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.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Lord Gascoigne Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, and my noble—and actual—friend Lord Moylan for their valuable contributions at Second Reading, and for the amendments that they have put forward which seek to alter the Government’s current position on marriage value and hope value. I say on behalf of my noble friend the Minister that we are grateful for all the time and engagement with the right reverend Prelate on this issue, along with the Church Commissioners and the charities which she has spoken to today.

In addition, we are grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this group and on the somewhat excited group previously. As has been noted, a lot of the points that I will speak to were covered in the previous discussion. I also say to the right reverend Prelate that we are always happy to meet. In answer to the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Pinnock, the Minister is more than happy to engage with any noble Lord who is impacted by this, as well as charities, to discuss it further.

Amendments 28 and 46 would exempt freeholders who are charities at the time of the Bill receiving Royal Assent from the removal of the requirement for leaseholders to pay marriage value, and for hope value to be payable. Before I go into detail, I reiterate the Government’s wholehearted recognition of the vital role and work that charities provide in our communities up and down the land, as has been noted by my noble friend Lord Bailey.

However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, explained previously, we do not believe that leaseholders should pay marriage value. The leaseholder needs to enfranchise to prevent financial loss from the running down of their lease, and to prevent their losing possession when it ends. As has been said, we do not believe that their position, which concerns their security in their home, should be used as a basis for requiring them to pay more than a third party to enfranchise, nor that the freeholder should profit by way of windfall by selling to the leaseholder as compared to a third party. Under our valuation scheme, the freeholder is compensated as if the lease ran its course.

The good work of a charity is separable from its funding. Requiring leaseholders of charities, for no other reason than the coincidence of the nature of their freeholder, to pay marriage value when other leaseholders do not have to would be, I am afraid to say, unfair. Granting exemptions would also create an unbalanced two-tier system. By removing marriage value across the board, we will level the playing field and ensure that we are widening access to enfranchisement for all leaseholders, both now and in the future.

There have been a couple of references to the National Trust. Briefly—as I know it has been covered previously in this debate—it is a different scenario given that its land is inalienable and cannot be sold, yet it is not exempt from the removal of marriage value. I am not aware of the case that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, mentioned, but I am certainly more than happy to look into it for him. I assume—and it is only my assumption—that it is because it is for the National Trust as an entity to decide, but I assure the noble Earl that I will look into it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked about other charities that may be impacted by this beyond those that we have discussed. Again, I am not aware of any, but I am sure that that work has been done by the department. I will certainly take it back and investigate. Further to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, it is something on which we will continue to engage with any noble Lord or any charity that is impacted, as we have done with the right reverend Prelate.

For these reasons, I respectfully hope that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and my noble friend Lord Moylan will understand and therefore not press their amendments.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may address a point he made earlier which was made also by my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. The idea that the Government are peddling, that if a landowner sells a leasehold or freehold interest to a third party, they do not receive marriage value, is to assume gross inefficiency of markets and complete ignorance of market participants. It is of course true that the purchaser would not pay marriage value as a separate sum, but the purchaser is perfectly aware of the potential for marriage value and will pay a price that incorporates that. To assume anything else is to assume that all those clever and evil hedge fund managers are too dim to notice what is going on. It simply is not the case. The line the Government are peddling is simply unfounded in fact and reality.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

Obviously, I completely respect my noble friend, but I think I have answered that point.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which has been somewhat less emotive than the previous one. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his support, and for his description of the good work that is done by the Campden Charities for young people in Kensington. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, who spoke movingly of how that same charity has been part of what has enabled him to become the great asset he is to your Lordships’ House today, and to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his helpful and insightful questions.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for asking whether other charities, including those outside London, are affected. While I cannot guarantee that my list is exhaustive, I am pretty sure that if there are any that we have missed, they would quickly come forward, but I do not think that there are many.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, both for her meeting yesterday and for her support for the matter being further considered. Can we find a workaround that does not disapply the whole principles of the Bill, but which deals with the problem that these particularly good causes are going to suffer as things stand? I am very happy to look at some tighter drafting, as she suggested. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for his response, and for his willingness, and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to continue to engage with us on this matter.

In the previous debate, we were told that compensation for loss of marriage value would be too much of a strain on the taxpayer. We are talking about a very much smaller amount here, and I wonder whether that would be a course that we could continue to pursue in further conversations before Report. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for her Amendments 47 and 48, which seek to remove the exception on costs arising from low-value lease extension or freehold acquisition claims. While the Bill includes a new general rule that each side will bear its own costs, we believe that there need to be exceptions in certain circumstances so that the regime is fair for both sides. The low-value cost exception entitles landlords to receive a portion of their process costs from leaseholders in low-value enfranchisement and lease extension claims for flats and houses respectively. We believe that these are necessary provisions that protect landlords from unfair costs.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Lord Gascoigne Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd April 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Gascoigne]

19: Schedule 3, page 151, line 13, at end insert—
“(ea) any combined county authority established under section 9(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would reflect provision that has come into force since the Bill was introduced.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, before I start, I declare that my wife is an employee at the Crown Estate, as set out in the register of ministerial interests.

Government Amendments 19 to 22, in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott, are consequential on the repeal of the right for public authorities to block freehold acquisition and lease extension claims of houses for the purposes of redevelopment. This relates to Section 28 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. Removing this blocker will allow more leaseholders to enfranchise.

The power to block enfranchisement was given to authorities named on a list in the same section of the Act. The list of authorities is, however, used for wider purposes. For example, the list may be used by separate legislation when a lease has reached its end and expired. When this happens, the listed public authorities could apply to the courts to seek possession, for the purposes of redevelopment. These amendments preserve the list and its use for wider current law, as it is moved into Clauses 29 and 38 of the Bill.

