Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Thornhill

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

The noble Lord has hit on a point; in some estates, you build one building that might just meet the requirements, and then more and more are built, and it expands the problem. I agree with a lot of what he said. I was trying to point out that we tend to say it is all on the developers, but I think this is a systemic failure of a series of accountable people. That is what I am trying to say.

Ultimately, I am saying that, sadly for democracy, this is yet another state failure—like WASPI, blood contamination and Windrush, to name but a few. The harsh reality is that the impact of this is felt every day by some people, and is growing: when a leaseholder decides that they want to reinsure or somebody decides that they want to sell, suddenly they are faced with, “Wow, I didn’t realise that there was all of this”. Therefore, the number of people affected is actually growing.

I will end on what my noble friend Lady Pinnock always says: leaseholders have done nothing wrong and everything right. Excellent campaigning from groups such as End Our Cladding Scandal and the non-qualifying leaseholders group has helped us achieve the progress we have made on remediation support. We owe it to them to keep pressing the Government on making sure that all leaseholders are protected from the costs of a situation they did absolutely nothing to cause.

[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.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Thornhill

Committee stage
Monday 29th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

We fully understand the passion expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, about criminality and having a last resort. We must think of it in regard to the worst rogue landlord offences, of which there are many, and I am sure several noble Lords have seen things worthy of that description. While we do not entirely go along with the noble Lord, we are interested to understand why the Government are using the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill to do away with a long-standing leaseholder right to bring a private prosecution against a landlord who has refused service charge and accounts transparency; it is surely a sign that they are trying to hide something.

The Government are bringing forward a new regime for service charges, under which landlords’ failure to comply with the requirement will be subject to damages of no more than £5,000 per leaseholder, which to us feels too low. Why does this policy have to strip leaseholders of a right to pursue a persistently abusive landlord with a private criminal prosecution? If the right was poorly drafted in the first place, surely it should be retained and made effective in the Bill?

We agree to a certain extent with the amendment’s attempt to bring local authorities into scope. As we know from past tragedies, local authorities are often treated far too leniently by leaseholder legislation, receiving exemptions from basic requirements. We broadly agree, but I look forward to the Minister’s response to the amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, for his passion on this matter, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said. It is appropriate to bring a probing amendment on this, to seek out some clarification from the Government about their intentions. It is clear that service charge accountability sits right at the heart of much of the Bill, and we would not want to do anything against that. It does seem a little odd that part of the Bill’s intention is to remove that right of private prosecution, so I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

The other point raised by the noble Lord was that we are going to have a hiatus when the Bill is passed, because it is not going to come into force until 2025-26. Can the Minister comment on what leaseholders can resort to in that interim period, in order to get matters justified if they have a persistent rogue landlord? Otherwise, we will have a gap where the original provisions are repealed and these ones have not yet come into force.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, about council leaseholders. There are other protections in force for council leaseholders. The health and safety Act and its provisions should sit there to protect council leaseholders from any poor landlord practice from councils—I know they have not always done so, but they should.

I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to this very good probing amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

In the interests of time, I shall be very brief. I agree with much that has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and, of course, by the noble Lord, Lord Best, who has, as always, put his finger right on the key issues with his considerable expertise. We look forward to the task force report he mentioned. Successive Governments have, quite rightly, promoted downsizing: the freeing up of a house for families who desperately need a larger family property. However, we have not done anything like enough to investigate the state of retirement housing in this country and certainly not yet got policies right.

Many of the problems in the retirement housing sector have already been mentioned: high service charges and management fees actually hit elderly residents hardest. They are also suffering withdrawal or reduction of the in-house resident manager, who is frequently now off-site. Their property is more difficult to sell because prospective buyers are obviously a smaller target group, but mainly because of the so-called exit fees or event fees charged when the house is sold. So people can find themselves in a position where a retiree’s heirs are locked in to paying for the flat years after their parent has died, because they simply cannot sell it. Ultimately, all this is related to the iniquities of leasehold tenure, which should and must be abolished.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that this will not finally be resolved until we get rid of this leasehold regime. Some of the most heart-rending cases I dealt with as a councillor were from older leaseholders, often on fixed incomes and subject to the most extraordinary hikes in service charges, ground rents and all sorts of other charges that were imposed on them. I have cited cases in previous debates in your Lordships’ House. The experience of the 90 year-old cited by my noble friend Lord Khan earlier today was from Hitchin in my local area.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Thornhill

