, because, as the Minister said, there are no quick fixes. However, it is important to send out messages different from some of the messages we have had hitherto.

Spending Commitments to Local Councils

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. Council tax increases, of course, are ultimately decided by local authorities, but the Government are committed to keeping taxes on working people and households as low as possible. We will carefully consider the impact on councils and taxpayers before making any decisions on taxes. Decisions on referendum principles will be part of the next spending review process and of course we will seek the views of local government before we take any decisions on those.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, since the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, tabled her Question, I understand that a number of local councils have had spending commitments suspended, including Harlow in Essex, which is now set to lose out on £20 million towards the rebuilding of its town centre. Can the Minister tell me how many councils have had these disappointing letters, and what the Government plan to do to support councils such as Harlow which were relying on these commitments to deliver growth and regeneration that I am sure His Majesty’s Government would want to support?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, there has to be a short pause while we seek clarity on existing funding commitments, as I said earlier. The Government are fully considering those funding arrangements and I know that a great deal of work has been put in. Many of those projects are aligned with the growth that we want, and we hope to be able to give all local authorities the answers in very short order.

Internal Drainage Boards: Levies

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of increases in internal drainage board levies on local authorities.

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

The Government are aware of the pressures that certain councils have experienced due to the increasing internal drainage board levies. In 2023-24, we assessed the impact of the levies on local authorities and provided £3 million in additional grant funding to the 15 that are most severely affected. Having listened to local authorities, the Government have announced a further £3 million of support in 2024-25. We are currently assessing the impact of this year’s increase in levies on local authorities and will announce the distribution of funding in due course.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the £3 million does not touch the sides. Councils are charged this levy to manage water levels in their area. Since 2016 they have been expected to fund it through council tax. The financial impact shows that it has increased by almost £11 million in two years, beyond the council tax capping limit of 30 authorities involved, such as Boston, where the levy consumes 58% of the council tax, and Great Yarmouth, which saw 91% of its council tax increase consumed. Councils have been told repeatedly that the Government are looking for a long-term solution, so where is that solution, when is it coming, and will the Government meet the representatives to determine a solution before the end of the financial year?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Yes, I am very happy to meet those people with the noble Baroness. If she gets in touch with my office, we will arrange that.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities. Does my noble friend agree that the drainage boards play a crucial role in low-lying areas to alleviate the flood risk? Given the unprecedented weather events of the past 18 months—the wettest on record since 1836—will she commit the Government to undertaking a comprehensive review of water management and flood risk resilience to ensure that low-lying areas are not placed at greater risk in the future?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

DLUHC has already committed to work with the sector and with Defra to implement, as my noble friend quite rightly says, what needs to be a long-term solution. Both departments recognise the importance of the issue and will continue to explore options. I welcome the sector’s views on this and will undertake data gathering as part of the work.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

Internal drainage boards perform an essential function in geographically managing flood water—and this comes at a cost. If this is borne locally, other essential services will be depleted. Can the Minister comment on whether the Government would be prepared to spread this cost across all councils, not just those that habitually suffer flooding?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from, but that is not what the Government had envisaged. We are looking at the data and those councils that are under the greatest pressure because of the issues of water in their areas. That is how we will continue to do it this year—led by data.

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests on the register. Up until May last year—as some noble Lords and certainly the Minister will be aware—when the electorate unceremoniously but quite wisely decided I should have more time in my diary, I used to lead a council that suffered the unfairness of the way the drainage board levies are currently raised. Over 50% of our council tax increases used to go to pay the drainage board and over 50% of council tax in total used to go to pay the drainage board. In the last two years, over 100% of what we collected in council tax increases went to pay the drainage board. Obviously, I do not blame my noble friend’s department for that, but does she agree that this is cost shunting from Defra to DLUHC and that, perhaps, a joint meeting between Defra and DLUHC to get a resolution would probably be best for the sector?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

That is exactly where we are going. As my noble friend said, it is up to DLUHC and Defra—and local authorities—to get together and work out the future of this funding.

Leaseholders: Management Companies

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I refer the House to my relevant register of interests and the fact I am a leaseholder.

