Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL]

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 9th June 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Stunell (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak in particular about Amendment 1, and the consequential amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. It was great fun to listen to him on Second Reading, with his eloquent flow sweeping away the whole caboodle of leasehold legislation and starting again from square one. That was spoken like a true reformer and radical, which, in his heart, I know he is.

Today the noble Lord was a bit more circumspect, but no less radical, with amendments that would not just reform the system but abolish it completely, starting on day one. That is an attractive proposal, especially to leaseholders—but even more so to lawyers. If implemented as drafted, it would leave a trail of wreckage that should keep lawyers employed for many a long year.

However, I suspect that, as befits a former Chief Whip in the other place, the noble Lord has carefully done his homework behind the scenes. No doubt he has had a word with the Minister and secured a commitment to bring back a government-led amendment on Report to comprehensively reform the entire leasehold regime and implement the recommendations of the Law Commission, and in the meantime to freeze the granting of lease extensions on grossly inequitable terms. If that is so, my noble friends and I will be ready add our names to that amendment, when it comes along.

However, perhaps the noble Lord’s quiet chat with the Minister did not go quite as well as he had hoped, and no such agreement was forthcoming—which may be why today he deferred to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young. Among those, Amendment 12, in particular, sets out in impressive detail a somewhat equivalent plan, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, has just spelt out. At first reading, that amendment would seem to provide less of a free lunch for lawyers than Amendment 1 would, and it is sensible, measured and proportionate, as one would expect from the noble Lord.

In his explanatory statement, the noble Lord describes Amendment 12 as a probing amendment. We certainly welcome that probing of the Government’s position and intentions. We too are concerned by the slow pace of reform, and the fact that the current Bill does nothing for existing leaseholders. Instead, the Government are offering jam tomorrow—or possibly the day after tomorrow—for current leaseholders. At least the noble Lord’s amendments offer us a sniff of jam today. I would encourage the Minister, in his reply, to explain fully to us exactly when he will come back with clear plans to achieve the reforms that the noble Lord has already drafted for him. I thoroughly endorse the noble Lord’s concerns about the gaps that could open up.

We should remember that leaseholders’ organisations desperately want this Bill in place, and the Liberal Democrats support their intentions. There should be no delay in its passage. But the Minister owes it to those leaseholders to commit to delivering a comprehensive reform in the shortest possible time. That is not only the right and equitable course of action, but the best way of avoiding disruption to the market.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to the Law Society’s briefing on the Bill. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the Law Society’s belief that leasehold purchasers and their mortgage providers will, understandably, steer clear of taking out leases under the existing legal framework if they can find a much more favourable lease elsewhere in the market, under the new terms in the Bill. That means that existing leaseholders who are trying to sell will be put at a double disadvantage—not only having to pay outlandish charges but having more difficulty in selling their homes than if they had benefited from the new terms.

That risk to a stable market gets worse the longer the second stage of the reform is delayed. Perhaps the fact that that the noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to hereditary Peers’ legislation speaks to that foreseeable risk of endless delay. Two experienced senior members of previous Conservative Governments have tabled amendments in very similar terms to try to pre-empt that delay—which may be some kind of hint that they lack trust in the Government’s commitment to deliver on the second stage. In the Minister’s reply we need to hear exactly when he, as the responsible Minister, and the Government he represents, will bring forward that follow-up legislation, which we believe is now a pressing priority.

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I apologise that I was not able to take part at Second Reading. Some of your Lordships know that my wife was taken very ill with Covid—in fact, we nearly lost her—and I decided to take her away for a rest. I am pleased to say that she is now pretty well.

There are a couple of interests that I ought to declare. I am a vice-chairman of the Shared Ownership Housing APPG. I have taken a particular interest in care homes, so I will be addressing the Committee on Amendment 4. My friends know that I was chairman of the housing committee in the London Borough of Islington from 1968 to 1971, when there was a fair number of lease challenges. Finally, I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that I welcome the principle behind the Bill and thank Her Majesty’s Government for actually moving things forward.

I do not want to speak for very long on any of the amendments. I understand my roommate’s enthusiasm, which he has for everything in life, and he does cut through the rubbish, usually. It is nice to see someone cut through, bearing in mind that this is a pretty revolutionary Bill to start with. That is one end of the spectrum, and that covers Amendments 1 and 2. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, went into it in great detail. I read with great care what he said at Second Reading and the Government would do well to do the same—I am sure they must have done. He covered what might well be in the next Bill. It should be looked at extremely seriously.