Government Amendments 25, 30 to 40, and 49 are also in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott. Government Amendment 32 addresses the enfranchisement valuation procedure regarding “chained” leases—that is where successive long leases of a house are treated as one single long lease. The amendment makes it clear that the exception for market rack-rent leases will apply only where the leaseholder’s current lease is a market rack-rent lease. It will not matter whether a previous lease was a market rent lease. This will protect leaseholders and mean that in the case of chained leases, where a previous lease might have been granted for no, or low, premium, freeholders will be prevented from unfairly gaining through the new valuation scheme.

Government Amendment 39 clarifies the rules on which lease to consider when valuing a lease comprising a chain of leases—treated as one single lease—where one of them was granted for a high rent and low, or no, premium. The amendment states that it is the most recent lease that should be looked at. This will determine whether the ground rent cap should apply in the enfranchisement valuation. This will protect leaseholders and mean that in the case of chained leases, where a previous lease might have been granted for a high ground rent, but for little or no premium, freeholders will be prevented from unfairly gaining through the new valuation scheme.

Government Amendments 25, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 40 are minor amendments that will tidy up the Bill by aligning two different sets of terminology, used to mean the same thing, across the Bill. This will help to avoid any potential for confusion and has no material impact on the valuation provisions in the Bill.

Government Amendment 30 is a minor amendment to Schedule 4. As currently drafted, the Bill would incorrectly require a valuation of a freehold for a lease extension. We are fixing this to align with the new valuation scheme, so that a lease extension will require a valuation of a notional lease. This will ensure that the provision works for lease extensions as intended. This amendment does not change the scope or effect of Assumption 3 in Schedule 4; it simply makes sure that it is phrased correctly.

Government Amendment 49 is a minor correction of a grammatical error in Clause 41 so that it refers to the appropriate tribunal. In this case, the appropriate tribunal can make orders regarding the new right for intermediate landlords to commute—that is, reduce—the rent they pay following lease extensions and ground rent buyout claims by their tenants.

Turning to government Amendments 50, 51, 52, 53 and 56 in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott, as noble Lords are aware, whenever making new legislation, it is of the utmost importance that we review any consequential amendments required to be made, including to other Acts of Parliament. We have therefore conducted a thorough review of how the reforms brought forward in this Bill will require necessary changes. The following amendments focus specifically on consequential changes resulting from Part 2 of the Bill.

Government Amendment 52 is a minor and technical amendment which reflects the movement of material from Section 175 of the Housing Act 1985 into the new Section 7A of the 1967 Act. The amendment preserves a part of the current law which deals with a number of exemptions for the valuation of a freehold acquisition under Section 9(1) of the 1967 Act which will still be available under a “preserved law claim”. This will make sure that the Bill retains the current restrictions and will remove any potential for unintentionally expanding the number of tenants who qualify for a Section 9(1) valuation and consequently for a preserved law claim. Right-to-buy tenants who qualify for enfranchisement rights will be no worse off and benefit in the same way from the new valuation scheme as other leaseholders.

Government Amendment 53 inserts a new clause, which acts as a paving amendment to introduce a new schedule. This new schedule brings together the consequential amendments to other legislation. As a result of this new schedule, government Amendments 50 and 51 remove consequential amendments to the Housing and Planning Act 1986, which are currently contained in Schedule 8; these are now addressed in the new schedule.

Amendment 56 inserts the new schedule, entitled “Part 2: consequential amendments to other legislation”. This new schedule is extensive and brings together the consequential amendments across 19 other Acts into a single place. None of the amendments makes separate, substantive changes, but, rather, the new schedule allows this Bill to mesh with and integrate seamlessly with other legislation. These consequential amendments will: remove provisions which will become obsolete as a result of the changes made by the Bill; enable freehold acquisition claims of houses under Section 9(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 to continue to operate as they do currently, while making sure that provisions in other legislation do not override our new valuation scheme; make clear how to treat the valuation of freehold acquisitions for right-to-buy tenants; preserve the current law so that non-litigation costs payable on enfranchisement do not attract stamp duty land tax, allowing the operations of stamp duty land tax to continue as intended; and make sure that provisions of other Acts governing shared ownership leases will still function properly following the repeal of some shared ownership provisions in the 1967 Act.

Government Amendments 88 and 89 are tidying-up amendments to align the terminology in Clause 77 with terminology used elsewhere in Part 5.

Finally, with sincere thanks to noble Lords for bearing with me and for their patience, I turn to government Amendment 90. This is a clarificatory amendment which seeks to deal with any potential confusion over the extent to which the Bill applies to event fees. As noble Lords may know, some leases require the leaseholder to pay a fee on certain events, such as the sale of the premises or a change of occupancy. These so-called event fees are common in specialist housing for older people. How event fee terms are drafted varies from one lease to the next, as does what the money is used for. This amendment is not concerned with the regulation of event fees; the Government have committed to making event fees fairer and more transparent and will implement agreed Law Commission recommendations when parliamentary time allows. There is a risk in the current drafting of the Bill that the specific nature and purpose of event fees may be regarded as an administration charge under Clause 81. That would, in turn, mean that they are subject to the test of reasonableness, which we do not consider appropriate for a fee of this nature. The amendment therefore sets out a definition of an event fee and makes it clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that any event fee is not to be regarded as an administration charge. I beg to move.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I thank my fellow east Lancastrian, the Minister, for introducing these technical, tidying-up and clarificatory amendments.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

I have spoken ad nauseam about many of these amendments. I too thank my long-lost brother from east Lancashire, the noble Lord, Lord Khan, and say what a pleasure it is to follow him.

Amendment 19 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Gascoigne]

20: Schedule 3, page 152, line 17, leave out paragraph (f)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would reflect that the Development Board for Rural Wales has been abolished.