Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Northbrook Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Lords Chamber

Amendments 279 and 280, in addition to others in this group, seek to ensure only this: before this legislation comes into effect, the courts must be in at least as good a position as they were before the first Covid lockdown. That is not a high bar, but it is the least that we should expect and demand.

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a landlord of rental properties in Hampshire. I support all the amendments in this group. I fear that the Government may not support Amendment 283, even though it was in the original Bill that was presented when we were in Government.

I will focus on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, which would require the Government to conduct a formal review of the Bill’s impact on the court system within two years of its enactment. This review, supported by the National Residential Landlords Association, would assess case volumes, the court’s ability to manage demand, the efficiency and timeliness of proceedings, and the administrative burden on the courts. It would require the Secretary of State to consult legal practitioners, court officials and other relevant experts to ensure that decisions are based on reliable evidence.

Crucially, this amendment does not seek to delay the abolition of Section 21. Instead, it would ensure that the Government monitor the impact of these changes and, if necessary, take action to address the extra pressures on the justice system.

With the abolition of Section 21 no-explanation repossessions, landlords will become more reliant on the courts when seeking to gain possession of a property using the legitimate grounds under the Section 8 process. However, as many other noble Lords have said, this shift raises serious concerns about the capacity of the justice system to handle the increased caseload. The Law Society notes:

“The bill in its current form, may lead to an increase in contested hearings in the short term, as landlords that would previously have used no-fault provisions will instead have to show good reason for eviction”.


The Housing Minister has said that the Government are working to ensure the courts are “ready” for the system replacing Section 21. As other noble Lords have said, they have given no indication on what this means in practice or how it will be achieved. The court system was already struggling. As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has said, the Housing Minister told the Bill Committee in the Commons that

“the court system is on its knees”.—[Official Report, Commons, Renters’ Rights Bill Committee, 22/10/24; col. 9.]

Government data shows that the average time to process and enforce a Section 8 possession case—the grounds-based route to possession—is over seven months. That is seven months in which a responsible landlord might be left unable to recover their property in cases of serious rent arrears or anti-social behaviour; seven months where neighbours may have to endure disruption; and seven months in which tenants who are genuinely in need of housing will not have access to the market because homes that should be available are instead tied up in legal delays. It is only right and fair that responsible landlords have confidence that the system will not leave them in limbo when they have legitimate grounds for possession.

Tenants also face major barriers to justice. As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has said, close to a majority of the population of England and Wales do not have a housing legal aid provider in their local authority area.

Given all this, Richard Atkinson, the president of the Law Society, has rightly concluded that

“the bill will not be effective without further investment in the justice system. We urge the government to provide greater funding and more clarity to the enforcement provisions so that justice is accessible to renters and landlords alike”.

No mention is made in the impact assessment of what the extra costs of improving the Courts & Tribunals Service will be, or of implementing the new IT system that other noble Lords have met with the Minister to hear about. Does that mean that nothing extra will be spent on improving systems in the Courts & Tribunals Service?

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to ensure that there is an awareness within the context of these amendments of the current state of play. According to a briefing from Generation Rent, which I thank for the information, only a tiny minority of tenancies ever get anywhere near a court—currently, about 0.3% end in repossession in the court. While the courts are indeed very overcrowded and have a lot of cases coming before them, it is important to understand where in the hierarchy tenancies currently are.

In addition, the vast majority of tenants, the minute they receive a notice—whatever the notice is—tend to see the writing on the wall and leave, because there is such a strong power imbalance, and therefore it never makes it to court. Although I recognise that we are hearing about the situation when something reaches court, the likelihood of anything actually reaching court is, as we will discuss in further amendments later today, often very remote, from both sides of the argument.

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

I am sorry to disagree with the noble Baroness but, sadly, from practical experience, I think what she is saying is not necessarily the case.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I will wind up on this group and give a little more detail on my Amendment 264. It is a straightforward amendment; I like to be straightforward. Based on the facts given by noble Lords in this debate, there is evidently a genuine concern about the capacity of the courts to deliver. All contributions have been well evidenced and—I will be quite frank—are worrying.

From our perspective, as was evidenced by the contribution from my noble friend Lady Grender, we support this legislation, we want ir to work and, for it to work, we know that the courts have to be efficient. If they are not, it could undermine the core purpose of the Bill, as was passionately said by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. We know of, and understand, the issues regarding the courts. These have been well articulated in every contribution across the Committee, so I will not repeat them. However, many legitimate questions have been posed to which we need answers.