I am concerned—I wrote it down before the noble Lord spoke this afternoon—about the position of existing leaseholders when they come to sell. I think that is a fair question, which the Labour Front Bench raised. That problem will be there unless some action is taken. It certainly cannot wait until the second half of this problem is dealt with in another Bill.

One other area concerns me: the situation, which is not uncommon, particularly in the provinces—I am speaking today from Sandy in Bedfordshire—where a landlord offers a 25-year lease on a residential property at a market or rack rent. That is pretty common in mixed-use scenarios; for example, a shop with a flat above, where the owner wants the commercial and residential parts to be leased out concurrently. In those sorts of circumstances, it seems—some would say absurd but that might be going too far—unusual and strange to expect just a peppercorn rent when a lessee is getting the benefit of living in or renting out the property.

The amendments in this group are absolutely crucial and I too look forward to the Minister’s response.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

I call the next speaker, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Lord Mackay, could you unmute, please? I will move on to the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I very much admire the detailed knowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Best, has of this and many other areas of importance. I heartily agree with him. Your Lordships will appreciate that I may have a special interest in this area, in view of my years.

As a matter of interest, I wonder how the age of 55 was chosen. I hope he may be able to give me a short explanation of that, because it is of interest to me.

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Best. I am in my 80s and, from talking among friends, I am aware of at least two couples who are beginning to think about retirement homes. The noble Lord, Lord Best, is quite right. We discussed this issue before I even knew it was coming up in the Bill.

This sector of the market is, first, growing—that in itself is very encouraging—and as a country we have been a bit slow in this area compared with other countries. Secondly, it is growing in the sense that it was clear, back in my days as an MP, that there was a scepticism about retirement homes with all these extra facilities, but now it is taken as the norm and people are particularly fussy. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, says, a number are caught by this time dimension, it seems sensible that any business that started by the dates he puts in his amendment should be exempt.

I do not understand why 55 was chosen. The retirement age is still going up, so 55 seems a bit generous, frankly. Another 10 on top of it would not have gone amiss, but that is a minor issue. I hope Her Majesty’s Government take the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, very seriously; they need addressing.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, developing adequate housing stock for an ageing population is a significant challenge for this and future Governments. The work of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the publications by his APPG for Housing and Care for Older People have been essential reading in this area. While we recognise that what is now in the Bill is a compromise achieved following a total exemption for retirement homes in the original consultation, and in spite of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Best—whose expertise in this area is significant—when the Minister responds, I still want to understand where the essential difference lies between retirement and other leaseholders, in his or the Government’s opinion. If the straight answer is money required to be spent on common parts, surely a more honest and transparent way to do that is in either the original price or the service charges. However, I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Best, has said today and will study his explanation.

Given that ground rents appear to serve no purpose, as we have already discussed several times and at Second Reading, other than profit for the freeholder or security to borrow to develop more properties, why is this different when applied to retirement homes? I am sure that noble Lords are familiar with the Times investigation into this in November 2019, but it bears revisiting. It uses the example of one retirement property bought for £197,000, in 2009, from the FTSE 250 development company McCarthy & Stone, which was sold for only £26,000 six years later. By the time the flat owner died, she was paying the management company almost £8,000 a year.

The Times went on to say:

“Housebuilders such as McCarthy & Stone argue that without the money they make selling the freehold to management companies they could not afford to provide communal areas for their properties. Yet this is a poor excuse when there are far more transparent ways to raise revenue, such as simply selling their properties for a higher price.”


They often cover that in the service charge. The article continued:

“They insist, moreover, that the majority of their homes have increased in value.”


However, the Times then went on to find that

“one McCarthy & Stone property had lost £45,000 between 2015, when it was bought,”

and 2019. The same investigation found that, as with other leaseholders, elderly relatives are persuaded to use a solicitor who the developer has recommended, who turns out to be the very opposite of an advocate on behalf of the retiree. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, has explained, this group can often be exploited and manipulated.

For those reasons, we are minded to support the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Lennie, but look forward to hearing the arguments in the closing stages of this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender]

This group has two purposes. The first would be to remove Clause 6 altogether to ensure that informal extensions come under the regulations proposed in the Bill; the second, less dramatic amendment would increase transparency in both formal and informal renegotiations or extensions of the existing lease. I shall deal with Clause 6 stand part first.

