Business and Planning Bill

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 6th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I will address a range of issues, all of them quite quickly. First, Section 78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 failed to include Transport for London and at least some development agencies in its definition of local authorities. It has left these bodies with a legal minefield as they act through virtual decision meetings, and it is seriously complicating economic recovery. It should all be in scope of the Bill, so will the Minister use the Bill to correct what I assume was very much an oversight?

Secondly, so many firms I have talked to are afraid that, as they bring back their workforce and customers following government guidelines, they will still be sued if an employee or customer catches Covid. They have no faith in insurance policies after the fiasco with business interruption insurance, and they do not understand why the Government have not offered indemnity to employers who follow the guidelines. Will the Minister please respond to this issue?

Thirdly, civil society groups like Protect and WhistleblowersUK are being inundated with phone calls from employees who have witnessed furlough fraud or the bending of safety rules, and all of this will increase as more businesses open. HMRC has set a terrible precedent in closing its fraud phone hotline and telling people to do online reporting—which of course they do not because they do not trust it, and because the forms demand so much disclosure. Will the Minister guarantee today that the HSE will keep manning its safety reporting hotline so that we can be absolutely on top of any abuse?

Lastly, the Minister referred to bounce-back loans, and I join him in being delighted that over £30 billion has been loaned to companies under the scheme. However, he will know that very many of those who have applied have been turned down, not because they are unsuitable but because the banks who have dominated these loans have no wish to add to their balance sheets. The banks have chosen not to on-lend cheap money from the term-lending facility they have with the Bank of England to enable more diverse and other players to engage extensively in the bounce-back scheme.

The British Business Bank has been rapidly trying to accredit diverse organisations to participate in lending under the bounce-back scheme, but it is slow going. Will the Minister make sure that for the future we have a structure in place that means that, when a programme and scheme like this is being put forward, it does not put the banks, frankly, in the catbird seat and enable them to do what they have been doing, which is cherry picking the customers who get these loans and leaving a very large number, particularly of small companies, in significant difficulty?

Business and Planning Bill

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

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

That is why I urge the Government to consider this amendment. It is not costly; it offers regulatory flexibility rather than cash. By its nature it is well targeted—only those breweries that choose to take up the option of on-site licensed premises would benefit. It is time limited, so any unanticipated consequences for other parts of the retail sector would be minimal and short term. As my noble friend Lord Holmes eloquently set out earlier, proprietors are known to regulatory authorities; they have already passed the “fit and proper” test. Overall, from a regulatory point of view the proposal is low-risk and proportionate. In allowing an expansion of the number of venues, it gives more choice to consumers and, as my noble friend Lord Berkeley said, it encourages the small independent sector in the brewing industry to compete in different ways with larger, more established companies. I wholeheartedly support this amendment and I urge the Minister to back it.

[Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I shall be brief. I just want to pick up on a point made earlier by my noble friend Lady Bowles: that the opening up promoted by this Bill—which I support, particularly given some of the safeguards embedded in amendments —should not extend to supermarkets and convenience stores. When pubs reopened just over a week ago in Richmond, I and others observed that licensed premises managed their customers and alcohol very responsibly. The problems that occurred were caused by people buying discounted alcohol from supermarkets and reading the relaxation of the rules governing pubs as, in effect, a relaxation of the constraints they had been observing during lockdown; therefore, they were out on the streets, frequently exceedingly drunk. As the chair of the Police Federation noted, it is crystal clear that people who are drunk cannot socially distance.

I could not find a way to shoehorn a specific amendment into this Bill, but I hope the Government will take on board that discounted alcohol served or sold by supermarkets and convenience stores late at night is a fundamental cause of problems that, unfortunately, are frequently being attributed to licensed premises. Locally, we find that those with a licence are well embedded in the community, have a strong and well-established relationship with the police and manage their customers exceedingly well. Going out on Richmond Green in the middle of the night, it becomes clear that it is supermarkets providing very cheap alcohol that are fuelling highly risky behaviour.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I too shall be brief. I support what my noble friend Lord Balfe said about the House getting back to work. Indeed, I encourage my noble friend to come and join us in the Chamber, where he will find a warm welcome awaiting him.