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I suppose I could say “#UsToo”. I support these amendments, which are simple in purpose, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who summed them up thoroughly, clearly and personally. As things stand under PDR, a freeholder can add two storeys to their existing building as a matter of right, with no planning permission needed: as I look round Watford, I can see evidence of that with my own eyes. But I also know that that can have very serious consequences. As well as the inconvenience of the building work going on for as long as it takes, you also discover that the top-floor flat that you paid a premium for is now worth less as you are a middle-floor flat. Then there is the pressure on communal space and amenities, including the dreaded bin store and the state thereof.

Adding two more storeys to a presumably well-planned block of flats, for a set number of residents, is not consequence-free. But the consequences are absolutely trivial compared with the knock-on effects of such development on the Government’s own stated aim, which is to encourage more leaseholders to buy their freehold. This is an additional and often insurmountable obstacle. It significantly raises the cost of enfranchisement, as has been said. The value of the block will have gone up. The leaseholders are now required to pay more for their freehold. In many parts of the country, this takes it way out of reach, as in the noble Baroness’s case.

The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, very thoroughly cited a positive trail of support: all the right noises from the Secretary of State in 2021, the Government’s complete recognition of the dilemma and a real promise of the ability to look into some restriction.

It is clear that there is a policy conflict here: the need for more homes, which we all agree on, versus the enfranchisement of leaseholders. As things stand, the homes policy is top trumps. Can the Minister advise on whether there will be a review of PDRs in general, including focusing on unintended consequences such as this and whether there is a way to sort this out in the leaseholder’s favour in the Bill? At the moment, it feels as if the freeholders are still very much holding all the aces and current residents have no voice at all in this significant change to their environment and, possibly, their life chances and finances.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Andrews for the collaborative way in which she has prepared and worked on her amendment, and drawn the attention of the House to what seems to be an omission from the Bill. We believe this needs to be rectified and my noble friend has not only set out, with her usual thorough approach and eloquence, exactly what the issue is, but has also proposed a straightforward and elegant solution, which we support.

My noble friend describes the Law Commission report as adopted by the Government in January 2021. Indeed, the government press release of January 2021 indicated that the Bill would strongly take account of this government commitment to release leaseholders from the straitjacket of hope of future development value. I quote from that press release:

“Leaseholders will also be able to voluntarily agree to a restriction on future development of their property to avoid paying ‘development value’”.


This is based on a Law Commission suggestion, which clearly indicates the direction of travel and which we believe the Government have accepted. To quote from the Law Commission recommendation:

“Premiums would be reduced at the date of the freehold acquisition claim. If leaseholders subsequently decided that they wanted to develop, they would pay a portion of any profit received on a subsequent development to the landlord, rather than (as at present) having to pay development value in respect of a speculative future possibility of development”.


The Law Commission also set out clearly the principle that leaseholders should not need to have to negotiate on a piecemeal basis for this restriction but should be granted it by right. The commission refers to leaseholders of flats acquiring the freehold to their block and states that,

“as they would not be required to pay the landlord an additional sum to reflect the potential to develop their properties, leaseholders would no longer be required to negotiate with the landlord to create such a restriction; rather, they would be entitled to demand such a restriction be included”

and

“disputes, negotiation and litigation about development value would be reduced”.

The Law Commission clearly believed that the election to take a restriction on development outweighed the disadvantages put forward by other consultees and that such an election was eminently possible to implement where there was agreement among leaseholders.

I also point out that this issue arises, in part, from yet another unintended consequence of the permitted development regime—a point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill—on which I have made my views clear in your Lordships’ House in the past. I am not an unequivocal fan of PD. Permitted development removes the step of local accountability through the planning system, often the contribution to local community infrastructure and almost always the contribution to local affordable housing which would be required through traditional planning applications.