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

My Lords, the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill makes it cheaper and easier for leaseholders to buy their freehold or exercise the right to manage, allowing them to take over management of their buildings themselves and directly appoint or replace agents. Of course, Section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 allows leaseholders to apply to a tribunal to appoint an alternative property manager if there has been significant management failure.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill before your Lordships’ House must rank as one of the most disappointing pieces of government legislation in recent years—and it is a competitive list. There have been nearly five years—not five weeks or five months—of hype and promise, and extraordinarily little action from the Government. When can we expect action to regulate management companies, along the lines of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and when will the Government deliver the promises they have repeatedly made but are just not delivering?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we have been very clear, and the Secretary of State was very clear, that we cannot support establishing a new regulatory body at this time and through this Bill. Measures in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill are there to protect and empower leaseholders, along with existing protections, and work undertaken by the industry will seek to make property management agents more accountable to leaseholders who pay for their services.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the Property Institute. The Government keep saying that they do not have time to implement RoPA; I do not believe it, and they could if they wanted to. In the meantime, at the request of people in the industry, I chaired the committee that set up a code of conduct; is there nothing the Government could do to at least endorse or make that code of conduct mandatory? That would help in making sure that all managing agents work to a high level.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Government welcome the ongoing work being undertaken by the industry, and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for the work she has done with her group on codes of practice. We have said that we will consider any code produced by her steering group, and come back to the House.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, the Competition and Markets Authority, in a recent report, was very concerned about the increasing practice of major housebuilders charging all the residents on new estates for common amenities such as roads, lighting and playgrounds, services traditionally provided by local authorities and paid for by council tax. Is the Minister confident that the measures in the Bill will ensure that prospective residents will be aware of the way that their new estate will be managed and the actual costs and services they will have to pay for before they buy? Does she agree with me that there is little justification for these residents to have to pay twice?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Through the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill the Government are legislating to make sure that freehold home owners who pay estate rent charges have the right to challenge the reasonableness, and to go to a tribunal to appoint a manager to manage the provision of those services, along with the transparency that they will also have in those charges. We are also carefully considering the response to and the recommendations of the CMA report published in February.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is participating remotely.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, in conditions where leaseholder landlords living overseas remain uninterested in block management—their only interest being the rent—where in the Bill is the legal obligation on managing agents to supply management committees with the valid names and contact details of these overseas landlord owners, enabling the seeking of their support for an RTM? Where, with notice, absentee landlords fail to indicate whether or not they support an RTM, surely their interests should simply be ignored. Indifference should not block progress.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we are looking more closely at this issue, because the noble Lord is right—sometimes it can be more difficult. We have also recognised the participation rates, which can be affected by foreign owners. We have listened to the arguments raised in Committee and by MPs in the other place, and we will continue to consider the issues raised.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the extent of a stratagem whereby companies have acquired freeholds with the intention of removing the leaseholder occupants by undertaking works on the properties that the leaseholders cannot possibly afford to pay for? By these means the freeholder expects to compel the occupants to sell up. What redress is there against this stratagem?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am not aware of this strategy on the part of freeholders, but I will look into it and come back to the noble Viscount.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, every day we see horror stories in the press of crippling increases in ground rents. After the Recess we go on to Report of the Leasehold and Reform Bill, but so far with no update from the Government on the ground rent consultation undertaken by them some time ago. Can the Minister tell us just what the proposals will be on ground rent?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not expect the noble Baroness to expect me to tell her that at an Oral Question, but the Government have been consistent that they have concerns about existing ground rents, and the adverse impact that ground rents have on leaseholders. We have consulted on a range of options to cap ground rents in existing leases. That consultation closed on 17 January and the Government will respond to it shortly.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I am looking at the text of the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and I am trying to be helpful to my noble friend the Minister. In Scotland the management company is call the “factor”—a name that can conjure up nightmares or pleasant dreams depending on the experience. In 2011 we passed the Property Factors (Scotland) Act, one section of which allows home owners to make an application to the Homeowner Housing Panel for a determination of whether their property factor has failed to carry out their factoring duties, or failed to comply with the code. I wonder whether there is any useful guidance in that for my noble friend the Minister.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I think what my noble friend is suggesting is what we have in Section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, which allows leaseholders to apply to a tribunal to appoint an alternative property manager—or “factor”—if there has been significant management failure.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, over the last few years the Member for Surrey Heath in the other place has made some absolutely wonderful statements, promises and claims and given interviews on all sorts of things we all support. Why did none of them make it into the Bill?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I disagree with the noble Lord opposite. I think many of those things my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said have made the Bill, and I know from talking to him that he wishes he had more time and more capacity to do more.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, one pithy slogan that has come from the Government is that those who pay should have a say. I could not agree more. Will the Minister agree that, ultimately, the best solution for giving a say and empowering leaseholders would be ensuring that they have right to manage? I am not going to nag about this Bill, but does the Minister not agree that the best way of empowering for the future would be that all new flats are sold as commonhold or at least with a share of freehold? Even if this Bill cannot deliver because the Minister does not have time, and because of the complications that have been alluded to, would it not be resolved by having a sunset clause that would guarantee that this will happen in the future, so this Bill could at least leave that as its legacy?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I can only reiterate what I have said many times at the Dispatch Box: the Government remain committed to the widespread uptake of commonhold for flats. We have stopped commonhold for houses in this Bill, and we will set out our next steps in due course.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware just how difficult it is to get rid of an incompetent management company? Such companies hide behind the excuse that they cannot get permission from all the people in the building. It is high time we dealt with this problem and stopped this terrible situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I agree that if you have a bad managing agent, it is not acceptable for any leaseholder. But, as I said, you can use Section 24. We are making it better with the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, and I am very happy to talk to the noble Lord about issues he may have encountered.

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

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 April be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 13 May.

Motion agreed.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 7, Schedule 1, Clauses 8 to 18, Schedule 2, Clauses 19 to 29, Schedule 3, Clauses 30 to 36, Schedules 4 to 7, Clauses 37 to 44, Schedule 8, Clauses 45 and 46, Schedule 9, Clause 47, Schedule 10, Clauses 48 to 69, Schedule 11, Clauses 70 to 104, Schedule 12, Clauses 105 to 109, Schedule 13, Clauses 110 to 124, Title.

Motion agreed.

Traveller Site Fund

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how many bids were received for the £10 million Traveller Site Fund 2022/23, and of those how many were (1) successful, and (2) unsuccessful.