On Amendment 264, it is vital that court capacity is reviewed, and that this is enshrined in the Bill to make sure that it happens formally and can be scrutinised within two years. We feel that two years is probably enough, certainly to sort out the IT—as referenced by the noble Earl—and to feel whether we are moving on to an even keel after an initial transition period. I am sure that, as we go through the rest of the days in Committee, we will look at that transition period.

The amendment looks at all the key components for the effective working of the courts. It asks to look at access to justice. We must ensure that the system is accessible, affordable and understandable for all, regardless of a tenant’s background and circumstances. It is legitimate to ask the Government for their commitment to resourcing the courts and to have hard evidence about case volume, how many cases, and how long they are taking—the last aspect being very important for both landlords and tenants.

As has been mentioned, the current evidence is of the months ticking by, which is unfair to landlords. Their concerns in this instance are valid. Under the new grounds, if eviction is legitimate, it needs to happen quickly. Delaying things by months could put some landlords in financial jeopardy and tenants in real limbo and uncertainty. I am sure that any Secretary of State would want answers to these pertinent questions within a reasonable timeframe to ensure that all is working as intended, or, if not, in time to make some remediation, as the assessment will be based on real data. I am certain that the Government, too, are concerned about this and are doing everything they can to make sure that the courts are ready; I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

However, we do not support in any way Amendment 283 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to delay the abolition of Section 21. The sooner the long-promised abolition of Section 21 happens, the better. Indeed, Amendments 279, 280 and 283, as well as, to a lesser extent, Amendment 69, would certainly result in delays in the Act coming into force. For this critical reason, we cannot support them.

However, this does not mean that we do not take this issue seriously; I am not wearing rose-coloured spectacles. I expect full answers on the readiness of our courts to deal with these radical changes. The criticism and concerns regarding the courts have been known now for some considerable time. Work must have been done, so we would expect the Government now to have some hard answers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think it is best to wait until I have the detail of the Serco arrangement before we debate that. As I said, I will give noble Lords a response in writing and place a copy in the Library.

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

I listened carefully to the Minister’s encouraging remarks on improving capacity and resources, and on the digitisation process. However, the impact assessment—if I have read it correctly—says there was no extra expenditure on this. I am not quite sure how to square the circle on that.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As I said, we are working very closely with our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and the courts service. The digitisation process is already under way and is already costed, and we are looking at other impacts. If the noble Lord’s view is that they are not clearly set out in the impact statement, I will come back to noble Lords on what they may be.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Northbrook Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Leicester (Con)]

My Lords, I refer to my declaration of interests with respect to this Bill, including a large portfolio of residential property in north Norfolk, 93% of which is let out to local people, key workers and direct agricultural workers, with only seven holiday lets and seven lets to family members.

This schedule is on grounds for possession, and some excellent amendments have been put forward, to which I urge the Government to give serious consideration. However, as a generality when talking about grounds for possession, as a landlord, I do not want to lose tenants. I hate voids. As an example, I have 47 tenants who have been my tenants for between 21 and 40 years, and 45 who have been my tenants for between 11 and 20 years. These are people I know. They are my friends, they are in the community, they are contributing to the community and they, of course, live in it. Many noble Lords have spoken about the importance of not losing good landlords, and this Bill, as it is currently written, is very much in danger of creating that reality.

I turn now to Amendment 63 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to which I have added my name. It is essential that we allow a property owner to manage his or her property for change of use to commercial, whether that be retail, office or industry.

Let us assume a farmyard with a cottage that has a sitting tenant. The landowner gets planning permission for a block of offices or retail. Those offices and retail are going to produce a huge kick to the economy, jobs for the builders and groundworkers, and then, once they are occupied, jobs for the people working in them. So it would not be right that a single person or a family living in a cottage could stymie that development. The reality is that a landlord who is sensible—which most landlords are—would have open communication with their tenant, explain what is going to happen and try to offer them a different property. If a tenant refuses to move, that will have a real effect on the economy. This Government—who talk about growth—really need to understand that, by not accepting this amendment, they will very much be stymieing growth.

I will give another example, again I am afraid from my own playbook. It is an example of planning permission—albeit for residential, which does not necessarily refer to this amendment, and on green belt land. We are building 23 houses at the moment. Eight are for private sale, four are for affordable rent, two are for shared ownership with Broadland Housing Association, four are for intermediate rent with Homes for Wells, which is not really a housing association, and five will be retained by us for private rent. If this Bill goes through as it is proposed by the Government, why would I bother? It is really important that the Government listen to all these sensible amendments being proposed and I really hope the Minister will do so.

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, I firstly declare an interest as a private landlord of residential properties in Hampshire.

