Renters (Reform) Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 15th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I think I have received more briefings on this Bill than on any other Bill in the nearly 11 years I have been here. It is clearly a very important issue. It hits a vast number of people, but often especially the poorest in society. It is a human right to have shelter, and we are apparently failing on that.

It would be wrong of me to pick out a particular briefing—but I will. The briefing from the Renters’ Reform Coalition was excellent and starts by saying:

“The private rented sector in England is characterised by poor standards, a lack of affordability, discrimination and insecurity”.


That is a very fair summary, but it is obviously very worrying. In the 2019 Conservative Party manifesto, there was a promise to make a “better deal” for renters, but this Bill probably does not solve the problems.

I grew up in a council house on an amazing estate in the days when working-class communities took pride in their environment and neighbourhoods, and the NHS took care of us and kept us healthy. We felt incredibly lucky. We did not own our own house, we did not have a car—when I was very young, we did not have a phone or a fridge—but we had a huge garden and a relatively car-free street to play in. It was a good life. My parents just thought they had won the lottery—which did not exist at the time.

However, then Thatcher happened along, with deindustrialisation and the right to buy. All the well-built and desirable council housing was sold and resold. In my home town of Brighton, 86% of the right-to-buy social housing is now relet by private landlords. That means that most of our £23 billion housing benefit bill goes straight into private hands: a big subsidy payment going from taxpayers straight to those who can afford to own and sometimes rent out multiple homes.

I completely understand why my old neighbours bought their homes at bargain discounts and resold them to get themselves a retirement plan, but the scandal is that Thatcher effectively stopped councils recycling and reusing the funds to build more homes. Some noble Lords have agreed that supply is the problem, although we might have different ideas about how to solve that problem. The Thatcherites hated social housing, and that legacy has resulted in a largely privatised housing market. Since 2020, rents have risen by 28%. Over 200,000 people have been served no-fault eviction notices in that same period, as landlord businesses aim to squeeze more money from their properties, and 1.2 million people are on local authority waiting lists. What many people feel, at the mercy of private landlords, is failure and frustration. So, what are the solutions?

The Renters (Reform) Bill is the smallest of steps; it must be tougher in order to be fairer. We need rent controls, first of all. The Mayor of London has asked for these powers and Greens at all levels of government will fight to give him them. Local mayors and local authorities know their areas and understand the local housing market. This Government should give them the power to make that choice.

Secondly, we Greens would lengthen the notice periods for rent increases and stop landlords using spurious grounds to evict people.

Thirdly, we will support all the amendments that aim to make life easier for student renters. I declare an interest here, as I now have grandchildren who are starting out in the world as students, so they clearly have a vested interest in this.

Above all, we would end the right to buy council properties and start to rebuild social housing. Our dream is to return to the days when we were spending as much taxpayer money building homes as we currently do on housing benefit. Because the more social homes we have, the less we will be filling the pockets of landlord businesses with taxpayers’ money. This includes buying back the supply, with local, regional and national schemes to bring properties back under the ownership of local government. It is estimated that in many coastal towns, up to a fifth of the housing is empty. We must bring those communities back to life.

The cross-party London Assembly Housing Committee, when chaired by the Green Party’s Siân Berry, assessed that there are around 6,000 to 8,000 affordable homes in London that could be immediately added to the social housing mix. These do not have to be built from scratch, because they are empty homes that already exist. There are a lot of empty properties all over the country sitting in investment portfolios—so-called ghost flats—that should be actual homes for actual people. We can amend the Renters (Reform) Bill to turn it into legislation that will really help people, but it is a small step compared to the building of new social housing, buying back the supply, and rent controls. Those are the policies that will have the biggest impact on the housing market and reduce rents in the private sector. I really hope that the Government will accept some of the amendments that will be coming forward.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 29th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

I will be very brief. Some of the costs that have arisen are as a result of Fire Safety Act and Building Safety Act provisions set up by the Government. Some time ago, I asked the people I work with to set up an online resource, which I commend to noble Lords. It is www.buildingsafetyscheme.org. I hope that it will help a number of people to unpick what is a very complex situation.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the number of amendments discussed today highlights just how many issues there are with the exploitation of leaseholders. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, mentioned the option of some pre-scrutiny with people who have expertise in this area—although I am not suggesting that I am one of them. That might have benefited this legislation.