We see informal leasehold extensions as a significant potential loophole and the next obvious area to exploit for the “something for nothing” industry in this area. Therefore, we wish to ensure that informal leasehold extensions are regulated in the same way. I appreciate that there may be extenuating circumstances where there is a need for an informal extension—for example, if someone inherits a home and needs to make a relatively quick sale on a very short lease—but those circumstances should be the exception, not the rule. I fear that this will become standard practice unless the Government find a comprehensive way to restrict its use. If noble Lords who speak after me in this debate have concerns and examples of the advantages that an informal leasehold extension provides, I am more than happy to hear suggestions of better solutions than this, but the key question for this debate is how to prevent informal extensions being used, as they currently are, to exploit leaseholders and how that can be reflected in the Bill.

I will be using, in particular, specific examples provided in a detailed blog on this issue by Louie Burns. Sadly, he died a year ago. He was a trustee of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and an expert practitioner in the area of leasehold extensions. I have taken the liberty of sharing the link to his blog with noble Lords participating in the debate on this group of amendments.

Louie Burns called such offers “Trojan horse offers”. He described an offer from a real case he dealt with, made by a large London-based freeholder, on a property valued at £230,000 with a ground rent of £75 a year, doubling every 33 years, and a current lease of 75 years. The cost of extending the lease using statutory legal rights would be a total of £13,250, securing a lease of 165 years with zero ground rent.

Often, the freeholders in this scenario are professional money makers. They make money from licensing fees hidden in the lease, through claiming a finder fee for the building insurance, when people have no choice as to who building insurance is provided by, through service charges and ground rent—and, of course, through money paid to extend the lease.

The freeholder writes to the leaseholder offering to extend the lease back up to 99 years—which means that, 17 years later, the lease will need extending again —for £10,200, plus VAT of £1,000, with ground rent at £250 doubling every 10 years, with a short deadline of 30 days to make a decision offered by the freeholder. In the small print, of course, the leasehold is extended only to 99 years—or the freeholder may offer 125 years, without explaining that the extension is from the date that the lease was originally granted, not the date of the extension offered.

Louie Burns went on to explain how the costs described, over a 24-year period, added up to more than £100,000, which will go to the freeholder. Please remember that this is a specific real case, which he provided as an example. When compared, unfavourably, with the statutory route, costing about £13,000, with zero future ground rent, that is beyond shocking. We need to bring this sharp practice under some form of regulation.

The other option is to accept Amendment 13, which would impose an obligation to explain. If leaseholders had the full picture and knew both their statutory rights and the full costs over 24 years, say, they would have much greater control. The alternative is an informal extension to 99 years—which, as I said, would have to be renewed 17 years later, and then in turn makes the flat impossible to sell, and prohibitively expensive to maintain, with the ground rent alone.

An informal extension of a lease also means that the leaseholder is not protected by the law, and the freeholder can make changes by saying things such as:

“We are not looking to amend your lease in any way, we will only modernise the terms of your lease.”


Louie Burns, in his blog, told people to beware of the term “modernise” as used here, because it means “amend”. An informal leasehold extension is a quick route for a freeholder to add additional payment. It is also a quick route for a solicitor to receive a fee—which may explain why, often, solicitors do not give a warning.

The statutory route is slower. With banks and building societies now showing reluctance to lend for such leasehold arrangements, yet again, the person who suffers the most, and is caught between freeholder and lender, and cannot sell, is the leaseholder, who has received minimal information. Sometimes Ministers like to solve such transparency issues through guidance. But if the aim is to ensure that the freeholder complies with the law, I suggest that the transparency approach should be in the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has done us a great service. We have all read about these situations. I am not aware of the details of any of them, but there has been enough coverage in the responsible media for me to see that this is a problem. I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to address it.

I assume that in this group we are also dealing with my noble friend Lord Young’s Amendment 12, although I notice that it is not listed. It says “After Clause 6”. Is that after this debate?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

It was in the first group.

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

We have dealt with that one, have we?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

Yes, we have.

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

I apologise. I very much support what the noble Baroness said. I need do no more than ask my noble friend on the Front Bench to take it really seriously.

Northamptonshire (Structural Changes) (Supplementary Provision and Amendment) Order 2021

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Thursday 4th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I support the Minister and thank him so much for bringing this order forward. My first involvement in local government goes way back to 1968, when I had the privilege of leading the team that won Islington Borough Council, in effect winning every seat. Admittedly, Harold Wilson was rather unpopular at the time—another turnaround situation.

My first involvement with Northampton itself started 1972, when new boundaries had been agreed and Northampton South and Northampton North were looking for candidates. I put my name in and was told that Northampton South was a long shot, but I was not put off and, while I was on holiday in the south of France in the July, I got a telephone call asking if I would come back for an interview. Obviously, I did, and I was selected and flew back to what turned out to be a brilliant holiday.