I support Amendment 60, to keep the rent arrears landlord legal action limit to two months rather than four. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, said, landlords are not charities, and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, agreed with this. I also support Amendment 63 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, which also seems very sensible.

Local authorities are already reluctant to sanction a change of use from residential to commercial, so they exercise careful control over this. As the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, said, money from permission to convert residential properties to commercial can be used to pay for and improve properties, and something that has not been mentioned much so far is the EPC problem that a lot of these cottages have, and the extra money that needs to be found to pay for this.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I would like to thank all the parties in the renters’ coalition for their work on many aspects of the Bill, particularly this one. They have very patiently answered my every query as I have attempted to familiarise myself with all the grounds for possessions and the implications of that.

Before I move to the detail of my Amendments 26 and 27, I would like to offer support for Amendments 24 and 30 from the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. If one recalls—because she was right at the beginning of the debate—this was about ground 6B, when the house is required back for works to be done to it. Given that the landlord is not obliged to provide alternative accommodation while the works are done, we believe it might justify consideration of compensation, mainly because—this is interesting—6B is already being described on property websites as a “loophole”. Ground 6B currently lacks clear definitions and proper oversight, so it runs the risk of being misused, disputed or even ignored. Any moves to reduce court use, given our concerns in this regard, are also to be clearly welcomed.

Amendments 26 and 27 pertain to the two no-fault grounds for eviction: namely, ground 1, moving in a family member, and ground 1A, selling the property. First, the increase in notice periods from two to four months for eviction on these grounds is most welcome, giving tenants more time to find a new home. Amendment 71 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, strengthens this further by the discussion of compensation, as she outlined, and we feel that this complements our amendments.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Northbrook Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

Will the Minister deal with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about institutional investors and their reluctance to invest when there is a minimum tenancy of only two months, and about lenders who are not prepared to lend to the sector? Does she feel that the institutional investors are an important part of the sector or are they not relevant?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I responded to that in an answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Young, at Question Time. Yes, institutional investors are important, but it is important that we do not create an idea that these are two-month fixed tenancies; they absolutely are not. They are assured tenancies with a two-month notice period on the part of the tenant. Most tenants will not want to take up a tenancy and go through all the procedures they will need to—as I set out—just to have a tenancy for two months and then leave it. Most tenants want a long-term tenancy where the landlord maintains their property and they pay their rent on time. That is how the system works. I do not think it will deter institutional investors from having the confidence they should rightly have in investing in build to rent, or any other form of rental investment, as a good investment. It is a steady source of income and, with a tenant with an assured tenancy, they will be more assured of that, not less.

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

I apologise; I failed to declare my interest as a private landlord of rental property in Hampshire.

[Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Coming back to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, I am still concerned about the unintended consequences of parts of the Bill. I am not sure the Minister entirely convinced me on that, particularly on issues such as, for example, the move towards ultra-short lets that is taking place before our eyes. Some blocks of flats in London are 90% Airbnb. There is a big shift in the professionalisation of ultra-short lets. That is one impact of ultra-short periodic tenancies of two months that will be more or less impossible to police in large cities and resorts.

The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, gave us the benefit of his 50 years’ experience in the PRS and expressed similar concerns. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked the Minister what the rationale behind abolishing ASTs is. We heard some of the familiar arguments but, again, I was not entirely convinced. Domestic abuse is an extremely serious subject but I cannot imagine anyone who is in fear of their life checking their tenancy agreement before fleeing their abuser. I know the Minister mentioned one case, but the domestic abuse charities I spoke to say it is the abused person who flees, more or less at the drop of a hat, and the abuser who stays in situ.

A number of noble Lords expressed their disquiet about the abolition of fixed terms, not just in terms of flexibility—although there is an argument that asks whether we are saying that six months’ flexibility is so awful that we must have two months’ flexibility instead. Under assured shorthold tenancies, people can have a break clause of six months and can move out, which suits most people and has certainly been my experience. I am sure we will come back to this at a later stage.

The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, made some strong points about fixed terms as well, and made a powerful case for a six-month minimum, rather than two months, to give stability to both landlords and tenants. We should think not just about tenants’ rights, which are very important and an important part of the Bill, but about the impact on the market of introducing two-month tenancies. It is undoubtedly the case that, in a number of areas, people occupy what were previously long-term rentals for short-term purposes. We will come on to discuss Airbnb later but, for example, 40% of the properties in the village of Salcombe in Devon are Airbnb or equivalent. If you ask the people of Cornwall, you will find that they are losing a lot of long-term rentals to short-term holidaymakers, and all the rest.

