English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Gascoigne Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Grand Committee

My noble friend Lady Taylor was encouraging in our debates last week, talking about local government having a bigger role in health. She reminded us that the mayoral competences set out in the Bill specifically include health, well-being and public service reform. She also spoke of her experiences in Stevenage, where she said they took a great interest in tackling some of the key health challenges in their area. I encourage her department to relook at the 2016 legislation, as it will be amended by the Bill, and give big encouragement both to its colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and to local government to enthusiastically embrace the health agenda. I am convinced that this is one way we will lead to better health outcomes.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak to my Amendment 185. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, with his rallying cry, and I hope that at least he supports what I am seeking to do with this amendment.

To me, a simple yet essential principle that I want to introduce is that devolution means real devolution—something that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, called for just then. I do not believe that you can say that you are meaningfully devolving a function while keeping the real authority and, crucially, the purse strings firmly in Whitehall. If you want to hand down power, you should not simultaneously hold on to it; you need to have a clean break and hand it over. With this amendment, I want to try to find a way to make real devolution happen.

As noble Lords know and as the Government were talking about only the other day, there has been a lot of coverage of and praise from the Government for their one-in, one-out approach to illegal migration. But I would like to propose a different one, one that perhaps works; it should be not just one in, one out, but one down, one out. When a function is devolved, it should be removed from central government entirely, except when the narrowest oversight is essential from central government or where there are international obligations. Without such a safeguard put into the Bill, we risk creating a system that is not devolved but duplicated with two bodies—or in some circumstances more than two—allegedly doing exactly the same thing, at the same time.

I say this because I come at it from the point of view that the public just want things to work. They want to know who is responsible and for them to just get on with it. I fear that, under the Bill as drafted, we risk a situation where powers are described as devolved, yet Ministers in departments in Whitehall still retain the same functions.

I was reading a brilliant book the other day, which I highly recommend, called the Unaccountability Machine by a chap called Dan Davies. He uses many examples from around the world when he talks about accountability sinks. I fear that the Bill is doing exactly the same, and the result is confusion, overlap and a lack of clarity about who is actually in charge. In some circumstances, it can be even worse: where accountability is not clear, decision-making becomes risk-averse or, at times, paralysed altogether. When no one is clearly responsible, no one feels empowered to act. Everyone waits for someone else to take the lead or people just assume, as perhaps is human nature, that it is someone else’s job.

It is easy for the Bill to lead people to think that the local authority will deliver a service now, only for the local authority then to say that they cannot deliver it, because the powers still lie in Whitehall. My real concern is that the result will be delay, drift and, ultimately, failure to deliver for the very people that the Bill is supposed to help.

I reassure noble Lords that I am not being melodramatic and I am certainly not game playing as, from looking at the Bill, there are three areas that could be used as examples of where this would happen. The Bill requires strategic authorities to produce local growth plans, to take responsibility for regeneration and to address health inequalities. We have talked about these objectives many times, including at Second Reading, and we support them all, but the broad powers and money to deliver them are not being handed down at the same time. They will remain in Whitehall.

Housing is something that we all talk about, which is covered a lot in the Bill. I know that the Minister is doing a huge amount on this in the department, not just on this Bill but in many other areas. But, if we want to build more homes, devolution means it should not be done just through the prism of national targets and central grants; we should be looking to empower and incentivise local authorities more by automatically giving them a fairer share of the revenue generated locally and the flexibility to deliver what they want. Let them feel the benefits of growth, and let them have ownership and buy-in. That will encourage them to do more.

On a related point, I know that the Committee has already talked about precepts and levies. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, is not here, but I agree with his Amendment 135. It is entirely possible that there is a doubling up, where powers are held simultaneously both locally and nationally and people will be taxed twice for the same service. To me, that seems a little mad. If you want local leaders to sort these things out, give them the tools to let them get on and do it, because, as I say, the public just want clarity. They want to know who is responsible for what, and they want these things to happen and be fixed. They want a system where the body tasked with delivering an outcome actually has the authority and resources to deliver it. They want it to get on and deliver the outcome unhindered: “If it does not work, we can chuck it out at an election”.

So my amendment seeks to protect the taxpayer and the integrity of devolution. It would ensure that Whitehall thinks carefully before announcing that a function has been devolved. In this scenario, we would not need an army of folks in Whitehall second-guessing what local leaders are doing. Whitehall seems to be growing in number, yet local authorities are having to reduce their numbers because they are feeling the pinch. If we are serious about empowering these local areas, we should be serious about letting go of our powers at the same time. I know that the Minister cares about this, and I hope that we can find a way forward together.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

The noble Lord did not mention the questions of where the taxes are raised and who is responsible. For those of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the differences between decentralisation and devolution are tax and money. So long as the Treasury retains control of the spending, we will have only decentralisation. We will discuss some of the fiscal things in our next session, but, unless we address the question of fiscal devolution, we are not going anywhere much.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Gascoigne]

186: After Clause 56, insert the following new Clause—
“Powers of strategic authoritiesBefore new powers are conferred on a strategic authority, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the strategic authority has a plan which will improve local services, drive efficiency and improve cost effectiveness.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that before changes are made, each strategic authority has a plan to ensure improved services and value for money for the tax payer.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, it is a delight to kick off this group. I see the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, leaving at this crucial moment. I know that there are lots of other people with amendments here, so I will not dwell too long on what I want to say. On my amendment, I believe it is reasonable and genuinely important that, before new powers are conferred on a strategic authority, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the authority has a credible plan to improve local services, drive efficiency and deliver better value for money.

I was going to welcome back the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, but she seems to have dashed off as well. I confess that I was a little saddened on the first day of Committee, when I thought I could perhaps work with the Lib Dems, but they were not able to support one of my amendments that follows this vein. Given the breakout of love on that last group, I hope I can get their support. That was on Amendment 12, which sought to ensure that people receive the best possible service on the ground as part of that intended reorganisation. As I say, this is my second attempt to win them over.

I genuinely believe that, if we do not build in something along the lines of what I suggest in this amendment, we are effectively just rubber-stamping the creation of swathes of new authorities without requiring them first to demonstrate that they will spend the public’s money well, and without any obligation to show that things will improve. To be clear, my amendment here simply states that, when we create these new authorities—which we are in this Bill—we should do so with the taxpayer front and centre. After all, surely one of the main tenets of devolution is that not only do people have a greater say but they have a better service in their local area based upon local desire and need.

As part of the process of reorganisation, I am saying here that new authorities must develop a plan as part of that reorganisation, because I genuinely do not believe that there is any point in going through all this reorganisation, with all the costs, energy, rebadging, delays of elections, hirings and firings—you name it—if there is no guarantee or even a requirement or plan for services to improve as a result. I say to my Lib Dem amigos that, although their argument against my past amendment was that it was not in the vein of the Bill, if they feel this is not the right Bill, let us try to work together to make it better. Let us try to put devolution in and put local people front and centre.

If we are choosing to impose this system on the people, which we are, we have a responsibility to make sure that it works for them. It is worth stressing that point: we are forcing devolution on to the people—rightly or wrongly, whatever noble Lords’ views—so we have a duty of care, in my view. There is no choice in this matter. In this Bill, we are ultimately giving a blank cheque, with respect, to the Government, so I do not think there can be a credible objection to saying that we owe it to the people that services should improve before we do so. If the power to create these entities lies in the hands of the Secretary of State, surely he or she has a duty of care to ensure that what will now appear across the land will deliver and look after the people in those communities.

As I said on day one, we cannot trust that this will all be fine. Some local authorities are already working well and, for those people in those authorities, perhaps things will continue to work well or even improve. However, when we are forcing authorities to combine with perhaps less well-performing authorities, we again have a duty to the people on the ground before these changes happen. It forces everyone involved to deliver and to work up a plan in advance.

Finally, and briefly, I will not name names but it was suggested in Committee that, because I have worked in Downing Street, I perhaps have very skewed views when it comes to devolution. I do not. I assure the Whip that I am not going to err into a Second Reading speech, but my real concern with this entire Bill is that it completely misjudges what I think people want. For context, I grew up in a working-class family in a terraced house in East Lancs. It was a long time ago, but there were some issues and those issues remain. In many northern towns, there are some deep and real issues. Twenty years ago, there was some scepticism of politics and how London dominated everything—this was in Lancashire by the way, the right side of the border—and things needed to be fixed, yet nothing changed.

That feeling has grown. However, that desire for change does not, in my view, equate to local government reorganisation, nor wanting mayors for mayors’ sake. Respectfully, the reason I say that is, if we look at the polls and at what focus groups say—I will not be the first to say this—if we go outside Westminster, there is a world between what we think people think and what they actually think. People are not clamouring right now for tinkering, nor are the masses out there with their pitchforks demanding local government reorganisation, but there is a building, growing unease. It has not happened overnight or certainly not solely under this Government, but people are struggling. They are feeling ignored and let down, and they want things fixed.

I give one quick example. The other day, I stumbled across the Electoral Commission’s 2025 public attitude report—I highly recommend it—which states that:

“More people now believe Britain needs a strong leader willing to break the rules”.


A little later, it goes on:

“Support among Labour supporters rose from 27% to 38% following Labour’s victory”.


It has other breakdowns for other parties as well, but I will not go into that. To me, what that shows is exasperation. People want things fixed; they want things to happen.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who is sadly not in her place, talked about my views on levelling up. I worked for the guy who coined that phrase. We can have a debate about whether he did any good or not on that specific issue, but levelling up does not always mean devolution—certainly not this version. One of the many things that used to drive me into an absolute rage when I worked in Downing Street was that, whenever many in Westminster talked of devolution, it always felt that it was more Westminster, not devolution. The answer to everything seemed to be more structure, more governance and more politicians. We seem always to overlook the crucial thing, which is the people themselves. It is they who want things fixed and to work and, in my view, that is what levelling up is. That is also why I think we need to put something into this Bill that helps to deliver it and puts the people front and centre. I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 187. There is a fair amount of agreement between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne—on both sides of the Pennines—about the nature of the problems. This is not a devolution Bill; it is a decentralisation Bill. The Government believe that delivery is what matters but have not yet understood that, unless the people on the ground are helped to understand why delivery is difficult and that they have some part in seeing what is delivered and in helping with delivery, they will not feel that it is them.

My amendment therefore starts from the need to re-establish public trust in the delivery of government on the ground, at the local level and, therefore, to provide a degree of financial transparency. Unless we have a more transparent process of fiscal negotiation about the distribution of funds between central and local government, we cannot succeed in improving the governance of England or in gaining the acceptance of people outside London and the south-east that the governance of England is fair.