At its worst, permitted development drives a coach and horses through local plans, resulting in residential property in inappropriate areas and buildings, and in taking buildings out of commercial use where it may not be appropriate to do so. In the case of the subject of this amendment, its very existence can create an added financial pressure on those wishing to exercise their enfranchisement rights. That is another reason why we believe that the solution proposed by my noble friend Lady Andrews delivers an equal and justifiable right to leaseholders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, we welcome the new costs regime provided for by provisions in the Bill, because, as things stand, there is no balance of power: the playing field is tilted very much in favour of landlords rather than leaseholders, and that needs to be addressed. Under the current law, leaseholders are required to pay for certain non-litigation costs incurred by their landlord when responding to an enfranchisement or lease extension claim. That obviously does not reflect normal practice in residential conveyancing, where each party bears their own costs. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for explaining our rationale for this amendment in a bit more detail than is customary for me, but it is a point of real principle, and some technical detail is warranted.

Noble Lords will remember that I quoted from a letter I had received from elderly leaseholders on the first day of Committee. I have received further representations in relation to excessive charges for non-litigation costs, which I will read out as they are a perfect illustration of the problem these amendments seek to address. I appreciate that this example relates to a ground rent dispute, but it would be the same issue for an enfranchisement or extension claim.

“After the Freeholder asks a ridiculous sum in increased ground rent with their ground rent review (every 4 years) this causes the leaseholder to then employ both a Solicitor and Surveyor to counter this high valuation which incidentally had no calculations to back it up. Therefore so far this year having paid £3,000 for a surveyor to dispute this figure and a lawyer costing so far £3,600, the freeholders haven’t even tried to justify their huge increase and valuation. Now after 4 months having passed and the 3-month negotiation ended and the Freeholders have made no effort to take part, negotiate or even contact our surveyor they now say this increase is NOT agreed …


If we lose with the third-party surveyor’s estimate and the increase is even only minimal we still have to pay the third-party surveyor’s fees plus the freeholder’s lawyer’s fees and our own lawyer’s fees, therefore it could end up costing as much as £15,000. Plus if they look to backdate the increase over the past 6 years’ Ground Rent charges this could amount to who knows what?


Even if we win we still lose a great amount of costs and fees plus we cannot look forward to a reduction in Ground Rent as the lease states an ‘Upward Only Revision’. Therefore freeholders know they can put in totally unrealistic figures for rent increase of whatever they want as the leaseholders are on a hiding to nothing … until they throw in the towel.


Additionally, to lodge a dispute at the 1st Tier Tribunal for any high unreasonable charges it is necessary to not pay the bill in question otherwise it is deemed you have agreed to this payment but then withholding payment runs the risk of forfeiture”,


which we will discuss later today. My correspondent goes on to plead that the issue of ground rent increases finally be resolved by the Bill, but their case illustrates the financial and legal minefield that leaseholders face.

The argument for imposing non-litigation costs has always been that, in enfranchisement or lease extension claims, a landlord is being forced to sell his or her asset, which would justify a departure from the practice in open market sales of residential property. However, when it comes to lease extensions or freehold purchases, a landlord is obviously not simply being compensated for the value of the asset they are being compelled to sell. They are instead securing, through the payable premium, a share of the profit to be made from selling to the leaseholders in question. In addition, as things stand, through capitalised ground rents, they are extracting funds from leaseholders over long periods—often decades —prior to securing that profit share, for no explicit services in return.

The valuations of lease extensions and freehold acquisitions under the existing statutory regime rely on prices agreed via an open market transaction, but those valuations do not account for the fact that leaseholders are expected to pay their landlord’s non-litigation costs. Therefore, landlords in enfranchisement or extension transactions receive the price for the asset being sold, which reflects the market rate without non-litigation costs factored in, and their reasonably incurred non-litigation costs on top.

In its 2020 final report on enfranchisement, the Law Commission is very clear that the effects of law and current market practice are that

“the landlord is over-compensated for the non-litigation costs that he or she has had to incur in order to transfer the interest to the leaseholder”.