Normally, with leasehold properties, people think that they are buying a house or a flat, but then they are laden with decades of financial obligations to a landlord who can charge a ridiculously long list of things to the leaseholders. That does not seem to be a very fair system. There are far more problems than your Lordships’ Committee will be able to resolve, so there is clearly a need for further legislation when a new Government come to power. I hope that the new Government will consider the issues raised in Committee, including my Amendment 78B, which shines a light on the growing trend of public assets being funded by leaseholders. For example, green spaces, play areas and roads are often being charged to leaseholders, even when they are freely accessed by the wider community.

These leaseholders are facing a double taxation: they are paying their council tax, which is used to fund play areas and roads provided by the local authority, and they are also being charged by their landlord for play areas and roads that are within the estate. There seems to a case for these publicly available assets to be brought into local authority management, ownership and funding. I would appreciate it if the Minister, and any budding future Ministers, could give their thoughts on the issue and perhaps undertake to look at it further.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, my main focus so far has been boosting leaseholder control over service charges by removing barriers to the right to manage. However, we must dramatically reform the law for leaseholders who cannot gain this control and who wish to stand up to their freeholder on service charges. It is positive that the Government are enforcing service charge transparency and disclosure with the new right-to-inform scheme in Part 4, Clause 55, which makes changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, but I believe we need to go further and make it easier for leaseholders to challenge rip-off freeholders with their service charge.

Tribunals are very stressful: they take a long time and often do not have the power to enforce their decisions. This leaves leaseholders in a very strong predicament. Leaseholders normally have to file another application with the county court to get their money back for any overcharging, at least as they see it. My Amendment 78A is all about enforcement and giving teeth to tribunals’ decisions, where it has been determined that the service charges that the leaseholders have paid were not payable or were unreasonably incurred.

Various rules in Parliament have been passed in an attempt to regulate this behaviour of freeholders; again, I mean poor freeholders—the whole market is not like this. Often, these work only when leaseholders have the time, money and energy to enforce them at tribunal, which then is not always guaranteed when residents are up against armies of layers. Freeholders often hold many freeholds and have a big financial backing behind them and can just tire out leaseholders—they can work them into the ground and threaten them with forfeiture, for instance, should something go wrong. The Secretary of State was right to say that we need to put the squeeze on freeholders, but that means making freeholders actually fear leaseholders bringing cases against them at tribunal.

In my Second Reading speech, I mentioned that research from Hamptons has shown that leaseholders paid £7.6 billion in service charges. Many of those service charges were overcharge, and we want to create a situation where leaseholders can fight back. The annual service charge for flats in England and Wales has increased by 8.4% since the beginning quarter of 2023. Around 270,000 leaseholders are now paying more than £5,000 a year in service charges, which could quickly become a second mortgage for many leaseholders.

My Amendment 78A seeks to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 regime for service charge disputes to try to make service charge tribunals against freeholders more serious by taking three important steps. One is by providing an opt-out. At the moment, leaseholders have to sign up for a case to benefit. Even if the tribunal determines that they have been overcharged, unless they have signed up their neighbour may receive a payment but they will not because they did not sign up. That is unfair in modern life: you could be elderly; you could have children; you could just be away when all these things are going on. Your neighbour would receive benefit and you would not, even though you would also have overpaid. That is why we need an opt-out, not an opt-in, to make it more serious.

Secondly, after a successful Section 27A challenge by any leaseholder in a block, the freeholder would be under a duty to account to all leaseholders within a two-month period of the decision being handed down. This means that any money overpaid would have to be paid back within two months, because leaseholders—many of them owning a place for the first time, many of them young people, many of them elderly people on fixed incomes—have paid out this money which they often could not afford. They should get it back in a speedy fashion.

Thirdly, there should be interest after a two-month period if the freeholder has not paid back money owed to the leaseholders. This is to give the sanction some bite and to make sure that a freeholder does not just wait out hapless leaseholders because they have all the power and the financial power.

I would like to see some more action in this Bill to deter and punish bad behaviour by freeholders and ensure that leaseholders can swiftly get their money back where overcharging has been determined by a tribunal. My Amendment 78A gets us closer to that position.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd April 2024 Lords Chamber

In conclusion, what is not complicated is that owners of flats are a safer bet for maintaining and managing their own homes than those developers and freeholders who have given their own profession a bad name. It is why this scandal is being discussed in the first place. I suggest that we simply say that in five years’ time this will be put to bed and finished with, and then no one can accuse whichever Government are in power of breaking promises again.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I do not have an amendment in this group, but it is almost therapeutic when your Lordships’ House is asked to consider a rare Bill such as this, where, instead of the Government seeking to do something really quite nasty, they are merely failing to do the best possible thing that they could.