There is a deep sense of disillusionment across the north of England that people have been neglected, that London does not understand them and that the Civil Service in London, as the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, said, has grown in the last 15 years while local government has languished and, in many cases, faced bankruptcy. The city of Bradford is not yet bankrupt but is struggling on the brink of it. We have to explain to local people why the services they used to have are no longer being provided. I challenge the Minister to explain how devolution, which helps to resolve the enormous crisis we have with public trust in our democratic politics, can take place without a more visible process of fiscal devolution, without beginning to reform local taxation and without Ministers as well as local council leaders explaining to their public what is and is not possible in strict financial terms.

--- Later in debate ---

For all the reasons I have explained, I hope noble Lords will feel that they can withdraw or not press their amendments in this group.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that this has been an interesting group—I think that was the phrase he used—covering not just finance in itself but money-raising powers, transparency and fiscal devolution.

I agree entirely with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on the virtue of transparency, not just for holding people’s feet to the fire but for people to be able to see what on earth is going on; I totally support him in what he is doing there. As everyone probably knows, we are approaching Valentine’s Day. There were moments when I thought that there would be a breakout of a mass cross-party love-in but, sadly, it was dashed somewhere along the line.

With respect, I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, says. I apologise for coming back to this point—it is very boring on my part—but I wish to repeat it. We are imposing this on people. In my amendment, I am not seeking to block or stop strategic authorities, wherever they may be, being able to have these powers conferred on them; I am merely saying that, in the process, they should have some work put in to make sure that the service improves.

This has been a good discussion on a good group. Some good points have been made. I am conscious that the next group is also a very good one, so I will not bore on, but perhaps we could do something to bring this matter back on Report because, as my noble friend Lord Jamieson said, people do care about it. I know that the Minister shares that view; I am sorry if I damage her street cred in saying this but, as she knows, I am a deep fan of hers and am very grateful for all the personal support she has given to both me and the committee that I chair. I may want to come back to this on Report, despite the words from the Minister, but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 186 withdrawn.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Gascoigne Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Gascoigne]

12: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Establishing a strategic authorityBefore establishing a strategic authority, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the authority is capable of exercising the functions conferred upon it, having regard to its governance arrangements, financial sustainability, administrative capacity, and accountability mechanisms.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause ensures that before any new strategic authority is created that there are capability tests which the existing local authority/ies must pass before the Secretary of State grants additional powers.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak for the first time in the passage of the Bill. I know we do not have to address it, but I was intending to speak at Second Reading and I had to pull out for personal reasons just beforehand. This is an issue that genuinely interests me. Every time I sit in these meetings or take part in these discussions, it feels like being at Davos or the United Nations, with so many titles and vice-presidents, and I feel a bit left behind not having any myself. I am a bit like my noble friend Lord Norton in that I am merely a bystander in this, someone who is interested. I am a political geek and a taxpayer; those are my interests. Like others, I congratulate the Minister on many belated happy returns for yesterday. I can think of no better way of spending your birthday than with some of your closest friends late at night in the House of Lords.

My Amendment 12 is embryonic. We are in Committee and I am happy to have a discussion; perhaps if the Minister is still feeling jovial from her party, we can continue that joviality and have another discussion. This amendment is simple, yet it would introduce an essential safeguard into the Bill. Given that the Secretary of State ultimately has the power in the Bill to create these new strategic authorities—it lies in his or her hands—this amendment would ensure that they are satisfied that each new authority is capable of doing what is expected of it before it is created. Those capability tests should be grounded and focused, though not exclusively, on four areas: first, governance arrangements, to ensure that it is transparent, able to make decisions and face scrutiny; secondly, financial sustainability, so that it is on a sound financial footing and able to carry out the new powers and deliver; thirdly, administrative capacity, and whether it has the right people, expertise and systems in place; and, finally, accountability mechanisms, to ensure that it has credible systems for scrutiny and democratic oversight. To be clear, I envisage the same sorts of tests applying to both the new mayoral authorities and the new unitary authorities.

Ultimately, I say with respect to the Minister, this is not game playing, a stunt or an effort to stop the Bill. It is grounded in my concern that there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that, before a new authority can exist, it must be ready and able to do what it says it will. The Bill talks about their functions, voting systems and the powers they will have, yet a Bill about empowering the people has nothing about whether the system being invented will be able to, any good at or even capable of delivering better services for the people—not to mention better value for money, though that is in a future group. I am sure the Minister is looking forward to me speaking on it in due course.

I am sure that some will say that this amendment is unnecessary. Those people who object will probably fall into three rough camps. The first will say, “We don’t need to worry. It’s going to be fine. We should take what we’re given; it is what it is and we can’t go around dictating from on high what it should be like on the ground”. But that is exactly what the Bill is doing: we are dictating what the new system should be like. We are saying that there should be a plan in place and how it will work. I think we should make sure that these authorities are capable of standing on their own two feet. Given that one of the arguments for reforming local government is that it is already quite messy and difficult to navigate, we surely do not want to create a system that is even more confusing. Before we hit the “Go” button, there needs to be effort on the ground and in Whitehall to ensure that the new structures in place are robust and coherent. That is not bureaucracy, it is just accountability. One of the many fears I have about the Bill, I am afraid to say, is that if transparency and accountability are not built in from the outset, that will make it harder to understand and hold people’s feet to the fire. These tests do that.

Another argument against this amendment will be that, ultimately, it should be for the people to decide whether the authority is doing a good job or not. I am a genuinely firm believer in democracy: it is precious and unique. Of course the electorate will ultimately be the judge, but that will come only after the changes have happened, years down the track. With so many elections already being delayed because of reorganisation, there will be no checks put in place before changes take place.

Finally, I am sure that some will say that it is not possible to test something that does not exist. However, we can do so, not just in the prep work and the planning of what is intended, but in seeing whether existing local authorities are good at what they are doing already: whether they are late or slow in delivery, whether services are being cut or expanded, their finances, workforce capacity, roadworks, housebuilding—you name it. Before noble Lords feel compelled—this has happened to me before—to defend the honour of local authorities, I pre-empt this by assuring them that I am certainly not blanketly saying that all local councils are not up to it. Equally, I am not saying that Whitehall is perfect—far, far from it. I am merely saying that, before we proceed to create and approve these new authorities, there should be a system to ensure that they will work, including how they will build on, incorporate or tackle issues in the pre-existing authorities.

There is one final area I will touch on, which we have talked about in passing already. I do not want to open this up into a broad debate about local government finance, but it does have read-through here. We all know the challenges and I do not want to dwell on it, but, across the land, capabilities are not uniform. I read some research that showed that councils in the north are twice as likely to be at risk as those in the south. Then there are the associated costs of reorganisation, never mind whether the new entity is going to be any good. Some organisations are already asking whether the current wave of reorganisation will save money or in some circumstances cost even more. Yet this Bill has no requirement to test capability, never mind finances, before those new bodies are created.

This Bill should not be seen as an exercise to create layer upon layer without thinking it through first. This is a serious issue. It is about spending serious sums of money on serious things affecting the lives of many, so it is important that we get it right. Devolution is meant to be about making the system work better, and that is what is driving this amendment. I recognise that many councils will do an enormous amount of work in getting these changes right, but rather than hoping that this version of devolution works and that things do not go wrong for the taxpayer, let us put in a safeguard. Rather than rely on good intentions, let us make the system work from the outset. Trust is not enough. These simple tests, or something like them, would make sure that from the get-go the new system is better, stronger and more capable of delivering improved services for the people. I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I acknowledge the constructive intention behind Amendment 12 from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. The desire to ensure that strategic authorities are properly equipped, financially sustainable and governed with integrity is entirely understandable. We have all seen, all too often, the consequences when structures are created without sufficient capacity or clarity of purpose. We do not want that to happen here, and this amendment seeks to guard against it. However—the noble Lord’s heart sinks—while I appreciate that instinct, we cannot support the amendment as drafted.

The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, and I have different perspectives as we come from different backgrounds—him from No. 10 and me from more than 25 years in local government, 16 of them as a directly elected mayor. To us, the amendment seems to reintroduce a centralising veto at precisely the moment when the Bill is meant to be shifting power away from Whitehall. The Secretary of State would become the arbiter of whether an area is “capable”—a term left undefined, and thus open to subjective interpretation. What one Minister might judge as prudent due diligence, another might use as a brake on local ambition. That uncertainty does not sit comfortably with our belief in consent-based, locally driven governance.

We also have to be alive to the practical effects on the ground in the places about which we have spent many long hard hours talking—those most in need of levelling up. They are often those with a much weaker starting capacity. They could find themselves locked out by criteria that they are not yet able to meet, precisely because they have not been granted the devolution tools that would help them grow that capacity. We risk creating a circular trap: you cannot have the powers until you have the capacity, but you cannot build the capacity until you have the powers.

However, we recognise that strong oversight will be necessary with changes of this magnitude. Several amendments in the names of other noble Lords show a strong appetite across the Committee for rigorous oversight, but it must be oversight that does not stray into overprescription or paternalism. I understand why there may be concerns; the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, expressed them well. My spectacles are not rose-coloured—I acknowledge that local government has not always got it right and that there have been failures, some of them cataclysmic—but, with my tongue firmly in my cheek, I think that we could also say this about past Governments, Prime Ministers and initiatives.

That said, the amendment springs from a very real concern: the public must have confidence that new strategic authorities will function effectively from day one. On that point, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. There is space—and, indeed, a need—for transparency in how readiness is assessed in order to ensure that governance arrangements are fit for purpose and to avoid the creation of authorities that are destined to struggle. However, in our view, the answer is not to place broad, undefined tests solely in the gift of the Secretary of State. Instead, we might look to more balanced alternatives, such as clear statutory criteria developed with the sector rather than imposed on it. I am sure that the Local Government Association will be keen to work collaboratively on this; we could even look at greater parliamentary scrutiny rather than ministerial discretion. There is room for a serious discussion on this matter—I hope that we can hold that with the Minister.

The amendment addresses a genuine risk but, in our view, the mechanism it proposes risks undermining the very local autonomy that the Bill is meant to strengthen. We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good by setting hurdles that, in some areas, those who would benefit the most will struggle to clear. I genuinely look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for this amendment, which seeks to ensure that new strategic authorities have the capability to take on additional powers. I recognise the noble Lord’s intention to ensure that all strategic authorities are strong and effective in delivering their devolved responsibilities; of course, that is a goal that this Government share. However, this amendment would create an express separate requirement on the Secretary of State, adding complexity to the process of establishing new strategic authorities—much of that burden was described by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill—that, in my view, potentially risks their autonomy without providing an equivalent benefit.

