European Union

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I hope the noble Lord does not think that we are fussing about. Culturally and geographically, this country is clearly part of Europe. I think the Question specified the EU, which is why my responses have related to that.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

Does the Minister share my concern that the divergence between the product standard requirements in the UK and the EU is of increasing concern to UK businesses, as it escalates the cost and the bureaucracy involved in compliance?

King’s Speech

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General on his appointment and to the noble Lord, Lord Khan. I think I speak for all of us when I say that we enjoyed both the maiden speeches today, which made us realise how lucky we are to have these people join us.

I have worked as a Cross-Bench so-called hereditary Peer for all my 10 years here, but time moves on and, as the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General reminded us, we need to reflect and move on as things move on around us. The Prime Minister said last week in relation to the King’s Speech that his Government were not going to do things that were easy and populist. But booting out the so-called hereditaries as a group would be exactly that—easy, crude and populist—and flies in the face of the participation requirement trailed in the Labour manifesto.

Before I turn to a solution, I will remind the House of five brief points about so-called hereditaries. First, they do not, as is often wrongly suggested, have an inherited right to sit in this House. They may stand for election, but competition and our interview process, at least on the Cross Benches, is fierce. Imperfect? Certainly. But it is better than party leaders just appointing their mates.

Secondly, much is made of the ancient patronage in return for personal loyalty or treasure, but a good number of today’s life Peers—and their loyalties—are here for exactly those reasons.

Thirdly, the so-called hereditaries are the only Peers to whom reform has already come, with numbers capped and selection formalised. If they are to be sent down the plughole, nothing will have been done, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, reminded us, to close the patronage taps open at the other end. It is this modern patronage that is the really pernicious anachronism. It is a seemingly irresistible temptation for leaders to influence or reward their friends.

Fourthly, the pantomime stereotype of Cross-Bench hereditaries as Conservative-voting hoorays is simply not accurate. They are a diverse bunch of professional people who more often than not in this House have supported Labour and Lib Dem positions. Indeed, we have been pilloried by some Conservatives for doing just that.

Finally, it is widely acknowledged across this House that many hereditaries work well above the proportion their numbers would suggest. In fact, in the House of Lords in our daily practice the “H” tag is very quickly forgotten, as others have mentioned. What matters is that all Peers are equal public servants. I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to service—a slightly old-fashioned word, perhaps, but it is certainly the reason that I work here.

I very much support the overdue strengthening of HOLAC, albeit in the dread phrase “in due course”, but, alongside the focus on how people get here, there is far too little on how they contribute when they do. Even in such a courteous place as the House of Lords, we need a proper participation-based appraisal system for Members rather than blanket dismissals on a single criterion such as heritage or indeed age—or, if that is something we cannot stomach in this place, a 15-year term, which I supported when giving evidence to the excellent committee of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, some time back. If this is not dealt with now, the reputation of this House and this reforming Government will be tarnished.

I am also worried to hear from several sources that, in throwing out the so-called hereditaries, the Government are principally seeking to remove some 40 Conservative hereditary Members in order to reduce the numbers on those Benches and to create in their place a swathe of new Labour Peers. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Khan, to clarify in winding up from the Front Bench whether this is indeed the case. If it is true, it would be manifestly unjust to visit such a party-politically driven strategy on the independent Cross Benchers.

While on the subject of size, sacking the hereditaries would get rid of 92 Members, but removing Members across the House of any type who turn up and participate no more than 10% of the time would reduce numbers by well over 100. Would it not be not only more effective numerically but more logical and, indeed, more just to address the numbers not on the basis of an individual’s family but on the basis of their work?

There is a simple solution to make the hereditary element and issue simply disappear, and I believe it is one that would not be obstructed. Labour has used it for its own hereditary on the Front Bench, and the noble Lord, Lord Grocott—credit where it is due—has made several attempts, with wide support across the House, to bring this solution into play. It is to convert those hereditaries who are committed to the service of this House into life Peers and at the same time end the by-elections.

At a stroke, this would mean that all Peers would henceforth be life Peers, thereby removing a divisive distraction, and no new hereditary Peers would come in. The remaining, by then former, hereditaries, like me, would simply die out over time. This would be a landmark change indeed, and a manifesto commitment achieved and a transition completed. Despite the temptation of party-political manoeuvrings, I hope that the Government will consider this rather than a populist purge.

