Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Earl of Lytton

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. To me, the issue here is quite simple. We expect leaseholders to fund the enfranchisement of their lease—to pay the costs of the enfranchisement—and then to share the increased value of the lease with the freeholder, who has made no financial input to the extension of the lease. From a leaseholder’s point of view—although I do not have a leasehold myself—that seems to me to be the wrong balance. This is what the proposals in the Bill are attempting to put right. From that perspective, we would want to agree with that.

We are constantly warned that no investments can be regarded as safeguarded for all time. That must be true for property as it is for any other investments. We have heard arguments this afternoon about protecting freeholders, seemingly for ever. I accept the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that phasing might be an answer to freeholders’ difficulties, but you cannot keep things in aspic for ever. Change is on the move and the Government are right to try to provide a better balance of rights and responsibilities between freeholders and leaseholders.

We on these Benches would prefer to move entirely to commonhold—but that argument has yet to be completed. I accept that the situation is very complex. Whenever we have a substantial change in legal rights, there is a loss on one side and arguments about that, and benefits on the other. Nobody can be absolutely clear and certain how the balance will be reset.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

I take the noble Baroness’s point about things changing, but I ask her to cast her mind back—although she was not there at the time, any more than I was—to the great reforms in the Law of Property Act 1925. There was a big discussion about all sorts of matters to do with tenure and getting rid of things such as entails, and modernising the system. If we are to make a seismic change—and I think this Bill will produce something of a wobble—there ought to have been that big discussion about the fundamentals of property law. Does the noble Baroness not agree that, instead of tinkering around piecemeal with this and trying to shoehorn it into the unfortunate focal point of leasehold reform and the balance between leasehold and freehold, that discussion should have taken place first?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the noble Earl for that intervention, because he is right in many cases. I am not a lawyer, but I know that the 1925 property Act made a huge change away from the old system, which was feudal at that point, and modernised property legislation. This Bill may do the same. In some instances, as we have heard this afternoon, it will have big consequences—for freeholders, in the context of this set of amendments. I accept that maybe there ought to have been—as we heard on Monday from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham—a draft Bill on commonhold. Maybe it requires an in-depth, cross-House, cross-party committee to get into the detail, rather than the 300 or so pages of the Bill that we have in front of us, in order to get to grips with the consequences of what is being proposed.

I go back to the principle, and the principle has to be right. We are trying to rebalance the rights between freehold and leasehold. There is frequent talk on the Conservative Benches that the basis of Conservative philosophy is a property-owning democracy, but leaseholders will not be full participants in that until these changes are made. So it will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say with regard to this very challenging debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

I believe it means that it cannot be disposed of away from the purposes of the charity. I am not a lawyer and I am afraid I do not know exactly, but I understood it to be the term contained in the Minister’s letter to the right reverend Prelate, which is why I used it.

I want to make it clear that the organisation of a charity is necessarily of a commercial nature but devoted, ultimately, to its charitable purposes. It cannot be otherwise; it must use its assets optimally, and it is required to do so. I can see no discernible difference between something like the National Trust and an organisation such as the Church of England. Any such charity acquires, disposes and otherwise deals with its land assets as a matter of course. It is required to do so if it is disposing according to a set of rules, with which I am familiar, under the Charity Commission: CC 28, which state that you have to get best value for the asset, or words to that effect.

I am concerned about the potential hybridity aspect of the Bill, to which the right reverend Prelate did not refer, but it is implicit in what he is asking. It is a question that needs to be raised and is a procedural one for this House. I would very much like to know the answer, and if the Minister, who has not had any warning, cannot give it today perhaps she would be kind enough to write and copy in other noble Lords who are listening.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for drawing our attention to the fact that when you make complex changes, the consequences cannot always be predicted and may not be ones we would wish to support.

The issue is one I hope the Minister will be able to help us resolve. The right reverend Prelate cited the balance between justice and simplicity. He said to always come down on the side of justice, and so would I. However, in this case, we have competing justices. The principle being advocated throughout the Bill is the justice of rebalancing the rights and responsibilities between freeholders and leaseholders to the benefit of leaseholders—a principle most of us support. The difficulty is that the justice we support has a consequence we would not support: reducing the funds available to charities whose income is based on freehold property. So, there is a conundrum for us.

The right reverend Prelate listed the charities that he thought were affected by these changes. I noted they were all London-based, no doubt because of land values in London. It is important for us to know whether this is a more extensive problem, or a London-based one. The first question we need to ask is, what other charities will be affected?

I do not have an answer to the next question: is there a workaround that mitigates the effect of the principal changes the Bill seeks to implement? I am sure the bright young things in the department could come up with a way of mitigating the outcome, so that charities do not lose their income, which is in nobody’s interest. I am confident that somebody will come up with a great way of overcoming this problem, while retaining the other justice: fairness towards leaseholders.

So, there are questions but no answers, and I look forward to hearing what the Government might be able to do.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Earl of Lytton

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 23rd October 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I have an interest in both the items that we are considering in this group. For the avoidance of doubt, I declare my involvement as a practising but nearly completely retired chartered surveyor with a knowledge of the leasehold and construction sectors.

The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, deserves the full appreciation of the House for what I can only describe as a progressive defenestration of the fuzzy edges that have surrounded the question of the building safety regulator. He has whittled it down to the last elements, as to whether this is a proposal for a like-for-like transfer from one jurisdiction, if I can term departments in that sense, to another—or whether, as he had previously identified, some other morphing process was going on behind the scenes. I supported him previously in this, and I support him again in his endeavours here. This really boils down to the last element, as to whether there is a change.