I assure the noble Lord that the Government are building on the capability and capacity of new strategic authorities to ensure that they can deliver the new devolution framework. Let me give him a little detail around how that is working. The Government support the improvement of strategic authority capability by funding the Local Government Association to deliver a sector support programme, which is available to both strategic and local authorities; that includes training for both officers and elected leaders, support in attracting new talent, and guidance on topics such as good governance and assurance. We will continue to review that offer to make sure that it remains fit for purpose.

The Government are also seeking to facilitate greater take-up of secondments by civil servants into strategic authorities to ensure that those authorities benefit from the widest range of capability available. We are keen to support areas establishing strategic authorities to get on to a firm footing and to be best equipped to start delivering improved outcomes for all local communities. We are doing this through the provision of a checklist that sets out the key requirements they will need, information sessions with a number of key government departments and a series of master classes for areas on a number of different topics, such as developing a local constitution and risk management. As an example, when a new combined authority or combined county authority is established, there is a year-long transition period when public transport functions remain exercisable by the constituent councils while the new authority creates an effective transport team.

We are very aware of the issues raised by the noble Lord, but I hope that he agrees with me and that my reassurances are sufficient for him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister, as ever.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, got me going: she talked about her rose-tinted glasses and I had visions of the infamous Rose Garden treaty. I thought that this would be a new version of the Tory-Lib Dem alliance, but she dashed my hopes there and then.

I appreciate the Minister’s point. I think she mentioned “levelling up”, but this amendment is to try to give effect to levelling up. It is not to lock people out; it is to make sure that levelling up is delivered for them. I think that there is possibly somewhere where we can meet there.

As ever, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Scott for her genuine support. I am pleased to hear from the Minister’s remarks that there is some work to be done. I would like to have further discussion, perhaps with the LGA, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said. There may be something that we could work on, or at least tip our hats to—I do not know. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 12 withdrawn.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Gascoigne Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Amendment 121E is out of scope of where we are scheduled to get to tonight. I will listen very carefully to what the Minister says this time. I am open to consideration, but I certainly reserve the right to put it to a vote when we come to it on Wednesday. I believe that it is crucial and very broadly supported.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and her Amendment 88, to which I added my name. I refer to my interests, including my involvement in Peers for the Planet, and flag to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that I chair the Built Environment Select Committee, whose report was in the Times. For those who are interested in it, watch this space. We will have that debate in due course and I look forward to it.

I do not wish to prolong the debate because I think we are coming to the end, but I will raise one point, building on everything that everyone has said so far, about vision and where we ultimately see nature in development. We have covered a lot already, today and in Committee. As was mentioned, the NPPF references aspects, but it is open to interpretation and vague. Again, as we have discussed before and today, there are real issues for some people in the country.

Some may query, and therefore object to, the amendment on the basis of the word “network”. Ultimately, it is for those on the ground to decide what “network” means, be it large or small. It would allow for pragmatism, in an effort to seek to do as much as possible, but, ultimately, it is about having more than one space. Therefore, it is about what more can be done with an entire site, rather than just looking through the lens of trying to do the minimum.

The amendment is not onerous. It is pragmatic. It does not stipulate the quantum of nature that is needed. Both my party and, I think, the Government still honour the concept of the 15-minute walk to nature, but this amendment does not go anywhere near that. Therefore, it is not as onerous and prescriptive.

I have just one final point. It is an anecdote, although I cannot compete with the fine words of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and her story about the fantastic work she did in London. There is a piece of land near where I live in Surrey. I was driving past it about a year ago and I saw some school kids planting bulbs, in miserable weather. I thought how absolutely amazing it was to see them putting bulbs in on this plot of land.

Last Wednesday, when we sat earlier to debate the Bill, I charged in valiantly to make my train, thinking we were going to have a vote. I walked past the same bit of land. For clarity, it is just a piece of grass, with a few trees and a path through the middle, surrounded by roads and residential properties, with some shops nearby. It is nothing special, but it is special in itself because it is unique and pleasant for those who live nearby—for the dog walkers and the shoppers, it is something to enjoy. I cannot imagine that the upkeep is too onerous but it is enjoyed by those nearby.

As I ran past, I saw those school kids yet again, one year on, planting more bulbs and I thought, “I’ve got to get in; I must get in”, and I sort of smiled as I charged past. Then I thought, “You know what? I’m going to forget the vote”. I backed up and went to speak to those kids. I spoke to someone called Doug from the council who has been involved in that project over the past few years, and I met my own councillor—a Lib Dem, I hasten to add, but we will forget that—called Kirsty, who has been driving this idea with the council and the school kids, getting them involved. A little later, some local businesses came along too.

The point is that this small endeavour showed exactly why, to me, nature is important. Not only is it important from a biodiversity point of view but it brings people together and improves that area, and it brings people of all ages together to do something. That is why I care about nature; that is why we support this amendment. I pay tribute to those behind it.

I was flicking through what was said the last time we debated this. There is no finer quote than from the Minister, who said:

“There is a growing body of evidence illustrating the crucial role that green space plays in supporting healthy and inclusive communities, and we recognise the importance of providing these alongside new homes”.—[Official Report, 9/9/25; col. 1298.]


Therefore, I hope that the Government can find a way through on this issue.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 96 in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott, to which I have added my name and which requires the prioritisation of brownfield and other sites, and to speak to my noble friend’s Amendment 239, to which I have also added my name, about the protection of villages, which I raised in Committee.

On Amendment 96 and brownfield sites, your Lordships know that I spoke about this in Committee. It is a no-brainer, a double win that saves our countryside and green spaces that are rich in nature—we have heard much about the importance of green spaces this afternoon—while improving areas blighted by uncared for, dilapidated and sometimes poisonous brownfield sites in the heart of our communities. The Minister responded in Committee, saying:

“The Government are clear that the first port of call for development should be brownfield land”.—[Official Report, 9/9/25; col. 1457.]


She suggested that the NPPF already covered this point and that my noble friend Lord Jameson’s amendment and mine in Committee were not needed. If this is what the Government support, what is the harm of applying belt and braces and having it spelled out here too? Would it not demonstrate their true commitment to this principle? Either way, it still feels as if there is a long way to go.

I shall reiterate the stats that I shared from the CPRE—I hope your Lordships will forgive me; I have not been able to find more recent ones yet. It reported that in 2022 a record-breaking number of brownfields sites identified for redevelopment were lying dormant, enough for 1.2 million homes on 23,000 sites adding up to 27,000 hectares. The CPRE highlighted that the majority of brownfield sites are in town and city centres, where there is both the need and scope for new homes and regeneration. Indeed, it will also fit with the travel aspect of proposed new subsection (9B) in this amendment.

As many of us have said throughout the progress of this Bill, it is not simply a question of more homes; we need the right homes in the right places. Much current urban brownfield land is known to blight the communities where it exists, leading to poorer socio-economic indicators. It is much better to reuse already developed urban land and buildings, as the carbon emissions are lower per capita than for greenfield development. I understand that for developers there can be a problem that cleaning up land before building can increase costs, but perhaps there is a way that the Government can help with this. Hence, I hope Government will think again on this issue and accept what I consider to be a sensible amendment.

On Amendment 239, I feel passionately about the protection of our villages, their identity and the way of life, and I am delighted that my noble friends decided that they wanted to run this from the Front Bench. Villages and their communities, as I have said before, have been hewn over centuries of rural life and are a key part of the UK’s reputation as a green and pleasant land. This amendment would insert a much-needed protection to match that currently provided to towns under the National Planning Policy Framework and would level the playing field to help preserve the special character of individual and historic villages which would be lost if one village spread into another or if a town spread out into a village.

The practicalities and perhaps unintended consequences of implementing this Bill pose a significant risk that, by opening up development, we will lose those village gems or, in the worst-case scenario, that they become swallowed up in a styleless urban sprawl. In Committee, the Minister argued that villages were already protected by current guidance for local planning authorities on the restriction of village development and by green belt provisions, but surely it is clear from the debate we had that this is not necessarily the case in practice.

I am about to cite some green belt statistics, but it is not simply about that. The Government’s own statistics on the green belt state that around 12.5% of the land area of England is currently designated as green belt, focusing around 16 urban cores. With national parks included, this would take the percentage up to around 37% of land protected by one or more types of protection. Overall, however, there was a decrease in green belt of around 660 hectares between March 2024 and March 2025, the bulk of which was due to six local authorities adopting local plans with changes to the green belt. That is just it: the green belt can be changed. There are large, more rural areas of the country further away from urban centres that do not fall under any protections and could be impacted by newly planned development or new towns under this Government. Such villages should have the same protection currently afforded to towns across the country.

The Government said that an amendment along these lines would limit the ability of local planning authorities to develop sound strategies. I am afraid I disagree. This amendment is about creating guidance or updating current guidance. Local authorities make their decisions using guidance already. This should only aid that process.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Gascoigne Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to my noble friend Lord Roborough’s Amendment 313 and will speak to that and to my Amendments 311, 316 and 318. I hope my noble friend’s Amendment 313 is an easy one for the Minister to accept or at least confirm that the situation will not take place at all when it comes to compulsory purchase orders.

On Amendment 311, I have three items I would like to see included in the regulations. Two refer to the mitigation hierarchy. We discussed that at some length on Amendment 245, so I will not say anything more about that. One of the items I would like to add to the regulations is that they should require Natural England to consider a delivery hierarchy, such that preference is given to those bodies and persons implementing the EDP. I believe that will encourage the private sector to take its appropriate share of the work of EDPs and keep the money with the people who actually manage the land, tend it and care for it, not just for 10 years of an EDP but for the future generations as well.

Amendment 316 seeks to clarify the legal obligations or liabilities of other parties, such as landowners and farmers, in accepting NRF funds delivered to the EDP. Amendment 318 seeks to provide further clarity on the involvement of an appropriate body, not just a public authority. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm exactly what is meant in the Bill on that point.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to a whole raft of amendments in my name in this Marshalled List: Amendments 307, 308A, 309, 310, 312 and 314. All are designed to ensure that the money raised through Part 3 for the nature restoration fund is actually spent on nature recovery rather than bureaucracy and process. This should concern us all because, as we have discussed repeatedly, Part 3 establishes what I see as an elaborate and quite ambiguous mechanism which does, in effect, carve out some developers from certain responsibilities.