In addition, many of those who are better resourced could use the fact that such costs are borne by leaseholders as leverage in negotiations on the price of the lease extension or freehold acquisition, confident that the expense of challenging those costs in a tribunal would dissuade many leaseholders from doing so.

The Opposition are clear that freeholders should not receive compensation in respect of non-litigation costs. A landlord selling his or her asset and receiving a share of the profit as a result is not sufficient justification for departing from an arrangement in which reasonable non-litigation costs are factored into the ultimate price. The decision to enfranchise or extend a lease is often not discretionary; it is often a requirement brought about by the fact that a lease is due to expire, because the payable premium is rising as the lease shortens, or as a result of the decision to move or remortgage.

We therefore fully support the intention in the Bill to provide for a new regime based on the principle that leaseholders are not required to pay the freeholder’s non-litigation costs in these circumstances. We note the Law Society’s concern that landlords are being asked to bear their own non-litigation costs, despite the fact that the proposed standard valuation method provided for by Schedule 2 will lead to payable premiums below full open market value because it caps the capitalisation rate. However—and this point touches on one of our previous debates—political decisions set the rules of the game for market competition. In our view, it is simply not the case that there is some kind of inherent market value for premiums entirely independent of legislation in this area. Every sale of a flat and every lease extension process relating to a flat since 1993 has been undertaken against the backdrop of the 1993 Act, which reduced ground rents to a peppercorn.

The market value for premiums is shaped by the laws that the House passes. It is right in principle that, to achieve the Bill’s objectives of making it cheaper and easier for leaseholders in houses and flats to extend their lease or buy their freehold, leaseholders do not pay non-litigation costs in addition to the payment of a premium, as determined by the new method proposed in Schedules 2 and 3. We believe that leaseholders should not be liable for these costs as a result of an enfranchisement or lease extension claim on principle, irrespective of the method by which the premium is calculated. That is why we take issue with the clause as drafted, because it does not protect all leaseholders from liability for costs incurred.

The clause as drafted entails only a selective extension of rights in this area, because it does not ensure that all leaseholders will no longer have to pay their freeholder’s costs when making a claim. Instead, it makes exceptions to the general rule, whereby the price payable for the freehold or extended lease is below an amount to be prescribed in regulations.

We understand the rationale—namely, that leaseholders should pay a freeholder’s non-litigation costs in such circumstances, so that low-value claims do not cost the freeholder money. The Minister has been very clear that the Government believe that this must happen to ensure that the process is fair for both sides. We also appreciate that there are risks in prohibiting a landlord from passing on non-litigation costs to leaseholders in cases where they would be required to spend more in carrying out the transaction than they received for the asset. The Law Commission highlighted a number of those risks, including the incentive created for landlords not to co-operate with a claim, or for them to transfer the low-value freehold into the name of a shell company and then liquidate the company.

However, we are concerned that exempting claims below a certain value will create a different set of practical problems. These include costly and time-consuming disputes in cases in which the price payable is close to the level of the non-litigation costs in question for low-value claims, and the potential for landlords to game the system by arguing for a price payable below the threshold in order to secure both it and associated non-litigation costs because of the burden of disputing the amount.

Taking a step back, we fail to see the logic in the Government’s position. On the one hand, they seem to be ignoring the Law Commission’s recommendations in relation to costs; they have chosen to provide for a general rule that leaseholders are not required to make a contribution to their landlord’s non-litigation costs, but have not chosen to adopt a valuation methodology that seeks to reflect open market value, which was the commission’s stated prerequisite for such a rule. On the other hand, they are following strictly the commission’s recommendations in respect of low-value claims.

Put simply, we believe that, by means of this Bill, we should take the political decision to remove any exception to the general rule that leaseholders are not required to pay the freeholder’s non- litigation costs in such circumstances. I hope the Minister will give this careful consideration; otherwise, this section of the Bill has the potential to undermine the stated aim to increase, simplify and reduce the cost of enfranchisement. I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, when we started the debate today, I felt like I was wading in mud. I feel I am still in the mud—it has got thicker, and the fog has come down. This is a complex and complicated Bill. I have really enjoyed listening to the arguments and the debate; I have already learned a lot. Report will be a lot better—certainly for me.