One could be forgiven for suspending a certain amount of belief here. If there is going to be the process of transferring a body from the Health and Safety Executive to some other framework, known or unknown, why would one run the risk of the delays, disruption and everything else that would be involved with that if it were not for the fact that some other factor was involved? Motion X1 as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, is a significant litmus test of what is involved. I encourage the Minister to consider very carefully whether the Government mean what they say in saying that it is a like-for-like transfer from one authority to another, or whether in reality it conceals some other paradigm shift. That is very important.

I turn to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. I apologise for the fact that his colleague has had to use my comments from a previous stage in this debate to tell him that his approach is no good. Of course, my comments were made in the context of saying that it has a technical deficiency. I was not in any way intending to suggest that the direction of travel in which he was engaged was faulty or in any other way imbued with anything other than the highest principles. He and I share a great deal of what has happened here.

Again, the noble Lord is absolutely right in proposing Motion ZC1—and I was pleased that he referred, obiter as it were, to the problem with the exceptions. What has happened here is a sort of drawbridge approach to the liability and scope of the Building Safety Act, and it is that which creates these cliff-edge approaches to who is qualified, whether their funding qualifies or excludes them, and so on and so forth. That is what has been dogging everybody all the way along the line. In reality, that delineation of the protections under the Building Safety Act is pernicious, because they are protections that any Government should apply in response to a serious and systemic failure in the home building industry to deliver adequate quality in building safety terms—and, may I say, presided over by nearly 40 years of ineffective regulatory control of building standards.

To expand a little, the Government’s resistance to anything beyond the straitjacket of parameters relating to the scope of leasehold protections seems to be governed by an entirely arbitrary approach and unwillingness even to collect data, understand implications or assess risk—I refer specially to those non-qualified leaseholders to which the noble Lord referred. My aim in all this has been to approach the matter on a much broader spectrum. The noble Lord and I shared an amendment to the Building Safety Act 18 months ago, and I think he has felt obliged to whittle it down evermore to try to get to something that he can achieve here. I absolutely applaud his persistence—but I am forced to suggest that, in the absence of any risk assessment, any government response to what may come down the road will be blindsided and ineffective. Hearing or speaking no evil does not prevent evils occurring—in this case, to hundreds of thousands of innocent lease payers, to market sectors, to valuation, to lending, to regeneration of urban areas and to new homes targets generally. I have said all this before, and I apologise for repeating it.

The noble Lord has been assiduous in his campaigning. With regard to Motion ZC1, I do not know how many leaseholders might be affected by this, but I suspect that it is actually quite a small cohort, and the Government should accept it and not allow this exclusion process or drawbridge approach to cut them off. Of course, I tried to address the whole thing on a much wider scope, but to no avail, which is why, when my words are used as a reason for denying the noble Lord the fruits of his endeavours, I have to bear in mind that I seem to have been assiduously ignored throughout this, up until today, when my words are used by the Minister against his own Back-Bencher. There is something faintly quizzical about that whole arrangement.

I hope that the Minister will at least indicate that the Government are cognisant of the serious, ongoing and growing problems arising here—to finance, to a whole sector, to hundreds of thousands, a very large number, of excluded leaseholders, and much more besides. If the Government do not recognise that, we are in for very serious problems indeed.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the very fact that these two issues remain for this Bill demonstrates that the Building Safety Act is, sadly, unfinished business. Although the matters will not be concluded today, I can be sure that they will be raised in future legislation in this House, because they need to be resolved. Having said that, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said about non-qualifying leaseholders. It is a large group which deserves not to be neglected, and I support my noble friend’s valiant efforts in getting the regulation appropriate to the need.

Non-Domestic Rating Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Earl of Lytton

Committee stage
Monday 3rd July 2023 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

I am delighted about what the Minister has just said. I thank her for that and apologise for making her say it twice, if I did. It is my understanding that this is now a permanent abolition of downward relief, which is extremely welcome.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. As she rightly said, this is at the heart of the changes being introduced in the Bill. I thank her for recognising that there could indeed be a further review to reduce the gap between revaluations. However, although I may have misheard her, I thought that the Minister said that the review conducted by the Treasury was—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I was making the point that it should be a defence for a business rate payer to say that they had reasonably relied on published VOA or other guidance in respect of anything to do with being made liable for a penalty. Failure by a ratepayer to notify carries with it a number of penalties, at least one of which is entirely open-ended—more of that in a minute. The implementation of this will depend very much on the extent and quality of the guidance issued, especially as it is supposed that this will be comprehensible to unrepresented ratepayers. I particularly make that point because we are trying to make sure that this does not trigger a requirement across the board for more ratepayers to seek professional advice.

I appreciate that the VOA will not bring in notification and penalty measures until it is satisfied that they work smoothly and seamlessly. That is my understanding—my words, I stress, not necessarily the ones that the Minister would use. My submission is that no government body should be at liberty to state one thing in guidance and then do something quite different or to reinterpret established understandings at its own whim and caprice to the detriment, in this instance, of a ratepayer.

I shall deal with Amendments 23 to 26 as a job lot because their purpose is to fix a number of issues that appear to me to be typos or errors of construction or perception to do with the way in which the penalty regime will work. First, the fixed penalty minimums for incorrect information provided to the VOA appear to be the wrong way round and Amendments 23 and 24 serve to remedy that. I think the figures have just been transposed.

Secondly, unlike the penalties in relation to the provision of information to HMRC as opposed to the VOA, there is no cap whatever for non-compliance on the VOA notification. This seems contrary to legal principle in general and at odds with non-compliance with, for instance, the form of return under Schedule 9 to the 1988 Act, which is subject to a cap, so Amendment 25 seeks to address that.

Finally, there is the question of the Valuation Tribunal for England’s—VTE’s—determination of penalties, which the VOA has imposed in lieu of prosecution for false information. As drafted in the Bill, the burden of criminal proof is inverted, with the ratepayer having to prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that they did not commit the offence. That cannot be right or reasonable. I suspect that it is not intended, either—I hope I am correct. Amendment 26 seeks to deal with that.

