Housing (Built Environment Committee Report)

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise for joining what has become a bit of a club of gap speakers. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for her excellent role as chair, and all the other members of the committee.

I will mention a couple of things about new builds, insulation and design. I do not think any other noble Lord has mentioned it, but the impression I got from the many witnesses we heard was that the key was to keep the price down. If you think about it, it does cost a bit more to insulate a house properly, to have proper water services and sewage disposal—I am not going to go into that now—and to design homes in a way that aligns with future transport provision. We do not seem to be doing that, and that compares very unfavourably with many parts of the continent I have seen. I hope we can do something about it.

Let us not forget that there is also a problem with the existing housing stock. People will be shivering in their homes because they cannot afford to or cannot get grants to insulate—there is a very large number of houses in that category. In his very powerful speech, my noble friend Lord Grocott mentioned empty houses. I live in London and lease from Camden Council. In my little block, one house has been empty for a year because the poor tenant died. Nothing has happened; it needs a good clean, but nothing at all has happened. I am sure that is very common across many cities. The 300,000 a year target is important, but let us try to make sure that the existing stock is used to the full and upgraded.

High-rise Buildings: Evacuation of Disabled Residents

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My noble friend is right that we need to capture those people who may not present themselves as disabled but who clearly have mobility impairments. That is the purpose of the EEIS proposal, which is around ensuring that we can identify those people, that we can organise person-centred fire risk assessments and have home safety visits to come up with measures that do the best to keep them safe. That applies to all mobility-impaired residents.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, behind all these fine words is a practical question: how do you evacuate someone in a wheelchair from an 11, 12 or 13-storey building? The Minister seems to be saying that there will not be any more fires in buildings because of the insulation that the noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned, but there are practical problems in getting people out in a wheelchair down one staircase when the fire people are trying to come up and do other things. Is there a solution?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

This is the real issue, which is why I think the noble Baroness raised the importance of evacuation lifts and having means of exiting a building in that very case. We need to recognise that fire and rescue services need to work as fast as possible to respond and contain the fire. Above all, we need to keep all residents in that building safe.

Housebuilding: Target

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, there is quite a lot of noise today, but what I will say in answer to the noble Viscount’s question is that local authorities need to think about how to develop their areas for the benefit of the local community. This obviously includes building homes, but in the right place, in the right way and going with the grain of the local area. Indeed, economic development is a fundamental part of local leadership.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the recommendations of the built environment report referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Young—and I have the honour of serving on the committee under the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe—was that the Government should encourage more small builders to build houses, rather than having a smaller number of big developers. Small, local builders will bring more local employment and new ideas, and they will generally speed up the overall housing construction.

Smoke-free Pavements

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My noble friend has not had the opportunity to serve as a Minister—although it may happen in future when potentially I move on—but she has been a very distinguished leader of a local authority and chairman of the Local Government Association, so for her to make that statement means that it is clear that we need to learn the lessons from local government and ensure that we act in a way that builds on those lessons. It is right that some decisions are taken locally; I entirely support that view.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, would I be right in thinking that the Minister’s view is that if people want to smoke and kill not only themselves but other people, that is all right? Could he tell us how many people have been convicted for smoking in non-smoking areas on the pavements?

Net Zero: Social Market Foundation Report

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I point out that the Government have committed £1.2 billion for local action on climate change. There are currently no plans to devolve additional tax-raising powers, but the Treasury will keep this under review.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, this follows the questions of my noble friend Lord Kennedy and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, on the report that is the subject of this Question. Does the Minister agree that there is an enormous difference in the levelling-up agenda because there are problems in the north, particularly the north-east, where 90% of new-build houses are still heated by gas? Where is the policy to convert this to something more meaningful and at lower cost, whether electricity or hydrogen, and what are the Government doing about it? This will be a serious problem. London seems all right, but the rest of the country is going to suffer serious extra costs as a result.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, it is right that it is easier for London to hit the target of net zero by 2050, given its starting point. But levelling up is about improving living standards and unleashing enterprise and growth across all parts of the UK, and spreading opportunity. It is important to see how the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund is allocated to deal with the noble Lord’s point, but we also need to leverage private sector funding. Our estimates are that the fund will leverage substantial private sector income to achieve the green revolution that we all want.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL]

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 20th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group and I am grateful to the Minister for finding the time to have a meeting with me. It was very helpful.