I will try to keep my remarks short and my questions simple in order to seek clarification. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has, in her own style, ably illustrated the issue and set out the case for her amendments in great detail. I will not repeat those—some paragraphs have already been knocked out of my speech.

The newly inserted Sections 19A and 89A set out the general rule that neither a current nor a former tenant is liable for any costs incurred by another person because of enfranchisement or a lease extension claim. However, new Sections 19C and 89C set out the exceptions to this rule. The debate is around whether these exceptions are justified. We are seeking the Government’s justification for this variance. Amendments 47 and 48 from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, would delete these exceptions, so that leaseholders would not be liable to pay their landlord’s non-litigation costs under any circumstances. We agree. Each side should pay its own costs; we are unsure as to why this is not the case.

When this was debated in the Commons, the Government argued that, while the main aim of the changes to the costs regime was to address the imbalance of power that has existed between the landlord and tenant, they had a desire to ensure fairness on both sides. Sections 19C and 89C prevent the landlord incurring a net financial loss when leaseholders exercise their rights to enfranchisement and lease extension, thus acknowledging that this really is a balancing act. We look forward to the Minister’s comments as to how the Government have managed to keep the scales level.

I agree with the comments made in the debates on the last two groups. Some of the problems are because much too much is being left for later regulations, in either guidance or SIs. I believe that we should have had a clear government position on issues as important as landlord costs, deferment and capitalisation rates. This is still too vague. Such uncertainty is bad, not only for the leaseholders but for us parliamentarians who would hope to scrutinise and improve the legislation. However, I note the explanation from the Minister in the last group.

The Law Commission’s report highlights that the current law means that the landlord is overcompensated for these non-litigation costs. We support the Government in saying that costs should be balanced. It has to be said that these amendments raise important questions as to whether new Sections 19C and 89C undermine this aim. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has made a good case to that effect.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Thornhill

Report stage
Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, in the interests of balance, and despite the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Young, I am rising briefly to support street votes and commend the Government on staying with it. As we have heard, it is a Marmite proposal, and I agree with the noble Lord that there are many questions to be answered. It feels very strange that I will oppose Amendments 212 and 214 to 216 from the noble Lord, Lord Young, as my respect for his housing wisdom usually sees me eagerly doing a nodding dog impression in agreement. On this occasion it was my noble friend Lady Pinnock who was doing so, but I suspect we are definitely coming at this from very different angles. I wish to be clear that we on these Benches have very mixed views about street votes and that there are legitimate concerns that they are not compatible with the hierarchy of plans that the Bill proposes, that they just do not fit, or that it is a daft idea that will never take off. There are also legitimate concerns about how it will work in practice.

Like many here, I have sat in too many meetings being screamed and shouted at for daring to allow homes to be built that apparently nobody wants and will bring chaos to the neighbourhood—noble Lords can imagine the scene. This is in a town where the self-same people complain that house prices have driven their children out of the town and that they just cannot afford to live here; that was my fault too, apparently. They then complain about the number of flats being built that apparently no one wants to live in. I have come home from such meetings in despair, and we have to work with the population at large to change that narrative. In that development all the flats are now lived in, and very nice they are too, with mixed tenure from market sales through to social rent. What was it really all about?

There is an old adage: if you do what you always do, you get what you always get. I believe that street votes are an attempt to break that negative cycle. Can it really do any significant harm to let this one fly and just see what happens? Pilots are certainly a very good way of doing that. If nothing comes of it, we have lost nothing, and if anything starts to happen it is learning for the future. It is progress—positive public engagement in development, which has to be welcome. I do not believe that any more harm can be done—probably far less than that already done by permitted development rights, for example.

I have long been a supporter of the key principles behind street votes, an attempt to deliver more homes and better places in sustainable ways that are supported by local communities, which is the key aspiration. As an encouraging signal, we have seen what success neighbourhood planning has been in some areas, probably even a few, delivering popular new homes that meet the needs of the community. I believe that street votes might possibly continue this tradition, enabling popular and high-quality homes where they are most needed and helping to ease the housing crisis in a small but significant way by positively engaging residents.