I add one final, personal note. While it may perhaps be well intentioned, describing as a “sweetener”—as it has been repeatedly—the idea that we might, after being sacked, be allowed to wander the corridors like impotent ghosts, read the newspapers or use the facilities is a total misunderstanding of why I have served here for a decade.

The noble Lord, Lord Reid, and others referred last week to the words of John Smith MP, who said:

“The opportunity to serve … is all we ask”.


I hope that those of us who have followed that mantra will continue to serve this House as life Peers.

Renters (Reform) Bill

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 15th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I am neither a landlord nor a tenant, I have managed properties in the past and I have a property qualification. All four of my children were tenants during their student days and remain as tenants at the start of their professional lives. I have also had extensive briefings from both landlords and tenants and their respective representative bodies, providing their perspectives and their chosen statistics.

As the last Back-Bench speaker today, I will not re-run all the statistics because most of them have already been cited, so I hope that will be appreciated. I am also not going to namecheck everybody, but we have had, I think we can agree, a diverse but fascinating set of speeches. I congratulate all those involved—forgive me if I do not namecheck them.

There are some emotive issues here. For a tenant, the property they rent may become emotionally their home. For the landlord, the property is often their most valuable asset—they paid for it and they maintain it. It is their source of income or pension, and renting it out also means taking on costs, regulations and the risks of placing it into the hands of strangers. Into this sensitive environment have come terms such as “no-fault evictions” and “kicking people out on the street”, even stating paradoxically that landlords actually create homelessness. There have been distressing anecdotes—and I underline this—from both tenants and landlords.

In recent days I have heard a good deal of pantomime stereotypes, and I really hope we can set these aside and address the underlying issues. There certainly are some rogue landlords—albeit that the Government assure us they are a small minority—who provide substandard accommodation and treat their tenants badly. I support those aspects of the Bill that are helpful in addressing that minority. But I add a note of caution, as others have, about enforcement.

The Bill will not touch the rogues unless it is enforced vigorously against some nasty, elusive and, in some cases, dangerous people. The Minister, in very kindly meeting me with her officials yesterday, for which I thank her again, advised that fines levied by local authorities would fund enforcement. I remain sceptical, not least because local authorities are already so strapped for cash. I welcome the requirement to have a written agreement; I suggest that it should automatically include, as an annexe, an inventory of contents and condition, as the lack of one of these frequently leads to disputes later on. I also support the register portal idea, provided that it is better than the Companies House register, which we discussed in some detail during the economic crime Bill and where there are many companies registered to an “M. Mouse”, et cetera.

In acknowledging that there are bad landlords, however, we should also accept that there are bad tenants who will play the system and abuse the landlord-tenant relationship. There are also market and other factors beyond the control of landlords and tenants. The underlying issue is a simple one that many speakers have addressed: lack of supply. A recent debate in this House referred to a shortfall of more than 1 million homes and many speakers have also touched on this today. Private landlords were encouraged, in particular under the Housing Act 1988, to reduce this gap between supply and demand but the difference between them remains stark. The Bill is presented as achieving a better deal for tenants, not through increasing the supply but rather by altering the landlord-tenant relationship, primarily perhaps by reducing the rights of landlords. It begs a simple but fundamental question to the Minister: will the Bill lead to an increase in the supply of rental accommodation?

Section 21 notices are at the heart of the debate around the Bill. Introduced as an incentive for the provision of accommodation by private landlords, they have enabled an increase in the private rented sector, as many speakers have covered. This is based largely on landlords having the confidence that they could recover their property when they required to do so. To lose sight of this confidence—the understanding that, even if they never use it, landlords know that they can get their property back through serving a notice—is to put the sustained supply of rental accommodation at risk.

Tenant representative bodies tag these notices as no-fault evictions, but we should also remember that tenants can and do—to coin a phrase—make no-fault departures should they, without needing to give any reason, decide to move out on just one or two months’ notice. This leaves the landlord with costs and no income until a new tenant is in place, and quite possibly a lengthy overhanging dispute; for example, about the deposits of tenants who are now departed and possibly even out of the country. The Bill would mean that tenants can leave on short notice and without a reason, while landlords would be able to recover what is, after all, their property only on limited and specific grounds. That does not feel equitable to me.