I shall come on to another amendment I have later. For this group, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, mentioned the need to speed things up. I entirely support that. We should get the rest of the Law Commission’s report on the statute book as quickly as possible. The noble and learned Lord’s amendment and that from my noble friend Lord Lennie are fundamental in trying to, shall we say, stem the tide of very unfair practices that seem to have developed in some parts of the market. I do not know how widespread it is, and I am quite surprised that the CMA has not been more helpful because its role, after all, is to look after the interests of consumers. Sometimes I feel that it possibly does not do that, but we can discuss that another time.

I have the pleasure of being on your Lordships’ Built Environment Committee that has just started one inquiry—out of two—into housing. At our meeting this morning, I was struck by three of the witnesses all saying that security of tenure was one of the biggest problems in housing. Whether it is leasehold or rental, it does not really matter very much. It is important to understand that people need to have some comfort that they can continue to live where they are living if they want to, and that the amount that they pay cannot go shooting up because of the wishes of the owners or other people involved in a way that could not have been foreseen when they took out the lease. It is not good when people are locked in—there are many press comments about it—and cannot sell. What do they do? That is before you get into the problem of cladding, which again is outside this discussion.

I am not sure whether my noble friend’s amendment or that of the noble and learned Lord is the best one. They both try to find some way of providing financial comfort to those who have been caught in this sudden upsurge—to me anyway—of increasing ground rents or other similar charges.

When we do these stages, it is funny that the Minister answers before the amendment has actually been proposed—but that is another thing we will get to. I look forward to my noble friend speaking on this matter, as he is much more knowledgeable than I am on it. I shall also be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say. It is really important that something like this is done very quickly, long before the next stage of the Law Commission’s report becomes a Bill.

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

My Lords, I am largely supportive of this group of amendments, particularly the one moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. It always seemed to me that some of these clauses, particularly relating to escalating ground rents, were unfair, with hidden implications that were not apparent to purchasers at the time when they were entered into. The CMA intervention is welcome but the ongoing blight continues. This is certainly an evil that causes me to support this amendment very much.

I also support Amendment 9. This seems to be a logical provision against pre-emption and creates, as I see it, greater transparency, which really should be the hallmark of landlord/tenant relationships in this area.

It is unfortunate perhaps that I am speaking before Amendment 26 has been spoken to. I see it as potentially retroactive, and think it might remove the value of an asset without fair compensation. In its specific scope, it would not distinguish between a fair and reasonable ground rent and one that was flagrantly unfair. I do not in any way defend leasehold interests as such, but if we go down this road it has much wider public interest and property law implications.

Again with Amendment 30, I would have liked to have spoken after the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, whom I believe will speak to it, but, from a technical standpoint, the question of rent is a payment that in this instance the tenant makes to the landlord for the bits of the property which exist but which are not within the tenant’s specific demise under their leasehold. It is not a service charge. Are we at risk of getting rent and services provided for rent confused—in other words, the use of property as opposed to a tangible benefit in terms of the service charge? In general, however, subject to those points, I support this group of amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Berkeley]

42: Clause 23, page 14, line 5, leave out paragraph (c)
Member’s explanatory statement
This would remove the Duchy of Cornwall from the definition of Crown Land since the Duchy describes itself as a private estate.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving the amendment in my name, Amendment 42, I will speak also to Amendment 43. This returns to the subject of the Duchy of Cornwall, which we discussed at some length in Committee. The Minister responded very helpfully, at col. GC 362, setting out the current exemptions from existing legislation for the right to buy. He also mentioned that the Crown Estate had given a parliamentary undertaking that it will not seek any special arrangements. He mentioned the comments on the Law Commission report about the concerns that the Duchy of Cornwall had on enfranchisement itself. Not much has happened since then.

The Minister did say that he would write to the Duchy of Cornwall. I would be interested to know whether he has written, whether he will put a copy of the letter in the Library and whether he has had an answer. If he has, it will be the first that any Minister has published—a first certainly for any noble Lords who have written. As I have mentioned before, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Crown Estate respond very helpfully and in a timely manner to letters from me and others; that does not apply to the Duchy of Cornwall. Mind you, the Duke of Cornwall is visiting the Isles of Scilly today; maybe that will remind him that there needs to be an answer, but I am not holding my breath.

The Duchy of Cornwall has confirmed, in its latest annual report, that it is in the private sector. On that basis, I would like to reinforce my argument: if it is in the private sector, as it says it is, then it should obey the same rules, laws and everything else that the rest of the private sector has to. There are many other private estates—earlier today, somebody mentioned the Grosvenor Estate—and they will all comply with the legislation, I am quite sure. Therefore, it seems to me that, in respect of this particular clause, the Duchy of Cornwall should be removed from it, which would turn it into the private estate that it says it is.