The two are linked. This Bill will be linked to what is already happening to the housing market and what will happen in the future. Once you introduce two-month periodic tenancies, it will be almost impossible to police. How will you know whether someone takes on a tenancy in a city centre—for example, a tourist—stays for a month, not two months, and then moves out? Who will police it? I am concerned that there will be a huge shift to ultra-short tenancies, which will undercut the long-term rental market and impact primarily on people who need long-term rental homes.

We have had a good debate. No doubt the Committee will come back to this issue in future amendments but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Northbrook Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, I first declare my interest as a rental property owner. I support certain aspects of this Bill but have major reservations on other parts of it. On some issues the Bill strikes the right balance. This is agreed by the National Residential Landlords Association and the Large Agents Representation Group. These issues include provisions to establish a decent homes standard, applying Awaab’s law sensibly, tackling discriminatory practices faced by benefit claimants and families with children, protecting guarantors when a tenant dies while renting a property, and efforts to end bidding wars. These parts of the Bill are welcome.

Before I look at the Bill’s problems, I would like to take a step back and examine the background to the English residential letting market. First, there are not enough private rented properties to meet demand. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, has acknowledged that demand is currently outstripping the supply of properties available to let. According to the latest English Private Landlord Survey, the number of landlords looking to sell properties is increasing: 31% of landlords plan to cut the number of properties they rent out. Landlords selling properties is not good news for tenants. This is a leading reason that tenancies end, according to the Government’s homelessness data.

The leading countryside organisation, the CLA, states that that the rural private housing sector is shrinking, with 44% of countryside landlords planning to sell or change use class in the next two years. This compares with only 21% planning to build in the same period. Some 90% of those planning to leave the sector gave changes in private rented sector tenancies as the first cause. The second cause was the proposal to increase minimum energy efficiency standards to energy performance certificate C. The third cause was the abolition of Section 21, which I shall now move on to.

The courts are already facing huge backlogs. Ending Section 21 will put an even greater strain on them. They will need to consider and process possession cases where landlords have good cause, under the Section 8 process. The other place’s Housing Select Committee has previously warned that the courts will be overwhelmed without reform. Government data suggests that it takes a court an average of just over seven months to process Section 8 possession cases. This is from a case being accepted to the property being repossessed and includes cases related to anti-social behaviour and serious rent arrears.

As far back as September, the Housing Minister in the other place said that the Government are working

“to ensure that the court system is ready at the point that the new system comes into effect”.

However, since then, no clarity has been provided by the Government about what the courts being ready means in practice. This is especially concerning given that the Minister told the Public Bill Committee in the other place that the court system is “on its knees”. A clear resource plan must be put in place before reforms take effect. The Law Society has rightly warned that

“without investment for housing legal aid and the courts, the bill will not achieve its aims”.

Despite representing the most significant reforms to the private rented sector in over 30 years, no clear implementation plan has been developed or published. Such a plan is vital to ensure that the sector understands what is expected of it and when. Sufficient time needs to be allowed to prepare for changes. I therefore ask the Minister: which parts of the Bill will be implemented at what stage?

I now move to the problems of the legislation regarding the tribunal system. The Bill is set to allow tenants to challenge above-market rent increases at the property tribunal. The ruling cannot decide that a proposed rent increase should be higher than what was proposed by a landlord, and tenants can take rent determinations to a tribunal free of charge. Based on the measures in the Bill, there is no clear reason as to why a tenant would not take an increase to the tribunal. This is irrespective of whether their challenge would be successful, not least because the only way to test if a rent increase was at market rates or not would be to go to the tribunal.

At the Second Reading of the Bill in the other place, the Housing Minister told MPs that the Government

“do not want the tribunal overwhelmed”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/10/24; col. 413.]

However, it is not clear how this will be achieved. I suggest that, to prevent the property tribunal being overwhelmed with rental appeal cases, tenants should first be able to establish from the Valuation Office Agency whether a proposed rent increase is within market rates or not. This would make use of the VOA’s experience on local market rents and reduce waiting times for cases that need to be decided by the tribunal.

The next problem is Clause 9. The effect of this could see a number of otherwise suitable applicants shut out from the private rented sector. The clause prohibits any form of rent in advance other than the first month’s rent, which is only payable after the tenancy agreement has been entered into. While the Government’s intentions behind seeking to prevent large amounts of rent being paid in advance are understandable, limiting this ability may close off the private rental market to certain groups who most struggle to prove their ability to sustain a tenancy, including covering their rents. Those most likely to be affected are international students and overseas workers who have no credit history in the UK, as well as those employed on a short-term or variable basis with income that fluctuates. Those from overseas are also most likely to struggle to secure a UK-based guarantor for their rent.