The amendments in this group reveal that the Government have failed to bring in any proposals to replace leasehold ownership of residential property with commonhold ownership. It is obvious that there is a political consensus—at least on this side of the Chamber and partly on the other side—that commonhold should be the main model of ownership for multi-unit residential properties. However, 20 years since commonhold was first introduced, and four years since the Law Commission published legislative proposals to enable more widespread adoption of commonhold, it looks as though this Government have chosen to leave this issue to the next Government to sort out. That might be the best thing—I do not know—but, quite honestly, this Government have had the option, even in this Bill, to do the right thing.

Housing is part of survival: it is a human right and you have to get it right. It is time to end the commodification of housing by international finance and to end the feudal model of land ownership, which facilitates developers extracting as much money as possible from home owners while providing little or no value in return. Forgive me, I should have declared an interest as a leaseholder.

I would like to ask the Minister some questions; others have probably asked these questions before, but I just want to be specific and get clear answers. When do the Government expect the Commonhold Council to complete its work on the implementation of commonhold for new housing supply? When do they expect the completion of the work on conversion to commonhold? Why is it taking so long?

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will make a brief intervention to support the thinking behind Amendment 14, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. We all understand the disappointment that it has not been possible to make progress with commonhold in this Parliament. We all understand that it would be impossible to try to retrofit commonhold into the existing legislation. One thing we have learned over the last two parliamentary Sessions is that the capacity of the department to produce legislation that does not need wholesale amendment as it goes through is limited. We all bear the scars of the levelling-up Bill.

We have also seen the number of government amendments that have already been tabled to this Bill. What ought to happen, and I wonder whether my noble friend would smile on this, is that at the beginning of the next Session, a draft Bill should be published on commonhold. That would enable us to iron out all the wrinkles and expedite the passage of an eventual commonhold Bill when it came forward. There is all-party agreement that we need to make progress with commonhold, so urgent work now on producing a draft Bill is time that would not be wasted. It would mean that early in the next Session of Parliament we could produce a draft Bill—we have the Law Commission’s work, which we could build on—and iron out all the wrinkles. Then, when the actual Bill came forward, we would be spared, I hope, the raft of government amendments. I exempt my noble friend on the Front Bench from responsibility for this; it would be a faster destination.

By way of comment, what has happened to draft Bills? When did we last see a draft Bill? If you look at the Cabinet Office’s recommendation, I think in 2022 it said that they should be part of a normal legislative programme; there should be a number of Bills produced in draft, which we can get our teeth into. All my experience as chairman of the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee is that when you have a draft Bill, the actual Bill goes through much more quickly. Again, my noble friend has no responsibility for the legislative programme, but I think we need to spend more time as a Parliament looking at draft Bills rather than at Bills that have been drafted in haste, and then having to cope with a whole range of government amendments.

Green Spaces

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I do not believe it should be an either/or. The green belt is rightly protected, and the Government’s approach to that is set out clearly. For urban green space, that is also reflected in the National Planning Policy Framework. It is clear that access to high-quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and physical activity are important to the health and well-being of communities. Planning policies and decisions should enable the retention and development of accessible open spaces. That is what local plans should seek to do.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the environmental improvement plan is an example of this rubbish Government actually coming up with some good ideas. But, despite the fact that this plan is good particularly for deprived communities, children and biodiversity, there is a problem. Is it perhaps the fact that this Government have slashed funding to councils that has made progress so slow?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I have set out a number of different ways that we are supporting this commitment. On local government funding, the provisional local government finance settlement for next year announced a substantial funding package for councils, worth more than £64.1 billion—£4 billion more than last year. But, having listened to councils, a further £600 million was announced at the end of January. So we are providing the funding to councils to help support their important role in delivering this.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, we ought to remember that we are discussing the amendments that the Government have put before us, rather than a committee report that we have not got and which will, no doubt, be of great interest.

We have to recognise that there may well be an issue here that needs properly to be addressed. My concern is that this is not the way to address it. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, suggested that when we deal with the environment, we should consider it very carefully, go out to consultation and make sure that what we are doing is right. None of that has happened here. The Government have put down a whole series of amendments to this Christmas tree of a Bill and some of us are suggesting that we should not do this—although, were they to come forward with something that met the particular problems in a way that was not so manifestly bad, I am sure we would be supportive.

I rather object to the fact that the newspapers say that I am a Conservative rebel. It is the Government who are the rebel here, because they are not being conservative over this. First, they are asking local authorities—I can hardly believe it—to disregard the facts. This is the kind of attitude that we see in the Republican Party in the United States, the people who do not believe in climate change, the anti-vaxxers, who say “Don’t look at the facts”. The second thing that local authorities are being asked to do is encourage ignorance: not only “Don’t look at the facts” but “Don’t look at any evidence or find any evidence—just do what the Government say should be done”.