Amendment 43 reinforces the arguments about Crown land not including land belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall. This is the continuation of my probing amendment. I certainly will not seek the opinion of the House, but I will be interested to hear whether the Minister has made any progress on this, because it will, I hope, have much more effect on the next Bill, which we hope will come soon. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I now turn to Amendments 42 and 43, brought to your Lordships’ House by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I understand that it is his wish for the Duchy of Cornwall to be considered as private land and not Crown land under this Bill. Irrespective of the definition, both Crown land and private land are captured by the Bill. This Bill will therefore apply to the Crown Estate, of which the Bill stipulates the Duchy of Cornwall is part. As I am sure noble Lords are all aware, the Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate which has a Crown exemption. However, the purpose of this Bill is not to decide how these estates are defined; rather it is to get a better deal for future leaseholders to prevent them being exploited by ground rent in the leasehold market.

The Duke of Cornwall’s estates will be treated as any other private landlord under the provisions of this Bill and will no longer be able to collect ground rent in future leases. I will clarify again that this Bill is narrowly focused on ground rents and not all leasehold matters. That is why, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, we have not yet written to the Duchy of Cornwall about the issues around enfranchisement and other matters, but we will be doing so as part of the second stage of the legislation. I will obviously keep noble Lords informed if we get a response, but the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, seems rather sceptical of that. Nevertheless, we have made that commitment and will write at that stage.

The Government have committed to an ambitious, large-scale reform programme, and we will deal with all these other issues not related to ground rents in the near future. I am very sorry that, on two occasions now, I have not been able to give a precise response to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, but I will make sure that we get the information to him at the earliest opportunity, in writing, and lay a copy in the Library—I believe that is precisely what you have to do in these circumstances.

The Government will consider the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, regarding the Crown Estate exemptions from the parliamentary undertaking on enfranchisement rights for leaseholders in the next stage of the leasehold reform programme. I can also reassure the noble Lord that the Government will consider his concern in tandem with the Law Commission’s recommendations on the issue of enfranchisement rights for leaseholders. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s response and I will read it with great interest. He has tried to answer most of my questions, even if he has not yet got my noble friend’s numbers. We will look forward to seeing them in the Library. It is very important that what he has said may well set a precedent for the next Bill. That is why we will need to read what he has said with great interest. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 42 withdrawn.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL]

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 14th June 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 20 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Grender. I draw the Grand Committee’s attention to my relevant interests, recorded in the register, as a member of Kirklees Council and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Today marks four years since the Grenfell tragedy, which cost the lives of 72 people. It took away from many others their homes and their livelihoods. Those who survived will for ever have the dreadful memory of that night, leaving a dark mark on the rest of their lives. That tragedy has rightly cast a long shadow over the construction industry. Questions asked immediately following Grenfell are still failing to be adequately answered.

The Government know that the Grenfell fire was accelerated by the use of flammable cladding. They know that hundreds of other buildings have the same or similar cladding, with the same fire risk. They also know that post-Grenfell investigations of these self-same buildings have uncovered further fire safety defects, such as the lack of building regulation-required fire breaks. The Government’s response to this life-threatening catalogue of errors is half-hearted at best. Leaseholders are being forced by the Government to carry the financial and emotional burden of the total inadequacy of the Government’s response.

The reform of leaseholders’ obligations is of course a central purpose of this Bill. I understand that the Bill seeks to prevent future unwarranted financial burdens being placed on leaseholders through ground rent demands. The purpose of Amendment 20, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Grender, is for the Government to assess the financial impact on leaseholders of this Bill after six months. It is a perfectly reasonable and sensible amendment that I hope the Government will be minded to accept.

The cladding scandal has revealed the enormous financial impact on leaseholders. In a housing association block of flats in the Manchester area, leaseholders have been sent bills for £95,000, when those very flats were built to enable people on lower incomes to buy their own homes. Given that the value of their asset is now zero, paying any bill of that size is simply impossible for the leaseholders.

Those leaseholders who have, often unknowingly, signed up to escalating ground rent penalties are also omitted from the Government’s thinking. For instance, one leaseholder found that his annual ground rent for a one-bed flat in London was to double every five years on a flat that was purchased for £170,000 in 2018. In 20 years’ time, the ground rent will have risen from an affordable £1,050 per annum to a completely unaffordable £16,800 per annum. As with the innocent victims of the cladding scandal, these leaseholders need help from the Government, hence subsection (2) of my amendment.