However, I welcome the Government’s concession in their amendments. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report was right to point out that Henry VIII powers are not appropriate for this case. For example, it is plain that a Minister should not be able to exempt development from biodiversity rules without the consent of Parliament, and I am glad that the Government have listened. In the current anti- development climate, where the nimbies appear to have gone bananas and build absolutely nothing anywhere near anybody, anything that might just get some people to become “yimbies” has to be worth a try.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the discussions and continuing concerns in relation to the proposals in the Bill on street votes once again make the strong case for pre-legislation scrutiny. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, outlined, these proposals seem to have been fast-tracked straight into the Bill without any consultation with the sector that might have avoided some of the many concerns we now have. We note that the government amendments are already starting to recognise some of the complexities inherent in the proposals for street votes, which were explored in great detail in Committee. Considerable questions remain to be answered about the process, finances and other resources, and the relationship with other elements of the planning system.

First, let me be clear that we understand and support the idea behind the proposal of greater public engagement in planning matters, on which I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Our concerns are about the detail. Why could that engagement not be advisory to planning, rather than a formal planning process in its own right? There does not appear to have been any assessment of the cost and resource implications of street votes, which could be considerable—for example, additional cost to the local planning authority under new Section 61QD relating to support for the process of street votes. New Section 61QE is the provision for organising the prescribed referenda, and we all know how expensive it is to hold a referendum. New Section 61QK allocates financial assistance for street votes and could, for example, result in hefty consultancy fees, particularly bearing in mind that it is likely that many street vote processes will rely on external consultancy support if they are to prepare papers to a standard that will meet the test of an inquiry in public. The provision for loans, guarantees and indemnities in relation to street votes projects is in the Bill; how and by whom will the due diligence be done on these? That in itself could present a major burden to local authorities.

Lastly, Clause 101 of the Bill makes provision for developments that come forward from the street vote process to be subject to community infrastructure levy. As it has taken local authorities some years since the implementation of CIL to become proficient in negotiating these agreements, and they could take considerable time and expertise, just who is going to undertake that work? Secondly, there is the potential for this to place even further burdens on the Planning Inspectorate, where there does not seem to be, at the current time, enough capacity to deal with current workloads.

We were very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his letter addressing the concerns we expressed in Committee—concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, on the relationship with neighbourhood plans, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on the definition of a street. I think the noble Lord, Lord Young, clearly outlined how that may get complicated, and I have my own concerns about the finance. In relation to the considerable concerns on the financial and resource aspects, we feel it would have been far more helpful for those who have been promoting street votes to have carefully assessed the impact before the proposals came forward. The letter of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, stated:

“The Government is aware street votes will require local planning authorities and the Planning Inspectorate to perform functions in the process, and that these will result in new burdens and associated costs. The extent of these costs will be clearer as we develop the detail of new regulations. New burdens on local planning authorities will be assessed and addressed in accordance with well-established convention, and costs incurred by the Inspectorate will be taken into account as we determine future budget allocations”.


We have to ask: is the considerable additional funding that may be needed to meet these costs really a priority in a time of such considerable budget and funding pressures, both for the Government and for local government? I note that the Local Government Association continues to oppose these proposals.

I add my thanks to those on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, who have looked at this in great detail and at least undertaken some of the scrutiny that might have been useful before the proposals went into the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Young, outlined that there are many questions still remaining on this. He ably set out a very clear example of how the flaws in the thinking behind the proposal might impact on local people. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, spoke about the relationship between these orders and other neighbourhood and local plans which will be made.

I note that the noble Lord, Lord Young, wishes to strike the clauses out of the Bill. He made a very cogent case for doing so. I think his term was “heroically unready for legislation”, which I will not comment on, but it was a good term. If the Minister does not take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Young—and that may be so, as I understand that the Secretary of State has been convinced of the merits of street votes—can I make a strong plea that there is some engagement with the sector about the detail of how street votes will work before we go any further with this?

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Thornhill

Report stage
Thursday 13th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to move this amendment, to which I have added my name, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market, who cannot be in the House today. It gives me great pleasure to speak to this important amendment, given the support it received in Committee. Because it was debated well then and we do not intend to test the opinion of the House, I will be brief-ish.