The election was in February 1974. Mine was a marginal seat: my majority was 179. On the first count, it was minus 200-odd. On the second count, it was near enough level, and on the third count, I got 179—a good win. In October 1974, there was another election with a swing against my party, and I succeeded by 141; there was no personal swing against me, and the success was primarily due to tracking those who had moved from my best ward. As such, I say a huge public thank you again to the electors of Northampton South, who stuck with me through thick and thin until the disaster of 1997.

I turn to Northampton itself and the county. Northampton is a fourth-generation new town—it made a huge success of that, and I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that we should do something similar today, though maybe on a smaller scale. I am still involved today: as president of Northamptonshire County Cricket Club, the Steelbacks, and at the University of Northampton—which is doing so well—the Saints, the rugby team, and Silverstone racing track. That involvement is still there. I pay tribute to the leadership of those days: George Pollard, John Lowther, Bill Morton, Jack Corrin, Ann Addison, Anne Goodman and the aldermanic bench. There was good liaison in those days with the MPs; indeed, I remember marching along the Embankment in the early days, seeking proper funding for Northamptonshire in toto.

Turning to the specifics, there is little purpose going over what went wrong. Frankly, it is exceedingly embarrassing to see my county in such a difficult situation. To the outsider, it seems to have been a combination of poor leadership, not putting the council tax up to a realistic level, installing a corporate structure that was not suited and, I am afraid, the top councillors clearly not keeping their eye on the ball.

I must now, quite rightly, focus on the future. It is a wonderful, dynamic part of England—right in the middle, with wonderful connections. I wondered about the break-up of the unitaries, because I live in Bedfordshire, which has three—two big towns and the middle bit where I live—but having looked at the details of Northamptonshire, which has five significant towns and a middle bit straddling quite a long way, I think the proposal for west Northamptonshire and north Northamptonshire strikes the correct balance.

The split is there. It seems appropriate, although it is sad that the eight district councils have had to be wound up. That is pretty dramatic; I thank all the councillors on them who have given up so much time. After all the trials and tribulations, it was disappointing that we did not have some elections in 2020 to get going again, but now they are to go ahead in a few months’ time.

I have studied the order in some depth, as my noble friend on the Front Bench will understand. I see at paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum, as he has referred to, that there are amendments to the Lieutenancies Act 1997 and the Sheriffs Act 1887. I thank my noble friend for ensuring that, in other words, there is to be no change to the boundary of the ceremonial county of Northamptonshire or to the functions of the Lord-Lieutenant or the High Sheriff of Northamptonshire. I admire both present incumbents and many other previous ones.

I looked at the pension fund in some depth—I declare an interest as a trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund—and seek reassurance that this will be closely and properly audited before it is formally handed over. I am sure there is nothing wrong there; nevertheless, given that the county council’s financial situation got into such a mess, I and, I am sure, the people of Northamptonshire wish to be reassured that what is being handed over is in proper order and that the pension fund is solvent to deal with and look after our pensions.

I formally pay my thanks to the senior inspector, Max Caller CBE, for the careful work he did on analysing the situation, recognising that there was no way of carrying on as a county council and that we had to move forward.

I will now look at the future in a little more depth. It is a proud county, and there will still be many organisations county-wide. I have mentioned Northamptonshire County Cricket Club, in which I declare an interest as president, a really well-run club that is succeeding well. Equally well run are the Saints; both have good structures, with strong chairmen and active boards. We have a university that came out of a further education college and a teacher training college, today ranking close to the top of the second division of universities. I pay great tribute to the vice-chancellor and his team for what they have done there. There will also be other county things such as the arts world and music, so we can all hold our heads up proudly that the geographical dimension of Northamptonshire is still very much there.

I cannot resist a brief word about the Battle of Naseby, on 14 June 1645, where Fairfax and Cromwell defeated the King and, in effect, led our country to meaningful parliamentary government—hence why I took the name, with the blessing, I emphasise, of Naseby Parish Council. I am still deeply involved in many parts of the county. Mentioning the battle again, there is a wonderful trail with viewing platforms for those who are interested.

Every unitary council today, after Covid, faces a huge challenge, none more so than the two newer ones. Northamptonshire people and businesses have dynamism and respected companies, with names that are well-known worldwide: Church’s shoes, British Timken, Barclaycard, Silverstone itself—with wonderful companies such as Cosworth and all the others—to mention a few.

