Residential Leasehold

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, as I have said before, property law is fiendishly complex. It is absolutely right that the Government take the time needed to make sure that the reforms are right. As I have said before, the Government will bring reforms to the leasehold system in this Parliament, but I cannot pre-empt the King’s Speech by confirming at this time what will or will not be in future legislation.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, has my noble friend read the article in last Sunday’s Sunday Times, which outlined the problems facing leaseholders who want to extend their lease? Because of the uncertainty to which the noble Lord has just referred, they do not know whether to extend their lease now or wait until the legislation that has been proposed, which may enable them to extend on fairer terms. This blight is beginning to affect the market in leasehold. Is not it important that the Government are clear as soon as possible as to what their proposals will be?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I understand the concerns, and yes, the Government will be as clear as they possibly can, when they can. Importantly, every leaseholder is in a very different situation and has different considerations. Specialist legal advice should be taken by leaseholders at this time if they are considering enfranchisement or extensions. The Association of Leasehold Enfranchisement Practitioners and the Leasehold Advisory Service can offer that advice to leaseholders, and I urge them to take it in this time, before we can make any further announcements.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 290 in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady Tyler, and the noble Lord, Lord Young. I thank all those who have supported this amendment, in particular the large number of Conservative noble Baronesses I have managed to nobble—it was 16 at the last count, I think —all of whom have indicated their strong support, in principle, for it. I will not bore your Lordships or broadcast my ignorance by opining on the 24 other amendments in this rather large group; I am confident that others will make their own cases at an appropriate, or even inappropriate, point.

We are all aware of the challenges facing parents of young children in the country today. Childcare is too expensive and often extremely hard to access. Even if one is able to afford it, often it is not there. I think we would all agree that, when a parent will lose money if they go back to work because the childcare that they can access is more expensive that what they can earn back in the workplace, the system is not working as it should.

Over the past seven years, the children’s charity Coram—I declare my interest as a governor—has done some research and indicated that prices have risen by 40%, far outstripping inflation and wage growth. However, these price rises have been driven in part by the growing scarcity of childcare services. The Government’s own data shows the systematic underfunding over several years of the so-called free hours, giving nurseries a rather invidious choice between closing down and pushing prices up for the hours that they charge for. The end result is that 5,000 providers closed their doors for good last year. In more than half of local authorities, there is not enough childcare provision for very young children. This is letting families across the country down and is holding back our economy as new parents are forced to give up careers.

Against this backdrop, the Chancellor has announced an extremely welcome massive expansion of government-funded childcare over the next three years. This will see hundreds of thousands of children receive some childcare for free but, potentially, increasing demand for already scarce nursery places. The Government have recognised that this cannot happen overnight but they have not—so far, at least—put in place funding specifically to increase the number and capacity of nurseries. This amendment is by no means the complete solution to the problem but we suggest that it should be part of the picture as we work out just how we are going to deliver on the promises that the Chancellor has made.

It is a long-established principle that, when developers build new homes at scale in what is termed a “major project”, they must contribute towards the extra public service capacity that these developments take up. Whether they are schools, GP surgeries or public transport links, these contributions help to ensure that a major development is acceptable and additive to local communities. Unfortunately, one area where this simply is not happening is the provision of childcare services and facilities. Over the past five years, around £35 billion has been raised from developers to fund affordable housing and community infrastructure. About a third of that has been spent on infrastructure such as repairing roads and extending or building new schools. However, of that £35 billion, the total amount that has been spent on childcare provision is £22 million, which is not very impressive. That is equivalent to £1 for every £1,667 raised from developers—a slight imbalance, perhaps.

There are some areas that have done well. In East Sussex, over £900,000 has been spent on expanding two nurseries. On the Isle of Wight, £200,000 has been spent on extending a family centre. In Knowsley, in Liverpool, almost £2 million has been spent on two new nurseries. However, these represent a disappointingly small set of areas. In responding to a freedom of information request to identify what they had or had not done, more than 90% of local authorities indicated that they had not spent a single penny of developer contributions on childcare or early years support. Since the guidance on both the community infrastructure levy and Section 106 contributions does not mention early years settings at all, this should not come as a great surprise.

Amendment 290 would not force local authorities to spend their money differently. All it would do is make it crystal clear and explicit to them that they can do so and that, in doing so, they will potentially help the Government to deliver on their commitments and policies. Local authorities have focused primarily on schools, not early years provision. While early years provision is meant to be understood as being implicitly included in the schools category, it is mostly not being included or considered at all. On Report in the other place, the Minister, Lucy Frazer, said that

“it is crucial that children get the support, care and education they deserve. It must be the case that nurseries and pre-schools fall within the definition of ‘schools and other educational facilities’”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/12/22; col. 962.]

However, the clear evidence from the freedom of information data is that, 90% of the time, that simply is not happening. I am sure that this is not wilful or intentional neglect; I just think that local authorities do not regard early years provision as a priority to be fully considered. All our amendment asks the Government to do is to make it explicit, rather than implicit, that the need for childcare services should be taken into account. It asks the local authority

“to publish a statement explaining why … they did or did not”

allocate funding or support to childcare services.

At Second Reading, I mentioned that I had undertaken some research on behalf of the Minister to find, given her distinguished 10-year tenure as the leader of Wiltshire Council, a term in Wiltshire dialect that would clarify the intent of this amendment. The noun that I found was “jiffling”, which, in everyday English, means “confusion”. I hope the Minister will agree that, of the myriad amendments that she has dealt with so far and will deal with in future, this is one of the more straightforward, more diplomatic and least contentious ones. It is also fully aligned with the direction and intent of government policy and its purpose, which is simply to eliminate the possibility of any jiffling when local authorities evaluate the potential need for childcare services when reviewing any major project. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and add a brief footnote to the speech he made on Amendment 290, to which I have added my name. As he said, the amendment makes it explicit that the infrastructure levy can be used to make childcare accessible and affordable.

I will make four brief points. First, in standing back and looking at total expenditure on all ages of children under 18, I believe we spend too low a percentage on under-fives and too great a percentage on older age groups, in terms of outcome both for society as a whole and for the individual child. I believe that a pound’s worth of investment spent earlier yields a greater return than if spent later. This is not the time to defend that assertion, but it is relevant to the debate.

Secondly, I therefore welcome the priority the Government have recently given to childcare, with £204 million of additional funding this year increasing to £288 million by 2024-25, on top of the £4.1 billion previously announced, together with earlier announcements about family hubs.

Thirdly, in expanding free entitlement, if that additional funding is inadequate, there is a risk that, as the noble Lord just said, providers continue to remove themselves from the market or reduce the quality of care provided. If the latter happens, it would place the priority of providing employment opportunities for parents above the purpose of child development. Increasing the demand for childcare places by making it cheaper without increasing funding for staff salaries may make it harder to find a nursery space in the first place. At the moment, it is not at all clear where the extra places will come from. Sam Freedman, an author and political columnist, posted the following on Twitter:

“we haven’t been given a figure for the new hourly rate but based on the overall cost for 3+4 year olds (£288m for 2024/5) it looks way too low. We proposed adding in £2bn to make it sustainable”.