I hope that he was wrong when he said that he was expecting Divisions on Report. We have to get this Bill on to the statute book as soon as possible. I hope we will not lose sight of the fact that these are temporary relaxations designed to help get the economy working again. Many of the issues raised are problems of normal times; we are not in normal times and we should not judge the relaxation proposals in the Bill by the issues we encounter in normal times. The important thing is to give the benefit of the doubt to premises that want to get going again. There are provisions in the Bill which allow licences to be revoked at a later stage if it does not work out. The most important thing is that we embrace the liberalisation encompassed in the Bill and do not hold it back by trying to make the application process more difficult or by putting more barriers in the way of our economy getting going again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Uddin [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 48 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. I have just a few brief points. I shall speak specifically about data collection and the reporting requirement for the Bounce Back Loan Schemes. Despite the pandemic, we cannot overlook the need for transparency, open government and a robust process of reporting to Parliament. Current data relating to the total number of applications and the number of loans granted does not make allowances for how well the scheme is working to help businesses through the crisis, including SMEs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, referred to. There is inadequate data on the number of businesses that could not access loan schemes and why they were refused. This should be addressed in the reporting mechanism.

The curry industry, which I referred to earlier, has reported that its members are experiencing a great deal of difficulty in accessing this financial support. I am deeply concerned about eradicating any inequity that they might be experiencing. Therefore, I would like more detailed reporting to include the number of successful applications from SMEs led by BAME communities, particularly in the curry industry, and, more specifically for the curry industry itself, the actual number of applications that have been successful and those that have been rejected.

[Baroness Kramer [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendments 46, 47 and 48 and regard all three as exceedingly important. I will start by picking up on an issue described by my noble friend Lord German. We know now that the major banks, which have been able to participate in the bounce-back scheme because they have been provided with cheap funding from the Bank of England under its term funding scheme, have failed in what I was told was an obligation to also pass that cheap money through to the fintech industry and other alternate lenders, so that a broad and diverse coterie of lending institutions would be involved in bounce-back schemes and a mechanism to ensure that qualifying small companies would be able to find a source, even if it was not from one of the major banks. We now know that that funding process has not taken place and that relatively few bounce-back loans are being provided by alternate lenders because they cannot find cheap enough funding, since they have no direct access to the Bank of England scheme.

The reason I mention this is that it describes to us the culture of major banks today. Many of us had hoped that after the 2008 crisis we would see a dramatic change in culture among the major high street banks. We have certainly seen some changes, and some are better than others, but we are still dealing with a group of institutions that, frankly, if given a loophole will use it. Amendments 46 and 47 are designed to close off two major sets of loopholes to make sure that proper consumer protection continues to be provided to SMEs that use the bounce-back schemes and to make sure that these do not become mechanisms that enable them to be taken advantage of in ways that they never anticipated. Therefore, Amendments 46 and 47 are vital to limit any potential for abuse.

Amendment 48 is important because it will help us track exactly what is happening under the Bounce Back Loan Scheme arrangements. We have all heard anecdotally that the big banks are cherry picking those to whom they make bounce-back loans. Some of them choose only existing customers because they do not want to overexpand their balance sheets; others pick from within those customers. As I understand it, the whole spirit of the bounce-back scheme is anathema to cherry picking, but it is taking place.

Amendment 48, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, would very rapidly make clear how many people are applying and who is rejected, and it would give us the ability to try to track exactly what is happening under this scheme. I know that something like £30 billion has already been lent through bounce-back loans but, frankly, that is well below the level that the Government expected. Those loans are a lifeline for many companies and we really cannot allow this scheme to be abused. If we are not careful, by the time we intervene, many businesses will already have closed their doors.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 46 and 47, moved and spoken to respectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, and I support the points that she has made. I also welcome the expert contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.