An underlying concern for tenant representatives about Section 21 is that once the initial tenancy period—a security that the Bill seeks to reduce or remove, as others have said—is over, a Section 21 notice can be used should the landlord want their property back. In some cases, it is to seek—or, if noble Lords wish to use emotive language, to extort—an increased level of rent. As regards wanting their property back, the landlord can do so, and the Bill reasonably supports this, if they wish to sell the property or make it available for a family member. As regards raising the rent, I believe there is a point here. I would support rental movements being limited to inflationary increases but, again, supply and demand are relevant. A landlord cannot expect to succeed in renting out a property for more than the market rent. To bring the rate down, we need more supply rather than fewer landlords.

The underlying concern for landlords, apart from the psychological aspect of restriction on their ownership rights, is that to recover their property is going to mean going to court. It has been put to me that a landlord would perhaps have to go to court anyway, if a tenant refused to leave under the current Section 21 notice provisions. I contest that: given the clear simplicity of the Section 21 notice, the great majority of tenants accept its validity.

Speaking to landlords in recent months, I have learned about a couple of reality checks that we need to think about. First, Section 21 notices are already being served by landlords who want to get their properties back and avoid the drawn-out, adversarial and expensive legal processes in due course to recover their property. Secondly, landlords are becoming far more risk averse, and tell me they will continue to be, as to which people they might rent to. As one landlord put it to me starkly, “After this Bill, I will never rent to a family again”.

Speaking to those who say that they represent tenants, I have been struck by how sanguine they seem to be about the impact of the Bill on rental accommodation. They tell me that they assume landlords will sell up, perhaps to a first-time buyer, a local authority or another private landlord—although that seems a circular expectation. Not only is this dismissive of those who provide rental accommodation, it is a pure gamble. Depending on which statistics you choose, some say that there will be a decrease in rental accommodation—this is borne out by the discussions I have just referred to—and others say that there will be no impact. I find that hard to believe. In any event, no one is saying that there will be any increase in the availability of rental property, which is what we are all seeking to achieve.

Given the risks and costs involved for landlords by the removal of Section 21, what mitigation does the Bill provide? It has a, yet to be created, swift and fair court system, which is perhaps even cost-free. There seems to be no objective metric, as many have mentioned, for the Lord Chancellor to deem that the county courts will be working sufficiently well. I hope that we can address this in later stages of the Bill. Court hearings on property matters are already increasing. By definition, a great increase in such cases will be inevitable as all tenancies are now being ended under Section 8. These will be cases brought by tenants and by landlords.

This swift judicial process is a fantasy, and it is strictly for the birds. Speaking of birds, it was the noble Lord, Lord Bird, who warned us some months ago that the last time the Government meddled with the rental sector the supply shrank. I think the noble Lord, Lord Bird, knows more than many in this House about homelessness. In short, making responsible landlords recover their property via legal action will reverse the expansion of rental accommodation, and rogue landlords will probably continue to enforce their will via less formal methods.

I turn to the question of initial fixed terms. We are told that tenants need security of tenure so that they can put their children into school, develop a sense of community and hold down a local job—all of which makes complete sense, at least in some cases. But its logic must surely therefore support long initial terms, and not their abandonment by making them legally void beyond six months, as the Bill does. Tenants and landlords can both benefit from longer fixed terms. Both get continuity, less frictional cost and less disruption. Tenants will also benefit where landlords offer rental discounts or property enhancements to tenants wishing to enter longer-term agreements. I have seen that in practice.

I was struck by the repeated comments on this from tenants. One simply said to me: “There is absolutely no way I would be willing to sign up for less than a one-year fixed initial term. I do not want the prospect of having at last found a place I can afford and having to move on in a shorter period than that”. A tenant such as this—there are many—who wants to be sure that they have security for longer than six months is prevented by the Bill from obtaining it. The circumstances in which the landlord can remove them—to sell the property or provide it to a family member—would be limited, but beyond six months the tenant has no protection should the landlord serve a notice to that effect. The problem presented to me is that a tenant may get “trapped”—this has been referred to by some speakers—for a fixed initial period in a property that is not what they were led to believe.