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

The £10 million Traveller site fund closed on 13 June 2023. Overall, 97 bids for funding were received from 66 local authorities across England, nine local authorities were successful and 16 sites received a share of the £10 million fund.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer. Those low numbers are extremely worrying. If every local authority provided sites for Travellers as a matter of course, their needs would be catered for and the police would not need to waste time moving them on. How many of the successful bids were for new pitches? Have those pitches been delivered, and are they in use?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

What is being delivered are 10 pitches on one new transit site, 225 pitch refurbishments over 14 sites, and 14 pitch refurbishments and an extension to one permanent site. Those projects are already in development according to their plans.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, given the continued shortage of enough local authority sites, will the Government consider allocating further rounds and higher amounts of the Traveller site fund? Otherwise very many children are going to be moved away from their schools, people are going to be evicted—and they are usually considered homeless when they are—and friction arises when they find somewhere to live, because there are not enough sites.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We do not intend at this time to put any more money in as we did with the £10 million. However, local authorities can go to the affordable homes programme, which has £11.5 billion. That fund is being used by local authorities to provide pitches where they need them.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am all in favour of providing suitable sites for Gypsies, Travellers and those with a nomadic lifestyle. However, when the first official count was carried out in July 1979 there were a total of 8,065 Traveller caravans, and local authorities were urged to make suitable provision. There are now authorised sites for 21,000 Traveller caravans, but the number has gone up fourfold to over 25,000. What are the reasons behind this sudden demand for a nomadic lifestyle in England?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend asks an interesting question to which I do not have the answer, but it is probably very complex and there will be numerous reasons for it. Interestingly, last year the number of caravans on unauthorised encampments decreased by 21%, which gives me the feeling that those people who take this nomadic lifestyle are using authorised camps to live in.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act was the ideal opportunity to help to address the inequalities faced by the Traveller community. Since the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, the then Minister for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, announced a cross-departmental strategy for tackling these inequalities in 2019, no plan has been announced. When can the Traveller community expect to hear what the Government’s strategy is for improving outcomes for Travellers?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

[Lord Geddes (Con)]

My Lords, I will hark back to a Question we had yesterday: is there any correlation between Traveller sites and fly-tipping?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not know of any research on that. I am sure my noble friend will have his views on it and others will as well. I do not think we have any definite evidence on that so I would rather not make any further comment.

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

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Representation of the People (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

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

My Lords, in 2022, Parliament passed the Elections Act, which, among many other measures, introduced measures to amend the franchise to reflect the UK’s new relationship with the EU and protect the rights of UK citizens living in EU countries. Last year, two statutory instruments were passed, one for England and Wales and one for Northern Ireland, which flowed from that aspect of the Elections Act. These included new registration requirements for applications from EU citizens in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The majority of these changes came into effect on 7 May.

I bring forward this instrument today to amend a drafting oversight in both regulations. This instrument will correct that oversight by replacing a flawed definition, thereby implementing the original policy intention. The erroneous definition has resulted in certain EU citizens with particular combinations of nationalities being legally required to provide immaterial eligibility information when they register to vote. For example, it will require an individual with French and Commonwealth dual nationality to provide this information despite them having the same voting eligibility as someone with a single Commonwealth nationality. That should not be necessary for a qualifying Commonwealth citizen, as they have voting rights in the United Kingdom. This is because the eligibility of an individual with more than one nationality to participate in elections is established based on whichever of their nationalities grants them the greatest voting rights.

One of the primary intentions of the two current instruments was to allow EU citizens who chose to make the UK their home prior to the end of the implementation period—that is, before the UK left the EU—to continue to have the same right to vote and stand. This group of electors is referred to as “EU citizens with retained rights”. People applying to register to vote under the retained rights criteria, referred to as “relevant EU applicants”, must make a legal declaration that they meet the criteria of an EU citizen with retained rights and that they have been legally resident in the UK since the end of the implementation period.

“Relevant EU applicants” were intended to be defined as individuals who are citizens of the 19 EU member states with which the UK does not have a reciprocal voting and candidacy rights treaty, and who are not citizens of Ireland, Cyprus or Malta. These exemptions exist because Irish citizens’ UK voting rights long pre-date the EU, while the voting rights of Cypriot and Maltese citizens derive from their Commonwealth citizenship.

The five countries with which the UK has voting and candidacy rights treaties are Spain, Portugal, Luxembourg, Poland and Denmark. Citizens of those countries will not lose their voting rights in the United Kingdom. However, due to an oversight, for which I apologise, the requirement to indicate that they fulfil the retained rights criteria unintentionally applies to particular applicants with dual nationalities. The current legal definition of a “relevant EU applicant” means that citizens of the 19 relevant EU countries who also have another nationality which is British or Commonwealth, excluding Cyprus and Malta, or citizenship of a treaty partner state are legally obliged to indicate that they fulfil retained rights criteria as part of their application to register to vote, even though that answer is irrelevant to determining their eligibility.

While this issue exists in law, if an application to register to vote from a relevant dual national is received by an electoral registration officer and the applicant has not indicated that they fulfil the retained rights criteria, that application would technically be incomplete. As such, the electoral administrator would have to get in touch with the applicant to require this information, even though the answer to the question will make no difference to the outcome of their application.

In practice, this issue creates the potential for confusion among applicants, who could object on the grounds that being asked to indicate that they fulfil retained rights criteria is unreasonable. Worse, this confusion could even result in people abandoning an application to register and disenfranchising themselves. It also creates the potential for an increased administrative burden on electoral registration officers.

This new statutory instrument amends the definition of a “relevant EU applicant” in the England and Wales regulations, as well as the equivalent term used in the Northern Ireland regulations. The new instrument defines a “relevant EU applicant” as someone who is: a citizen of an EU member state; is not a citizen of an EU member state which has a treaty with the UK and/or; is not a British citizen, a qualifying Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland. This will provide an enduring resolution to the issue, by which the affected dual nationals I referred to earlier will no longer legally be required to provide immaterial information as part of their application to register to vote. Until this instrument comes into force, measures have been put in place to minimise the extent of the issue.