But there is an immediate challenge for the two new councils: the new wave of cash grants for hospitality and high street firms. Those councils will be in charge of the distribution and I know that others elsewhere have not been too good at that. I look to the two new unitary authorities to be in the vanguard, so that when the distribution has been done, my noble friend the Minister will be able to stand up and say, “They’ve done a good job.” I look to the two new Northamptonshire unitaries to be in that vanguard and I say to them publicly that I am available to help in any way possible, as I imagine all the Members of Parliament for the county are too.

Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill

Lord Naseby Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 18th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I wish to address the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill, and much of my comments will reflect the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Thurlow. Although this is a short and, I suppose, on the surface relatively uncontroversial Bill, amending the date of the next revaluation for business rates to 1 April 2023, it presents a key opportunity to raise the Government's awareness of the need for a complete overhaul of the business rates system—and, in particular at this time, to save shops by giving them a lower and simpler cost base from which to operate in future.

The Minister will know that retail is a sector that generates about £20 billion in taxes and contributes about £7.5 billion in business rates each year, largely from the high streets and town centres, with further tax contributions made throughout the supply chain. The burden of business rates has risen extremely high in the past 30 years, up from an average of 35p in the pound of rateable value in 1990 to more than 51p, causing business failures, store closures and job losses. The problem for physical retail is accentuated by the rise of online retail and is most acute in the north and the Midlands, adding to the business pressures on those communities.

Frankly, in my judgment, the system is broken. From my past activities in the Commons—that is why I took 1990 as a reference point—and before that as leader of the London Borough of Islington, I believe that business rates have always been a challenge. Now we have a pressing need for a fair system of taxation for business. We need an urgent plan to keep rates at manageable levels to save jobs and retain the character of our shopping places, town centres and high streets. I have done some consultation with the industry, and there are three points it would have me make, which I now make—and agree with. First, we should reduce and fix the uniform business rate from the current 51p-plus rate back to somewhere near 30p, so that it more closely reflects physical retail’s share of sales in the 2020s. Secondly, we should introduce annual business rates revaluation from 2023, to ensure that business rates are fair and accurately reflect market conditions. Thirdly, we should abolish downwards transitional phasing to further support the recovery of the retail sector.

In the immediate term, the Government need urgently to commit to continuing the Covid-19 business rate holiday for retail. The industry itself has accepted that at the end of the current system, a 50% rate would seem appropriate. However, we now have a somewhat different situation because of a significant rise in Covid-19 cases, which has led to the current lockdown. We now see it as vital for the Government to sustain the current relief at 100% until the end of the pandemic to enable retailers and businesses to make the decisions needed now to ensure their survival and recovery next year.

I understand that the industry supports April 2023 as the next revaluation date, but has real concerns about the antecedent valuation date—the AVD—set for 1 April 2021. This would mean that the new rating assessments and rate bills in 2023 would be based on the state of the economy and property rental value at 1 April this year. Given the current lockdown and the prognosis for it to be lifted not before Easter, retail will not have recovered from the economic losses experienced by successive lockdowns for this now to be the appropriate date for revaluation.

Reliable market retail data, which is the basis of AVD, will not be available until at least April 2021 and maybe not until the following January. I therefore urge my Government to defer the AVD, which is specified in secondary legislation, so that it will not affect the primary legislation. I conclude by saying once again that this debate on this Bill provides a unique opportunity to highlight the need for fundamental business review.

Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, ever since I entered public life when I was chairman of the housing committee of the London Borough of Islington and its leader, I have taken a specialist interest in housing. I sat for a new town, Northampton, for 23 and a half years, which was a good experience for the wide spectrum of housing, whether affordable, council housing or unoccupied, and since I lost my seat in 1997, I have been a non-executive director of Mansell, which builds extensively in London and is now part of Balfour Beatty. I therefore claim a little of experience here.

My noble friend on the Front Bench should be proud of what the Government have achieved, particularly in 2019. You have to go beyond the Blair period to see the scale of change that has happened. It is all very well for noble Members opposite to talk about council housing, and so on—just look at the figures achieved under the Blair and Brown Governments, and even under the coalition Government. I therefore say to my noble friend on the Front Bench: keep going. This is a useful addition. It is not that revolutionary; it is not hugely incremental, with a target of 800 per annum. But it helps. It may not be achieved, certainly in the first few years, but I suspect that when we look back on it, 8,000 in 10 years probably will be achieved, and that will be a useful addition to the housing market.

Of course there are concerns, and I share some of them. The construction has to be appropriate and has to be safe, particularly from fire. We know why—we know what has happened in not so recent times. I am not sure there is a definition of adequate natural light, but that is clearly an important dimension, as are detailed floor plans. I am also not sure why this excludes the pre-war blocks, because if you look at London and some of our other major cities and towns, some developments were of a lower scale and could easily take a couple more storeys.