The Consumer Credit Act 1974 has long been criticised because of its extensive, complex information disclosure requirements. These are a problem in their own right but they can make it problematic for lenders to be flexible in cases where they might, for example, wish to offer forbearance to consumers experiencing difficulties in making repayments or to those suffering from unmanageable personal debts, as many do. Clearly, if small businesses are being affected by Covid-19 issues, it makes sense to ensure that their access to bounce-back loans is not hampered by requests for unnecessary evidence and detail or by extensive time delays in processing such data.

However, as the Explanatory Notes make clear, SI 2020/480 changed the rules for small loans to individuals and small partnerships so that they are no longer regulated credit agreements. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, pointed out, the SI does not affect Sections 140A to 140C of the Consumer Credit Act 1974—the so-called unfair relationship provisions. The problem identified by the noble Baroness seems to be important. In a laudable attempt to simplify the processes, the Government might, perhaps inadvertently, have removed the statutory underpinning of Sections 140A to 140C, which, for example, through the courts protect borrowers from any subsequent attempts by lenders to act unfairly. That can often be the case, as we have heard this evening.

I believe that this issue might need to be reviewed separately once we are through the pandemic. Perhaps when she comes to respond, the Minister will agree that it needs further work. I hope that she will also be able to reassure us that our concerns are unfounded. I have my doubts but am willing to be convinced. The change in law needs to be securely attached only to bounce-back loans and the Covid-19 pandemic. We also need to know that the application of this disregard is proportionate and appropriate to lenders.

Turning to Amendment 48 in my name, I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lady Uddin and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. I hope that the Minister recognises that the amendment covers ground raised in the powerful comments made at Second Reading by the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, who shared his personal experience of the wide variability of responsiveness by the individual banks and lending institutions authorised by the British Business Bank to issue bounce-back loans.

My amendment calls for regular reports. I appreciate that there are confidentiality issues here, but this is also about transparency. If a private company such as MoneySavingExpert can do a survey which reveals that a substantial number of bounce-back applicants suffer delays, rejections and unrelated credit checks, surely the Government can do better. It is true that the MSE report is based on a sample, albeit a large one, but it shows that consumers have had variable responses from the major banks, and some of the smaller challenger banks had very high rejection rates. The transparency which the amendment looks for may improve that situation. I hope that the Minister can offer some movement on this issue, which would help with the task of getting bounce-back loans out to those who can use them. She said in her response to an earlier group of amendments that the Government were constantly reviewing and improving the Bounce Back Loan Scheme. I hope that she recognises that to do that without the sort of information that my amendment proposes might be otiose.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I call the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. We cannot hear the noble Earl. We will move on to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and come back to the noble Earl later.

[Baroness Kramer [V]]

My Lords, I will be exceedingly brief. I only wanted to address Clause 14(2)(b), which is basically about HGV licence applications. The Government have, in effect, temporarily waived the requirement for medical certificates, which I find entirely appropriate in light of the pandemic and the difficulty of requiring the medical profession—distracting them, if you like—to carry out the various tests and fill out the various forms that would provide those certificates.

My question is this: having made the decision that it is possible to grant HGV licences on this basis, are the Government willing to agree to do the same for other applicants for drivers licences? I am particularly concerned about others who, like me, are about to turn 70. We, of course, have to obtain new licences as we reach 70. I have been able to do it very easily online because I have the right sort of picture-based identity and passport, and because I did not require a medical certificate.

However, I have received a number of letters from various people who have not been in that position and are now finding that their licences are expiring at a time when they really do need to be able to use their cars. Being over 70, they are quite anxious about going on public transport; I think most people would think that that was entirely appropriate. Having made a decision that it is going to temporarily waive that medical requirement for HGV drivers, will the Government now consider doing it particularly for the over-70s?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

Have we got the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, back?