There is an accumulation of evidence that leaseholders are not getting fair treatment as malpractices are uncovered. Those leaseholders facing massive bills for putting right fire safety defects have done everything right and nothing wrong. Those leaseholders who face increasingly large bills, having unwittingly signed up to ground rent clauses, are also victims of a housing scandal.

Amendment 20 is the opportunity for the Government to turn their attention to righting failures in the housing system for leaseholders, current and past. On the day when we remember Grenfell, let this also be the day when the Government finally agree to find financial solutions for leaseholders who have been left to pay the enormous price of the wrongs of the housing industry. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendment 21A is grouped with Amendments 19 and 20, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. They have one thing in common, in seeking further information and reports from the Government to clarify and provide more information to help us debate not only this Bill but subsequent ones. I will confine my remarks to the Crown issues listed in Clause 23(2), which comprise the Crown Estate, the Duchy of Lancaster, the Duchy of Cornwall and government departments in summary, and in particular the definitions and scope of excepted areas.

It is interesting to refer to paragraphs 7.149 and following in the Law Commission’s report. These basically suggest that the Crown, in its totality, is happy to comply with whatever legislation the Government put forward on these issues, except in relation to what are called “excepted areas”, which are listed in paragraph 7.151. To summarise, those are:

“(1) where the relevant property stands on land which is held inalienably; (2) where particular security considerations apply”—


which is fair enough—

“(3) where the property is in”

or closely connected to

“historic Royal Parks and Palaces; and … (4) where the property … has a long historic or particular association with the Crown”.

When it comes to the Duchy of Cornwall, which of course claims to be part of the Crown, the report goes on to say that the Duchy of Cornwall estates

“are specifically stated to fall within the fourth category”.

I would challenge that; I think that it is specifically stated by the Duchy, and I will come on to why.

Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development etc.) (England) (Amendment) Order 2021

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am very pleased to take part in this short debate. I support every word that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and my noble friend Lord Kennedy have said. This is a quite extraordinary piece of secondary legislation covering permitted development rights, which I have had an interest in for many years. My remarks will cover not only what is in the order but what is not in it. I fully intend to ask the Minister one or two questions as to why.

First, regarding what is in the order, and in support of what the two noble Lords have spoken about, I note that paragraph 7.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that this process allows

“for local consideration of key planning matters through a light-touch prior approval process.”

Those are lovely soft words that should make everybody say, “Well, it is all right.” Actually, as the two noble Lords have said, it is not all right and is taking away local democracy where it is very important. As my noble friend said, where is localism? It is crazy.

I think there are going to be very serious problems with some of the proposed changes between commercial and residential, with very few constraints and local comments. I had a message from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, this morning. He suggested that giving away permitted development rights without any preliminary consideration of visual effects, massing, overlooking and those kinds of amenity considerations ultimately erodes the quality of the environment. The noble Earl regrets not being able to speak but he is a real expert on these things and I think his views need to be taken into consideration.

It is extraordinary that this draft order has suddenly been brought forward. I suspect it was done to ensure that no more statues are removed without planning permission. It seems an extraordinary priority for Ministers, with all the housing problems that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have spoken about, to worry about statues. We may need changes to schools, colleges, universities, hospitals and prisons but they all need to be done properly. I do not see any constraints within these regulations to give the local planning authorities—which actually know what they are talking about—any meaningful input to Whitehall running everything.

There is another problem that is not in the order. That is to do with permitted development rights for Highways England to demolish bridges. A number of noble Lords have spoken about this in times past. Highways England has sought and is using permitted development rights to demolish bridges which are apparently no longer fit to take 44-tonne lorries. Many of the bridges are on side roads and bridleways or footpaths or could become bridleways or footpaths subject to the comment and approval of local planning authorities.

Highways England is going around the countryside saying, “We’re going to demolish 100 or 200 of these bridges because they are too expensive to maintain.” Highways England took them on, knowing the cost of maintenance and knowing that they would never have to redesign and rebuild them to carry 44 tonnes; the agency is doing this in the hope that no one will know and that the planning authorities will not be able to do much about it.

The other part of permitted development rights included in this regulation is the development of docks, piers, harbours, water transport, canals or inland navigation undertakings. I understand that this is needed primarily to facilitate free port development. While that sounds quite reasonable, I am not convinced that free ports will necessarily see the light of day. It is probably a reasonable thing to do, but I will ask again: what role will local planning authorities have within this particular part of the regulation?