The argument the Government have put forward is that we need this to build more houses. I was the Secretary of State responsible for that. I had a long history of dealing with the housebuilders, who tell us that this will increase the number of houses. The number of houses built has nothing to do with this at all—it is about whether the housebuilders think that that number will keep the price up at the level at which they have it. The housebuilders are not building the houses they have already got planning permission for in areas which are not in any way affected by this. We know that perfectly well. It is a canard, if I may use a foreign word, to suggest that this will have any effect on the number of houses. The number of houses in this country is not reaching 300,000 because the housebuilders have bought the land at a price which means that they can sell only at a level which is too elevated for the present time, with mortgages as they are. Let us not kid ourselves that, by voting against this, we will in some way reduce the number of houses, because we will not.

I find it extremely difficult when I am told that the housebuilders should not pay for the damage they do. Three arguments are used. First is the housemaid’s argument: it is only a very little bit—“It is only a very little baby”—and therefore we do not have to take it into account. As a former chairman of the Climate Change Committee, I have to say that that is the argument everybody uses every time you want to do anything—“It isn’t me”; “They are bigger than we are”; “Don’t do it in Britain because of China”; “Don’t do it because of the farmers”; “Don’t do it for anyone, but don’t ask me to pay for my pollution”.

Secondly, I thought that the Conservative Party was in favour of the polluter pays. Were my noble friend the Minister canvassing in the Mid Bedfordshire by-election at this moment, would she turn to an elector and say, “In future, housebuilders building in the Wye Valley or near the Monnow will not have to contribute for the cost and the damage they do, but you will through your taxes. You, the Mid Bedfordshire voter in the by-election, will now be asked to subsidise the housebuilders”? That is what these amendments are about—the subsidising of the housebuilders.

In the end, we could go even further. Why do we not have a Bill to say that housebuilders can ignore health and safety arrangements because then more housing would be built? Why do we not say that local authorities must not know what the health and safety laws are and must not investigate what they might be so that houses might be built?

This is one of the worst pieces of legislation I have ever seen, and I have been around a long time. It is entirely unconservative. If all this was so obvious so long ago, why was it not included in the Bill in the first place, or in some other Bill? As we have, in my view, some pretty peculiar legislation on ex-EU laws, why have the Government not used their powers therein?

I sat through debate after debate on how we were going to protect the British people instead of the court in Brussels and on how we would have proper protection against government mishandling of the environment. We were assured that Glenys Stacey and her department would be treated with all the respect that one would have expected. We were told that she would have all the powers necessary for the Government to take her seriously. What have they done? Two pathetic letters, and no statement—this is a judgment that you should make and we will change things because that is why you are there. That means that the British people are now less protected from government mistakes than any country in the rest of Europe. I make no comment about Brexit, but that is where this House and the other place have left the people of Britain.

I do not believe that the Government can do these things and not expect future generations to say, “If they could do that on this issue, what about other things?” They could say that local authorities can ignore this, that and the other and do not need the facts. Indeed, we do not have the facts here—there is no proof about these houses or any of this; it is an assertion by the Secretary of State.

I am not a Conservative rebel—I am a Conservative. Therefore, I am voting for the principle of the polluter pays, for facts and for knowledge, and I am not voting for ignorance and the disregard of facts.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, is not an easy act to follow, but I shall try.

We were lied to in this House. Our Government promised us repeatedly that there would be no lessening of environmental protection at any time. They promised us that and they lied. As a result of Brexit, we are now almost unprotected. Loads of us knew at the time that they were lying.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness knows full well that parliamentary rules do not allow her to use those words, so we would be grateful to her if she could withdraw them.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Deputy Speaker, is that right?

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

The noble Baroness knows full well the words that she has just used, and we would be most grateful to her if she could withdraw those words.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I genuinely did not know that I could not say that in this House. I know that in the other place we cannot say it. It is very difficult for me to withdraw words that I know are the truth, but I will withdraw them.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

If the noble Baroness looks at the Companion, she will see that it is very clear on parliamentary language. So, I respectfully point to the Companion—and if she could read that and withdraw those words.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I withdraw them.