In addition, I ask the Minister how guarantors will work under the new legislation. Given the end of the fixed-term tenancies, it is unlikely that a guarantor would be willing to guarantee a tenant’s rent indefinitely. The Bill’s potential to close off the market from those overseas is in direct contrast with the Chancellor’s ambition to encourage more high-skilled workers to UK and the Education Secretary’s recent message welcoming international students to the country.

I have two other issues. The first is ensuring that the database of private housing works. Chris Norris of the NRLA, which represents 100,000 landlords, said:

“It makes no sense that whilst planning to create a national database of private landlords, the Government now wants to make it easier for councils to license landlords as well”.


How do the Government plan to prevent the two schemes duplicating each other? A failure to do so risks them becoming nothing more than cash cows at the expense of landlords. The database must make it easier for responsible landlords to demonstrate compliance with all their obligations.

My second and final issue is the uncertainty for landlords over gaining repossession of one or two-bedroom properties let out to students. Can I ask the Minister why the new possession ground 4A will not apply to these?

King’s Speech

Lord Northbrook Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords I welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, to the Government Front Bench. In the limited time available, I can focus on only one aspect of the gracious Speech, the plan to remove the remaining 92 hereditary Peers from the House, eliminating many centuries of tradition and generational wisdom and thus a golden thread going back to the 13th century—although I note that the Labour Front Bench has a hereditary Peer among their number, albeit restored as a life Peer.

On 30 March 1999, in front of a packed House of Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, stood at the Dispatch Box and said that the 1999 Bill to abolish the majority of hereditary Peers reflected

“a compromise negotiated between Privy Councillors on Privy Council terms and binding in honour on all those who have come to give it their assent”.

The noble and learned Lord continued, in the most carefully worded statement, saying that

“the 10 per cent. will go only when stage two has taken place. So it is a guarantee that it will take place”.—[Official Report, 30/3/1999; col. 207.]

The words could not have been more unequivocal.

It is the responsibility of the 92, and those colleagues who believe that the former Lord Chancellor’s promise should be adhered to, to help the Government make sure that proposed legislation includes provision to move to the stage 2 promise, and I will highlight areas that need to be discussed further.

First, there should be measures to restrict the size of the House. It cannot be right that the number of Peers keeps increasing so that only the National People’s Congress of China has more members. The correct number should reflect the voting turnout in recent years, and the political balance should be adjusted according to the percentage of votes for each party at the general election.

There should be a retirement age of 80, as has been proposed. However, this should not be mandatory; it would be fairer to have a secret ballot of the whole House once a year to decide whether a Peer over 80 should continue. The current retirement procedure works well, but unfortunately its effect is totally negated by the more-than-compensating appointment of new Peers. Slightly confusingly, the Prime Minister has already authorised the appointment of an 81 year-old Baroness. The only Prime Minister to limit appointments was Theresa May. More should follow her example. The Appointments Commission should be put on a statutory basis and firmly applied to all new appointments—political ones included—thus controlling the quality of prime ministerial patronage.

In addition, amendments should be considered on the composition of the membership of the House. First, we should debate whether the House should be elected. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, opined in the interesting TV programme “The Lady and the Lords”, this is what the general public would expect. Do we need to rebalance the 26 Bishops of the religious element of the House to insert representatives of all faiths? Should the name of the House change to “the Senate”, as it will not allow hereditary Peers to be Members?

Another issue to be looked at is the powers of the House. Should we not be able to amend the reams of secondary legislation that come before us rather than just having the stark choice of agreeing or throwing it out? Also, I firmly believe that we should have the power to amend badly drafted finance Bills, particularly where, due to the guillotine procedure, the clauses are not even discussed in the other place.

Finally, how will some business mechanics work when the hereditaries are gone? Can there be an exemption for shadow Ministers and Whips on the Front Bench? Will there be enough noble Lords to sit on the Woolsack?

I understand that a key reason for the proposed Bill is to remove a number of Conservative Peers from the House, which means that the Government will not have to create the equivalent number of new Labour Peers. However, the Cross-Bench hereditaries have been caught in the cross-fire unnecessarily. Very often during the last Administration they supported Labour and Lib Dem amendments, so they are no major threat to the Government getting their business through. In particular, the convenor should be spared abolition.

What will happen to the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain? Are they also to be excluded from the House? This would seem to be a huge change of tradition to ceremonial offices of state.

I am sure that the proposed legislation will need thorough scrutiny so that it honours the promise made by the then Lord Chancellor in 1999. I am sure that the 92 would be less unhappy to leave when this has been fulfilled.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Northbrook Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Goldsmith, and I am delighted to have been a co-signatory of his amendment along with my noble friend Lord Blencathra.

