Elections: Multiple Voting

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Greenhalgh

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

The point I was making in response to the noble Lord, Lord Reid, was that that is a battle that was lost. I am sure you can make the case for biometric voter ID, but the point is that the Elections Act introduces the need to produce some form of identification when you go and vote, and that is certainly a step forward.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

But is it not right to have the battle again, because there are other advantages? For a start, it is much cheaper than a ticket to Rwanda.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I am sure that noble Lords will always return to fight these battles again and again. Obviously, we have set out our legislative priorities and we have introduced already some measures that will improve the electoral process.

Sewel Convention

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Greenhalgh

Monday 13th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I am sure that we need to get the explanatory memoranda right. In addition, the Government recognise that we need to engage early so that legislatures and Administrations have as much time as possible to consider these matters before they are signed, in the case of treaties, or become Acts, if they are Bills. Of course, I take my noble friend’s point on board.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that there is a very real difference between informing and consulting? Is he confident that we are properly consulting and not just informing?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

It is for each Minister to respond on whether they are informing or consulting. Certainly, in areas where I have had ministerial responsibility, we have learned an awful lot from the devolved Administrations, particularly in matters related to building safety and other areas. It is a two-way conversation where we can often learn as much from the devolved Administrations as they can from us. It is about sharing expertise.

Prime Minister: Meeting with First Ministers of the Devolved Governments

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Greenhalgh

Wednesday 8th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

There is a commitment to invest in Wales and we have seen so far, as part of the 2021 spending review, 20% more per person for the Welsh Government. I am sure that we will continue to honour those commitments.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister has not answered my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s question. Some £10.9 million of public money has been spent on the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre. It is completely wrong for that money to have been spent for the Government arbitrarily to make a decision that rules it out.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

All I can say in response is that I understand where the noble Lord is coming from. I realise there has been some expenditure, but my right honourable friend can determine whether he wishes to make the QEII available; it is for this House to decide its future. I will take away sentiments from all sides of the House.

Levelling-up Report

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Greenhalgh

Thursday 19th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, will my noble friend tell me whether it is strictly necessary to dumb down the English language in order to level up?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think the technical annexe is particularly dumbed down—it is pretty complicated stuff. To have a clear sense of direction supported by metrics which are then enshrined in statute is hardly dumbing things down.

Building Safety Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Greenhalgh

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Tuesday 29th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I am very pleased to move a group of amendments that are focused on ensuring that leaseholders are protected from costs related to historical building safety defects. The package of leaseholder protections eradicates the idea that leaseholders should be the first port of call to pay to fix historical building safety defects. In fact, in drafting these clauses we started with the presumption that leaseholders should not have to pay anything, a sentiment that I know is shared with noble Lords from all sides of this House.

It is only right that building owners and landlords share in the costs of fixing dangerous buildings and we have carefully engineered—

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

I was under the impression that this was grouped with a whole group of amendments that had been debated and therefore there was no need for a further debate. If I am wrong, of course I apologise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I spoke to the government amendments as I hoped it would assist the House to have the Government’s views. With the permission of the House, I will now speak again in reply to the points raised by noble Lords on the non-government amendments that they have tabled.

Amendments 155 to 160 and Amendments 162 to 163 deal with leaseholder contribution caps. I thank noble Lords for their contributions and constructive approach, but I am afraid that the Government will not be able to accept these amendments. It is important to bear in mind that leaseholder contributions apply only in certain circumstances, and even then, only when a series of other steps have been exhausted. The caps do not apply at all in relation to cladding defects, nor do they apply where the value of the flat is less than £175,000 outside Greater London and £325,000 inside.

The caps only apply where the building owner or landlord is not linked to the developer and cannot afford to pay in full, where the developer cannot be made to fix their own building, and where the building owners have exhausted all reasonable steps to recover costs from third parties. Leaseholder contributions will only apply where there is no clear developer or wealthy landlord to meet the costs in full, and the party responsible for defective work cannot be identified. The Government consider that this will occur only in a minority of circumstances.