I am reassured. I believe there has been good consultation—I read the whole document right the way through—and I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench, even if the official review is in five years, it would be helpful to the House and to those who take a particular interest in this market to have a review after three.

Finally, it is all very well for the Opposition to state that seemingly all property developers are rogues. They are not—they do a good job. I look forward to seeing this thing on the statute book so that we can get the contractors and developers cracking.

Mobile Homes (Requirement for Manager of Site to be Fit and Proper Person) (England) Regulations 2020

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I also welcome the broad thrust of these proposals. I pay great tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for persevering with his Private Member’s Bill. I note that the first review took place in 2017; it seems important that there be another review in another three years at an absolute maximum.

I do not want to repeat what the noble Lords, Lord Kirkhope, Lord Best and Lord Campbell-Savours, have said, but they made very valid comments. I shall just say that I was a leader of a local authority for a number of years, and we always had problems with the Gypsy community. That is going back quite a few years; nevertheless there are still challenges in that area, and I wonder how the local authorities will be able to deal with those challenges. It is not too far-fetched to think that they will still be wrestling with the results of Covid-19 in the early part of 2021. If that is the situation—and we debated earlier today the roles of local authorities, which are very extensive in relation to Covid-19—I just wonder whether those local authorities are going to have the resources and, more importantly, the skill to do the job. My noble friend on the Front Bench may well remember that in the early days of health and safety regulations, the key problem was the lack of skilled manpower at a local authority level to carry out the relevant objectives.

Finally, I used to own a mobile home in France, although my daughter owns it now. The French had a similar problem to ours, not to the extent of the Traveller community but in general terms. They produced a special tax, a sort of extra rate, called the taxe d’habitation, to finance qualified people to do proper inspections of these sites. With that, I will support what is proposed this afternoon.

Insolvency Act 1986 Part A1 Moratorium (Eligibility of Private Registered Providers) Regulations 2020

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Friday 24th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is a particular privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. She really is the best ferret there is on your Lordships’ Benches in the areas where she has an expertise.

Many Members will realise that I have been interested in social housing from the days when I was elected to the London Borough of Islington—the first Tory leader in that century. I was not only the leader—I chaired the housing committee. That interest in the mutual movement has stayed with me, which is one of the reasons why I am making a short speech today. Your Lordships took through the Mutuals’ Deferred Shares Act 2015, so I have been fairly active in this world.

For once, I can actually say a firm word of praise for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and for Her Majesty’s Treasury. They thought ahead and have been in a position to help if, tragically, any of the private registered providers of social housing found themselves in real financial difficulty. To them I say thank you so much—it is really good that my Government have looked ahead and taken some action.

I have only a couple of questions. Is this likely to apply only to newcomers? We see in the briefing memorandum that there are 322 in toto. Is there any geographical spread that may lead to particular difficulties? Would I be correct in saying that this will not affect any of the traditional long-term trusts such as Peabody and all the others, some of which were created over a century ago?

I also wonder a little why Northern Ireland is not covered. When I was a PPS in Northern Ireland, I was very much aware of the social housing movement there. I wonder why it would appear from the memorandum that Scotland has been added but not Northern Ireland.

Finally, paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:

“Financial difficulties in the social housing sector are rare”—


yes, we know that—

“and where they have arisen in the past have been resolved within the sector.”

Is my noble friend on the Front Bench saying that because of the incidence of Covid-19 and the massive effect it is having across all sectors, there is a worry that this traditional route of solving problems will probably not work, which is why we have this SI in front of us today?

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

Lord Empey has withdrawn from this debate, so the next speaker is the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia.

Business and Planning Bill

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 13th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I very much support the Bill and admire Her Majesty’s Government for pushing it forward. I say particular thanks to my noble friend Lord Howe, who wrote me a letter about new towns.

I will speak in favour of Amendment 2. I say to my noble friend that for five years of my life I lived opposite a pub, and if you live opposite, adjacent to or close to a pub you expect noise on Fridays and Saturdays, so there is nothing new about that in relation to the Bill. That point should be considered.