The hour is late and, like the swifts, most of the Benches have migrated somewhere else, possibly to cavities unknown. The people remaining in the Chamber probably do not need me to tell them about the marvels of swifts so, whereas I was going to spend a lot of time talking about this iconic species and the fact that the sound of swifts overhead is always in dramas when it is summertime, whether it is dubbed or recorded.

It is not just about a lack of cavities. The reduction in insects and everything else means that they need help. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that I admire the gamut of what we have to deal with in this Bill and she is doing admirably—in fact, more than admirably: magnificently. It is just marvellous. I do not see how a Minister can have so much knowledge and briefing about all these different subjects.

However, I say to her that Gibraltar has done this very successfully for several years, if not longer, and it is something that we should be looking at seriously. I do not believe the Government are opposed to it; I think there is that sort of bureaucratic looping in to which we should probably, as my noble friend Lord Goldsmith alluded to, have given more time.

I am sorry that we do not have more time today to discuss this issue and see where we are going, but I urge the Government to look at it. I have had a briefing from house builders today with some marvellous ideas, so they are sort of onside. This is something that we can really get behind because it would not cost the Government anything. It would just show that this country and this Government are nature-friendly, and I would welcome any comments from the Front Bench to that effect.

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am not quite sure why the Control of Pollution Act is put in the same group as swifts. Anyway, my Amendment 282 is in this group.

My local authority, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, unlike some local planning authorities, refuses to impose by planning condition any requirement on developers to mitigate noise, dust and vibration during construction work in accordance with an improved construction method statement that the developer is routinely obliged to submit as part of its planning application for a major development. Instead, with respect to such developments, it promises to encourage developers to submit applications for prior consent under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, failing which it promises that the council will issue a Section 60 notice.

These consents and notices create legal obligations on the developers but the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea can take action only if a breach has been notified. However, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea does not publish the consents and notices anywhere on its website or even the fact that a notice has been issued or a consent agreed to. As a result, residents are not aware whether or when a notice has been issued, what measures a developer has promised to take, what the obligations are under the notice or whether an obligation has been breached. They therefore cannot notify the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea that a breach has occurred. As a result, the system is rendered useless.

My proposed solution is simply that local planning authorities should be obliged to publish all such consents and notices on their planning websites promptly upon issue and not remove them. In the other place, the Minister’s response was that Section 69 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires local planning authorities to keep a register of applications. The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 requires that these registers contain parts 3 and 4 containing details of local development orders and neighbourhood development orders respectively. Part 3, for instance, must include copies of any draft development orders that have been prepared but not adopted by the local planning authority and any adopted local development orders.

The Minister’s reply in the other place completely missed the point. Notices issued under Section 60 and consents given under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act are not planning applications or local or neighbourhood development orders. The reply in this place from the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, in Committee showed that she did not seem to understand what the amendment was seeking to achieve or why. She said:

“Legislating for information to be published in a specific way would remove their ability to make decisions at local level, for little additional benefit”.


This is incorrect. It would not affect in any way local authorities’ ability to make decisions. She concluded, without explanation, that

“the Government believe the proposed amendment is unnecessary and cannot support it”.

On being pressed by my noble friend Lord Bellingham, she replied:

“Since this is a Defra lead, I will commit to write to my noble friend and share the answer with the rest of the Committee”.—[Official Report, 18/4/23; col. 577.]


She did not do so.

When an LPA imposes a planning condition to require compliance with an approved construction method statement, it is obliged by law to publish on its planning website the text of the condition and the fact that the condition has been imposed. No one argues that this removes or affects its ability to make a decision, nor have I ever seen it argued that there are any circumstances in which it would be justifiable to keep the imposition of a condition or its text secret. Measures whereby the developer promises to mitigate noise and disturbance during construction do not touch on privacy or national security. By analogy, I cannot think of any circumstances in which it would be justifiable for a local planning authority to keep the issue of a Section 60/61 notice or consent, or its contents, secret. The Government have not explained why keeping it secret might be justifiable, and that is why I tabled the amendment on Report.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests set out in the register. It was a delight to listen to my noble friends Lord Goldsmith and Lord Randall describe the importance of swift bricks to the preservation of this species and to stopping their decline. I am delighted to be able to support it.

Installing these bricks is an absolute no-brainer. They cost between £25 and £35. Last year, the big four housebuilders—just four of them, Barratt, Berkeley, Persimmon and Bellway—made profits of £2.749 billion. I am sure they can afford a £25 brick for the 300,000 homes they might or might not manage to build next year. Installing the bricks is a no-brainer.