Business and Planning Bill

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 14th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it was always my intention to speak only to Amendment 73, to which I have added my name. I thank the Minister for coming forward with what we all hope will be a resolution to what was, I am sure, an oversight in the drafting of the Coronavirus Act. We must make sure that those amendments will permit the development corporations and, I hope, Transport for London, to hold their meetings remotely, including remote access for members of the public. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who wrote to me on this subject, suggesting further discussion and acknowledging the problem. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, who, realising that she would be unable to speak on this occasion, sent me a quick email—knowing that I was going to address the topic—just to say how important it was to her to find a resolution. She was CEO of London First, championing bringing the Olympics to London and helping to find business support. She was particularly keen that it would leave a lasting legacy for that area of London and that the London Legacy Development Corporation would be able to do its job to the full.

Amendment 73 had a weakness in that, although it addressed the problems in the development corporations, it was not clear that it would also cover Transport for London. As a former board member of Transport for London, I was particularly anxious that that should be included. Again, I thank the Minister and look forward to seeing the actual language. I hope that this matter is rapidly coming to a conclusion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer [V]]

My Lords, as employers bring back employees, even observing all the government guidelines scrupulously only reduces the risk of Covid—it does not eliminate it. That brings me to the issue of employers’ liability insurance and Covid, which I raised at Second Reading. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his letter to me, in which he addressed the questions that I raised, but it seems that the problem remains. He wrote:

“Every employer carrying out business in Britain must maintain compulsory employers’ liability insurance, which insures them in relation to bodily injury or disease sustained by employees arising out of and in the course of their employment in that business. There are strict limits on the conditions and exclusions which such policies can contain.”


However, both employers and employees were very taken aback to find that business interruption insurance, which they thought covered them in an instance such as the pandemic, in most cases has not been applicable. Many will look at the terms of employers’ liability insurance and feel very uncertain that, in a case where an employee acquires Covid at the work site, they will be protected by that insurance, and of course employers share that same concern. There is a real worry that insurance companies will find some way out of being responsible for paying compensation or that they will ask the employers to add to and expand their insurance, at some extraordinarily exorbitant price.

I was interested in Amendment 77 because I am being realistic in recognising that the Government will not intervene at the moment to try to make sure that this insurance is adequate—and at the moment, insurers are not feeling a lot of pressure. But the coming together of employees and employers, which in a sense is outlined in Amendment 77, seems to provide a venue to create pressure and to place attention on this issue. I fear that, particularly if we have a second spike, it will become a very significant issue, and I do not want the pressure to try to deal with this matter to go away.

[Baroness Pinnock [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 77 on employee and employer considerations, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, is a timely reminder that all the elements of the Bill have a consequence on working lives and employer responsibilities, and provide opportunities to develop better working practices and relationships. Liberal Democrats have long proposed employee involvement in businesses as a means for improvements to be gained, both by the employer and those employed. This debate is important, we support the sentiments, and I look forward to the response from the Minister.

Business and Planning Bill

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord German [V]]

My Lords, I support this amendment, tabled by my noble friend, because, put simply, it would do two things. First, it would put beyond doubt the protection which borrowers of bounce-back loans have against their lenders pursuing punitive action if they default. Secondly, given the relatively low take-up of these important loans, it would give reassurance to companies seeking to use the facility provided by the Government as essential finance to keep them in business and retain employment.

Companies may have been, or are, hesitant to take out these loans for a variety of reasons. For example, they might be worried about repayment, the ongoing viability of their business or whether they wish to continue trading. But to respond to these fears, the Government must assist by providing the maximum level of certainty on what happens if the borrower cannot repay the loan. The guarantee to the lenders is that the Government will bear the cost of defaulting. This is very welcome, but that guarantee is given to the lender and not to the borrower. There is some protection in place to prevent the lender taking further actions against the borrower, but the legislation before us takes away most of the ultimate protections for a borrower—to have recourse to the courts.

My noble friend has outlined these issues in great detail. I am grateful to her for the forensic manner in which she laid out the borrower protection arguments for this amendment. I will not repeat the detail on the missing protections that she has given.