Overall, my general approach to legislation is that it needs to be as comprehensive, clear and coherent as possible. We should not seek to keep things vague on purpose, because all that does is create problems, issues and delays down the line. Yet, as drafted, I fear that the Bill leaves a huge amount open to legal interpretation and case law. I am not speaking to any agency, body or department—perhaps it is more a reflection of human nature itself—but my experience is that where there is an ambiguous process, there is a tendency for government and others not to feel as much pressure on the need to deliver cost-effectiveness. On something as bold as this scheme, I fear that there is a likelihood of going through copious administrative procedure to mitigate litigation risk. Obviously, these copious administration procedures cost, and I suppose the ultimate question is: is it fair that nature pays that cost?

These amendments seek to limit the power of Natural England to take a cut from the fund at the expense of nature. I am sure that some will balk at this concept and ask where the money comes from, but that is not the debate here. I am seeking to ensure that the funds raised from developers are spent on their proper purpose. We should recognise that Natural England already has generous provisions allowing for it to charge fees for licenses and other work through Section 11 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

Amendment 307 seeks to limit the amount that Natural England can charge in accordance with those existing provisions. Could the Minister explain whether they no longer see those existing provisions as sufficient to recover legitimate costs for Natural England?

Amendment 309 seeks to ensure that any charges taken are used to work within the same local authority boundary. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who, sadly, is not in his place, for adding his name to the amendment. The amendment makes it clear that the levy raised must be spent within the same planning authority from where the levy originated. I am happy to discuss my reason for tabling the amendment, and there can be debate about whether it is too narrow in its definition. As currently drafted, however, the money raised from one site can be spent anywhere. I am blessed, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, will agree, to have been born in God’s own county of Lancashire. More recently, I confess, I have moved somewhere else. Hypothetically speaking, there is nothing in the Bill, as drafted, for a site to be taken out of where I live in Surrey now—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

I know. There is nothing to prevent the EDP deeming that the money raised should not go to replace or improve something near what I have lost, but rather could be spent in beautiful Lancashire. As a result, while my family up there may gain from that benefit, people in Surrey would lose the benefit twice. They lose the site within scope of the development, and they lose the money that should be there to rectify that loss.

Finally, I will speak to Amendment 308A, which seeks to prevent other departments, but mainly the Treasury, effectively siphoning off money for non-related uses. Clause 71(5)(d) allows for Natural England to pass moneys collected under the levy to another public body. Indeed, it goes so far as to say that it would require Natural England to pass it to another public authority. A little later, the rather gloomy entry of Clause 72(7) says:

“The regulations may permit or require a public authority to collect any nature restoration levy charged by Natural England”,


the implication of which is worthy of debate in itself. Which public body do the Government foresee taking on this role if not Natural England? I will leave that to others if they wish to go down that route.

This amendment protects the funds to wherever these moneys may go. It means, ultimately, that their original purpose shall remain. I think everyone can unite around this, from sceptics of the Bill to those supporting it, because it means that money for nature should remain for nature and not be subsumed into a general pot. I am afraid I have the scars from working in government and know all too well what happens if things are not ring-fenced clearly.

As an aside, there is a precedent here. The other day—I cannot remember when—we discussed the community infrastructure levy, and the 2010 regulations include a ring fence to ensure that the income spent is on infrastructure, no matter who is doing the spending. That is in Regulation 59, if noble Lords wish to check. Ultimately, the nature restoration fund needs to be protected and clearly defined in the Bill, and not allowed to be open to interpretation or postponed to secondary legislation.

The remaining amendments in this group in my name, namely Amendments 310, 312 and 314, all seek to tighten further the accountability and transparency around any decision by Natural England to fund its own administrative activities from the nature restoration fund.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

It was a pleasure to follow the last two speakers, as they adroitly picked their way through the thickets of these various amendments. I will briefly touch on theirs before getting to mine. As regards Amendments 256 and 313, where land is CPO’d from its owner, it is manifestly unfair to include in the levy the cost of acquisition. It is reminiscent of the victim of an execution being made to pay for the bullet. As regards Amendments 307, 312 and 314, I support clear limits being set on the ability of quangos—particularly quangos in a monopoly situation—being able to overegg their charges.

Amendment 307A in my name requires Natural England to provide a proper budget breakdown for the use of levy funds requested from a developer. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how a required levy could be quantified in any other way. In the event that there is an underspend of the developer’s levy, then the amount not spent to meet the purpose of the levy should be promptly returned to the developer. It has always been my understanding that the specific purpose of the levy is to enable the offsetting of environmental degradation caused by specific developments. Such environmental degradation is to be defined, calculated and quantified by Natural England or its appointees to arrive at a numerical amount of the levy sum payable by the developer. Natural England has confirmed to me that that sum will in each case include an amount for contingency. That is a normal part of any budgeting process for what could be a complex project.

Where the system departs from normal practice is: what happens to any unspent funds once the quantum of environmental benefit that the developer has paid for is achieved? When I asked Natural England executives about this, they told me to my great surprise that any unused funds would simply be kept by Natural England and spent on unspecified further work. The levy amounts are likely to be substantial. It is not unreasonable to anticipate millions of pounds in some cases. To allow Natural England to retain any unspent funds for its own purposes flies in the face of standard contractual practice. It is also an open invitation to overprice the levy for any project as a means of generating revenue for Natural England above and beyond what is reasonably required for the agreed environmental benefits.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Gascoigne Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Gascoigne]

170: After Clause 52, insert the following new Clause—
“Community infrastructure levy and section 106 obligations(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations amend the legislation in subsection (2) to ensure that— (a) local authorities publish annual data on the use of planning obligations under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (planning obligations) and Community Infrastructure Levy (“CIL”) funds, including—(i) the purpose of the planning obligation or CIL fund;(ii) any amount of money committed under a planning obligation or CIL fund which is left unspent;(iii) the reason for any unspent money;(b) the Secretary of State has the power to require the local authority to undertake the planning obligation or works under a CIL, in the event that adequate efforts to do so have not been made;(c) if the local authority has not spent the developer funds during an agreed timeline, then the local authority must contact the developer to explore joint working to deliver the agreed service or improvements.(2) The legislation this section applies to are—(a) the Town and Country Planning Act 1990,(b) the Planning Act 2008, and(c) the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/948).(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, if my noble friend Lord Banner is doing reverse declarations, I should probably just check; I think I have made them at this stage, but just in case, I declare that I am a director of Peers for the Planet, although I speak entirely independently of them on this and on all the amendments I have tabled to the Bill.

It is a pleasure to kick-start this group and speak to Amendment 170. I express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Parkinson, who, sadly, is unable to speak to this amendment today but has assured me of his continued support despite his absence. I am grateful to all the other noble Lords who have spoken to me of late to support me on this and to the external organisations that have been in touch too.

The amendment has a series of parts to it. First, I will set out the context of why I feel something is necessary before talking through what the amendment seeks to do. The amendment relates to two aspects of planning law where a local authority receives funds through development. These are Section 106, which is part of the planning law that allows councils to negotiate money from developers in exchange for granting planning permission to offset the impact of new development and fund specific improvements in the area, while CIL, the community infrastructure levy, is a charge for infrastructure in the broader area.

For background, I first became interested in support of these forms of investment many moons ago when I worked in London City Hall alongside another noble friend who is sadly not with us, my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister. It was amazing to see, alongside many other developments across the capital, things that were being delivered through this funding. In particular, I was always struck by the work that was taking place in Vauxhall Nine Elms and the extension to the Northern line, and how that unlocked the wider development in that area.

I was blown away only recently when the Bill started when someone mentioned in passing that, last year, the Home Builders Federation did an analysis in which it calculated that around £8 billion-worth of unspent money is sitting in local authorities across England and Wales. I say that again: £8 billion. I know in today’s age of Monopoly money that may not mean much to some, but it certainly means a hell of a lot to me. Within that, there is money for affordable housing, which could unlock around 11,000 affordable homes, and an estimated £1 billion for highways and roads—I know we have elections next year; let us just dream of all those leaflets where we could have candidates pointing at the potholes being filled. There is £2 billion-worth to go towards schools and education and an estimated £850 million that could go towards recreation and play areas. In the same report, the HBF estimates that

“the total amount of unspent Section 106 contributions has more than doubled”

since the year before, suggesting a growing backlog of undelivered infrastructure. I think everyone would accept that obviously it takes time to deliver and build, but it is worth noting that

“around a quarter of the unspent contributions have been held for more than five years”,

and some councils

“admit to holding on to funds for more than 20 years”.

How did HBF get that information and is it easy for any of us to gather? It is not, and that is another part of the problem. There are, as I am sure the Minister will say, the infrastructure funding statements that each receiving authority has to publish annually. Much of the information is mandatory and some information is advisory, but it could be clearer and more transparent. The statistics that I have used earlier, where there is a breakdown, do not have to be sought through the FoI process, which is what the HBF had go through. The same goes for how long the funds have been held and why there has been a delay. In today’s data age, there is no reason why this information could not be readily accessible and available. 

Turning specifically to the proposed new clause in the amendment, noble Lords will see that it contains a number of parts tackling the challenges I have laid out. The first relates to transparency, and seeks to ensure that the data which is published through the infrastructure funding statement has even more information—information which the local authority will already have—setting out the purpose of the original funding, the amount which has been unspent and the reason for it not being spent. If there is readily accessible information, the public can see what is expected and not have to put in FoIs to understand why it is not happening.

This in itself can help the local authority deliver, but I want to explore what more can be done. The second part relates to delivery. If the government department deems that the local authority has not done enough to attempt to deliver this improvement, the Secretary of State would be able to require an authority to get on with the job, or at least make steps to deliver what has been agreed. I am pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, nodding—I will come to her in a moment, but it is good that I have her support already. This in itself is not radical. It says only that the local authority should be doing what it said it would do. For the public, it would mean additional accountability.

Finally, the third part would require that, if the developer’s funds have not been spent during a previously agreed timeline, the local authority must contact the developer to ensure that it is possible to work together to deliver this service. I did contemplate, when I was drafting this, including another line in the amendment which would effectively mean that, if a local authority had failed to deliver the agreed improvement during the agreed timeline, the funds would be handed back to the developer, as I know has happened in some circumstances. I took it out in the end because, ultimately, I thought that it would be the local communities who would be losing out on the benefit and it would let the local authority off the hook. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would agree with that, given her Amendment 220.

I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my good and noble friend Lord Lansley sat here. This was, I think, touched on two days ago, when we last convened on this Bill. As ever, my noble friend made the customarily brainy observation that, ultimately, this is a contract with the developer. Further, it is something that the National Audit Office looked at in only the last couple of months.

I want to be clear that I am moving this amendment not because I want us to debate the virtue or otherwise of such measures on development. I am not suggesting that we change how these charges are levied, or indeed whether they should be reduced or made higher. Most people would say that we need to be acutely aware of not making development so burdensome and costly that it happens even less than it already is. I am merely trying to find a better way to deliver what is in the existing law.