We were told repeatedly during the passage of the Environment Bill that there would be no lowering of environmental standards in the post-Brexit legislation. That clearly has happened; environmental standards are down. I suppose that it was obvious, because the Government promised, but they refused to put it in that Bill; they absolutely refused, when we kept asking them. This is the same package of obfuscation as their refusal to guarantee post-Brexit workers’ rights or food standards—it is all part of the same thing.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, adding to what has just been said, I have been a Barclays customer all my life, as has my family before me. The branch in Ottery St Mary, three miles from the village in which I live, closed some time ago. There is now not a single bank in Ottery St Mary. The nearest bank is in Honiton, which is seven miles away. I am told that the Barclays branch there is about to close. We will have to go to Exeter, which is a very crowded place, particularly if you drive. It has bus services, but they are not very frequent. It is 10 miles from the village where I live. Also, there were two branches of Barclays in Fleet Street, just beside the law courts. There is none today.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I strongly support this amendment. I will sound like an old fogey—so perhaps I should be sitting in the seats opposite—but I used to love going into my branch of Co-op and actually speaking to somebody, asking them questions directly. This has damaged communities, especially communities of quite vulnerable people who cannot travel very far, so the Greens will be voting for this amendment.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I also strongly support what the noble Baroness said on this. It is something that I have been very concerned about for a long time and you cannot divorce it from the way that post offices have been run down by our Government. The reality is that post offices cannot now do many of the things that they used to do. It is a drip-drip thing that is gradually making it very difficult particularly for the elderly and those who have no access to a bank account or are not near a bank.

Whatever the Government might think of GB News, I do not understand why they will not look more at its huge petition to say that we do not want to be a cashless society. This is really important. The noble Baroness is starting the fightback, which I hope the Government will listen to. I hope that she puts this to a vote, because people talk a lot about it but, when it comes to the crunch, noble Lords need to show that they mean it; otherwise, it is useless us being here.

Elections: Voter ID

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Tuesday 13th June 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of voter ID rules on people’s ability to vote, and what plans they have to review these rules before the next general election.

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

My Lords, we are encouraged by the first rollout of voter identification and are confident that the vast majority of voters will have cast their vote successfully based on sector feedback and our own observations on the day. As set out in legislation, we will be conducting an evaluation of the implementation of voter identification at the May polls and intend to publish the report no later than November this year.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I am quite surprised at that Answer, because initial reports suggest that thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people were not able to cast their votes. Of course, the really disturbing thing is that a former member of the Government—still a Member of the other place, recently knighted, Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg—said at the National Conservatism Conference in Westminster last Monday:

“Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections”.


So a member of the Minister’s own party has called it “gerrymandering”.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The successful introduction of voter identification at May’s elections was to ensure the future integrity of our voting system. Comments from elsewhere do not reflect the reality of the reason for or the administration of that change. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Local Government and Building Safety, Lee Rowley MP, made the Government’s position absolutely clear in a letter responding to a point of order raised in the House of Commons on 16 May. This letter has been deposited in the House of Commons Library.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I have enormous sympathy for the case made by my noble friend Lord Holmes and very much hope that the Government respond as positively as they can.

The background to my Amendment 459, to which Peers from other parties have added their names, is the arrangements made during the pandemic to support the hospitality industry. In the interests of progress, not all four of us will be speaking, and it is good to see today’s Marshalled List down to a mere 68 pages for this last day of our debate. Noble Lords may recall that during the pandemic, when it was not possible to go into enclosed premises such as pubs, arrangements were made to grant pavement licences. When the Business and Planning Bill, which introduced this concession, came before the House in 2020, I added my name to a cross-party amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, saying that a condition of licence would be that outdoor seating areas were required to be 100% smoke-free, paralleling the arrangements inside the premises.

Noble Lords across the House supported that amendment, but sadly it was not accepted by the Government, who instead inserted a requirement in the legislation that

“the licence-holder must make reasonable provision for seating where smoking is not permitted”.

Amendment 459 would reintroduce the requirement for all pavement licences to be smoke-free, which was the view of your Lordships’ House three years ago. This would contribute to the Government’s ambition to make England smoke-free by 2030—an ambition we are currently on track to miss by nine years, according to Cancer Research UK. The current temporary requirements, which are being made permanent in this Bill, would mean that councils have two options on smoking: to implement the national condition to provide some smoke-free seating, or to go further and make 100% smoke-free seating a condition of licence at local level.

Since then, two-thirds of the public, polled in 2022, did not think that the current legislation went far enough. They wanted smoking banned from the outdoor seating areas of all restaurants, pubs and cafes. Fewer than one in five opposed such a ban. That was a large sample, of more than 10,000 people, in a survey carried out by YouGov for Action on Smoking and Health.