Having set out the background to this statutory instrument, I hope that the Committee will appreciate the need to swiftly make the straightforward legislative amendment. It will remove the legal requirement for certain dual national applicants to provide immaterial information and revert to the original intention of the regulations. I beg to move.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the fact that we are here yet again emphasises the enormity and complexity of the Elections Act and electoral statute. I echo the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, supported by my noble friend Lord Stansgate, about consolidation of all electoral legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, indicated in a meeting with the chief executive of the Electoral Commission, there are 1,100 pages of SIs as a result of the Elections Act. We should never have to come to that situation again.

It is critical that our electoral law is as legible and transparent as possible, not only for the health of democracy but, as I have repeated to the Minister previously, for the workload of our understaffed electoral teams, which are tasked with keeping the integrity of our elections intact. Mistakes in legislation in this area make that challenge even harder. They could create confusion and concern among dual nationals who are entitled to vote, by not only collecting unnecessary information from those looking to register but increasing the workload of electoral officers, who already have to tidy up databases and deal with queries from so many different members of the public who are confused as to why this question is being asked in the first instance. Unfortunately, rather than helping our electoral administrators, the Government have introduced an Elections Act that significantly increases the load on them.

This is the second correction the department has had to make following the Elections Act. Given that the consequences of these mistakes could potentially change the franchise, what steps is the department taking to proactively review that the legislation is working as intended so that no other potential consequences are being missed? I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what support is being provided to electoral officers to carry out the amendment to the franchise for EU nationals. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that there are no mistakes in the system? What is the Minister’s response to the report on voter registration from the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, which highlighted a creaking system without any efficiency and with the huge challenges presented by the Elections Act? I would welcome her thoughts on that.

I recognise the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, that this is a complicated area of law; we appreciate that. In summary, we support this draft statutory instrument, but I would welcome reassurance from the Minister on the points I raised and those eloquently raised by noble Lords across the Committee. I look forward to her response.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions today. I will go through a few of the issues that were brought up.

First, the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, is absolutely right: the instruments in this amending SI had no effect on the elections held on 2 May. The changes to the franchise for EU citizens came into force on 7 May; that date was chosen specifically so that there would be no impact on the May local elections.

We have heard quite a lot about consolidation, as we did when the Elections Bill, which is now an Act, was going through. I think that will be for subsequent Governments to look at. This is complex; there are huge numbers of pieces of legislation impacting on top of each other within the elections arena. As the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Khan of Burnley, brought up, that is something which will have to be done by subsequent Governments.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, brought up the numbers affected. I do not know those numbers, but I will have a look and write to her. On the oversight occurring in the first place, as I said, I apologise—but it is recognised that, even with stringent checks in quite complex pieces of legislation such as this, there is always a chance of unintentional errors. Regrettably, sometimes they are overlooked and, unfortunately, this is one such case, but the main thing is that we are dealing with it now.

On the issues around differences in voting rights for residency, this instrument is focused on amending a definition in existing regulations. Those regulations have already been passed in Parliament—as I say, they came into force on 7 May—and there are no further plans to revise any of them. I remember well the debates held on the changes being introduced by those regulations, and this is not the time to go over them again. It is certainly not the time at this early stage, when the regulations have only just gone into law, to put forward further revisions.

The Electoral Commission will keep an eye on all these issues as they are put into place, as will the department. Of course, if there are any issues or problems, we will keep an eye on that. That was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley. It is important that we keep a close eye on any changes, particularly to electoral legislation, as it is complex. If anybody who wants to register to vote goes on to the Electoral Commission’s website, all the details are on there—and people do that. Also, our wonderful election officers in our local authorities are usually the first contact that people have. Even if they are complex voters, all the information will be given to them by our local authorities as well, which is important.

I think that is everything I had to answer. I know that the House believes that ensuring the smooth running of our democratic processes is of paramount importance. This amendment is therefore important, and I thank noble Lords for supporting the instrument to get this right. I commend it the Committee.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has referred to the Electoral Commission’s website and to the excellent work done by local authorities in registering people to vote. How does she explain the fact that, according to the Electoral Commission, we have 8 million people who are either not registered, but should be, or are incorrectly registered?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

Motion agreed.

Councillors: Publication of Addresses

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

In the absence of my noble friend Lady Eaton and with her permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.

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

My Lords, Local Government Minister Simon Hoare MP wrote to all local authorities last month to remind them that the Localism Act’s “sensitive interests” provision enables councillors to request that their home addresses be withheld from publication and to urge that such requests be accommodated. Primary legislation would be needed to make provision that home addresses should not be included in published copies of the register of interests, and the Government will consider this if and when a legislative opportunity occurs.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. Does she agree that those who stand for elected office should be protected from those who wish them or their families harm? That is why MPs and local councillors can withhold their addresses from ballot papers. However, councillors have no such right to withhold their addresses from the register of interests, despite the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommending that

“a councillor does not need to register their home address on an authority’s register”.

Councillors remain open to the discretion of the monitoring officer. Should we not bring the law for the councillors’ register into line with that for the ballot paper and, indeed, with that for Members of Parliament?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend is right that the safety of our elective representatives is essential to the security of this country. Protecting our democratic values and our processes for democracy is one of the most important duties that government has. Any councillors with concerns about the publication of their home addresses on published versions of the register of interests can and should use the “sensitive interests” provision at Section 32 of the Localism Act 2011. Minister Hoare has recently reiterated this to those responsible in local authorities in his recent letter.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, according to the Local Government Association’s recent survey, 70% of local councillors reported experiencing abuse or intimidation. Aggressive behaviour which goes well beyond courteous debate deters people from public service, weakens democracy and is damaging to the families of those who seek to serve others. Will the Minister write to all local authorities urging them to take up the Local Government Association’s Debate Not Hate campaign? Will she seek to widen the scope of the defending democracy programme run by the National Protective Security Authority explicitly to include the safety, security and well-being of locally elected politicians, rather than focusing solely on national politicians and foreign interference?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I will certainly take that back to the department. Anything more that we can do to protect democracy, particularly in local elections, we will do—I will make sure that I do that myself. On 28 February, the Prime Minister announced that he was putting an additional £31 million over the next year into strengthening security not just for MPs but for all locally elected representatives. He has been working with the police on this issue as well. It is important to know that we are doing something to protect all our elected representatives, but we can always do more.