That summarises my amendments in this group. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has raised an important group of issues regarding the penalties that could be imposed on ratepayers who do not provide accurate, timely information. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that and explain how ratepayers seem to have more and more imposed on them. They must provide the information annually to the VOA—in the last group we debated the VOA’s transparency in relation to that—and the noble Earl has just raised the quite significant penalties imposed if the information is not accurate, even if, as he pointed out, there is a genuine error. It seems that, in the previous group and this one, we do not have the right balance of responsibilities between the VOA requiring information, what business rate payers are required to provide and where the final duty lies.

The VOA is serving two masters: the Treasury on one hand and business rate payers on the other. It seems that the VOA is responding to its Treasury master and is not giving sufficient cognisance to the customers—the business rate payers. The noble Earl raised some important points regarding that. We must get this balance right. The VOA needs to be more transparent and responsive to business rate payers. It also needs to be accountable to them—and the reverse is also true, as the noble Earl said. The VOA demands penalties if the ratepayer gets the information wrong but—hang on—the VOA makes errors all the time. Where is the accountability and compensation to business rate payers for those errors? The noble Earl raised that issue and I hope that the Minister will be able to get the balance right when she responds.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Earl of Lytton

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 158. I declare an interest as a vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils; I am also the co-president of the West Sussex Association of Local Councils.

I remember clearly that we had a difficult meeting of the county association, in that the matters were contentious. It was dealt with online. I and my co-president went through the whole thing; all I can say is that it was entirely satisfactory. It was well organised from the word go and was well marshalled by the clerk of the association. The matter was carried off to everybody’s reasonable satisfaction; given that there were contentious matters, nobody complained.

I would just like to say that the world has changed. The world was changing beforehand; I was doing virtual meetings long before Covid came along. The fact that the technology was there and was sped up says a great deal about those who were responsible for getting things organised, particularly those in this House who organised things so that we could hold our proceedings virtually. It was enormously to the credit of those who seized the opportunity to do it.

However, if we are going to speed up Britain, one of the first things we will want to do is make sure that we make cost-efficient use of people’s time. The first bit of cost-efficiency is reducing road miles; we can start by decarbonising meetings. I am not very far from my local authority offices but I know that, by the time I have travelled five miles, found a parking space, probably paid for parking, crossed the road and gone into the council chamber—I am not a serving councillor; I just use that as an example—it will have taken me a good half an hour, with another half an hour on the way back, thank you very much. If you want busy people to devote their time and energy, you really have to make efficient use of their time; otherwise, they disconnect.

The other important thing here is inclusivity; other noble Lords and noble Baronesses have mentioned this. We are dealing with people who may be infirm or have mobility difficulties. This may involve young people in households with schedules that do not match; they may work away so it is hard for them to get back in time with normal commuting. Of course, you also have parents who are looking after young people and cannot get away. They cannot detach themselves from their household, never mind the infirm or those with other issues.

On the grounds of cost-efficiency and inclusivity, these amendments are very powerful. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for introducing this group and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for taking us through the history of where this issue was. I say again: things have moved on. We need to look at a modern, efficient way of working. This amendment does not say that you would have to have virtual meetings; it gives local choice on the matter. How come a parliamentary Select Committee can operate virtually if it decides that that is convenient, as I think is still the case, but a parish council—or a planning committee, for that matter—somehow cannot? This is inconsistent and makes no sense, so I very much support these amendments. I hope that the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will consider them carefully and reflect on them; I know that he is an enormously fair-minded man when it comes to these things.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

This issue is part of a threesome that we have debated this evening: local democracy; fiscal and electoral decisions; and, now, how we hold meetings. How is it that Westminster can dictate how local councils should conduct themselves? That is the question I want to ask. I know that they deal with potholes; actually, I have a plan for potholes. Can we have migration of potholes? Do noble Lords think that would help? It seems to me that these amendments have a lot of merit; I will say why.

The first issue is travel. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, raised this but only in relation to going a short distance. In their wisdom, the Government have created two new unitary authorities, which start their life in April. North Yorkshire is one. If you live in Selby or are elected to represent Selby, in one part of North Yorkshire, you now have to travel 56 miles to get to a council meeting in Northallerton. That is a 112-mile round trip to get to a meeting. You have to ask yourself: is that an efficient use of anybody’s time, and does it contribute to our net-zero ambitions?

Then there is Somerset, which Members of the Committee may believe is a smaller county, but if you live at one end, in Frome, and the county hall is in Taunton, at the other end of the county, that too is 56 miles and a 112-mile round trip. That is not cost effective or efficient in anybody’s life. If you live in Yorkshire, especially North Yorkshire, and you have to go across the dales or the moors in winter to attend a meeting, you know that sometimes it is simply not possible. That is one reason.

I hope the Government will take up the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, of bringing forward a government amendment, either shortly or at the next stage, to deal with this. As the noble Lord said, it is about efficiency. Virtual meetings lower costs and enable more people to get involved. If we are interested in local democracy, as I am, the more people who can get involved and engaged in decision-making, the better.

My final point, well made by my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market, is about the engagement and involvement of people who are otherwise excluded from being councillors because of either caring responsibilities or lack of transport. If you do not have a car in North Yorkshire, I do not know how you get to Northallerton. Maybe the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, can tell us, but I think it might take a couple of days.

For all those reasons, it is really important that if we want to reinvigorate our local democracy—which is essential if we are to narrow inequalities, which is at the heart of the levelling-up process—we need more people to be engaged. If we want more people to be engaged and involved, we have to enable it by letting councils decide for themselves whether they want virtual meetings. I fully support the principle behind all these amendments.

Building Safety Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Earl of Lytton

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I will probably disappoint the noble Baroness a little, but I hope that I can also give a bit of explanation. I say that with particular feeling because she chairs the Built Environment Committee, on which I have the privilege to serve.