Fourthly, the current business model for much of childcare relies on cross-subsidy from the better-off parents who can afford the extra hours to make good the gap in statutory funding. I was rereading the report of the Lords Select Committee on Affordable Childcare, published in February 2015, which said this about cross-subsidy:

“There is evidence that the funding shortfall in the rates offered to”


private, voluntary or independent

“providers for delivery of the free early education entitlement is met in some settings by cross-subsidisation from some fee-paying parents. This means that parents are subsidising themselves, or other parents, in order to benefit from the Government’s flagship early education policy”.

At the moment, of course, nurseries subsidise the too-low, free, hourly rate by charging more for one and two year-olds, hence the high prices. But, if one and two year-olds get free hours, as proposed, you cannot get the cross-subsidy. As free entitlement is expanded to more of the market and more of the week, it undermines the current business model for those who are providing childcare. If we want to achieve the Government’s policy on childcare and levelling up, we need to ensure that extra resources are available. That is what this amendment does.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 290, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and to which my name is attached. I pay tribute to the noble Lord’s leadership on this issue and apologise to the Committee, as I was unable to speak at Second Reading. I will just make a few additional points to those already made by the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Young. As a member of the Lords Select Committee on Affordable Childcare, to which the noble Lord, Lord Young, just referred, I very much want to underline the points he made about cross- subsidisation.

This amendment, which makes it explicit that childcare services are considered a proper use of developer contributions by local authorities, is incredibly important. We need to see it written down. At the moment, there is nothing in legislation or guidance, and this would be only an option for local authorities—not something they are required to do. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said, it is hardly a surprise that so few local authorities are spending any of their developer contributions on childcare services. To reiterate his point, in the last five years, only 22 local authorities have spent anything on them.

Leasehold Enfranchisement

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend—or, rather, the noble Lord opposite; the number of times he brings this Question means I think of him as a friend —is quite right that, if you are a qualifying leaseholder and extend or vary your lease, you may surrender your existing lease and be granted a new lease. As the new lease will not have been granted before 14 February 2022, the statutory leaseholder protections in the Building Safety Act will not apply. We are looking to legislate to resolve this issue as soon as parliamentary time allows. In the meantime, before seeking a new extended or varied lease, leaseholders should seek legal advice and seek to come to agreements with landlords to apply the same protections as contractual terms.

I am very sorry, but I did not answer the second question. He asked whether I would bring the letter to leaseholders from the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, to the attention of the Secretary of State. I have already done so.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, further to the Answer which my noble friend has just given to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, will the protection to which my noble friend has just referred be retrospective so those leaseholders who extended their leases after February last year will get the protection she referred to?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. As I say, we are looking at how we can protect it. On whether it is retrospective or not, I will have to write to my noble friend.

Housing: Overcrowding

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the research to which my noble friend referred showed that the families most likely to suffer from overcrowding are families already in the social housing sector, but they cannot move because there are no larger homes to move to and they cannot afford to rent. In the medium term, should the social housing sector not be building more, larger houses? In the short term, should housing associations and local authorities consider leasing larger homes from the private sector in order to mitigate the problems to which my noble friend referred?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. If you have anything to do with local housing, you will realise that there seem to be many more one-bedroom and two-bedroom properties than there are family homes. We recognise the challenge faced by the sector, and that is why we encourage local authorities to continue to consider innovative ways in which they can best use their stock. For example, supporting underoccupiers to transfer to other, smaller properties is one way that they can then relet family homes. Landlords are focused on providing high-quality services to all their tenants. Introducing a new requirement for local authorities to lease larger homes in the open market may also be considered a new burden, for which funding would be unlikely to be provided.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

267: After Clause 106, insert the following new Clause—
“Local authorities and development management services(1) A local planning authority may set a charging regime in relation to its development management services.(2) In setting the amount of a charge under subsection (1) a local planning authority must secure that, taking one financial year with another, the authority’s income from charges does not exceed the cost to the authority of delivering the development management services for which the charges are imposed.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would allow local authorities to develop a planning fees schedule that would enable the full costs of delivering its development management services, including the processing of planning applications, to be recovered.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 267 is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. This amendment has the support of the LGA and it would enable local authorities to charge planning fees that met the cost of providing the service, but would prevent them making a profit from it.

One of the themes of our debates on the Bill has been the importance of local authorities providing up-to-date plans. Indeed, my noble friend has made the point that up-to-date plans are more likely to produce the increases in housing that the country needs. But if we are to do that and have up-to-date plans, we need properly resourced planning departments. We also want to see planning applications promptly processed so that development can go ahead, again to meet housing need. That requires properly resource planning departments, but we know that they are all under pressure. Of the respondents to the Home Builders Federation’s recent SME development survey, 92% said that lack of resource in local planning authorities was a major barrier to growth—up from 90% in 2021.

Planning departments will also need to respond to proposals in the Bill, which has 47 clauses that relate to planning. They are going to have to get up to speed with that if they are to succeed in the Government’s ambition to improve the planning system. They are going to need to digitise and streamline the planning process. They will have to understand the implications of the NDMP and the new NPPF. They will have to deliver the new environmental assessment procedures and the new procedures on heritage and for neighbourhood plans, along with other changes to the planning system that we have been debating—not to mention the implication of street votes.

At the moment, planning fees do not cover the cost of processing planning applications. According to the LGA, council tax payers subsidise the planning system to the tune of £180 million per annum—money that could be spent on social housing. I know that the Government are consulting on an increase, but there are two problems. First, even if granted, the increase will not meet the gap or give us the well-resourced planning departments we need. Secondly, it will not enable individual local authorities that have active planning departments to set fees that cover their costs.

Recently, the Government have tabled Amendment 285C, but I am not sure that it addresses the problem. That amendment will allow certain bodies to charge fees for advice in relation to planning applications. My noble friend will explain what that means; I suspect that it is a response to Amendment 283 and will enable bodies such as the Environment Agency and Natural England to charge for advice on planning applications. In any case, the wording of the Government’s amendment would not cover the ability for local authorities to charge fees for the processing of planning applications, because it refers to the ability to charge fees for “advice” in relation to applications, and, of course, the authorities can already do that.

However, there is a wider principle at stake here. This Bill was going to be called the “Devolution Bill”. The Government want to decentralise and give local authorities the ability to respond to local needs, so here is a golden opportunity to put that policy into practice. I was rereading the foreword of the levelling-up White Paper published in February last year. It said:

“We’ll usher in a revolution in local democracy”.


It seems to me that here is a good opportunity to put that ambition into practice.