From every aspect, this seems to me to be an absolute no-brainer. For example, many developers say that they want something like this—they want people to know not just about the development that they have built but that they are contributing something to the community. Local people too want it; rather than the money sitting in a council—perhaps they do not even know about it—and gathering dust in someone else’s account, local people would actually benefit from it.

Some may think that this would put additional pressures on the local authority to deliver when it is, as we all know, facing many pressures. Obviously, we respect everyone who works in a local authority, from the leader down. I just need to look around the Chamber to know that we recognise on all our Front Benches the importance of local authorities. But these funds should be spent as they were intended. It cannot be right, to my mind, that up and down the land £8 billion pounds is sat there when it is meant to be for the people.

Without adequate information, it is not possible to ascertain why this money has not been spent in every location. In some cases, it has been made clear that it is for a multitude of reasons, but there should be an element of pressure on an authority to deliver. If it does not, it should be compelled to go back to the developer to explore what else is possible to make it happen. I am not suggesting that the developer should therefore contribute even more again. The authority should have secured enough to deliver in the first place. It may be that the agreement needs to be revised, or it could be that the development can deliver something in collaboration with the authority, or that the intended amenity is no longer required as previously intended. While that money is in limbo and not being spent, it is not delivering for the people who felt the impact of the original development in the first place.

I start from the position that growth and development are good. We need good-quality homes, more business and the economy to grow. I know some do, but I do not see growth as a bad thing. At the same time that we say that growth is good and we need it, we must say that need people to see the benefit. Yes, there will be more people buying things in shops and milling around, with more money going into the general pot.

Equally, people in those communities will have had some upheaval with the development that was there first. As a result, people may be concerned about the extra demands on local services and that their trains and roads may be busier. At Second Reading, everyone said that they broadly support growth and development. If the Government are serious about changing the public’s views on growth and development then giving communities better visibility of the benefits of that development is essential. Recent polling from Public First, published in the last few days, found that 55% of people generally support development in their area. Some of the reasons for that are that they want to see regeneration, jobs, investment, and more shops and amenities. But by far the biggest reason for people opposing development is concern about pressures on local infrastructure. That is what I am trying to fix.

This amendment is not political—it is certainly not party political. It would help the Government, as they would be able to demonstrate that growth is good and that they are on the side of the people. It would not be onerous because it would not put anything additional on to a developer. It would not stop development; in fact, I genuinely think that it would be good for development and would improve accountability and transparency. Because of that, I want it to be there for people, to deliver what they expect and deserve. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 185K, 185L, 218 and 220 in my name follow on well from the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, which these Benches fully support. The noble Lord is absolutely right to highlight the importance of community benefits coming from development and ensuring that they are delivered. The amendments in my name would add to those that the noble Lord has just introduced.

Amendments 185K and 185L would insert new clauses after Clause 52 providing a duty to compel a complete local infrastructure. Amendment 185K seeks to make legally binding agreements associated with development consent orders or SDSs. Community benefits are the elements of a consent order that will be the last stage, almost inevitably, of implementation of a scheme. Without legal enforcement, it is possible for developers to significantly delay that implementation. Amendment 185K would empower local planning authorities to resist such moves and ensure that community benefits are fulfilled.

Amendment 185L would provide a further safeguard for local communities where a developer has signed a Section 106 agreement for the provision of a local amenity. If the amenity has not been built, the relevant local authority will have the power under this amendment to take over that responsibility but, crucially, will not be able to use that land for any other purpose, and neither will the developer. Those amendments relate to development consent orders and SDSs.

Amendments 218 and 220, although they have identical wording, relate to later parts of the Bill concerning compulsory purchase orders. Amendment 218 seeks to insert a new clause after Clause 106, relating to compulsory development orders. It would require the Secretary of State to conduct a comprehensive review of land value capture. This is a policy concept and a way of raising funds, where public authorities recover the unearned increase in land value, often created by public investment in infrastructure or planning permissions, then reinvest it in public services and projects. This ensures that the benefits of public development—I emphasise that it is public development—are shared with the community, rather than solely accruing to the private landowners. That seems fair to me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very happy to do that. As I explained, I fully understand the intention behind the amendment. I hope my explanations have reassured noble Lords sufficiently and I kindly ask them not to press their amendments.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I am genuinely always grateful when the Minister speaks at the Dispatch Box, as well as to all those who spoke in this group. It has been a good, illuminating discussion, and I like the ambition of my noble friends Lord Banner and Lord Jackson and my noble friend—I will call her that—Lady Andrews, my fellow committee member. I cannot remember what she subsequently said, but I think the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, called this an odds and sods group, but it did have two key components.

I liked that, at the beginning, it felt as though we had rediscovered the 2010 rose garden treaty, when the Lib Dem-Tory alliance was going strong—though my noble friend Lord Jackson should not worry. We are hand in glove on Amendments 220 and 170 and the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and my noble friend Lord Banner was very good. I wholeheartedly support it; you have people with real experience who understand the complexities of the issue but, for those who need it most, it is worth trying to find a way to make it possible, and a load of work has been done on this already.

I think we should explore my amendment. I accept that some will say that it should be bolder and some that it should be weaker. I am afraid that I am not sure what the position of my Front Bench was—it is not the first time I have had that problem. I know that local authorities deliver and are under pressure, but 20 years is a very long time. As my noble friend Lord Banner said, it seems odd that, during this period, local people do not even know what is happening in their area. As I said, I know that there are infrastructure funding statements but, as my noble friend Lord Lansley said, when 17% of them are not even being delivered we cannot say that the system is working. There must be some way that we can work together to find something to give the system a little nudge and remind and show people that there is some benefit beyond what is being put through development. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 170 withdrawn.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Gascoigne Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, with the amendments in this group being supported all around the Committee, it suggests to me that there is a strong opinion that the Bill should not be so silent on green spaces. My Amendment 121 seeks to make it mandatory that provision for green space must be included in any application for new housing developments. It does not seek to be prescriptive as to the type of green space but leaves that open to community consultation.

Noble Lords will be aware that the revised National Planning Policy Framework recognises that green space is important, and it includes in its golden rules, where it refers to

“the provision of new, or improvements to existing, green spaces that are accessible to the public”.

Where residential development is involved, the objective is that:

“New residents should be able to access good quality green spaces within a short walk of their home, whether through onsite provision or through access to offsite spaces”.


The problem with that is that the wording is rather vague, and the green space is only an objective, not a requirement. At worst, that requirement could be fulfilled through off-site provision. We must learn from past developments and ensure green space provision is integral to the developments. It must be there at master-plan stage.

Let us look at some of the advantages, which I am sure noble Lords are very aware of. The BBC suggests that approximately 28% of people live more than a 15-minute walk from their nearest public park, and the Green Space Index reports that 6.1 million people have no park or green space within a 10 or 15-minute walk. The thing is that a 10 or 15-minute walk with a couple of toddlers or for an elderly person is a round trip of 30 or 40 minutes. Later in the Bill, we will get to the issue of mitigation, so I will not discuss that here except to point out that, if local delivery of mitigation is prioritised, then high-quality, nature-rich green spaces will be baked into the plans.

These are all positive things that we need to look at. There is the boosting of mental health and overall well-being. A long-term study by the University of Exeter found that living in greener areas significantly reduces mental distress and increases life satisfaction. I am sure we can all remember the disparity in access to green space during the Covid-19 lockdowns, particularly for those without gardens. It really became starkly clear, and it really intensified the public’s demand that parks are valued, because people suddenly really realised the value of their local park, be it big or small.

Then, of course, there is tackling physical inactivity. Proximity to parks and open spaces encourages physical activity. People living within 500 metres of green areas are more likely to take at least 30 minutes of daily exercise, and it has been estimated that access to quality green and blue spaces in England could save £2.1 billion a year in health costs—and that is before we get on to the environmental benefits.

Green space—trees, grass—is involved in carbon sequestration and air quality issues. Trees, shrubs and grasslands absorb CO₂, acting as carbon sinks. The vegetation filters out air pollutants—for example, particulate matter—which is important with respect to ozone in urban areas. It improves urban air quality, again reducing health burdens. Green spaces tend to reduce the local temperature when it is hot in summer through shading, and cooler microclimates lessen reliance on energy-intensive air conditioning, cutting emissions from electricity use. Green spaces are win-win in every way.

Noble Lords have just been talking about flood risk reduction and water management; green spaces, with their permeable soils, vegetation and sustainable urban drainage, absorb rainwater and reduce runoff. During the debate we have just had on water management, we did not mention, for example, the city of Philadelphia, which had a very similar issue to the one that we in London have solved through the Thames tunnel. In Philadelphia, they solved it by creating masses of green space; they spent less money, yet they have the win-win situation already.

That is a lot of advantages, without mentioning the biodiversity and ecosystem services that we can get through those plantings. Strategically planted trees provide shading in summer, which I have mentioned, and wind protection in winter, improving thermal comfort for people in those areas.

Masses of research and dozens of statistics make the case for accessible, quality green space. I have read a lot of this research in the papers, but I make this case because of the sheer joy and relaxation that I personally experience from a walk in the park, whether here in London or at home in Devon. I want to ensure that that is our contribution to this Bill.

I certainly support the other amendments in this group from, for example, the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Gascoigne, who are right to put green into spatial strategies. I have also added my name to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on allotments and community gardens, which are particularly special green spaces and great promoters of community cohesion, but I will resist going on about that as I am looking forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. The final two amendments in this group seek to give development corporations a duty to provide green space—again, an extremely correct ambition.

The Government must see that there is a lacuna in the Bill, as nowhere does it place any mandatory duty for the provision of green space as an essential. It is not—and should not be regarded as—an optional extra. Given the large number of Peers who have tabled amendments on this issue, I hope that the Minister will bring forward some constructive wording before Report to fulfil the aspiration all around the House. I beg to move.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 138 but first, if I may, I will join in the love-in from the previous group for the noble Lord, Lord Khan, who was momentarily with us. I wish him all the best. As the Minister can testify, he was my shadow, alongside my noble friend, on the Front Bench when I had the honour to sit on that Front Bench. As an east Lancastrian comrade, I wish him all the best with whatever he goes on to do.

My Amendment 138 seeks to insert green spaces, allotments and community gardens into the considerations of the spatial development strategy, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson for adding his name to it. Fundamentally, I see this as quite a pragmatic proposal. It sets out that these amenities should be considered in developments. It is not onerous; it is not stipulating a percentage or proportion; it just says that they should be considered. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, it sits alongside a number of other amendments all of which push in a general movement for more green space and all of which I support. I support Amendment 149 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and I am keen to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, on her Amendment 206, because she broadens it out to include not just green infrastructure but blue infrastructure, which is good. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, all these together are saying that, where possible, we should try to put more in.