I understand the irritation that has been generated in some quarters by the EWS1 scheme. I ask the Committee to bear in mind that this was prepared as something of an emergency measure to deal with the logjam of unmortgageable, and therefore unsellable, properties. It was set up at the instigation of government and occurred following discussion with insurers, lenders and valuation professionals. It is a creature of common creation and not the RICS alone, although the RICS put it out. That is quite important.

The unfortunate thing is that, as it was the only form of certification around, it has been latched on to in certain quarters as providing some reassurance for things that it was never intended to achieve. In other words, it was seen as something with a wider fitness for purpose than was ever intended, and that is part of the problem.

When one produces something of this sort, it is produced in collaboration with others, but there will always be people across the spectrum; the insurance world is such that certain sectors of it will top-slice the risk. There will always be some that—a bit like some of what I might call the more adventurous motor insurers—will insure only certain clearly de-risked parts of the market in risk generally. I do not know whether that is a problem here.

This EWS1 was just reviewed in December. The RICS—again in consultation, and again, I believe, with support and collaboration from government but certainly with all the relevant bodies—decided that even though its application in terms of the problems that it created was reduced to a very small proportion, it should be kept because that was the view of valuers, mortgage lenders and insurers. The RICS as a professional body cannot ignore what these people are saying or the commercial pressures that are set before it in dealing with that. The RICS also published its justification in December, which is available on the web. I am all for de-risking things so that assessments of all sorts do not grow horns and a tail. However, I am not sure that having the Government take control and ownership of this particular matter would necessarily reassure lenders or professionals or, for that matter, benefit the market sentiment.

In its evidence to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, the RICS acting chief executive made it clear that there is already a process in hand to train up a cohort of fire risk assessors pursuant to the Bill’s objectives. EWS1 itself is probably destined to wither on the vine in a relatively short period of time. I therefore hope that I have given some sort of helpful explanation of why I am not sure that it is a good thing for the Government to take on this thing, even if they felt that they were willing to get their fingers involved in that particular pie, and why it is probably best that the matter continues on the critical path it is now and we see the outcome of this cohort of newly trained people. I am sure that other professional bodies will need to do training as well; we must try to make sure that it is rolled out as speedily as possible so that, hopefully, the problems will be put behind us.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for raising an important issue. There is confusion and concern around these EWS1 forms and assessments. There is confusion—which I will come on to, following on from what the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, just said—and there is certainly concern from leaseholders. Either they wait for ever for these external wall structural assessments, or those who do them err on the side of caution because of the way that they were brought in as an emergency measure following the awful Grenfell fire.

Building Safety Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Earl of Lytton

Committee stage
Thursday 24th February 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

After that rapid run-through of about 40 amendments in this group, I shall respond to all of them as follows.

The first three amendments are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and I have to say that I have a lot of sympathy with what he said. Too many times, when new homes are built in the ward where I live and which I represent—and I declare again my interest as a councillor in Kirklees—roads are not completed to adoptable standards, because that is a good way of saving money. You sell the homes and move on quickly, and it is then really hard for enforcement to be effective, especially when the fines imposed are paltry in relation to the costs of enforcement. So I have a lot of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has said, and I hope that the Government could look again at that element of the building safety regime.

The next amendments referred to are those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, Amendments 94A, 94B and 97A, about the new homes ombudsman. I agree completely with what the noble Lord, Lord Best, has said—and the Minister is nodding, so I assume that he does too, and will make changes at Report. That is excellent. It is especially about the issue in relation to Amendment 97A, about extending the time limit to six years. People buy a new home, starry-eyed, and move in—excited, obviously—then one or two snagging issues arise; they try to get them resolved, they fail to do so, time runs out, the two years has gone and they have nowhere to go. So it is an excellent move to extend that to six years.

In my capacity as a local councillor, I have had to try to help people, and I have to say that I have failed, because we did not have these powers in place at the time, to do with people for whom simple things like plumbing was not done adequately. Their kitchens were being flooded out, and nobody would take on the responsibility because their time had run out. So I totally endorse the views expressed, and the hope expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Best, that the timeframe for the new homes ombudsman should be six years.

I heard what the Minister said before he introduced his great long list of amendments: that the Government were considering extending the warranties for new homes from 10 years. The trouble with warranties, unless they are really tightly worded, is that developers can find a loophole. You end up with a new home owner on their own trying to get recompense from a powerful business—often a David and Goliath situation and, in this case, David often does not win. That is why I support the move of the noble Lord, Lord Best, to give the new homes ombudsman—him or her; would it not be good if it was a woman?—power to deal with defects in new homes.

That brings us to the many government amendments that the Minister introduced, which he called technical. I always worry when Ministers call amendments technical. It is like saying, “Don’t worry about these. We will rush them through, nobody will notice and you might regret what we have to say.” I am pleased that he was very clear that the building safety regime will apply equally—I hope this is what I heard—to all buildings, regardless of where they are in the UK, be they Crown buildings or, indeed, the Palace of Westminster. I would love to have a discussion about the impact that will have on the restoration project.

Extending the scope of the Bill to include the devolved Governments has been rather rushed over. I have here the Welsh Government’s legislative consent memorandum on the Bill, in which the Senedd says that its consent is required to Clause 126, to which the Government have an amendment, about remediation and redress. I seek from the Minister some explanation that the Government will not ride roughshod over the powers of the Senedd. We have devolved Governments in three parts of the UK, and we need to respect their powers and work with those Governments. I am sure they would work with the Government as long as they do not try to act quickly, not get their consent but try to rush over them. That is no way to work.

I have here a long paper, which I am sure the Minister has seen, which outlines exactly what the Senedd hopes the Government will do. I am sure his civil servants will be able to give him a form of words which will enable me to reassure those of my colleagues who are concerned about Welsh affairs that the Government do not intend to intrude on the powers of the Senedd. With those words, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I will just pick up on one or two things. Before I do so, hearing other people’s declarations of interests, particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, makes me realise that mine on Monday was perhaps a little light, although it is in the register. I am a co-owner of let residential and commercial property, but nothing of the nature of long-leasehold flats—they are all individual houses.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, raises an absolutely crucial point: the magistrates’ court is too small a threat. It does not have the technical knowledge, and I do not believe it has the capacity either, to deal with it. This threat will simply be laughed at. It really has to have much more meat than that, whether it is through the court process—which I am always a little reluctant about—or through what is proposed in the third group of amendments later on, and in particular my amendments, which obviously take a different tack on how to establish liability. I very much support what he said there.

Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Earl of Lytton

3rd reading
Wednesday 8th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Fox, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, for the constructive meetings that helpfully resolved the issues in the part of the Bill dealing with directors’ disqualifications and insolvency. I thank the Minister for the time he devoted to discussions on the Bill and the private meetings we held to try to resolve various issues, some of which remain; nevertheless, we are happy that the Bill has to pass to deal with the issues in front of us. I am still concerned about its retrospective nature, an issue that we did not fully resolve, inevitably. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, has said, the reforming of business rates is still a major concern. But with that in mind I wish to thank everybody who was involved, particularly Sarah Pughe, from the Lib Dems’ legislative team, for her help and advice. I am grateful for the way the Bill was discussed and debated so that we were, in the end, able to support it. With that, I thank the Minister for his help.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I will make a contribution from, as it were, the technical Benches on the matter of non-domestic rating. I thank the Minister—this will probably be the only time I can thank him publicly—for writing to me about matters he raised when we were at a previous stage of the Bill, in connection with the package of measures the Government have put in place to try to alleviate the problems facing businesses. I do not know whether the right term is “sidestep”, but I suspect he did not quite get the point I was making. Where a major manufacturer carries out works to meet an environmental target—for decarbonisation, for example—and in doing so wrecks something tantamount to a building or structure, or an item covered by the plant and machinery order, a proportion of its value automatically gets built in as an addition to the rateable value. That has been described to me as the double whammy of having to pay for the improvement to meet a government-imposed target, and additional rates. I was trying to focus on specific instances involving a building or structure, or the plant and machinery order, but I leave that to one side because that was to some extent an overture to what the Bill is about. I mention it only because the Minister was making the point about the assistance the Government have provided.

As for the Bill itself, I obviously regret a business rating measure of such a binary nature preventing the effects of coronavirus being properly reflected in rental values as a material change of circumstances for the purposes of making appeals against the assessments. Although the government package of reliefs and other support for the business sector is extremely welcome, it none the less pales into insignificance compared with what businesses could have expected, had a material change of circumstances applied. I will leave that there.

The Government say that the material change of circumstances was never intended to apply to things like pandemics. Well, probably not, but there has never been a time like this when HM Treasury and HMRC have been quite so keen to protect their income streams come what may, regardless of the precise effects on businesses. I hope this Bill does not have the consequences I fear it might, but I remain concerned that the whole process of business rates is beginning to drive responses, which should always be a warning sign with any taxation measure going forward. That said, I thank the Minister and the Bill team, and other noble Lords who have spoken up for the business rate payer. I wish this Bill a safe passage, and I hope it will not fulfil my worst prognostications.

Fire Safety Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Earl of Lytton

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 28th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a member of Kirklees Council.

Throughout the course of this Bill, I have said that I support its contents and purpose. I cannot support the unintended consequences that will have a devastating impact on individual leaseholders and a very damaging effect on the housing market. Those are the reasons for my asking again for the Government to take responsibility for the consequences of this Bill, which despite the Minister’s best efforts has been totally underwhelming so far. Promises have been made by the Government and not kept.

The Government’s response to date is to provide grant funding of £5 billion while knowing that the total cost is estimated at £16 billion. The grant includes only blocks over 18 metres and only removes the flammable cladding. For those in lower blocks, there is the prospect of paying up to £50 per month for years to come.

Conveniently, the Government fail to take into account the non-cladding issues that are a result of construction failure of immense proportions. These non-cladding issues are the ones that will finally push individuals over the edge. Meanwhile, those who have literally built this catastrophe walk away with their billions of profit. The Government have a duty to protect their citizens—it is their prime duty—yet here we are today with perhaps a million of our fellow citizens being thrown to the ravages of financial bankruptcy, and the Government wash their hands and look the other way.

The Government will argue that the Bill is a vital response to the Grenfell tragedy. It is so vital that it has taken four years to get to the statute book. The Bill’s purpose is to include external walls, doors and balconies in the fire safety order of 2005, so that action is taken to protect people from another Grenfell tragedy. However, a Bill is not now needed to force action to remove cladding; that is happening. It is not needed to get fire alarms put in; that is happening. Those who own the buildings, and those who are leaseholders and tenants, already know that action has to be taken to make their buildings safe. It is no longer urgently necessary to get legislation to force the issue and it is no longer possible to force construction firms to take the necessary action; there is not capacity to do so. If, though, the Bill does fall, this provides a breathing space for the Government to develop a package of further measures that will protect the interests of leaseholders and save them from penury.

The amendment in my name seeks to achieve that breathing space. It is based on the original one in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and has been adjusted to include the various very valid points that have been made during the passage of the Bill. We must all recognise that passing this Bill will not magic away the crisis that individual leaseholders are facing. It will not remedy the construction scandal. It will not provide stability for a foundering housing market. It will be the beginning of a scandal of individual bankruptcies, homelessness, intense stress and mental illness. It will become a public scandal and I for one will at least have on my conscience that I have done all in my power to prevent it. Leaseholders have done everything right and nothing wrong. Liberal Democrats will stand by them. I give notice that I wish to test the opinion of the House on the amendment in my name.

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

My Lords, as we seem to be in the last chance saloon, I will try not to repeat myself too much, but declare my interests as both a property professional and a vice-president of the LGA. As I said yesterday, the House seems to be presented by the Government with a choice. On the one hand is the evident desirability of implementing fire safety measures in pursuance of the valuable recommendations in the report by Dame Judith Hackitt into the Grenfell tragedy, plus a partial solution to some of the effects of cladding replacement on a limited class of taller buildings, as we have heard. On the other is what I am afraid I must describe as the effective hanging out to dry of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of other home owners. It should not be a question of either/or in dealing with a growing and pressing social and economic disaster. I too support improved fire safety, but not on the basis of creating further untold, and probably unquantified, problems.

Yesterday, the Minister endeavoured to persuade us by saying that this brief and simple Bill merely clarified the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. I am afraid to say that, on my own rereading of that, he is plainly mistaken. This Bill amends the scope of the fire safety order by inserting an exception to paragraph 1a, referring in turn to two newly inserted paragraphs, 1A and 1B, that substantially expand the scope of the order. The fact that anything was attached to the named elements means the Bill has far wider implications than might be supposed. So I am afraid to say that the Minister’s assertion really did it for me. I felt it was misleading and what my late father would have described as an exercise in intellectual sharp practice. My distinct impression is that I am being taken for some sort of fool. The indisputable fact that must be regarded as plain is that this Bill makes the changes that by direct chain of causation have created the issues and caused the results that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, seek to resolve.

Another issue appears to be one of definition. The Government are concerned that any scheme that might be put in place could be used to avoid regular maintenance and routine upgrades. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in particular, seeks to address that. In my experience there may be grey areas, but I do not have any difficulty in my work in distinguishing repairs and the like, or like-for-like replacements, from those items that are improvements. Nor do most leaseholders and property owners.

Let us be clear—and here I take a cue from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for a bit of historical background—that it was on the watch of a Conservative Government that the 1984 Building Act brought in the approved inspector regime and the effective privatisation of the regulatory oversight of construction quality, previously exercised by local authority building control. Despite indicators of shortcomings and shortcutting, this process continued, without adequate checks on who was doing the inspection of the works, or how good the oversight was in practice. It is on the basis of the subsequent 37 years of construction and its legacy of known and unknown deficiencies, scattered randomly about the nation’s housing stock, that modern housebuilding, construction warranties, lending and home ownership have been founded.

If the Government consider that they need to take steps to protect the valiant and much-abused postmasters from system failure, how can they, with it any cogency or conscience, make a distinction concerning a far greater number of home owners who are affected at least as severely? So, while I note that the Minister in the other place this afternoon sought to point the finger at the unelected Lords blocking the democratic decision of the Commons, I simply say that the exercise of raw political power vis-à-vis the party whip to procure a majority in the Lobby does not endow the Government with a moral superiority, or indeed the social advancement of justice and ethical treatment of citizens. I note the reasons for rejecting our amendments, which simply translate as “too difficult”. I suspect not half as difficult as picking up the bits after this has rolled itself out.

At one point I believed the Government had it hand to corral all the potential damage, but I believe they have not done so. It would not concern me if this Bill fell, so unreasonable do I believe its true effects to be, and so lacking is the willingness of the Government to deal with it. What it has proposed will roll out far too slowly: eight months to do the highest-risk buildings, and how much longer to deal with the far greater number in future stages? What about capacity in terms of manpower, training and so on?

I took note of the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, but I find that sitting on my hands, signifying my acceptance of the Government’s position here, does not sit comfortably with my conscience—knowing, as I do from professional experience, just what harm the Bill is likely to do, alongside its undoubted good.

I suspect that the Bill will ultimately pass into law, even if the Parliament Act has to be invoked—but I am afraid I cannot agree to it as it stands. I fear that Lobby fatigue may mean that this is the end of the matter for now. Either way, I shall return to this subject in the new Session—as, doubtless, will the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Meanwhile, I have absolutely no hesitation in supporting the thrust of the amendments—any one of them, whichever might gain approval. And I hope I will sleep with my conscience clear as a result.

Fire Safety Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Earl of Lytton

Consideration of Commons amendments & Lords Hansard
Wednesday 17th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a member of Kirklees Council.

Much has happened since the Bill was last debated in this House in November. It is already clear from the contributions to this debate today that this is an unresolved crisis of major proportions. I thank the Minister for the opportunities that he has provided to discuss the issues raised. The Government’s response has been to regard this as largely an issue for lease- holders and freeholders to resolve. Gradually, however, they have acceded to the principle that, without government intervention and funding, the problem will not be resolved.

The purpose of all the amendments in my name and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans is to extend the principle already agreed by the Government. Amendment 4F in my name would extend the contribution that the Government make to cover not just the remediation but the extortionate service charges and higher insurance costs that are currently being levied on these leaseholders. This serious problem can be successfully fixed only with up-front funding from the Government, which can then be recouped from developers, construction firms and manufacturers.

The Government’s own estimate is that the total cost of remediation will be in the region of £16 billion. The buildings involved are not just in London but all across the country. Following the Grenfell tragedy, we now know that ACM cladding was affixed to blocks when it was known to be inflammable. As the cladding is peeled away, further serious building defects are revealed. The Government recognise this, as they have issued a directive to local authorities requiring an inspection of various features, including fire breaks, insulation and spandrel panels, as well as cladding. This is now much more than a cladding scandal; it has become a construction crisis.

Worse still is that some of the defects that are being exposed were in breach of building regulations even at the time of construction. The big question then is: who is going to pay? Currently, the Government are providing grants for the removal of cladding only and are restricting those grants to buildings of 18 metres or more in height. Yet cladding has to be removed from all blocks, irrespective of height. The Government have chosen 18 metres partly because they simply have no idea how many blocks there are that are lower than 18 metres. I have asked the ministry for the analysis of those risks to which the Minister will refer but have received no reply to date. Good decision-making is dependent on well-researched data, which is then shared for all decision-makers.

At the heart of this crisis are people who have done everything right and nothing wrong. They are innocent victims and have suffered enough. Imagine living in a flat with your family, knowing for three years or more that the home you saved hard to buy is a significant fire risk. That fact alone has left emotional scars on those leaseholders. Then imagine, having carefully budgeted, being faced with an additional service charge of several hundreds of pounds each month to cover the extras: waking watch, insurance and more. For some, the final straw is that you are then billed for the costs of total remediation. For individuals faced with these enormous bills, the choices are very limited.

Bankruptcy has already been the solution for too many. George is one such. He describes himself as a frightened leaseholder and says, “I have been informed that it will cost £2 million to replace the cladding and remedy the defects. That is £50,000 per flat. I’ll be bankrupt by the end of the year at the age of 28. The building has one grant, covering 10% of the costs.” Everything that he and others have worked and saved for is lost through no fault of theirs. It can lead to homelessness. Sarah lives in a flat in the Royal Quay in Liverpool. The normal year service charges for that block were £270,000; this year, the service charges are nearly £1 million. Sarah says that the defects are so numerous that the fire service may have to escalate from a compliance to a prohibition notice, which will shut down the complex. If that occurs, 400 residents will be made homeless.

Not surprisingly, given those examples, for some the stress is such that very serious mental illness, or worse, has followed. Hundreds of thousands of individuals and families are watching and waiting for the decision of this House today. They are willing us on to help to find a fair and just solution to a problem that is not in any way of their making, yet they are the ones who are being asked to pay the price. If the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans wishes to divide the House, as he has indicated, the Liberal Democrat Benches will support him. If, however, he chooses not to do so, then I will wish to test the opinion of the House.

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

My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the LGA and as a practising chartered surveyor. I have very considerable sympathy with all these amendments but, the matter having now been decided by this House, gone to the other place and now come back, it behoves us to consider all these matters with a degree of objectivity, despite the clear emotions that are involved.

With regard to Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I agree that it has taken far too long to deal with this matter, which has allowed the issue to grow in a way that should have been nipped in the bud at an earlier stage, but I realise the complexities of the issues, which I will address in a moment. On all these amendments, I must say at this juncture that I do not know which way I would vote; it will become apparent why as I proceed.

It goes without saying that I have the greatest possible respect for the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the powerful case that he makes for Motion C1 and, for that matter, the case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on the allied Motion C2. Indeed, every fibre of my being tells me that a great injustice has been visited on many innocent people as leaseholders and tenants in buildings affected by this Bill who have faced the burdens of past failings, delays and inaction, which they themselves may be powerless to deal with. It must be as if the whole system of property law and ownership has conspired against them. As a property professional, I feel that most acutely. It has been made worse, as I say, by the length of time that these problems have been gestating.

However, whatever my heart tells me on the grounds of ethics and justice, my professional experience tells me that these amendments would, almost inevitably, not achieve their aims or address the present or future fundamental issues. This Bill potentially affects a very wide category of property and tenure, not just high-rise blocks. The provisions of Clause 1 extend the regulations to any property comprising two or more separate units of accommodation. I ask noble Lords to contemplate just what that means in practice.

Fire Safety Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Earl of Lytton

3rd reading & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 24th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this short, two-clause Bill has provoked considerable interest across the House, which is surprising, as it is a Bill that seeks to remedy some of the system failures that led to the appalling tragedy at Grenfell Tower. I join in the thanks to the Minister for arranging meetings with those of us who wished, through amendments, to improve the Bill. I thank him very much for listening to the concerns we raised.

The Bill, as amended, provides greater protection for residents by implementing some of the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry phase 1 report and requiring fire risk assessments to be made publicly available for potential residents. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry is, little by little, exposing the building practices that resulted in flammable cladding being attached to Grenfell Tower—and many other buildings across the country—with such tragic consequences.

Currently, there is a crisis involving people across the country who are in constant fear and anxiety because they are living in flats that are encased in flammable cladding. Currently, it is the leaseholders and tenants who are expected to pay towards the costs of making their homes safe. However, we have passed an amendment to stop that outrageous practice. They have been sold homes that were deemed to be safe but are not, because of building failures. The cost of putting those failures right must not be theirs. The amendment we passed on Report puts that principle into the Bill.

Since Report, I have had many emails and messages from desperate and distraught residents of these flats. Some are being asked to pay way over £40,000 towards the costs of putting these cladding and other building failures right. It is not fair and it is not just. I hope the Government will be able to accept the principle set out in the amendment. I very much look forward to the Minister’s reply.

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

My Lords, it is a great privilege to be invited to make some concluding remarks on the Bill on behalf of the Cross Benches, especially as I was not able to participate in the initial stages. We have covered a huge range of issues, such as those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, on electrical safety, and those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and others, focusing on safety assessments and the perils of the deregulatory approach under permitted development rights. We have ranged from fire doors to liability issues and, of course, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the effect on the innocent who are blighted by the costs of remediating cladding systems.

As a technician, first and foremost, I am particularly grateful for how some of my own points were received. With Dame Judith Hackitt’s report ringing in our ears, even as we debated the Bill the ongoing inquiry under Sir Martin Moore-Bick reminded us of the construction culture that we need to address, along with the reputational challenges that have been the hallmark of what has come out post Grenfell. We must never forget the effect on those who were directly affected by that terrible tragedy. I pay tribute to the Labour Front Bench for constantly reminding us of the need for the Bill. I thank the Bill team and the Minister for keeping us on the critical path—expediting things at this stage is clearly an expression of our common wish.