I do see that issue, but two points occur to me. First, this is a caveat to both parties when signing up. After all, the landlord may find themselves trapped with a bad tenant. Secondly, a correctly drafted tenancy document provides for either party to quit in the event of contract breaches by the other. A long agreed fixed term is still escapable—if that is the right word. A system where tenant and landlord lose the ability to agree a tenancy for any period over six months of secure occupancy seems perverse. It is a further disincentive to the supply of accommodation.

Landlords face the risk of tenants changing every few months, with the associated costs and delays of repair, redecoration, reletting and disputes over deposits. I have not mentioned tenants bringing in livestock, but this could also be a feature if they are seeking insurance payments for damage by the tenants’ assorted livestock, which landlords would not now be able to refuse to allow to be kept on the property. In that situation, landlords would probably have to seek higher rents to cover the associated costs of tenant turnover.

However superficially well intentioned the Bill is, it satisfies neither tenants nor landlords. Both need certainty —certainty of tenure balanced with certainty of recovery—but none of this is attainable without certainty of supply, which is the core issue that we must return to. Although the elements of the Bill that deal with standards of accommodation and portal registration are largely to be welcomed, its approach to landlord and tenant relationships will deplete supply and exacerbate the problems that it seeks to solve. I am most grateful for noble Lords’ indulging me going on at such length.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I would be happy to speak to the noble Baroness afterwards.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

This will hopefully end that discrimination towards—yet again—the most vulnerable.

We would, however, urge the Government to look at several other practices where discrimination occurs. If a landlord insists on several months’ rent up front—and they do—that disadvantages many people for obvious reasons. Likewise, on the use of a guarantor, not everyone has family or friends willing or able to act as a guarantor. Both these measures in effect marginalise the less well off.

On rent rises, we feel that the Bill does not go far enough. The proposed annual limit of one rent rise is positive, but it still gives no guarantee as to how much the rent could rise, and the process to challenge an unfair rent rise is complex and lengthy. I was concerned by the statement that tenants could find themselves in a position where the First-tier Tribunal could say that the rent is worth more. That felt like a bit of a veiled threat that this would act as a deterrent to challenge a rent rise. Surely, to link increases to CPI or median wage growth would be fairer and transparent, and would obviate the need to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal at all.

We cannot escape the fact that the real issue is lack of supply. We know that much supply has been lost to short-term lets, which was expanded on very well by the noble Lord, Lord Truscott. There are no incentives in this Bill for landlords to return to long-term rentals—as opposed to the damaging overprovision, in some areas such as Cornwall, Cumbria and other tourist spots, of the more lucrative Airbnb. These should include making the playing field level between the two tenures using taxation, regulation and health and safety requirements.

There is much more to say and time to say it in detail at later stages, but I end by reinforcing the words from my noble friend Lady Pinnock and others regarding the role of local authorities in making this Bill work. As things stand now, they cannot do the job that we or they want them to do. These additional demands will only make things worse. The fact that the Bill—at last—expects the private rented sector to meet the decent homes standard and has given some additional powers to councils will come to nothing without the resources to do the job properly. Likewise, extending the homeless duty on councils sounds admirable, but some councils are barely coping now.

Finally, we do not feel that the Bill as it stands has rebalanced the relationship between landlord and tenant. It still feels to us like the landlords have the upper hand, which is perhaps why, in their briefing, they wish to see the Bill passed as soon as possible, and why the Renters Reform Coalition has branded it a failure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to close this debate and to reflect on the thoughtful contributions that we have heard. I should first perhaps disclose that I have been a very happy tenant for many years, with successive landlords who have welcomed my dog, cat and children—so, for me, the private rental sector plays a valuable role, and the Bill’s intention is to make the system work better for both landlords and tenants.

I am grateful for the diverse, wide-ranging and sometimes contradictory contributions that have been made today, and I will attempt to address the points raised in turn—although they may not be in order, because my papers seem to have got a little jumbled.

I turn first to the abolition of Section 21 and court reform, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. She raised the issue of Section 21 being abolished immediately following Royal Assent. Our priority remains ending Section 21 as soon as reasonably possible. As these are the largest changes to the private rental sector in over 30 years, it is critical that we introduce them in a way that both protects tenants’ security and retains landlords’ confidence in the new system. As I stated in my opening remarks, there is a raft of secondary legislation that will be required to achieve that; therefore, it cannot be done at Royal Assent.