Taking the two reasons I have outlined for supporting this amendment separately, on the first it is clear that many lenders, mostly large high-street banks, will already have banking arrangements with those who are seeking or have taken out these bounce-back loans. In Committee, I quoted examples of this relationship possibly being used to influence the behaviours of lenders. Put simply, they have financial power over their borrowers through that continuing relationship with them. Other lenders, many of them now trying to lend money under these schemes, have difficulty in getting their hands on the 0.5% interest cash that the Government have made available to lend, largely because the big banks will not funnel these funds through to them, on the “Why should we help our competitors?” principle. This means that the big banks will have a bounce-back loans advantage, most frequently with their existing customers.

On the second reason, the Government estimate that many more of these loans will be needed—perhaps four times as many—to protect small companies from going under, given the consequent unemployment that would cause. These loans need to provide protection for the borrower in a way which will not deter them from proceeding. The fallback of court protection from the poor behaviour of the lender provides a higher level of reassurance to borrowers, in line with the current legislation.

I share the Government’s hope that these loans can provide a lifeline to many companies. They are a very good response to the pandemic. This amendment would support the Government’s ambition and strengthen the case for businesses considering taking out these loans by removing the concern that default could lead to unfair sanctions being imposed on them.

[Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, for her willingness to talk virtually to a number of us who have been focused on this issue; however, I came away from those discussions almost more confused than I went into them. This House will be aware that the financial regulators—certainly the FCA—do not regulate institutions but activities. One of the activities it cannot regulate is commercial lending, which is on the far side of what is generally called the regulatory perimeter. A slight sleight of hand is, to some extent, made available to sole traders, micro-companies and the very small end of small businesses so that they do merit some protection, that typically coming in the form of an appeal to the ombudsman. Although the ombudsman has very limited power to actually make sure that any remedy is effected, there is at least one to go to.

For companies that do not fall into this category—my noble friend Lady Bowles provided the detail, so I will not repeat it—there is no form of protection; the FCA has no standing. Therefore, when those companies are put into default and the banks come to collect on their debts, their only resort has been to the courts. Under this arrangement, that is now removed from those companies if they have taken out a bounce-back loan. I really do not understand why the ability to go to the courts to protest unfair treatment has been removed.

The Government have full knowledge that the FCA cannot act under these circumstances. I suppose that, occasionally, somebody in government will argue that the FCA can turn to the Senior Managers Regime, but, as we all know, having listened frequently to the testimony from Andrew Bailey, only in very rare instances would the regime apply. Indeed, the FCA has been very reluctant to use it, even in some very egregious cases; in fact, I would be interested to hear from the Minister the number of times the FCA has actually used it. It is not a workable mechanism for trying to force the banks to provide fair treatment to the larger end of SMEs if they go into default under their bounce- back loans.

The Bounce Back Loan Scheme is brilliant, but I am very concerned that it will end up with a stain on its character when, in 18 months’ or two years’ time, we have a chain of companies that are clearly being treated unfairly by the banks and both the Government and the regulators stand back and say, “There is nothing we can do. This was an unregulated activity, only contract law applied, and we have disallowed these companies’ ability to go to the courts to seek any form of redress”. Frankly, it is a tragedy and a scandal in the making.

I am not sure it has been made clear to companies that when they apply for bounce-back loans, it is caveat emptor and they will be without even the normal range of protections should they go into default. If I understand correctly, the Government have decided to disapply the right to turn to the courts as part of an enticement to the banks to participate in the Bounce Back Loan Scheme. I cannot believe that that concession should be given; and if it was asked for by the banks, I am even more worried because, as we know, the banks seek opportunities to make profit—that is the business they are in.

Perhaps the Minister is not that familiar with the RBS and GRG scandals. The GRG was a profit centre. The RBS staff who were part of the GRG were looking not only to get loans and interest repaid but to make an additional profit, particularly by seizing assets. Under the various contract terms, they could identify firms that would value those assets. The owners or borrowers could argue that the assets were being valued at well below market value, but had no means of enforcing that, and of course we know from the various reports that followed that it was not infrequently the reality that assets were valued very low, triggering the default, and months later, having been seized by the bank, were resold for multiples of the valuation.