I say to my dear noble friends, Lord Holmes and Lord Blencathra, who is my roommate, well done because they have made people think. But, frankly, the average publican will think. He or she is aware of the disabled and of wheelchairs. Maybe they need reminding, and Amendment 2 does that, but for heaven’s sake, this is only a temporary Bill. The only point I would make to my noble friend the Minister is, why do we not review this after six months? After all, the real point of the Bill is the next six months; particularly the summer and autumn. It would be more sensible to review it towards the end of this year, around December, in readiness for next year. The need is self-evident. I support the amendment and wish my Front Bench all possible success with the Bill.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I support pavement licences not only for the purposes of the Bill but because, as I said at Second Reading, they have the potential to help knit together communities. But there must—“must” is the operative word—be access for all pavement users. Otherwise, our pavements are not a shared space in the wider sense of the term.

Anyone who knows Berlin and smaller towns in various countries on the continent will see how well this can work. As a pedestrian in Berlin, I do not recall ever having to walk around tables and chairs, which is an important point. The scheme is not working if you cannot walk down the centre of the payment, and where the pavement is wide enough, there is no reason why café furniture cannot be split into two sections so that it can be right up against the road or fence between for safety.

I am sure that there is a whole art to this, but things such as large wooden tubs with flowers and large umbrellas marking the corners of the café territory can give the area a structure that is both open and rigid, so that pedestrians know precisely where they can walk on a predictable, routine basis. That is extremely important, particularly in the context of the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Low. You should be able to walk down a pavement and know precisely where you will be walking on different days.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hayward (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I first thank the noble Earl for his letter, which he sent in response to a number of the comments I made on Second Reading. I greatly appreciate the consideration that both he and the officials have given to the variety of points I made at the time.

I pick up on the response the Minister gave on one particular matter in the last group of amendments. I considered putting in to speak on both these groups but decided to concentrate on just one. On the question of marking out, possibly by some form of barrier, I acknowledge that you could create a real difficulty in blocking pavements by putting in another barrier, but in this day and age when you can rope off sections, the vast majority of establishments would not take up a large area by doing so. I ask the Minister not to mandate a requirement, but to encourage all restaurants to give serious consideration to some form of identification or demarcation of an area.

On these amendments and the comments by my noble friend Lord Balfe and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, we are talking here about restaurants and events in the summer. I support her in her observations on the comments made on the radio yesterday about Soho; it was a marked change. On an earlier group, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, made the comment that, as far she could assess, the problems in Richmond in most cases arose not specifically from the pubs or restaurants, but from off-sales and people wandering around areas with drink they had bought in an off-licence rather than a restaurant.

On the timescales involved, I have sympathy with the issue of seven to 14 days, particularly at this time of year, and do not necessarily believe that it would be unfair on an applicant. We are dealing with the summer. It is important that we make progress because, after all is said and done, summer in Britain does not last very long. If we delay unduly, the restaurants will not get the benefit, but it is difficult for a council and residents to register concerns.

Having said that, I have a point in relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said. I have in front of me a letter from one of the central London councils. It is a parking offence and is not mine but my lodger’s. It was sent out by the council and says it starts counting from the day it was sent; I think that is standard procedure for notices. My lodger was told he had to make the payment within the set days. Although I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about some matters, what is relevant here is that at this time of year it is difficult for residents and councils to deal with matters if an application goes to one or two people who happen to be on holiday. As my noble friend Lord Lucas said, it may involve different local authorities and there may need to be cross-consultation.

Unless there is a strong case for it to be seven days, I certainly support the idea that there should be 14 days of consultation rather than seven. Having said that, as I understand it, many of the obligations imposed as a result of these amendments are already imposed on applicants for such licences and the local authorities giving consideration to them. I am willing to be corrected on that, either by another supporter of the amendments or by the Minister.

[Lord Naseby [V]]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Noakes should have been listened to. I say again that I lived opposite a pub; I knew the publican. I knew the local councillor for the ward in Islington. In my own ward, up in Highview, I knew where the pubs were. I cannot believe that in this day and age and at this point in time, the local councillors do not know which of their pubs are considering making use of this legislation. I am certain they do. Furthermore, I suspect all the local residents know exactly which pubs are likely to want to do this pavement extension business, so I say to my noble friends: we need to get on with it.

I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. I remember the days when I was the leader of the London Borough of Islington and say that, if anything was stretched out, it was when we were discussing joint issues with Haringey—but that was a long time ago. Seven days is pretty reasonable at this point in time. I say to your Lordships: let us get on with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on bringing forward this amendment and I support it. If I may presume to say so, we were together as part of the health team in the coalition Government. I am very proud of the fact that we implemented the display ban on tobacco in shops and brought in the ban on vending machines, which was particularly important in restricting the access to tobacco and cigarettes for young people. I also initiated the consultation that led subsequently to standardised packaging.