I am conscious that there is a whole raft of groups to go, so the Government Whips need not worry, because I will not repeat things I have said previously nor pre-empt the words of what will be said by far more articulate people than me in this group. But I want to echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, was saying. I say respectfully to the Minister that we are seeing a group of people from across this House who are keen to put more into this Bill. I am sure that when the Minister responds there will be many words arguing why this is supported but not necessary, because it will be in the NPPF and this is great, but I hope what she will understand when we all speak and from what is down in the amendments already is that it does not need to be onerous or stipulating anything specific. Even just a hat tip will be enough. I think the Government can support it, because it is in the revised NPPF. It is something that I think developers will want us to do, and it is not onerous. This is not just about nature, as important as that is. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, it is about building communities and developments that people will enjoy living in. Before we go to the next stage of this Bill, I hope that we can find some way of coming together and some language to put in the Bill that the Government can support.

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

My Lords, before I speak to Amendment 206 in my name, I declare my interest, as in the register, as chair of Peers for the Planet. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Sheehan, for their support in adding their names. I will also speak to Amendment 138B. I also wholly support the other amendments in this group, in particular Amendment 138 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, and Amendment 149 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to which I have added my name. All seek to put in place ways to legislate for greater access to green and blue spaces in urban landscapes and the multiple co-benefits this can bring to people, climate and nature.

My Amendments 206 and 138B are similar in intention and are a two-pronged approach to future-proofing existing commitments into legislation, adding provisions that ensure that access to green and blue spaces is incorporated for both spatial development strategies and development corporations, and to ensuring that our planning system contributes more to the delivery of these vital spaces. Without statutory requirements, the reality is that opportunities to include green and blue spaces—things like urban water features, ponds and wetlands—from the design stage are often missed. The evidence is quite strong on that. These two amendments would ensure that when developers build new towns they design access to such spaces from the outset.

At Second Reading, I made this precise case for access to green and blue spaces. I made the point that the Government made a commitment to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework established at COP15 in 2022 and in their Environmental Improvement Plan 2023, which is currently under review, that every citizen should be within 15 minutes’ walking distance of a green or blue space. I take the point that that might not be enough, especially with small children, but we need to think about the 15 minutes. In her response, the Minister indicated that further legislation was not required because this was already part of our planning system through the NPPF.

I propose two counterpoints on this issue, and I would be grateful if the Minister could set out further clarity about what further strengthening measures the Government envision so that this commitment is realised. The first, as a number have already said, is that the NPPF is only guidance and is subject to interpretation by decision-makers and change by current and future Governments. Time and again we are seeing the loss of urban green space because there is a view, even in some of our current laws, that it is fine to build over green space and move it outside the city, because it is better for nature outside the city.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Gascoigne Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I declare that I am on the boards of Peers for the Planet and the Conservative Environment Network. I also chair the Built Environment Select Committee—although the members who are here will be pleased to hear that I speak today purely as a Back-Bencher. I thank the Minister who will be responding, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for the time that she has given me, not just on this Bill but on the wider issues of housing and planning. It is both generous and genuinely appreciated.

This Bill is the most exciting legislation in this Session, as someone else has said, not because it is perfect—far from it—but because it opens a vital and long-overdue national debate. It is about not just housing but life, communities, connectivity; places to raise families, work, grieve and make friends. It is a chance to nationally plan land use more strategically, aligning homes with infrastructure, jobs and nature. I wish to raise three things.

The first, as has been discussed already, is planning committees. A poll found that 53% of people do not trust councils to act in their best interests and that 59% want more information on, or a greater say in, local decisions. I acknowledge that, as the Minister has said, a consultation is under way. But if the Government plan to remove a democratic element from planning, whatever the threshold, they must ensure that people still know who makes decisions, on what basis, and how they can make their voices heard. Democracy works only if people are involved. If you remove that local input or accountability, you damage that democratic link entirely.

I would like us to explore how we can front-load the planning process, using better data, earlier engagement and stronger design codes that secure local support from the outset. If you combine that with the brownfield passports that the Government are looking at, you reduce the need for repeat committee debate, you save time and you provide long-term clarity. All of this is already possible in current legislation.

The second area is Natural England. If it is to take on a stronger regulatory role, we must ensure that it is transparent and accountable. Who scrutinises its daily decisions? Who steps in when something goes wrong? Does it have the right skills and resources? Should it be the sole delivery body?

The third area is Part 3. When I looked at it the other day, it reminded me of when I put questions into AI when I am bored and out pops something which is very clever but sometimes lacks human intuition. This section of the Bill may have started with nutrient neutrality in mind. Perhaps it should have stayed there, as has been said. If it is put alongside the broader noise on biodiversity net gain and nature-friendly farming, I cannot help but feel a growing apprehension. This section risks undermining protections and creating new problems when first we should be fixing what is not working.

The fund must be for nature, not “administrative expenses”, as in in the Bill. As it stands, it risks becoming a bureaucratic cash cow, with too few guarantees of results. There is nothing about mitigation hierarchy, no requirement to embed green infrastructure and no assurance that the funds stay local. Maintaining and improving nature is not addressed. You pay the levy and the problem is offshored. Added to this, EDPs last only 10 years. What happens then? Some habitats and species cannot just be cut and pasted elsewhere.

I hope that the Bill sparks a deeper national conversation about the kinds of places we want to build and the kind of country we want to be. Growth does not have to make things worse. On the contrary, it is essential, but people must see and feel the benefits. We need to better deliver the infrastructure and services that people expect and fix this crazy situation of billions sat there in Section 106 waiting to be spent. Scrutiny and criticism of the Bill must not be mistaken for nimbyism. You can care deeply and passionately about nature but still want more homes and businesses. That is not cakeism. It is smart planning.

Recently I went to Aylesbury, where Barratt and the RSPB have partnered on 2,500 homes. Since then, the number of sparrows has risen by 4,000%, goldfinches by 200% and bumblebees by 50%. This is despite not just Brexit but the presence of roads, homes, shops and schools, and all because nature was put in at the outset. They are not alone; others are doing it. Nature is not a blocker to growth but a part of growth. It creates jobs, as my noble friend on the Front Bench knows all too well. It revives places and helps to make healthier and happier communities.

I welcome the Government’s aims, but the rhetoric must change. We must stop framing housing and nature as adversaries, where one must lose for the other to win. I have spoken to campaigners and young people who care about the environment yet want more homes. Many developers building at scale are putting nature in because it works. It is this energy that I want us all to channel, not to kill the Bill but to improve it, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater but to push for a more measured, more national and more ambitious plan that delivers for both people and nature.

High Streets (Built Environment Committee Report)

Lord Gascoigne Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Gascoigne]

That this House takes note of the Report from the Built Environment Committee High Streets: Life Beyond Retail? (HL Paper 42).

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, it is an absolute pleasure for me, as the new chairman of the Built Environment Committee, to open this debate on the importance of the high street. In doing so, I put on record my own thanks to the then members of the committee—including my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Moylan, who chaired this inquiry. I also thank the team of officials who helped the committee, our witnesses and those who submitted evidence. Thanks must also go to the Government for securing time for this debate.

Emperor Napoleon famously said that we were “a nation of shopkeepers”. By the time he said that, high streets were already well and truly established. Although it was meant as a derogatory slight, it spoke to some truth about our nation at the time and, to some extent, to this day. Over the centuries, high streets have remained a constant, where communities have come together to shop, to socialise and to work. They provide vital economic infrastructure and a space for people to meet and trade, to see and be seen. Yet they have of course evolved over time, reflecting changes in trade, retail, technology and society.

However, in recent years, high streets have faced extraordinary challenges. In 2023 alone, more than 10,000 high street shops closed across the UK. People up and down the country have felt the loss of their local clothes shops, pharmacies, pubs and banks. Although retail will remain a feature of the modern high street, there is now greater demand and, indeed, opportunity for restaurants and leisure activities—as well as for more public services, such as health centres and libraries—in town centres.

What communities want and what can be sustained on the high street is constantly changing, so the committee suggested that a “fixed vision” and a “monolithic approach” to their future should be avoided. Local authorities, communities and businesses need to work together to shape high streets that reflect local conditions and are adaptable and resilient. It is crucial that local businesses are involved and empowered to play a part in the regeneration of a high street, and that residents are involved in the decision-making.

High streets will thrive only if people can get to them easily and safely. Traditional high streets are in competition with the convenience of parking arrangements in out-of-town developments, so access by car and sufficient parking are necessary for commercial sustainability and accessibility, combined with better public transport connectivity, particularly through improved bus networks.

As retail occupancy declines and leaves behind vacant units, cafés and restaurants have taken their place. The committee noted that, due to

“wider economic circumstances, consumer preferences and the rent levels landlords seek to remain financially viable may result in the dominance of certain business types”.

For example, there has been a rise in the number of charity shops, which benefit from substantial business rates relief and often have lower staffing costs, making them better able to afford high street rents. Fast food businesses were also cited as being better able to afford tenancies.

Public authorities are also tentatively moving public-facing services, such as surgeries and libraries, on to high streets. This can both improve access to those civic functions and increase footfall to sustain local businesses. The committee found that, in needing to appeal to all sections of society and ages, people should feel safe through better light, clear sightlines and mixed use of properties; that more green space and an “improved public realm”, while not able to withstand the tide of change, have a role to play; and that there needs to be better access to toilets, especially for older people and those with young children. The committee also noted the importance of recognising and celebrating the local history of an area to encourage pride.

The planning system, taxation and funding can all impact the success or failure of projects to revive local places. The Government’s local growth funding reforms must ensure that high streets are enabled to flourish in the long term, and that those responsible for their future have enough expertise to deliver improvements. The Government should recognise that local authority bidding for central funding has become expensive and wasteful and should consider replacing that approach with a transparent system of funding distribution that commands greater confidence.

There are too many recommendations to mention them all today—many of them seem common sense and, to me at least, easy to implement—but there is one final thing I wish to say. The committee received a response from the Government at the start of the year. While we appreciate their response and stated commitment to high streets, ultimately we felt disappointed that the response did not adequately address all our points. We respectfully urge the Government to look again at our report and do their utmost to enable local authorities and other stakeholders to ensure that the nation’s high streets survive and thrive for the next generation.