I learned today—I hope, wrongly—that the Government may be opposed to this measure. That, too, would be a no-brainer if they are. I wonder where the opposition has come from. I hope they have not been lobbied by the Home Builders Federation—the organisation which lied, lied and lied again about the Government blocking the building of 145,000 homes because of nutrient neutrality. That was totally untrue. Of course, housebuilders are sitting on more than 1 million planning applications and are land-banking until they can release them gradually and make maximum profits. If that is legitimate, so be it, but let us not let them attack the Government for holding up housebuilding when it is not the Government doing it.

I understand that in the Commons the Government said they could not mandate this nationally and it must be left to local voluntary discretion. Housebuilding left to local voluntary discretion? You cannot build a house anywhere in the country without the Government almost dictating the colour of the curtains. Look at the national regulations on every aspect of housebuilding: electrics; plumbing; the type of cement; the way the damp-proof course is laid; the tiles and insulation. Nearly every mortal thing of importance in the house—the width of the doorways, the bannisters, the boilers you may install after 2030—is dictated by central government, and rightly so. I am not complaining about that, but I am complaining about the apparent hypocrisy if the Government I support are now saying “Oh, we can’t order every house to have a little brick installed because that is taking national government interference too far”. If that is the case, I think that is nonsense.

I know that some Government Ministers have already installed these bricks. They have done it voluntarily, without guidance. If it is good enough for some Ministers, quite rightly, to save swifts out of their own volition, then it should be quite right that the Government support a measure to impose this nationally.

If it is the case that the Government are opposed to this, I would really like to know where that opposition came from in government. If it is true then some idiot—an adviser, spad or civil servant, but hopefully not a Minister—has decided to oppose this. I exempt my noble friend the Minister, as this is an environmental matter and nothing to do with her brief, but why in the name of God should a Conservative Government oppose this?

In the first three years of this Government, under Michael Gove and George Eustice in environment, we made the biggest strides forward in environmental and nature protection that this country has ever seen, with the 25-year plan and the Environment Act. Now we could lose that good reputation because of a trivial thing if we oppose installing a 25-quid brick in a house wall to save swifts.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Northbrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 20th March 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Northbrook]

177: After Clause 77, insert the following new Clause—
“Local authority consultations: code of practice(1) Within 6 months after this section comes into force, the Secretary of State must publish a code of practice for public consultations by local authorities.(2) The code must recommend ways to ensure impartiality, including having consultation conducted by an independent third party, and having consultation materials and process pre-approved by such a party.”

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise that I was unable to take part in the Second Reading of the Bill.

Amendment 177 proposes the preparation of a code of practice for consultation by local authorities and public bodies on contentious matters to ensure that they are impartial and not manipulative—which follows on well from the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, on the last amendment.

Conservatives used to criticise Ken Livingstone, as leader of the GLC, for conducting bogus consultations designed to justify whatever decisions he had already made. Unfortunately, there have been a number of serious examples of similar behaviour by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea affecting the area of the borough in which I live—I declare my interest. I will mention here just two. The first was a council scheme to turn Sloane Square into a crossroads, when two bogus consultations were held that purported to show widespread support for the scheme. The council was pressurised to hold a third consultation, conducted impartially by an independent third party, that showed that 72% of respondents were opposed to the scheme, which was then dropped.

The second was the Cadogan Estates scheme to have dedicated parking bays created outside its high-end designer shops in Sloane Street. This was taken up by the council and rebranded as a scheme to “improve the public realm”. Among the manipulative consultation materials, to give but one example, was a question on whether people wanted “more trees and planting”, which was welcomed because people generally like more trees. The result of this is that Cadogan now has permission to disfigure the street with 52 ugly “planters”—work on which has now started.

The request that the consultation be conducted impartially by an independent third party—failing which, the local residents’ associations wished to review and comment on the consultation materials in draft form—was ignored. The response of the Minister in the other place in a letter of 31 August last year to Richard Drax MP was as follows:

“On consultations by local authorities and public bodies, the Government has been clear that communities must be at the heart of the planning process. The Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, as introduced into Parliament, will reform the process for producing plans so that it is faster and easier for communities to engage with. The Bill will increase and enhance the opportunities for involvement to ensure that development is brought forward in a way that works best for local people”.


The Minister’s response does not address the problem, perhaps because the central Government and all their predecessors like to be able to hold bogus consultations just as much as local authorities and public bodies. I suggest that His Majesty’s Government be obliged to draw up a code of practice for such consultations to ensure impartiality, either by having them conducted or having the consultation materials and process pre-approved by an independent third party.