Where there is no party that clearly should pay in full—and only then—our approach spreads the costs fairly and equitably across those with an interest in the building and ensures above all that the most vulnerable leaseholders are protected. The Government’s latest amendments go even further in protecting leaseholders. Where the freeholder or landlord is not at fault and cannot pay to meet the costs, we need to ensure a proportionate approach that takes into account the interests of all parties. That is why our approach spreads the costs equitably among all relevant parties with an interest in the building.

The amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Pinnock, and—

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Can my noble friend quantify how many people he expects will be paying? What is the maximum amount they will pay?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I cannot quantify the exact amount people will pay, but it is fair to say that we have set out a fundamental system of protection that admittedly does not go as far as the zero or peppercorn proposed in opposition amendments, but it does go a considerable way to ensuring that leaseholders are the last in line to pay, as opposed to the first.

As I said, the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, seek to reduce leaseholder contributions to zero or a peppercorn. Where there is no clear party that must pay, it would not achieve a fair balance between relevant parties to transfer the costs in full to the freeholder or landlord. I appreciate that that opinion seems to vary from that of noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, but that is the government position.

Amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Young and Lord Blencathra propose to reduce the leaseholder contribution caps, and another amendment proposes alternatively that the contribution is 1% of the lease value. The Government have already taken significant and far-reaching steps to protect leaseholders, protecting those in lower value properties and doubling the repayment period to 10 years. On that basis, I ask the noble Lords not to move their amendments.

Government Amendment 164 provides for the value of a lease to be determined without the need for a valuation. It allows for the value of the lease to be determined by uprating the most recent sale price prior to 14 February 2022. The uprating, which will be set out in regulations, will ensure all properties are compared on a level playing field. The uprating will be based on a metric called the house price index which tracks house prices. This will allow properties to be assigned a nominal present-day value.

Amendment 165, tabled by my noble friends Lord Young and Lord Blencathra, proposes that the value of the lease would be based solely on its most recent sale price. I am afraid the Government will not be able to accept this amendment as it would put leaseholders who have purchased their properties more recently at a significant disadvantage. The Government consider it important that properties are compared like for like, irrespective of when they were last sold. On that basis, I ask my noble friends not to move to their amendments.

I will turn now to Amendments 123 and 124, which deal with the definition of a qualifying lease. The Government have already tabled amendments which will see people with a total of up to three UK properties eligible for the protections. Amendment 123, tabled by my noble friends Lord Young and Lord Blencathra, proposes to increase this to a total of up to five UK properties. Amendment 124, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, proposes to increase the total to six for individuals in receipt of a state pension. I am afraid that the Government will not be able to accept these amendments.

As I have previously discussed, it is important that the Government take a proportionate approach and ensure that our measures are fair to all parties. This includes considering where certain groups of leaseholders are likely, on average, to be able to afford to contribute to the costs of remediation. The Government need to focus their protections on those who need it most, primarily leaseholders living in their own homes and those who have moved out and are subletting. We also recognise concerns about people with small numbers of additional properties, and that is why we are ensuring those with up to three UK properties will be protected.

Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Greenhalgh

Report stage
Wednesday 1st December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I intervene very briefly, as I did at the substitute Second Reading and in Committee. I am concerned only with Clause 1 of the Bill, and I declare again—as I have in the past—that I have from time to time over the last nearly 50 years given advice to the Machinery Users’ Association, which was established in 1884 to give advice on the rating of plant and industrial machinery. Many of its members are, of course, concerned, particularly with the questions the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, just raised.

I do not want to prolong the debate; it is clear that the Bill is going to go through your Lordships’ House without amendment. I just ask my noble friend to give as much information and as clear answers as he can to the wholly legitimate questions asked by the noble Baronesses, Lady Blake of Leeds and Lady Pinnock. I await his replies with considerable interest.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I will do my very best. I start by saying that local authorities are protected by what is known as the local tax income guarantee; I know the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, knows about that. Three critical questions have been raised, and I will take time in answering them to reassure noble Lords that this has been well thought through.

First, there is a false equivalence between the £1.5 billion and the material change in circumstances. We do not see the £1.5 billion as a like-for-like compensation for Covid-related MCC claims. The statistics show that it would have seen reductions applied indiscriminately to properties whether or not their occupiers needed support. The £1.5 billion relief we are introducing is not—and should not be—designed to mimic or replace the MCCs that were submitted. It is better than that: it is focused on those who submitted MCCs who genuinely needed support and may have had to wait years. They will be able to access it more quickly because the approach is more targeted, and industries that have received quite considerable support are excluded from that amount. That is why we are taking this important approach.