Some councils are already doing what the public want, with 10 councils in England introducing 100% smoke-free requirements. These are a mixture of Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem-led councils in counties such as Durham and Northumberland, cities such as Newcastle, Manchester and Liverpool, unitary authorities such as Middlesbrough and North Lincolnshire, and metropolitan boroughs such as North Tyneside, South Tyneside and the London Borough of Brent. Therefore, in response to the point about practicality made by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, practicality has already been well established by those local authorities.

When we initially tabled our amendments, the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government wrote to Manchester City Council, the first council to introduce the requirement for pavement licences to be 100% smoke-free, warning it that this would damage local hospitality businesses and could lead to the loss of thousands of jobs. We do not know whether that letter had the approval of Health Ministers. However, the experience from Manchester and elsewhere shows exactly the opposite: that these bans have proved popular with the public, leading to high levels of compliance, and have not been shown to cause any decrease in revenues. At the time, I reluctantly agreed to the Government’s decision to include the current smoke-free seating requirements, which, while better than nothing, do not go far enough. The current system is not only much more complicated to implement than a blanket ban; it ensures that non-smokers and children continue to be exposed to tobacco smoke, which is both toxic and unpleasant. Of course, those who work for these establishments cannot go elsewhere and will continue to be exposed to smoke.

The Local Government Association of which, uniquely, I am not a vice-president, supports our amendment for 100% smoke-free pavement licences on the basis that

“it sets a level playing field for hospitality venues across the country and has a public health benefit of protecting people from unwanted second-hand smoke … If smoking is not prohibited, pavement areas will not become family-friendly spaces”.

That is why Dr Javed Khan’s independent review of smoke-free 2030 policies, commissioned by the Department of Health and published last year, recommended that smoking be prohibited on all premises, indoors and out, where food or drink is served, as well as a ban on smoking in all outdoor areas where children are present. This 100% smoke-free pavement seating has strong cross-party support from Peers across this House. When the regulations were extended in 2021, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, tabled an amendment to regret that the regulations were not revised to take account of the evidence of the benefits of 100% smoke-free pavement licences. That amendment was agreed by 254 votes to 224.

Last year, the Government announced several new tobacco control measures and said that in place of the long-promised tobacco control plan to deliver a smoke-free 2030, tackling smoking would be core to the major conditions strategy currently in development. The measures announced today are welcome but fall far short of the comprehensive approach that Dr Khan made clear was essential if we are to achieve a smoke-free 2030. When my noble friend sums up, can she confirm that the Government intend to bring forward further measures to reduce smoking in the upcoming major conditions strategy? We should now take this opportunity, provided by this amendment, to move towards implementing Dr Khan’s recommendations for all hospitality venues to be smoke-free indoors and out—a small but important step towards a smoke-free 2030.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, last week, my esteemed colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, asked whether I would support his amendments on pavement accessibility. I trusted him completely so I said, “Yes, of course, I would love to support them”. Then I read them and, actually, they are quite tough and strict in places, but the more I read them, the more I liked them. I particularly liked Amendment 450, which is about taking bits of the road—I love that idea—and reducing the space for traffic, as well as Amendment 459 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and others, because that is so tough on smoking and I loathe smoking. I support many of these amendments. Obviously, I support all the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. There is, perhaps, some space to bring in the fact that cars park on the pavement. I hate pavement parking and I hate loads of rubbish bins being heaped up on the side of pavements because they inhibit free access.

My local shopping street has gone absolutely bananas with this, and it has changed the whole feeling of the street—it is so much more friendly. At the moment, only the Co-op, Iceland and Boots, I think, do not have tables and chairs outside them, with people eating, drinking and having fun. I am all in favour of this section and look forward to Report, when I would be happy to vote on many of them and perhaps even sign up to them as well.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a delight to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. She did say that some of my noble friend’s amendments were quite tough but that she liked them. I think the Committee would agree that the noble Baroness is quite tough and we rather like her as well. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond on the initiative he has undertaken in tabling these important amendments. He is to be congratulated by all disabled people, fighting our corner—or narrow strip of pavement, as the case may be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it is normal to say what a pleasure it is to speak after a previous speaker, but it is impossible to speak after my noble friend and provoke as much of the Committee’s interest as he has.

I will speak in support of the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond to which I have added my name, and I do so on the basis of too many years spent on a local authority, much of it responsible for administering legislation that relates to the management of our highways. Much of that legislation dates to the 1980s, but one of the duties in it goes back to the Middle Ages and really to the beginning of having local authorities at all: that is the obligation on the local authority to keep the King’s highway clear. The reason for that is simple: if you operate commercial premises and are a frontager on the highway, you are very attracted by the prospect of trading from that highway, because you can expand your premises rent-free. That makes a great deal of sense commercially.