Amendment 178 seeks to amend the legislation on business improvement districts, or BIDs, so that residents have a say in their establishment, policies and management bodies. There has been widespread criticism of the undemocratic way in which BIDs are established and operate. The Government’s website says:

“There is no limit on what projects or services can be provided through a BID. The only requirement is that it should be in addition to services provided by local authorities”.


As a result, powerful local businesses can push through projects for their own commercial benefit, for which they are willing to pay. My area, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, is happy to agree to them if they can be described as “improving the public realm”. Local residents may be affected by these projects—for example, streetscape, parking and traffic management—but cannot influence them.

We have recently had imposed on us two new BID schemes led by the Cadogan Estate—one for the Brompton Road, since renamed Knightsbridge, and one for the King’s Road—in which residents’ views were ignored from the outset and look likely to continue to be ignored. The Brompton Association was deliberately excluded from the BID proposal for the Brompton Road, in what seems to me a manipulative ploy and an ominous sign of things to come.

The BID legislation should be amended so that local residents of a particular ward within which a BID falls are consulted on proposals for their establishment, are represented on the BID proposal groups which prepare the business plan, participate in the vote on the establishment and are represented on BID management bodies. In addition, local planning authorities should be able to veto BID proposals if there is a significant objection from local residents, not just if they conflict with a significant policy of the local planning authority.

The response of the Minister in the other place, in the same letter that I quoted on Amendment 177, was that

“the majority of BIDs set Baseline Agreements with their local authority to demonstrate the additionality it will provide over the term of the BID. The Government encourages the use of clear agreements and the fostering of strong ongoing relationships between BID bodies and their local authorities, to make sure each is aware of their obligations towards one another and to agree changes to such agreements where appropriate. The BID itself is responsible for deciding on the mix of representatives to ensure their Governance Board is an effective decision-making body with the right skills. The legislation does not preclude local authorities from being represented on the BID board, nor residents or members of the community”.

The Minister’s written response does not answer the point. The legislation does not preclude residents from being represented on the board of a BID. However, what happens at present is that BID promoters make arrangements for their own commercial advantage and exclude resident representation, as the views of residents do not always coincide, and frequently conflict, with those of the business promoters. I beg to move.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I had not expected to speak in this group, but since my noble friend Lord Northbrook has referred to a number of matters in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea—where I had the privilege of being deputy leader of the council for quite a period—I thought I would say just one or two things.

The current proposals for Sloane Square I have nothing to do with, I know nothing about; I ceased to be involved in the council in 2018, so I cannot speak for them. The other example my noble friend gave of what he called a “bogus consultation”, I was responsible for. Noble Lords might not be aware that this is an archaeological exercise because he has had to reach back to 2007. It is true that there were three consultation exercises, but I assure my noble friend that the first two—which supported the proposals—were not bogus at all; they were carried out in a very serious way. Indeed, the results surprised me in that there was as much support as there was. The third one that he referred to was conducted after a year of campaigning by opponents in what was quite the most unpleasant year of my life, certainly politically. It was a very long and really quite vicious campaign, all of it funded by the council so that the residents could have as much say as possible. It found against the scheme, which was not proceeded with.

Where I can find a level of agreement with my noble friend is in relation to BIDs. Here, I declare my interest in being a resident of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, as he is. I recently discovered that there is a BID to be introduced in Kensington High Street that is going to include Kensington Square, which I do not live in, but which I overlook from an adjacent street. The Kensington Square residents’ association has not been consulted about this, and it is to be introduced in Thackeray Street—which is where I do more or less live. The relevant residents’ association body for that has also not been consulted, as far as I can make out.

I think that in relation to BIDs my noble friend is putting his finger on a very important point: they do involve a transfer of say—I do not say control—to local businesses, which will pay extra money and expect to get what they want for that extra money. That transfer—those expenditures—can have an affect on local residents, and they should have some involvement in the establishment of a BID. I did not imagine I would ever have to go down the memory lane of Sloane Square improvements again in my life, but it is good that my noble friend has brought back those not always pleasant memories. I am with him when it comes to business improvement districts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to the debate on my amendments. I seemed to have good support on Amendment 178 from the Labour Front Bench and the Lib Dems, but my Front Bench did not seem keen at all. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moylan for his experience and memory regarding my consultation comments on Amendment 177. I would like to have a word with him on this outside the Chamber afterwards. I am sorry for the personal abuse he may have suffered, which is entirely unnecessary.

I will read Hansard carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 177 withdrawn.