This is another amendment that echoes what was said in the previous amendment, because it seeks to address a fundamental inequality: in short, town and parish councils do not currently have the power to award a carer’s allowance to their councillors, even if they want to and can afford to, yet every other councillor at every other level of local government can. This amendment asks simply for the decision to rest with the councils themselves—these are their councillors, their choice and their budget.

In my time in local government it was apparent, and still is, that all the parties struggle to get high-calibre people standing for council and, more importantly, to encourage them to stand again. The drop-off rates are quite alarming. There are lots of credible statistics on this; I will not drag things out by citing them, but they are there.

We all know that the LGA, the Fawcett Society, the Electoral Commission and others have worked to improve the diversity of elected representatives, so we know how important it is that councillors reflect the community in which they live. That is very pertinent to town and parish councillors, who really are at the sharp end: they are the closest to those whom they represent and meet them in the pub or the park or at the school gates. I believe that the laws governing the current situation reflect the attitudes of decades ago—the village do-gooder stepping up and speaking for the humble folk, as a community service and a bit of volunteer work—so town and parish councils do not have the power to give their councillors a carer’s allowance. Surely we do not see the role that way now. Times have changed, and roles and responsibilities have changed.

I argue that those closest to people can best say what the impacts of big decisions are on the lives of those whom they represent. We should be removing barriers and obstacles that prevent people stepping up and serving their communities, and encouraging all councils to embrace the diversity within their communities.

Personally, I would not be standing here today if I had not been able to pay a babysitter when I became a councillor. I just could not have afforded it, and there will be other women in that position. It is, sadly, still true today that the majority of carers are still women.

I know that in Committee, Ministers said that they were concerned about the cost burden this would place on local council budgets. Yet, when asked what the costs would be, they did not know. We do know that since the dependent carer’s allowance was introduced in Wales, there has been no impact on the budgets of community and town councils. We know from the information gathered by the National Association of Local Councils that many councils would meet these modest additional costs out of existing budgets. Surely it should be a local matter if councils want to increase their tiny precepts to invest in attracting, retaining and supporting councillors? That is local democracy in action.

Finally, in 2019, Weymouth Town Council made a proposal to the Government under the Sustainable Communities Act to extend the carer’s allowance to parish councillors. It is still waiting for a decision, despite the rules stating that it should have received one from the Secretary of State within six months. Could the Minister agree at least to chase this up, please?

Parish and town councils are out of step with the rest of local government. This important amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market presents the perfect opportunity to right this wrong, to help level up local democracy and to give those councillors with caring responsibilities just a little much-needed help to perform their important civic role. The Bill is in part about handing powers down from the Government to the many and various forms of local government—real devolution. It is right to do so, and proud to do so. Why not devolve further down to parish councils and give them this right? I hope the Minister will give this real consideration. I beg to move.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, our network of over 10,000 community, neighbourhood, parish and town councils provides that invaluable first tier of services that people care about, notice and see every day. This is because they impact so very close to their front doors. During discussions on the Bill, it has been a feature to hear Members across your Lordships’ House championing these councils, which illustrates their vibrant contribution to our democracy. Amendments in this group are no exception.

We welcome Amendment 59 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Thornhill, which would make provision for parish councils to be able to meet carers’ expenses. I welcome the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, about taking down barriers and increasing diversity at all levels of council activity. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, if I had not been able to have carer’s allowance for babysitting fees for my daughter, who was just eight when I first joined the council, I would not be here today. These are very important steps that we can take.

I also know one councillor in Stevenage whose husband is profoundly disabled following a stroke. She benefits from carer’s allowance. Another councillor has a severely learning-disabled son. The fees for looking after him are over £80 an hour; a contribution to that from the council means that she can participate in council activity. The input these women provide on issues of disability, as well as many other issues—and their long experience—is incredibly helpful to our council. That should be extended to parish councils too.

It is vital that we do all we can to encourage a wide range of people to engage in the democratic process at all levels of government. It is often the responsibility of caring that deters people. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and I hope that the Government will keep this under close consideration.