The reforms in the Bill will need to be supported by a robust and efficient court system for possession. While the vast majority of tenancies end without any need for court action, an effective and efficient court system must be available for landlords and tenants who need it. We are committed to ensuring that the reforms in the Bill are appropriately supported in the courts. We have already invested £1.2 million in the Courts and Tribunals Service to deliver a new end-to-end online possession process. On top of that, this financial year we are investing a further £11 million to deliver the digital architecture for a new, fully digitised system going forward.

The analogue system is being worked on now to help process the new Section 8 possessions on new contracts as soon as possible. The digitisation of the processes will follow as soon as possible for the existing contracts, provided that the Lord Chancellor’s court assessment suggests that the system can cope. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and other noble Lords asked about this; I will attempt to supply a visual chart for setting out indicative timelines for the Section 21 phases and the total abolition as we discuss this over the coming weeks.

With regard to abolishing the fixed terms, noble Lords raised concerns about the shift to periodic tenancies and the removal of bilaterally agreed fixed-term contracts, and we have had two sides of the House completely disagreeing on how this should be carried out. As noble Lords suggested, we have introduced a restriction on the tenant giving notice to leave within the first six months. That will ensure that landlords have a sufficient guarantee of rent and enough notice to find new tenants, and will stop tenants using rented properties as short-term lets. After six months, tenants will be able to serve two months’ notice at any point, which is a significant improvement in flexibility compared with the current system. Of course, we expect many to stay for the long term.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I think the tenant can serve notice after four months but they leave after six months. Can the Minister confirm that that is correct?

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I will check that but my notes tell me that it is six months before they can serve their notice.

I reassure the House that we are exploring potential exemptions to this six-month period in extreme circumstances, such as where there are serious health hazards, the death of a tenant, for victims of domestic abuse, and other such important issues. We will bring these forward as the Bill progresses.

With regard to domestic violence, as many noble Lords raised, we recognise that domestic abuse can be interpreted as anti-social behaviour by neighbours—for example, frequent shouting and intolerable noise. It would be wrong to evict victims, which is why it is important that the judicial discretion is used in ground 14 eviction cases. To consider eviction would be a reasonable step in these circumstances.

Many noble Lords raised the issue of a longer notice period for possession grounds, and powerful arguments for that have been made today. However, we believe that the notice periods for the grounds are set at a length which balances the needs of both tenants and landlords. They give tenants time to find a new home while ensuring that landlords can manage their assets when they need to.

Noble Lords have called specifically for tenants to be protected from the moving and selling ground for a longer period at the start of their tenancy, and we are already protecting tenants’ security by ensuring that landlords will not be able to use these grounds in the first six months of a tenancy. We believe that six months strikes the right balance between improving security and, of course, allowing landlords to continue to feel confident in the market.

The Government are committed to preventing homelessness before it occurs. The Bill will help to do that by abolishing Section 21 evictions, giving tenants greater security of tenure and, we hope, reducing the risk of homelessness. We are also providing total support of £108 billion over 2022-25—an average of £3,800 per UK household—to help households with the high cost of living. This includes increasing the local housing allowance to the 30th percentile of market rents from April, which will mean that 1.6 million low-income households will be around £800 a year better off on average in 2024-25, and over 740,000 have been prevented from becoming homeless or supported into settled accommodation since 2018 through the Homelessness Reduction Act. Between 2022 and 2025, we are investing over £1.2 billion into the homelessness prevention grant, which funds local authorities to work with landlords to prevent evictions and offer alternative sources of accommodation.

With regard to Awaab’s law, I am grateful for this being raised. We agree that no tenant should have to live in dangerous housing conditions. We are taking steps to ensure that hazards in rented homes are dealt with, but how we achieve this needs to take into account the differences between the private and social rented sectors.

Awaab’s law was developed for the social housing sector, in which landlords manage large portfolios of usually between 1,000 and 10,000 properties, and have dedicated repairs and maintenance teams. We believe that it is not the right approach for the private rental sector, in which 82% of landlords have fewer than five properties. Instead, we are strengthening enforcement against hazards in private rented homes. Local councils will be able to issue immediate fines of up to £5,000 if a dangerous hazard is present in a privately rented property and the landlord has failed to take reasonably practical steps to address it. We are also introducing the decent homes standard in the private rental sector for the first time, providing local councils with enforcement powers to require landlords to remedy failures to meet requirements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I will take that into account, but I also extend an invitation to the noble Baroness to meet my team to discuss this in more detail.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

Just before the Minister sits down, I have a very simple and short question; it is the one I raised right at the beginning of my contribution. Is it the Government’s view that this Bill will increase the availability of rental accommodation, or not?