Finally, this central control sits uneasily with the freedom local authorities have to set building control fees, which are part of the same planning family. That is an anomaly I find difficult to explain. There is no central government control over parking charges, school meal costs, rents or swimming pool tariffs. Why are the Government so insistent on retaining control of planning fees? I ask my noble friend whether she is prepared to relax the Government’s vice-like grip on local authority. I beg to move.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who cannot be here this week, I will introduce her Amendment 283, to which I and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, have added our names. As it is her amendment, I will not do what I normally do and speak off the cuff. I have some notes from her, and I will, unusually, read from them.

A number of statutory consultees receive requests to provide expert information and opinion on planning applications and other planning cases. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, just mentioned some of them. The main statutory consultees include Natural England, the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive, Historic England and Highways England.

The volume of planning application requests has increased by 38% over the six years up to the financial year 2021-22. It is estimated that this trend will continue. Natural England alone received almost 18,000 requests in the last financial year. In 2019 the main statutory consultees estimated the total cost of providing this advice at approximately £50 million. Obviously, costs will rise with volume.

Amendment 283 inserts a provision into the Town and Country Planning Act. It would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow statutory consultees to charge developers and others for the provision of such advice and information about planning applications and other planning cases put forward by developers and others to local planning authorities. This provision would bring the cost-recovery arrangements for the majority of planning applications under the Town and Country Planning Act, in line with the proposals in Clause 118, which will allow cost recovery in the case of nationally significant infrastructure projects.

Amendment 283 lays out what particular provisions the regulations may make, including who should pay, how much and when. It also defines an “excluded person” who cannot be charged, unless that person is the applicant for the planning permission. Broadly speaking, in at least the first instance, it seems that the charges would be for the planning applicant or developer to pay, and charges would not be levied on the planning authority. It is all very straightforward and essential if our hard-pressed statutory consultees are to provide a prompt and efficient service to both planning authorities and applicants in the face of the growing case load.

The Minister has ostensibly agreed, as the Government have laid what seems like a similar amendment, Amendment 285C. However, proposed new subsection (3)(b) in the government amendment could be interpreted as prohibiting a statutory consultee charging fees to a planning applicant in respect of the provision of advice to a local planning authority by any route. It could even prohibit current scenarios where a developer is willing to meet those costs under a voluntary agreement, for example under a planning performance agreement or a service level agreement. If that is not the intention in proposed new subsection (3)(b) in the government amendment, the ambiguity needs to be removed.

It would be good to have confirmation today from the Minister that the Government intend to ensure that the statutory consultees can recover their costs. I ask the Minister whether she might be prepared to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and other interested Peers between now and Report to identify a mutually satisfactory and unambiguous version of these two amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

May I ask the Minister to clarify one issue? I have listened very carefully to this debate but there is an issue that I have not fully understood. I heard her say that prescribed bodies will be able to secure cost recovery, but she has not said that local planning authorities will be able to recover their costs. She said that there could be an increase in the fees they are allowed to charge following the consultation, but that is not the same thing as permitting cost recovery; indeed, a lack, as yet, of a definition of cost underpins this whole debate. To my way of thinking, there is the immediate cost of administering and managing a planning application, with all the costs that may apply to that application. However, there is also the cost that a local planning authority might have in terms of the provision of IT services to the planning system, web services, office costs, heating, lighting, and so on—essentially, the overhead cost. As the Minister is going to think about all these issues, I hope very much to hear that the Government will consider full cost recovery for local planning authorities. However, as I say, I have not yet heard that during this debate.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in this debate. There have been a lot of Youngs involved, and I will try to respond on behalf of both of them. Let me say straightaway that I very much welcome the government amendment, and I am sure that, in her absence, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, would also do so.

On the rest of it, I had hoped that, with this group of amendments, we might have found a chink in the Government’s armour that has been deployed throughout our debates. I am disappointed that we have not been able to make progress, and I know that the Local Government Association will also be disappointed.

I am grateful to all those who took part. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, made the valid point that the flat rate prescribed by the Government simply does not reflect the costs to a local authority of a complex planning application that spans a number of years; that point was not adequately dealt with.

I was most concerned to hear what my noble friend Lord Moylan said about developers offering to second to an overstretched planning department a planner who might assist them. That is rather like me saying to Test Valley Borough Council, “I understand your electoral department is under some pressure; I would like to second a returning officer to the forthcoming election”.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

If my noble friend will allow me to say so, I did not suggest that they were offering to second somebody but to fund a planning officer who would be recruited from the pool of available planning officers.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. None the less, the principle that he ended his speech with is still valid: a local authority should not be dependent on the good will of a developer to process that developer’s planning application. That goes against most of the codes of independence for local government.

In response to my amendment, my noble friend the Minister said that she could not accept it because of the uncertainty that might confront developers and the costs might be too high. But the charge under my amendment could only reflect the costs. A local authority could not charge a fee as a deterrent if it was not substantiated by the underlying cost.

As for uncertainty, what developers, housebuilders and any planning applicant want is for their application to be processed promptly and efficiently by a well-resourced planning department. That is their priority. I do not think that uncertainty about future fees comes into it, or it is right down their list of priorities.

Also, I do not see how this central control of planning fees sits with the whole language of the Bill, which is about empowering local authorities and giving them more autonomy to reflect local needs. It appears that, despite all that, we cannot trust them to set planning fees. I think the Government’s stance on this group of amendments sits uneasily with their whole philosophy, but, while I reflect on what to do next, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 267 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for introducing this group of amendments, for setting the scene for this important debate on building safety, and for putting forward his own solution. I will try to respond to his exhortation to do some heavy lifting.

The question underlying this debate is simple. Have the Government done enough to tackle the problems arising from the Grenfell tragedy or do we need to build on the Building Safety Act 2022 in the light of experience to address unresolved issues? I will argue that further action is essential.

I begin by recognising the progress that has been made by the Government. Some leaseholders have been given legal protection under the Act. Most developers who have been asked have agreed to pay up—well done to the Secretary of State—and the major lenders have agreed in principle to offer mortgages on blocks of flats with safety issues, although this does not seem to be reflected in practice. Good progress is being made with high-rise blocks that are owned by local authorities and housing associations. I know that my noble friend and her predecessor are sympathetic to those who have been in touch with them to discuss the issues that remain.

However, there is still a mountain to climb. A recent survey by the End our Cladding Scandal campaign in last month’s Inside Housing magazine found that

“only 21.8% of leaseholders in dangerous blocks have seen remediation work start. For 44.1%, a date has not even been identified for work to begin … and only around 10% expect them to do so within the next 12 months”.

As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has just said, hundreds of thousands of leaseholders face an indeterminate wait for complex remediation, and they cannot move in the meantime.

On top of the estimated 3,500 high-rise buildings which need remediation there are between 6,000 and 9,000 medium-rise buildings which need life-critical safety work. While 43 of the UK’s largest developers have signed up, this covers only about 1,000 blocks. What about the rest of them? Some 90% are reliant on support from the building safety fund, which is slow to release funding, or from leaseholder contributions or from freeholders. The Government’s funding stream for medium-rise blocks is not yet open for bids, but when it is it will cover only cladding removal, despite these buildings having other problems and serious compartmentation defects which need to be fixed. Non-cladding works can push costs up to £100,000 per flat.