I think the critical question that the noble Baronesses, Lady Blake and Lady Pinnock, asked is how the £1.5 billion will be distributed. I have to say that I have taken quite a long time to understand that myself; I put that right on the table. I have had some help from the former chief economist of the Bank of England, Andy Haldane, and I have had meetings with colleagues and Ministers in the Treasury about this. I think I broadly understand it. The marker that will be used at the national level is the ONS data around the gross value added reduction for those industries that have not had support. That is very robust information at the national level, but unfortunately we do not have very good data at the regional level for the last two years. So we will use the data we have at the local level around industries, because we know, broadly speaking, which businesses are at the local council level. Therefore, it is not something that is going to be gained. There is a clear proxy metric in GVA with the good data we have at the local level. I am satisfied that this is the best we can do in these circumstances and a sensible way in which to divide the cake.

The last question is around the timing of the guidance and implementation. I have spoken of the benefits of using locally administered business rates relief, rather than the appeals system, to funnel support where it is needed. One of these is pace, and since Parliament is agreed on the principle of the Government’s approach, we have a responsibility to avoid unnecessary delay. We need to move, and that is one of the real benefits of this course of action. The best course of action is to speed the Bill through to Royal Assent. On that basis, I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.

Public Services

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Greenhalgh

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, revenue from parking is ring-fenced, and most local authorities would never incentivise any staff who are doing this to start to fine—

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

If you believe that, you will believe anything.

England: Historic Counties

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Greenhalgh

Thursday 16th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Not a good idea at all.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

It sounds like someone is pre-empting my response. We need to recognise that historic counties are there and part of our fabric and history. We also need to realise functional economic areas, which do change with time. Obviously, we will reflect our administrative boundaries as the demography of the country changes.

Rough Sleeping

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Greenhalgh

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on what has been achieved. I am particularly glad that they are trying to ensure that every rough sleeper has a GP. Can my noble friend tell the House what percentage are now registered with GPs? Furthermore, has any any study been conducted into how many are driven into homelessness by drugs and how many are driven to drugs by homelessness?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for showing the complexity that underpins rough sleeping. We know that 82% of rough sleepers have a mental health vulnerability; 83% have a physical health need; and 60% have substance misuse needs. We do not necessarily know the interrelationship between those problems. Getting rough sleepers vaccinated is very much part of the Protect Plus programme, which is backed by £10 million to support and urge local authorities to play their part in getting rough sleepers—whether on the streets or in emergency accommodation —vaccinated when it is their time in the queue. We also continue to work closely with NHS England and Public Health England to ensure that this vulnerable cohort of people gets vaccinated at the earliest opportunity.

Covid-19: Places of Worship

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Greenhalgh

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I am very happy to give that assurance. As soon as we have the specific evidence of the review by Public Health England, that will be made available to all.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend has not given a single shred of evidence as to why churches should not be open for public worship. I want to put a specific point to him. On the morning of Sunday 8 November, we are planning a remembrance service in Lincoln Cathedral—an immense space where everybody can be properly socially distanced. Instead, the Government have come up with an imbecilic answer—that the veterans, all of whom are 90 and over, can stand in the cold and be rained on but they cannot go into a safe, socially distanced cathedral. This is a disgrace.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I recognise that this is a difficult time for people of all faiths. Remembrance Sunday services are of course an important part of celebrating what generations before have done for this country, but they can take place at the Cenotaph in a Covid-secure way. I recognise the point that my noble friend makes but we should also recognise that British Hindus will not be able to celebrate their version of Christmas—Diwali—during this period, and there is also the birthday of Guru Nanak for British Sikhs. We understand that these are sacrifices but, as someone who, during the first lockdown, lost his mother, who was very much a believer, spent three days in hospital before she died and said her rosary every day, I understand what it means to have faith. On Sunday, for the first time, I was able to take my father, who survived, to the church where they worshipped every week. That was very difficult for me—he was very emotional—so I understand the point that my noble friend makes.