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

As a quick answer, I cannot give the noble Lord that clarification. The intention here is to improve the quality of private rental sector stock, improve tenants’ rights and make sure that landlords have the ability to get back their property when they require it. With regard to the numbers, I will go back to officials in the department and ask for an assessment of whether they think that it will increase the supply. They tell me they do not think it will decrease the supply; I will now go back and ask whether it might increase it.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I thank the Minister for that very worthy answer; these are very worthy objectives. I think the answer she is giving me is: “No, it’s not going to increase”, but I appreciate that she is not quite vocalising that. I think all the indications are that it will decrease it, but we shall see.

Housing: Section 21 Evictions

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Tuesday 20th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, the position since the White Paper and the introduction of the Bill has been that we will need to give six months’ notice on the implementation of Section 21 for new tenancies. We are committed to passing the Bill before the end of this Parliament and putting in place the resources we need to get everything in place during that six months’ notice period, so that we can implement the ban on Section 21 as soon as possible.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, to avoid asking the same question for the fourth time, has any assessment been made of the impact of this legislation, well-intentioned though it is, on the availability of rental accommodation? Does the Minister accept that the truly bad landlords, at whom this is presumably targeted, do not bother with Section 21 but use men in balaclavas with baseball bats to get rid of tenants?

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I refer to my registered interests, particularly that I chair a company that advises people on sustainable planning. I must say to my noble friends, with whom I very often agree, that I find this debate extremely difficult. First, this Bill should never have been in this form at all. No previous Government would have provided a long title for a Bill that means that it takes this long to go through Parliament and that, every time they think of something, they can add it to the Bill. We must be very clear about this Bill. Historically, we used to have the tightness of a title which enabled you to keep responsibly and respectably within the subject. So I start with this difficulty.

Secondly, this concentration on the numbers misses the point. Since the Government got rid of the net-zero requirement for houses, we have built over a million and a half homes that are not fit for the future. Every one of them has meant that the housebuilders have taken the profit, while the cost of putting those homes right has been left with the purchaser of the home. That is a scandal which is shared between the Government, who were foolish enough to get rid of the net-zero requirement, and the housebuilders, who knew precisely what they were doing. One of them made so much money that it offered its chief executive £140 million as a bonus. He did not get all that in the end, but that was the situation.

My problem is that in the absence of a proper policy, we are talking about the wrong thing. We should not be talking about the numbers, except to say that we need significantly more homes. We should be talking about the quality of the homes and the places where they should be. I go back to my own experience as Housing Minister. We were very interested in ensuring that we built homes on already used land. We thought it important to recreate our cities. We thought that was just as important a part of this as the numbers. At the moment, I can drive back from my local railway station and see every little village, every little town, spreading out into the countryside, homes being built on good agricultural land and homes being built which are, by their nature, the creators of commuters, as there is nowhere else for people to work.

If I may say so to my noble friend, it is no good ignoring that many district councils have a real problem with the number of places in which they can build the homes that they were asked to build. A lot are NIMBYs, and some I quite agree you would not like, but if you are faced with building homes in a council where most of the area is green belt, areas of outstanding natural beauty or historic areas, you find yourself in a huge difficulty. I agree that many of them do not try as hard as they ought to, but let us not kid ourselves as to what the local issue is—not just wanting to win that particular ward but a matter of real difficulty.

For that reason, I say to my noble friend that I am sad that in this elongated, extended, overblown Bill, we have not had time to do four things: put in the future homes requirements to raise the standards of housebuilding so that they are fit for the future; create a system whereby housebuilders should provide the resources for rebuilding the insides of many of the homes that they built over the last five or 10 years; and understand that we should reuse land and think about place-making where people are within a quarter of an hour of the resources they need. Then, we can talk about how we can have a relationship with local authorities that can build the number of houses that we need.