The Government’s response, if there is no developer to sue, is to charge the building owner, if the building owner has a stake in the building worth £2 million. However, this involves a complex remediation order under the Act. Can my noble friend say how many have been secured? Initial hearings for a remediation order for blocks in Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park were adjourned in February and are unlikely to commence this year. It is a long and legally complex process. Those who then enforce the process—the fire authorities and the local authorities—must at times deal with intransigent developers, who then challenge the assessment of what work is necessary, building in further delay and cost. Some large freeholders are claiming to have net assets of less than £2 million per building, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, or that they are not part of a wider group, meaning that they are not liable under the so-called waterfall provisions. We have seen the unedifying dispute with the well-resourced railway pension fund.

Furthermore, even if you get a remediation order, freeholders are liable only for the costs of qualifying leaseholders. Again, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, pointed out, if the non-qualifying leaseholders—the buy-to-let landlords—cannot afford their contribution then remediation of the block simply will not go ahead, and you have deadlock. If the freeholder does not have the funds to pay, the leaseholders must pay up to the cap, which is £15,000 in London, with the balance coming from a yet to be determined government pot; work will not start until this is established.

The position is even worse for those in blocks under 11 metres, whom I and others tried unsuccessfully to protect last year when the Bill went through. They are non-qualifying leaseholders and so have no protection and face uncapped bills. The Government have said these should not need work, as blocks below 11 metres are, in their words, on the whole safe, but the guidance that has been issued says otherwise. At least one building under 11 metres, in Romford, has identical cladding to that at Grenfell Tower—the primary cause of the rapid fire spread. An assessment under PAS 9980, which is the UK national standard, unsurprisingly reached the conclusion that the cladding should be removed. The developers have no liability for work under the Act or indeed under the remediation contract with the Secretary of State, so no help is available to the leaseholders. That is simply indefensible.

In several cases, insurers are insisting on work on buildings under 11 metres going ahead or they will withdraw insurance cover. That leaves the owner with no choice at all. They are actually excluded from the duty to pursue alternative routes for funding; they simply pass the costs on to leaseholders. Against that background, the fire at Richmond House—below 11 metres—burned it to the ground in less than 11 minutes.

Here is quote from a letter from a leaseholder in one such building:

“I am a leaseholder in a building well under 11 metres. We are three storeys high with 10 flats. We are therefore excluded from any support from the Government, yet our freeholder/managing agent is taking us to court on Friday to ask them to agree to us having to pay for the cost of remediation—a £26,000 service charge in 2022 per leaseholder. We are told the freeholder does not have the means or obligation to pay for these works that we need to reduce the annual insurance premium. We are told that the only way to pay for these works is via the leaseholder and that we will be legally responsible to fund the money and pay it upfront so that the management agent has the means to pay for works.”


There are also reports of other leaseholders in buildings under 11 metres being forced to pay for remediation as a condition of continued insurance cover.

Last year, I was promised a case-by-case review of these blocks, but the evidence presented to the Select Committee in another place on 13 February this year said:

“We have not seen any progress with the case-by-case review in respect of under 11 metre buildings”.


The position for leaseholders in blocks of flats who have followed the policy of successive Governments and enfranchised by buying the freehold is also indefensible. Despite repeated commitments given to me by the Minister at the time that they would be treated as leaseholders and would therefore be entitled to protection under the Act, the Bill treats them as freeholders and penalises them for enfranchisement. This is what I was told in Grand Committee by the then Minister:

“They are effectively leaseholders that have enfranchised as opposed to freeholders. I hope that helps”. [Official Report, 28/2/22; col. GC 262.]


My amendment to deliver that commitment on Report was resisted, and enfranchised leaseholders remain outside the protection available to other leaseholders.

There is an enfranchised block in Manchester with serious non-cladding defects, and there was a fire in a flat there last year. The enfranchised company, which is actually the leaseholder, is required by law to resolve these as soon as possible. Government policy is that blocks should enfranchise, but those who do are excluded from protection.

Looking at the picture as a whole, three years on from funding being made available, only 28 eligible buildings had been signed off by the Building Safety Fund by the end of last month, out of a potential 3,500 or so buildings eligible for support. In the meantime, most leaseholders are still unable to sell and move on with their lives. Despite six high-street lenders announcing in January that they would offer mortgages on flats with issues as long as the leaseholder protections were in place, this is just not happening on the ground. In the meantime, insurance costs have soared and service charges have escalated.

Freeholders and managing agents are refusing to withdraw service charges for items such as waking watches in buildings covered by the Act, but which were issued before the Act came into force. They also rushed to issue fresh demands on leaseholders before the Schedule 8 protection came into effect on 28 June last year. Leaseholders incurred the substantial costs of waking watches and increased insurance before the Act was implemented, but clause 6 of the final contract with developers excludes this. If money is to be recovered, the leaseholders have to litigate.

There are also early reports—the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, may have touched on this—of conveyancers saying they will no longer accept instructions to work on sales of leasehold flats in buildings of any height. That is because certain lenders—I have heard Nationwide mentioned—are imposing requirements on them to check the statements made in landlord and leaseholder certificates, which they are unable to do.

The original proposal of the Select Committee in another place was that there should be a comprehensive building safety fund, fully funded by government and industry, and the Government should establish clear principles regarding how the costs should be split between the two. Where we are sits uneasily with commitments given by Ministers last year. Last year, Michael Gove said:

“leaseholders are shouldering a desperately unfair burden. They are blameless, and it is morally wrong that they should be the ones asked to pay the price. I am clear about who should pay the price for remedying failures. It should be the industries that profited, as they caused the problem, and those who have continued to profit, as they make it worse”. [Official Report, Commons, 10/1/22; cols. 283-84.]

The then Minister wrote to noble Lords on 20 January last year, when the Building Safety Bill arrived in your Lordships’ House. Under the section headed “Protecting Leaseholders from Unnecessary Costs”, he said:

“The Secretary of State recently announced that leaseholders living in their homes should be protected from the costs of remediating historic building safety defects”.


Then there was the Statement on building safety made in the other place by the Secretary of State on 10 January last year:

“First, we will make sure that we provide leaseholders with statutory protection—that is what we aim to do and we will work with colleagues across the House to ensure that that statutory protection extends to all the work required to make buildings safe”. [Official Report, Commons, 10/1/22; col. 291.]


As I have tried to show, where we are falls well short of the commitments given, but it is not too late for the Government to act. My amendment is a peg on which to hang the debate. I end with the two questions I started with. Are the Government satisfied with the current position? If not, what do they propose to do about it? I know my noble friend is sympathetic to the case I have made. I know that many leaseholders are watching this debate and hoping for a positive reply.