The mechanisms that the banks use when they have the opportunity to put a company into default are frequently outside the boundaries of what any of us would consider fair and appropriate. I do not understand stripping away from companies any possible route to a remedy under those circumstances.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara [V]]

My Lords, my name is on this amendment, and I am in general support of the points powerfully made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, in Committee and today, and by others who have spoken. They have made the main arguments, which I will not repeat.

The Government argue that the key driver for this initiative is to get the bounce-bank loans out to as many small businesses as want them and can use them, and to reduce barriers to that effect. I sympathise—it is very hard to be against that aim—but there are clearly risks here, as we have heard. While my concerns are not identical to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, they are very similar, and I would like to make three points on the issue.

First, there is general agreement that the Consumer Credit Act 1974 urgently needs bringing up to date, to be fit for purpose regarding the changed regulatory landscape of different lending practices and the tighter financial circumstances of the 2020s, now and post Covid-19. The current lender/borrower relationship envisaged under the Act does not work but, as others have said, it is very risky to remove all the court protections, and I sympathise with that.

Secondly, the Government have put on record the very tight constraints that they are putting on lenders who wish to engage with bounce-back loans, including banning fees, banning punitive interest and forbidding reach-through sanctions to personal assets such as houses and vehicles, but is that enough? There is a powerful tool in the Government’s armoury.

Thirdly, the 100% guarantee that we have been talking about is on the lender, not the borrower, but that gives the Government considerable powers which they say they will use to drive good behaviour. For me, the key question is whether, in removing access to the courts under the unfair trading clauses of the 1974 Act, the Government have put the bounce-back loan borrowers in a worse position than if they had left it all in place, or—as suggested in the amendment—just the affordability issue. It is a close call.

I would be very grateful if the Minister, when responding, could deal fully with the following points. First, will she confirm that the Government will undertake to overhaul the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in the near future, taking full account of the issues raised in this debate? Secondly, can she list concisely the limits on lenders’ ability under the bounce-back loan to penalise borrowers who are in default or otherwise transgress, irrespective of the amount of money borrowed, and the statutory and non-statutory opportunities for borrowers to protect themselves and their possessions if lenders attempt to penalise them absent the core protection of the 1974 Act?

Thirdly, can the Minister set out what she called “the steely determination” of the Government to use their power to reduce or cancel the 100% underwriting of loans made under the BBL scheme, if lenders transgress? This could be a very powerful weapon. It would be useful to know who will have the power to trigger certain sanctions, and how borrowers will be informed about the process. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, suggested that an arbitration structure was needed, and he may well be right. If the Minister can confirm that these points are in play and give assurances on them, then I suggest that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, does not press her amendment to a vote this evening, as we will not support her.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer [V]]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to government Amendment 54 to say thank you. The Government have made the amendment that was required by the mayoral development corporations and Transport for London to be able to hold virtual decision-making meetings and meetings which the public can attend. They have done what was needed, and I and many others are grateful.

It would be helpful if the Government could confirm that the relevant clause will come into effect on Royal Assent and no later than Royal Assent. This is also a request to the Government to amend the relevant flexibility regulations—SI 2020/392—as soon as possible after Royal Assent, and then bring those regulations into effect as soon as is practical, perhaps in less than the normal 21-day period, because that will ensure that the most use can be made of the new method of working that has been approved by this amendment. Again, my thanks.

[Lord Balfe [V]]

This legislation, which we are almost at the end of, is caused by the Covid crisis. It is, in many ways, a panic Bill, since we are trying to write things we may or may not succeed in.

I make two points. First, please let us not throw away environmental gains which mean a lot to communities, and particularly to residents. Many of them have fought for years to get decent standards for starting and ending developments and ending working days. Secondly, please keep it temporary: make sure that the provisions that we are told will lapse will do so in due course. I support what my noble friend Lord Lansley is doing, but I hope the criticisms aimed at local authorities for their slowness, often wrongly, are also taken on board by developers, who are sitting on massive land banks and need to get on with things. They did not need this legislation; they had been able to build hundreds of thousands of houses, but have not managed it, so let us keep a sense of perspective, and not throw the proverbial baby out with the legislative bathwater.