As a relatively new chair, as I have said, you inherit the sterling work of others and so you are able to come to past work completely afresh. When I was informed that I would have to lead this debate, I was a little nervous as to what the report said—that I would perhaps have to try valiantly to look for something upbeat and positive to say, hold back my personal views and speak through gritted teeth. But I can say, hand on heart, that I found this report refreshing. It is neither stale nor desperate to cling to some nostalgic world long gone by. It is brutal in its analysis and thorough, but also realistic about the prognosis and how high streets can flourish.

High streets continue to hold a special place in the nation’s hearts and will continue to do so in years to come. Across the country, members of the committee heard about local communities, businesses and authorities working together to respond to societal change and build thriving town centres. With the right support and empowerment, there is no reason why high streets cannot continue to be the centre of communities in future. I personally and sincerely hope that councils, the Government, local businesses and communities genuinely see this as an opportunity not just for debate but for change and local growth. I look forward to listening to all noble Lords’ contributions. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his warm words; he is clearly a long-lost cousin or brother from another mother. I thank those on the two Front Benches—the Minister and my former boss, when we were last in Government—for answering the debate from the Dispatch Box. I also thank the former committee members. It is slightly unnerving having my predecessor lingering at the back, but I thank them both for speaking.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who, as ever, was both powerful and striking in the points that she made. I will also say something briefly about the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans: today is not his valedictory speech, but it will be one of his last commitments in this House. I thank him for his service and his time on many debates—this one in particular—and I genuinely wish him well.

It has been a first-rate debate on the back of what I believe to be a first-rate report. There have been some really good points raised, many of which were in the report but are not exclusive to it: the importance of high streets; the complexity of funding; changing high streets over time; rural communities; the use of class E; rates and revenue; and, crucially, the opportunities. My final point is where we ended on the first one, and I am pleased to hear what the Minister said.

I understand that the Minister is very close to Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, and on the back of this debate, I implore him to take it back and tell her it was not just another report, it is actually an opportunity that people in this Chamber and beyond care about. Many people have spoken to us about it. There are some really good ideas, and I think there is a huge opportunity here for the Government to inspire and empower, but also to change and put high streets back into the centre of people’s lives once again. With that, I thank noble Lords very much.

Motion agreed.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Lord Gascoigne Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 92 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and explained so well by the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley. The right to manage was first introduced in the leasehold reform Act of 2002. From the start, it was, as the noble Lord said, intended as a simple and cost-effective alternative to collective enfranchisement, but, despite the happy intentions of that Act, the reality was quite different. Take-up has not been what we would all have hoped for or expected, because the right to manage has proved incredibly problematic in practice.

These problems culminated in the Law Commission’s final report in 2020—time has marched on—on exercising the right to manage. It summarises the difficulties as follows:

“The ‘simple’ RTM process envisaged in the original consultation which led to the 2002 Act has not come to pass. The requirement for strict compliance with the statutory procedures, such as the service of certain notices on particular parties, can be unforgiving to leaseholders. In many cases, small mistakes made by the RTM company have afforded landlords opportunities to frustrate or delay otherwise valid claims. The Court of Appeal has noted that while the procedures ‘should be as simple as possible to reduce the potential for challenges by an obstructive landlord’, in fact they ‘contain traps for the unwary’”.


This is not a good advert for anyone seeking to exercise the right to manage, which we believe is fundamental to the change we need. The Law Commission subsequently made 101 recommendations, of which the then Government adopted two.

Whole swathes of actions could be happening to make this process simpler and to encourage residents to take this up. We have no doubt that the process is not an easy one and that the provisions in the Bill as it stands are actually quite limited. The uplift from 25% to 50% is welcome, as are the beneficial changes in cost provision, and minor changes to courts and tribunals. They are all positive but underwhelming—a far cry from the 101 recommendations.

In debates throughout the course of the Bill we have heard numerous instances of excessive charges and unfair practices, from both Houses. The Law Commission summed it up best when it said that

“the landlord and leaseholder have opposing financial interests—generally speaking, any financial gain for the landlord will be at the expense of the leaseholder, and vice versa …Their interests are diametrically opposed, and consensus will be impossible to achieve”.

This amendment is quite realistic: it is starting only with new build, but what it does is symbolic, in that it draws a line under the past and clearly points the way forward. Noble Lords will notice that I am not wearing rose-coloured spectacles, and we are not saying that the residents’ right to manage will be any easier—but it will be fairer. Those paying the bills control the bills and can remove any poorly performing providers. We believe that a leaseholder-controlled resident management company with an elected board, accountable to all leaseholders, is a far more democratic arrangement than one middleman freeholder controlling block management, spending leaseholders’ money freely and not involving them in the decision-making processes. It is fundamentally a better way to go, and there seems to be widespread support for it.

We support this amendment because we believe that it is a step in the right direction and could reinvigorate right to manage with the right support. It seems that the Government are finding reasons not to do something instead of working to enable something better to happen.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, for speaking to Amendment 92 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and I am grateful for both contributions in this brief discussion.

The amendment seeks to require the establishment of leaseholder-owned management companies for all leasehold flats. I understand the intention to ensure that, by default, all leaseholders of new flats would be responsible for the management of their buildings. The Government support the desire to give more home owners control over the management of their buildings. This Bill is intended to do just that, and will make it cheaper and easier for more leaseholders to own and manage their homes should they wish to.

In some cases, developers have voluntarily set up residents’ management companies to transfer management responsibility to leaseholders. We welcome this, and encourage the industry to adopt this model where appropriate. However, we believe that the best way in which to achieve resident-led management for new buildings is not for government to mandate change to leasehold but to reinvigorate and improve the uptake of commonhold. Commonhold does not require involvement from a third party.

We will reinvigorate commonhold so that it is a genuine alternative to leasehold for new flats. However, there are limitations in the current legal design of commonhold which can limit its use in some settings. We must get any changes right, and preparing the market for the widespread uptake of commonhold will take time. Existing leaseholders can already use the right to manage to take over management responsibility for their building. This is an established, no-fault right that allows leaseholders to take over management responsibility when a majority of leaseholders wish to do so.

There are some situations where the right to manage is not available because leaseholder-led management is not considered appropriate—for example, in largely commercial buildings or where there are social tenants. We believe that it would not be appropriate to apply a blanket provision requiring residents’ management companies for all new buildings without considering where equivalent protections should apply.

Further practical challenges include determining at what point during development and the sale of units management responsibility would be transferred; what position the freeholder would have in the management company if they retained non-residential units or those on short leases; and what protections would be required should leaseholders not wish to take up management responsibilities. Answering these questions would require significant additional consideration—consideration that is ultimately unnecessary because a reinvigorated commonhold is the answer for new buildings, and the right to manage for existing leaseholders makes sure that home owners can already control the management of their building.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Lord Gascoigne Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 29th April 2024 Lords Chamber

I will make one more comment on—

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

Time.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

I will be very brief. Some of the costs that have arisen are as a result of Fire Safety Act and Building Safety Act provisions set up by the Government. Some time ago, I asked the people I work with to set up an online resource, which I commend to noble Lords. It is www.buildingsafetyscheme.org. I hope that it will help a number of people to unpick what is a very complex situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington for Amendment 76A, which seeks to retain the existing enforcement provisions concerning a landlord’s failure to provide information to leaseholders. I am grateful to other noble Lords who took part in this very brief discussion.

I fully agree with my noble friend that it is important to have effective enforcement measures in place where a landlord fails to provide relevant information to leaseholders. The existing measures, including the statutory offence under existing Section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, have historically proven to be ineffective. Local housing authorities, as the enforcement body, are reluctant to bring prosecutions against landlords, and the cost and complexity of doing so are a significant barrier to leaseholders bringing a private prosecution. That is why we are omitting Section 25 and replacing it with the more effective and proportionate proposals set out in Clause 56 of the Bill. Therefore, I am afraid that we cannot accept the amendment. Not only does it require—

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

In regard to the cost of leaseholders bringing a case, people are now using modern technology, such as crowdsourcing, to raise the funds to take on a landlord. When you have a persistently rogue landlord, this could be your last roll of the dice. It is not an entirely strong argument to talk about leaseholders not having the means; that is often the case, and what most of the discussion has been based on. For leaseholders in these very extreme cases—and they are extreme—this is a last resort, and that is why the word “backstop” was used, but people can club together to deal with these situations.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

I am very grateful to my noble friend. I will address the rest of the issues, and hopefully I will pick up some the points he made. Like others, I am grateful for the passion with which the noble Lord speaks about this issue and his own experience of it.

I am afraid we cannot accept this amendment. Not only does it require us to return to the previous arrangements; I would respectfully say that it is not workable. This is because a local housing authority cannot take action against itself; they are one body. That said, I can assure my noble friend and others in the Chamber that there are very strong merits in his argument about the appropriate tribunal not being able to make an order for damages where the landlord is a non-compliant local authority. As has been said, it is not right that local authorities should be exempt from the same standards expected of other landlords. Both the department and the Minister are carefully considering this issue.

I will respond to a couple of points raised by noble Lords, including my noble friend. He raised the issue of damages; we believe that £5,000 strikes the right balance between a deterrent and an effective incentive. I believe it is higher than the existing provisions that a court can award on a summary conviction. The noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Thornhill, asked about the hiatus, or interim, period; I assure noble Lords that it will not change until the new regime is ready. Therefore, with these reassurances, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

I look forward to the Minister’s response and, I hope, to some positive engagement in relation to these amendments.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Bailey of Paddington and Lord Moylan, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for their amendments in this group. I will take them in turn.

Amendment 79, moved by my noble friend Lord Bailey, aims to ensure that insurance brokers’ remuneration is linked to market rates. It also aims to prevent wrongdoing. We share the intent of this amendment and are committed to introducing a fair, transparent and enforceable approach to insurance remuneration. We also recognise that insurance brokers are an important party in the provision of insurance. Given that, this amendment pre-empts the content of secondary legislation. Following Royal Assent, we will consult on what would constitute a permitted insurance payment, then lay the necessary secondary legislation before Parliament. This will clarify what remuneration will be permitted by those involved in the arranging and managing of insurance. My noble friend Lord Bailey spoke with his customary passion. We continue to welcome his views and the Minister remains keen to meet. I hope that, with that reassurance, my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

Amendment 80 was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. I assure all noble Lords that this Government are committed to banning building insurance commissions for landlords and managing agents and replacing these with transparent handling fees, to address excessive and opaque commissions being charged to leaseholders. The amendment seeks that within one year of the day on which Clause 57 comes into force, the FCA conducts a report into the impact of this clause in reducing instances of unreasonable insurance costs being passed on to leaseholders.