[The Lord Bishop of Guildford]

My Lords, for six years in the early 90s I was a priest in Notting Hill, in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and had never lived in a place where the vision of levelling up was quite so necessary and quite so localised. The very wealthy were often living cheek by jowl with the very poor, and meanwhile, on looking north from one of our churches was the unmistakeable sight of a brutalist 24-floor block of flats on Grenfell Road, which 25 years later was to become the scene of an unspeakable, though sadly not quite unimaginable, tragedy.

Making buildings safe for leaseholders has since become a priority for the Government, which is to be welcomed. As the noble Lord indicated, this support remains both limited and partial, creating a new distinction between the haves and have-nots of leaseholding when it comes to the most basic of principles: that the homes in which we live, work and raise our families should be safe. I happened to meet one of those have-not leaseholders this morning, for whom insuring his flat, let alone selling it, has become virtually impossible.

My friend Graham Tomlin, the Bishop of Kensington during the unfolding of those terrible events in June 2017, has written movingly in this regard. He speaks of how a “pattern of moral compromise” had become embedded in parts of the construction industry, as revealed by the public inquiry into the Grenfell tragedy. He goes on to suggest a firming up of the responsibility of developers to make good their work, along the lines of the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. His insights have been fed into the second of the five basic principles of the Archbishops’ housing commission: that

“Good housing should be sustainable, safe, stable, sociable and satisfying”.


One of the very few cases I still vividly remember from my original legal training is the landmark decision in Donoghue v Stevenson in 1932, which involved a Mrs May Donoghue discovering a decomposed snail at the bottom of her bottle of ginger beer, and a Mr David Stevenson, the owner of the ginger beer company. This famous snail resulted in a bout of gastroenteritis for Mrs Donoghue and a rather hefty fine for Mr Stevenson, while simultaneously forming the surprising basis of our modern law of negligence, and of a duty of care which does not depend on a direct contractual relationship between the parties involved. So how odd and morally indefensible it is, more than 90 years on, that the construction industry has been able to allow metaphorical snails to slide into its ginger beer bottles: to be negligent, bordering on reckless, when it comes to basic principles of safety, without a straightforward system of remediation which places responsibility where it patently lies.

The noble Earl’s amendments seem both right and practicable in that regard, given the idea of a levy to the remediation fund, which helps to answer concerns about affordability. Developing new confidence in the construction industry and driving up its standards will also help to protect the long-term reputation of the industry itself, which can be only a win-win for all concerned, or at least for all committed to the vision of good housing rather than a race to the bottom. I therefore support the noble Earl’s amendments and the principles behind them in this crucial area of our national life.

Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 21st April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the Bill is another production from that well-known partnership of Blackman and Best, purveyors of high-quality legislation to the Houses of Parliament following their last production, the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. We look forward to the further fruits of this partnership.

I commend the speech that the noble Lord, Lord Best, has made, and his continuing commitment to drive up the standards of housing in this country. There is no one better qualified than he to promote this legislation in your Lordships’ House. He touched on the need for this legislation in a debate that we had on supported housing in Grand Committee on 30 March, and he has further explained today why it is needed.

In October last year, the Select Committee in another place that the noble Lord referred to published its report on exempted accommodation, describing the system as “a complete mess”. While there were many good providers, as the noble Lord said, in the worst cases the system involved

“the exploitation of vulnerable people who should be receiving support, while unscrupulous providers make excessive profits by capitalising on loopholes”.

At the time of the Library briefing there had been no government response to that report. Perhaps the Minister can shed some light on the timing of that response.

I shall follow up briefly on two points made by the noble Lord. I hope the Bill will drive out of business the unscrupulous landlords he has so rightly condemned, but of course the demand will remain and the shortage of supply will need to be made good by organisations that can meet the requirements of the Bill. That will require some proactive initiatives by the Government and by local authorities because I do not believe that the market will respond automatically. Is the Minister able to spell out the steps that her department and the DHSC will now take to make sure that adequate provision is made by responsible organisations, particularly in those parts of the country where abuse is currently rife, to complement the provisions in the Bill?

Secondly, the Bill gives various obligations and powers to the Secretary of State. I wonder if I can press the Minister on the progress that she anticipates making in discharging these. In Clause 1, are steps under way to identify people who will serve on the advisory panel once Royal Assent is achieved so that we can get off to a flying start?

In Clause 3, the Secretary of State has powers to make regulations setting minimum standards for exempt accommodation. That is crucial to the whole Bill, which comes into effect two months after Royal Assent. Have discussions started with the LGA, social landlords and other providers about what those standards might be? Can the Minister say when they might be introduced? Until they are, the abuses that the noble Lord, Lord Best, has referred to will continue.

Lastly, under Clause 4, the Secretary of State can introduce a licensing scheme that providers of exempt accommodation must secure before they can operate. Will the Minister confirm what the noble Lord has just said: that the Secretary of State is indeed minded to use those powers within the period of 18 months?

Having made those two points and asked some relevant questions, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Best, again on his piloting the Bill through Second Reading. I hope it reaches the statute book soon.

Housebuilding

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they remain committed to building 300,000 houses a year.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

Yes, the Government are committed to continuing to work towards our ambitious target of 300,000 homes a year, as set out in the 2019 Conservative manifesto. Annual housing supply is up 10% compared to the previous year, with over 232,000 houses built and delivered in 2021-22. This is the highest yearly rate for the last 30 years.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend, who is dealing heroically with housing and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which after eight sittings still has as many groups ahead of it as at the first. Does she understand the concern that the concession made over Christmas to head off a rebellion in another place has made it even more difficult to hit the 300,000 target? Does she understand that many of us want to give the other place an opportunity to think again by amending the Bill, and so help the Government to hit their target?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The Government are committed to building more houses of the right type in the right places, but we know at the moment that there are economic challenges faced by the sector. We need to work as closely as we are, and more closely—and with Homes England—to better understand those challenges and to provide support. We have already consulted on changes to the planning policy that will support how we plan to deliver these houses in our communities, and we will respond to that consultation in due course. I assure my noble friend that we remain committed to a plan-led system, and national planning policy that expects local authorities through their plans to make sufficient provision for housing and identify the sites to deliver these much-needed homes to meet local needs.

Supported Housing

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for initiating this debate, which complements the one taking place in the Chamber. We are also grateful to her for raising the concerns of many housing associations and their clients, who come under the broad umbrella of “supported housing”. Many of these groups are vulnerable: they are rough sleepers, refugees, young offenders and those recovering from alcohol and drug issues.

I remember going to visit, nearly 50 years ago, the first women’s refuge in Chiswick, run by the formidable Erin Pizzey. I listened to the problems that confronted her: it was not just that the local residents were not entirely happy about the refuge but that Hounslow council was trying to close the operation. Principally, she had to juggle a range of revenue streams simply to keep the show on the road.

Since then, we have had a whole variety of funding regimes. In the consultative Funding Supported Housing policy statement, the funding regimes were summed up with some beautiful Civil Service-speak:

“Funding for supported housing is complex and comes from a variety of sources, with ‘housing’ costs and ‘support’ costs being met separately.”