For centuries, it has been the sad task of local authorities to try to push back people who are trying to trade on the public highway because—here I make two points—the public highway is, first of all, a public asset. It is maintained at public expense primarily for the benefit of the public and not for the private use of frontagers. Secondly, my noble friend Lord Holmes referred to the purpose of the highway, but he was not quite as precise as I would have liked. There is a precise understanding in law of the purpose of the highway—that it allows people to go to and fro. Any use of the public highway for the purpose of trading—in this case we are discussing trading in front of refreshment businesses, restaurants and cafés, but the same applies to shopkeepers—can exist only as a concession by the local authority. In my experience, this is generally a contentious matter with local people and one should be very cautious about granting such licences.

All such caution was thrown to the wind as a result of the Covid pandemic. The Government switched from a carefully balanced system, where local authorities which understood their communities had a clear say in the matter and knew from experience how to balance various demands, to one in which the advantage was given heavily in favour of the commercial frontager, who has the right to do this. The Bill, in effect, seeks to make that even more expansive and practically to continue it permanently. I think this is a dangerous thing to do. It is and should very much be a matter for local authorities, which understand their local communities. The balance should be adjusted back to where it was before—more on the neutral part of the scales rather than heavily weighted, as it is now.

What harms arise? First, it is impossible for me to add to the harms that arise to people with various disabilities, about which we have heard. I cannot and do not intend to add anything to what my noble friends Lord Holmes and Lord Blencathra said from their own experience, but there are other harms as well. To some extent, they arise from the conceptual model that arises when we talk about “the high street”. We talk about the high street as if it were a distinct thing or use but, in most urban areas, if you lift your eyes above the gaudy shopfront, you will see lots of other things happening in the high street above ground, many of which are people living there. If you are overlooking a pavement and there are licences that allow people out on the pavement, you will suffer a harm directly in relation to that.

Some harms are quite acceptable. If the closing hours and hours of operation are sensible, perhaps you can live with that. You want to get on with your neighbours and do not want local businesses to fail, but you are entirely dependent on the licensing regime and the attitude of local councillors as to what hours should be allowed. You are also exposed to poor management and exposed, outside your window—here I speak from a degree of experience—to people talking loudly and having parties, some of which are louder than others. It is impossible to expect any management to control that properly; they simply cannot go around doing that. However well intentioned, they have to work with noisy and difficult people.

We need to get back to understanding what the highway is for, what a public asset is, paid for at public expense, and what its primary purpose is. We need to understand that local authorities are probably the best determinants of this and we need to reset the dial, so that they have the chance to do that.

I cannot sit down without referring to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. No chance goes by in your Lordships’ House for him to propose something restrictive of smoking without him dashing at it very much like a ferret up a trouser leg. Here we are again with yet another restrictive amendment proposed on smoking, and it is purely vindictive and entirely punitive. He endeavours to put a gloss of public interest on it, and maybe he thinks he is contributing to people giving up smoking. I gave up smoking last year and I assure your Lordships that at no point in my consideration did the possibility of being denied access to a pavement café arise, nor would I have given it any weight had it come into my mind. There were other reasons why I gave up smoking last year.

One of the problems with these vindictive approaches is that the people who make them simply do not understand smokers. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who I think said that she “loathed smoking”, possibly does not want to understand them; she just wants to give vent to the loathing. I do not know. My noble friend offered a few other reasons. The first was generosity in favour of the business success of the premises. He said that they would be much happier, attract more business and be family friendly. I do not think that that is sufficient reason to impose restrictions on a lawful activity, because it is not the business of this House to make businesses successful. That is their job: we set a framework and they try to make the businesses successful. That is not our motivation nor should it be, in my view.

I very much hope that the Minister who, in the course of this Committee, has developed a great deftness at turning away suggestions made by Members of your Lordships’ House, maintains that deftness in respect of this amendment and finds a way of saying that this is not an appropriate place for the Government to pursue yet more vindictive legislation against smokers.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I did not say that I loathe smokers—both my parents were smokers. I loathe smoking because of the impact it had on my parents, both of whom died from smoking-related disease.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I did say—and I think Hansard will show—that the noble Baroness said she loathed smoking. I was careful not to say that she loathed smokers. I hope she did not mishear that, because it would have been a mishearing.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I very much support what my noble friend has just said, having grown up in that part of the country and spending many happy decades fishing there. I just ask my noble friend the Minister, if he is going to give special consideration to chalk streams, to end the discrimination against Sussex. In particular, my local chalk stream should be included in the list, which it is not at the moment. The fact that it is called the Lottbridge Sewer should not be enough to exclude it.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to support every word that the noble Viscount has just said—a rare event.