Of course, some matters will now need to be reconsidered by the Commons, so it may not be the last we hear of this: the Bill needed improvements and I hope that, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the Commons will take due regard of the careful and considered points that have been raised in this House. Given the legacy of issues that have got us here, it is a tough call, demanding courage and a firm steer from the Government, and I hope the Bill will underpin that process.

Fire Safety Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Earl of Lytton

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 17th November 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, although I certainly agree with the thrust of Amendment 5, it is Amendment 6, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that I really wish to address.

Many of my years in the property profession have been spent in survey inspections, with a spell in estate agency and mortgage valuations and brief periods in block management, and I have spent a good deal of time on the forensic identification of defects. Therefore, I feel reasonably well qualified to support the noble Baroness, and I thank her for raising this important issue, which affects the residential sector. Rightly, she referred to the indirect effect of the Grenfell tragedy. That is a matter on which I have been in constant contact with the Chartered Association of Building Engineers, of which I am a patron and which has been very helpful in identifying various matters in respect of the Bill.

As the noble Baroness said, the effect on the residential market for flats in particular, and over a very broad spectrum by age and type, is now apparent. This has affected security for mortgage lending, exacerbated by the prospect of large and, as the noble Baroness said, unquantified remediation bills. Some sort of game of pass the parcel seems to be in train as to who will end up picking up those bills. It affects buildings insurance cover and premiums, and interim measures such as “waking watch” are racking up huge costs. These and the likely shortfall, as I see it, in the provision for remediation made by the Government—welcome though that is, but nevertheless there is a shortfall as against the widening scope of the buildings that might ultimately be affected—have seriously affected the ability to sell flats. It is not clear that this is in any way confined to high rise, as I am increasingly aware, as one of my children attempts to sell a flat in a four-storey modern and, I believe, conventionally constructed block.

A few days ago, a lady emailed me to say that she is a resident of a sister block to the one in Worcester Park which burned down last year. She is completely stuck with a currently worthless asset and no apparent movement on remediation. The latest Sunday Times carried an article about this, graphically illustrating the issues and defects that have been found to be present in a number of remaining identical buildings that are still standing.

Before this gets yet more problematic and starts affecting potentially a far wider range of properties than at present, the Government need to use their powers and influence to get all the interested parties round a table—constructers, lenders, insurers—and point out, as the noble Baroness said, the reputational as well as economic and social damage that needs to be contained beyond the issue of direct liability and who shoulders that, and require their active co-operation to resolve this in a constructive manner and not leave vulnerable homeowners, to put it bluntly, hung out to dry.

I appreciate the criticism of the EWS1 form, but it came about because of a particular need to do with mortgage lending. It is now being required for a much wider range of purposes, for which it was never intended. Why? Because it was the only tool available. The Government could step into this obvious void and make sure that some other form of certification solution was provided. But they, or somebody else, would have to take responsibility for that, and I realise that that is an issue. Meanwhile, the potential liabilities make it ever less likely that those without specific accreditation to do the necessary inspections will be willing to undertake such work and, indeed, they may not be able to get professional indemnity insurance either.

The Government need to get ahead of the curve here. If these measures are rushed into effect with full force immediately and without additional steps, there will be more serious disruption and collateral damage to come. I suggest there be a phased and managed approach aimed at containing the ill effects, restoring trust and confidence, above all, in the measures being put in place and limiting financial loss while dealing, most importantly, with the most pressing issues where residents’ safety is at the greatest peril. None of this is without risk; nor is the normal “Not my responsibility, guvnor” liability-passing response appropriate in these abnormal times, given the number of national issues we face and the effect on the wider economy.

This means temporary but probably arbitrary cut-offs, probably in height terms—11 metres may be the right figure for blocks of flats—perhaps with certain other definitions, then dealing with those and drawing the net more widely later on and inevitably, as one will, picking up legacy issues from older regulatory sign-offs on the way. Some sort of lower-tier interim certification, which the noble Baroness referred to, perhaps by a non-specialist, would enable low-risk properties to escape the contagion that might otherwise engulf the sector. I wonder if this is what the Minister will propose in Amendment 7. I will listen with great interest to his response.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interests, as recorded in the register, as a councillor in Kirklees and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I turn first to Amendment 6, through which the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has raised concerns about the inclusion of all multi-occupied domestic premises within the scope of the Bill. The issues raised relate to leaseholders who find that they are, in effect, unable to move as their property is within the scope of the Bill and, therefore, that the fire risk exists but is not quantified. The later amendment in my name explores these issues in more detail.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, spoke on behalf of the Minister and confirmed that the Government intend that all multi-occupational buildings are within the scope of the Bill and the fire safety order 2005. He also argued in Committee that the height of a building is only one factor in assessing fire risk, and others have given recent examples of fires in such buildings that support that argument. The issue, then, is about prioritisation, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has so expertly explained, and what actions the Government are able to take to minimise the impact on properties deemed low priority and, therefore, presumably of lower risk. It is that issue that the Minister needs to clarify. Will the Government bring forward regulations or guidance to demonstrate the criteria to be used to fire assess properties? Can these be used by leaseholders to demonstrate low risk, and thus release their property from being frozen out of the housing market? I look forward to the Minister’s response to these concerns.

The other amendment in this group, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, raises issues about consultation. It lists consultees, as a very similar amendment did in Committee. My colleagues and I are always in favour of the widest possible consultation on any issue. However, there is an inherent risk in a list that becomes exclusive while intending to be inclusive. The list of consultees is one which we would expect, however, to be involved in all relevant consultations. As my noble friend Lord Shipley said, the list is inherently sensible, so I hope the Minister will be able to accept such a list. Again, I look forward to the Minister’s response.