I pause there because none of the institutions from which some of the residents have come—young offender institutions, prison or NHS in-patient support for drug addiction—has to grapple with separate funding regimes. Indeed, those running them would be horrified if they had to do what the voluntary sector has to do and run the organisation using a whole range of streams.

In my view, the most successful regime was the supporting people regime, introduced in 2003, with £1.8 billion ring-fenced for local authorities to support people who wanted to live independently. Since then, we have progressively moved away from that regime. In 2009, the ring-fence was removed, despite warnings from the Select Committee down the other end that this would expose “electorally unpopular” groups. Once the ring-fence was removed, the institutions and support organisations had to compete with more electorally popular bids for local authority funds.

We have now arrived at the position that the noble Baroness explained, where exempt housing benefit meets the management costs of these projectsand the top-up for the extra support comes from the local authorities. Both those legs are subject to criticism. As the noble Baroness explained, the top-up has been progressively squeezed, with the pressure on local authorities leaving no support for the one-to-one help that is often needed for these clients and with the exempt housing benefit being exploited, as was explained. The noble Lord, Lord Best, may talk a little more about the less scrupulous providers, who come to the local authority armed with lawyers to argue their case. If care is provided in some of those institutions, it comes out of the universal credit of the person claiming, not out of the other resources.

The basic question for the Minister is: is she satisfied with the current regime and how it is working? If not, is she prepared to look at options for reform? There is some concern, which we heard, that where we are at the moment is not the optimum way of running supported housing.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, the main debate on the new plan hierarchy was clearly spelled out in this Chamber last week, but Covid prevented me from joining in, although I listened with interest. I will not waste time going over that debate, but I still want to reiterate certain facts. As was well demonstrated in the debate on the last group, it is a fact that so much detail is still missing and so many important matters are still out for consultation—that is probably why there are so many amendments and why there is so much anxiety around the content of NDMPs. In particular, as was well expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, what will truly be left over for local councillors and their communities to shape their place? The Bill is very strong on the rhetoric of place shaping, but it feels that we are being disempowered to do that.

Before turning to the specifics of the amendment, I will say that it is absolutely clear that the potential for conflict is significant. Without some clarity and legal clout from the Bill—not just ministerial promises that there will be more details in the revised NPPF, or that it will be more clear when we have the NDMPs—what will happen as a result of this is that there will be plenty of work for the planning chambers and litigators going forward. There will be a long transition period—the Government are quite sensibly allowing for that—because this is a new system, so there will be quite some time before we get precedents set, we get used to it and we get to see which way it is going.

The amendments have regard to the obvious potential conflicts between NDMPs and local development plans, and they also question the increasingly all-powerful Secretary of State role and the position of combined authorities. The issues concerning Secretary of State powers have also been well articulated, but, as drafted, Clause 86, which was previously debated, and Clause 87 very clearly—I do not think there is any ambiguity—favour NDMPs over development plans. But they also transfer significant policy-making powers directly to the Secretary of State—this is yet another area of concern and potential conflict because, as we know, NDMPs come with no minimum public consultation or primary parliamentary scrutiny requirements. Despite the Government’s previous assurances that this undemocratic effect was not the intention of the clauses, no legal safeguards have been introduced, so this is an area in which we would certainly hope to see movement from the Government.

My first question for the Minister on this group is on the issue of local plan soundness, as it seems to me that a lot of conflict could and should be avoided if both the NDMPs and the local development plan are very clear about what they are trying to achieve, where the boundaries of their scope are, and where one might take over from another—I was envisaging the Venn diagram and hoping that there was not very much in the middle. It seems highly desirable that the overlap should be almost impossibly small, or as limited as possible, so can the Minister confirm whether a plan would be found sound under the new regime if it contained policies that were at variance with NDMPs?

The proposed introduction of gateway checks, which is an excellent suggestion, would seem to indicate that the intention is, on the one hand, to allow both parties an opportunity to point out unacceptable variance, or, on the other, for the local planning authority to present its evidence as to why local policies should deviate from the NDMPs and therefore receive advice and engage in constructive dialogue. From the thrust of the questions of the NPPF consultations and the subsequent Written Ministerial Statements, it seems that local variance is both expected and accounted for—good.

If that is the case, why do we need new subsection (5C), and why can we not just accept the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor? It is very definite and legally tight—too definite and legally tight to allow for circumstances when it might be absolutely legitimate to give the local plan precedence. Is that deemed to be a bad thing by the Government? If not, under the current system, in which decisions are now weighed and balanced, surely a degree of leeway is desirable—the more so, as has already been mentioned, as the main criticism around NDMPs is the worry that they will set a low floor and stifle ambition and innovation, which has always been, in the main, local authority-led. New subsection (5C) might sound definite, final and firm, and therefore intended to reduce conflict—but at what cost? Could there be unintended consequences?

If the Government do not accept that proposal, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, provides a more nuanced response to a very complex issue to allow for a time when the NDMP may not necessarily be “Top Trumps” because it is appropriate in those local circumstances. I believe that the weight of new subsection (5C) does not allow that for that discretion, so we will certainly support that amendment. As to the discussion of the word “significant”, I respectfully suggest that planners, inspectors and litigators have always weighed up, and probably always will weigh up, these words. It is part of their bread and butter, it is what they do all the time, and this will be no exception.

Amendment 187 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, is a natural extension of that same logic. She can envisage times when a local plan can and should take precedence, especially if it relates to the additional responsibilities in a larger geographical area. On these Benches, we believe that there is real value in the Government incentivising, encouraging and supporting local authorities to work together to get a larger—and, dare we use the word, regional—spatial strategy of that sort. In effect, we would not want any barriers to be put in the way of that, because there is far more at stake in a local area, such as economic growth, than just meeting housing need.

The noble Baroness’s Amendments 192 and 195 are an interesting extension of this dilemma. I wonder whether her Amendment 193 could be logistically challenging, as the Secretary of State would have to actually hear and know about every single challenge and conflict. But the principle of a feedback loop regarding conflicts seems a good one, particularly during a period of transition, as all this will all new and very different territory for everyone. I think we would all like to know where the pinch points and places with the most disagreement are and, more importantly, how they are being resolved. We will be interested in the Minister’s thoughts on this thread of feedback, reporting, learning and, presumably, revising.

Amendment 187B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, seems very sensible. If the Bill is, as we hear all the time, to truly make the system a plan-led system, it absolutely makes sense that local plans must and should be up to date. My concern, particularly now, is with the removal of the tilted balance and planning by appeal, plus the supremacy of NDMPs. Can the Minister explain how the Government intend to incentivise councils to keep their plans up to date? I cannot see how that will be done, as there appears to be no disincentives to do otherwise.

We will support any amendment to insert a process for the Secretary of State to designate and review a national development management policy, including minimum public consultation requirements and a process of parliamentary scrutiny, as has been set out in the Planning Act 2008 and is already deemed necessary for national policy statements. If local authorities are rightly required to consult on such policies when preparing local plans today, in future it must be right that Secretaries of State be held to account by the public and Parliament in a similar way. As with national policy statements, we ask that Parliament be required to scrutinise NDMPs and that the public be allowed to consult on proposed changes to them.

There are loads of possible advantages of NDMPs, and there seems to be a general acceptance of this in principle, but the devil will always be in the detail. The unprecedented level of central control for planning that they introduce means that safeguards are needed to maintain local consent. These amendments touch on only a few areas of potential conflict, and we had plenty in the previous group. We have yet to touch on street votes versus local plans, neighbourhood policy statements versus the rest, and—one matter that is starting to come to the fore—the turning of supplementary planning documents into supplementary plans and all that this will entail. Those are debates for another day.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I want to add a short footnote to the excellent speech made by my noble friend Lord Lansley, and to try to understand in what circumstances the conflict that we have been debating can arise—that is, the conflict between the local plan and the national development management policy.

Page 294 of the Bill—I appreciate that we have not got quite that far yet—describes the process that a local authority must go through when it prepares its local plan. New section 15CA(5) states that:

“In preparing their local plan, a local planning authority must have regard to … any observations or advice received from a person appointed by the Secretary of State … other national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State”.


If that process has been gone through, the local plan should already be consistent with the national development management policies—it would have been spotted. So is it the case that the only time a conflict can arise is when, subsequent to a conforming local development plan having been adopted, the Government actually change the policy? Is that the only time that a conflict can arise? It cannot arise if a plan has gone through the process under the current NDMP.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, in moving the amendment in my name, I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Blunkett and Lord Stunell, who have added their names to my amendments in this group. I very much look forward to their contributions today.

Amendment 188 sets out that:

“The Secretary of State must ensure that national planning policy and guidance are designed to secure positive improvements in the physical and mental health and well-being of the people of England.”


There is currently no provision for promoting health and well-being in planning legislation and guidance. Even in the key paragraph 20 of the National Planning Policy Framework, where the Government set down requirements on strategic policies in local plans, there is no mention of promoting health and well-being but simply a reference to the provision of healthcare facilities. This seems to be a very old-fashioned view of health which equates health with healthcare.

If nothing else, the pandemic has accelerated public understanding that health in the broadest sense, and well-being, are central to place-making, communities and the levelling-up missions. Our homes and neighbourhoods deeply influence our health, for good and for bad, and this all influences our life chances. If we want to level up and create the circumstances in which people can flourish, health and well-being must have central roles in our planning system.

I recognise that this is a big change. The amendment is very carefully worded to say “designed” to secure positive improvements. This is not just an add-on: it places health and well-being at the heart of the system. There is an opportunity here to create the conditions for levelling up and for people to flourish. We can use the planning system to ensure that we are providing healthy environments and healthy homes that are fit for purpose.

I refer briefly to the amendments in this group that are not in my name. They cover very similar territory. While I will not speak to them, I support them.

I turn to Amendments 394 to 399, which are specifically about healthy homes. I will briefly explain the background to these and why I think they are necessary, before going into some detail.

I am delighted that the Government recognise that housing and health are key to levelling up, and that, in the Minister’s letter to Peers on 27 January, she wrote that the Government support the objective within the Healthy Homes Bill. However, she went on to say that this is dealt with by existing laws and/or alternative policy. With respect, I do not believe that that is the case. There is no overall statutory duty with regard to healthy homes, and it is clear to all of us that existing laws and guidance are simply not producing the results that we all want. There is some existing policy—for example, in the National Planning Policy Framework—that addresses some of these issues, but even this is not mandatory and can be set aside by local decision-makers.

More directly, we can all see that existing policies are not working—we need only to look at some of the results. I have a photo book, which I will send to the Minister, of some of the worst examples around the country. I am happy to send it to any other noble Lord who wishes to have a copy. It contains examples of some recently developed homes. Many of them are permitted developments with, for example, redundant office blocks on industrial sites providing appalling accommodation, but this is not just about PDR.

It is reasonable to ask, and I have been asked, whether the requirements proposed in these amendments will add cost. The argument goes that you could perhaps get a larger number of homes for the same sort of money. But that is the wrong question. This is not about higher or lower cost or quality. The purpose is to eliminate homes being developed that are simply not fit for purpose. It is not about the relative cost.

I know that there are other objections around this being extra regulation, although this is not the principal barrier to development generally. I have met with high-quality developers around the country and looked at how they are developing homes and neighbourhoods. There is very little in this that they are not already doing, and they have internal processes to ensure that it happens. More generally, for the regulation system as a whole, I believe that an overarching requirement to promote health, safety and well-being will help align planning and building regulations better and could be used to reduce complexity.

Turning to the detail of the amendments, I think they provide a very sensible structure. I do not claim credit for it; it was proposed by Dr Hugh Ellis of the TCPA. In essence, they set out a duty on the Secretary of State to secure health, safety and well-being in new homes in accordance with 11 healthy homes principles, which the Secretary of State can then establish the policy on. This is not set in stone but can change from time to time as appropriate and can be interpreted differently by the Secretary of State for different areas, such as country and town areas. There is also a duty to report on progress. The key point is that this is all mandatory and that it should be reported on regularly.

Amendment 394 would introduce a duty on the Secretary of State to secure healthy homes. Amendment 395 would require the Secretary of State to prepare a policy statement explaining how the healthy homes principles will be used. Amendment 396 sets out the principles. Amendment 397 would require a draft of the statement on interpretation to be available to Parliament for possible comment. Amendment 398 describes the effect of the statement on different authorities. Amendment 399 would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual progress report.

I commend these amendments to your Lordships as a way of securing new homes that are fit for purpose, which would also enhance health and reduce the burden on the health and care system, because we should note that unhealthy homes, far from being a cost-neutral or light-cost option, cost the NHS roughly £1.4 billion every year. Most importantly, the amendments would provide homes that offer a secure foundation for the lives of individuals and families, helping them to thrive. They would also play a significant role in levelling up. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 188, headed as it is by the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Young, sounds like an advertisement for a supermarket lettuce. Along with the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Stunell, I supported the Healthy Homes Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on 15 July, along with many other noble Lords who all spoke in favour at Second Reading. When the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, replied to the debate, after expressing his disappointment that the Government were not supportive of his Bill, he said:

“I will take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and look for opportunities for this in current legislation.”—[Official Report, 15/7/22; col. 1707.]


He then did what did not always happened when I was Chief Whip in another place: he followed my advice. His amendments would simply insert his Bill into this one, so today we have an opportunity to build on what was said on that occasion in July and take the debate forward.

I looked again at what the Minister said in reply to that debate:

“The Government oppose this Bill, not because they take issue with the premise of noble Lords’ arguments, but rather because they believe that the problems highlighted in the Bill are already being dealt with via alternative policy routes … Many of the proposed healthy homes principles are already covered by the National Planning Policy Framework, which sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these should be applied. The NPPF must be taken into account by local authorities in the preparation of their development plans, and it is a material consideration in planning decisions.”


She went on to say:

“We are intending to review the NPPF to support the programme of changes to the planning system. This will provide an opportunity to ensure that the NPPF contributes to sustainable development as fully as possible.”


So two options are available. One is to do what the amendments would do and incorporate the Healthy Homes Bill into primary legislation. The other—and I hold no negotiating brief for the noble Lord, Lord Crisp—is for the Government to undertake that the revised NPPF will incorporate the relevant commitments in Amendments 394 to 399.

Those amendments build on what is already in the NPPF. In the Minister’s own words:

“The social objective focuses on supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities by fostering well-designed, beautiful and safe places with accessible services and open spaces. More specifically, the framework is clear that planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places. This should support healthy lifestyles, especially where this would address identified local health and well-being needs.”


The Minister went on to say:

“This means that all plans should promote sustainable patterns of growth to meet local need, align growth and infrastructure, improve the environment, mitigate climate change and adapt to its effects.”—[Official Report, 15/7/22; cols. 1702-03.]


But that is not a million miles away from what is in the noble Lord’s amendments. The Minister may want to reflect on the precise wording and have a dialogue with the noble Lord, but her objective of mitigating climate change, which I just referred to, is not a million miles from proposed new paragraph (f) in Amendment 396, that

“all new homes should secure radical reductions in carbon emissions in line with the provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008”.

If my noble friend the Minister has “resist” on the top of her speaking notes, is she prepared to discuss with the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, how his agenda can best be taken forward?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I briefly follow-up on that question which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has left hanging.

We seem to have several moving parts here. I do not want to detain anybody any longer than necessary. We have the guidance of the NPPF, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has outlined its current impact on how local plans are developed. We now have the statutory NDMPs. Eventually we will get used to that acronym, I guess. Earlier this evening, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, told noble Lords that she thought that the occasions of conflict between the NDMPs and local plans would be very rare, so rare that they did not need referencing but, on the other hand, possibly so onerous that it would be burdensome to make every one be referred back to your Lordships.

However, the political context of the NDMPs is of trying to retrieve a situation that was created last year by multiple changes in direction within the department, and by Ministers, about what they wanted local plans to achieve. Do they want them to achieve a very large number of houses, no houses at all, or as many houses as the local area thinks are appropriate?

All that will be resolved when—eventually—the NDMPs are published, because that is when we will be told what the Government intend local plans to produce. At that point it seems foreseeable—I say only foreseeable, not certain—that there will be areas of conflict between the citizens’ assemblies brought forward by the noble Baroness’s amendment and the common consultation process that we have traditionally followed, as the local plan emerges and the NDMPs dictate a different course of action. Where does the guidance to which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred fit into that? Which fits into what and at which part?

In an earlier debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, also said, perhaps not with the conviction that I had hoped to hear, that, in the event of a neighbourhood plan being more up to date than a local plan—hence in date—it would stand up against an NDMP central government directive. I would be delighted if that is true, but I would be substantially surprised if she says that she did say that; I must have misheard something.

We have some moving parts here, and it is a terribly inconvenient time of the day to resolve those difficulties. A lengthy letter may be the solution, but I just pose those questions. This is the fundamental way in which the current Government are aiming to square a circle out of their national planning policy. Whether they want more houses, where they want them and how fast—all those things—are driven by what comes out of local plans, and they will be framed by what is in the NDMPs, which are not published. Forgive me if I am jumping to a conclusion here; perhaps the planning management policy that comes out will say, “It is okay, guys; do your own thing and send your local plans in when they are ready”, but I have a feeling that that is not the context in which they are being drawn up.

Anything that the noble Earl or the noble Baroness can say to clarify that situation, either this evening or in a subsequent written report, would be gratefully received on this side, because we are baffled and bemused by how this is all supposed to hang together, as things stand.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 209 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley and myself but, before I do, I will speak briefly to two amendments mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor.

Amendment 198 is about deliberative democracy or citizens’ forums as they are sometimes known. When I, as somebody who has been a councillor and an MP, first heard of this, I was slightly suspicious of this alternative form of problem-solving. It struck me as slightly random and unaccountable. But the more I looked into it, with the help of Graham Allen, the former Labour MP who championed the cause of deliberative democracy, I began to change my mind. The Government have actually been funding three experimental projects using deliberative democracy—one in Dudley looking at the future of two shopping centres, one in Cambridge looking at how to solve congestion, and one in Romsey looking at how to solve problems around a local bus station. It struck me that these were actually ways of complementing and reinforcing local democracy, rather than substituting it.

At a time when democracies are struggling to retain public confidence, we should look at every possible means of refreshing democracy in a way that is relevant to the modern world. This is what that amendment wants. Like others, I have been to planning meetings where people have been shouting at each other; there must be a better way to find a way through. I look forward to working with the noble Baroness who moved this amendment, as she obviously has considerable experience. Perhaps the Minister will let me know, following the three trials funded by the DCMS, whether her department will engage with the Local Government Association to see how we can best take that debate forward.

I am afraid that I disagree entirely with Amendment 223 and the suggestion that the adopted plan should be up for review after a local election. The one thing going through this debate since it began is the need for certainty and clarity about the local plan. It has to go through a process to become adopted. If there is a local election just after it has been adopted and control changes hands and it is up for review, what then is the status of that local plan? I very much hope that my noble friend will resist, perhaps more politely than I have done, the suggestion in Amendment 223.

Leasehold Reform

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Leasehold—the noble Lord is not getting a yes or no—is increasingly seen as an outdated form of home ownership and, as I said, the Secretary of State has set out his intention to bring this outdated and feudal tenure to an end. I cannot set out the precise details of the future plan at this stage. However, the Government are committed to creating a fair and just housing system that works for everyone, and we are taking forward a comprehensive programme of reform to end unfair practices in the home ownership market by reinvigorating commonhold, which will also give developers and buyers of flats a genuine alternative to leasehold.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, these are difficult times for leaseholders. Many face high service charges as a result of the cladding scandal, while others, as my noble friend just said, are exploited by a minority of freeholders, and there is uncertainty in the market while we await the Government’s reforms. Can my noble friend do more to publicise the existence of a free, independent advisory service for leaseholders, which is supported by her department, and can she give an assurance that it will have the resources and skills to meet demand?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I think my noble friend is probably talking about LEASE, which is a government-sponsored arm’s-length body. The Government provide £1.9 million of funding every year so that leaseholders and park home owners can get free information and advice. We recognise that these people face some parallel complexities and lack of control over some of their properties. We are looking at LEASE—a new chair is being recruited at the moment—and we are looking for it to be a little more impactful, customer friendly and cost effective into the future, as well as leading important work to ensure that the voices of leaseholders and park home owners are listened to.