We agree in principle with monitoring the impact of the clause and, more widely, that insurance costs must be reasonable. The FCA has been closely monitoring the multi-occupancy buildings insurance market in recent years, has strengthened its rules on fair value, and provides regular updates. The most recent update to the Secretary of State was published on 29 February. We will continue to work closely with the FCA and other stakeholders to develop our secondary legislation and in monitoring buildings insurance. Please be assured that this is an area on which we, and the FCA, are keeping a close eye. I hope that with this reassurance, the noble Baroness will not move this amendment.

Amendments 81 and 81A were tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan; I will take them together. Amendment 81 seeks to exempt right-to-manage companies from the requirement for landlords to apply to the relevant court or tribunal to recover their litigation costs from leaseholders through the service charge. This amendment would apply where the right-to-manage company is exercising the functions of the landlord. Amendment 81A seeks to exempt “non-profit entities” from the requirement for landlords to apply to the relevant court or tribunal in order to recover their litigation costs from leaseholders through the service charge. The amendment provides examples of types of “non-profit entities”, including resident management companies and right-to-manage companies.

Clause 60 seeks to protect leaseholders from being charged unjust litigation costs from their landlord. It does this by requiring landlords to successfully apply to the relevant court or tribunal in order to recover their litigation costs, either through the service charge or as an administration charge. The court or tribunal will make an order that it considers just and equitable in the circumstances.

We understand the intention behind my noble friend’s amendments. The Government recognise the position of resident-led buildings. That is why the reforms also include provision to set out in regulations those matters which the relevant court or tribunal must consider when making an order on an application. The Government will carefully consider the detail of these matters with stakeholders and the tribunal, including where a building is resident-led. We would be concerned that the exemption provided by Amendments 81 and 81A would leave leaseholders with little protection from paying unjust litigation costs where a resident management company or a right-to-manage company is in place. I ask my noble friend not to move his amendments. However, it goes without saying that this is a complex area of reform and we are considering the issue carefully.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

It is unsatisfactory if this is to be left to secondary legislation. Bearing in mind that the directors of the right-to-manage company are elected by the leaseholders, and can be replaced by them, and that they are really one entity, what is to happen if the tribunal decides not to make an award of costs? How are the directors to recover that money and who would become a director in those circumstances if they did not have that assurance in advance?

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

I will have to pick that up at a later date. There are a number of variables in that circumstance. I hope that my noble friend will forgive me for not having an answer to hand. I will certainly take this up with the department, rather than saying something that is incorrect at the Dispatch Box. My noble friend is absolutely right to raise it as an issue. It is under certain circumstances that those individuals find themselves in that situation, but I am more than happy to take that away and then write to my noble friend.

I turn to Amendments 81B to 81E, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan. As I have previously said, Clause 60 seeks to protect leaseholders from unjustified litigation costs by requiring landlords to successfully apply to the court or tribunal to recover their litigation costs from leaseholders. This replaces the right that leaseholders currently have to apply to the courts to limit their liability for landlords’ litigation costs. The relevant court or tribunal will make an order on a landlord’s application that is just and equitable in the circumstances.

Amendments 81B and 81D seek to amend the provision that allows the court or tribunal to make a decision on the landlord’s application for their litigation costs that it considers

“just and equitable in the circumstances”.

Instead, the amendment stipulates that where a landlord is successful in relevant proceedings, the court or tribunal will allow the landlord to recover their litigation costs from leaseholders—unless the landlord has acted unreasonably. We understand the intention behind my noble friend’s amendments—to minimise the amount of court or tribunal hearings. However, the Government have a few concerns with the amendment.

The amendment would mean that the court or tribunal would always need to make an order that the landlord can recover their litigation costs from leaseholders where the landlord had been successful in proceedings in whole or in part. The only exception is where the landlord has acted unreasonably. Of course, where a landlord is successful in bringing or defending a claim, we would expect that the court or tribunal would allow them to recover their litigation costs from leaseholders. However, there may be a range of variables and nuances that occur in disputes which need consideration on a case-by-case basis.

The Government think the relevant court or tribunal is best placed to assess applications for costs, taking into account the circumstances of each case. In addition, the measures currently provide for regulations to set matters which the court or tribunal will consider when making a decision on costs applications, which we will consider carefully with stakeholders and the tribunal.

Amendments 81C and 81E seek to allow landlords to recover their litigation costs, where allowed under the lease, without needing to make an application to the relevant court or tribunal in certain circumstances. These circumstances include where proceedings before the county court are subject to a judgment in default, where litigation costs have been incurred in relation to forfeiture proceedings or where proceedings against a landlord have been struck out or are settled before the first hearing. Again, the Government have concerns about these amendments. For example, if a landlord is unsuccessful in proceedings of forfeiture against a leaseholder, this amendment would allow them to recover their litigation costs from a leaseholder regardless. These amendments would also make the provisions more complex, with different rules applying to different scenarios. We completely understand the intention behind my noble friend’s amendments. However, for these reasons, I ask that he does not press them.

Amendment 82, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Pinnock, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, seeks to prohibit landlords from recovering their litigation costs from leaseholders apart from in excepted circumstances to be set out in regulations. Clauses 60 and 61 already seek to rebalance the litigation costs regime for leaseholders in an effective and proportionate way. As I have previously noted, Clause 60 will require a landlord to successfully apply to the relevant court or tribunal in order to recover their litigation costs from a leaseholder. This applies whether the landlord is seeking to recover their litigation costs as a service charge or an administration charge. I also note that Clause 61 gives leaseholders a new right to apply to the relevant court or tribunal to claim their litigation costs from their landlord. For both landlord and leaseholder applications, the relevant court or tribunal will make a decision on costs in the circumstances of each case. Taken together, these measures will rebalance the litigation costs regime and remove barriers to leaseholders challenging their landlord. We believe the Government’s approach strikes the balance of being robust but proportionate. Therefore, I respectfully ask that they do not press this amendment.

Finally, I turn to Amendments 82A and 82B from my noble friend Lord Moylan. Currently, in the tribunal and for particular court tracks, leaseholders can claim their litigation costs from their landlord only in very limited circumstances even when they win. This may deter leaseholders from being legally represented or from challenging their landlord in the first place. As I have previously said, Clause 61 gives leaseholders a new right to apply to the court or tribunal to claim their litigation costs from their landlord where appropriate. As with the landlord application for costs, the court or tribunal will make an order that it considers just and equitable in the circumstances.

Amendments 82A and 82B seek to amend the new leaseholder right so that it applies only to home owners rather than investor leaseholders. Amendment 82B provides the definition of a “homeowner lease” so that the leaseholder right applies only to a leaseholder of a dwelling which is their only or principal home. Exempting certain leaseholders from this right would restrict access to redress where we are seeking to remove barriers. For example, there may be instances where a leaseholder who privately lets their flat needs to take their landlord to court because they are failing to maintain the building, which is impacting their property. In these circumstances, we would want the leaseholder to feel able to hold their landlord to account. Providing leaseholders with rights, regardless of whether they are home owners or investors, is in line with the approach we have taken throughout the Bill. Such an exemption would be out of step and will add complexity to the measures. Therefore, I ask my noble friend not to press his amendments.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

May I ask the indulgence of the Committee? I should have declared when I spoke—as I did earlier in debate—that I live in a building which is run by a right-to-manage company of which I am a director, as is shown in the register of interests. I should have said that in my opening remarks, but I hope I will be forgiven for adding it now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for introducing Amendment 84. The arguments that the noble Baroness made were the very reason why we should end leasehold and move towards commonhold. I hope the Minister can clarify some of the important concerns that she has raised.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for her Amendment 84, which seeks to ensure that potential property purchasers understand the ongoing obligations of a leasehold property they are thinking of purchasing. I share the noble Baroness’s concern that purchasers should know about service charges and ground rent before they move into their home. Speaking personally, I completely understand the stress and frustration when you receive a bill that you knew nothing about.

The National Trading Standards Estate and Letting Agency Team has developed guidance for property agents on what constitutes material information when marketing a property. This information should be included within property listings to meet their obligations under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. The guidance specifies that tenure and the length of the lease are material and therefore should be included in the property listing. Ongoing charges, such as service charges and ground rent, are also considered material, as they will impact on the decision to purchase. This means that purchasers get information on the lease and expected level of ongoing financial obligations when they see the property particulars, so before they have even viewed the property, let alone made an offer. In addition, the measures that we are including in this Bill to require leasehold sales information to be provided to potential sellers mean that conveyancers acting on behalf of sellers will be able to quickly get the detailed information they need to provide to potential purchasers. This would include information about service charges and ground rent, as well as other information to help a purchaser make a decision, such as previous accounts.

The Government support significant provision of advice for leaseholders through the Leasehold Advisory Service, an arm’s-length body providing free, high-quality advice to leaseholders and other tenures by legally trained advisers. The Government have also published a How to Lease guide aimed at those thinking of purchasing a leasehold property, to help them to understand their rights and responsibilities, providing suggested questions to ask and suggesting how to get help if things go wrong. This guide will be updated to reflect the provisions in this Bill.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

Is my noble friend the Minister comfortable that that information is freely distributed? It would take only a very cursory conversation with leaseholders to find out that they know nothing of most of leasehold law—anything from ground rent to the fact that your service charge can be changed from underneath you. That means that the information that is there has clearly not been absorbed. What attempt will be made to make that information universal? People are talking about changing what leasehold is called, but this is the first time that I have heard that. I think it is a good idea—but all that information is good for nought if people are not compulsorily seeing it before they sign to buy the property.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My noble friend asks for clarity. I can completely understand some of the circumstances that people face; that is something on which we share the concerns of the noble Baroness in what she is trying to do, and it is something that we will continue to look at—ways of ensuring that people are aware of the information when they are purchasing a property. We will continue to look forward to engaging with all noble Lords in this House. With that reassurance in mind, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, will agree with me that this proposed new clause is not necessary, and I respectfully ask that it is withdrawn.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the proposed new clause is totally necessary—I disagree with the Minister on that—but I understand the need to withdraw. The only thing that I would just clarify is that all the organisations that are run for leaseholders are no good to people who do not know what a leaseholder is when they buy their flat and then find out that they are leaseholders. You do not think of yourself as a leaseholder; you think that you are a home owner. The only people who call themselves leaseholders any more are activists who have discovered how awful it is to be a leaseholder, who then get a different identity. That is what I am getting at.

The Government’s information is very good, and they should make more of it. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, was saying—why do they not plaster it around a bit? It is not fair on first-time buyers, who are the people who are being sold out by this. I know that the Government do not want to do that, but they should do something about it. I beg leave to withdraw.