Between 2011 and 2018, the proportion of adults in this country who were smoking went down, as the noble Baroness suggested. It has gone down from nearly 20% to below 15%. Most encouragingly, among 18 to 24 year-olds the reduction has been largest: from 25.8% down to 16.7%. There has been a reduction of more than one-third in the number of young people smoking—the 18 to 24 year-olds. That is one of the reasons why the impact of this issue in relation to pubs, clubs, restaurants and the like is particularly important for young people who are out and about.

I want to make three points. First, we are in the midst of a health crisis. In a health crisis, which is probably demonstrating to us that one of the underlying factors that has not helped us is the poor underlying health of many people in this country, we must do everything we can to try to improve population health in this country. We have not done enough and need to do more. We must prioritise public health and, by extension, if this amendment were taken on board this measure—modest as it may be in the overall scheme of things—would move us in the right direction.

My second point comes to the point made just now by my noble friend Lady Noakes. It is an important one. This is a temporary measure and would be specific in relation to new licences, but the essence of this Bill is that it will give an opportunity for premises which have previously been licensed for indoors to move outdoors; it gives an opportunity for licensed premises to operate on pavements and the like. In effect, what it says is, “We are extending the public space.” In my view, as we extend the public space, so we should extend the protections for the public that go with it. That means a ban on second-hand, passive smoking for those people who are enjoying that opportunity.

I shall make a third point. I am reminded of when my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and I worked together on a little conspiracy of our own when we were in the other place: the ban on smoking in public places. I was the shadow health Secretary at the time. The nature of our conspiracy was that we secured the agreement of the whips that there would be a free vote. So I very much hope that neither my noble friend nor I will have to vote against a government whip on this matter. The Government could adopt exactly the same approach and give noble Lords in this place a free vote on the amendment. They might also do the same in the other place, and we shall see where we end up on the basis of the arguments. We implemented a ban on smoking in public places on a free vote and, in these circumstances, I think that we might well extend that ban on the same basis for this measure.

[Lord Naseby [V]]

My Lords, this is not a health Bill, as my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out; it is a temporary measure. I am sorry to say this, but I think that this is an emotional amendment—and I speak as someone who is a non-smoker. I would remind your Lordships that tobacco is a legal product that is marketed with awareness packaging. Moreover, we need to take on board that we are talking about the nearly 7 million people in our population who still smoke, plus the 3.6 million who are vaping.

A great deal has been said about smoke curling around people who are eating and so on, but in an outdoor situation, tobacco smoke is highly diluted and dissipates very quickly in almost every atmospheric condition. It is absolutely right that smokers have a responsibility to behave properly towards the people around them, particularly when they are accompanied by children.

The proposal being put forward in this amendment to force pubs and cafés to ban smoking outside their premises—otherwise they will be refused permission to serve drinks—is wholly disproportionate. At a time when all our small businesses are on their knees, struggling to survive under the pressure of coping with Covid-19, I suggest that the last thing they need is further restrictions that will drive away desperately needed customers.

I am not saying that this measure would not be appropriate in a proper health Bill at some point, as soon as the authorities deem it to be relevant to take a particular action one way or another—but to hang this ban on to a temporary Bill that is designed to help every small business, not just those whose customers are not smokers, is entirely wrong in my view.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

Can we get the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, back?

Covid-19: Local Government Finance

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh]

I can give a commitment that funding will extend beyond a few well-known names to the important local theatres and museums that are often supported by local authorities. I cannot give the noble Baroness the precise extent to be distributed via local authorities and will have to write to her with further information on that.

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

I was formerly the leader of a local authority in London, as was the Minister. We both appreciate how important local authorities are to the public. Yesterday, we had the Second Reading of the very important Business and Planning Bill. It will have implications for local authority expenditure, and some charges, I imagine. Is the Minister in a position to confirm that the Government will make sure that all those costs are covered? Finally, on care homes and social care, the Government have to recognise that procedures were not adequate for the transfer of patients from hospitals to care homes, in the early stages of the pandemic. There were huge costs incurred and the Government must pick up the bill. Can the Minister confirm that that will be looked at?

Covid-19: Local Government Finance

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh]

As we have said, our focus is on covering both the demand pressures and the income deficit and on providing the comprehensive package that will ensure that council tax payers do not face that unnecessary burden.

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

Is the Minister aware, as a former leader of the London Borough of Islington, that key revenue streams in summer come from recreation, particularly by cricket clubs using council-owned pitches? Why on earth are the Government preventing men, women and young cricketers from playing just club cricket?

[Lord Greenhalgh]

I know of my noble friend’s love of the game of cricket. I am sure that we can take that up with the Ministers responsible.