I intend to support the Government on this amendment because I am not prepared to be put into a position where the answer to our problems is numbers. That is not the answer. The answer is a housing policy which looks at sustainability, the ability to buy and the future, not a collection of odd clauses stuck together and added when it happens to be convenient.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I have a much less eloquent and much less exciting question to the proponents of Amendment 195, and certainly no fairy dust. If you are linking national targets to the local plan, what happens when national targets change during the five-year plan period? Does the plan have to be rewritten, do parts of it have to be rewritten, or do you have to wait until the end of the period and then apply the new target? It is a purely technical question and, as I say, much less exciting than some of the material we have just heard, but I would be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, could help me with that.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I know that we are on Report but in response to that, it is exactly the structure that we have seen before. Essentially, in the five-year period between one local plan and the review of that plan, clearly, the housing delivery test is applied to what is adopted in that plan in the first instance. When it is reviewed after five years then clearly, as the amendment would say, the local plan must then be reviewed, taking account of the Government’s targets and standard method as applicable at that time.

Residential Leasehold

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. That is perhaps exactly what I should have said: they need to just wait until we have clarification, and it will not be long, because it will be in this Parliament.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, is not one of the obstacles to movement forward on this that landlords are going to find that the leaseholders have become freeholders, and that they are going to seek compensation? If so, from whom?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I have had no indication that they will do that, but if they do we will have to look at that issue.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I have an amendment in this group that I shall speak to, but I will first make a few comments about the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I thank him for his extremely detailed and thorough introduction to what is a very complicated issue.

As we have heard, the noble Earl proposed similar amendments to the then Building Safety Bill, which the Government rejected in favour of Schedule 8 and the other leaseholder protections that were eventually included in the Act. I commend him for his continued efforts in the work he does to support leaseholders, and the noble Lord, Lord Young. They have been absolutely unassailable in not wanting to give up on this.

I am sure that the Minister will repeat some of the reasons given during the passage of the Building Safety Bill as to why the Government are unable to accept these amendments in this legislation. My recollection of the reasons given is that the amendments would require a sizeable bureaucracy to be set up to deal with the thousands of buildings that would potentially be caught, and concerns about litigation risk. However, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is absolutely right to press that something should be done for buildings that are under 11 metres and resident-owned buildings. As was said during the passage of the Building Safety Bill, part of the problem is the number of buildings. Something has to be done to help all these people. During the passage of that Bill, the Government promised that something would be done. The noble Lord, Lord Young, quoted from the debate on the building safety Statement the Government’s continued promises to help those leaseholders who have still been left out, but this has not been done.

If the Government are going to push back again on this issue, when are they actually going to address this, as they have has previously promised to do? As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, there are still significant numbers of leaseholders unprotected from often huge costs, and the situation is not resolved until everybody has proper protection. The noble Lord, Lord Young, asked the very pertinent question, “Have the Government done enough?”—and then I think he answered his question, and the answer was no. The Government need to fulfil the promise made during the passage of that Bill and look at how that issue can be resolved.

It has been said that building safety remediation is very complicated. But it is not complicated at all and is actually something the Government could do very quickly and easily to improve the safety of buildings in multiple occupancy. My Amendment 504GJD states:

“Within 60 days of the passing of this Act, a Minister of the Crown must make a statement to each House of Parliament outlining their position on whether building regulations should require the installation of more than one staircase in large multiple-occupancy residential buildings for the purposes of fire safety”.


This has been a concern for some time, and Grenfell made issues of fire safety even more important. But the reason I want to bring this up is because the National Fire Chiefs Council has argued that second staircases should be mandatory in blocks above 18 metres in height. It states:

“In the event of a fire, a correctly designed second staircase removes the risk of a single point of failure, buying critical time for firefighting activities, and providing residents with multiple escape routes”.


It points to London Fire Brigade figures which show that from

“1 April 2019 to 31 March 2022 … 8,500 residents chose to evacuate buildings rather than stay put”.

We are really pleased that the Department for Levelling-up, Housing and Communities has been carrying out a consultation to mandate second staircases in new residential buildings above 13 metres. The consultation paper states that

“the provision of a second staircase can provide some benefits for very tall residential buildings such as added resilience for extreme events and reduced conflicts between emergency responders entering a building and those trying to escape, reducing the risk of the smoke ingress into an ‘escape’ stairwell”.

It also states that a second staircase would provide a second means of escape if one route were filled with smoke.

