Leasehold Reform

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Thursday 11th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

That is not the case. If noble Lords have listened to some of the things that the Secretary of State has said in the last many months, they will know that we are committed to changing this. It is complex, and we will take our time and do it properly.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

It is very good to see the Minister back at the Dispatch Box. She has read out very faithfully the Civil Service briefing. However, we know from the Post Office scandal that Ministers are ultimately responsible and should take responsibility. Her Secretary of State was born and brought up in Aberdeen—and in Scotland leasehold was abolished in 2000 by a Labour and Liberal Democrat Government. Will the Minister go back to Michael Gove and say, “For goodness’ sake, if it can be done in Scotland, do it in England as well”?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I assure the noble Lord that I shall go back and take that message to my Secretary of State, but I can also say that we are looking at the Scottish model.

Leasehold Properties: Managing Agents

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Monday 17th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I have said many times at the Dispatch Box that I cannot say that. I cannot tell noble Lords when the leaseholder protection Bill will come through and what it will contain because that would pre-empt the King’s Speech. However, I can assure noble Lords, as I have said before, that it was in our manifesto and that we intend to deliver before the end of the Parliament.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, would it not be better if leaseholders were enabled more easily to take over the management of their flats themselves? At present, this is particularly difficult and can be easily frustrated. What will the Government do to make it easier?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Government agree with the noble Lord. We should wait until we have further leasehold reform.

Social Mobility Commission

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Thursday 12th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, it is very clear what the SMC should be doing. It is written down in its agreement with the Government. It has been delivering that, and it will continue to deliver that. I know that the commission met on 9 January under the deputy chairman, Alun Francis, and it is continuing to work and continuing with the priorities set previously by Katharine, Alun and the commission.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I offer the Minister congratulations on answering three Questions out of the four, particularly since she has done so without any support from officials in the Box. I have never seen this before. In view of the debate that we are about to have on relations between Parliament and the Executive, does this indicate how the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities shows no real interest in the proceedings of this House?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I assure noble Lords that I have been extremely well briefed—I hope—on this issue. This issue, interestingly enough, is not to do with DLUHC. It comes from the equalities grouping, which is the responsibility of the Cabinet Office. The reality is that when one is answering 10 or 12 questions in 10 minutes, one cannot get anything from the Box, so it is much better that the officials stay away and brief the Minister beforehand.

Housing: Manifesto Commitment

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The noble Baroness is right that skills are important; we cannot build these houses without skilled construction workers. We are collaborating across the whole of government to ensure that we are effectively supporting the sector. The Department for Education is approving training routes into construction, creating opportunities for workers to retrain by working with employers to make apprenticeships more flexible and promoting the use of T-levels, which are very important. DWP is also working with its work coaches to identify suitable candidates who might be able to change jobs and move in with local employers. A lot is going across government to make sure we have the skills in the construction sector.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

New towns have been around for many years, and are a part of the solution if local people are happy to have that in their area. I will take my noble friend’s views back to the department; we will discuss it further and I will talk to my noble friend.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, the manifesto promise was to build 300,000 new homes each year. How many were built in the last available year?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Noble Lords will have to wait: I do not want to say words that are not correct, so I will make sure that I get the correct numbers. There were approximately 242,000 homes built in the last period before Covid. During the Covid period, obviously the number of homes went down, but looking at the projections for this year and forward, we are expecting to exceed the targets set.

Personal Independence Payments

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Monday 22nd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. The consultation period for the health and disability Green Paper, to which I referred, has now run out and we are looking at the results. Through that, the department conducted extensive stakeholder engagement and talked to people with mental health problems and their carers about how we could do more to help them when they were being assessed, particularly for PIP. Interestingly, people with mental health problems are the largest group of people who now receive PIP.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

Does the Minister not find it embarrassing, treating some of the most disadvantaged people in society in such a penny-pinching, niggling way when consultants are paid over £1,000 a day for work on a test and trace scheme which is not even working?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, my Lords, those are two separate things. What we should be doing is looking after disabled people in the best way we can. We are looking after more disabled people and getting more disabled people into work, which is where they would like to be, supported by the Government. We are doing the best we can, but we will never be complacent and will continue to do more.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 8th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment seeks to change the timings of boundary reviews so that a review would be undertaken every 10 years. Currently under the Bill, a boundary review would take place every eight years. This is a change from the current law. I think many noble Lords have forgotten what the current law is: under it, a review should take place every five years.