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I was a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life when the report on local government ethical standards was published in January 2019. We took evidence from many councillors of all parties about the intimidation they received, including at home because their home addresses were in the public domain. They felt particularly unsafe when online threats were being made. The Government did not respond to the committee’s recommendations until 2022, when they agreed with the principle behind them and the statutory amendments which the committee proposed. They said that this was the right route to take and promised that they would engage with interested parties on the best means of ensuring that councillors and candidates were not required to publish their addresses. It is a shame that it has taken so long. Do the Government intend to publish their response?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we have already enacted one of the recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, about candidates, but, as I said before, the issue of local councillors is more difficult, as we need primary legislation to change that. We are keeping our eye on when we can do it.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased that my noble friend referred to democracy in general. Although we are here specifically discussing local councillors, is it not worth bearing in mind that, for example, Members of the House of Lords and other people in the public eye have faced threats? When discussing this with other government departments, we need to bear in mind the loneliness of families who are living in identifiable locations—their home addresses and the like—when their relatives or spouses are away in this or other places.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

As far as families are concerned, my noble friend is absolutely right. That is why they are mentioned under the “sensitive interests” provision and protected in the same way as councillors. As far as the House of Lords and Peers are concerned, I will take that back to the relevant House officials.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister was kind enough to say that this was such an important issue that “Anything … we can do … we will do”. May I make a simple suggestion? At present, the protection afforded under law requires councillors to opt in. They have actively to seek out the right not to have their addresses shown. Could the Government make it an opt-out system by creating an obligation under statute that councillors’ home addresses will not be published unless they specifically request that this be done?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

This is exactly what the Government have said they will look to do as soon as they get legislative time. At the moment, it is better that we have an opt-in, or is it an opt-out? I cannot remember which way it is; noble Lords will know what I mean. It is important to have this while we are waiting for that further legislation.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, if we go back to the 1960s, when I stood for election in the London Borough of Islington and was the first ever Conservative leader in that borough, there were—from memory—two people standing as councillors on phantom home addresses. As far as I am concerned, there must be some managed means of ensuring that anybody standing for a local authority is actually living within that local authority area.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not think it is a requirement to live in that local authority area necessarily, but it is important that anything on the register is correct. Obviously, there are ways of looking into that. The other interesting thing is that you can opt in or opt out. Some people like to opt in—they really want their names to be there—and therefore any legislation needs to give the opportunity for councillors or any other elected members to do that.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, in recent months, many local and national politicians, including me, have been subject to behaviour from a minority of the public which goes beyond what is reasonable and acceptable, including putting people’s homes on social media, throwing fireworks through letterboxes, and horrendous abuse being given out on the doorstep. Keeping our politicians safe and feeling safe is vital not only for its own purpose but to stop others being put off from dedicating their lives to public service. What broader steps are the Government taking to ensure that this building pattern of intimidation is halted and reversed before it becomes an accepted norm against councillors, MPs and Members of this House?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. We cannot have intimidation stopping people wanting to be elected to represent their communities at whatever level—it is important even at parish council level. What more can we do? We can look for legislative time to change it, but, in the meantime, we are doing everything we can. We have put in £31 million more this year to bolster security for elected members and, as I say, if you are a local councillor, there is always an opportunity to go to your monitoring officer and ask for your home address to be taken off if you are worried about it or worried about your family.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my tribute on the sad and sudden passing of Lord Stunell. We worked very closely with him on the levelling-up Bill, and he was such a great asset during the passage of that Bill. Looking at his record over the years, his was a life dedicated to public service, to both national and local government. I hope the noble Baroness will take our condolences back to the Liberal Democrat group, and we will pass them on to his family as well.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is right to call this issue a sorry tale of shame. It is clear from the number of building safety amendments in this group and this Bill, and previously in the levelling-up Bill, that there appears from our debates to be a cross-party consensus from most of us, except the Government Front Bench, of such deep dissatisfaction with building safety in general and the glacial progress on remediation in particular. It was carefully calculated in the recent Times article by Martina Lees, referred to earlier, to show that only 8% of buildings in need have been remedied, not the 21% that the Government claim, and which was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln.

As important is the huge number of non-qualifying leaseholders whose dreams of property ownership have turned to nightmares, as the horror of their uncertain financial position, the escalating costs of remediation and the impossibility of selling homes—I have seen evidence of this, as valuers are currently placing values at zero or negative—snatch away their aspirations and leave behind only extreme anxiety. Numbers vary, but the Times estimates the number of affected homes to be up to 1.5 million and, as other noble Lords have said, upwards of 4 million people are affected.

An excellent briefing from the National Residential Landlords Association points out that data remains lacking and estimates that there are approximately 1.3 million leaseholders in buildings less than 11 metres in height and 400,000 leaseholders, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, in high-rise buildings who are non-qualifying because of other eligibility criteria. Many leaseholders are unaware of their non-qualifying status or are alerted to it only when they receive an invoice for remediation works or attempt to sell their property. It is important to remember that many leaseholders are understandably reluctant to speak out on this issue for fear of further devaluing what they thought was going to be a very valuable property asset.

The scale of this problem is eye-watering. I agree with comments made previously by Members of your Lordships’ House that, unless this is addressed urgently, as more and more leaseholders discover their liability, another enormous injustice scandal will unravel, which will scar whole generations of home owners. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to the fact that this will escalate over time to the detriment of freeholders and leaseholders, but with the balance of personal financial risk sitting with leaseholders.

The system the Government put in place, which was subject to an update in your Lordships’ House at the end of March, may have made some progress, but as a spokesperson for Grenfell United said:

“Government’s shockingly slow progress towards remediation shows a complete lack of political will to keep people safe in their own homes”.


Giles Grover, of the excellent group End Our Cladding Scandal said:

“The majority of unsafe buildings across the country still don’t have plans in place to fix all issues”.


The 7,283 mid-rise buildings that the Government have estimated to be unsafe are missing from any plan for remediation as they are deemed non-qualifying, and the unbearable pressure of remediation is falling on the ordinary people who make these flats their homes. While the Government have brought forward legislation and statutory instruments to deal with this situation, progress has been slow because issues are being dealt with piecemeal as they arise. Even when legislation has been considered, such as the Building Safety Act 2022, which should have been a comprehensive solution, too often amendments were rejected with serious impacts and consequences for leaseholders only now becoming more apparent.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, proposes a comprehensive and detailed framework to encompass the whole situation around building safety remediation that would give more structure to the current piecemeal approach. While I understand that the level of detail that he proposes in this scheme will almost certainly not be greeted by the Minister with the wholehearted approval that it probably deserves, I hope the principle of having such a framework in place and the thorough approach set out by the noble Earl will at least be a matter for reflection and future consideration as the Bill progresses.

Amendments 96 and 97, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, his Amendments 99 and 100, to which I have added my name, and Amendments 105E and 105F, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, are aimed at ending the iniquitous distinction between qualifying and non-qualifying leaseholders. We cannot simply allow the nightmare that many non-qualifying leaseholders are enduring to continue.

We totally support the aim of Amendment 102, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in terms of holding the Government to account for the building safety remediation programme. The reporting mechanisms so far do not appear to have accelerated progress on remediation, although it has to be said that the bringing to justice of some of the worst developer offenders, such as those involved with Vista Tower in Stevenage, is welcome. I hope the Government will accept this amendment and bring regular updates before your Lordships’ House, but it would be even better if there could be target dates for outstanding work to be completed. The fact that remediation has dragged on for so many years is a cause of great frustration, anxiety and financial hardship to those affected. Do the Government have a view about a projected end date for these works to be completed? A deadline, even if it is not met by everyone involved, is great for concentrating the minds of those involved in remediation.

In response to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I agree with the noble Baroness that it is not just developers who are responsible for this issue. But a big problem here has been the deregulation of the building control function, taking it away from local authorities and allowing developers to pick and choose who their building control inspectors will be. That has been greatly responsible for some of these issues.

Our Amendment 105 is simple and straightforward in its aim. It would bring the beleaguered non-qualified leaseholders, who are in desperate need of remedies for their building defects, within the remit of the Building Safety Act 2022. Surely, if we are concerned about ensuring that people feel safe and are safe in their homes, we can all support that. It remains our position that it should not be the responsibility of leaseholders to suffer the financial consequences of defective building. Amendment 105C in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has a similar aim.

I support my noble friend Lord Rooker in his campaign to highlight the danger of—I was going to call them electricity surges, but I had better not now because I will get into trouble with him—neutral current diversion. I want to come back to the case that Martina Lees quoted of Viv Sharma and his Ukrainian wife Julia, who had to leave their nine-storey block when the fire service deemed it unsafe. It had more than 17 defects, caused by the original developers, which should never have been approved by building control. They have been offered less for their property than they bought it for 15 years ago, and they have had to pay for temporary accommodation. Julia has said:

“I’m now 50. How am I supposed to rebuild my life?”


That situation—which is morally wrong, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said—remains in place. Such situations should have been remedied by the Building Safety Act but were not. We now have another opportunity to put things right, so I hope the Government will do so by accepting the amendments before us today.

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

My Lords, I first add my tribute to Andrew, Lord Stunell. I have sat opposite him for many hours in this Chamber and in Committee, being challenged by him in a detailed but always good-humoured way. I am going to miss him. I did not know where he was this week to begin with, and I asked questions. He will be sorely missed, particularly on the issues that we talk about as a group of Peers. I send his family, friends and colleagues our best wishes. May he rest in peace.

I thank noble Lords for the amendments on building safety and for this thoughtful debate. It is an important issue. I will take all the amendments in turn and put the Government’s view. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for Amendments 93B and 107. Their aims were debated extensively during the passage of the Building Safety Act 2022 and the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023. I thank the noble Earl for his years of important campaigning on building safety, and for tabling these amendments again and speaking to them in such a detailed way. We continue to consider his arguments and are always willing to listen carefully to the ways in which we could improve the current regime. That is why the Government tabled several clauses in the other place to clarify and extend the protections in some particular areas of this Act.

However, I reiterate that implementing a new building safety remediation scheme would reverse what has been achieved by the regulatory regime set out in the Building Safety Act. Creating a system which mirrored the existing regime would delay essential remediation already being carried out. It would also create uncertainty for leaseholders across the country. The responsible actors scheme, the developer remediation contract, remediation orders and remediation contribution orders are already delivering many of the noble Earl’s objectives, requiring developers to fix problems that they have caused.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

On that matter, if a company was responsible for defective property and the company became insolvent, am I to understand that the directors of that company would be capable of recommencing building another property? Or is the Minister saying that the individuals could be followed through the courts for remediation, rather than being able to sidestep their responsibilities?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, that is an interesting and very legal point. Rather than speaking off the top of my head, I would like to get it right and write to the noble Lord.

I move to Amendments 96, 97, 99 and 100. I thank my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham for these amendments. Amendments 96 and 99 would extend the leaseholder protections to buildings under 11 metres and to collectively owned leaseholder buildings. It is generally accepted that the risk to life from historic fire safety defects is proportionate to the height of buildings. As this risk is lower in buildings under 11 metres, such buildings will require remediation only in very exceptional circumstances. Given the small number of buildings that have required this—it is three across the country; the developers have remediated two of them and we are in negotiations on the third to get that remediation done—our assessment remains that extending the leaseholder protections to these buildings is neither necessary nor proportionate.

Where leaseholders in buildings under 11 metres face remediation costs, it is important, as I have said so many times at the Dispatch Box, that they contact the department immediately and we will look into that individual building on a case-by-case basis. If necessary, we will write to the building owner to seek assurances that any proposed works are necessary and proportionate, and that the rights to redress are being fully utilised.

The Government understand that some leaseholders in these buildings are still facing higher insurance premiums, with insurers citing building safety as the reason for the increase. The Association of British Insurers and its members have stated that premiums should reduce where buildings comply with building regulations. We expect insurers to honour their commitments and make sure that premiums are priced fairly and appropriate to the level of risk.

Regarding collectively owned leaseholder buildings, the Government made the decision that the leaseholder protections in the Building Safety Act would not apply to these buildings. As a result, people would still have to pay to remedy the safety defects in their building as owners. Residents who own the freehold would have to pay not only their portion of remediation costs but for any residents who did not participate in the purchase of the freehold.

Since the Building Safety Act, the Government have continued to examine the situation faced by collectively owned leasehold buildings. For instance, the Building Safety (Leaseholder Protections) (England) Regulations 2022 provide owners in these leaseholder-owned buildings with access to remediation contribution costs. We have listened and we have acted.

I turn to Amendment 97. The existing leaseholder protection package is designed to maintain a fine balance between leaseholders’ and freeholders’ rights. The amendment distorts the balance disproportionately in favour of leaseholders and risks unfairly benefiting one group of investors, leaseholders, to the detriment of another—the freeholders.

Regarding Amendment 100, our intention has always been to protect individuals living in their own homes, rather than those who have purchased property for financial or commercial reasons. Changing the leaseholder protection regime so that it is linked to a share of ownership, rather than individual properties, would also introduce an unnecessary level of uncertainty and complexity into the protections.

Regarding cessation certificates, it is not clear what effect such a certificate would have or how a landlord would know when to serve one. The responsibility for the costs of fixing historical building safety defects should rest with those responsible for creating them. The Building Safety Act was clear that, when this is not possible, responsibility for remediation should be shared between stakeholders in the property. Concentrating responsibility on a single group would risk a number of unintended consequences, including freeholders becoming insolvent. Taken together, the changes made by this amendment would therefore complicate the regime unnecessarily and slow the progress made towards the remediation of buildings.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who spoke on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to Amendment 102 about the reporting requirement for building safety remediation. The Government are committed to accelerating remediation and protecting affected residents. The total number of buildings reported to have started or completed remediation works in England has more than doubled since the end of March 2023. Along with monthly updates, Ministers have also committed to providing the other place and those interested with regular updates on progress, the latest of which was provided on 26 March.

My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham asked about ACM cladding. Another noble Lord mentioned pathways. I realise that pathways do not mean delivery, but, importantly, all residential buildings in England taller than 11 metres have a pathway to fixing unsafe cladding, either through taxpayer-funded schemes, developer-funded schemes or social housing provider-led remediation. This protects leaseholders from these costs. In addition, 99% of high-rise buildings with unsafe Grenfell-style ACM cladding identified before 2023 have been made safe or have work under way to make them safe. The proportion of buildings remediated continues to shift as more buildings are being identified and 90% of all high-rise buildings with ACM cladding have been made safe or have work under way on them.

My noble friend Lord Young also brought up the issue of decanting. The Government amended the Bill in the other place to make it explicit that the costs of alternative accommodation for residents, when they are decanted from their homes to avoid imminent threat to life or of personal injury, or because remediation works cannot take place while residents are in occupation, can be recovered. They can recover those costs through a remediation contribution order, which is an important change to the Bill.

The department continues to take steps to support applicants to start on site more quickly. Local authorities, fire and rescue authorities and the Health and Safety Executive can take enforcement action against those not progressing remedial works. Where building owners are failing to make acceptable progress, those responsible should expect further action to be taken.

Some 55 of the largest developers signed legally binding contracts committing to remediate, or to pay to remediate, life-critical fire safety defects in 1,500 buildings over 11 metres that they had a role in developing in England over the 30 years to April 2022. Together with the building safety levy, this will see industry contribute an estimated £6 billion. The department publishes information on developer progress based on quarterly returns submitted by developers, and this is available. I make it clear that the introduction of new reporting requirements involves time and cost, which need to be balanced against the need to continue our progress in building remediation. So I ask the noble Baroness not to press the amendment.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for her Amendment 105. Similarly to Amendment 97, it would open the door to changes which distort that balance disproportionately in favour of one group, to the detriment of another. It is important that legislation provides clarity for leaseholders, freeholders and the courts. The Government believe that having definitions of qualifying and non-qualifying leases in primary legislation provides greater certainty to all interested parties—an important consideration given that this is a pivotal part of the legislation for so many people across the country.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for Amendments 105C to 105G, which seek to make several changes to the building safety regime and, in the case of Amendment 105G, the insolvency regime. Amendment 105C would rewrite the developer remediation contract by statute. This would unfortunately serve to create operational legal confusion about what developers’ obligations are, which buildings need to be identified and remediated, and what standards this should be done to, resulting in delay and litigation. I hope the Committee agrees that the Government should instead focus on holding developers to account for remediating unsafe buildings as quickly as possible.

On Amendment 105D, it is right that the Government have worked with major developers that have built defective buildings to secure binding commitments to remediate, worth an estimated £3 billion. However, I do not believe it would be fair also to target these specific developers to pay a disproportionate share of other remediation costs for buildings that they have no connection with. That is why we are focused on setting up the building safety levy to contribute funds to our programmes to remediate buildings over 11 metres. The levy is estimated to raise a further £3 billion over 10 years, or more.

We have had much debate on the merits of Amendment 105E, and I gave my views on Amendments 96, 97 and 99. As I mentioned, relatively small numbers of residential buildings under 11 metres or five storeys require remediation. These buildings are considered to be at low risk of historical fire defects, and I maintain that this change would disproportionately and unfairly place the obligation for remediation of non-life-threatening defects on freeholders. Meanwhile, extending protection to leaseholders who have not purchased the freehold would place the financial burden of remediation entirely on leaseholders who own a share of the freehold, making it less likely that these buildings will be remediated.

As for providing leaseholder protections to leaseholders who own more than three dwellings, I reiterate the points raised earlier. Landlords owning a number of properties are likely to have these as investments, and a fair balance needs to be met. The Building Safety Act was not designed to benefit investors; it is to help individuals living in their own homes.

On Amendment 105F, removing qualifications for passing on costs for defects in service charges would widen the scope of the leaseholder protections considerably. This would risk the burden of remediation costs falling disproportionately on landlords, whether or not those landlords are also some or all of the leaseholders in the building. The amendment also provides for members of a building industry scheme to cover remediation costs. I have already mentioned my concerns with the similar approach in Amendment 105D.

--- Later in debate ---

We have the opportunity here to implement the very sound recommendations of the working group of the noble Lord, Lord Best, by incorporating them into the Bill as set out in Amendment 94. I hope the Government will accept this and end the decades of delay we have seen on this issue, but if they do not and the noble Lord decides to return to it on Report, he will certainly still have our support.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his Amendment 94, and for his and other noble Lords’ persistence in pushing for the creation of a new regulatory body to oversee property agents. I put on record my sincere thanks to him for his valuable work on regulation over very many years. I note that he is also a member of the Industry and Regulators Committee, which recently concluded that the case for regulation of the property agent sector still remains. Ministers will respond to the committee in due course.

However, as the noble Lord is acutely aware, the Secretary of State indicated in the other place that he did not consider that this was the right time or the right Bill to set up a new regulator for property agents. I know that he and other noble Lords will be disappointed, but perhaps not surprised, by this. However, the Government remain committed to driving up professionalism and standards among property agents. Leaseholders deserve a good service for the money they pay, whether from their landlord or their managing agent, where one is in place.

The noble Lord once again brought up, as he has many times with me, mandating professional qualifications. This was one of the areas that the Government asked the noble Lord’s working group to look into as part of its review. I assure him that that remains on the table.

At this point, I will respond to the interesting idea from my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham about the How to Lease guide. Interestingly, I spoke to officials about this idea not too many hours ago, building on the guide to renting. That is something that could be put in place. I will work further on it and talk to my noble friend more.

Industry plays an important role in driving up standards, and we welcome the ongoing work being undertaken by the industry and others to support this. This includes the efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and her independent steering group in preparing an overarching code of conduct. I thank her for that. I know that the Government are very interested and looking at it in much more detail. This is an important development to ensure that all consumers are treated fairly and agents work to the same high standards. I echo what many noble Lords have said. We have some excellent agents in this country who do a fantastic job. The agents we are talking about are the rogue agents, who I know noble Lords are trying to ensure come up to the same high standards. I thank the noble Baroness for her work on this.

I should also stress that measures in this Bill, alongside existing protections and work being undertaken by the industry, seek to make managing agents more accountable to those who pay for their services. That includes making it easier for leaseholders to take on the management of their buildings themselves, where they can directly appoint or replace agents.

However, I recognise the strength of feeling expressed on this issue at Second Reading and today by a number of noble Lords, and the ambition of all noble Lords who spoke to drive up the standards of property agents. The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and others spoke about individual cases where managing agents have been either good, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, or extremely unacceptable.

I will continue to engage with the noble Lord, Lord Best, my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and any others who would like me to on this issue during the remainder of the Bill’s passage. I know I already have a meeting in my diary with the noble Lord, Lord Best, in a week or so. With the assurance that we will keep working on this, and following what I have said, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken—all of them in favour of the concept of a regulator of property agents. I think the case is now unavoidable. My especial thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for supporting this amendment, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who, if we were allowed one more name on the list, would have been there as well. It was great to hear illustrations from real life from the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, bringing a consumer perspective to the story. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, shared stories of cowboy agents. I am afraid they do exist, and we should be doing something about it.

The Minister offered me some consolation. We are going to meet again soon, and she recognises the strength of feeling that everybody has been expressing. I thank her for continuing to engage on the subject and I hope there is something we can salvage, before the Bill finally passes, that will at least make a start on this really important mission of creating a regulator to the benefit of the 5 million leaseholders out there. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.