I have recently joined a group of people who meet monthly to assess the health of the chalk stream that runs through their village by counting river flies, and the experience has been a real pleasure. There is nothing as satisfying as seeing a healthy ecosystem, and luckily theirs is.

However, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, chalk streams are extremely vulnerable. In fact, the amendment should not be necessary at all because we should automatically be protecting the health and well-being of our chalk streams. So I very much support the amendment. I hope it comes back again and again and we vote on it—or perhaps the Minister will snap it up as a good thing to do.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I too am not always in agreement with the words of my noble friend, but I strongly support the amendment.

The key point is that chalk streams are more vulnerable than almost any other water because they are concentrated in areas of considerable development and they are subject to considerable abstraction and the results of sewage disposal. There is therefore a particular reason for isolating them as opposed to other things.

The crucial reason is that we are fortunate enough to have the majority of the chalk streams in the world. Britain needs to be very careful about protecting those few things that we have almost uniquely. I have to say to the Government that, awful though the REUL Bill is, this subject is clearly not going to be part of it, so this is an ideal opportunity to make that statement.

I fear that I know precisely what the civil servants will have said to the Minister. First, they will have said: “First of all, we really need a wider range of things here. We need to apply this much more carefully because otherwise people who will not be covered by this will object”. Secondly, they will have said: “It’s very difficult to isolate chalk streams when we are not covering this, that and the other”. Thirdly: “There will be other opportunities to do this in other legislation”. Fourthly: “This is a very big Bill already and we don’t want to burden the system with anything more”. Fifthly: “This particular amendment doesn’t cover all the chalk streams that ought to be covered, and therefore it would be better to wait until we can cover them all”.

There may be other things that civil servants will have told my noble friend, but I suspect that those are the first five. I suggest to him that this is the moment in which he does not listen to, “Better not, Minister”, and puts in, instead of that, “Be off, civil servant!” We need to have this. It is not perfect, but if we wait for perfection, we will do nothing. I just hope that the Minister, in whom I have great confidence, will be able to say, “This is a sensible thing to do and I can’t really think of any good reason for not doing it”—and therefore will do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

There is an enormous number of amendments, and I somehow did not spot it. If I had spotted it, my name would be on it.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Take that back!

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

If I were a fisherman on one of the Dorset rivers now with the mayfly hatching, I would have caught a most wonderful trout at the end of my line.

I say to the noble Baroness that I was alarmed, because I know that, in her heart of hearts, she is very supportive of this. However, her boss Keir Starmer said that he wanted to develop on green land. As my noble friend Lord Deben has just said, our chalk streams are going through highly developed land already. Which side of the fence is the Labour Party on? I hope the noble Baroness will reply.

I will ask of both Front Benches the question I was going to ask of my noble friend the Minister. Are they prepared to give the commitment to our chalk streams that the chalk streams demand? To remedy the chalk stream problem, it is not a question of days, months or years, but of decades, and an awful lot of interests have to be tackled. Unless we can get reassurance that all the parties across the House have that commitment, our chalk streams will not be in the health they should be

Redcar Steelworks

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Let me give a little background. Three Thai banks had a hold on the former SSI steelworks land. As negotiations to secure that land broke down, a compulsory purchase order was launched. JC Musgrave Capital and Northern Land Management already had back options on parcels of land within the Teesworks site that were key to those negotiations with the three banks over land owned by SSI, which was already in receivership. The STDC was advised by a top KC that, without this private sector involvement, it would very likely lose that compulsory purchase order. The public/private partnership was agreed by the TVCA, the Cabinet and the STDC board, and it was envisaged in the original business case approved by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, MHCLG and the Treasury that that should be the partnership to take this site forward.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is not people on this side creating the concern; these are reports from local people, businesses and a lot of newspapers. Please do not be offensive to this side of the Chamber. We do our best to hold the Government to account—that is our job. In this instance, the Government seem absolutely blind to the fact that there could be problems. Moving forward, an investigation is necessary and should be part of the Government’s plan.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We are not blind to that fact. We are monitoring continually, as we do when we invest in these projects, and the National Audit Office did its audit and said that the public money was being spent as intended. We will look at anything further that needs to be done. As I have said, the mayor is very happy to take part in any review.