What is missing are any permitted development rights changes on the railways. As noble Lords will know, railways have permitted development rights to do lots of things, given their ownership of the tracks and stations, but my understanding over the years is that the railways have been fairly reticent about making changes if they feel that there will be a problem with the local planning authorities. They have often sought planning permission, even though they could have argued that it was not strictly necessary because of their permitted development rights. Perhaps the Minister could explain why there is nothing about railways in the order. What rights do the railways have in respect of changes that they might make to stations, tracks and signals, fencing and everything else which they could obtain through permitted development rights, but then do not necessarily do that?

On the one hand we have Network Rail bending over backwards to be helpful, but on the other it is still a railway—HS2—that is trampling over the rights of all individuals, environmental or otherwise, due to a fairly flawed hybrid Bill that went through your Lordships’ House several years ago. There is a significant incoherence and uncertainty about what the railways are allowed and not allowed to do, along with what they choose to do and choose not to do.

Finally, the noble Baroness mentioned fire and safety which, as we all know, is still the subject of massive worry for many residents. I fear that these regulations will not help those residents in any way, either historically or in the future.

I support both these Motions tabled in the names of the two noble Lords and look forward to the Minister’s response.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL]

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Monday 24th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much welcome this Bill. I am no property expert but I have explained my interest in the Bill—I hope, as other noble Lords have said, that there will be at least one more. I welcome the Government’s statement, I think from 11 January this year, accepting the recommendations to introduce legislation to allow residential leaseholders to extend their leases at zero ground rents for 999 years or to buy it out. This is welcome. Although this Bill does not cover that, it sets some useful pointers—I hope—on government thinking. I declare an interest as living in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly.

To some extent, it seems that this Bill just covers the easy bits. I hope I am wrong about that, because the noble Lords who have already spoken raised some interesting issues that are way beyond my competence. My understanding—I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—is that this applies to new build, but does it cover conversions from shops or houses cut into several smaller bits? I suspect many people will wish for some element of retrospectivity in this, but that is probably impossible.

I will concentrate my remarks on Clause 23, which concerns the Crown lands of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. I am pleased to see that no exemptions are mentioned here. That is really good. However, there is potential for some people who might seek to delay or wriggle out of the spirit and letter of this Bill, which applies not only to this Bill but—hopefully—to the next one as well. I have been seeking assurances from the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster and the Crown Estate, for when it comes to the next piece of legislation, about the statements in paragraph 7.150 of the Law Commission report that

“the Crown has given an undertaking to Parliament that, in most cases, it will act ‘by analogy’ with the legislation to give its leaseholders the same rights that they would enjoy if their landlord were not the Crown.”

It goes on to suggest that the commitment is disapplied when the property is in or near

“historic Royal Parks and Palaces”

or has some

“long historic or particular association with the Crown.”

I have been writing to all these groups for comment. I noted that the Law Commission report states that many consultees had negative experiences in negotiating with the Duchy of Cornwall, compared to no problems with the others. I am sad to have to agree with them. I wrote to the Duchy in January asking for its views on this report and whether it intended to follow the examples of the Crown Estate and the Duchy of Lancaster. Four months later, I have not yet had a reply, in spite of several reminders. This leads me on to the situation that the Duchy claims to be in the private sector. My first question, then, is why it should be treated any differently to other private sector organisations.

But then we have the issue, which noble Lords know well, that Ministers have to seek the consent of the Prince of Wales and the Queen. From the Prince of Wales’s point of view, it is odd that the Duchy of Cornwall should have to give consent to a Bill in which it presumably has a commercial interest. Have the Government applied for consent in this case from the Duchy of Cornwall and the Crown? If so, what changes were made to the draft document as a result of either of these questions? This situation seems to be of such concern to some Ministers, and certainly to the Crown, that they do not like even to put this in writing; they have to do it by phone so that there is no record of it. Frankly, I find this pretty non-transparent.

But the Duchy is in a different position from that of the Crown Estates or the Duchy of Lancaster. As I have said, it claims to be in the private sector. But it has all these special privileges—such as Crown immunity, special tax status and free legal advice from the Treasury Solicitor—which other private estates do not enjoy. I think that the lawyers will be rubbing their hands in glee after some of the discussions in this debate today. But this is not the point. This Bill—and, I hope, the subsequent one—provides an opportunity to ensure that the Duchy behaves in the same way as the Crown Estates and the Duchy of Lancaster. All communications should be transparent, and it should not seek special privileges for its property in a manner which is out of line.