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and many other noble Lords, in supporting this amendment, said that they wanted a lack of disruption to local communities. Many noble Lords also talked about disruption to Members of Parliament, but I am more interested in local communities. Our aim, as committed to in our manifesto, is to ensure that parliamentary constituencies are updated regularly but without the disruption to local communities and their representation that might occur with the current five-yearly reviews. I, and the Government, agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on the Opposition Benches, who said at Second Reading:

“Eight years seems to me a sensible compromise, ensuring that constituency electorates are kept reasonably up to date, and in normal times would operate for at least two general elections.”—[Official Report, 27/7/20; col. 82.]


We believe that an eight-year review cycle strikes the right balance between ensuring that our constituencies are based on contemporary data and avoiding the disruption of having a review roughly every time an election occurs. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who has a lot of experience, for supporting our view on this.

While we were drafting the Bill, we shared our broad plans for the Bill’s contents with parliamentary parties and electoral administrators. We also discussed a range of technical issues with them. During those meetings, we stated that the move from a five-year to an eight-year review cycle was government policy, but that we would be interested to hear from anyone who disagreed with this idea. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that there was general acceptance that the eight-year cycle was the right approach.

Parliamentary parties also raised understandable concerns about ensuring that the data used was as up to date as possible. This was particularly notable regarding the use of local government boundary data. I am surprised that nobody has brought that up today, because it was brought up in Committee. The Boundary Commissions take all that data into account when drawing up proposals for constituencies. This was the rationale behind Clause 6, which allows the Boundary Commissions to consider a more up-to-date picture of local government boundaries and allows them to factor that into their proposals where appropriate and relevant.

When we engaged on this measure—I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that it was an engagement—representatives of the parliamentary parties and electoral administrators were supportive of it. They thought that reviews only every 10 years would further undermine the aim of having updated constituencies. It would mean that the data used would be even more out of date, and that over time constituencies would become less reflective of current local government boundaries and demographic changes. The parties also told us that they find it helpful, for campaigning purposes, for up-to-date local government wards to be used in constituencies.

With the longer review cycle of 10 years, the question of interim reviews, which has not been mentioned this afternoon, also arises. The representatives of political parties and the electoral administrators with whom we engaged were against the prospect of introducing interim reviews. Let me explain the chain of reasoning here. Prior to 2011, when general reviews took place every eight to 12 years, interim reviews also took place to consider whether certain constituencies should be updated in between general boundary reviews to take account of local government changes and shifts in population in certain areas. Were we to move to a 10-year review cycle, the rationale for interim reviews would remain strong. Our stakeholders told us clearly—and we agree—that we should not return to this approach. Interim reviews bring further disruption and confusion to constituencies, and uncertainty to sitting MPs. An eight-year cycle removes this problem. It treads the most balanced path between the need for stability and the need for contemporary data.

I will address some of the arguments made in support of the amendment when it was discussed in Grand Committee and which have been repeated this afternoon. Most of the noble Lords who are supporting this amendment—the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Blunkett, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris—argued that eight-year reviews would prevent MPs and constituents building a rapport. There is an assumption in that argument that I find problematic. I agree that it is important for representatives to know their constituents well. However, the realities of the electoral cycle surely mean that MPs must be able to build a rapport with constituents in less than five years. If 10 years is needed to establish good relations, that would seem to take for granted that one will be re-elected.

The argument was also made that a constituent might approve, or disapprove, of their MP’s behaviour, but be unable to express their opinion at the ballot box because a boundary review had now made them part of a different constituency. This is not an argument for reviews to take place every 10 years as opposed to every eight or five, or any other length of time, but an argument never to change constituencies. The Government believe that a far more unfair and frustrating situation to be in as a voter is knowing that the vote one is casting is not of equal value to those cast in a neighbouring constituency. I thank my noble friend Lady Pidding, who has a lot of knowledge of this, for her explanation of this issue.

It was argued that a 10-year cycle would enable reviews to take place at a predictable point before each election and thus ensure that the boundaries used for each poll were fully up to date. Some Lords acknowledged that their reasoning assumed that each Parliament would last for five years. However, we should test the strength of that assumption with care. Since 2010, the law has required Parliaments to last five years, notwithstanding certain exceptions, but in that time only one Parliament did last five years. Therefore, even when terms of Parliaments are fixed, a world in which boundary reviews are conducted at a particular point before a general election has proved impossible. Will it be more possible, however, when terms of Parliaments are not fixed? Neat schedules where boundary reviews and election dates align perfectly are attractive in theory, but this has not proved possible in practical terms and is unlikely to in the future.

I agree with my noble friends Lord Taylor and Lord Shrewsbury: we believe that the middle ground proposed in the Bill today is the right way forward. Eight years removes the disruption of a review happening roughly each time an election occurs, but it also ensures that boundaries remain up to date and fair by making sure that not too much time elapses between reviews. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate which has served to convince me that we were absolutely right to move this amendment and to pursue it. However, I would like to congratulate the Government Chief Whip, who has done a good job in mobilising the noble Baroness, Lady Pidding, the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, and above all, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, his predecessor, to speak against this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, says he is surprised at my persistence. As a former Government Chief Whip, he is one of the people who should be least surprised by my persistence, not just on this but on other matters. He said he was surprised because I am normally a radical, and I am making what he sees as a reactionary move. Perhaps he is thinking that there is a Private Member’s Bill along the same lines in the House of Commons, supported by Peter Bone and Sir Christopher Chope. I hope he will look at that; it might convince him to rethink his opposition to my proposal.

It is interesting to note that all the former MPs who have spoken in this debate support this amendment. They have experience on the ground of how these things work, and I am very encouraged by their support. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lipsey for finding out that when the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord True, who dealt with this issue in Committee, said that the Government’s proposal was “supported” by all those consulted, that was totally wrong. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, confirmed, they “accepted” it, and my noble friend Lord Lipsey pointed out the difference between those two things extremely well.

I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Blunkett for reminding me of one other important aspect of constituency representation that I had forgotten—the football teams in each Member’s constituency. I had a slight problem there, in that I had both Cumnock Juniors and Auchinleck Talbot in my constituency, and they are bitter rivals. I had to be neutral when they played each other, which was not an easy thing to do. However, I understood the respective supporters and their various interests.

I remind the Minister and the House that up to 2011, Boundary Commissions were instructed to hold reviews every 8 to 12 years. On that basis, 10 years seems to strike a sensible balance. I therefore intend to press my amendment and hope the House will support it as a sensible way forward.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 8th September 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group seek to change the timing of boundary reviews and the submission of the final report by the Boundary Commissions. Under the lead amendment, a review would be undertaken every 10 years, rather than the eight proposed in the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, seemed to be straying, if I may say so in the nicest possible way, from these amendments, which are very narrow and clear. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will be answering many of the questions in debates later this afternoon.

The clause as it stands sets 1 October 2031 and then by 1 October every eight years after that as the date by which the Boundary Commissions must submit their final reports. In effect, a boundary review would take place every eight years. This is itself a change from the current law of a review taking place every five years. The Government’s intent is to ensure that parliamentary constituencies are updated on a regular basis, but without the disruption to local communities and their representations that might occur with the current five-yearly reviews. That is accepted, I think, by most noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon.

The Government consider that the eight-year cycle strikes the right balance between ensuring that our constituencies are based on a contemporary database and avoiding the disruption of constant reviews. Prior to the Bill’s introduction we engaged with all the parliamentary parties and with the electoral administrator representatives, and an eight-year cycle was the one that was supported.

With reviews held only once a decade, there would be the risk, as there is now, that constituency boundaries would become out of date and unequal between the boundary reviews. This was the case prior to 2011, when general reviews took place every eight to 12 years and when a system of interim reviews was used to consider whether particular constituencies should be updated between the general boundary reviews to take account of local government changes and shifts in population in particular areas.

We believe that those interim reviews should not happen, if possible, as they are disruptive. They were at the discretion of the Boundary Commissions and they made it difficult for MPs to develop stable and effective constituency relationships with communities, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said. The balance of the eight years is to try to avoid having interim reviews, which could have to happen if we agreed to the amendment and the period was extended to 10 years.

The noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Lennie, were particularly interested in making sure that the boundary review cycle was aligned as far as possible to other elections. That is difficult to do, particularly with the devolved Administrations and elections happening across the UK at different times, both for national legislatures and for local government. It is impossible to align in an optimal way with a particular electoral cycle—we would have to go back to square one.

As I said, in the development of the Bill we engaged with stakeholders on the boundary review cycle. There was strong support for the eight-year cycle. The Government believe that having the reviews every eight years strikes the right balance in allowing us to have parliamentary constituencies that are regularly updated without the disruption of boundaries changing at every election. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I think that everyone who has spoken, apart from the Minister, supports the amendment. There seems to be widespread support for it in the Grand Committee, including from the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Tyler, who have been Members of Parliament and have experienced this at first hand, as well as from the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, who has a great deal of experience in government, and the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, who has experience of the Electoral Commission. That is widespread support.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, without in any way rebuking us, understandably said that we had strayed more widely than the amendment. That is because these matters relate to the amendment. The whole question of identification with a constituency relates to the period of time during which Members are able to serve.

I say to my friend the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that we do not disagree as much as he thinks. I understand that there is an increasingly strong case for electoral reform of some kind. He is right about that. In Scotland, we have an interesting system, which is so strange that I managed to get elected through the list, much to my surprise. However, the majority of Members of the Scottish Parliament are constituency Members and have that link with the constituency. There are also top-up Members, who are elected on a proportional basis, to ensure some degree of proportionality.

That system was agreed between the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats when we formed the Scottish Parliament. Until the people in Scotland started voting on the basis of identity rather than on politics, it was a very workable system. We had some effective coalitions between the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats and the system worked extremely well. Now people are voting for an entirely reason, but I will not go into that in detail, otherwise the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, will certainly rebuke me for straying even further from the amendment.

With respect, I did not hear any argument about why the period should be eight years rather than 10. The only two arguments were that the balance is better—I am not sure why. We are not suggesting 12 or 15 years, because if we went too far that might create problems. The other argument was that the period had been discussed with various people who thought that it was a good idea. The various people with whom it was discussed represent the establishment. I do not mean the party establishment; I mean the establishment in this whole area, which tends to think on tram rails rather than more outwardly and imaginatively. The reason why we are here in Parliament is to consider these representations and to decide whether to accept them. I would say that we do not accept them. The argument in favour of 10 years is very strong.

However, I read in the Lord Chairman’s brief that

“Lord Foulkes is expected to withdraw the amendment”.

Lord Foulkes is willing to do as expected and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 27th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]]

My Lords, with no disrespect to my really good friends in the Liberal Democrats or to the Greens, the Bill is not about proportional representation or alternative votes, which we have already dealt with. We had a referendum on it. Nevertheless, it is about an important matter as far as democracy is concerned. I strongly support the decision not to reduce the number of seats in the Commons to 600; it should remain at 650—or, as my noble friend Lord Harris said, thereabouts—particularly given the different landscape we have now in terms of the powers of Parliament, which we heard the Minister describe, and the increase in population. The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, may have had an easy time but with some 60,000 constituents and 800 square miles to get around, I certainly had to work very hard indeed as a Member of Parliament. Most Members of Parliament continue to work very hard.

As one of the many former MPs speaking today, I have experienced the trauma rather than the excitement of a boundary review. My first major boundary change came in my very first re-election to Parliament in 1983, and I survived. However, I know of other excellent MPs whose careers have been cut short by arbitrary decisions of the Boundary Commissions, based on making up numbers to remain within that strict arithmetic boundary of the plus or minus 5% electoral quota. We have ended up with artificial boundaries with no community coherence. I have seen time and again this obsession with arithmetic exactitude, which has been given preference over natural and community boundaries, as other colleagues have said. It produces results that are less sensible and more challenging than the previous boundaries. For instance, on some occasions one side of a road has been in one constituency and the other side in another. They were within different council boundaries but the wider natural boundaries were ignored, as my noble friend Lady Gale said. Mountains and hills have been ignored, as well as other important factors such as major highways.

Regrettably, the Government said in a statement earlier this year that they will not look to change the 5% quota. I hope that they will look at it again. While they recognise that they need

“the flexibility to take account of other factors, such as physical geographical features and local ties”,

the arithmetic criteria would still remain “the overriding principle”. I believe that they should be of equal force. Without proper consideration of wider natural, infrastructural and community factors, future changes principally based on an arithmetical quota will cause significant disruption to community boundaries.

The provisions in the Bill also include amending the review frequency—I agree that it should be eight years rather than five—and conducting with automaticity the implementation of boundary changes, which I completely oppose.

As always, I want briefly to speak up for Scotland, which, like Wales, faces losing several seats in the next review. This is wrong and needs to be looked at again. It does not take account of the fact that, for example, the land area of Scotland is one-third of that of the whole United Kingdom. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, said—[Inaudible]—similar factors ought to be taken account of.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I say that we have four Boundary Commissions because they have been able to take account of specific factors, such as in Scotland and Wales. I hope that we will look at amendments in Committee and on Report to make special protection for the special interests of Wales and Scotland.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

I remind the noble Lord of the three-minute advisory speaking time.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock [V]]

I am coming to the end.

I was pleased to see that in the Commons, David Linden, an SNP MP, said:

“I very much hope that when their lordships look at this Bill they will remove clause 2, which is an affront to democracy.”—[Official Report, Commons, 14/7/20; col. 1482.]


I welcome that and I agree. I also welcome the fact that he, as an SNP spokesperson, recognised the important role of this second Chamber as a revising House. That is a move in the right direction.