We welcome the fact that the department has been carrying out this consultation. It closed very recently. I would be very pleased if the Minister could give some update on when we are likely to hear the outcome and the Government’s response to the consultation, but, in the meantime, if she were inclined to accept our amendment, it would help progress.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for not speaking in previous stages of the Bill: commitments elsewhere made it impossible. I shall speak briefly in support of Amendments 274 and 318 from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. Reading the email circulated, citing powerful support for these amendments from expert commentators, government figures, individual leaseholders and associations from across the whole world, not just the UK, the rest of us can only look on in envy at the level of support that he has generated for his amendments. I congratulate him and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, on championing this cause and on the powerful and detailed speeches which they gave us earlier, along with the right reverend Prelate.

The approach taken in these two amendments, which are founded on the polluter pays principle, make complete sense in putting right work that was in breach of building regulations at the time across a wider range of premises and a wider range of defects. I have some sympathy with the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about looking after the construction industry. The fact is that, in a way, the polluter pays principle does not quite work here because, if building works were not done in accordance with the building regulations, it is quite clear who is responsible, whereas you could argue more widely about, for example, a leak from an oil tanker being a pollution incident. But, fundamentally, what this comes down to is, if not these solutions, what do the Government propose? I look forward to hearing.

Voter Identification Regulations 2022

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I spent probably the last 30 years organising election monitoring missions around the world. At the Brexit vote, which some noble Lords may remember, I had a group of young Europeans from right across new and old Europe come to look at how we did that vote. When I asked them afterwards what they thought could be improved, unanimously they said that they could not believe that people could go and vote without some form of identification as to who they were.

I do not think that is the problem we are trying to solve. I think we should have to produce identification; the problem to solve is how we make sure that everybody has it. The Northern Ireland example has been extremely instructive in that regard, and I hope that the Front Bench and the Government will be listening to some of the things said about the need for advertising and the need for ensuring that there is no excuse for people not having an ID card.

If I may finish, I remember many years ago saying to some students I was talking to who had come from Greece—I was a student myself—that I was not sure that I was going to bother to vote. They had grown up with the memory of the colonels, with a military dictatorship running their country, and gave me hell for saying that I was thinking of not going to vote. Now, if we can get that sort of mentality, the thing of “Oh dear, I can’t find my ID card,”—provided you had got one—would be a pretty lame excuse.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions and say that I do not intend to rerun the arguments for voter identification. That argument has been won and it is now in legislation. But I will take a little time to further detail some of the points raised by noble Lords on the actual implementation, which is the important thing this evening.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Browne of Belmont and Lord Weir of Ballyholme, for saying what it is like on the ground. These two noble Lords have lived with this over the last 20 years. They have seen it introduced. They have seen how it works for local authority and general elections and I thank them for that. I think the rest of us who are not living in Northern Ireland can never have that knowledge of how it works and how we can make it work in this country.

There was quite a lot of talk from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and others on support for local authorities to deliver this. Of course, we are aware of the pressures faced by local authorities—and the concerns that the Local Government Association brought up, I think, only yesterday—and their ability to deliver these changes. But we have been working very closely with them and, as I think my noble friend Lord Hayward said, this is not the beginning of it; this has been going on for a good seven months with the legislation there and they knew that this was coming along the line. We have been working with the sector. We have been planning the implementation of this policy and not only that we have been giving additional funds to local authorities so that they can carry out the new duties. The Government remain confident in their ability to successfully deliver these changes.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Fox, and many others, said that the Electoral Commission’s budget would be inadequate for communications. The Electoral Commission’s budget for the January communications campaign is over £5 million, which will be supplemented by £4.75 million in funding for local communications—for local authorities to communicate in their own areas.

If this legislation goes through, the Electoral Commission will start its campaign in the middle of January. It will be national and across all types of national media, but local authorities will also have the money to do local campaigns. Along with national government, they do local campaigns very well to get voters to register for voting. This will be added to those campaigns, and I have every confidence that with the money they have, local government and the Electoral Commission will be able to deliver that.

My noble friend Lord Strathclyde is absolutely right. As I said, these arguments have all been had, but, as it came up again, I will repeat the point about the manifesto commitment. Voter identification was in the manifesto, and photo identification became a government discussion because it was found in our pilots to be the only approach that increased voter trust and confidence, which are key aims for this policy. We talked about it a lot during the discussions on the Bill, and I reiterate it now in case noble Lords think that we got it wrong again. We know what we said, and we know why we put in photo ID.