To conclude, I will give one example. Somebody I know very well lives in a Duchy-leased house in St Mary’s on the Isles of Scilly. There is nothing special about his house; it happens to be next door to a castle built by the military 200 or 300 years ago. I do not think the Duchy has any title to that at all, and it will not even discuss with him the idea that he could buy the freehold. His house is not historical; it is nothing very special. It is probably a 1960s building. This example is so that all these organisations can agree with what the Law Commission suggests in its report and have the minimum exemptions.

My final question to the Minister is: when do we expect the next Bill? He would expect me to ask that. I am sure he will not give me an answer, but it would be nice to know. I hope to explore some of these issues in Committee.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Monday 17th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]]

There is very little new on transport in the Queen’s Speech, apart from promising a Bill for HS2 from Crewe to Manchester. As my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch said, there was a distinct lack of ambition for the transport sector in the Queen’s Speech. So, at the start of this new Session, it is time to review the purpose, benefits and likely outcome for HS2, and to ask again whether it is needed at all.

According to cost engineer Michael Byng, to whom I pay tribute for his professionalism and work in checking the cost of HS2, the latest cost estimate is £158 billion. Many would think that some of that could be better spent on improving the regional lines in the Midlands and the north, which need about £100 billion more to meet their levelling-up needs. HS2 costs have risen tenfold over 10 years, and it is time to bring to account those who have promoted it and withheld information from Parliament and the public since 2015-16.

I welcome the very powerful maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Morse. The National Audit Office has of course regularly investigated HS2’s costs and programme overruns. Quotes about its reports include:

“Ministers have no idea how much HS2 will end up costing”


and:

“The high-speed rail project is running wildly over budget and will not deliver good value for money”.


My worry, which I am sure the noble Lord will share, is why the Government ignore such advice and comments.

So I suggest that we go back 10 years, when there was a comprehensive campaign of cover-up to Parliament of the true costs and delays. At a Commons Select Committee hearing on phase 1, the DfT’s Permanent Secretary, Bernadette Kelly, when asked why her department had not given the Select Committee the latest and highest estimate, said that if they had done so, Parliament would probably have cancelled the project.

In January 2017 the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who was then Transport Minister, arranged a meeting for Michael Byng and me with an official from HS2, a man called John Stretch, and an official at the Department for Transport called Mike Hurn, to discuss the budget for phase 1. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, expressed surprised that Mr Stretch declined to provide a detailed, measured estimate in support of the costs that he was tabling. Later, during a meeting at the Oakervee review, of which I was deputy chair for a bit, HS2 directors admitted that they had no budget for measuring the work, despite having spent £11.4 million on cost consultants.

It was very odd that during 2018-19 Nus Ghani MP, the Minister of Transport, and Mark Thurston, chief executive of HS2, both stuck to the £55.7 billion figure when all the evidence led to new chairman Allan Cook’s stock-take of £88 billion, which of course left out quite a few elements of HS2 that would have taken it up to £100 billion. More recently I have received documents alleging that the Said Business School’s Professor Bent Flyvbjerg confirmed his earlier advice, given in 2015-16 to the then Leader of the Conservative Party, who of course is now Prime Minister. The forecast cost is supported by a presentation given in January 2018 by Jeremy Harrison, then director of risk and assurance at HS2, in which he stated that the total value of contracts for the entire project—without risk allowance—exceeded £80 billion. So the Prime Minister and other Ministers knew of this £80 billion figure in 2015-16. One has to ask why the Minister, Nus Ghani, and the chief executive, Mark Thurston, said three years later that the budget was still £55 billion.

The latest cost increase will be at Old Oak Common at the London end, where Michael Byng has finally costed the station at £7.1 billion, compared to a cost estimate from the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, of £1.67 billion. This is only a fourfold increase in costs—I suppose that is all right for HS2—but it does not include the cost of passenger disruption for trains using Paddington station, which will have its train and seat capacity halved for four years during the building. It is very clear that many DfT and HS2 officials and Ministers, with the honourable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, have misled Parliament over years.

The NAO has stated that lessons need to be learned—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I remind the noble Lord of the five-minute advisory speaking time.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I am grateful for the reminder, but a Bishop was recently allowed to carry on for six minutes and 40 seconds, so may I finish?

Doug Oakervee has stated that pressure from the construction industry persuaded him to recommend that HS2 went ahead. This need could have been met equally well by regional upgrades in the Midlands and the north, so I suggest that HS2 be stopped now and the relevant officials and Ministers held to account for misleading Parliament.

[The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst.